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.

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

***

We first published our hugely popular cribsheet in September of 2021 in response to dozens – even hundreds – of reader requests for sources and data. It was intended as a resource and link dump as much as an article, and intentionally free of interpretation, editorialising or opinion.

The response was incredible, within weeks it became our most-viewed article of all time, and it has maintained steady traffic ever since.

But time moves on, and as new data was published and new facts came to light, it became clear we needed to update the piece – not just in terms of facts, but in terms of approach.

So, here are all the updated key facts and sources concerning the alleged “pandemic”, to help you get a grasp on what has happened to the world since January 2020, and assist in the enlightenment of any of your friends who might be still trapped in the New Normal fog.

Part I: Symptoms

^NEW!1. “Covid19” and the flu have IDENTICAL symptoms.There are no symptoms or collections of symptoms unique or specific to “Covid” and only “Covid”. All “Covid” symptoms are common to many other diseases and conditions, including the collection of common respiratory infections colloquially known as “the flu”.

This is readily admitted by mainstream sources and “experts”, who routinely describe “Covid” symptoms as “flu like”.

According to the US Center for Disease Control’s own website comparing “Covid” and the flu:

You cannot tell the difference between flu and COVID-19 just by looking at the symptoms alone because they have some of the same symptoms.

While the UK’s NHS states:

The symptoms [of Covid] are very similar to symptoms of other illnesses, such as colds and flu.

While all mainstream sources couch the admission in soft language – “some of the same symptoms”, “very similar” – the truth is the symptoms are identical. The only points of difference ever observed are equivocations on severity and onset time.

This article from Health Partners highlights that “Covid” can be both more severe OR milder than the flu, noting that “Covid” can sometimes “feel more like a cold”

While according to the Mayo Clinic, in their article on “Covid” vs the flu, the only difference in symptoms is that they “appear at different times”.

*

2. “Ground glass opacities” are NOT unique to “Covid”. Early in the pandemic, it was reported that medical imaging revealed what they call “ground glass opacity” in the lungs of suspected “Covid” cases and that this was being used to diagnose patients, but ground glass anomalies are not unique to “Covid”.

According to a German paper published in the Radiologie journal in 2010:

Ground glass opacity (GGO) is defined as diffuse pulmonary infiltration [which can be caused by] edema, airspace and interstitial pneumonia. non-infectious pneumonitis as well as tumor manifestations. Physiological processes, such as poor ventilation of dependent lung areas and effects of expiration can also present as ground glass opacity.

In 2012 the Journal of Respiratory Care published a paper on “The Imaging of Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome” which described GGOs thus [emphasis added]:

Ground-glass opacification on CT is a non-specific sign that reflects an overall reduction in the air content of the affected lung

In 2022, the Lancet published a case study from an Indian doctor literally titled “Ground glass opacities are not always COVID-19”.

Another article, published by Health.com in May 2022, underlines that:

Ground-glass opacities (GCOs) aren’t specific to COVID-19 […] they can show up due to other conditions and infections

In short, GGOs are a common presentation of pulmonary illness or injury, and are associated with pneumonia, pneumonitis, tuberculosis, and many other conditions.

*

3. A loss of smell and taste is NOT unique to “covid”. As with GGOs, it has been widely reported that a loss of the sense of taste and sense of smell is the telltale sign of “Covid”, but that is a known symptom of many upper respiratory infections.

According to a 2001 article published on the website of the Univerity of Connecticut School of Medicine:

In adults, the two most common causes of smell problems that we see at our Clinic are: (1) Smell loss due to an ongoing process in the nose and/or sinuses such as nasal allergies and (2) smell loss due to injury of the specialized nerve tissue at the top of the nose (or possibly the higher smell pathways in the brain) from a previous viral upper respiratory infection.

Many common medical conditions are known to cause both acute and chronic damage to the sense of smell and taste, according to the UK’s NHS:

Changes in sense of smell are most often caused by a cold or flu, sinusitis (sinus infection) [or] allergies (like hay fever)

*

Part II: Diagnosis and PCR Tests

4. It is not possible to clinically diagnose “Covid19”.Clinical diagnosis is the practice of diagnosing a disease based on a unique symptom or collection of symptoms. Wiktionary defines it as:

The estimated identification of the disease underlying a patient’s complaints based merely on signs, symptoms and medical history of the patient rather than on laboratory examination or medical imaging.

Since “Covid19” has no unique symptomatic profile[1], and since ALL major symptoms of “Covid” can potentially apply to literally every common respiratory infection, it is impossible to diagnose “Covid19” based on symptoms.

*

5. Lateral flow tests are unreliable. Throughout the “pandemic” the most frequently used “self-test” for “Covid” were Lateral Flow Tests (LFTs). These tests are highly unreliable, and known to return positive test results from household liquids such as fruit juice and soda.

Children in the UK frequently “broke” their LFTs using vinegar or coca-cola in order to create false-positive tests and get a few days off school.

In February 2022, an “expert” told The Guardian that LFTs could create false positives based on the diet of the person being tested, or through “cross-reacting” with a different virus.

In February 2022, it was also reported by a team of “experts” from Imperial College that LFTs can “miss” infectious people. In other words, the official position is that LFTs produce false negative results AND false positive results.

Further, it is acknowledged – and the subject of explainer articles – that LFT and PCR results will often contradict one another. Meaning you can test positive on one, but not the other.

In short, lateral flow tests are of almost no diagnostic value whatsoever.

*

6. PCR tests were not designed to diagnose illness. The Reverse-Transcriptase Polymerase Chain Reaction (RT-PCR) test is described in the media as the “gold standard” for “Covid” diagnosis.

But Kary Mullis, the Nobel Prize-winning inventor of the process, never intended it to be used as a diagnostic tool and said so publicly:

PCR is just a process that allows you to make a whole lot of something out of something. It doesn’t tell you that you are sick, or that the thing that you ended up with was going to hurt you or anything like that.”

*

7. PCR Tests have a history of being inaccurate and unreliable. The “gold standard” PCR tests for “Covid” are known to produce a lot of false-positive results, by reacting to DNA material that is not specific to Sars-Cov-2.

A Chinese study found the same patient could get two different results from the same test on the same day. In Germany, tests are known to have reacted to common cold viruses. Some tests in the US even reacted to the negative control sample.

The late President of Tanzania, John Magufuli, submitted samples of goat, pawpaw and motor oil for PCR testing, all came back positive for the virus.

As early as February of 2020 experts were admitting the test was unreliable. Dr Wang Cheng, president of the Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences told Chinese state television “The accuracy of the tests is only 30-50%”. The Australian government’s own website claimed “There is limited evidence available to assess the accuracy and clinical utility of available COVID-19 tests.” And a Portuguese court ruled that PCR tests were “unreliable” and should not be used for diagnosis.

The unreliability of PCR tests is not unique to “Covid”, either. A 2006 study found PCR tests for one virus responded to other viruses too. In 2007, reliance on PCR tests resulted in an “outbreak” of Whooping Cough that never actually existed.

You can read detailed breakdowns of the failings of PCR tests here, here and here.

*

8. The CT values of the PCR tests are too high. PCR tests are run in cycles, the number of cycles you use to get your result is known as your “cycle threshold” or CT value. Kary Mullis said: “If you have to go more than 40 cycles[…]there is something seriously wrong with your PCR.”

The MIQE PCR guidelines agree, stating: “[CT] values higher than 40 are suspect because of the implied low efficiency and generally should not be reported”.

Dr Fauci himself even admitted anything over 35 cycles is almost never culturable.

Dr Juliet Morrison, virologist at the University of California, Riverside, told the New York Times: Any test with a cycle threshold above 35 is too sensitive…I’m shocked that people would think that 40 [cycles] could represent a positive…A more reasonable cutoff would be 30 to 35″.

In the same article Dr Michael Mina, of the Harvard School of Public Health, said the limit should be 30, and the author goes on to point out that reducing the CT from 40 to 30 would have reduced “covid cases” in some states by as much as 90%.

The CDC’s own data suggests no sample over 33 cycles could be cultured, and Germany’s Robert Koch Institute says nothing over 30 cycles is likely to be infectious.

Despite this, it is known almost all the labs in the US are running their tests at least 37 cycles and sometimes as high as 45. The NHS “standard operating procedure” for PCR tests rules set the limit at 40 cycles.

Based on what we know about the CT values, the majority of PCR test results are at best questionable.

*

9. The World Health Organization (Twice) Admitted PCR tests produced false positives. In December 2020 WHO put out abriefing memo on the PCR process instructing labs to be wary of high CT values causing false positive results:

when specimens return a high Ct value, it means that many cycles were required to detect virus. In some circumstances, the distinction between background noise and actual presence of the target virus is difficult to ascertain.

Then, in January 2021, the WHO released another memo, this time warning that “asymptomatic” positive PCR tests should be re-tested because they might be false positives:

Where test results do not correspond with the clinical presentation, a new specimen should be taken and retested using the same or different NAT technology.

These announcements coincided with the initial launch of the “covid vaccines”.

*

10. The scientific basis for ALL “Covid” tests is questionable.The genome of the Sars-Cov-2 virus was supposedly sequenced by Chinese scientists in December 2019, then published on January 10th 2020. Less than two weeks later, German virologists (Christian Drosten et al.) had allegedly used the genome to create assays for PCR tests.

They wrote a paper, Detection of 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) by real-time RT-PCR, which was submitted for publication on January 21st 2020, and then accepted on January 22nd. Meaning the paper was allegedly “peer-reviewed” in less than 24 hours. A process that typically takes weeks.

Since then, a consortium of over forty life scientists has petitioned for the withdrawal of the paper, writing a lengthy report detailing 10 major errors in the paper’s methodology.

They have also requested the release of the journal’s peer-review report, to prove the paper really did pass through the peer-review process. The journal has yet to comply.

The Corman-Drosten assays are the root of every “Covid” PCR test in the world. If the paper is questionable, every PCR test is also questionable.

*

Part III: “Cases” and “Deaths”

11. Huge numbers of “Covid cases” are “asymptomatic”.Early in the “pandemic” it was reported that the majority of “Covid cases” never exhibited any symptoms. In March 2020, studies done in Italy were suggesting 50-75% of positive Covid tests had no symptoms. Another UK study from August 2020 found as much as 86% of “Covid patients” experienced no viral symptoms at all.

A Chinese paper from March 2020 found over 80% of “asymptomatic cases” were actually false positive test results.

In short, the vast majority of “cases” during the first year of the “pandemic” were people who never got sick at all.

Following a WHO directive to re-test asymptomatic cases [9] in January 2021 – just as the “vaccines” were first rolled out – the percentage of “asymptomatic cases” has been reportedly lower, approximately 40%.

*

12. “Covid case” numbers are inherently meaningless.From the onset of the “pandemic”, a “Covid case” has been defined in terms guaranteed to artificially inflate statistics.

The World Health Organization’s definition of a “confirmed case” is anyone who gets a positive PCR result, regardless of symptoms or personal history. Further, it is known that many health agencies around the world – including the US CDC – include “probable cases” in their statistics.

The WHO defines a “probable case” as anyone who meets the “clinical criteria” (ie has flu-like symptoms) and has been in contact either a “confirmed case” OR another “probable case”:

Probable Case: A patient who meets clinical criteria AND is a contact of a probable or confirmed case, or linked to a COVID-19 cluster.”

As established above, PCR tests do not work and produce false positives. Lateral flow tests also produce false positives. It is known these tests may even give contradictory results for the same person at the same time. “Covid19” also lacks a unique symptom profile, ruling out clinical diagnosis.

If you cannot reliably test for the disease in a lab, and cannot identify it via a unique symptom profile, and many “cases” are recognised as “asymptomatic”, then “Covid19” becomes a label with no meaning.

Absent any kind of reliable diagnostic method, case statistics for any disease are inherently meaningless.

*

13. “Covid deaths” were created by statistical manipulation.Since “Covid” case statistics are inflated [12] it naturally follows that “Covid” death statistics would be likewise unreliable. In fact it was noted from the very beginning of the “pandemic” that “Covid death” counts were being artificially inflated.

According to the UK’s Health Standards Agency, the WHO defined a “Covid death” in the following terms:

A COVID-19 death is defined for surveillance purposes as a death resulting from a clinically compatible illness in a probable or confirmed COVID-19 case, unless there is a clear alternative cause of death that cannot be related to COVID-19 disease (eg. trauma).

Throughout the “pandemic” many countries around the globe went even further and defined a “Covid death” as a “death by any cause within 28/30/60 days of a positive test”.

Healthcare officials from Denmark, Italy, Germany, the UK, US, Northern Ireland and others have all admitted to this practice:

The US CDC even records “probable” Covid deaths in their statistics.

Removing any distinction between dying of “Covid”, and dying of something else after testing positive for Covid will naturally lead to completely meaningless numbers of “Covid deaths”.

British pathologist Dr John Lee was warning of this “substantial over-estimate” as early as April 2020. Other mainstream sources have reported it, too.

Considering the huge percentage of “asymptomatic Covid infections” [11], the well-known prevalence of serious comorbidities [30] and the fact all “Covid tests” are entirely unreliable [II], this renders the “Covid” death numbers a completely meaningless statistic.

*

Part IV: Lockdowns

14. Lockdowns do not prevent the spread of disease. There is little to no evidence lockdowns have any impact on limiting “Covid deaths”. If you compare regions that locked down to regions that did not, you can see no pattern at all.

“Covid deaths” in Florida (no lockdown) vs California (lockdown)

“Covid deaths” in Sweden (no lockdown) vs UK (lockdown)

A pre-print meta-analysis from Johns Hopkins University found lockdowns had almost no impact at all on “Covid19” mortality, while another paper on the “Determinants of COVID-19 Fatalities”published in April of 2021 found:

little evidence that lockdowns reduced fatalities

*

15. Lockdowns kill people. There is strong evidence that lockdowns – through social, economic and other public health damage – are deadlier than the alleged “virus”.

Dr David Nabarro, World Health Organization special envoy for Covid-19 described lockdowns as a “global catastrophe” in October 2020:

We in the World Health Organization do not advocate lockdowns as the primary means of control of the virus[…] it seems we may have a doubling of world poverty by next year. We may well have at least a doubling of child malnutrition […] This is a terrible, ghastly global catastrophe.”

A UN report from April 2020 warned of 100,000s of children being killed by the economic impact of lockdowns, while tens of millions more face possible poverty and famine.

Unemployment, poverty, suicide, alcoholism, drug use and other social/mental health crises are spiking all over the world. While missed and delayed surgeries and screenings have already seen increased mortality from heart disease, cancer and other conditions in many countries around the world.

A World Bank report from June 2021 estimated close to 100 million people had been plunged extreme poverty by so-called “anti-Covid measures”.

As of January 2023, healthcare services the world over are still experiencing chaotic backlogs in treatment and diagnosis. The knock-on effects of lockdown will likely hurt public health for years.

The impact of lockdown could account for any observed increases in excess mortality.[33]

*

16. Babies born during lockdown have lower IQs. A study done at Brown University found that children born after March 2020 had, on average, IQs 21 points lower than previous generations, concluding:

questions remain regarding the impact of the work-from-home, shelter-in-place, and other public health policies that have limited social interaction and typical childhood experiences on early child neurodevelopment.

This mirrors reports in older children (aged 4-5) of stunted development of social skills and inability to read facial cues.

*

17. Hospitals were never unusually overburdened. The main argument used to defend lockdowns is that “flattening the curve” would prevent a rapid influx of cases and protect healthcare systems from collapse. But most healthcare systems were never close to collapse at all.

In March 2020 it was reported that hospitals in Spain and Italy were overflowing with patients, but this happens every flu season. In 2017 Spanish hospitals were at 200% capacity, and 2015 saw patients sleeping in corridors. A JAMA paper from March 2020 found that Italian hospitals “typically run at 85-90% capacity in the winter months”.

In the UK, the NHS is regularly stretched to breaking point over the winter.

As part of their Covid policy, the NHS announced in Spring of 2020that they would be “re-organizing hospital capacity in new ways to treat Covid and non-Covid patients separately” and that “as a result hospitals will experience capacity pressures at lower overall occupancy rates than would previously have been the case.”

This means they removed thousands of beds.

Yes, during an alleged deadly pandemic, they actually reduced the maximum occupancy of hospitals.

Despite this, the NHS never felt pressure beyond your typical flu season, and at times actually had 4x more empty beds than normal.

In both the UK and US millions were spent on temporary emergency hospitals that were never used.

An article in Health Policy in November 2021 found that, in all of Western Europe, the “surge capacity” of ICU beds was exceeded for only one day – in Lombardy on April 3rd 2020.

*

18. There was a massive increase in the use of “unlawful” DNRs. Watchdogs and government agencies reported huge increases in the use of Do Not Resuscitate Orders (DNRs) in the years 2020-2021.

As early as March 2020, when the “pandemic” was still in its early stages, there were already papers appearing in mainstream journals predicting “unilateral” DNR usage, something which had “rarely had a role prior to Covid”:

clinicians in some health care settings may unilaterally decide to write a DNR order. This latter approach is not uniformly accepted and, prior to COVID-19, it rarely had a role. During this pandemic, however, in extreme situations such as a patient with severe underlying chronic illness and acute cardiopulmonary failure who is getting worse despite maximal therapy, there may be a role for a unilateral DNR to reduce the risk of medically futile CPR to patients, families, and health care workers.

In the US, hospitals considered “universal DNRs” for any patient who tested positive for Covid, and whistleblowing nurses have admitted the DNR system was abused in New York.

In the UK there was an “unprecedented” rise in “illegal” DNRs for disabled people, GP surgeries sent out letters to non-terminal patients recommending they sign DNR orders, whilst other doctors signed “blanket DNRs” for entire nursing homes.

A study done by Sheffield University found over one-third of all “suspected” Covid patients had a DNR attached to their file within 24 hours of hospital admission.

A paper published in the journal “Public Health Frontiers” in May 2021, made the “ethical” case for “unilateral” use of DNRs in Covid patients:

Some countries were forced to adopt a unilateral DNR policy for certain patient groups […] In the current difficult situation…difficult decisions are to be made. Societal rather than individual benefits might prevail.

Blanket use of coerced or illegal DNR orders could account for any increases in mortality in 2020/21.[33]

*

Part V: Ventilators

19. Ventilation is NOT a treatment for respiratory infections. Mechanical ventilation is not, and never has been, recommended treatment for respiratory infection of any kind. In the early days of the pandemic, many doctors came forward questioning the use of ventilators to treat “Covid”.

Writing in The Spectator, Dr Matt Strauss stated:

Ventilators do not cure any disease. They can fill your lungs with air when you find yourself unable to do so yourself. They are associated with lung diseases in the public’s consciousness, but this is not in fact their most common or most appropriate application.

German Pulmonologist Dr Thomas Voshaar, chairman of the Association of Pneumatological Clinics said:

When we read the first studies and reports from China and Italy, we immediately asked ourselves why intubation was so common there. This contradicted our clinical experience with viral pneumonia.

Despite this, the WHO, CDC, ECDC and NHS all “recommended” Covid patients be ventilated instead of using non-invasive methods.

This was not a medical policy designed to best treat the patients, but rather to reduce the hypothetical spread of Covid by preventing patients from exhaling aerosol droplets, this was made clear in officially published guidelines.

*

20. Ventilators kill people. Putting someone on a ventilator who is suffering from influenza, pneumonia, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, or any other condition which restricts breathing or affects the lungs, will not alleviate any of those symptoms. In fact, it will almost certainly make it worse, and will kill many of them.

Intubation tubes are a potential source of  an infection known as “ventilator-associated pneumonia”, which studies show affects up to 28% of all people put on ventilators, and kills 20-55% of those infected.

Mechanical ventilation is also damaging to the physical structure of the lungs, resulting in “ventilator-induced lung injury”, which can dramatically impact quality of life, and even result in death.

Experts estimate 40-50% of ventilated patients die, regardless of their disease. Around the world, between 66 and 86% of all “Covid patients”put on ventilators died.

According to the “undercover nurse”, ventilators were being used so improperly in New York, they were destroying patients’ lungs:

This policy was negligence at best and potentially deliberate murder at worst. This misuse of ventilators could account for any increase in mortality in 2020/21 [33]

*

Part VI: Masks

21. Masks don’t work. At least a dozen scientific studies have shown that masks do nothing to stop the spread of respiratory viruses.

One meta-analysis published by the CDC in May 2020 found “no significant reduction in influenza transmission with the use of face masks”.

A Canadian review from July 2020 found “limited evidence that the use of masks might reduce the risk of viral respiratory infections”.

Another study with over 8000 subjects found masks “did not seem to be effective against laboratory-confirmed viral respiratory infections nor against clinical respiratory infection.”

There are literally too many to quote them all, but you can read them: [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10] Or read a summary by SPR here.

While some studies have been done claiming to show mask do work for Covid, they are all seriously flawed. One relied on self-reported surveys as data. Another was so badly designed that a panel of experts demanded it be withdrawn. A third was withdrawn after its predictions proved entirely incorrect.

The WHO commissioned its own meta-analysis in the Lancet, but that study looked only at N95 masks and only in hospitals. [For a full rundown on the bad data in this study click here.]

Aside from scientific evidence, there’s plenty of real-world evidence that masks do nothing to halt the spread of disease.

For example, North Dakota and South Dakota had near-identical “case” figures, despite one having a mask mandate and the other not:

In Kansas, counties without mask mandates actually had fewer Covid “cases” than counties with mask mandates. And despite masks being very common in Japan, they had their worst flu outbreak in decades in 2019.

Not only do masks not work, but it was widely known they did not work before 2020.

A 2016 literature review published in the Journal of Oral Health found:

there are no convincing scientific data that support the effectiveness of masks for respiratory protection.

(This study was quietly removed from the journal’s website in June 2020, because it was “no longer relevant in the current climate”.)

Another study, published in 2020 but carried out in 2019, found:

no significant effect of face masks on transmission of laboratory-confirmed influenza.

In his 2020 review, “Masks Don’t Work”, Dr Denis Rancourt cites studies from 2009, 2010, 2012, 2016, 2017 and 2019…none of which found any significant benefit at all from wearing a mask.

And, most tellingly, in their own report on influenza from 2019, the WHO itself noted that:

there is no evidence that [masks are] effective in reducing transmission

*

22. Masks are bad for your health. Wearing a mask for long periods, wearing the same mask more than once, and other aspects of cloth masks can be bad for your health. A long study on the detrimental effects of mask-wearing was recently published by the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health

Dr. James Meehan reported in August 2020 he was seeing increases in bacterial pneumonia, fungal infections, and facial rashes.

Masks are also known to contain plastic microfibers, which damage the lungs when inhaled and may be potentially carcinogenic.

Childen wearing masks encourages mouth-breathing, which results in facial deformities.

People around the world have passed out due to CO2 poisoning while wearing their masks, and some children in China even suffered sudden cardiac arrest.

Moreover, masks may actually increase the likelihood of respiratory disease, a trial of cloth masks from 2015 found that:

Moisture retention, reuse of cloth masks and poor filtration may result in an increased risk of infection.

While a new study published in July 2022 found that masks, especially those worn more than once, were breeding grounds for both bacteria and fungal microbes.

Another peer-reviewed paper on mask effectiveness, from April 2022, found:

While no cause-effect conclusions could be inferred from this observational analysis, the lack of negative correlations between mask usage and COVID-19 cases and deaths suggest that the widespread use of masks […] was not able to reduce COVID-19 transmission. Moreover, the moderate positive correlation between mask usage and deaths in Western Europe also suggests that the universal use of masks may have had harmful unintended consequences.

*

23. Masks are bad for the planet. Millions upon millions of disposable masks have been used per month for over a year. A report from the UN found the Covid19 pandemic will likely result in plastic waste more than doubling in the next few years., and the vast majority of that is face masks.

The report goes on to warn these masks (and other medical waste) will clog sewage and irrigation systems, which will have knock-on effects on public health, irrigation and agriculture.

A study from the University of Swansea found “heavy metals and plastic fibres were released when throw-away masks were submerged in water.” These materials are toxic to both people and wildlife.

Another study, published in 2022, found that:

disposable face masks and plastic gloves could pose an ongoing risk to wildlife for tens if not hundreds of years.

*

Part VII: Vaccines

24. Covid “vaccines” are totally unprecedented. Before 2020 no successful vaccine against a human coronavirus had ever been developed.

Following the advent of “Covid”, we allegedly made over 20 of them in 18 months.

Scientists have been trying to develop a SARS and MERS vaccine for years with little success. Some of the failed SARS vaccines actually caused hypersensitivity to the SARS virus. Meaning that vaccinated mice could potentially get the disease more severely than unvaccinated mice. Another attempt caused liver damage in ferrets.

Whereas the theory behind traditional vaccines is that exposing the body to a weakened strain of a microorganism will trigger an immune response, many of these new Covid “vaccines” are mRNA vaccines.

mRNA (messenger ribonucleic acid) vaccines theoretically work by injecting viral mRNA into the body, where it replicates inside your cells and encourages your body to recognise, and make antigens for, the “spike proteins” of the virus.

mRNA vaccines have been the subject of research since the 1990s, but before 2020 no mRNA vaccine was ever approved for use on humans.

Yet, following the advent of Covid, two different companies made two supposedly “safe and effective” mRNA vaccines within weeks of each other.

*

25. “Covid vaccines” do not confer immunity or prevent transmission. It is readily admitted that Covid “vaccines” do not confer immunity from infection and do not prevent you from passing the disease onto others. Indeed, an article in the British Medical Journal highlighted that the vaccine trials were not designed to even try and assess if the “vaccines” limited transmission.

The vaccine manufacturers themselves, upon releasing the untested mRNA gene therapies, were quite clear their product’s “efficacy” was based on “reducing the severity of symptoms”.

In October 2022 Pfizer executive Janine Small, testifying in front of the EU parliament, admitted that Pfizer never even tested if their vaccine prevented transmission of “Covid” prior to its release to the public.

*

26. The vaccines were rushed and have unknown long-term effects. Vaccine development is a slow, laborious process. Usually, from development through testing and finally being approved for public use takes many years. The various vaccines for Covid were all developed and approved in less than a year.

Moderna’s own website admits “it normally takes 10-15 years to develop a vaccine”, but boasts of producing their SpikeVax “within 2 months”

Obviously, there can be no long-term safety data on chemicals that are less than a year old.

Pfizer even admits this is true in the leaked supply contract between the pharmaceutical giant, and the government of Albania:

the long-term effects and efficacy of the Vaccine are not currently known and that there may be adverse effects of the Vaccine that are not currently known

Further, none of the vaccines have been subject to proper trials. Many of them skipped early-stage trials entirely, and the late-stage human trials have either not been peer-reviewed, have not released their data, will not finish until 2023 or were abandoned after “severe adverse effects”.

*

27. Vaccine manufacturers have been granted legal indemnity should they cause harm. The USA’s Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act (PREP) grants immunity until at least 2024.

The EU’s product licensing law does the same, and there are reports of confidential liability clauses in the contracts the EU signed with vaccine manufacturers.

The UK went even further, granting permanent legal indemnity to the government, and any employees thereof, for any harm done when a patient is being treated for Covid19 or “suspected Covid19”.

Again, the leaked Albanian contract suggests that Pfizer, at least, made this indemnity a standard demand of supplying Covid vaccines:

Purchaser hereby agrees to indemnify, defend and hold harmless Pfizer […] from and against any and all suits, claims, actions, demands, losses, damages, liabilities, settlements, penalties, fines, costs and expenses

*

28. Covid “vaccines” carry a significant risk of adverse side effects. The experimental Covid vaccines have potentially caused dozens of severe conditions in millions of people. These include myocarditis (especially in young boys), blood clots, allergic reactions, skin conditions, Bell’s Palsy, menstrual irregularities and more. [For a detailed breakdown of these conditions, click here]

The US CDC’s Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) has received twice as many reports since the covid vaccine rollout than all previous years combined.

Source: OpenVAERS

Part VIII: Mortality Data

29. The survival rate of “Covid” is over 99%. Government medical experts went out of their way to underline, from the beginning of the pandemic, that the vast majority of the population are not in any danger from Covid.

A new global review of Covid data, published in October 2022 by Stanford epidemiologist John Ioannidis (et al) found a median fatality rate of just 0.07% in people younger than 70 years old.

Almost all antibody studies on the infection-fatality ratio (IFR) of Covid have returned results between 0.04% and 0.5%. Meaning, assuming for a moment that “covid” ever existed as a discrete disease at all, its survival rate was at least 99.5%.

*

30. The vast majority of “covid deaths” have serious comorbidities. In March 2020, the Italian government published statistics showing 99.2% of their “Covid deaths” had at least one serious comorbidity.

These included cancer, heart disease, dementia, Alzheimer’s, kidney failure and diabetes (among others). Over 50% of them had three or more serious pre-existing conditions.

This pattern has held up in all other countries over the course of the “pandemic”. An October 2020 FOIA request to the UK’s ONS revealed less than 10% of the official “Covid death” count at that time had Covid as the sole cause of death.

In summary, the vast majority of “Covid deaths” were very frail people.

This was interpreted by the press as old age or infirmity being “risk factors” for “Covid”. However, it could be more accurately said that the number one risk factor for “dying of covid” was already dying of something else.

*

31. Average age of “Covid death” is greater than the average life expectancy. The average age of a “Covid death” in the UK is 82.5 years. In Italy, it’s 86. Germany, 83. Switzerland, 86. Canada, 86. The US, 78, Australia, 82.

In almost all cases the median age of a “Covid death” is higher than the national life expectancy.

Research from March 2021 found that, across the eight studied countries, more than 64% of all “Covid deaths” occurred in people over the national life expectancy.

As such, for most of the world, the “pandemic” had little-to-no impact on life expectancy. Contrast this with the Spanish flu, which saw a 28% drop in life expectancy in the US in just over a year. [source]

*

32. Covid mortality exactly mirrors the natural mortality curve. Statistical studies from the UK and India have shown that the curve for “Covid death” follows the curve for expected mortality almost exactly:

The risk of death “from Covid” follows, almost exactly, your background risk of death in general.

The small increase for some of the older age groups can be accounted for by other factors.[15][18][20][28]

*

33. There has been NO unusual excess mortality. The global death toll of “Covid”, even with exaggerated statistics [13], was never high enough to justify the draconian responses we saw from most world governments.

In three years of “covid”, there have been roughly 6.8 million “Covid deaths”, or 2.3 million per year. That’s 0.03% of the global population. For comparison’s sake, the Spanish Flu of 1918 killed 25-100 million people in two years, or between 0.7 and 2.8% of the global population per year.

The press has called 2020 the UK’s “deadliest year since world war two”, but this is misleading because it ignores the massive increase in the population since that time. A more reasonable statistical measure of mortality is Age-Standardised Mortality Rate (ASMR):

By this measure, 2020 isn’t even the worst year for mortality since 2000.In fact, since 1943 only 9 years have been better than 2020.

Similarly, in the US the ASMR for 2020 is only at 2004 levels:

Sweden, which famously did not lockdown, saw their all-cause mortality hit levels previously seen in 2012:

The World Bank’s mortality dataset estimates that 2020 saw the crude global death rate increase from ~7.6 to 8, or a return to the level seen from 2006-2011.

From May of 2021, the World Health Organization began to discuss the “true cost of the pandemic”, promoting efforts to further inflate the pandemic’s death toll by attributing all excess deaths since 2020 to Covid. However, since any increases in mortality could be attributable to non-Covid causes [facts 15, 18, 20 & 28] that is either irrational or intentional deception.

Further, there is strong evidence any excess deaths had nothing to do with “Covid”, since excess deaths have continued to increase even as Covid cases reportedly decline. As reported in the Spectator in November 2022:

Why are excess deaths higher now than during Covid?

It’s not just the UK either, as Toby Green and Thomas Fazi wrote for Unherd on January 30th:

…despite relatively low Covid death rates, overall excess deaths in all age groups in Europe in 2022 were as high as in 2020 and higher than 2021 — even in the oldest cohorts. Beyond Europe, the situation is much the same…

That excess deaths have continued to increase despite the “pandemic” allegedly slowing down is evidence that any excess mortality may never have been caused by “Covid”, but was in fact due to other factors (eg. the economic and social fallout of lockdown policies and potentially the distribution of untested and unnecessary “vaccines”).

Part IX: Planning and Deception

34. The EU was preparing “vaccine passports” at least a YEAR before the pandemic began. Proposed COVID countermeasures, presented to the public as improvised emergency measures, have existed since before the emergence of the disease.

Two EU documents published in 2018, the “2018 State of Vaccine Confidence” and a technical report titled “Designing and implementing an immunisation information system” discussed the plausibility of an EU-wide vaccination monitoring system.

These documents were combined into the 2019 “Vaccination Roadmap”, which (among other things) established a “feasibility study” on vaccine passports to begin in 2019 and finish in 2021:

This report’s final conclusions were released to the public in September 2019, just a month before Event 201 (below).

In fact, vaccination and immunisation programs have been recognised as “an entry point for digital identity” since at least 2018.

Founded in 2016, ID2020 is a corporate-governmental “alliance”dedicated to “providing digital identity to all”. In March 2018 the ID2020 published an article headlined “Immunization: an entry point for digital identity”, in which the author argues:

Immunization poses a huge opportunity to scale digital identity

ID2020 was founded jointly by Microsoft, the Rockefeller Foundation and GAVI the Vaccine Alliance. Its “partners” include Facebook, and the UN.

*

35. A “training exercise” predicted the pandemic just weeks before it started. In October 2019 the World Economic Forum and Johns Hopkins University held Event 201. This was a training exercise based on a zoonotic coronavirus starting a worldwide pandemic. The exercise was sponsored by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and GAVI the vaccine alliance.

The exercise published its findings and recommendations in November 2019 as a “call to action”. One month later, China recorded their first case of “Covid”.

*

36. Covid-sceptic world leaders “died suddenly”.Multiple political leaders who opposed the World Health Organization’s Covid policies died unexpectedly, only to see their anti-WHO covid policies reversed immediately by their successors.

On the 3rd of May 2020, President Pierre Nkurunzia of Burundi dismissed Covid as “a hoax”. Three days later the Council on Foreign Relations warned of “dangerous trends in Burundi’s democracy”.

On May 14th 2020 Nkurunzia formally expelled the WHO representatives from Burundi. Less than a month later, he died “of a sudden illness”. His successor labelled Covid “our biggest enemy”, and invited the WHO back.

There was an almost identical situation in Tanzania, where Covid-sceptic president John Magufuli questioned the accuracy of the PCR tests and banned the use of Covid vaccines in his country.

In March 2021, Magufuli disappeared from public view for weeks. Again, the Council on Foreign Relations published an article calling for his removal, and again it was reported he had died suddenly.

His successor reversed course on Covid immediately, enforcing quarantines, social distancing and mask-wearing, as well as signing Tanzania up to the WHO’s vaccine program and jabbing 10 million of her citizens.

*

37. During the “Covid “pandemic”, the Flu almost completely “disappeared”. In the United States, since February 2020, influenza cases have allegedly dropped by over 98%.

It’s not just the US either, in September 2020 the US CDC reported thatflu activity was markedly decreased in the US, Australia, South Africa and Chile.

In April of 2021, Scientific American published an article headlined:

Flu Has Disappeared for More Than a Year

The explanation given is that anti-Covid measures – eg. masks and lockdowns – stopped flu spreading. But we have established that masks and lockdowns do not halt the spread of respiratory illnesses[14][21].

In short, globally, the flu almost completely disappeared throughout 2020 and 2021, and that cannot be explained by anti-Covid measures.

Meanwhile, a new disease called “Covid”, which has identical symptoms [1] and a similar mortality rate [29] to influenza, was apparently affecting all the people normally affected by the flu.

*

Part X: Profit and Motive

38. The Covid pandemic advanced a pre-existing political agenda. From its earliest days, Covid was used as an excuse to push through reforms of food, identity and monetary systems, as well as advance “green” agendas that centralise both global and national power.

As early as March 2020, former UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown was calling for a “global government” to tackle the pandemic.

The pandemic also saw an increase in censorship and surveillance powers, both in China and the West.

In September 2018, the important role of “digital identity” in the future “social contract” was a major talking point at Davos. By December 2020, The Economist reported that “Covid-19 spurs national plans to give citizens digital identities”.

In January 2019, it was reported the Bank of International Settlements and 70 central banks around the world were involved in research on central bank digital currencies (CBDCs). In July 2021 FinTech times reported that the pandemic had “accelerated the development of Central Bank Digital Currencies by up to five years”,

Throughout 2019, articles and papers called for a “radical transformation” of the global food system. By 2021 Deloitte was reporting that “Covid” had “accelerated food transformation”.

The Grantham Institute of Imperial College, London published an article claiming Covid had allowed expert opinion “a foot in the door” so they could “strongly advocate for a ‘net-zero emissions’ recovery and a resilient future.”

Finally, the pandemic opened the door for sweeping globalist changes to public health policies in the form of the proposed “Pandemic Treaty”.

*

39. Corporations saw MASSIVE profits due to Covid.Companies in multiple sectors saw huge profits due to the “pandemic”, most of which arose from increases in government spending putting public money in private hands.

The global market for facemasks, for example, expanded by over 15000%, from $1.4 billion in 2019 to $225 billion in 2020. And that’s just facemasks, not other forms of personal protective equipment (PPE) which all saw massive increases in both personal and government spending.

In the UK alone, the cost of simply storing this PPE surged to over 1 billion pounds, with another £4 billion worth of unused PPE simply thrown away, and other write-offs totalling nearly £10 billion.

Rubber gloves and hand sanitzers also saw huge upticks in their market thanks to government spending. A lot of this money was completely wasted as products expired.

Amazon saw its profits double thanks to covid, and streaming platforms added millions of new users thanks to lockdowns

However, the biggest profits were seen in the vaccine sector. Since the vaccine rollout, pharmaceutical companies have made roughly $1000 a second.

In late 2019, Pfizer’s revenues were the lowest they had been since 2010, two years later they had increased by 150%, and were the highest they had ever been.

Within months of the vaccine rollout, 9 vaccine manufacturers had becomes billionaires. By May of 2022, that number had risen to 40.

*

40. The elite have made fortunes during the pandemic.It is not just pharmaceutical companies that have profited from Covid, since the beginning of lockdown the wealthiest people have become significantly wealthier.

In October 2020, Business Insider reported that “billionaires saw their net worth increase by half a trillion dollars” in just the first six months of the pandemic.

By April 2021 Forbes was reporting that 40 new billionaires have been created “fighting the coronavirus”.

That process has only accelerated.

As of May 2022, the number of new billionaires created by the pandemic stood at 543. Or roughly one every 30 hours for the previous two years. That includes 40 new billionaires in the pharmaceutical sector alone.

Meanwhile, the share of the world’s wealth held by billionaires has increased from 10% in 2019 to 14% in 2022, a greater increase than the previous 16 years combined.

Altogether, the richest people in the world increased their collective wealth by over five trillion dollars in the past three years, all thanks to Covid.

*

Conclusion

I made a point of saying, in the introduction of this piece, that it was being updated not just in terms of facts but in terms of approach. Now I will clarify.

When the first edition of this list was published, “Covid” was still a live fire exercise. A sprawling propaganda war, where facts were ammunition and supply lines were strained. It needed to be what it was – short, to the point and easily accessible.

These days the pandemic front is a quieter place. A muddy ruin of a battlefield, dotted with bodies and limp banners on broken staves. Left to the scavengers, as both sides prepare for the next big push.

“Covid” is being gently dialled down in preference for talk of Ukraine, climate change, and even “the next pandemic”.

Our world has not returned to “normal” – and likely never will – but while the transformation remains in place, the agent of that initial change is slowly being pushed aside by new fronts in the Great Reset’s war for control of the world.

Now we find there is space – and time – to survey the “Covid” narrative in full, and tell the real story of the “pandemic” that turned the world upside down, in order to better empty its pockets.

The previous edition of this list was left intentionally free of any interpretation on the part of the author. That the facts were left to speak for themselves, and that they did. Indeed, they still do.

But nevertheless, as a closing statement to the worldwide jury, I want to summarize the story these facts narrate to us.

• Through 2017, ’18 and ’19, various international and global bodies put plans in place – or discussed the possibility of – worldwide vaccination drives, including how they could be used to facilitate the introduction of digital passports linked to medical records.
• In late 2019, an international exercise was held focused on a hypothetical zoonotic coronavirus causing a worldwide pandemic and planning a possible response.
• Just two months later, it was claimed that an allegedly real zoonotic coronavirus had begun infecting people. The “new disease” had typical flu-like symptoms and very similar death rate to seasonal flu-like diseases. Coincidentally, in this period cases of flu reportedly dropped to almost zero.
• Tests for this “new virus” were rushed out, skipping the usual peer review process.
• Mass testing of asymptomatic people was used to create “covid cases”, while mass testing of those already dying in hospital was used to create “covid deaths”.
• As a “response” to the “pandemic”, lockdowns were introduced, crippling the economy and causing massive increases in poverty, malnutrition, drug and alcohol abuse and mental health problems. Whilst also ensuring people suffering real health problems would avoid hospitals out of fear.
• Meanwhile, in hospitals, “covid guidelines” resulted in murderous abuse of DNR orders and mechanical ventilation.
• These measures killed people, helping to create the increases in excess mortality which could be officially blamed on “Covid”, but which have not declined despite “Covid cases” reducing in number.
• Masks, and social distancing were enforced on the public – despite their own research showing they are ineffective – in order to increase public fear and acted as literally the only visual evidence anything was happening at all.
• Under the guise of this fake “pandemic”, the greatest single exchange of public money into private hands of all time took place.
• The “pandemic” also allowed for a massive centralisation of power – both on the national and global level. Leaders of almost every nation on Earth seized more power for themselves by playing along, and those who refused were killed.
• Finally, and most importantly, “Covid” allowed for a rapid acceleration of a political agenda which aspires to reshape the world into a dystopian horror show. Digital surveillance, mandated medical procedures, curfews, police brutality and censorship all became further normalised under the guise of “protecting public health”. While programs such as digital currency, “food reform” and “green new deal” policies all saw marked increases in the speed of their development.

These are the vital facts of the pandemic, and they tell only one story. “Covid” was a design. A fake disease, created to sell a very real agenda. This is the only rational explanation of all the evidence we have.

The “official story” doesn’t hold water. If Covid were a real disease and a real pandemic it would not require corrupt testing practices and statistical sleight-of-hand to spread. If it was really deadly, they would not need to rely on statistical manipulation to create “Covid deaths”. If the powers-that-be were being honest they would never have introduced “public health” measures that their own research says don’t work.

The idea it was all a snowball of mistakes – a perfect storm of public panic, governmental incompetence and corporate greed – likewise falls short of an all-encompassing explanation, as it fails to account for the many acts of prolific and deliberate dishonesty, and again asks us to believe that Event 201 was merely a coincidence.

The “lab leak” or “bio weapon” theory – that “Covid” is a real disease either accidentally or deliberately released on the public – does not fit either, neither factually or logically. Factually, as with the official version, a real virus would not require fake statistics to spread. While logically, there is the problem of control.

As Mike Yeadon put it in his recent article:

the effect of a released novel pathogen couldn’t be predicted accurately. It might burn out rapidly. Or it might turn out to be quite a lot more lethal than they’d expected, demolishing advanced civilisations.

No, the only story which holds together is that “covid” was a psychological operation on a global scale. The biggest and broadest propaganda campaign of all time, with the singular aim of breaking the world apart, and remaking it in a new globalist image.

In fact, they kept telling us this was the case. A “great reset” in order to “build back better” towards a “new normal”. They made no secret of their intention:

“Covid” was – and is – a deceptive means to a malignant end. We need to see that, understand it, and remember it. Because unless we properly disect and comprehend the scale and methodology of this propaganda, we will be similarly vulnerable to the same methods the next time they are deployed.

While the means may be retired, the end will always remain.

Their new world exists now, all around us. But it is only half-built, and the distinct and final aim of everything they do and say moving forward will be working to its completion.

That’s the silver lining of “Covid”, if you want to find one. For want of a better analogy, the mask has slipped. We caught a glimpse of Zappa’s brick wall. Now we know what they really want.

They want control – over everything and everyone. They want to reduce us – reduce our intellects, our means, our health and our rights. They want to accelerate our slow crawl to tyranny and build a global work camp surrounded by imaginary evils that hypnotise the inmates into thinking the barbed wire is for their own good…because it keeps the monsters out.

Simply put, they want to finish what “Covid” started. But as long we see them, and understand them, they will never be able to.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons 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 OffGuardian

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

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

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

First published on February 17, 2023

***

Billionaire Elon Musk and World Economic Forum (WEF) Chairman Klaus Schwab faced off this week, presenting competing visions for the future at this year’s World Government Summit (WGS).

Convened from Feb. 13-15 in Dubai under the slogan “Shaping Future Governments,” the WGS brought together prominent figures in politics, business and global governance in a format akin to that of the recent WEF annual meeting.

The WGS bills itself as “a global knowledge exchange platform dedicated to shaping the future of government worldwide.”

Participants comprised over 300 speakers and 10,000 attendees, including 250 government ministers and representatives from 80 international, regional and governmental organizations, including the U.N., WEF, World Health Organization (WHO), World Bank and International Monetary Fund.

Musk, Schwab and other leaders debated conflicting hopes and concerns for the future. The WGS itself also predicted what the world will look like by 2071, released as part of the WGS’ “Government in 2071” initiative.

These projections foresee a dystopian future of catastrophic climate change, mass migration, mass layoffs due to automation, ensuing social unrest and the merging of humans and technology as the “best-case scenario” for 2071.

Musk: AI, one-world government pose threats to humanity

Musk addressed the ongoing rise of artificial intelligence (AI) and the dangers of a one-world government, speaking by video to the WGS on Wednesday.

“One of the biggest risks to the future of civilization is AI,” Musk told WGS attendees. “But AI is both positive or negative — it has great promise, great capability but also, with that comes great danger.”

He commented on ChatGPT, the increasingly popular AI tool developed by OpenAI. Musk co-founded OpenAI with former PayPal partner Peter Thiel, but has since left its board of directors, the New York Post reported.

“ChatGPT, I think, has illustrated to people just how advanced AI has become. AI has been advanced for a while; it just didn’t have a user interface that was accessible to most people,” said Musk.

“What ChatGPT has done is just put an accessible user interface on AI technology that has been present for a few years,” he added.

Musk called upon governments to develop safety regulations for AI, comparing its rise to the development of nuclear technology.

“You look at, say, the discovery of nuclear physics. You had nuclear power generation but also nuclear bombs,” said Musk, adding:

“I think we need to regulate AI safety, frankly. Think of any technology which is potentially a risk to people, like if it’s aircraft or cars or medicine, we have regulatory bodies that oversee the public safety of cars and planes and medicine.

“I think we should have a similar set of regulatory oversight for artificial intelligence, because I think it is actually a bigger risk to society.”

This is not the first time Musk has made such remarks about AI. In March 2022, Musk said that “artificial intelligence going wrong” is one of the three biggest threats facing humanity, along with falling birth rates and the rise of “religious extremism.”

Others have expressed concerns about AI “going wrong” — alleging that bias is baked into the technology. The New York Post reported, for instance, that ChatGPT refused to write an article about Hunter Biden in the newspaper’s critical style, but it was willing to write the article from the perspective of CNN.

Business Insider argues that AI tools like ChatGPT must be “woke” in order to attract major investors.

Major investments are pouring into such AI technologies. Microsoft announced last month it is investing $10 billion in OpenAI, while Google is working on a competitor to ChatGPT known as “Bard.”

Musk, in his talk to WGS delegates, also addressed what he sees as the dangers of one-world government.

“I know this is called the World Government Summit, but I think we should be maybe a little bit concerned about actually becoming too much of a single world government,” he said. “We want to avoid creating a civilizational risk by having, frankly — this may sound a little odd — too much cooperation between governments.”

Instead, Musk called for the maintenance of “civilizational diversity.” He said:

“I think we want to be a little bit cautious about being too much of a single civilization, because if we are too much of a single civilization, then the whole thing may collapse.

“Obviously not suggesting war or anything like that, but I think we want to be a little bit wary of actually cooperating too much. It sounds a little odd, but we want to have some amount of civilizational diversity, such that if something does go wrong with some part of civilization, that the whole thing doesn’t collapse and humanity keeps moving forward.”

Musk also had some advice for political leaders and other prominent figures: speak in your own voice.

“I think people should speak in their own voice,” he said. “I would encourage CEOs, legislators, to speak authentically. Do the tweets yourself and convey your message directly.”

Musk tweeted that he chose to make these remarks at the WGS because it “seemed like the right venue.”

He also hinted at his plans for Twitter, indicating he expects to find a CEO to succeed him “probably toward the end of this year.”

“I think I need to stabilize the organization and just make sure it’s in a financially healthy place,” he said. “I’m guessing probably toward the end of this year would be good timing to find someone else to run the company.”

Schwab: Technology can help the elite ‘be the master of the world’

Perhaps confirming Musk’s fears, in his keynote speech to the WGS, Schwab said mastering technologies such as AI can help global elite “be the master of the world.”

“We are at the beginning,” he said. “When you look at technology transformation, it usually takes place in the terms of an S-curve. And we are just now where we move into the exponential phase.”

This phase, Schwab said, “requires us to strengthen cooperation and enhance coordination at the level of governments, countries and institutions to maintain the frameworks of international cooperation, which in turn is reflected in the paths of development comprehensively.”

Schwab referred to the recently concluded WEF annual meeting to contextualize his remarks, stating, “we discussed our ability to adapt to these global challenges, in light of various crises that require new mechanisms and innovative methods to help us reach a better future and serve the aspirations of humanity.”

Schwab said the coming decades will witness major “structural transformations” related to climate change. He argued for achieving the Paris Climate Agreement goals and reaching “zero carbon emissions.”

New technologies, said Schwab, will continue to play a vital role in these transformations.

“A few years ago, we considered some technologies a science fiction that was difficult to implement,” said Schwab. “But today, it has become a reality that we live through artificial intelligence, new space technology, and industrial biology, which heralds a major change coming during the next 10 years, and requires governments to be ambitious in their decisions.”

Schwab heralded AI’s role in helping bring about the Fourth Industrial Revolution, saying:

“Artificial intelligence, but not only artificial intelligence, but also the metaverse, neospace technologies, and I could go on and on … synthetic biology. Our life in ten years from now will be completely different, very much affected. And who masters those technologies, in some way, will be the master of the world.”

Like Musk he expressed some concerns, but his “deep concern” was that new technologies such as AI might “escape” the control of the global elite.

“My deep concern is that [regarding] #4IR technologies, if we don’t work together on a global scale, if we do not formulate, shape together the necessary policies, they will escape our power to master those technologies,” he said.

These same elites must therefore “shape the necessary policies to make sure that those technologies serve humankind.”

That’s how, Schwab said, they can show the public, which will “feel overwhelmed by change” because it can’t “understand really what’s going on,” why “those technologies can serve for the good.”

The WEF is an enthusiastic proponent of technologies such as AI and the metaverse.

Schwab’s remarks at the WGS about how new technologies can help the global elite “be the master of the world” closely mirrored his statements at this year’s WEF meeting, where he opined what it means “to master the future.”

Tedros: COVID ‘will not be the last pandemic’

WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus also spoke at the WGS meeting, saying that COVID-19 “unfortunately … will not be the last pandemic or the major health emergency.”

He added:

“Other threats, such as climate change, will continue to increase in frequency and intensity.

“We owe it to those who we have lost and those who will come after us to learn the lessons and make the changes that should keep the world safer.”

U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres told attendees the world is “confronting a confluence of crises unlike any in our lifetimes.”

“Conflict is raging, poverty and hunger are rising, divisions are deepening, and the climate emergency keeps worsening,” he said. “We have a duty to act. We must forge a path towards greater cooperation, rooted in solidarity.”

To do so, he said:

“We must avoid short-term policymaking that delays taking on the big tests we face — and ultimately makes those challenges even more intractable. We must strengthen global governance and reinvigorate multilateralism for the 21st century. And we must act at the speed and scale that our fast-moving times demand.

“This applies to every challenge we face — from tackling the climate catastrophe and advancing sustainable development, to achieving peace and safeguarding human rights, including the rights of future generations. … Government action is critical, but not enough.”

“We need everyone — across the private sector, civil society, and beyond — to work together for the common good,” Guterres added. “This is our common agenda.”

And Arturo Bris of the IMD World Competitiveness Center, also speaking at the WGS, said that a “shock” is needed to spur the “transition” to a new “world order.”

Aside from speeches by key figures, the WGS meeting encompassed several forums, including “SDGs [Sustainable Development Goals] in Action,” “Future by Design Global Forum,” “Future of Work Forum,” “Future of Education Forum,” “Food System Transformation Forum” and “Gathering of the Greatest Minds.”

WGS proceedings were also accompanied by several reports that were published to complement this year’s meeting. PWC wrote one such report, suggesting that “policymakers and regulators will have to learn from non-traditional, non-government actors who have already built a foothold in the metaverse.”

Roberto Azevêdo, executive vice president and chief corporate affairs officer of PepsiCo and former director general of the World Trade Organization, wrote a report that stressed “the need for government and businesses to work as partners, while both must better engage the will of the people.”

“This partnership must seek structural changes that aim at long-term solutions, free from the logics of electoral cycles,” Azevêdo argued.

*

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

Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D., based in Athens, Greece, is a senior reporter for The Defender and part of the rotation of hosts for CHD.TV’s “Good Morning CHD.”

Featured image is from CHD

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

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

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

***

Russian President Vladimir Putin spoke at the International Parliamentary Conference Russia – Africa in a Multipolar World held in Moscow under the auspices of the State Duma of the Russian Federal Assembly March 20. The partnership between Russia and African countries has gained additional momentum and is reaching a whole new level, he noted in his speech, and along the line added that additional opportunities are opening up by the process of establishing the African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA), which began in 2021, which in the future will become a continental market which favors developing ties both through the Eurasian Economic Union and bilaterally.

“Mutual trade is growing every year, which reached almost $18 billion last year. It is unlikely that such a figure can fully suit us, but we know that this is far from the limit. The development of counter commodity exchanges will undoubtedly be facilitated by a more energetic transition in financial settlements to national currencies and the establishment of new transport and logistics chains,” he added.

During the African leaders summit at the Black Sea city of Sochi in 2019, Putin rolled out a comprehensive roadmap, particularly questions relating to the development and consolidation of beneficial partnership with Africa, and that Russia would strengthen overall ties in line with the 2063 concept (agenda) developed by the African Union.

Putin based his arguments on the fact that Africa is increasingly becoming a continent of opportunities. It possesses vast resources and potential economic attractiveness, Putin further noted that interest in developing relations with African countries is currently visible not only on the part of Western Europe, the United States and the People’s Republic of China, but also on the part of India, Turkey, the Gulf states, Japan, the Republic of Korea, Israel, and Brazil.

With a view to expanding trade and cooperation, a memorandum of understanding has been signed between the Eurasian Economic Commission and the African Union Commission at the Sochi Summit. In 2018, Putin’s assessment was that Russia’s trade with African countries grew more than 17 percent and exceeded $20 billion. Putin would like to bring it (the trade figure) to, at least, $40 billion over the next few years.

Admittedly Russia’s trade is consistently straddling since 2019 after Sochi, a position which officials seem to accept. “Despite illegal sanctions imposed by Washington, Russia and African states are developing trade and economic cooperation. The trade turnover is increasing: at the end of 2022, it reached $17.9 billion,” according to Chairman of the State Duma Vyacheslav Volodin, addressing African parliamentarians at the plenary session Russia-Africa in a Multipolar World.

Russia, of course, has its own approach towards Africa. It pressurizes no foreign countries neither it has to compete with them, as it has its own pace for working with Africa. With the same optimism towards taking emerging challenges and opportunities in Africa, Russia still has to show, in practical terms, commitment especially with its policy initiatives.

On 29 April 2021, Russian International Affairs Council (RIAC), Russian NGO that focuses on foreign policy, held an online conference with participation of experts on Africa. Chairing the online discussion, Professor Igor Ivanov, former Foreign Affairs Minister and now RIAC President, made an opening speech, pointed out that Russia’s task in Africa is to present a strategy and define priorities with the countries of the continent, build on the decisions of the first Russia-Africa Summit.

“Russia’s task is to prevent a rollback in relations with African countries. It is necessary for Russia to define explicitly its priorities: why are we returning to Africa? Some general statements of a fundamental nature were made at the first Summit, now it is necessary to move from general statements to specificity,” he suggested.

During his address at the opening of the special panel session on Africa at the St. Petersburg International Forum held June 2021, Rwandan Prime Minister Edouard Ngirente has called upon Russians to consider increasing investment in Africa. That Africa has great opportunities that investors from Russia can take advantage of, among these, are the continent’s young population and workforce, the fast rate at which urbanization is taking place, and the huge potential that has been demonstrated in technological progress in areas like telecommunications and digitization of the society.

“Therefore, advancing our common prosperity agenda would imply translating the existing business opportunities into reality. And this calls for important flows of investments in priority areas,” he said.

In addition, Prime Minister Edouard Ngirente pointed at the African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA) and regional integrations of economic communities as another priority to advance quickly Africa’s growth agenda and position the continent as an investment destination.

“This could be an opportunity for Russian businesses to invest in infrastructures such as roads, railways, ports, hydropower plants, and internet connectivity that facilitate trade on the continent of 1.3 billion consumers. The investment required is estimated at $130 billion to $170 billion per year,” explained Prime Minister Edouard Ngirente.

South African business tycoon, Sello Rasethaba, questioned how Russia was going to establish a thriving trade relationship with Africa for the benefit of all. In reality and effective practical terms, how does Russia want to reposition itself in relation with Africa? With business relationships, Russia has to consider practical strategies in consultation with African countries. The fact that the middle class is growing in leaps and bounds in Africa makes this market even more attractive and opens more opportunities for Russian businesses.

“The current investment and business engagement by foreign players with Africa is on the increase. There are so many unknowns up there in Russia; it’s crucial that Russia has a clear vision of the relationship it wants with Africa. Russia together with African countries must setup sovereign wealth funds using the resources power of those countries,” he said.

In an interview with Steven Gruzd, Head of the African Governance and Diplomacy Programme at the South African Institute of International Affairs (SAIIA), explained that Africa is a busy geopolitical arena, with many players, both old and new, operating. Apart from EU countries, China and the US. There are players such as Iran, Turkey, Israel, the UAE, Japan and others. Russia has to compete against them, and distinctively remain focused its efforts with strategies.

On the other side, Russia uses the rhetoric of anti-colonialism in its engagement with Africa, and that it is fighting neo-colonialism from the West, especially in relations with their former colonies. It sees France as a threat to its interests especially in Francophone West Africa, the Maghreb and the Sahel. It, therefore, focuses on anti-western slogans as its main trading commodity across Africa. The African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA) could be the strongest dimension of Russia’s dealings in Africa.

Many other factors including the geo-political changes are influencing the United States, European and Asian investors to intensify exploring several opportunities in the African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA), a policy signed by African countries to make the continent a single market. As monitored, foreigners are looking at market for new partnerships. The AfCFTA has unlocked value chains for – especially US investors – in key sectors such as pharmaceuticals, automobiles, agro-processing, and financial technology.

Unlike Russian ministries, institutions and organizations, the Corporate Council on Africa (CCA), for instance, shares insights on critical issues and policies influencing the US-Africa economic partnership. It is facilitating trade and investment issues for potential investors interested in pursuing public-private partnerships that support the United States and African businesses, including women-owned and led Small and Medium-Scale Enterprises. The U.S. Agency for International Development is working close with African institutions and organizations. According to documents, there are an estimated 1,200 U.S. companies operating in Africa.

The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation has made resonating announcement that the foundation will spend $7 billion, over the next four years, [allegedly] to improve health, gender equality and agriculture across Africa. Strengthening and supporting these sectors have become necessary due to increasing complaints about lack of funds and worse, due to the negative impact of geopolitical changes. It will further continue to invest in researchers, entrepreneurs, innovators and healthcare workers who are working to unlock the tremendous human potential that exists across the continent.

In another related development, U.S. Trade Representative Katherine Tai has signed a memorandum of understanding with African Continental Free Trade Area aims at exploring work on the next phases of the U.S.-African trade relationship. United States sees enormous opportunities to improve the longstanding African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA) system of trade preferences, which is due to expire in 2025.

“The world that we’re living in today certainly has been transformed by significant events that we have experienced since 2015, the last time the program was reauthorized,” Tai noted during a meeting of trade ministers from Sub-Saharan Africa to discuss AGOA as part of a U.S.-Africa summit in Washington. “We’ve consistently seen that there are opportunities for the program to be better, there could be much better uptake and utilization of the program.”

In fact, AGOA offers an irreversible solid ground as a “stepping stone to address regional and global challenges,” especially with Africa’s young and entrepreneurial population, she said, before concluding that “the future is Africa, and engaging with this continent is the key to prosperity for all of us.”

Similarly, at least, after its historic UK-Africa Investment Summit held in January 2020, UK has increased its support for business on the continent, a step that aims at strengthening aspects of the planned economic cooperation with Africa. Our random research after the summit, we have noticed different priorities – all of which are supporting and strengthening economic partnerships in a number of countries on the continent. The significance of these is to help unlock opportunity, spread prosperity and thus transform lives in Africa.

The Department for International Trade said in a media release that it would cut import taxes on hundreds more products from some of the world’s developing countries to boost trade links. It explained further that the measure was part of a wider push by the UK to use trade to “drive prosperity and help eradicate poverty” as well as reduce dependency on aid. The scheme covers developing countries and will affect around 99% of goods imported from Africa.

South Africa and Nigeria, the continent’s two largest economies, make up 60% of the entire UK-Africa trade relationship. Only eight nations from sub-Saharan Africa mostly former colonies count the UK in their top 10 export destinations, including Rwanda, Mauritius, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Ghana, Mozambique, Kenya and South Africa.

Our monitoring shows that American, Asian, European Union members particularly British investors are strategically leveraging unto trade platforms, working to support the creation of an African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA) because trade integration is such a powerful tool to accelerate economic growth, create employment and alleviate or reduce poverty.

The AfCFTA provides a unique and valuable platform for businesses to access an integrated African market of over 1.3 billion people. The growing middle class, among other factors, constitutes a huge market potential in Africa. Quite challenging though, but there are new legislations that stipulate localizing production and distribution inside Africa.

Under the current circumstances, what has Russia done to help Africa? It only contributes to deepening social dissatisfaction, increases the fear of vulnerable groups among the population to rising prices of commodities and consumables throughout Africa. Nevertheless, it is so common reiterating that Russia has always been on Africa’s side in the fight against colonialism. The frequency of reminding again and again about Soviet assistance, that was offered more than 60 years ago, will definitely not facilitate the expected beneficial trade and investment ties under these new conditions.

Afreximbank President and Chairman of the Board of Directors, Dr. Benedict Okey Oramah, says Russian officials “keep reminding us about Soviet era” but the emotional link has simply not been used in transforming relations. Oramah said one of Russia’s major advantages was the goodwill. He remarked that even young people in Africa knew how Russia helped African people fight for independence. “So an emotional link is there,” he told Inter-Tass News Agency.

The biggest thing that happened in Africa was the establishment of the African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA). That is a huge game-changer, and steps have been made lately in the African countries for creating better conditions for business development and shaping attractive investment climate.

“Sometimes, it is difficult to understand why the Russians are not taking advantage of it?  We have the Chinese, we have the Americans, we have the Germans who are operating projects…That is a very, very promising area,” Oramah said in his interview 2021.

Secretary-General of the African Continental Free Trade Area Secretariat, Wamkele Mene, has several times highlighted the underlying fact of developing intra-African trade, and even with external players that “the next wave of investment in African markets must focus on productive sectors of Africa’s economy in order to drive the continent’s industrial development in the decades to come. For foreign investors and traders, it is necessary to support local entrepreneurs to build scale, and therefore improve productivity.”

For example, the total United States (US) two-way trade in Africa has actually fallen in recent years, to about $60 billion, far eclipsed by the European Union (EU) with over $200 billion, and China more than $200 billion, as stated by the Brookings Institution in the Africa in Focus post. According to the African Development Bank (AfDB), Africa’s economies are growing faster than those of any other regions. Nearly half of Africa’s countries are now classified as middle-income countries – the number of Africans living below the poverty line fell to 39 per cent as compared to 51 percent in 2021, and around 350 million of Africa’s one billion people are now earning good incomes – rising consumerism – that makes trade profitable.

As the official Russia’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs website indicated – it is evident that the significant potential of the economic cooperation is far from being exhausted, much remains to be done in creating conditions necessary for interaction between Russia and Africa. At a meeting of the Ministry’s Collegium, Lavrov unreservedly suggested taking a chapter on the approach and methods adopted by China in Africa.

Lavrov said:

“It is in the interests of our peoples to work together to preserve and expand mutually beneficial trade and investment ties under these new conditions. It is important to facilitate the mutual access of Russian and African economic operators to each other’s markets and encourage their participation in large-scale infrastructure projects. The signed agreements and the results will be consolidated at the forthcoming second Russia-Africa summit.”

After the first Russia-Africa summit held 2019, expectations are high as it offers the impetus to substantially increase investment in the economy, industry, transport, telecommunications and tourist infrastructures, as well as in high technology, healthcare, urban development, and other fields that are vital to the quality of life. On the contrary, Russians are consistently trading anti-Western slogans and engaged in geo-political rhetoric, instead of investment and business.

Is Russian torn between the challenges of its own assumptions and understandings about forging trade cooperation with Africa? Are pragmatic measures not necessary for promoting trade between the two regions? Is Russia only paying lip-service to the summit promise of doubling trade with Africa?

Now at the crossroad, it could be meandering and longer than expected to make the mark. Russia’s return journey could take another generation to reach destination Africa. With the current changing geopolitical world, Russia has been stripped of as a member of many international organizations. As a direct result of Russia’s “special military operation” aims at “demilitarization and denazification” since late February 2022, Russia has come under a raft of stringent sanctions imposed by the United States and Canada, European Union, Japan, Australia, New Zealand and a host of other countries.

*

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

Kester Kenn Klomegah, who worked previously with Inter Press Service (IPS) and InDepthNews, is now a regular contributor to Global Research. As a versatile researcher, he believes that everyone deserves equal access to quality and trustworthy media reports.

Featured image is from Modern Diplomacy

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

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

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

***

In Belgrade on March 24, Serbian minister Nikola Selakovic and Russian Ambassador to Serbia Alexander Botsan-Kharchenko, laid a wreath at a memorial to children killed in the illegal 1999 NATO terror bombing of what was then the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. The ceremony and the anniversary of the attack went predictably unmentioned in America.

On March 24, 1999, the North Atlantic bloc, without UN's authorization, started bombing Yugoslavia in gross violation of the fundamental principles of international lawand UN Charter. The US and NATO bombed Yugoslavian cities , including civilian infrastructure for 78 days. pic.twitter.com/T7IsAuTT1I

— sonja van den ende (@SonjaEnde) March 24, 2023

The remarks of Serbian President Aleksandar Vucic were also ignored in the West. “24 years ago, the modern international law finally died,” Vucic said during a commemorative event in Sombor, the first city to be bombed by NATO and President Bill Clinton.

“Nothing worse could happen in the world than what was done here, to a small country, which was guilty only of seeking to make its own decisions, and to be free. As such it didn’t appeal to those powers which destroyed the old international order in 1989/90 and created a new one in which only they have the final say in everything.”

The United Nations International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, in its Final Report to the Prosecutor by the Committee Established to Review the NATO Bombing Campaign Against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, mentions numerous war crimes perpetuated against the people of Yugoslavia, now Serbia. The report documents the use of depleted uranium (Serbia is among the countries with the highest cancer mortality in the world), the wanton use of illegal cluster munitions, and the targeting of civilian infrastructure, including a passenger train at the Grdelica Gorge in December 1999.

The UN report concludes,

that the NATO forces deliberately attacked civilian infrastructure targets (and that such attacks were unlawful), deliberately or recklessly attacked the civilian population, and deliberately or recklessly caused excessive civilian casualties in disregard of the rule of proportionality by trying to fight a “zero casualty” war for their own side.

On this day in 1999 #US-led #NATO started illegal bombing of #Yugoslavia
It lasted 78 days
1700+ civilians killed, incl 400 children
10,000 people seriously injured
Infrastructure, bridges, hospitals, schools, cultural monuments were destroyed or damaged
Still no #ICC prosecution pic.twitter.com/PyEVS8nG2h

— Malinka🔸Tanya P (@Malinka1102) March 24, 2023

A decade after the terror bombing, Stephen Zunes wrote,

The 11-week bombing campaign resulted in the widespread destruction of Yugoslavia’s civilian infrastructure, the killing of many hundreds of civilians, and—as a result of bombing chemical factories, the use of depleted uranium ammunition and more—caused serious environmental damage. Almost as many Yugoslav civilians died from NATO bombing than did Kosovar Albanian civilians from Serb forces prior to the onset of the bombing. A number of human rights groups that condemned Serbian actions in Kosovo also criticized NATO attacks that, in addition to the more immediate civilian casualties, endangered the health and safety of millions of people by disrupting water supplies, sewage treatment, and medical services.

Instead of holding NATO and the USG responsible for the murder of innocent civilians, the United Nations went after Slobodan Milošević, the Serbian president. Milošević stood accused of a laundry list of crimes, including genocide and unlawful deportation of Albanians in Kosovo. He died in prison (some believe he was poisoned) before a verdict was reached.

“In the days following the death of Slobodan Milosevic, every newspaper made sure to find him guilty of charges that the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) could not prove in court,” writes Louis Proyect. The demonization campaign required “a false dichotomy” to portray Milošević as

the mastermind of a genocidal plot rather than simply one actor among many in a nasty civil war. Throughout the 1990s, self-described radicals like Mark Danner or State Department liberals like Michael Ignatieff were consumed with the need to vilify Milosevic as some kind of awful combination of Hitler and Stalin.

Saddam Hussein, Manuel Noriega, Kim Jung-un, Osama bin Laden, Moammar Gaddafi, and now Vladimir Putin, all are routinely compared to Hitler. “We repeatedly have seen how ‘rogue nations’ are designated and demonized,” notes historian Michael Parenti. “What they really had in common was that each was charting a somewhat independent course of self-development or somehow was not complying with the dictates of the global free market and the U.S. national security state.”

As Parenti notes, the destruction of Yugoslavia and its dismemberment had nothing to do with humanitarianism, as the Clinton administration and the corporate media in the West insisted. In fact, in 1999, there were a number of humanitarian disasters unfolding. The West (the USG and Europe) did not bother to intervene, and instead, as noted below, in many cases instigated or exacerbated crises and supported the perpetrators.

While showing themselves ready and willing to bomb Yugoslavia on behalf of an ostensibly oppressed minority in Kosovo, U.S. leaders have made no moves against the Czech Republic for its mistreatment of the Romany people (gypsies), or Britain for oppressing the Catholic minority in Northern Ireland, or the Hutu for the mass murder of a half million Tutsi in Rwanda—not to mention the French who were complicit in that massacre. Nor have U.S. leaders considered launching “humanitarian bombings” against the Turkish people for what their leaders have done to the Kurds, or the Indonesian people because their generals killed over 200,000 East Timorese and were continuing such slaughter through the summer of 1999, or the Guatemalans for the Guatemalan military’s systematic extermination of tens of thousands of Mayan villagers. In such cases, U.S. leaders not only tolerated such atrocities but were actively complicit with the perpetrators—who usually happened to be faithful client-state allies dedicated to helping Washington make the world safe for the Fortune 500.

Parenti’s remark about making “the world safe for the Fortune 500” underscores the relentless objectives of neoliberalism—domination of markets, capture (and, as in Syria, outright theft) of natural resources, subversion of economic independence, total control of societies, culture, information, and determining the collective fate of more than eight billion people.

The destruction of the former Yugoslavia, and nations since—Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya, and Somalia—demonstrate the USG and the ruling elite, the globalist oligarchs of an interlocking corporate directorate, will use all the tools at their disposal now that Russia and China are at the forefront of an emerging multipolar world.

The destruction and brutal reformulation of Iraq and Libya—the latter, formerly the wealthiest nation in Africa, now an open slave market—has sent an unmistakeable message to countries around the world: the USG military and its proxies will be deployed if the leaders and people of nations (with exploitable resources) refuse to play by the “rules-based” international corporate-fascist playbook.

On March 22, Serbian President Aleksandar Vucic said his balkanized country has no desire to join NATO.

“I believe that Serbia must not join NATO. Serbia is a free country and a militarily neutral country. Serbia will be defending its land and its sky on its own, but let me tell you something: our duty is to forgive and our duty is not to forget,” Vucic said.

“He was addressing a large crowd of people who gathered at the St. George Square in Sombor, waving Serbian flags and lighting candles for the victims of the bombings, which most of them see as an act of injustice,” Countercurrents reported.

Serbia will forget about NATO aggression in 1999 only when all Serbs disappear – Serbian President Aleksandar Vucic, speaking at mourning events dedicated to the 24th anniversary of NATO aggression against Yugoslavia pic.twitter.com/vHwmtPrZbh

— Spriter (@spriter99880) March 24, 2023

*

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

This article was originally published on the author’s blog site, Kurt Nimmo on Geopolitics.

Kurt Nimmo 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.

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

***

 

Should they be taking them?  Ukraine is desperate for any bit of warring materiel its armed forces can lay their hands on, but depleted uranium shells would surely not be a model example of use.  And yet, in an act of killing with kindness, the UK is happy to fork them out to aid the cause against the Russians, despite the scandals, the alleged illnesses, and environmental harms.

An outline of the measure was provided by Minister of state for defence Baroness Annabel Goldie’s written answer to a question posed by Lord Hylton:

“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.”

The response from the Kremlin was swift.  “If all this happens,” warned Russian President Vladimir Putin, “Russia will have to respond accordingly, given that the West collectively is already beginning to use weapons with a nuclear component.”  Defence Minister Sergei Shoigu also foresaw “nuclear collision”.

The statement from Vyacheslav Volodin, the speaker of the Russian lower house, shifted the focus from potential nuclear catastrophe to the field of medical consequences, reminding his fellow members that the use of such ammunition by the US in former Yugoslavia and Iraq had led to “radioactive contamination and a sharp rise in oncological cases.”

News networks were left trying to convey a picture to the public, much of it skimpy on the perilous consequences arising from using such munitions.  The BBC’s characteristic language of understatement notes that such uranium, stripped of much of its radioactive content, “makes weapons more powerful, but it is feared those weapons could be a threat to people in areas where they are used.”

Sky News had its own benign interpretation of the dangers, suggesting that DU, in emitting alpha particles, did not “have enough energy to go through skin, so exposure to the outside of the body is not considered a serious hazard.”  An admission as to the dangers had to follow.  “It can be a serious health hazard, however, if it is swallowed or inhaled.”

The US Department of Veterans Affairs outlines a few points on the matter in greater detail.  “When a projectile made with DU penetrates a vehicle, small particles of DU can be formed and breathed in or swallowed by service members in the struck vehicle.  Small DU fragments can also scatter and become embedded in muscle and soft tissue.”

Since their use in the Gulf War (1991), the Kosovo War (1999), the Iraq War (2003) and Afghanistan, the curriculum vitae of such weapons has become increasingly blotchy.  The use of such shells has been contentious to the point of being criminal, said to be carcinogenic and a cause of birth defects.  A study examining a civilian population sample from Eastern Afghanistan, published in 2005, revealed that “contamination in Afghanistan with a source consistent with natural uranium has resulted in total concentrations up to 100 times higher than the normal range for various geographic and environmental areas throughout the world.”

Subsequent field research, notably in Iraq, has found instances of serious birth defects, including congenital heart disease, paralysis, missing limbs and neurological problems.  While some of these outcomes can be attributable to other activities of the US military and its allies, the role of DU looms large.

The nature of such weaponry is also indiscriminate.  As a law firm representing US war veterans acknowledges, those involved in campaigns, notably in Iraq, “may have been exposed to depleted uranium as a result of being in a vehicle that was hit by a projectile, being exposed to burning depleted uranium, or salvaging the wreckage of a vehicle that was hit by a depleted uranium projectile.”

The Department of Veterans Affairs has also admitted that DU is a “potential health hazard if it enters the body, such as through embedded fragments, contaminated wounds, and inhalation or ingestion.”  It prefers, however, to treat each claim for disability that might have been the result of DU poisoning “on a case-by-case basis.”

The claimed lack of unequivocal evidence linking such projectiles to adverse effects on the environment and humans has been a consistent theme in investigations – and a boon for militaries using them.  A committee of review established by the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia that covered, among other things, the use of these shells by NATO forces in the Kosovo campaign, proved less than satisfactory.

In recommending that no investigation be commenced regarding the bombing campaign – hardly a surprise – the members had to concede that NATO’s responses to any queries were “couched in general terms and failed to address specific incidents.”  The Committee also found no consensus on whether the “use of such projectiles violate general principles of the law applicable to use of weapons in armed conflict.”

The UN Sub-Commission on Human Rights proved more forthright on the issue, claiming in a resolution that DU are weapons with indiscriminate effects and should therefore be prohibited under international humanitarian law.  The UN General Assembly’s latest resolution on the matter, however, suggested a distinct lack of backbone, noting that “studies conducted so far by relevant international organizations have not provided a detailed enough account of the magnitude of the potential long-term effects on human beings and the environment of the use of armaments and ammunitions containing depleted uranium.”

Little wonder, given such a muddled frame of mind, that the use of DU projectiles has persisted with some relish, despite an avalanche of studies warning of their dangers.  Nature abhors a vacuum and fills it accordingly with the mean and ghastly.  In November 2015, 5000 rounds of DU ammunition were used in an air raid on oil trucks used by Islamic State forces despite assurances from the US military that it had stopped using such weapons.  As to whether it will supply Kyiv with this hazardous product remains unclear – the Pentagon is proving reticent on the subject.

The Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament has attacked the UK’s decision.  Its General Secretary, Kate Hudson, outlined her concerns in a statement: “CND has repeatedly called for the UK government to place an immediate moratorium on the use of depleted uranium weapons and to fund long-term studies into their health and environmental impacts.”

Short of a clear treaty on the subject, preferably one with teeth, this is much wishful thinking.  The Ukrainian forces, however, should give the whole matter a second thought: the effects of such weapons will not distinguish between the users, the targets, and the civilians.  In the long run, it will also prove unsparing to the environment, which promises to be richly contaminated by the toxicity of such lingering munitions.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons 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]

Video: Towards WHO Totalitarianism? Dr. Reiner Fuellmich with Prof. Michel Chossudovsky, James Roguski and Matthew Ehret

By Prof Michel Chossudovsky, Matthew Ehret-Kump, Reiner Fuellmich, and James Roguski, March 26, 2023

Dr. Reiner Fuellmich on International Crimes Investigative Committee talks about the World Health Organization’s attempt to take over national sovereignties with James Roguski, an outspoken activist; Prof. Michel Chossudovsky, professor emeritus of Economics; and Matthew Ehret, journalist and writer.

Today Serbia Marks 24 Years Since the Beginning of NATO Aggression

By Tanjug, March 27, 2023

24 years ago, on March 24, 1999, NATO aggression against Serbia, that is, the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, started. The order for the attack was issued by Javier Solana, the Secretary General of NATO at the time, to the then commander of the allied forces, US General Wesley Clark, although there was no UN Security Council approval. It was an obvious precedent.

The Most Undervalued Assets in Europe Are Now in Eastern Ukraine. Who Is the First to Benefit?

By South Front, March 26, 2023

During the armed conflict in Ukraine in 2022, Kiev lost, and Moscow gained, a significant part of the south of the country. The largest oblast in this region of Ukraine is Zaporizhzhia. Today Russia controls about 80% of the region’s territory, including more than 90% of the agricultural land.

24 Years Ago, NATO’s War on Yugoslavia: Kosovo “Freedom Fighters” Financed by Organized Crime

By Prof Michel Chossudovsky, March 26, 2023

Twenty-four years ago, marks the  beginning of NATO’s aerial bombardment of Yugoslavia (March 24, 1999- June 10, 1999). The bombings which lasted for almost three months, were followed by the military invasion (under a bogus UN mandate) and illegal occupation of  the province of Kosovo.

Romanian Senator Diana Iovanovici-Sosoaca Is Receiving Death Threats from Kiev

By Dragan Vujicic, March 26, 2023

From Friday, March 24, Romanian Senator Diana Iovanovici Sosoaca found herself “targeted” on the pages of the infamous Ukrainian portal “Mirotvorets”. On this Ukrainian “open source death list” the names of people appear, some of whom perish under “unclear circumstances” The last one killed was Darya Dugin!

Video: The UK Parliament Speech About mRNA COVID-19 Vaccines. Andrew Bridgen, M.P.

By Paul Anthony Taylor, March 25, 2023

While only rarely do we see politicians who are brave enough to speak out about the dangers of mRNA COVID-19 injections, there are a few who refuse to be silenced. Take Andrew Bridgen, for example, a Member of Parliament from the UK who, a few days ago, stood up to give a speech in a debate on mRNA COVID-19 booster vaccinations.

Banking Crisis 3.0: Time to Change the Rules of the Game

By Ellen Brown, March 25, 2023

On Friday, March 10, Silicon Valley Bank (SVB) was put into receivership by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC). The FDIC announced that deposits over the $250,000 insurance limit would get an advance dividend within the next week, and would receive a receivership certificate for the rest of the funds.

Iraq 20 Years After “Shock and Awe.” The Wealthy Prevail at the Expense of World Safety and Freedom

By Michael Welch, Denis Halliday, Scott Ritter, Prof. Marjorie Cohn, and Mike Prysner, March 24, 2023

Many mainstream media outlets have commemorated the actions of two decades ago and its aftermath, noting that the war was, in fact, a disaster both for the millions of people in Iraq, and for the thousands of U.S. soldiers laid to rest. There has been plenty of talk about the difficulties facing Iraqis despite the execution of Saddam Hussein and the presence of elections. The war effort led to the decline in popularity of the hawkish leaders with the reigning whips in their hands.

Credit Suisse Takeover in a Black Box – Untransparent Deal. Implications for the Failing Structures of Global Banking

By Peter Koenig, March 24, 2023

The Credit Suisse (CS) takeover by UBS, the largest Swiss bank, has taken place over the weekend, 18/19 March, when people are distracted and don’t focus on actions behind dark curtains. The merger was untransparent like in a dark room. See this on the build-up to the fusion to the UBS – CS fusion.

China’s Peace Initiatives in the Middle East and Ukraine, US-NATO War Plans for the World

By Timothy Alexander Guzman, March 24, 2023

You can say what you want about China, it is true that the one-party system has many problems internally like many other countries, but when it comes to establishing peace among nations, China so far has been successful.  The normalization of ties between Iran and Saudi Arabia is a big deal, but anti-China hawks from both sides of the aisle in Washington and the Mainstream Media especially Fox News has downplayed the developments.

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

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

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

***

The annual count of migratory monarchs that spend the winter in Mexico is once again dismal for the iconic orange-and-black butterflies. This year’s count showed a 22% decline from 2022, leaving the butterfly highly vulnerable to extinction.

The count found only 2.21 hectares of occupied forest. The total number of monarchs is 64% below the minimum threshold scientists say is necessary for the migrating pollinators to not be at risk of extinction in North America. Monarchs east of the Rocky Mountains have declined by around 90% since the mid-1990s.

“Despite heroic efforts to save monarchs by planting milkweed, we could still lose these extraordinary butterflies by not taking bolder action,” said Tierra Curry, a senior scientist at the Center for Biological Diversity. “Monarchs were once incredibly common. Now they’re the face of the extinction crisis as U.S. populations crash amid habitat loss and the climate meltdown.”

Monarchs are currently on the candidate waiting list for Endangered Species Act protection. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has a 2024 deadline to make a final listing determination.

At the end of summer, eastern monarchs migrate from the northern United States and southern Canada to high-elevation fir forests in central Mexico. Scientists estimate the population size by measuring the area of trees turned orange by the clustering butterflies. The annual count is conducted by Mexico’s National Commission of Natural Protected Areas and World Wildlife Fund Mexico. The eastern population has been perilously low since 2008.

“We petitioned for protection for monarchs nine years ago, but they still face an onslaught of pesticides and habitat loss,” said George Kimbrell, legal director at the Center for Food Safety. “This year’s count shows once again that they continue to urgently need Endangered Species Act protection. The Fish and Wildlife Service has already agreed to make a final decision; now they only need make the correct one, the one conservation, science and the law requires: protect monarchs.”

Monarchs are threatened by pesticides, climate change, loss of U.S. grasslands and illegal logging of the forests where they migrate for the winter. They are also threatened during their migrations by mortality from roadkill and habitat fragmentation.

Scientists led by the Center for Biological Diversity and the Center for Food Safety petitioned the Fish and Wildlife Service to protect the butterfly under the Endangered Species Act in 2014.

Monarchs have lost an estimated 165 million acres of breeding habitat in the United States to herbicide spraying and development in recent decades. The caterpillars only eat milkweed, but the plant has been devastated by increased herbicide spraying in conjunction with corn and soybean crops that have been genetically engineered to tolerate direct spraying. The butterflies are also threatened by neonicotinoid insecticides, fungicides and other chemicals that are toxic to young caterpillars.

Most monarch butterflies west of the Rocky Mountains overwinter on the central coast of California. Their numbers rebounded this year to more than 330,000 butterflies during Thanksgiving counts. But deadly storms led to a 58% drop, with only 117,000 butterflies surviving into January. Overall the western population is down more than 95% since the 1980s.

In Canada monarchs are slated for listing as endangered under the Species At Risk Act. In Mexico they are considered a species of special concern.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons 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: Monarch butterfly photo by Lori Ann Burd, Center for Biological Diversity. 

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

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

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

***

The scale of environmental destruction caused by British soldiers exercising at a nature conservancy in Kenya has been revealed for the first time.

A cooking accident by UK troops two years ago today set fire to Lolldaiga Hills, a safari resort home to elephants and lions near Mount Kenya.

The smoke plume was so large that ash particles reached Lake Victoria on the Tanzanian border, some 200 miles away.

Now a new report by Howard Humphreys has calculated Lolldaiga’s burnt landscape will take until 2060 to recover, if climate change does not prevent it from doing so.

More than a quarter of a million seedlings need to be planted to replace torched trees, the consultancy firm said.

One of the main tree species at Lolldaiga, the African Pencil Cedar – a threatened conifer protected by Kenyan presidential decree – was virtually wiped out.

So much biomass was burnt during the incident that 178,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide were emitted.

That figure is equivalent to 7% of the UK military’s total greenhouse gas emissions for 2020-21, which officially stood at 2,527,000 tonnes and did not count fumes from the fire.

A Ministry of Defence spokesperson told Declassified:

“Emissions relating to this incident in Kenya aren’t included in the figures for 2020/21, and it would be inappropriate to comment further while an investigation is ongoing.”

Many of the MoD’s declared emissions came from British fighter jets, tanks and battleships that together consumed more than 500 million litres of fuel.

So for an accidental forest fire at a wildlife reserve to emit almost a tenth as much will undermine the army’s attempts to appear environmentally responsible.

It would take nearly half a million average Kenyans a year to emit the same amount of CO2.

Dr Stuart Parkinson, a scientific expert who analysed the report for Declassified, said: “This fire shows the importance of the MoD counting its whole carbon footprint.

“If just one accidental fire in a training area can destroy a forest leading to an extra 7% of the organisation’s carbon emissions, then what might the impacts of its worldwide military operations be causing?”

Smoke inhalation

The 175-page Howard Humphreys report was commissioned by Lolldaiga Hills Limited, the company that owns the ranch.

It is likely to feature prominently in a compensation case brought against the British army by more than 5,500 local Kenyans who claim to have suffered damage from the fire.

While the report highlights some major environmental impacts, it takes a conservative view of the fire’s significance beyond the perimeter of the ranch – where the majority of those seeking compensation reside.

They include Maasai herders who say tens of thousands of their cattle died from a smoke-related illness soon after the fire. There are also many complaints of chronic breathing problems and even blindness.

Declassified met one claimant, Samuel Lokure, who said: “I’ve been really affected. My eyes, my nose, my whole breathing system. Before I was able to see. But for now I don’t really see well. My eyes are itching every day. I’m totally disabled.”

Yet the report said the smoke only caused “minor” damage to air or water quality, and “no widespread impact on human health [is] likely to have arisen due to dispersal of [the smoke] plume.”

Flaws

Several shortcomings in the scientific study are acknowledged by Howard Humphreys, most notably that it took place a year after the fire and “the directive of the client to sample within the Ranch is a limitation to assessment.”

At one point, the Howard Humphreys team appears to downplay the significance of forest fires, calling them a “common occurrence in Kenya”. They omit the fact the British army sparked five smaller fires in the month before the Lolldaiga blaze.

The report also wrongly asserts British military training at Lolldaiga only began in 2009. The ranch was in fact used much earlier, not least in 2007 when a man working for the British army was killed in an explosion.

It does however reveal that solar panels and two residential camps housing ranch workers were destroyed by the fire, together with their personal belongings.

Even then, the death of conservancy worker Linus Murangiri, who was crushed by a lorry while fighting the fire, is only mentioned as a “second order impact” without naming him.

Selective study

By focusing only on the damage inside the ranch, the report sheds little light on the wider impact to neighbouring communities who have applied for compensation.

We learn “wildlife escaped from the Ranch during the fire incident and fled to the community living on the southern part of the Ranch, [where] the wildlife destroyed some farm crops”.

It goes on to say “however, wildlife fence breeches are a regular occurrence in the area” and “the study was not able to verify/quantify the extent of crop damage.”

There is no mention of the fact local farmers asked to participate in the Howard Humphreys study so their losses could be calculated.

Nor does it reflect that fence breaches are a historic grievance that neighbouring farmers have raised with Lolldaiga’s owners for more than 20 years.

When the local community attempted to crowdfund for its own scientific study of the environmental damage, five of the lead petitioners were arrested for ‘extortion’.

The charges were dropped after the elderly group spent an uncomfortable night in police custody.

Delays

Howard Humphrey’s environmental impact report was shared with petitioners last week by the body adjudicating their claims, the Inter-Governmental Liaison Committee (IGLC).

It had previously been denied to the media and freedom of information requesters.

The IGLC is an obscure UK-Kenyan body, co-chaired by a British army brigadier. As well as providing the report, it published its own rules for the first time.

The body said it reserves the right “at its sole discretion, [to] extend any time-frame” and indicated the compensation claims might not be settled until May 2024 – more than three years after the fire.

Robert Wells – who owned Lolldaiga at the time of the fire – has since sold the ranch, which his family acquired during British imperial rule.

Other descendents of European settlers continue to own vast farms in Kenya. They are often marketed as wildlife conservancies while also hosting military exercises for the former colonial power.

Carbon offsets

British troops are not the only ones facing scrutiny over their ecological impact in Kenya.

Survival International has published a new report criticising a carbon offset scheme north of Lolldaiga.

The area, which is mostly inhabited by nomads, is being marketed as a vast carbon sink by the Northern Rangelands Trust (NRT), a controversial conservation group.

NRT claims that by encouraging nomadic herders to adopt new grazing practices they can restore grasslands, which will absorb 50 million tonnes of CO2.

The NRT’s chief, former big game hunter Ian Craig, received a conservation award in December from Prince William, who used to date his daughter.

Survival International believes the NRT scheme is “fundamentally flawed” and questions whether nomadic communities have consented.

Campaigner Fiore Longo said: “This project is not just dangerous greenwashing, it’s blood carbon: NRT is making money by destroying the way of life of those least responsible for climate change.”

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons 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: Fire burns Lolldaiga Hills in March 2021. (Photo: Justice for Lolldaiga)

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

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

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

***

China’s mediation to normalise Saudi-Iranian diplomatic ties has been widely welcomed internationally, especially in the West Asian region. A clutch of unhappy states that do not want to see China stealing a march on any front, even if it advances the cause of world peace, mutely watched. 

The US led this pack of dead souls. But the US is also on the horns of a dilemma. Can it afford to be a spoiler? Saudi Arabia is not only the fountainhead of petrodollar recycling — and, therefore, a pillar of the western banking system — but also America’s number one market for arms exports. Europe is facing energy crisis and the stability of the oil market is an overriding concern. 

Saudi Arabia has shown remarkable maturity to maintain that its “Look East” policy and the strategic partnership with China do not mean it is dumping the Americans. Saudis are treading softly.  

After all, Jamal Khashoggi was a strategic asset of the US security establishment; the US is a stakeholder in the Saudi succession and it has a consistent record of sponsoring regime changes to create pliable regimes.      

Yet, the fact remains that the Saudi-Iranian deal drives a knife into the heart of the US’ West Asian strategy. The deal leaves the US and Israel badly isolated. The Jewish lobby may show its unhappiness during President Biden’s bid for another term. China has stolen a march on the US with far-reaching consequences, which signifies a foreign policy disaster for Biden. 

Washington has not spoken the last word and may be plotting to push back the peace process from becoming mainstream politics of the West Asian region. The American commentators are visualising that the Saudi-Iranian normalisation will be a long haul and the odds are heavily stacked against it.

However, the regional protagonists are already creating firewalls locally to preserve and foster the new spirit of recnciliation. Of course, China (and Russia) too lend a helping hand. China has mooted the idea of a regional summit between Iran and the members of the Gulf Cooperation Council by the end of this year. 

An unnamed Saudi official told the establishment daily Asharq Al-Awsat that Chinese President Xi Jinping approached Prince Mohammed bin Salman, Saudi Crown Prince and Prime Minister, last year about Beijing serving as a ‘bridge’ between the Kingdom and Iran and the latter welcomed it, as Riyadh sees Beijing being in a ‘unique’ position to wield unmatched ‘leverage’ in the Gulf. 

“For Iran in particular, China is either No 1 or No 2 in terms of its international partners. And so the leverage is important in that regard, and you cannot have an alternative that is equal in importance,” the Saudi official added.

The Saudi official said China’s role makes it more likely that the terms of the deal will hold. “It (China) is a major stakeholder in the security and stability of the Gulf,” he noted. The official also revealed that the talks in Beijing involved “five very extensive” sessions on thorny issues. The most difficult topics were related to Yemen, the media, and China’s role, the official said.

Meanwhile, there are positive tidings in the air too — the likelihood of  a foreign minister level meeting between Iran and Saudi Arabia in the near future and, more importantly, the reported letter of invitation from King Salman of Saudi Arabia to Iranian President Ebrahim Raeisi to visit Riyadh. Iranian Foreign Minister Hossein Amirabdollahian remarked on Sunday with reference to the Yemeni crisis that

“We [Iran] are working with Saudi Arabia on ensuring the stability of the region. We will not accept any threat against us from neighbouring countries.” 

To be sure, the regional environment is improving. Signs of an overall easing of tensions have appeared. For the first visit of its kind in over a decade, the Turkish Foreign Minister was in Cairo and the Egyptian FM has been to Turkey and Syria. Last week, on return from Beijing, Admiral Ali Shamkhani, secretary of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council headed for the UAE where President Sheikh Mohammed received him.

Soon after that, on Sunday, Syrian President Bashar al-Assad arrived in the UAE on an official visit. 

“Syria has been absent from its brothers for too long, and the time has come for it to return to them and to its Arab surroundings,” Sheikh Mohamed told Assad during their historic meeting at the presidential palace.

In an interview with NourNews, Shamkhani described his 5 days’ talks in Beijing leading to the deal with Saudi Arabia as “frank, transparent, comprehensive and constructive.” He said,

“Clearing misunderstandings and looking to the future in Tehran-Riyadh relations will definitely lead to the development of regional stability and security and the increase of cooperation between the countries of the Persian Gulf and the Islamic world to manage the existing challenges.” 

Evidently, the regional states are tapping the “feel-good” generated by the Saudi-Iranian understanding. Contrary to the western propaganda of an estrangement lately between Saudi Arabia and the UAE, Sheikh Mohammed is identifying closely with the positive trends in the regional environment. 

This is where China’s overarching role fostering dialogue and amity becomes decisive. The regional countries regard China as a benign interlocutor and the concerted attempts by the US and its junior partners to run down China make no impact on the regional states. 

China has immense economic interests in the region — especially, expansion of the Silk Road in West Asia. The region’s political stability and security, therefore, is of vital interest to Beijing and prompts it to become the sponsor and guarantor of the Saudi-Iranian agreement. Clearly, the durability of the Saudi-Iranian deal should not be underestimated. The Saudi-Iranian agreement will remain West Asia’s most important development for a long time. 

Fundamentally, both Saudi Arabia and Iran have compulsions to shift the locus of their national strategies to development and economic growth. This has received scant attention. The Western media has deliberately ignored this and instead demonised the Saudi Crown Prince and created a doomsday scenario for Iran’s Islamic regime. 

That said, the known unknown is the tension building up over Iran’s nuclear programme. The issue is among the most prominent points of contention between Tehran and the Kingdom. Also, Israeli threats of attacks on Iran’s nuclear facilities are escalating. Significantly, Iran’s FM Amirabdollahian is expected to visit Moscow this week. 

A Russian-Chinese coordinated effort is needed to forestall the US from raking up the nuclear issue in tandem with Israel and ratchet up tensions, including military tensions, in such a way that a pretext becomes available to destabilise the region and marginalise the Saudi-Iran agreement as the leitmotif of regional politics. 

All parties understand only too well that “If the Beijing agreement materialises, the violent and fanatical right-wing Israeli government will be the first to lose out, as respecting the agreement would give rise to a stable and prosperous regional system that sets the course for further normalisations and all the achievements that ensue from them,” as a Lebanese columnist wrote today in Asharq Al-Awsat newspaper.

On balance, the regional states are acting on free will, increasingly and eschewing their determinism that was wedded to decisions and actions that were thought to be causally inevitable. The realisation has dawned now that it is within the capacity of sovereign states to make decisions or perform actions independently of any prior event or state of the universe.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons 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: UAE President Sheikh Mohammed (R) received Syria’s President Assad on official visit at Abu Dhabi airport, March 19, 2023 (Source: Indian Punchline)

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

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

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

***

 

 

At the end of his recent video about the Chinese-Saudi-Iranian diplomatic deal on 10 March, the astute foreign policy expert Muqtedar Khan asks whether this breakthrough may lead to the “de-Americanisation of Saudi Arabia” itself.

It is an interesting question that reflects current realities pertaining not only to Saudi Arabia but also to the entire Middle East and North Africa (Mena) region.

For the kingdom, one could conclude that it has already reached a point of no return. This, of course, does not mean that the Saudis are willing to end their close alliance with the US as such a move would be most detrimental to Saudi interests.

Let’s, however, consider this sequence from the past year: first, US President Joe Biden vociferously, publicly, and repeatedly promised to make Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman a global “pariah” over the assassination of journalist Jamal Khashoggi. But he did nothing of the sort when he went to visit him – all smiles, reverence, and courtesy – and had his infamous fist-bumping moment caught on tape by all the cameras of the world.

During last July’s visit, Biden essentially begged Bin Salman to increase oil production to try to fight US and worldwide inflation caused by the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Not only did the crown prince refuse, but he did the exact opposite: Bin Salman actually decreased oil production by two percent. That was despite the threats that Biden had levelled against him should the Saudis do that.

Once again, Biden did nothing but return home feeling and looking sorry, silly, powerless, and way out of his league. A heated exchange then took place between Biden and Bin Salman in October with threats of a Nopec bill by US members of Congress (lifting sovereign immunity from the oil cartel member states) and Biden warning the Saudis of “consequences” if Opec+ were to cut oil production.

To make this double-slap-in-the-face worse, since Russia is part of Opec+, MBS actually objectively helped Putin get more oil revenue to finance his “special military operation” and mitigate the effects of US sanctions, at a time when the US is engaged in a war against him.

Then to the repeated and increasingly bitter threats of Biden, Saudi Arabia responded with very firm and forceful (though not hostile) press releases from their embassy that they would always put their national interests first, and that no amount of pressure and threats from the US or anyone else could make them deviate from that.

A humiliating defeat

Again, Biden had to swallow his pride. And now, this: the 10 March tripartite deal between Riyadh and Tehran announced in Beijing. It has not been emphasised enough how severe and humiliating a defeat this represents for the US.

First, apparently Washington was left out of these diplomatic negotiations and had nothing to do with it.

Second, as Khan says in his podcast, not only may it end Iran’s isolation and further break the embargo the US has been working so hard to maintain since the Iranian Revolution and the hostage crisis of 1979, but the two powers who broke it are: a) China, the main US adversary in the world now, America’s public enemy number one as they themselves claim in their rhetoric, as has become obvious in their inept and reckless foreign policy; b) Saudi Arabia, their top ally (after Israel) in the Middle East.

That must hurt.

Third, it is not just its top strategic adversary that is replacing the US as a major peace broker (though we are not there yet, but it’s at a minimum an excellent first step towards possible further rapprochement) but Beijing is doing so in what had always been the US’s own backyard, the Middle East.

Fourth, the fact that this deal was announced in Beijing seems to symbolise the shift eastwards of Middle Eastern foreign policy and alliances, in a series of “Asian pivots” and “Look to the East” (as Iran calls it) strategic realignments.

Fifth, and finally, from a public relations, global image, and beyond that, actual soft-power viewpoint, this is absolutely disastrous for the US.

The diplomatic breakthrough and success of China make even more obvious and cruel by comparison the never-ending slew of major foreign policy failures, defeats, and debacles of the US for decades. Its new aura as a major, and totally unexpected peace broker only highlights further the loss of influence and ineptitude of the US itself.

China as peacemaker

Worse, China is coming out of this as a state power interested in and able to bring about peace, detente, normalisation, and de-escalation. It has proven itself capable of pulling stunning diplomatic coups like this one with finesse, persistence, intelligence, and agility, while in sharp contrast, the best the US could do is flood entire nations with weapons to keep the Ukraine war going “as long as it takes”, and drag the world in another forever war of choice, now as American as apple pie.

China now looks like a brilliant peacemaker while the US looks just like the warmonger it actually always was, if one just looks at its history since its very bloody beginnings in the genocide of First Nations populations all the way to Vietnam and Iraq.

Xi is presented in official American discourse as a problem, something the world should be afraid of. Yet, after this recent breakthrough, one wonders who looks like the real problem in the Middle East or elsewhere.

Xi’s recent speeches and China’s strategic documents have made it clear this diplomatic operation is only the beginning of an ongoing effort to turn China into a major international broker.

It started in the Global South – Africa included – and is now possibly expanding into Europe and the Russia-Ukraine war, with the Chinese president’s recent three-day visit to meet Vladimir Putin. Xi commented pointedly to the Russian president: “There are changes going on now that haven’t happened for 100 years. And we are moving these changes together.”

China is in this for the long term, and Xi has made it clear he is eager to extend his services to anybody to help solve other conflicts.

Escaping US control

The question of whether Saudi Arabia can undergo a “de-Americanisation” of its country can be extended to the entire Mena region. Like the rest of the world, with the exception of the EU, these states are finally extracting themselves from US control and domination even if it means striking tactical partnerships with authoritarian regimes like China.

Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman welcomes Chinese President Xi Jinping in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia on 8 December 2022 (Saudi Press Agency/Handout via Reuters)

The Middle East has actually already entered a largely de-Americanised era – the era of fluctuating, realist, pragmatic, fluid, radically open, and quite unpredictable hybrid alliances in order to give itself more space to manoeuvre, and more options for the sake of sovereignty.

The next moves in that direction are already being planned and are on the horizon. For example, both Saudi Arabia and Iran want to join the BRICS group, while Saudi Arabia has applied for membership in the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation where Iran is already an observer state.

But the answer to the “de-Americanisation” question will be provided, maybe soon, by one ultimate test: whether Saudi Arabia and other oil producers after it will trade in a currency other than the dollar. Only then would there be a true revolution, and what observers have called “the nuclear option” (against the US).

And not surprisingly, Saudi Arabia, pushed by China itself and many others who would love to see that happen, is actually considering this.

Given that dollarisation of the global energy market has always been the lynchpin of the US domination of the world economy itself, this would indeed be a nuclear blast.

And it may now just be a matter of time, possibly a mere few years.

*

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

Dr Alain Gabon is Associate Professor of French Studies and chair of the Department of Foreign Languages & Literatures at Virginia Wesleyan University in Virginia Beach, USA. He has written and lectured widely in the US, Europe and beyond on contemporary French culture, politics, literature and the arts and more recently on Islam and Muslims. His works have been published in several countries in academic journals, think tanks, and mainstream and specialized media such as Saphirnews, Milestones. Commentaries on the Islamic World, and Les Cahiers de l’Islam. His recent essay entitled “The Twin Myths of the Western ‘Jihadist Threat’ and ‘Islamic Radicalisation ‘” is available in French and English on the site of the UK Cordoba Foundation.

Featured image is from Antiwar.com

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

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

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

***

24 years ago, on March 24, 1999, NATO aggression against Serbia, that is, the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, started.

The order for the attack was issued by Javier Solana, the Secretary General of NATO at the time, to the then commander of the allied forces, US General Wesley Clark, although there was no UN Security Council approval. It was an obvious precedent.

It is estimated that in July 1998, the so-called KLA (Kosovo Liberation Army) controlled approximately 40 percent of Kosovo and Metohija. At that time, there were more than 20,000 people in its composition. During this period, they control rural areas and obstruct roads. Attacks on the police, who were trying to guard traffic routes, important points, facilities and urban environments, happened on a daily basis. The Yugoslav Army was forced to help the police during the unblocking of Dečani in June 1998, and Orahovac in July 1998. By October, the police managed to liberate a number of villages in the central part of the province.

At the same time, there was a harsh campaign against Serbia in the Western media. There was, so to speak, a flood of untrue information about the events in Kosovo and Metohija. In the book “Modern Warfare”, Wesley Clark later revealed that the planning of the NATO aggression against the FRY “was well underway in mid-June 1998” and that everything was ready a few months later.

The Council of the North Atlantic Alliance (NATO) on October 12, 1998, made a decision on the adoption of the order for the activation of forces. An agreement between Slobodan Milošević and Richard Holbrooke followed the next day. It is planned to reduce the number of soldiers of the Yugoslav Army in the territory of Kosovo and Metohija to the number from the beginning of 1998. It has been agreed that OSCE observers will monitor the situation, that is, the peace process in Kosovo and Metohija. The agreement also stipulated that no person would be prosecuted in state courts for crimes related to the conflict in Kosovo, except for crimes against humanity and international law.

After the meeting of the NATO Council on January 30, 1999, it was officially announced that NATO was ready to launch strikes against the FRY. The NATO aggression was preceded by insincere offers from the international community, as well as the deployment of additional NATO troops in Albania and Macedonia. Negotiations in Rambouillet were conducted from February 6 to March 19.

The FRY delegation did not sign the final text offered. This was followed by another arrival of Richard Holbrooke in Belgrade on March 22 for negotiations with Slobodan Milošević. The media reported that this last peace attempt also failed.

The level of demands sent to official Belgrade, which was confirmed even by Madeleine Albright, was raised all the time during the so-called negotiations, so that Serbia would be blamed. As interpreted by Vladislav Jovanović, announcements of the bombing had existed for ten years, since the time when Bob Dole promised independence in Pristina. Bill Clinton, the then president of the USA, told the delegation of American Serbs that he would not sign what was offered to Milosevic. A similar view was later expressed by Henry Kissinger.

FRY was attacked as the alleged culprit for the humanitarian disaster in Kosovo and Metohija. The immediate cause, actually the justification, were the events in Račak on January 15. And then the failure of the alleged negotiations conducted in Rambouillet and Paris. In reality, it was support for the terrorist organization of the Kosmet Albanians, the so-called KLA, which by then had already committed numerous crimes.

After the Serbian Parliament confirmed that it does not accept the decision on foreign troops on its territory and proposed that United Nations forces monitor the peace settlement in Kosovo and Metohija, NATO began airstrikes.

According to the first announcement of the General Staff of the Yugoslav Army, on March 24 at around 8:45 p.m., more than twenty objects were targeted in the first raid. The first missiles fell on the barracks in Prokuplje at 19:53. This was followed by an attack on Priština, Kuršumlija, and Batajnica.

On the same evening, US President Bill Clinton announced the need to “demonstrate NATO’s seriousness in opposing repression”, stressing the need to “intimidate Serbia and Yugoslavia” and “destroy Serbia’s military capacities”, so that, as he said, “actions against the Kosmet Albanians would not be taken”. That same evening, British Prime Minister Tony Blair said that the NATO aggression was undertaken because “the people of Kosovo” asked for it. In order to further clarify that, by “the people of Kosovo” he means Kosmet Albanians.

Nineteen NATO countries began bombing from ships in the Adriatic, as well as from four air bases in Italy. First of all, the anti-aircraft defense and other facilities of the Yugoslav Army were targeted.

According to the data of the Ministry of Defense of Serbia, 2,500 civilians were killed during the NATO air aggression, among them 89 children and 1,031 members of the Army and police. According to the same source, around 6,000 civilians were wounded, of which 2,700 were children, as well as 5,173 soldiers and policemen, and 25 people were missing.

According to Serbian experts, 18,168 air takeoffs were recorded until June 10. According to NATO sources, there were 38,004 air surges, of which 10,484 were fire actions, while the rest were reconnaissance, anti-aircraft, and tankers. At first, around 70 fighter planes took part in the operations daily, and later that number was around 400 on a daily basis.

NATO’s war losses in manpower and technology are denied. The then authorities in Belgrade claimed that more than a dozen aircraft were shot down, which was not confirmed. The Russian agency APN announced that NATO had lost over 400 soldiers and over 60 aircraft, while US President Bill Clinton stated in a speech on June 10, 1999 that NATO had suffered “no casualties”. Aircraft F-117, F-16, unmanned aerial vehicles, cruise missiles, aircraft F 117, the so-called “invisible” until then symbol of the superiority of American technology, ended up in a field of the Srem village Budjanovci.

There is almost no city in Serbia that was not targeted during the 11 weeks of aggression. NATO carried out 2,300 strikes and dropped 22,000 tons of missiles, including 37,000 banned cluster bombs and those filled with enriched uranium. Apart from attacks from ships in the Adriatic, as well as from four air bases in Italy, operations were carried out from bases in the countries of Western Europe and the USA.

Infrastructure, economic facilities, schools, health institutions, media outlets, cultural monuments, churches and monasteries were destroyed, totaling about 50 percent of Serbia’s production capacity. Various data were presented about the material damage caused during the NATO aggression. The then authorities in Belgrade estimated it at approximately one hundred billion dollars, the group of G17 economists estimated the damage at 29.6 billion US dollars.

In the bombing, 25,000 residential buildings were destroyed and damaged, 470 kilometers of roads and 595 kilometers of railways were disabled. 14 airports, 19 hospitals, 20 health centers, 18 kindergartens, 69 schools, 176 cultural monuments and 44 bridges were damaged, while 38 were destroyed.

A third of the country’s electricity capacity was destroyed, two refineries in Pancevo and Novi Sad were bombed, and NATO forces used graphite bombs for the first time to disable the electricity system. The overall consequences for the health of the population and the ecological consequences are immeasurable.

The Chinese embassy in Belgrade was destroyed on May 7, 1999. The RTS building in Belgrade was destroyed on April 23. 16 people died and the same number were wounded. The Novi Sad Television building was hit on May 3, 1999, on the International Day of Media Freedom.

The aggression was stopped with the signing of the Military-Technical Agreement in Kumanovo on June 9, 1999, and the withdrawal of FRY forces from Kosovo and Metohija began three days later. The agreement determined the withdrawal of the military security forces of the FRY from Kosovo and Metohija, and the establishment of UNMIK, a United Nations mission.

On June 10, 1999, the Secretary General of NATO issued an order to stop the bombing. The last projectiles fell in the area of the village of Kololeč, not far from Kosovska Kamenica, at 1:30 p.m., and on the barracks in Uroševac around 7:35 p.m. It was the 79th day of the NATO aggression against Serbia, that is, the FRY.

The UN Security Council then adopted Resolution 1244. 37,200 soldiers from 36 countries were deployed and sent to the province as part of the KFOR mission.

*

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

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

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

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

***

An enduring mystery for three years is how Donald Trump came to be the president who shut down American society for what turned out to be a manageable respiratory virus, setting off an unspeakable crisis with waves of destructive fallout that continue to this day. 

Let’s review the timeline and offer some well-founded speculations about what happened.

On March 9, 2020, Trump was still of the opinion that the virus could be handled by normal means.

So last year 37,000 Americans died from the common Flu. It averages between 27,000 and 70,000 per year. Nothing is shut down, life & the economy go on. At this moment there are 546 confirmed cases of CoronaVirus, with 22 deaths. Think about that!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 9, 2020

Two days later, he changed his tune. He was ready to use the full power of the federal government in a war on the virus.

I am fully prepared to use the full power of the Federal Government to deal with our current challenge of the CoronaVirus!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 11, 2020

What changed? Deborah Birx reports in her book that Trump had a friend die in a New York hospital and this is what shifted his opinion. Jared Kushner reports that he simply listened to reason. Mike Pence says he was persuaded that his staff would respect him more. No question (and based on all existing reports) that he found himself surrounded by “trusted advisors” amounting to about 5 or so people (including Mike Pence and Pfizer board member Scott Gottlieb)

It was only a week later when Trump issued the edict to close all “indoor and outdoor venues where people congregate,” initiating the biggest regime change in US history that flew in the face of all rights and liberties Americans had previously taken for granted. It was the ultimate in political triangulation: as John F. Kennedy cut taxes, Nixon opened China, and Clinton reformed welfare, Trump shut down the economy he promised to revive. This action confounded critics on all sides.

A month later, Trump said his decision to have “turned off” the economy saved millions of lives, later even claiming to have saved billions. He has yet to admit error.

….My Administration and I built the greatest economy in history, of any country, turned it off, saved millions of lives, and now am building an even greater economy than it was before. Jobs are flowing, NASDAQ is already at a record high, the rest to follow. Sit back & watch!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) August 18, 2020

Even as late as June 23rd of that year, Trump was demanding credit for having followed all of Fauci’s recommendations. Why do they love him and hate me, he wanted to know.

We did a great job on CoronaVirus, including the very early ban on China, Ventilator production, and Testing, which is by far the most, and best, in the World. We saved millions of U.S. lives.! Yet the Fake News refuses to acknowledge this in a positive way. But they do give….

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 23, 2020

Something about this story has never really added up. How could one person have been so persuaded by a handful of others such as Fauci, Birx, Pence, and Kushner and his friends? He surely had other sources of information – some other scenario or intelligence – that fed into his disastrous decision.

In one version of events, his advisors simply pointed to the supposed success of Xi Jinping in enacting lockdowns in Wuhan, which the World Health Organization claimed had stopped infections and brought the virus under control. Perhaps his advisors flattered Trump with the observation that he is at least as great as the president of China so he should be bold and enact the same policies here.

One problem with this scenario is timing. The Oval Office meetings that preceded his March 16, 2020, edict took place the weekend of the 14th and 15th, Friday and Saturday. It was already clear by the 11th that Trump was ready for lockdowns. This was the same day as Fauci’s deliberately misleading testimony to the House Oversight Committee in which he rattled the room with predictions of Hollywood-style carnage.

On the 12th, Trump shut all travel from Europe, the UK, and Australia, causing huge human pile-ups at international airports. On the 13th, the Department of Health and Human Services issued a classified document that transferred control of pandemic policy from the CDC to the National Security Council and eventually the Department of Homeland Security. By the time that Trump met with Fauci and Birx in that legendary weekend, the country was already under quasi-martial law.

Isolating the date in the trajectory here, it is apparent that whatever happened to change Trump occurred on March 10, 2020, the day after his Tweet saying there should be no shutdowns and one day before Fauci’s testimony.

That something very likely revolves around the most substantial discovery we’ve made in three years of investigations. It was Debbie Lerman who first cracked the code: Covid policy was forged not by the public-health bureaucracies but by the national-security sector of the administrative state. She has further explained that this occurred because of two critical features of the response: 1) the belief that this virus came from a lab leak, and 2) the vaccine was the biosecurity countermeasure pushed by the same people as the fix.

Knowing this, we gain greater insight into 1) why Trump changed his mind, 2) why he has never explained this momentous decision and otherwise completely avoids the topic, and 3) why it has been so unbearably difficult to find out any information about these mysterious few days other than the pablum served up in books designed to earn royalties for authors like Birx, Pence, and Kushner.

Based on a number of second-hand reports, all available clues we have assembled, and the context of the times, the following scenario seems most likely. On March 10, and in response to Trump’s dismissive tweet the day before, some trusted sources within and around the National Security Council (Matthew Pottinger and Michael Callahan, for example), and probably involving some from military command and others, came to Trump to let him know a highly classified secret.

Imagine a scene from Get Smart with the Cone of Silence, for example. These are the events in the life of statecraft that infuse powerful people with a sense of their personal awesomeness. The fate of all of society rests on their shoulders and the decisions they make at this point. Of course they are sworn to intense secrecy following the great reveal.

The revelation was that the virus was not a textbook virus but something far more threatening and terrible. It came from a research lab in Wuhan. It might in fact be a bioweapon. This is why Xi had to do extreme things to protect his people. The US should do the same, they said, and there is a fix available too and it is being carefully guarded by the military.

It seems that the virus had already been mapped in order to make a vaccine to protect the population. Thanks to 20 years of research on mRNA platforms, they told him,  this vaccine can be rolled out in months, not years. That means that Trump can lock down and distribute vaccines to save everyone from the China virus, all in time for the election. Doing this would not only assure his reelection but guarantee that he would go down in history as one of the greatest US presidents of all time.

This meeting might only have lasted an hour or two – and might have included a parade of people with the highest-level security clearances – but it was enough to convince Trump. After all, he had battled China for two previous years, imposing tariffs and making all sorts of threats. It was easy to believe at that point that China might have initiated biological warfare as retaliation. That’s why he made the decision to use all the power of the presidency to push a lockdown under emergency rule.

To be sure, the Constitution does not allow him to override the discretion of the states but with the weight of the office complete with enough funding and persuasion, he could make it happen. And thus did he make the fateful decision that not only wrecked his presidency but the country too, imposing harms that will last a generation.

It only took a few weeks for Trump to become suspicious about what happened. For weeks and months, he toggled between believing that he was tricked and believing that he did the right thing. He had already approved another 30 days of lockdowns and even inveighed against Georgia and later Florida for opening. He went so far as to claim that no state could open without his approval.

For the purpose of creating conflict and confusion, some in the Fake News Media are saying that it is the Governors decision to open up the states, not that of the President of the United States & the Federal Government. Let it be fully understood that this is incorrect….

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) April 13, 2020

He did not fully change his mind until August, when Scott Atlas revealed the whole con to him.

There is another fascinating feature to this entirely plausible scenario. Even as Trump’s advisors were telling him that this could be a bioweapon leaked from the lab in China, we had Anthony Fauci and his cronies going to great lengths to deny it was a lab leak (even if they believed that it was). This created an interesting situation. The NIH and those surrounding Fauci were publicly insisting that the virus was of zoonotic origin, even as Trump’s circle was telling the president that it should be regarded as a bioweapon.

Fauci belonged to both camps, which suggests that Trump very likely knew of Fauci’s deception all along: the “noble lie” to protect the public from knowing the truth. Trump had to be fine with that.

Gradually following the lockdown edicts and the takeover by the Department of Homeland Security, in cooperation with a very hostile CDC, Trump lost power and influence over his own government, which is why his later Tweets urging a reopening fell on deaf ears. To top it off, the vaccine failed to arrive in time for the election. This is because Fauci himself delayed the rollout until after the election, claiming that the trials were not racially diverse enough. Thus Trump’s gambit completely failed, despite all the promises of those around him that it was a guaranteed way to win reelection.

To be sure, this scenario cannot be proven because the entire event – certainly the most dramatic political move in at least a generation and one with unspeakable costs for the country – remains cloaked in secrecy. Not even Senator Rand Paul can get the information he needs because it remains classified. If anyone thinks the Biden approval of releasing documents will show what we need, that person is naive. Still, the above scenario fits all available facts and it is confirmed by second-hand reports from inside the White House.

It’s enough for a great movie or a play of Shakespearean levels of tragedy. And to this day, none of the main players are speaking openly about it.

*

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

Jeffrey A. Tucker is Founder and President of the Brownstone Institute. He is also Senior Economics Columnist for Epoch Times, author of 10 books, including Liberty or Lockdown, and thousands of articles in the scholarly and popular press. He speaks widely on topics of economics, technology, social philosophy, and culture.

Featured image is from Brownstone Institute

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

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

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

***

 

Recent Georgian protests rejected foreign agents’ legislation proposals as undemocratic, but a closer look suggests ongoing western meddling according to the intelligence community’s infamous “color revolution” playbook.

Recent protests rocked Georgia’s capital Tbilisi against a duo of proposed foreign agents bills, which would have required groups and individuals with significant funding abroad to register as foreign agents. Although similar legislation is law in the United States and under consideration in the European Union, protestors decried the bills as exceptionally anti-democratic, obstructive to Georgian civil society, and even as pro-Russian.

While the Georgian government has withdrawn the bills under international pressure, western-backed groups behind the EU- and Ukraine-flag-studded protests have often emphasized the demonstrations are about a higher cause: Georgia’s Euro-Atlantic future. Opposition and Pro-European Droa Party spokesperson Giga Lemonjala, for example, said amidst the bills’ withdrawal that “[w]e are ready to go on with the protests because it’s…about Georgian European and Euro-Atlantic aspirations…Georgia should be a member of the European Union.”

The Georgian opposition has demanded Parliament’s resignation, calling for early elections. Although the protests have effectively dissipated, Tbilisi’s atmosphere remains uneasy, especially as NATO’s proxy war continues in nearby Ukraine.

From afar, the protests may appear organic; indeed, some likely attended to express legitimate grievances against their government, and many genuinely desire Georgia’s closer alignment with Europe. But the Georgian protests share a striking resemblance with what’s increasingly understood as the US Central Intelligence Agency’s (CIA) color revolution “playbook,” where apparently authentic, but actually western-concocted, popular movements drive policy and even regime change. In Georgia’s case, government legislative attempts at increased oversight on foreign influences in civil society were quickly met with mass resistance from western and western-influenced groups in Georgia and internationally, resulting in the foreign agent bills’ disposal.

In Tbilisi’s Protests, Western-Funded Groups Take Center Stage

Despite its frequent utilization, the color revolution tactic remains popular because it marries the intelligence community’s “soft-power” tactics, which largely allow their operations to continue un-scrutinized, with popular movements that may genuinely appear as the peoples’ will. While the operations often pose as the vanguard of “democracy,” or “human rights,” such efforts in fact damage or undermine the political independence of the states they target, barring them from sovereignty and dignity.

And although Georgia’s recent demonstrations have largely concluded sans regime change, they’ve emulated the apparently popular movements that kicked off previous western “color revolutions” including in their widespread western support, promotion, and funding. Despite their brevity, early March’s youth-heavy Georgian protests circulated heavily in mainstream media circles. And prominent western-aligned and funded human rights groups Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch both released statements against the Georgian bills, decrying them as anti-free speech and undemocratic.

Considering the demonstrations’ widespread western coverage, it’s unsurprising that groups supporting or otherwise promoting prominent Georgian protest sentiments share a common denominator: western, and especially American, funding. Among the most prominent funders is the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), a US backed-organization established as a CIA front group, which has financially supported many organizations operating in Georgia. For example, the Shame Movement, which describes itself on Twitter as a “voice of freedom fighters and democracy builders across Georgia,” received over $140,000 from the NED in 2021. The Shame Movement heavily promoted the protests as they struck Tbilisi in March, tweeting a myriad of protest photos and updates.

And Georgia-based media organizations promoting both the protests and a larger pro-European sentiment, such as Eurasianet and iFact, also receive significant western funds, with iFact receiving $50,121 from the NED in 2021. While fellow Georgian outlet Open Caucasus Media, or OC Media, claims to produce “fierce, independent journalism,” the donors’ blurb on their “Who We Are” page reveals significant assistance from western-aligned and foreign government entities, including the NED, George Soros’ Open Society Foundations, and the US, Czech and Swiss Embassies in Tbilisi.

Like previous color revolutions’ messaging, these western-backed media organizations repeatedly call for substantial governmental changes and even assistance from abroad. Responding to the protests, for example, OC Media’s editorial board emphasized the need for international intervention, positing that “[t]he Russian-style foreign agent law…could spell the beginning of the end for Georgia’s experiment with democracy. Only decisive action, in Georgia and from abroad, can prevent Georgia’s descent into authoritarianism.”

Helping mount pressure, further, employees at this myriad of western-backed institutions and media groups, such as members of the US-backed Atlantic Council’s Digital Forensic Research Lab and OC Media, were also especially vocal Georgian protest supporters on Twitter.

US officials also condemned Georgia’s foreign agent bills, emphasizing the protests in Georgia must go on undeterred. Tweets by United States Agency for International Development (USAID) Administrator Samantha Power, where Power proclaimed the new legislation “gravely threaten[ed] Georgia’s Euro-Atlantic future,” circulated as protests grew. And State Department Spokesperson Ned Price, who’s also suggested Georgia’s future was “Euro-Atlantic,” even hinted sanctions were possible if protests in Georgia were repressed.

How Georgia’s Recent Protests Mirror Previous Color Revolutions

The Georgian protests’ clear western influence is not unique. Rather, today’s Georgian protests share an uncanny resemblance with the start of other US-backed color revolutions, such as Kiev’s 2014 Euromaidan, a western-backed uprising which swapped a more neutral President Viktor Yanukovich for US-favored President Petro Poroshenko, and Georgia’s 2003 Rose Revolution, which also saw regime change.

While the mainstream media portrayed Ukraine’s Euromaidan as a popular uprising for political realignment towards Europe, evidence suggests Washington jumpstarted both the protests and Ukraine’s subsequent regime change through soft-power projects and mass funding efforts. The NED funded a whopping 65 projects in Ukraine at the time; the late journalist Robert Parry described this project cluster as a “shadow structure” that could influence Ukraine’s policy choices. According to ex-US Agent Scott Rickard, moreover, US foreign aid agencies gave about 5 billion USD to various groups at Euromaidan’s forefront.

Although the Georgian protests have not led to regime change, their impact and widespread media coverage can be at least partially attributed to the multitude of civil society and media groups operating in Georgia, which, like Ukraine’s dozens of NED-backed organizations in 2014, are flush with western cash.

And Georgia’s own 2003 Rose Revolution, which prompted the resignation of Eduard Shevardnadze and installed Western-favored Mikheil Saakashvili into Georgia’s presidency, elucidates foreign-propped NGOs’ long-term role in Georgian civil society and political affairs. In fact, western-backed NGOs’ influence on the Rose Revolution’s course of events is widely recognized in the mainstream: former Georgian Foreign Minister and current President Salomé Zourabichvili even wrote in French Geopolitical Magazine Herodote in 2008 that NGOs’ work to “carry” the Rose Revolution uprisings translated to their greater influence in government:

These institutions were the cradle of democratization, notably the Soros Foundation … all the NGOs which gravitate around the Soros Foundation undeniably carried the revolution. However, one cannot end one’s analysis with the revolution and one clearly sees that, afterwards, the Soros Foundation and the NGOs were integrated into power.

Just as western-backed media organizations played major roles in the recent Georgia protests, media groups including Ukraine’s Hromadske (funded by groups including the NED, USAID, and the US Embassy in Ukraine) and Georgia’s Rustavi 2 (borne in the 1990s from western assistance from groups like USAID-funded Internews, Rustavi 2 later received USAID funds and support[1]), proved critical to the Euromaidan and Rose Revolution’s respective successes because they helped create the perception of widespread support for the uprisings and their respective goals. The prominent role western-backed media groups played in the recent Georgia protests suggests the elite have taken Euromaidan- and Rose Revolution era media successes into account.

In the wake of Georgia’s western-backed protests, finally, Georgian Prime Minister Irakli Garibashvili’s comments that Georgia’s denied repeated requests from Kiev to open a “second front” in the ongoing NATO proxy conflict are remarkable. Noting the development, which suggests significant war-time pressure on Tbilisi, Kit Klarenberg writes in MintPress News that “[o]ne can only speculate whether [Georgia’s incumbent party] Georgian Dream specifically pursued the foreign agent law in order to prevent the NED-sponsored installation of a government more amenable to opening a “second front” and imposing sanctions on Russia.”

Conclusion

While the protests have dissipated since the foreign agents bills’ disposal, their forceful appearance in Georgia elucidates how US- and western-backed groups can quickly muster influence over ongoing events when sovereign states feign resistance to their efforts. In this case, Georgia’s attempts to maintain sovereignty through additional controls over foreign-backed groups failed due to widespread, western-facilitated outrage that took similar form to previous “color revolutions’” respective beginnings.

And even as demonstrations dissolve, some western politicians’ statements only take the reins of Georgia’s future westward while further stirring hostilities with Russia. German Green Party MEP Viola von Cramon, for example, recently declared that “The Georgian Government is determined to sabotage Georgia’s European path. Thankfully people of Georgia are not taking it. There is no way back to the Russian swamp.”

But not all are happy with the recent pro-European protests. Albeit receiving little news coverage, counter-protestors in Tbilisi burned the EU flag in front of Georgia’s parliament building in mid-March, and anti-western demonstrations stormed the Georgian capital in response to the recent debacle.

All eyes should be on Georgia in the weeks to come for further developments.

*

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

Source

Anable, David. “The Role of Georgia’s Media and Western Aid in the Rose Revolution.” The Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics 11, no.3 (2006): 7-43.

Featured image is from AME

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

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

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

The nature of the debate on U.S. China Relations, published by the Corbett Report and GRTV in November 2015

***

With reports emerging that China has signed on to Russia’s military coalition in Syria, at the same time that the Chinese are signing new cooperation agreements with the U.S., the question is once again being raised.

What is the nature of China-U.S. rivalry?

Today on the GRTV Feature Interview, Michel Chossudovsky talks about the forces in both countries that are manipulating this conflict and what it means for the prospects of future war.

Transcript

Even the most casual observers of the news will have noticed the increasingly bellicose military rhetoric and provocations emerging from both China and the U.S. over control of the Asia-Pacific.

CLIP: “China’s Defense Ministry Spokesman Yung Yujun, said today that some countries were ‘making tensions in the Asia-Pacific worse.’”

CLIP: “The United States confirmed that it flew two B-52 bombers over China’s newly established Air Defense Zone as well as the disputed Diaoyu Islands.”

CLIP: “China has sent fighter jets to it’s newly declared air zone in the East China Sea. Beijing says the jets flew into the Air Defense Identification Zone to strengthen monitoring on targets in the area.”

But behind this conflict is another narrative. One of cooperation, agreements, political coordination and business arrangements that have created a close tie between China and the U.S.

CLIP: “A commitment to cooperation. General Fan Changlong, the Vice Chairman of China’s Military Commission and American General Raymond Odierno oversee the signing of an army-to-army agreement on Friday. The deal they say will help improve coordination on a number of issues like humanitarian relief, disaster response and the fight against terrorism.

CLIP: “Military-to-military exchanges between the two sides have seen some progress in the past year as the two sides committed to a new model of military relations.

CLIP: “This is the second time the trilateral exercise has taken place. This year, involving 30 soldiers and marines working closely together in the hot and dry Northern Territory wild. The 30 military personnel include 10 from the Australian Army, 10 from the Chinese People’s Liberation Army, 5 from the U.S. Army and 5 from the U.S. Marine Corp.”

What is the truth behind this story of conflict and cooperation? Is this a genuine rivalry, a smoke-screen being used to distract the public or a little bit of both?

Michel Chossudovsky of the Centre for Research on Globalisation explains.

MICHEL CHOSSUDOVSKY: China is in some regards an industrial colony, I use that quote en-quote, but at the same time it is an upcoming power on the global stage. I should mention that that emerged also in the wake of the Cold War, where China’s alignments vis-a-vis the Russian Federation had changed dramatically to what they were during the Cold War era. In the late 90’s particularly in the wake of Deng Shaoping and the change of government in the Russian Federation. In other words when Vladimir Putin became President there we have consolidation of an alliance between the Russian Federation and the People’s Republic of China and the development of the Shanghai Cooperation Agreement and so forth.

Another very important dimension, in the late 90’s ironically just after Deng Shaoping passed there’s an increased confrontation in the Taiwan straits. Of course there was always confrontation in the Taiwan straits but then it was at that point that China developed it’s military cooperation agreements with Russia and started to build-up naval facilities in the South China Sea to counteract U.S. threats and then of course we had a very major shift in geo-political relations. I would say as of the late 90’s early 200’s, early 21st century. Which is increasingly towards confrontation between China and the United States but I should qualify that because when you go to China you have a very pro-American intelligentsia. The people’s in the universities and so on, the School of Journalism at Xinhua University is supported by Bloomberg, people at the Academy of Social Sciences are very much tied into Western values so on and so forth.

So that in fact I would say that the leadership is profoundly and very much divided. America is very much visible. Western capitalism is very visible throughout China but at the same time it’s more at the political and geo-political level that there’s confrontation. And I think that the Chinese say ‘Well we’re a capitalist economy in our own right, we’re not going to be a subordinate colony of the West’, but if you look at the actual mechanics of foreign trade they still are, because they’re producing commodities for the world market and they are sort of feeding the non-productive structures of Western capitalism.

If we go back in history I would say that the West in a sense facilitated regime change in China. There’s no question about. It’s difficult to research but Henry Kissinger in 1972, then the Gang of Four and so on, there was a transition towards reintegration into Western capitalism. That transition was implemented by a dominant clique within the Communist Party.

Now that clique is still there, there’s no question about it but there are other ares of Chinese society which are firmly anti-American and certainly within the military. (Within) the People’s Army the situation is dramatically different and at the same time there’s a rather a destructive shift in U.S. foreign policy. Which is I think really motivated by the realignment of China with Russia under the Shanghai Cooperation Agreement and what they want to do is essentially break that alliance. That alliance is in a sense is quite fragile because the United States and Western countries, let’s say Western capitalism but also Japanese capitalism, are fairly well entrenched into the fabric of the banking system in China.

HILLARY CLINTON: “That the United States in uniquely positioned to play a leading role in the Asia-Pacific because of our history, our capability and our credibility. People look to us as they have for decades. The most common thing that Asian leaders have said to me, in my travels over this last 20 months, is ‘thank you, we’re so glad that you’re playing an active role in Asia again’, because they look to us to create the conditions for broad, sustained economic growth and to ensure security by effectively deploying our military.”

CLIP: “The move to create a permanent U.S. military presence in Australia is a show of solidarity and force. When the President said America now has…

OBAMA: …the presence that necessary to maintain the security architecture in the region.

REPORTER: What he means is an American troop presence in Japan, South Korea, the Philippines and soon 2,500 marines and potentially dozens of U.S. Airforce aircraft in Australia, to serve as a counter-weight to China.”

CLIP: OBAMA: “We are here to stay. This is a region of huge strategic importance to us.”

CHOSSUDOVSKY: “Well I think that really if you look at the U.S. standpoint which is one of world-domination. There’s a military agenda, there’s an economic agenda of dominating the world and they’ve succeeded in dominating a large part of the world where they have their own puppet-regimes, proxy-regimes all over, which essentially obey orders and accept the consensus that the United States and it’s allies are the dominate powers in the world.

Now, the Chinese will not do that. That’s very, very clear. They won’t do that. They’re doing it in the way I’ve described, through joint-ventures and this that and the other but they’re not going to accept a U.S. hegemonic project in Asia and the Far East. People who know Chinese history will realise it’s called the Middle Kingdom, it’s establishes it’s boundaries within certain realms and they will not accept any kind of territorial encroachment.

Now you’re not going to conquer this country in any way and the question I think (is) U.S. policy makers want to subdue China. Perhaps they’re not doing it the right way. They’ll never be able to encroach on their territory the same way encroach on the territory of Iraq or Syria.

Having said that, let’s bear in mind that there are dirty tricks on the part of the U.S. in supporting insurgencies. Of course in Tibet it’s well understood, they’re supporting a separatist insurgency but they’re also supporting insurgencies in the Western provinces (of China) at Xinjiang province and (the) Uyghur autonomous region where you have a large Muslim population and there, what are they doing? They’re supporting Al-Qaeda affiliated organisations which are essentially under the helm of the C.I.A. creating terrorist events.

So, there is that kind of inroad and there has been for a very long time there has been a plan on the drawing board to fragment China. Too cut China into different Republics so-to-speak. Particularly South China, North China, Tibet and the Western provinces. So that option has been there and that option is very similar to what they’ve been trying to do in the Middle East but they’re dealing with a different polity, social reality and a misunderstanding of Chinese history going back to the Ming Dynasty.

So there we are that is the ground work, is that now what is at stake is to essentially curb the Chinese tiger so-to-speak. The Chinese economy has served the Western market economy for the last 30 or more years since the early 80’s and now what Western leaders want to do is to ensure that that tiger does not become and exceed to the status of a global capitalist entity which would challenge the hegemony of the United States and Western Europe. The thing is of course from a military stand point China is a nuclear power, it has a very advanced weapons system and it has been developing that weapons system very carefully together with it’s Russian ally and that I think is another dimension of this discussion and debate. If there is a confrontation with either Russia or China we’re in a very dangerous situation. This could lead to World War.

At this stage with regard to China I don’t think that this is likely to happen it’s much more focussed on Russia at this particular point but the threats directed at China in the South China Sea I think are intended to weaken China’s relationship to Russia but in fact as you pointed out that may in fact do exactly the opposite. It will reinforce the military alliance between Russia and China.”

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons 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 InfoBrics

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

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

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

***

During the armed conflict in Ukraine in 2022, Kiev lost, and Moscow gained, a significant part of the south of the country. The largest oblast in this region of Ukraine is Zaporizhzhia. Today Russia controls about 80% of the region’s territory, including more than 90% of the agricultural land.

On March 12, 2022, a civil-military administration was created in the occupied territories of Zaporizhzhia region. In September 2022, an overwhelming majority of the region’s residents voted to join Russia in a referendum. On September 30, an agreement was signed, as a result of which the region joined the Russian Federation.

Obviously, neither Kiev, nor its Western allies, recognized the result of the referendum. They declared that the referendum was illegitimate, and that the votes of the region’s residents had been fabricated. However, Kiev could not clearly explain why the inhabitants of this region had welcomed the Russians with open arms. Towns were taken over by the Russian military without any fighting, there were no mass demonstrations by residents, and on the contrary, former citizens of Ukraine began to acquire Russian citizenship en masse. This was radically different from what was happening, for example, in another Russian-speaking region of eastern Ukraine, the Kharkov region.

The answer lies in the manner in which the Kiev regime had governed this Russian-speaking area over the past decade.

In the late Soviet period, the Zaporizhzhia region was one of Ukraine’s leading agrarian and industrial zone, with industry concentrated in the regional center, the city of Zaporizhzhia and several other towns. The rest of the region was a typical agrarian area.

The main goal of the corrupt Ukrainian authorities was to get rid of inhabitants of the rural part of the region, consolidate large volumes of highly fertile and irrigated agricultural land, and then sell or lease it to Western corporations, either directly or through Ukrainian oligarchs.

The same went for the industrial complex. Most of the largest enterprises owned by the Ukrainian state were systematically driven into bankruptcy, and sold for peanuts, with companies backed by Anglo-Saxon capital as the ultimate beneficiaries.

Following this goal, Kiev has made every possible effort to reduce the cost of fertile agricultural land in the region. In 2021, the price of a hectare of irrigated arable land in the Zaporizhzhia region was less than 800 USD.

Since the beginning of the Russian military operation in Ukraine, the price decreased up to 600 USD but already in winter 2022-2023 it grew up to about 1,000 USD, i.e. on average more than before the outbreak of hostilities. Today, on the eve of the Ukrainian offensive, it again fell to 800 USD.

In neighboring Poland, a hectare of arable land costs about $10 thousand. In Romania, it is about $6 thousand per hectare. In neighboring regions of Russia (Rostov Region, Krasnodar Krai) the cost of arable land now ranges from $5 to $10 thousand. It is important to emphasize that this is the value of irrigated arable land, and not hayfields, or other categories of agricultural land.

Kiev achieved the desired result by lowering the level of social welfare of the inhabitants of the region, ruining infrastructure, while blocking access of products of medium and small farms to the mass market, etc.

Over the past decade (before the beginning of the Russian military operation in Ukraine), the population of many small towns and villages in Zaporizhzhia region decreased by two or more times.

By 2020, there was a significant drop in the number of people employed in small and medium-sized businesses in agriculture, fisheries and forestry. In the entire Zaporizhzhia region, out of more than 380,000 rural inhabitants, 30,100 people – less than 10% – were employed in agriculture.

According to official Ukrainian statistics, from 2000 to 2020, the total population of the Zaporizhzhia region decreased by 300,000 people. Other unofficial sources claimed that in fact the population decreased by about 500,000, mainly due to the departure of inhabitants of the countryside.

The new owners began using unmanned harvesters and tractors, instead of local labor. It was much more expensive to maintain these machines than hire the locals, but it wasn’t about money. It was about politics.

One of the explicit examples of the Western-Kiev strategy, which was designed to consolidate large tracts of land to facilitate their sale to Western corporations, was the operation of the Agroprosperis. This was one of the largest agricultural holdings in Ukraine in 2020, with a land bank of 300 thousand hectares. The beneficiaries of this agrarian giant are the US citizens, and owners of the NCH investment fund, George Rohr and Maurice Tabasinik.

In the same year, the Americans intensified their financial and credit activity through their Agroprosperis Bank. It began to provide financing secured by agrarian receipts, thereby providing Ukrainian farmers with access to fast, but expensive, money. The true goal of this programme was to burden small and medium-sized farmers with debt, and drive them to bankruptcy. The end goal was to buy up their agricultural products and land at a price well below market value.

This is very similar to the way global financiers are squeezing small and medium-sized farmers in the southern U.S. states.

In the industrial sector, there is the example of the large petrochemical complex, AZMOL. This was of great strategic importance, since it was the only enterprise certified to supply lubricating oils to the Ukrainian military.

In the late 1980s and early 1990s, the plant employed more than 2,000 people. Since the late 1990s, the plant has belonged to the Ukrainian state corporation, Naftogaz Ukrainy. Ukrainian businessmen could not ignore such a potentially lucrative titbit. By 2013, the plant’s operations had been effectively paralyzed, which led to the inevitable bankruptcy and a subsequent buyout by a “private investor”. By early February 2014, the number of workers had been reduced to 350. On July 23, 2016, much of the plant, including its buildings and structures, fixed assets, stocks, vehicles and intellectual property, including the trademark “Azmol”, were sold to a company called “Ultra Oil”, for $3.8 million.

The complex received a new name – AZMOL British Petrochemicals… Three months after the change of its ownership, the plant received investment from the British company, Global Lubricants, and immediately resumed production. In September 2017, batches of lubricating oils began to be exported. The cover story was that an allegedly ruined and unprofitable business had been salvaged by the sheer brilliance of its British benefactors. Incidentally, the key jobs at the plant were given to natives of other regions of Ukraine.

It is precisely because of these and other similar actions that most inhabitants have welcomed the Russians as saviors.

At the end of 2021, the only personal owner of AZMOL was a British citizen, Dicken Terence William who owned 24% of the company’s shares.

Today this plant is under external management in the form of a public-private partnership. The plant is working now, and profit is going to the social welfare needs of the region’s population and renewal of fixed assets of the plant, rather than faceless foreign oligarchs. Workers’ wages increased two to three times.

The new authorities of the region are faced with the heritage left by the Kiev regime. They have to deal not so much with military risks, but with ruined agriculture, and a poverty-stricken population banned by Kiev from being able to make a decent living on their lands.

The Russian administration has relied on the support of medium- and small-sized farms and enterprises, which have received agricultural subsidies and assistance in selling their products at market prices, also by including their products in the grain deal.

The grain deal was recently extended by 60 days instead of 120. The part of the grain deal was precisely the condition to remove barriers for Russian agricultural products on world markets, but so far, this has not happening.

At the same time, the situation is complicated by the EU, US and British sanctions. In particular, the Russian company State Grain Operator, which operates in the Zaporizhzhia region and is engaged in the export of grain and support to local farmers, fell under the sanctions. However, these measures have not led to the desired result but only forced local authorities to look for non-standard methods of selling regional products, relying on direct bilateral communication with potential buyers. For example, in the Zaporizhzhia region an International Information Center for the development of economic and social initiatives is being created. The memorandum was signed by the Ministry of Economic Development of the Zaporizhzhia region, the Ministry of Agricultural and Food Policy of the Zaporizhzhia region and the “Southern headquarters of the International Academy of Informatization” which has consultative status of the category 1 under the UN Economic and Social Council. This center is aimed at helping local businesses to participate in international exhibitions, and establish direct ties with potential partners. Businessmen from the Balkan region have already joined the activities of this center through the Russian-Serbian Scientific Society.

The current goal of the authorities of the Zaporizhzhia region is to return production in the agricultural sector to the level of 2020. In the case of success, the price of arable land should increase by at least 30%, by the autumn 2023.

Today, many international investors from different countries are eyeing the region. They understand that now the local assets are greatly undervalued, and that there is a window of opportunity when the invested funds can bring super profits even in the short term. This can be achieved through creative investments, but not through asset stripping, and the bankruptcies of enterprises, in typical Anglo-Saxon style.

At the moment, the threat of the upcoming Ukrainian offensive is a key factor for investors, both foreign and Russian. Its success or failure will determine everything. Sanctions no longer scare anyone. However, if the Kiev regime and NATO succeed in reaching the Sea of Azov, the region and its population will be doomed to the role of being a new colony of the West, with all the ensuing consequences. In this case, the world food market is unlikely to see products from the Zaporizhia region. All the product flows will be redirected to the countries of the “golden billion”. If Moscow succeeds in maintaining its military positions, then the region is destined for rapid economic growth. The next two months will determine the fate of the south of Ukraine, and the world order as a whole.

*

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

All images in this article are from SF

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

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

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

***

On the International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination 2023, the Community Coalition Against Racism (Hamilton) wishes to denounce the actions both by the government and the media to whip up Sinophobia and distrust of all things Chinese in this country.

The campaign to demonize the People Republic of China about alleged interference in Canadian elections and to cast suspicion on Chinese-Canadian politicians is based on unsubstantiated reports, un-named officials, selected CSIS leaks, and innuendo about anything Chinese, including innocuous social media platforms such as TikTok.

It’s also based on inappropriate visits by CSIS agents with elected Canadian officials at all three levels of government.

But the result of this anti-Chinese “witch-hunt” (so termed by veteran journalist, Chantal Hébert) will be very real: Chinese-Canadian careers will be ruined, Chinese companies such as Huawei will suffer, Chinese-Canadians will try to keep low public profiles and will be removed to the margins of society as they were during the infamous days of the Chinese Exclusion Act, and there will be a commensurate rise in hate crimes against, and racist attacks upon, people across Canada who appear to be of Asian descent.

Canadians are being played by security and intelligence elements in the federal government which are following the lead of the Five Eyes intelligence network, composed of five countries (USA, UK, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand) all of which have several things in common: they are predominantly white, Anglo-Saxon, Protestant, and English-speaking. The Five Eyes is a tool of the USA to contain the People’s Republic of China and, if necessary, wage war against it over Taiwan. The campaign to blame China for meddling in Canadian elections is intended to manufacture consent among the Canadian people for such a war.

The Chinese government outrightly denies the charges of meddling.

But can Canada do the same? Recently, the government of Canada was one of four countries which named the new president of Haiti. Canada has interfered in Haiti since 2004 when it joined the USA and France in overthrowing Jean-Bertrand Aristide, the first democratically-elected president in Haiti’s history.

PM Trudeau and his Global Affairs minister of the time, Chrystia Freeland, meddled in the electoral process of Venezuela several years ago, establishing the Lima Group, to try to overturn the election results in that country in favour of the pretender, Juan Guaido. The Trudeau government also meddled recently in the coups that overthrew President Evo Morales of Bolivia (though the junta in turn was defeated in an election) and President Pedro Castillo of Peru.

People in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones. Why is there no recollection of the blatant political interference in Canada’s federal election of 1962 & 63 by US President Kennedy against PM Diefenbaker over the issues of nuclear-tipped Bomarc missiles, among other issues?

Canadians should reject the campaign of demonizing Chinese. We’ve been through this once before with the infamous Head Tax on Chinese.

On this day, we should stand together with Chinese-Canadians as well as Canadians of all national origins and tell the Trudeau government: “Your investigation is mis-directed. What you should be investigating is not misbehaviour on the part of China, but rather misbehaviour on the part of CSIS!”

*

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

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

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

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

***

Jessica Lynn Sutta (born May 15, 1982), is a 40 year old American singer, dancer, and actress. She is best known as a former member of the American girl group the Pussycat Dolls.

She recently did an interview with Epoch Times about her Moderna COVID-19 mRNA vaccine injury – full interview can be found here:

*

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

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

Featured image is a screenshot from the video

---

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

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

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

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

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

***

From Friday, March 24, Romanian Senator Diana Iovanovici Sosoaca found herself “targeted” on the pages of the infamous Ukrainian portal “Mirotvorets”. On this Ukrainian “open source death list” the names of people appear, some of whom perish under “unclear circumstances” The last one killed was Darya Dugin!

Diana Iovanovici-Sosoaca is a politician from Bucharest, (whose recent interview for “Pečat” was broadcast in all languages of the world since she also talked about the hypothetical possibility that the earthquakes in Turkey and Syria were caused artificially), found herself in the crosshairs after her proposal in the Romanian Senate which stipulates that

“Bucharest is discussing the annexation of former Romanian territories occupied by present-day Moldova and Ukraine according to the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact (1939)”.

According to Article 3 of the draft law of Diana Sosoaca, “Romania would annex the historical territories it had in its possession, i.e. North Bukovina, the region of Herta, Bugeac (Kahul, Bolgrad, Izmail), historical Maramures and Snake Island” – a territory inhabited by a million people.

The law proposed by the Romanian Senator appeared a few days after the Polish ambassador to France, Emerik Roszczyszewski, clearly said on LCI television that “if Kiev fails to “defend independence” on the battlefield, then the Polish army will have to become a direct participant in the conflict with Russia .

It is no secret that there are territorial claims of Poland towards parts of Ukraine, which the Warsaw ambassador only repeated. Last year, the “Change” platform presented an appeal to President Andrzej Duda, calling for an “early national referendum on reunification with the historical Polish territories of Eastern Kresy, Galicia and Lviv”. At the same time, there were announcements about the training of Polish military personnel to manage Galicia…

But what is allowed to “Jupiter from Warsaw” is not allowed from Bucharest – that is exactly what the creepy portal from Kiev signals.

“Peacemaker” accuses Diana Sosoaca of “infringing on the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine. Sputnik declared her “Politician of the Year 2021 in Romania”.

Also, in March 2022, amid the Russian invasion of Ukraine, Sosoaca, along with more 3 parliamentarians, met with the Russian ambassador in Bucharest “on the subject of the memorandum regarding the Bucharest Peace”, discussing “Romania’s position on neutrality” during the invasion, without approval for the presentation by the leadership of the Parliament”.

In a further announcement, the Ukrainian “bloody” Center for Peace asks law enforcement agencies to consider this publication on the website as a statement about the commission by this citizen (Diana Sosoaca) of deliberate acts against the national security of Ukraine, peace, the security of mankind and international law and order, as well as other offenses.

Exclusively for “Pečat”, Diana Iovanović says that she does not blame “Peacemaker” for including her in the company of Elon Musk, Roger Waters, American politician Tulsi Gabbard, journalist Tucker Carlson and others, but she also adds:

”The recordings of “liquidated persons” on the Mirotvorets website who were once on the list of the accused of publicly supporting Russia are really not pleasant”.

If Ukraine is allowed to threaten the politicians of the Romanian state and interfere in Romanian politics, “tomorrow Kiev will decide who will be prosecuted, who is allowed to run for office or not and how Romania should be governed, unless this is not happening already”

The senator pointed out that now Bucharest has the opportunity to show whether it still exists as a sovereign state and to take a stand against Ukraine, or to confirm that overnight it became a vassal of Ukraine and a colony of Kiev.

The inclusion of a Romanian parliamentarian on the list of assassinations against Ukraine shows that this country knows no bounds in hiding the truth.

Diana Iovanovici-Sosoaca also said that such threats from the state of Ukraine show that Romania is supporting a criminal state with its money and asked the Government to immediately review its relationship with Kiev as a result of Kiev’s terrorist threat to a political leader from Romania.

Otherwise, the Mirotvorets platform is anything but “a game of non-governmental organized justice-loving citizens”.

American billionaire Elon Musk, when he was on the list in October 2022, immediately expressed concern for his safety. His name was added to the list of “enemies of Ukraine” after the announcement that free use of “Starlink” services would be canceled for Ukraine.

Russian journalist Daria Dugina, who was killed on August 20, 2022, was also on the death list. Her profile on Mirotvorets is now marked as “liquidated”.

Her father, the philosopher Alexander Dugin, is also one of the “enemies of Ukraine”.

Officially, (for Brussels and Washington), “Peacemaker” is an independent Ukrainian database with the names of people that anonymous moderators consider to be a threat to the national security of Ukraine. The site itself denies that it is a “kill list”. Instead, Peacemaker claims to be a purported source of information for law enforcement agencies and special services to fight “pro-Russian terrorists, separatists and war criminals.

The site is believed to be linked to Ukraine’s Ministry of Internal Affairs. Peacemaker gained notoriety in 2015 when writer and historian Oles Busina and politician Oleg Kalashnikov were killed in Ukraine after their personal information appeared on the site.

In 2016, EU officials and journalist groups condemned Mirotvorets for leaking data on more than 4,000 media representatives.

As Rolling Stone wrote in the case of threats against Roger Waters, the leader of the cult band Pink Floyd, the “list” with Waters’ data, in addition to publishing graphic photos of dead Russian soldiers, contains about 187,000 names of people who are criticising the Ukrainian government. Their home addresses, phone numbers and contact information are listed on the website.

Meanwhile, Newsweek, in an attempt to identify and verify the Ukrainian website, suggested that it is independently operated, but at the same time left open the question of whether it has direct ties to the Ukrainian government.

As noted by various media about Peacemaker, it is a non-governmental organization that maintains an open-source database of persons it considers to have promoted anti-Ukrainian narratives or acted to destabilize Ukrainian national security. Since the beginning of the war, he has also taken care of the fallen Russian soldiers and agents on his territory.

It was founded by Ukrainian politician and activist Georgy Tuka. He is also closely associated with politician Anton Gerashchenko, who The Times of London cited in a recent interview as a co-founder of the project.

The Mirotvorets list has no official status in Ukraine, although Al Jazeera, citing the human rights group Uspisna Varta, reported that it was used as evidence in more than 100 court cases against those suspected of involvement in pro-Russian paramilitary groups.

This site remained open despite requests of the UN, G7 ambassadors, the EU and human rights groups to shut it down.

*

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

Sources

(1) https://myrotvorets.center/criminal/shoshoake-diana-jovanovich/?fbclid=IwAR0XD5rDcCi6_GyNazFL9fZTjyCd93rLz-uolDO9xAQEQaPOB_X6ozdTLc8

(2) https://lat.rt.rs/news/1907-ilon-mask-starlink-mirotvorac

Featured image is from George Calln/Inquam photo

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

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

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

***

Dr. Reiner Fuellmich on International Crimes Investigative Committee talks about the World Health Organization’s attempt to take over national sovereignties with James Roguski, an outspoken activist; Prof. Michel Chossudovsky, professor emeritus of Economics; and Matthew Ehret, journalist and writer.

*

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

***

Mark Petrakis shared an Ayn Rand quote on Facebook today that left me thinking for hours, especially as I watched the spreading waves left behind by the collapse of Silicon Valley Bank. The quote describes how you can tell when your society is doomed.

I certainly read the orchestrated bank crisis that will unfold after Silicon Valley Bank as a sign that the parasite class has decided that opposition to their rule has reached an unacceptable level and that the final card of their hand must be played earlier than expected: destruction of money and the end of all financial interactions. In a sense SVB is the equivalent of Wuhan in December 2019, only this time the virus has infected money itself.

See my cartoon from three years for a taste of what is in store for us.

You will note that “banks bankrupt” is the final card here (although obviously all the others are being played to some degree or another already).

Here is the quote from Ayn Rand:

“When you notice that in order to produce you need to get permission from those who do not produce anything;

When you observe that money flows to those who do not deal in goods, but in favors;

When you realize that many become rich through bribery and through influence, and not through their work, that the laws do not protect you from the powerful, but, on the contrary, that laws are used to protect the powerful from you;

When you discover that corruption is rewarded and that honesty is an act of self-sacrifice, then you can assert, without any fear of being wrong, that your society is doomed.”

Alissa Zinovievna (Ayn Rand)

I agree with Mark that whatever criticisms of Ayn Rand there may be floating around out there, this quote seems to be right on the money, right at this time. I am agnostic concerning the origins of quotes. As Frederick Douglass said famously, he learned the most about freedom from Thomas Jefferson, a notorious slave owner. I second that opinion.

But what do we do? How do you stop the collapse of a civilization? I fear the gangrene has simply gone too deep. There are solutions, but no one wants to contemplate them.

Yet, this question of what to do keeps following me around as I look for a way to stop this drive for world war at any cost. Clearly creating a military economy is the only way to save the parasites at this point.

One could imagine a conversation like this:

“We need to end this drive for war, this destruction of the environment, and this evisceration of the economy!”

“Yeah, you and what army?”

This joke here, in light of the situation that Rand describes, is no joke. If there are many, well organized, who are willing to kill in order to protect their assets (which is clearly true) then the only way to stop them is to form your own army, or to get an army, that can oppose them. Quoting the constitution and speaking the truth is not going to be enough.

Yet an army, by its very nature, feeds into the dangerous spiral of death and destruction that we face.

I do not have a solution to offer today, but only want to point out just how serious the current situation has become at every single level.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons 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” 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 Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

 

In April 2002, Tony Blair, the British prime minister, visited US President George W. Bush at his ranch in Crawford, Texas.

The weekend meeting has long been identified as a key moment in the buildup to the US-led invasion of Iraq in March 2003, but details of what was discussed between the pair have remained a matter of speculation.

Middle East Eye has seen a copy of a secret memo about the meeting written by David Manning, Blair’s chief foreign policy adviser, who accompanied him to Crawford.

It was sent to Simon McDonald, principal private secretary to foreign secretary Jack Straw, and shared with five other senior British officials: Jonathan Powell, Blair’s chief of staff; Mike Boyce, chief of defence staff; Peter Watkins, principal private secretary to defence secretary Geoff Hoon; Christopher Meyer, UK ambassador to the US; and Michael Jay, permanent secretary at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

The text of that memo is published below for the first time.

Subject: Prime Minister’s visit to the US April 5 – 7 2002.

Sent: April 8, 2002

From: David Manning

To: Simon McDonald

CC’d: Jonathan Powell, Sir Mike Boyce, Peter Watkins, Christopher Meyer, Sir Michael Jay

The Prime Minister and Mrs Blair were the guests of President and Mrs Bush at Crawford, Texas, from April 5 – 7.

Much of the [Blair-Bush] discussions were tete a tete. However, Jonathan Powell and I joined the President and the PM at Crawford ranch for informal talks on the morning of Saturday April 6.

Condi Rice [Bush’s national security advisor] and Andy Card [Bush’s chief of staff] accompanied Bush.

Among the issues discussed was Iraq and other topics separately.

This letter is exceptionally sensitive and the PM instructed it should be very tightly held, it should be shown only to those with a real need to know and no further copies should be made.

Bush said he and the PM had discussed Iraq on their own over dinner the previous evening.

At present Centcom had no war plan as such. Thinking ahead so far was on a broad and central level, though a very small Centcom cell had recently been established in conditions of great secrecy to look at the detailed military planning.

Condi Rice said 99 per cent of Centcom were unaware of this.

When it had done more work Bush would be ready to agree to UK and US planners sitting down together to examine the options. He wanted us to work through the issues together. Whatever plan emerged we had to ensure victory. We could not afford to fail.

But it would be essential to ensure that acting against Saddam enhanced rather than diminished regional stability. He had therefore reassured the Turks that there was no question of the break-up of Iraq and the emergence of a Kurdish state.

But there were nevertheless a number of imponderables.

He didn’t know who would take Saddam’s place if and when we toppled him.

But he didn’t much care. He was working on the assumption that anyone would be an improvement.

Nevertheless Bush accepted we needed to manage the PR aspect of all this with great care.

He accepted we needed to put Saddam on the spot over the UN inspectors, we should tell him that we wanted proof of his claim that he was not developing WMDs. This could only be forthcoming if UN inspectors were allowed in on the basis that they could go anywhere inside Iraq at any time.

Bush added that Saddam could not be allowed to have any say over the nationality or composition of the inspection team.

He said the timing of any action against Saddam would be very important. He would not want to launch any operation before the US Congressional elections in the autumn. Otherwise he would be accused of warmongering for electoral benefit.

In effect this meant there was a window of opportunity between the beginning of November and the end of February.

‘Although we may not decide to do it this year at all.’

The PM said no one could doubt the world would be a better place if there were regime change in Iraq. But in going down the inspectors route, we would have to give careful thought to how we framed the ultimatum to Saddam to allow them to do their job.

Saddam would very probably try to obstruct the inspectors and play for time. This was why it was so important we insisted they must be allowed in at any time and be free to visit any place or installation.

The PM said we needed an accompanying PR strategy that highlighted the risks of Saddam’s WMD programme and his appalling human rights record. Bush strongly agreed.

The PM said this approach would be important in managing European public opinion and in helping the President construct an international coalition.

The PM would emphasise to European partners that Saddam was being given an opportunity to co-operate.

If, as he expected, Saddam failed to do so, the Europeans would find it very much harder to resist the logic that we must take action to deal with an evil regime that threatens us with its WMD programme.

We would still face the question of why we had decided to act now, what had changed?

The answer had to be that we must think ahead, this was one of the lessons of 9/11: failure to take action in good time meant the risks would only grow and might force us to take much more costly action later.

The President agreed with Mr Blair’s line of argument.

It was also Bush’s view, though he would not be saying this publicly, that if a moderate secular regime succeeded Saddam in Iraq this would have a favourable impact on the region particularly on Saudi Arabia and Iraq.

Comment:

The PM later commented to me privately that he had spoken again to Bush about the issue of UN inspectors. Bush had acknowledged that there was just a possibility that Saddam would allow them in and go about their own business. If that happened we would have to adjust our approach accordingly.

Meanwhile it was worth ramping up the pressure on Saddam and making it plain that if he didn’t accept the inspectors we reserved the right to go in and deal with him.

The PM also told me that Bush had been clear that he wanted to build a broad coalition for his Iraq policy. This had apparently persuaded him to dismiss those on the American Right who were arguing there was no need and no point in bothering with UN inspectors.

George Bush senior may have been influential on this point. Bush told the PM separately that the US must construct a coalition for dealing with Iraq whatever ‘Right wing kooks’ might be saying.

It is clear from these exchanges that military planning is not yet advanced very far. Only when more progress is made will Bush be ready to allow our own planners to discuss the options with Centcom. It also seems clear that Bush has still not finally decided that military action will be feasible at the end of this year, even if he has provisionally earmarked the November-February period for a possible campaign.

*

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

Featured image is from EFE

---

The Globalization of War: America’s “Long War” against Humanity

Michel Chossudovsky

The “globalization of war” is a hegemonic project. Major military and covert intelligence operations are being undertaken simultaneously in the Middle East, Eastern Europe, sub-Saharan Africa, Central Asia and the Far East. The U.S. military agenda combines both major theater operations as well as covert actions geared towards destabilizing sovereign states.

ISBN Number: 978-0-9879389-0-9

Year: 2015

Pages: 240 Pages

Price: $9.40

Click here to order.

The following “Secret Personal Memo was sent to Prime minister Tony Blair by British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw. The Memo is dated Mar. 25, 2002, prior to Blair’s visit to Crawford Texas to meet President Bush..

This memo is of crucial importance because it points to the key role of 9/11 as a pretext for waging war on Iraq.

If 11 September had not happened, it is doubtful that the US would now be considering military action against Iraq.

In addition, there has been no credible evidence to link Iraq with UBL [Usama bin Laden] and Al Qaida. Objectively, the threat from Iraq has not worsened as a result of 11 September. What has however changed is the tolerance of the international community (especially that of the US), the world having witnesses on September 11 just what determined evil people can these days perpetuate.

This document is transcribed from the PDF copy leaked to the British press. To read in the original pdf format click here

(Comments, and Notes, The Raw Story, June 2005)

 

SECRET AND PERSONAL / PM/02/019 /PRIME MINISTER

CRAWFORD/IRAQ

1 The rewards from your visit to Crawford will be few. The risks are high, both for you and for the Government. I judge that there is at present no majority inside the PLP for any military action against Iraq, (alongside a greater readiness in the PLP to surface their concerns). Colleagues know that Saddam and the Iraqi regime are bad. Making that case is easy. But we have a long way to go to convince them as to:

(a) the scale of the threat from Iraq and why this has got worse recently;

(b) what distinguishes the Iraqi threat from that eg Iran and North Korea so as to justify military action;

(c) the justification for any military action in terms of international law; and

(d) whether the consequence of military action really would be a compliant, law abiding replacement government.

2 The whole exercise is made much more difficult to handle as long as conflict between Israel and the Palestinians is so acute.

THE SCALE OF THE THREAT

3 The Iraqi regime plainly poses a most serious threat to its neighbours, and therefore to international security. However, in the documents so far presented it has been hard to glean whether the threat from Iraq is so significantly

SECRET AND PERSONAL

(Page Two)

SECRET AND PERSONAL

different from that of Iran and North Korea as to justify military action (see below).

WHAT IS WORSE NOW?

4 If 11 September had not happened, it is doubtful that the US would now be considering military action against Iraq. In addition, there has been no credible evidence to link Iraq with UBL and Al Qaida. Objectively, the threat from Iraq has not worsened as a result of 11 September. What has however changed is the tolerance of the international community (especially that of the US), the world having witnesses on September 11 just what determined evil people can these days perpetuate.

THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN IRAQ, IRAN AND NORTH KOREA

5 By linking these countries together in this “axis of evil” speech, President Bush implied an identity between them not only in terms of their threat, but also in terms of the action necessary to deal with the threat. A lot of work will now need to be done to delink the three, and to show why military action against Iraq is so much more justified than against Iran and North Korea. The heart of this case — that Iraq poses a unique and present danger — rests on the fact that it:

invaded a neighbour; has used WMD, and would use them again;

is in breach of nine UNSCRS.

THE POSITION IN INTERNATIONAL LAW

6 That Iraq is in flagrant breach of international legal obligations imposed on it by the UNSC provides us with the core of a strategy, and one which is based on international law. Indeed if the argument is to be won, the whol [sic] case

SECRET AND PERSONAL

(Page Three)

SECRET AND PERSONAL

against Iraq and in favour (if necessary) of military action, needs to be narrated with reference to the international rule of law.

7 We also have better to sequence the explanation of what we are doing and why. Specifically, we need to concentrate in the early stages on:

making operational the sanctions regime foreshadowed by UNSCR 1382;

demanding the readmission of weapons inspectors, but this time to operate in a free and unfettered way (a similar formula to that which Cheney used at your joint press conference, as I recall).

8 I know there are those who say that an attack on Iraq would be justified whether or not weapons inspectors were readmitted. But I believe that a demand for the unfettered readmission of weapons inspectors is essential, in terms of public explanation, and in terms of legal sanction for any subsequent military action.

9 Legally there are two potential elephant traps:

(i) regime change per se is no justification for military action; it could form part of the method of any strategy, but not a goal. Of course, we may want credibly to assert that regime change is an essential part of the strategy by which we have to achieve our ends – that of the elimination of Iraq’s WMD capacity: but the latter has to be the goal;

(ii) on whether any military action would require a fresh UNSC mandate (Desert Fox did not). The US are likely to oppose any idea of a fresh mandate. On the other side, the weight of legal advice here is that a fresh mandate

SECRET AND PERSONAL

(Page Four)

SECRET AND PERSONAL

may well be required. There is no doubt that a new UNSCR would transform the climate in the PLP. Whilst that (a new mandate) is very unlikely, given the US’s position, a draft resolution against military action with 13 in favour (or handsitting) and two vetoes against could play very badly here.

THE CONSEQUENCES OF MILITARY ACTION

10 A legal justification is a necessary but far from sufficient precondition for military action. We have also to answer the big question – what will this action achieve? There seems to be a larger hole in this than in anything. Most of the assessments from the US have assumed regime change as a means of eliminating Iraq’s WMD threat. But none has satisfactorily answered how that regime change is to be secured, and how there can be any certainty that the replacement regime will be better.

11 Iraq has NO history of democracy so no-one has this habit or experience.

(JACK STRAW)

Foreign and Commonwealth Office 25 March 2002

NOTE

In the above document, UNSC refers to the United Nations Security Council; UNSCR refers to UN Security Council Resolution. Such resolutions are considering binding international law. UBL refers to [U]sama Bin Laden. PLP refers to the Progressive Labour Party. , the party of Blair’s government, including Straw.

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

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

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

First published on March 23, 2023

***

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

First published by Global Research on October 4, 2021

This year marks a seminal turning point in human history. For the first time since human civilization began, our species is being genetically modified. Vaccine manufacturers have now made it possible for the human genome to be permanently altered—and humanity’s relationship with nature forever changed—by means of an experimental pharmaceutical injection that is being falsely referred to as a “vaccine.”

In light of this defining event, I believe we must take a sober look at the motives and acts that are revamping humanity as we know it. Simultaneously, we must examine our increasingly destructive treatment of the natural world. 

In order to investigate the many variables that are hastening the demise of humanity and sabotaging our unique role as stewards of the earth and its billions of plant and animal species, I have divided this study into four main parts, which will appear as separate articles: 

In Part I: The Microbiome and The Virome, we will discover that we are literally swimming in a vast sea of genomic information that was essential for life to begin and flourish on this precious earth and that is still trying to help all species survive. The matrix of organisms that make up the microbiome have built a viromic information stream that has allowed for adaptation and biodiversity to occur on the planet. And that very same viromic information stream is responsible for building the human species.

In Part lI: Our War Against Nature, we will explore how our own reckless behaviour is destroying the environment, thereby moving us toward the sixth mass extinction. By that I mean, I will be covering the real environmental catastrophe, not the billionaire-funded “global warming/climate change” hoax initiated by the Club of Rome and further promulgated by the World Economic Forum (WEF). 

In Part III: What Happened in 2020, we will examine how this real environmental devastation has contributed to the “pandemic” that was rolled out in 2020, that led to the mass experimental injections of unknown substances into human “subjects” in 2021, and that has no foreseeable end. (I put “pandemic” in quotes because of its fraudulent character. Indeed, it is more accurately and aptly described as a plandemic, a scamdemic, a pseudo pandemic or any other term indicating fakery.)  

In Part IV: Our Response, we will analyze the irresponsible and irrational response of most people on the planet to this so-called pandemic. 

Parts II, III and IV will be published later by Global Research.

The Microbiome  

The microbiome (derived from the Greek words micro, meaning “small,” and biotikos, meaning “pertaining to life”) is a massive ecosystem consisting of trillions of microorganisms. Incredibly, some 40,000 species of bacteria, 300,000 species of parasites, 65,000 species of protozoa, and between 3.5 million and 5 million species of fungi inhabit the environment around us and live in or on the human body. This complex world of microorganisms continually secretes a sea of viruses, which serve as a communication network for the bacteria, parasites, protozoa, and fungi. And, as we will discover shortly, these viruses have always been here to help us, not hinder us. In other words, they are life-affirming, not death-inducing.

Here’s a hint of the microbiome’s intricacy, incredible diversity, and infinitesimal size: The number of genes within the fungal kingdom is at least 125 trillion! The human genome, by comparison, consists of a mere 20,000 genes. A fruit fly has 13,000 genes, a flea 31,000. Thus, in terms of genetic complexity, the human genome has just a tiny fragment of genetic information compared to the vast world of genomic information contained within the microbiome. 

One fascinating aspect of the microbiome is its symbiotic communication network, which allows the transmission of protein information from one microorganism to one another. For example, the mycelial network (a matrix of fine white filaments) in fungi allows the fungi to communicate with each other over distances that can stretch to several kilometers. These mycelial structures are capable of transferring mineral and protein resources more than a kilometer. How? They use light energy and electrons that flow through the pathways within the soil system. In this way, the microbiome helps plants and other multicellular life forms flourish. It is no exaggeration to call the mycelial network in the fungal kingdom the literal “brain” of the planet. Incidentally, all of the tiny, intelligent organisms that make up the microbiome are powered by the biophotonic energy of the sun.

Hard as it is to fathom, at least 1.4 quadrillion bacteria and 10 quadrillion fungi live inside the human body. Within the human colon alone are 3.8 x 10¹³bacteria cells. Every single organ in the body, including the brain, has its own microbiome. The purpose of the bacteria and fungi in our bodies is to nourish and nurture our cells, keeping us healthy and in equilibrium with the larger microbiome surrounding us. 

The Virome

The virome is the immense world in which Mother Nature’s messengers exist. It is composed of trillions upon trillions of viruses produced by the aforementioned microbiome’s bacteria, parasites, protozoa, and fungi.

The average adult human body contains 1 x 10¹⁵ viruses. By contrast, in the air enveloping the earth there are 1 x 10³¹viruses; in the earth’s soil there are 2.5 x 10³¹ viruses; and in the earth’s oceans there are 1.2 x 10³⁰viruses. To provide some perspective on these awe-inspiring numbers, 1 x 10³¹is 10 million times greater than the number of known stars in the entire universe.

Simply put, a virus is genomic information, either DNA or RNA, wrapped in a protein envelope. The small strands of protein protruding outward from the outer surface of a virus’s protein envelope are called spike proteins. Viruses are not living organisms. They do not produce their own fuel. They have no metabolism for producing energy. And they cannot reproduce. 

Viruses have been traveling globally, above the atmospheric boundary layer, for millions of years, long before machines for air travel were invented. Their genetic codes have been blanketing the earth for eons, creating biodiversity and allowing for adaptation throughout the ecosystem. By adaptation, I mean that viruses are always seeking to adapt their genetic codes for the purpose of creating resilient health in all of the planet’s life forms. It is ridiculous to suggest that, in order to travel from one region of the globe to another, a virus must hop on an aircraft, as RAND’s National Security Research Division would have us believe. 

Furthermore, viruses—including coronaviruses—do not come in waves and then disappear without a trace, only to miraculously reappear later in the same spot or a different one. Instead, viruses never leave, never expire. They inhabit every element in the environment around us. In short, they are omnipresent and ever-present.

Our relationship with particular viruses can change as a consequence of our harmful actions toward nature. Whenever humans poison and pollute the air, soil, and water, they create an imbalance between humanity and the virome—an imbalance that can cause us to come into disequilibrium with a particular virus.

Unfortunately, the allopathic medicine regime, which plutocrats John D. Rockefeller and Andrew Carnegie forced on most of the world with their 1910 Flexner Report, still has a large segment of the scientific community believing that bacteria, fungi, and viruses are our enemy.

The foundation of Rockefeller’s allopathic medicine scheme is Louis Pasteur’s flawed “germ theory,” which claims that outside microorganisms such as bacteria and viruses attack, invade, and infect the body, thereby causing disease.

Most of the Western world credits Pasteur (1822–1895) with playing a fundamental part in establishing what we call “modern medicine”—a paradigm that traces the origin of each disease to a single germ.

Without Pasteur’s theory, most modern drugs would never be produced, promoted, or prescribed—a fact that explains why today’s medical establishment and its codependent pharmaceutical industry refuse to recognise their flaws or own up to their ineffectiveness. 

By contrast, “terrain theory,” which was initiated by Claude Bernard (1813–1878) and later built upon by Antoine Béchamp (1816–1908), alleges that the terrain—that is, the internal environment of the body—and not an external germ determines our health or lack thereof. What Béchamp referred to as “terrain” is very close to what modern medicine has now termed the innate immune system. As we will see in the following paragraphs, Béchamp was definitely on the right track in discovering how the human body really interacts with the outside environment.

Unlike Pasteur, Béchamp did have an academic background in science. He believed disease to be a biological result of the changes that take place in the body when its metabolic processes become imbalanced. When the body is in a state of imbalance, Béchamp alleged, germs become symptoms that in turn stimulate more symptoms, which eventually lead to disease. 

Although Béchamp was moving in the right direction with his terrain theory, Rockefeller’s germ-dependent pharmaceutical tyranny has prevailed, due largely to substantial infusions of money, which Rockefeller and Carnegie gladly supplied in the form of grants to universities, hospitals, and medical research facilities. Their “philanthropic” largess, which easily exceeded $100 million, enabled them to influence the policy of the entire US medical establishment and eventually most of the Western nations, steering them toward an exclusively chemical-based allopathic regime.   

I contend in this article that, contrary to what Rockefeller medicine has been teaching us for over one hundred years, viruses are not here to attack our cells or to harm us in any other manner. On the contrary, the DNA and RNA genetic molecular information contained within the viruses are literally the building blocks of life on earth. To use a modern analogy, we can think of a virus’s information stream as a software update carrying important molecular intelligence that can be uploaded, when required, to any cell of a living multicellular organism—including any one of the 70 trillion cells contained in the human body. Our cells regulate which new genomic information is received and which information is not received. The viruses are simply seeking to adapt to the cells for the purpose of creating resilient human health.

A word here about the immune system. There are two kinds of immunity: innate and adaptive. 

The innate immune system is the initial and primary means by which our bodies interact with a virus. The innate system helps the body find a genetic balance with each new viral update that is being presented to it. The body does not need to replicate or reproduce the new viral information after more than 4 or 5 days of updates.

The innate immune system functions on healthy boundaries in the human body, such as the physical barriers between the gut and the bloodstream, or on the blood vessels that tightly regulate the movement of ions, molecules, and cells between the bloodstream and the brain (termed the blood-brain barrier), or at the genetic level in our cells (like the mutagen proteins in our cells). Also, the innate immune system operates through a variety of enzymes—like the APOBec3A/3G and CAS9. These enzymes are now considered central to innate immunity. 

The adaptive immune system is the secondary means by which our bodies interact with viruses.

The adaptive system mounts a highly specific response to a virus by utilizing the body’s white blood cells, known as lymphocytes (B cells and T cells). The B cells are responsible for releasing antibodies into the bloodstream. Antibodies are the body’s second—not first—method of interaction with a virus after it receives a new viral update or after it develops an imbalance with a particular virus. Antibodies are specific, targeted defences. They usually show up on the scene 3 to 6 weeks after the body’s initial exposure to a virus. Simply put, antibodies act like a cleanup crew, assisting the body in cleaning out viruses and bacteria that are no longer needed. Meanwhile, the T cells are responsible for stimulating the B cells into making antibodies.    

To understand how quickly the human body adapts when exposed to the virome, consider a seven-day-old infant. He has 1 x 10⁸ virus particles in just one gram of feces. Even though that child does not have the capacity to develop any antibodies at such an early stage in life, he nonetheless instantly adapts to these virus particles, remaining perfectly healthy. Instead of developing a fever, he remains in stable equilibrium—homeostasis—with the virome, both microbially and genetically. That fact alone proves that we do not interact with the virome through our adaptive immune system but, rather, interact with it through our innate immune system.

What is the key takeaway from these facts? To me, it is that the body’s decision to take in genetic information is a highly intricate and controlled biological process. There are numerous ways our bodies stay in equilibrium with the huge sea of genetic information that we breathe in and come into contact with every moment of our lives.

Since a virus is not a living organism, our innate immune system cannot kill viruses—nor would it want to. Instead, as mentioned above, the innate immune system simply comes into genetic balance with a new virus. It does this by replicating or receiving updates from that virus—and by immediately responding to that new viral upload. Once genetic balance has been achieved, typically 4 to 5 days after initial exposure to the virus, our innate immune system refuses to receive further updates. 

From these facts, we may conclude that humans cannot stop an “epidemic” from occurring, nor can they change the trajectory of an epidemic. In other words, it is useless—actually, worse than useless: it is harmful—to try to check an always-helpful virus by deploying an unapproved experimental gene-editing device that is designed to produce an antibody response (otherwise known as an adaptive immune system response induced by the injection). That antiquated scientific model is biologically illogical and can never work. We now know that it interferes with our beautifully designed innate immune system, which is perfectly capable of handling any virus with which we may develop a temporary imbalance. (Exactly how we develop an imbalance with a particular virus, like the HIV virus or any coronavirus, will be explained later in the article).

Furthermore, contrary to the official narrative propagated by vaccine makers and governmental health agencies around the world, our immune systems do retain a memory of the viruses that our bodies have interacted with and of the genes that were inserted naturally—upon receiving a new viral update—into our cells. In the innate immune system, for instance, the Cas9 enzyme, which is responsible for cleaving excess DNA when too much of a viral upload is presented to a cell, is the natural memory data bank that will remember which DNA pattern it encountered. 

In addition, the permanent records kept by an innate immune system are passed down to succeeding generations of humans, who therefore will never have an inflammatory-inducing reaction to a particular virus. Even in the adaptive immune system, the B cells (the source of antibodies) and T cells (the B cells’ stimulus) provide lasting immunity. 

A multipronged NIH study presented by the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy (CIDRAP) in 2008 proved conclusively that antibody immunity can last for a lifetime. In that study, a group of scientists, led by Dr. Eric Altschuler, collected blood samples from 32 survivors—between the ages of 91 and 101—of the 1918 Spanish Flu pandemic. (Actually, the correct name for that pandemic is the Kansas Flu—its place of origin.) To their amazement, the scientists discovered that, almost a century later, all of the study’s participants still carried the antibodies to the same strain of influenza. 

Based on the findings of that 21-year-old study, we can dismiss the propaganda foisted upon us by the mainstream media and medical organizations. It is not true that natural immunity to the SARS-CoV-2 virus may wear off six months to a year after initial exposure. And it is not true that an experimental injection is the only way one can reach immunity. Such unfounded claims are simply ruses invented to further the avaricious agenda of the pharmaceutical industry and the other technocrats operating behind the scenes. 

Bottom line: The power of natural immunity will always outperform any perceived immunity to a virus said to result from an injection, whether experimental or government-approved. 

Biologically speaking, all life on earth is built from the RNA and DNA molecular genetic sequences contained in viruses. These viruses are exquisitely designed genetic delivery systems essential to initiating and sustaining life on earth. In fact, more than 50 percent of the 20,000 genes inherited by today’s humans were inserted millions of years ago into the mammalian genome by these tiny marvels of nature. At least 8 percent of those genes were inserted by RNA retroviruses similar to the HIV retrovirus. (A retrovirus is an RNA virus which inserts a DNA copy of its genome into the host cell in order to replicate itself.) Equally intriguing is the fact that millions of years ago retroviral updates played a key role in the emergence of placental mammals. 

Interestingly, a 2017 study published by the National Institute of Health (NIH) demonstrates that many of us are carrying the HIV retrovirus without even knowing it. In this study, the researchers “explored non-human sequence data from whole-genome sequencing” the blood of 8,240 adults living in the US and Europe—none of whom were ascertained to have any infectious disease. They found that a full 42 percent of the participants tested positive for the presence of 94 known viruses. These viruses included the HIV virus, the hepatitis B virus, the hepatitis C virus, and the influenza virus.                                                                      

We have been trained by the medical community and the corporate-controlled media to believe that the HIV virus should predominate in people living in Sub-Saharan Africa. After all, we are told, 95 percent of all “HIV positive” cases come from that region of the globe. If that were the case, we would expect to see in other regions very little HIV and a far higher prevalence of, say, hepatitis C or influenza. Not so: It is just the reverse! In fact, the 2017 study found a fivefold higher prevalence of the HIV virus than of hepatitis C and influenza in those 8,240 asymptomatic Americans and Europeans. Amazingly, each one was completely in balance with the HIV virus, even though none of them had ever travelled to Africa. We must conclude from this study that not only has the world completely misunderstood the prevalence of the HIV virus in all corners of the globe but that our fear of it—and of the virome in general—is entirely unjustified. 

Given that many powerful organizations, both public and private, profit from the huge grants and donations that perpetuate the endless AIDS movement, it is unsurprising that no scientific peer-reviewed study has been done to provide conclusive evidence that a virus called HIV causes a disease named AIDS. Were any such study to be undertaken, it would prove that the HIV-leads-to-AIDS hypothesis is baseless and, more to the point, fraudulent.

The question scientists should be focusing on is: What is taking place in Sub-Saharan Africa that is creating such an abnormal relationship between people living in that area and the HIV retrovirus, causing 95 percent of them to test HIV-positive? 

For an answer to that question, we need to look at the terrain where viruses reside and stay in balance with the human body. (By “terrain” I mean a geographic area with its associated ecosystem. I am not referring here to the aforementioned Bernard/Béchamp terrain theory.) When a terrain is disrupted by anything unnatural to it—for example, poisoning of the environment by irresponsible human behaviour—the viruses become overexpressed and the body’s balance with the virome is lost. 

Taking account of the terrain, we find that the number one factor common to all so-called infectious disease epidemics or pandemics is the destruction of the ecosystem. In other words, the natural terrain has been altered by irresponsible human behaviour to such an extent that our innate adaptation to all the genetic information surrounding us is undermined. 

It is not that the viruses are causing a disease. Rather, it is that they are simply presenting the body with a new genetic adaptation option. The body’s innate immune system then determines how much of that new information it will absorb. If the cells are in dire need of repair—perhaps as a result of poor dietary choices, a sedentary lifestyle, or toxicity in the environment—the virus will create an inflammation event as the body goes through its regenerative process. This is usually accompanied by a fever, loss of appetite, and an elevated white blood cell count. Such an inflammatory event is what we commonly refer to as “the flu.” 

What we derogatively call an inflammatory event—implying it is bad for the body—is actually a part of the body’s healing process. The inflammation is needed to create regeneration within the body. It is acting on behalf of the body, not against it. But if the body’s microbiome is replete instead of wanting, it will not need an update, and therefore no inflammation will take place. 

In the case of Sub-Saharan Africa, the ecosystem is dying. The collapse of nutrient-rich soil systems, poor water hygiene, a lack of basic sanitation, a chronically undernourished population, and the complete elimination of traditional organic farming—overtaken by the oxymoronic Green Revolution, foisted on developing countries by industrial agriculture—have caused a large portion of that population to develop an imbalance between their innate immune system and the environment. The syndrome known as “AIDS” is an expression of that imbalance. The HIV virus, which was first discovered by French virologist Luc Montagnier, has been falsely accused of being the primary culprit responsible for AIDS—a form of guilt by association. In actual fact, the HIV virus is benign and is not trying to take over the mechanics of any cell. 

The real root of the problem is that the innate immune system of the Sub-Saharan African people has been degraded by a lack of nutrition to such an extent that they are falling prey to a myriad of illnesses, which have been collectively grouped under the single title “AIDS.” However, instead of coming to terms with the reality of what the dire ecological disaster is causing, “scientists” are blaming the HIV virus as a cover to hide decades of government and corporate environmental and economic crimes.

From the information covered thus far, we can rightly conclude that it is impossible for viruses or pathogens to create infectious disease pandemics and epidemics—for there is no such thing as an infectious disease in the traditional sense of the term—examples being “AIDS,” “Ebola,” and other unfounded “viral” pandemics. Yes, pharmaceutical propaganda has been pushing the infectious disease paradigm on world thought for centuries. But the belief that such diseases exist is no more than an outgrowth of Pasteur’s debunked germ theory. What we commonly refer to as an epidemic or a pandemic is simply the result of a degraded innate immune system showing up in a segment of the planet’s population. The reasons for this degradation can include chemical poisoning from herbicides, pesticides, or genetically modified foods, which we will look at in more detail below. 

As we can see by the above description of the virome, it is no exaggeration to say that the virome is the language of all life on earth. We are literally swimming in a vast sea of genomic information that was essential for life to begin and flourish on this precious earth and that is still trying to help all species survive. The matrix of organisms that make up the microbiome have built a viromic information stream that has allowed for adaptation and biodiversity to occur on the planet. And that very same viromic information stream is responsible for building the human species.

Thus, humans are not separate from the virome and the microbiome but are, rather, integral to the virome and microbiome’s vast, complex ecosystem. Yet we have increasingly placed ourselves in direct opposition to the very living system of which we are an intrinsic part: nature.

*

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

David Skripac has a Bachelor of Technology degree in aerospace engineering. During his two tours of duty as a captain in the Canadian Air Force, he flew extensively in the former Yugoslavia, Somalia, Rwanda, Ethiopia, and Djibouti. Using an inquisitive mind, a keen eye for detail, and problem-solving skills honed during his university years and throughout his career, David devoted over one hundred hours to researching the latest scientific findings in the fields of virology and microbiology to bring this article to fruition. 

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

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

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

***

About 75% of non-organic vegetables and fruits grown in the United States contain toxic pesticide residue. Blueberries and green beans contain organophosphates which can damage the human nervous system.

Unless produce is grown cleanly without pesticides and herbicides and is laboratory tested, it can be risky to consume to some degree because it might be chock full of hidden chemical poisons that are unseen to the naked eye, according to a report by The Daily Mail.

The Environmental Working Group looked at 46 different produce staples. Overall, the organization found that 75 percent of freshly grown produce in the U.S. contains some degree of harmful pesticide residue, which is deeply concerning. The worst offenders are among some of the healthiest fruits and vegetables when grown cleanly. These conventionally grown produce items are risky to consume because of the hidden chemicals they contain.

Strawberries, grapes, apples, nectarines, pears, and cherries ranked at the top of the list for being the most dangerous when grown conventionally, the latest EWG findings show. The same is true for antioxidant-rich blueberries and leafy green vegetables like kale, which are heavily sprayed with chemicals when grown conventionally.

More than 90 percent of all samples of strawberries, apples, cherries, spinach, nectarines, and grapes were found to have at least two different chemicals pesticides on them, according to tests. All in all, more than 250 different pesticides were discovered on American produce – pesticides that, in many cases, are illegal to use in other countries.-Natural News

Over 50 pesticides were detected on every kind of crop on the dirty dozen list, apart from cherries. Kale, collard, and mustard greens, and hot and bell peppers had the most pesticides of any crop (103 and 101.)

“Despite the abundance of science linking exposure to pesticides with serious health issues, a potentially toxic cocktail of concerning chemicals continues to taint many of the non-organic fruits and vegetables eaten by consumers,” said EWG toxicologist Alexis Temkin.

In some cases, the pesticides identified by EWG on American produce are not even legal here in the U.S. Six percent of green beans, the group found, contain the neurotoxic organophosphate insecticide acephate, which was banned from use on green beans in 2011 for being a “possible” human carcinogen, according to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). –The Daily Mail

Not only is our food supply being systematically destroyed, but the foods that are available are carrying toxins in the form of pesticides. It feels like this is an outright war on humanity considering we all need food to survive.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons 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 SHTFplan.com

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

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

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

***

A state-of-the-art assessment on the scientific evidence of wireless radiation impacts on children’s health published in the journal Current Problems in Pediatric and Adolescent Health Care concludes that the medical community has a critical role to play to prevent harm from wireless radiation. “Wireless Technologies, Non-ionizing Electromagnetic Fields and Children: Identifying and Reducing Health Risks” is written by distinguished experts in medicine, epidemiology, toxicology, physics, biochemical engineering and public health who collectively have published more than 1,000 papers. 

The paper references numerous studies that associate wireless exposure to effects including oxidative stress, DNA damage, cardiomyopathy, carcinogenicity, sperm damage, memory damage and neurological effects. The American Academy of Pediatrics has long advocated for U.S. government regulations to be updated to address children’s vulnerability. Pregnancy, infancy and childhood are periods of critical susceptibility, especially for the brain, which is rapidly developing.

“Current government safety limits are outdated and do not reflect the latest science nor the way children use wireless technology today,” stated Linda Birnbaum Ph.D, former Director of the National Toxicology Program and National Institute for Environmental Health Sciences, regarding this critical examination of experimental and epidemiological evidence.

“We highly recommend educating parents on why and how to reduce wireless radiation exposures, especially during pregnancy,” stated Hugh Taylor MD, Professor and Chair of the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology at Yale University, whose research has found increased hyperactivity and damage to memory in mice prenatally exposed to cell phone radiation.

“The science indicates that wireless radiation acts like a classic endocrine disruptor,“ stated Devra Davis Ph.D, M.P.H., President of Environmental Health Trust, pointing to “substantial evidence” linking wireless exposures to impaired memory, behavior, fertility and brain development, as well as cancer and neurological illness.

Noting that human exposure limits for wireless radiation have not been updated for more than two decades, the distinguished authors recommend policies that reduce wireless exposures. The paper details how clinicians can integrate a preventive approach into their clinical practice by educating patients and families on simple measures to minimize exposure. It also offers specific measures to reduce exposure in schools and steps for professional medical and public health organizations to take to educate and motivate their members to advocate for more protective regulations.

The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends parents minimize their children’s cell phone use with ten tips for families which includes distancing the cell phone from the brain and body, and when watching videos on a device parents can pre-download movies and then turn the wireless antennas off before handing the device to the child, “in order to avoid unnecessary radiation exposure.”

Other U.S. public health entities’ recommendations to reduce children’s exposures include the California Department of Public Health cell phone advisory and the Maryland State Children’s Environmental Health and Protection Advisory Council guidelines to reduce wireless radiation at home and school. 

Theodora Scarato, Executive Director of Environmental Health Trust, highlighted the international policiesto reduce children’s exposure, such as France and Belgium’s bans on the sale of cell phones designed for young children and the numerous countries that have restrictions on Wi-Fi exposure in classrooms. She stated that, “US government limits allow radiation emissions 10 to 100 times higher than numerous countries such as Switzerland, Italy, China, Russia and India. Many countries have more stringent laws to protect children and restrict cell towers near homes and schools.”

Scarato pointed out that Environmental Health Trust has a website dedicated to educating parents and caretakers on how to reduce children’s wireless radiation exposure at healthytechhome.org as well as a campaign to elevate the issue at the federal level.

“Decades of research on the biological effects of microwave radiofrequency radiation (RFR) provide clear evidence of a variety of risks to the health and well-being of adults and, particularly, children from everyday,low-level exposure to wireless devices such as smartphones, tablets, laptops, and other WiFi-enabled wireless electronics. My research demonstrates how the FCC and the ICNIRP placed the needs of the ICT industry above the protection of children. Parents, clinicians and policymakers have been lulled into a false sense of security about the safety of childhood RFR exposure.” stated Tom Butler PhD, Professor of Information Systems at University College Cork and former satellite and microwave telecommunications engineer.

“A false presumption that wireless radiation is only harmful when tissue is over-heated has blocked progress in health protection in many (but not all) countries for decades. One mechanism that initiates harms, including cancers, is well known by chemical engineers and commercialized as ‘microwave catalysis,’” stated Meg Sears Ph.D., Chair of Prevent Cancer Now, and Research Associate at the Ottawa Hospital Research Institute (Canada). Sears works in environmental health, following studies in biochemical engineering and applied chemistry.

“Non ionizing radiation can have impacts at the cellular level that include impacts on cell homeostasis,  on mitochondrial processes critical to cellular energy and metabolism. The assumption that only ionizing radiation can cause harm is outdated and incorrect,” stated Paul Ben Ishai Ph.D of the Department of Physics, Ariel University, Ariel, Israel, head of the laboratory of Terahertz Dielectric Spectroscopy.

The entire paper is open access and the PDF can be downloaded at this link. 

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons 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

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

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

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

***

From developing new weapons and hiring war criminals to denying dissidents the right to teach, universities have a history of serving US imperial interests. Last October, a cabal of staff at the Pentagon-funded Plymouth University canceled me.

Throughout history, most academics have been the witting or unwitting servants of power. Socrates was accused of failing to honor the gods of Athens and corrupting the youth with his ideas. He was canceled in the ultimate way: sentenced to die. Aristotle, by contrast, tutored the young Alexander the Great, future King of Macedonia, which at the time was occupying Athens. During the rebellion, Aristotle fled to save his skin.

Today, some academics refusing to toe the line are also threatened with death. Chicago University’s John Mearsheimer was placed on the US-funded Ukrainian Center for Countering Disinformation’s blacklist, where he and others, including myself, were accused of committing “informational terrorism” by expressing fact-based opinions about the war with Russia. At the same time that Ukrainian fascists were placing me on their list, a cabal of liberal staff at my military-funded institution, the University of Plymouth (UK), terminated my position without warning or right of reply.

If we look at the US imperial apparatus, we see that higher education plays a major role.

From the Beginning

The American university has been significantly influenced by the military since at least 1862, with the passing of the Morrill Land-Grant College Act. The Civil War-era legislation awarded government grants to create agricultural and engineering colleges.

Britain has the Royal Institute of International Affairs (Chatham House), funded by big oil, weapons companies, and banks. The US has its Chatham House offshoot, the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), founded in 1921 and funded by the usual suspects: banks, big oil, etc. A history of the CFR and its close ties to academics, who continue to help shape the ideologies that justify and influence capitalist imperialism, has been authored by Laurence H. Shoup and William Minter: the classic, Imperial Brain Trust.

By the Second World War, the university’s “very importance for the achievement of public priorities, most conspicuously for national defense,” writes historian Richard M. Abrams, “led the university to accept inducements and constraints that pulled it notably away from its briefly assumed mission as a protected refuge for the dispassionate and critical study of science and society.” Those “constraints” came in the form of military funding.

Historian Robin Winks wrote Cloak and Gown: a major history of the CIA’s forerunner, the Office of Strategic Services, and its successful efforts to recruit academics to work for US intelligence during the Second World War. The majority of scholars were teaching at Yale. In 1943 alone, there were 42 recruits. Most the recruits were bookworms who would aid analyses and assist in foreign languages. Other operations included using universities as covers to buy hundreds of books that were intended for OSS-CIA station chiefs.

The Wise Men, written by Walter Isaacson and Evan Thomas, traces the history of six members of the post-War foreign policy establishment who shaped the Marshall Plan, NATO, and other instruments of US imperialism. The men were graduates of Harvard, Princeton, and Yale.

Institutions like NATO would have still been created without intellectuals, but academics acted as ideological shepherds, rounding policy staff into pens of groupthink that enabled intellectual justifications for the insanity on which they were encouraging politicians to embark.

From WWII to the Cold War

During the War, campuses of the University of Washington (Seattle) were commandeered by the government as the University pioneered military medicine. Political enemies were not welcome. Professors at the University of Washington – Joseph Butter, Ralph Gundlach, and Herbert Phillips – were fired, postwar, for being commies, never to teach again. Their surviving colleagues were forced to sign loyalty pledges. At the time, the men were driven out by political right-wingers.

Today, the tables have turned. So-called liberals are leading cancel culture, as we shall see from my experience.

Citing Johns Hopkins as an exception, historian Lionel S. Lewis writes that, during the Cold War (1945-91), universities and colleges “typically sacrificed faculty in the face of political pressure … When faculty committees at the University of Michigan, Rutgers University, and the University of Washington concluded there was no reason to punish faculty whose politics were too far to the Left,” writes Lewis, “the campus presidents precipitously overturned the recommendations and fired them.” (I endured the same treatment by higher-ups using their executive powers at the Pentagon-funded Plymouth University.)

In 1962, Larry Gara, another alleged dirty commie (actually a Quaker) teaching at Grove City College (Pennsylvania), was fired. Grove City College donor, J. Howard Pew of Sun Oil, took a dislike to Gara and worked in secret to have him fired. Likewise, forces working in secret pushed out me of Plymouth University. Gara had previously been incarcerated for refusing the draft and, while in prison, had protested racial segregation. When historian Steven Taafee reviewed the records and discovered Pew’s involvement, Grove issued Gara an apology: 53 years later.

More Weapons, More Ideology

The Massachusetts Institute of Technology, meanwhile, was enjoying an annual $100 million Pentagon subsidy – nearly $1 billion in today’s money – to develop all manner of weapons. Daniel J. Glenn described the scene: “Encased in the stairwell of Building 8 are a cluster-bomb wingshaft, a guided missile control fin, and other weapon parts.”

In the 1970s, Harvard’s Samuel P. Huntington co-authored an infamous bookon behalf of a CFR-type entity, the Trilateral Commission, which argued that there was too much democracy in the US and that media should do more to indoctrinate the youth away from participatory politics. Meanwhile, the so-called “realist” school of political philosophy saw the likes of Zbigniew Brzezinski teaching at Harvard and Columbia on the evils of communism. Brzezinski was a member of the Bilderberg Group, CFR, and Trilateral Commission. As President Jimmy Carter’s National Security Advisor, he later helped to create the mujahideen to “draw the Soviets into the Afghan trap,” as he put it. The mujahideen were later rebranded “al-Qaeda” by US intelligence.

During this period, CIA on-campus recruitment increased markedly. The Office of Policy Coordination (OPC) was founded as the forerunner of the CIA’s clandestine services unit. According to the Harvard Crimson, “the OPC cultivated faculty members who had been with the wartime Office of Strategic Services and used these contacts to find agents among the burgeoning numbers of foreign students.” In 1955, there were 34,323 student recruits. In 1975, there were a quarter of a million.

At the time, neoconservatism, which was neither new nor conservative, was gaining academic credibility in its denunciation of the Soviet Union. One of its leading scholars, Francis Fukuyama, studied at Harvard under Huntington and went on to join the Pentagon-funded military think-tank, the RAND Corporation. Fukuyama served in Reagan’s State Department, specializing in Middle East affairs, and went on to author the ludicrous “end of history” hypothesis: that the triumph of neoliberal capitalism (which is neither new nor liberal) would make life peaceful and rather boring. Fukuyama now advises the British intelligence cutout, Bellingcat.

Increased Funding

Military funding for universities is not just about war. The US economy, now bought out by asset managers, is a hi-tech economy. The biggest corporations are algorithmic, computing, data, and e-commerce firms. Each of them came out of the military sector, which gave us computers, the internet, and much more.

Under Reagan, the Pentagon increased its funding for universities, hoping for innovation under the cover of the Strategic Defense Initiative: Reagan’s plan to weaponize space with a missile system. By the mid-1980s, Department of Defense funding for higher education was double what it was at the start of the decade. One article from the period reported: “Researchers at universities are paid by the Pentagon to study such things as the impact of nuclear explosions on satellite communications, new biological weapons, and ways to generate electricity in outer space.”

By the close of the decade, reliance on university skill for weapons and future consumer innovation was of such importance that the outgoing Reagan and incoming Bush administrations created the Multidisciplinary University Research Initiative to streamline military funding to universities.

The “War on Terror”

After the Soviet Union collapsed and before 9/11, US intellectuals sought new pretexts for war. They concocted the notion of “humanitarian intervention,” latter rebranded “responsibility to protect.” The doctrines were tested in Somalia in 1992 and Serbia in 1999. Scholars who provided intellectual justification included Sir Adam Roberts of the aforementioned Chatham House.

But “humanitarian intervention” was a damp ideological squib that lost out to the “war on terror.” In the 1990s, the aforementioned Professor Huntington wrote a widely ridiculed article for the CFR, followed by a book, on the “clash of civilizations.” I think that people who mock the book misread it: Huntington seemed to be saying that the coming post-Cold War conflicts for oil in the Middle East should be couched as a “clash of civilizations” for propaganda purposes, as a way of denying imperial motivations, not that they were actually a clash of civilizations.

The US blamed “al-Qaeda,” the group it created, for the events of 9/11. Relentless invasions of and proxy wars within the oil-rich Middle East and strategically significant Central Asia followed, as did appointments to prestigious universities of George W. Bush-era war criminals:

Robert Kagan was a member of the now-defunct Project for the New American Century, which in 2000 openly called for a “catastrophic and catalyzing event” that would enable the US to: back out of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty (1972) in order to weaponize space; invade Iraq; encircle China; and much more. Kagan is Adjunct Professor of History at Georgetown University, which is a few minutes’ drive from the Pentagon and White House. Kagan’s wife is Victoria Nuland, chief architect of the Ukraine 2013-14 coup and current US-led proxy war. Nuland is Distinguished Practitioner in Grand Strategy at Yale (yes, that title really exists!).

Deputy Assistant Attorney General, John Yoo, was the chief ideological architect of Bush’s torture program. Yoo is credited with giving the administration the fake legal justification for so-called enhanced integration techniques by drafting the “torture memos.” Yoo is currently a law professor at California-Berkeley. In 2007, former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld faced student protests after Stanford’s Hoover Institution made him a Distinguished Visiting Fellow. After her stint as National Security Advisor, Condoleezza Rice returned to teach at Stanford, later directing part of the Hoover Institution.

Obama’s “Conspiracy Theorists”

Under Obama, the US increased its efforts to recruit spies. Typically, the National Security Agency helps to build profiles of academic targets. The CIA then recruits those targets, foreign and domestic, to act as spies at conferences through its National Resources Division. Agents also pose as businessmen offering grants to prospective assets. Regarding academic conferences, ex-Officer Ishmael Jones (alias) says: “We tend to flood events like these.” Through cutouts like Centra Technology Inc., some conferences are even run by US intelligence agencies. As part of its proxy war against Iran, the CIA reportedly ran a program literally called Operation Brain Drain: an attempt to lure Iranian scientists – the ones they and Mossad didn’t murder – to the West.

Samantha Power was Professor of Practice in Human Rights at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government. She authored A Problem from Hell (2002), a book calling for more US invasions of sovereign nations under the pretense that foreign policy planners’ hearts bleed for oppressed peoples. The timing of the book was unfortunate for Power, as the US had shifted away from “humanitarian intervention” to the “war on terror.” Nevertheless, Power was picked by Obama to be Ambassador to the United Nations and then by Biden as head of the US Agency for International Development – America’s imperial privatization arm.

Power married Cass Sunstein, Obama’s Administrator of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. Sunstein is currently Robert Walmsley University Professor at Harvard, where he espouses discredited behavioral sciences as a means of social control, or “nudge,” as he and others call it. Sunstein co-authored a paper arguing that “conspiracy theorists” were becoming a dangerous new class of people. (As we shall see, “conspiracy theorist” was a lazy and vague smear used against me by Plymouth University staff in their efforts to cancel me.)

The culture is shifting from thinking of “conspiracy theorists” – an undefined and meaningless designation – as harmless eccentrics to threats to “national security,” meaning the stability of political elites. To give a couple of examples: After questioning who might really be responsible for 9/11, Kevin Barrett of Wisconsin-Madison was “witch-hunted out” of the institution, in his words. In Canada, Lethbridge University’s Professor Anthony Hall was forced into early retirement after being accused of being an anti-Semite and a conspiracy theorist.

Britain

The story is much the same in the UK. Just as Georgetown University is a few minutes’ drive from the Pentagon and the White House, the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI) in London is close to the Ministry of Defence and Houses of Parliament. In addition to the RUSI, Chatham House continues to invite scholars to speak and publish. The top universities, Oxford and Cambridge, have long been recognized as recruiting grounds for spies.

Left-wing professors like A.J.P. Taylor and Christopher Hill were under surveillance during the Cold War by the internal spy agency, MI5. More recently, the so-called Integrity Initiative (II) developed what it called “clusters” of sympathetic journalists and scholars to promote a narrative: that Russia is an existential threat to Britain and Europe and to discredit anyone who disagrees. Professor Piers Robinson, then at Sheffield University, and Professor Tim Hayward of Edinburgh University, were both smeared by II-linked journalists in The Times, who splashed the front page with the headline: “Apologists for Assad working at British universities.”

Professor Robinson says that he chose to step down from his position, while Professor Hayward continues to fight smears and complaints, including those coming from students. Similar student-based tactics have been used in the US against Mark Crispin Miller and in the UK by David Miller. In my case, I was not a salaried employee, so, as wannabe bullies are wont to do, the cabal of staff at Plymouth University seized upon this weakness to try to cancel me.

Plymouth University

The City of Plymouth UK houses the Ministry of Defence (MoD)’s Naval Base Devonport from which the UK’s amphibious ships, surveillance vessels, and frigates sail. The Base also services Britain’s nuclear-armed and nuclear-powered submarines, as well as storing decommissioned submarines. Inevitably, the City’s University has a close relationship with the Mod

As part of its 2014 Covenant with the Mod, Plymouth University agrees that “we are an armed-forces friendly organization.” Perhaps that’s why the small University Press has 10 titles on Britannia Naval Histories of World War II and initially accepted and then rejected without explanation my book, later titled Britain’s Secret Wars?

The University’s Centre for Seapower and Strategy seeks to counter “global pandemics; climate change; mass migration; transnational organized crime; transnational terrorism; the ‘hybrid warfare’ of state actors; and cyber attacks.” In addition, the University has signed up to the Human and Social Science Research Capability framework: “University of Plymouth is part of a framework agreement supplying the Ministry of Defence (MOD) through BAE Systems” – the notorious weapons manufacturer.

In 2018, the Pentagon’s innovation arm, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), launched its PREventing EMerging Pathogenic Threats (PREEMPT): a project in which virologists were funded to use gain-of-function research to assess the possibility of animal pathogens jumping to humans and to develop preventative measures. But this so-called dual-use technology can also be weaponized.

Plymouth University benefits from DARPA. It helped to set up a private, for-profit biotech corporation headed by a former Pfizer scientist, Dr. Jeremy Salt. Called The Vaccine Group (TVG), the organization is listed as a private company on the UK government’s directory of businesses. It follows the model pioneered by Oxford University: use public money to create a private vaccine company. TVG was recently championed in the business press for completing a project on lassa fever. The lassa fever project was also funded by US taxpayers via DARPA.

Terminating My Contract

I was a postdoctoral researcher at Plymouth University’s Cognition Institute working on a device, funded by an external source (the Thomas Pocklington Trust), to help blind people. The University acted as a host institution for the third-party funding, so I was not a salaried member of staff. My research had nothing to do with politics. Politics is something about which I write for a number of journals in my spare time.

In September 2022, an anonymous snitch sought out my old PhD examiner, Assistant Professor Jane Grant (how did they know or think to do that?), to complain about things I’d been writing for Nexus, the internationally-distributed Australian magazine. The University continues to protect the identity of the tattler, citing data protection. This is Orwellian: people in the UK are permitted to make baseless accusations about others, yet their targets are not allowed to know who they are. Both Grant and the anonymous squealer violated the University’s Dignity and Respect Policy (DRP), which states: “academic staff have the right to explore unpopular or controversial subjects and opinions.”

Grant wrote to the Doctoral College, cc’ing one Cornel Sandvoss: “I’ve had an email regarding one of our ex PhD students [sic] who, I’ve been informed is writing some pretty odd stuff for a journal called Nexus.” The “odd stuff” is not specified and, to whatever it might pertain, is protected, in theory, by the DRP. “Can you check if he is still registered with us please? If so, it may be time to terminate his contract.”

So, the allegedly pro-trade union Grant decided to “terminate” my position without specific allegation or evidence. The neologism fauxialist comes to mind. What should have happened is that an investigation should have been launched into my conduct at which I should have been given the right to defend myself and see the evidence against me.

At this point, the situation turned Kafkaesque: Grant admitted to the Doctoral College that I had done nothing wrong: “the content of what he [Coles] is now writing is not good for the University to be associated with, just general but outlandish conspiracy theories etc. and him as a research fellow. Be good to have him not on our books so to speak.” “General but outlandish conspiracy theories”? Apparently this constitutes grounds for ruining someone’s reputation and career.

I knew nothing of any of this until one October morning when I sat at my home desk to login to my University email account and found that it had been suspended. No one at IT Support would tell me what was going on. My email account sponsor (who is a friend whom I met in peace activism circles) belatedly informed me about Grant et al. The above emails were never intended for me to read or even know about.

Having ignored my emails requesting an investigation, Dr. Cristina Rivas of the Doctoral College denied having any responsibility. Grant did not have the courage or decency to reply to my request for assistance: to undo the wrong she had done. The mysterious Dr. Sandvoss did not answer when I asked via email if he was the original complainant.

I then wrote to the Vice-chancellor, Judith Petts, who appointed an investigator who agreed that the cabal should not have terminated my account in the way it did, but the investigator ignored all of my complaints of bullying, constructive dismissal, and threats. The threat came from one Katie Angliss, head of the Business School, the employer of my original email sponsor. Angliss asked me to stop contacting staff in my efforts to get my account unlocked – who does she think she is? – and then wrote in bold and underlined text, as if shouting:

“if you are able to identify a named member of university staff that you are currently working with, and that can confirm your research association, then it is them that will need to sign off your discretionary membership.”

Conclusion

Universities have never been the spaces for freedom of thought and expression that some wish them to be. Their fundamental purpose is to train new generations of designers, economists, engineers, philosophers, and politicians to perpetuate the privileges of the ruling classes. This article has focused on militarism, but it could have just as easily focused on elite economists, like the so-called Chicago Boys, who were brought in to reap the rewards of Chile’s post-coup economy in the 1970s on behalf of US business interests.

Despite this, the potential for free inquiry exists as an unintended consequence – or “externality” as economists would say – of universities. As the Pentagon enters its final and most dangerous phase of what it calls “full spectrum dominance,” taking on nuclear-armed Russia and China, the grip on freedom of thought and expression tightens.

*

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

T.J. Coles writes for CounterPunch, The Gray Zone, and co-founded PIPR.co.uk.

Featured image: University of Plymouth (Licensed under CC BY-SA 2.0)

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

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

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

***

In early March, Syria’s foreign ministry condemned a surprise visit by Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Mark Milley to an army base in northeast Syria, with Syrian media dubbing it “illegal” and a “flagrant violation of the sovereignty and integrity” of Syrian territory, adding that the US ought to “immediately” cease support for “separatist armed groups”. The article, published by VOA, also casually notes that the US has “about 900” troops deployed in “several bases and posts across northeastern Syria” allegedly as part of the fight against ISIS.

Nearly a decade since US forces officially entered Syria and ISIS is still America’s reason for staying? How is this possible after numerous assurances from US officials — including a US president — that ISIS has been defeated? Why has every American president from Obama to Trump to Biden launched airstrikes inside the country? Is the US mission in Syria actually about fighting terrorism, or does it go deeper? And most puzzling, why the hell is the US occupying Syria?

*

Breaking numerous promises to the contrary, President Obama announced in late 2015 that the US would be deploying troops into Syria to “fight ISIS”. The number started with 50, which soon became 250. In October 2017, a US general said there are 4,000 troops in Syria, and two months later, the Pentagon put the number at 2,000. As of this article’s publication, the consensus seems to be 900 US troops, although there’s reason to suspect the number may actually be higher or lower. Regardless, US forces have occupied parts of Syria now for almost a decade. But why?

“When I took it over it was a mess,” Trump told reporters at the White House back in March 2019. “The [ISIS] caliphate is gone as of tonight.”

Just a few days later, White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders told reporters that ISIS had lost all of its territory in Syria, adding that Defense Secretary Patrick Shanahan briefed Trump and that the Pentagon “made the call” that ISIS had been “eliminated” completely in Syria.

In October, the warmongering hell spawn from South Carolina known as as Senator Lindsey Graham released a statement on US allies in Syria who “fought so bravely” to destroy ISIS:

“By continuing to maintain control of the oil fields in Syria, we will deny [Syrian President] Bashar al-Assad and Iran a monetary windfall. By increasing production of the oil fields, we will be helping our Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) allies who fought so bravely to destroy the ISIS Caliphate. We can also use some of the revenues from future oil sales to pay for our military commitment in Syria.”

He added:

“While I agree that America is not the policeman of the world, I firmly believe the American military is the most capable to protect America and should be used wisely to do so. A wise use of American military power would be to have a small but capable military partnership with SDF elements to prevent the reemergence of ISIS and maintain control of ISIS held fighters. To do this, America must also continue to control the skies over Syria.”

In other words, even if ISIS is mostly — if not entirely — defeated, the US should continue to occupy the country indefinitely to, y’know, make sure they don’t come back — aka the same argument for every US occupation from Afghanistan to Iraq: we have to stay, because if we don’t, something bad might happen. Heavy paranoia makes up the very fabric of every argument trying to justify more war: It’s not a fear of what we know so much as a fear of what we don’t know. It doesn’t matter if ISIS is defeated. It doesn’t even matter if ISIS exists at all. The point is they could come back. The point is they could exist — just like weapons of mass destruction could have existed in Iraq when US troops invaded back in 2003.

*

Despite promising a withdrawal of US troops, President Trump flip-flopped on the issue in late 2019 and ordered “hundreds of additional troops and armored vehicles” into Syria to guard the Deir Ezzor oil fields.

“We’re keeping the oil,” Trump said in October. “I’ve always said that — keep the oil. We want to keep the oil, $45 million a month. Keep the oil. We’ve secured the oil.”

By November, the head of US Central Command admitted there is no “end date” on the US occupation of Syria.

The following year, Tom Bowman, an NPR reporter embedded in Syria, told the publication that President Trump initially wanted all US forces out but “agreed to keep a small number, about 600 or so, to secure these oil fields not only from ISIS but also from Syrian government and Russian forces.”

But if Syria’s oil is to be kept from what remains of ISIS, from Russia, and from Syria, who actually gets to keep it?

In April 2020, Delta Crescent, a newly-formed US-based oil company with ties to the Republican Party was granted a one-year sanctions waiver in order to “advise and assist” oil production in northeast Syria. An anonymous State Department official told The Daily Beast that US officials decided oil produced in northeast Syria “did not really” belong to the Syrian government, and a former senior US military official also told the publication that the US actively trained a unit within the SDF to specifically protect oil fields where Delta Crescent would be operating.

By August, CNN reported that Delta Crescent, which was formed “for the sole purpose” of securing Syrian oil, was granted an exclusive sanctions waiver to “develop and upgrade” more than half of the country’s oil fields under SDF control.

Later that month, Pentagon spokesperson Jessica McNulty assured Politico that the Department of Defense “does not have an affiliation with any private companies in regard to the oil fields in northeast Syria” but then added that US forces in the region are “securing” critical petroleum infrastructure.

When the Biden administration took over in January 2021, it became clear that the waiver for Delta Crescent would be discontinued, and yet throughout much of the year, the company reportedly continued to receive waiver extensions from Biden as a “formality” meant to help Delta Crescent “wind down” operations.

In November 2021, the Office of Foreign Assets Control (which handles regulation and enforcement of US sanctions) issued a new general rule for Syria, granting permission for non-governmental organizations to operate “assistance-related investment activities in support of certain not-for-profit” activities in Syria.

Less than two years later, Delta Crescent’s website no longer exists, and UK-based oil company Gulfsands — which holds oil investments in Syria and founding ties to Delta Crescent — announced that they are coming up with ways to find “indigenous solution[s]” to Syria’s “humanitarian” crisis. Gulfsands labeled their “humanitarian” drilling mission “Project Hope” and claims it will sell oil through accredited traders, with revenues going towards paying for humanitarian projects.

And while western powers deliberate on which favored companies will be gifted the rights to drill in Syria, several media outlets have published reports showing long lines of US convoys transporting tankers full of oil from Syria to US bases in Iraq. The US denies it is stealing Syrian oil, yet it’s hard not to believe such accusations when everyone from US presidents to US senators have blatantly stated otherwise.

*

So, why the hell is the US occupying Syria?

First, the Assad government has a longstanding trade relationship with China and Russia, with a storied history of buying weapons and selling oil. The US government would much prefer opening business to US companies like Raytheon and Exxon and closing business to companies like Rosoboronexport — Russia’s state-owned weapons manufacturer. The invisible hand of the free market works in mysterious ways.

Second, confrontation with Iran is the ultimate goal for US foreign policy in the Middle East, and Syria is one more strategic stepping stone in the process. In 2010, the US proposed dropping five year-long sanctions against Syria in return for the country dropping ties with Iran. Assad rejected the offer.

And lastly, US troops remain in Syria because regime change in Syria is simply part of US foreign policy and has been for years.

In 2011, before accusations of chemical weapons attacks and even before ISIS, Obama flat-out demanded that Assad step down. He then proceeded to provide training and armaments to “rebel” groups in Syria through a covert CIA project that ultimately ended up putting weapons in the hands of actual terrorists — not counting the CIA, of course.

Years prior, President Bush levied economic sanctions against Syria. Bush also famously labeled Iraq, Iran, and North Korea as part of the “Axis of Evil” and later, perhaps less famously, then-Undersecretary of State John Bolton gave a speech in 2002 entitled “Beyond the Axis of Evil” and added Cuba, Libya, and Syria to the list.

Wesley Clark, a former commander of NATO’s forces in Europe, claimed he met a senior military officer in November 2001 who told him the US planned to attack Iraq first before taking action against Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Iran.

Additionally, months before 9/11, neoconservative David Wurmser, with the assistance of his American Enterprise Institute colleague Douglas Feith, drafted a set of war plans for the US and Israel to “strike fatally, not merely disarm, the centers of radicalism in the region — the regimes of Damascus [Syria], Baghdad [Iraq], Tripoli [Libya], Tehran [Iran], and Gaza [the Palestinians]” to establish the recognition that fighting either the United States or Israel is suicidal.

Ultimately, the more the Syrian conflict sucks up the attention and resources of Syrian allies like Iran and Russia, the greater America’s influence becomes. US intervention in the country has less to do with WMDs, ISIS, or defeating terrorism, and everything to do with weapons sales, oil, regime change, and more specifically, regional power games, global hegemony, and grand imperialist designs shat out by neocon think tanks.

And that’s why the hell the US is occupying Syria.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons 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

---

Order Mark Taliano’s Book “Voices from Syria” directly from Global Research.

**Voices from Syria**

Author: Mark Taliano

ISBN Number: 978-0-9737147-9-1

Year: 2017

Product Type: PDF File

List Price: $6.50

Special Offer: $5.00 

Click to order.

First published by Global Research on January 23, 2019

As the time-honored saying goes, ‘It ain’t what you know that gets you in trouble, it’s what you know that ain’t so.’ If Americans ‘know’ anything about Korea, it is that the North Koreans started the Korean War in 1950 when they invaded South Korea across the 38^thParallel, and that after three years of fighting the boundary again settled on that same line. The reality of the conflict between North and South Korea is much more complex and much more interesting than that simplistic tale.

A good starting point for understanding the ongoing conflict between North and South Korea is the agreement between the United States and Japan in 1905, known as the Taft-Katsura Memorandum, which was signed as Japan was defeating Russia in the 1904-05 Russo-Japanese War. In that document the U.S. agreed to the Japanese colonization of Korea in trade for the American occupation of Hawaii (which the U.S. had annexed in 1898) and the Philippines (which the U.S. had acquired as booty in 1898 at the conclusion of the Spanish-American War). Koreans were not consulted about this arrangement.

Image on the right: The 38th parallel is an imaginary line, not visible from space (Source: Public Domain)

In 1910 Japan annexed Korea, making it a subservient colony of the homeland; this had also been sanctioned by the U.S. In the Taft-Katsura Memorandum five years previously. Japanese rule was brutal: it is estimated that at least 18,000 Koreans were killed due to resisting the occupation. Koreans were forced to take Japanese names and speak only Japanese, young Korean males were impressed into the military and sent to Japan to work for slave wages, and tens of thousands of young Korean women were forced into sexually slavery for the pleasure of Japanese males.

Not surprisingly, when Japan surrendered to the U.S. and its allies on August 15, 1945, Koreans were elated at this apparent liberation from Japanese oppression. They were ready and willing to form their own government: a quickly formed Committee for the Preparation of Korean Independence (CPKI) organized people’s committees throughout the country to coordinate the transition to independence. On August 28, 1945 the CPKI announced that it would function as the temporary national government of Korea. On September 6^th delegates from throughout Korea, both north and south of the artificially imposed demarcation line gathered in Seoul to create the Korean People’s Republic of Korea (PRK). Coincidentally, the Koreans announcement of their unified independence came only four days after Ho Chi Minh’s declaration of a unified independence for all of Vietnam.

The United States had a different plan for Korea. At the February 1945 Yalta conference, President Roosevelt suggested to Stalin, without consulting the Koreans, that Korea should be placed under joint trusteeship following the war before being granted her independence. On August 11, two days after the second atomic bomb was dropped assuring Japan’s imminent surrender, and three days after Russian forces entered Manchuria and Korea to oust the Japanese as was agreed to avoid further U.S. casualties, Truman hurriedly ordered his War Department to choose a dividing line for Korea. Two young colonels were given 30 minutes to resolve the matter. The 38th parallel was quickly chosen. Surprisingly, Stalin agreed to this “temporary” partition. On August 15, the United States Army Military Government in Korea was formed and on September 8, 72,000 U.S. troops began arriving to enforce the formal occupation of the south.

General Douglas MacArthur, as commander of the victorious Allied powers in the Pacific, formally issued a proclamation addressed “To the People of Korea,” announcing that forces under his command “will today occupy the territory of Korea south of 38 degrees north latitude.” Ironically Korea, which was a non-aggressor during WWII and throughout history, was now divided, while Japan remained intact.

The U.S. understood that if it was to assert Western-style, capitalist control in Korea it had to defeat, then eliminate, the broad-based popular, democratic and socialist-leaning KPR. Instead of repatriating Japanese as mandated, the U.S. military government, manned by 2,000 U.S. officers, most of whom were unable to speak or understand the Korean language, quickly recruited them and their Korean collaborators to continue administrative functions. Equally egregiously, the U.S. military government revived the feared Japanese colonial police force, the Korean National Police (KNP). About 85 percent of the Koreans who had served in the Japanese colonial police force were quickly employed by the U.S. to man the KNP.

Image below: Korea is a land of almost mystical beauty (Source: Public Domain)

The U.S. hurriedly organized wealthy conservative Koreans representing the traditional land-owning elite and, on September 16, convened the Korean Democratic Party (KDP). The U.S. had quickly identified “several hundred conservatives” among the older and more educated Koreans who had served the Japanese who could serve as the nucleus for the rapidly convened KDP. These were the Koreans who had grown wealthy as a result of years of collaboration with their Japanese colonizers.

On October 12^th the U.S. flew the Korean-American Syngman Rhee in from Washington D.C.–where he had lived for the past 40 years–to Seoul to head this new government. On December 12, 1945, the U.S military government outlawed the KPR and all its related local, provincial and national democratic peoples’ organizations and activities, including all labor unions. Had the KPR been able to proceed with their plan of a united Korea, it is almost certain that the communist Kim Il-sung would have been elected president over a united Korea, (just as Ho Chi Minh would have won had elections been held in divided Vietnam in 1956), as he had spent the previous 10 years leading guerrilla actions against the occupying Japanese and was widely popular.

In the newly created South Korea a large-scale resistance movement arose against the U.S. military and its appointed puppet Korean government. In September 1946 a workers strike spread throughout the country, which was then forcefully suppressed by the new Republic of Korea Army (ROKA) and the U.S. military. At least 1,000 Koreans were killed with more than 30,000 jailed. Regional and local leaders of the popular movement were now either dead, in prison, or had gone underground.

On March 1, 1948, a large nonviolent demonstration on Korea’s Jeju Island took place to celebrate the anniversary of the Korean people’s 1919 mass demonstrations against Japanese occupation. Using the occasion to protest Rhee’s planned separate elections scheduled for May 1948, the crowd was fired upon by the Korean National Police. The police arrested 2,500, a number were injured, and several Koreans were tortured, then killed. The March 1 incident provoked a larger people’s rebellion that erupted on the island on April 3. Rhee was in fact elected president on July 20, 1948 in a farsical election in which only the nation’s elite participated.

The U.S. military commander on Jeju, Colonel Rothwell Brown, ordered an indiscriminate scorched earth campaign as the Jeju uprising escalated. The U.S. Navy blockaded the island with eighteen warships, while bombarding it with 37mm cannons. U.S. planes conducted regular reconnaissance missions and dropped grenades and bombs.

Korean army units from the southern port city of Yosu were ordered to Jeju to put down the  resistance and they rebelled, refusing to go. This mutinous rebellion quickly spread to other areas in the southern part of the mainland. Within two weeks this mutiny was contained by a brutal campaign coordinated by U.S. military adviser Captain James Hausman and carried out with the aid of U.S. aircraft, firepower, and ground troops. All Koreans suspected or those thought sympathetic with the uprising were executed.

Massacre at a village on Jeju Island in 1948 (Source: Public Domain)

The Jeju insurgency was crushed by August, 1949, with repression growing in its sadistic dimensions. Suspects were often stripped naked, tortured, forced to have sex before being beheaded while loved ones were forced, first to watch while clapping with their hands, then to parade in front of their torturers carrying the severed heads of family members. Sexual perversity and military violence are common companions; just ask any soldier. An estimated 60,000 residents of the island were killed by South Korean and U.S. forces, with another 40,000 fleeing abroad.

A guerrilla movement against the US military/Syngman Rhee government spread throughout South Korea, and lasted until the end of the war in 1953. The government used its military superiority to incarcerate several hundred thousand Koreans who had—or might even conceivably have had—any socialist or communist sympathies. Massive numbers of farmers, villagers and urban residents were systematically rounded up in rural areas, villages and cities from throughout South Korea. Captives were regularly tortured to extract names of others. Thousands were imprisoned, and even more thousands forced to dig mass graves before being ordered into them and shot by fellow Koreans, often under the watch of U.S. officers. Estimates of civilians murdered under the pretext of killing “communists” during the era of legal U.S. occupation (August 15, 1945-August 15, 1948) and the succeeding extended period until June 30, 1949 when U.S. combat troops were finally withdrawn, are in the 500,000 range. Nobody knows for sure because no records were kept and facts about this slaughter was forcefully concealed for 40 years.

One of innumerable mass graves in South Korea prior to the onset of war (Source: Public Domain)

Through the postwar decades of South Korean right-wing dictatorships, victims’ fearful families kept silent about that blood-soaked summer. American military reports of the South Korean slaughter were stamped “secret” and filed away in Washington. Communist accounts were dismissed as lies. Only since the 1990s, and South Korea’s democratization, has the truth begun to seep out. In 2002, a typhoon’s fury uncovered one mass grave. Another was found by a television news team that broke into a sealed mine.

More dissidents shot by South Korean military police (Source: Public Domain)

North & South Korea increasingly clashed across the 38^th parallel before the onset of war. The North Korean government claimed that in 1949 alone, the South Korean army and/or police committed over 2600 armed incursions into the North. Subsequently, documents have suggested that, at a minimum, there were a number of attacks by South Korean forces into the North, and that many, if not all, of the attacks on the South had been reprisals.  Note how Wikipedia conveys one altercation:

“Serious border clashes between South and North occurred in August 1949, when thousands of North Korean troops attacked South Korean troops occupying territory north of the 38th parallel.”

South Korean already had troops north of the border, but in this rendition it was the North that attacked.

Captain James H. Hausman wrote in a  briefing note for General Roberts in August of 1949,

“My counterpart and I are firmly convinced that all attacks on South Korea have been reprisals, and almost all incidents have been agitated by the South Korean security forces.”

Col. Min Ki Sik, Assistant Commandant of the Korean School  of Arms observed in 1949,

“One usually hears that the Army never attacks North Korea and is always getting attacked. This is not true. Mostly our Army is doing the attacking first and we attack harder.”

Syngman Rhee’s public pronouncements throughout 1949 and early 1950 consistently spoke of his desire to order his forces to attack the North. On September 30, 1949 he stated,

“I feel strongly that now is the most psychological moment when we should take an aggressive measure.”

The Washington Post quotes him saying on November 1 1949,

“My government will not much longer tolerate a divided Korea,” and “If we have to settle this thing by war, we will do all the fighting needed.”

Napalming the North into oblivion (Source: Public Domain)

According to the North Korean government, the North Korean attack on South Korea on June 25, 1950 was a response to a two-day long bombing by the South Koreans and their surprise attacks on the city of Haeju and other places. Early in the morning of  June 25^th , before the dawn counterattack in the North Korean account, the South Korean Office of Public Information announced that the Southern forces had captured Haeju. The South Korean government later denied capturing the town and blamed the report on an exaggerating officer. Yugoslavia and the Soviet Union proposed that North Korea be invited to the UN Security Council to present its side of the story, but the propoal was voted down.

Whatever the cause, North Korean soldiers did cross the border on June 25^th, and by June 28^th they were in Seoul (which is only 35 miles away). The South Korean Army effectively fell apart; between June 25 and June 28 South Korean forces diminished from 95,000 men to 22,000, almost all of the loss due to desertions. The South would have lost the war in a week had the US not intervened.

On the day Seoul fell President Rhee ordered the killing of anyone deemed to be a political opponent anywhere in South Korea. Killings occurred everywhere that was still held by South Korean forces. Numerous massacres took place, many of them not directed against so-called but rather common citizens. For example On February 7, 1951, 705 unarmed citizens in the villages of Sancheong and Hamyang, were lined up and killed by the South Korean Army. Two days later 719 civilians from the village of Geochang were shot.

Destruction in the North was total (Source: Public Domain)

U.S. Colonel Donald Nichols, a personal friend of Rhee, reported witnessing in Suwon, south of Seoul, the massacre of 1,800 political prisoners in late June 1950. He described the work of two bulldozers, one gouging a series of trenches, the other filling in dirt over the shot bodies after they had been dumped into the fresh graves. Gregory Henderson, who served as a U.S. diplomat in Korea during the late 1940s and early 1950s, estimated that “probably over 100,000 South Korean civilians were killed without any trial whatsoever” by Rhee’s forces during the war.

The outbreak of fighting created a mass of refugees trying to flee to safety. There were so many that they blocked military movements along the roads; orders were given by U.S. military commanders to shoot the refugees. On July 26 1950 the US 8th Army, the highest level of command in Korea, issued orders to stop all Korean civilians. ‘No, repeat, no refugees will be permitted to cross battle lines at any time. Movement of all Koreans in group will cease immediately.’ After this refugees were regularly gunned down as they tried to flee the war.

On the very day that the US 8th Army delivered its stop refugee order in July 1950, up to 400 South Korean civilians gathered by bridge at No Gun Ri were killed by US forces from the 7th Cavalry Regiment. Some were shot above the bridge, on the railroad tracks. Others were strafed by US planes. More were killed under the arches in an ordeal that local survivors say lasted for three days.

“There was a lieutenant screaming like a madman, fire on everything, kill ’em all,” recalls 7th Cavalry veteran Joe Jackman. “I didn’t know if they were soldiers or what. Kids, there was kids out there, it didn’t matter what it was, eight to 80, blind, crippled or crazy, they shot ’em all.”

The highest law officer in the land, President Truman’s second Attorney General, J. Howard McGrath, referred to the Koreans as “rodents,” and thus had no regrets about the ongoing slaughter.

Meanwhile the US easily destroyed North Korea’s meager air force and air defences, and began an unimpeded bombing campaign of the north on June 29, 1950 that lasted for three years.  Over that period, U.S.  forces flew one million-forty thousand sorties and dropped 386,037 tons of bombs and 32,357 tons of napalm. If one counts all types of airborne ordnance, including rockets and machine-gun ammunition, the total tonnage comes to 698,000 tons. The U.S. destroyed every city, every village, every dam, every railroad, and every highway in the North Korea. An estimated 2.5 million North Koreans died in the bombing, most of them civilians, many of them incinerated by napalm. Flier Federic Champlin observed that,

“One thing about napalm is that when you’ve hit a village and have seen it go up in flames, you know that you’ve accomplished something. Nothing makes a pilot feel worse than to work over an area and not see that he’s accomplished anything.”

On June 25, 1951, General O’Donnell, commander of the Far Eastern Air Force Bomber Command, testified in answer to a question from Senator John C. Stennis (“North Korea has been virtually destroyed, hasn’t it?”):

“Oh, yes; … I would say that the entire, almost the entire Korean Peninsula is just a terrible mess. Everything is destroyed. There is nothing standing worthy of the name. Just before the Chinese came in we were grounded; there were no more targets in Korea.”

In 1952 General Curtis LeMay stated,

“We have bombed every city twice, now we are going back to pulverize them into stones.”

In August 1951, war correspondent Tibor Meráy stated that he had witnessed “a complete devastation between the Yalu River and the capital.” He said that there were “no more cities in North Korea.” He added,

“My impression was that I am traveling on the moon because there was only devastation—every city was only a collection of chimneys.”

The war’s highest-ranking U.S. POW, U.S. Major General William F. Dean, reported that the majority of North Korean cities and villages he saw were either rubble or snow-covered wasteland. As a final florish to this nationwide destruction, General MacArthur in December of 1950 requested 34 atomic bombs to use to create a nuclear wasteland along the Chinese border. Although this request was turned down, President Truman and others repeatedly contemplated how to best use atomic bombs in the war.

After Truman fired General MacArthur in May 1951, the former ‘supreme commander’ testified to Congress.

“The war in Korea has already almost destroyed that nation of 20 million people. I have never seen such devastation…..After I looked at that wreckage and those thouands of women and children…..I vomited.”

Three years after the beginning of the war, a cease-fire was finally signed. Everything was back to where it had been at the beginning, with almost the same borders as before the war and the same unfulfilled dream of reunification. No one had won. Everyone had lost. The war is calculated to have cost the lives of up to 5 million people, by far the majority of them civilians.

A few lessons could have been learned from the Korean War. One is, as famed journalist I.F. Stone observed,

“Every government is run by liars and nothing they say should be believed.”

Another would be the recognition, as voiced by war veteran Mike Hastie, that

“The United States is a non-stop killing machine.”

Because we live within the lies told by our government and therefore fail to learn, after Korea the U.S. went on to devastate  Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya…….causing human suffering beyond comprehension and massive destruction of human and natural systems.

Let us therefore say, as a thought experiment, that you are the only mature adult in the room, and it is therefore your responsibility to subdue the pathological personalities that inevitably pop up as leaders of the U.S. government and U.S. military—subdue them for the sake their long-suffering victims and for the sake of the health and viability of the Earth’s ecosystems and biosphere as a whole. What are you going to do, it’s up to you?

Here is one possible way forward. After the Soviet Union fell apart, Gorbachev said “It was an evil system, it had to be dismantled.” Surely this profoundly criminal U.S. system has to be dismantled as well.

“The greatest purveyor of violence in the world today: my own government. For the sake of the hundreds of thousands trembling under our violence, I cannot be silent.” — Martin Luther King

*

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

Dana Visalli is an ecologist and organic farmer living in Twisp, Washington. Contact him at [email protected]. See also Afghanistan, Ecology and the End of War and US Occupation Forces in Afghanistan: Incompetent, Irreverent, and Irrelevant.

Sources

The Hidden History of the Korean War by I.F. Stone 1952- originally published in 1952 during the Korean War, It raised questions about the origin of the Korean War, made a case that the United States government manipulated the United Nations, and gave evidence that the U.S. military and South Korean oligarchy dragged out the war by sabotaging the peace talks.

Korea’s Place in the Sun: A Modern Historyby Bruce Cumings  2005

Don’t Thank Me for My Service: My Vietnam Awakening to the Long History of U.S. Lies  by Brian Willson  2018

Brian Willson’s blog page:  www.brianwillson.com  enter ‘Korea’ in the search box for numerous articles.

List of Massacres in South Korea before and during the war: https://wikivisually.com/wiki/List_of_massacres_in_South_Korea

Sancheong and Hamyang Massacres: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sancheong-Hamyang_massacre

Geochang Massacre: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geochang_massacre

Geochange Survivor’s Story: http://koreajoongangdaily.joins.com/news/article/article.aspx?aid=1932280

This is Korea; actual war footage, 49 minutes, “ the only color documentary made during the Korean War,” full of untruths: https://youtu.be/pn_dLez1g9k

This video was recorded during the election campaign prior to the November 2020 presidential election

***

Let me tell you something.

I am an Air Force Veteran,

I just want to know why do we have to vote for somebody who voted for war, killing our brothers and sisters as well thousands of Iraqi civilians.   

You are Disqualified, Sir.

My friends are dead, 

You have Blood on Your Hands

We Fought in Your Wars”

 

Video 

 

 

Al Jazeera’s Abderrahim Foukara asks the former US defense secretary whether toppling Saddam Hussein was worth the many lives of those killed during and after the 2003 Iraq war.

Donald Rumsfeld, who served in the Bush administration at the time of the conflict, argues that the overthrow of a brutal dictator who massacred his own people justified the consequences of the conflict.

According to Rumsfeld, Bashar Al Assad is a brutal dictator who is killing his own people. 

More than 2 million deaths following the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

Where are the war criminals??

.

 

VIDEO 

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

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

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

***

“Every cause has its effect; every effect has its cause; everything happens according to law; chance is but a name for law not recognized; there are many planes of causation, but nothing escapes the law.” —Kybalion

It is no coincidence that within 48 hours, two California commercial banks failed. The not much talked-about Silvergate Capital, a central lender to the crypto industry, declared on March 8, 2023, it would wind down its operations. On March 10, the Silicon Valley Bank (SVB), primary lender for tech-startups, collapsed.

SVB was immediately taken over by federal regulators. It is the largest bank failure since the bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers in 2008. Relatively unknown outside of the Silicon Valley, SVB was the 16^th largest US commercial bank with US$ 209 billion in assets at the end of 2022.

The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) has assured SVB insured depositors that they will have access to their full funds within the FDIC-fixed limits of US$ 250,000 per depositor.

However, the FDIC total fund covers only about 2% of the $9.6 trillion in US-insured deposits.

What happens when other banks collapse at the same time and uninformed depositors believe their deposits up to US$ 250,000 are safe? But then find out that they are not?

The failure of the SVB is the result of several converging factors. As former Deputy Treasury Secretary, Paul Craig Roberts says, one of the key reasons is the 1999 Clinton-regime repealing the Glass-Steagall Act, i.e. a large degree of banking deregulation, and because the Dodd-Frank Act (2010) allows failing banks to seize the deposits of depositors in order to have a bail-in instead of a bail-out. The legislation, especially the latter, causes depositors to withdraw their deposits on any sign of bank trouble. It is called a run on the bank.

Another reason for SVB troubles is the Fed’s rapid and substantial interest rates hikes – the largest and in the shortest period in the last at least 30 years – which also reduced the value of the SVB’s bond portfolio. Banks and businesses have difficulties to adjust to the size and pace of interest rate increases. See this.

The same may apply to other banks which are not sufficiently diversified and securely funded. Wait and see.

As if programmed and looking like a domino effect, on Sunday March 12, Signature Bank folded too. SB is a New York-based commercial bank with a big real estate lending business, as well as sizable cryptocurrency deposits. SB had a total asset base of $110.4 billion and deposits of $88.6 billion as of December 31, 2022.

It closed its doors abruptly after regulators said that keeping the bank open could threaten the stability of the entire financial system.

Are we talking about a lingering and potentially rapidly expanding domino effect?

Nothing happens by coincidence. All is connected with everything. We have to learn overriding the mainstream media narrative that points always to singular events to confuse and brainwash. When we learn connecting the dots between occurrences and events, we will realize that everything is connected with everything. See also Michel Chossudovsky’s “Ninety-nine Interrelated Concepts”.

Switching the Narrative

So far, hardly anybody has made the link of these banking failures – and potentially more to come – to the World Economic Forum’s (WEF) prophesized Great Reset.

A WEF insider has been caught boasting that the Silicon Valley Bank crash was an orchestrated plot that went to plan perfectly – and the crash will have a domino effect on the banking industry, leading to a global financial meltdown.

To what extent such a scenario will play out remains to be seen.

For more on the subject of “collapse and control”, see this, watch in particular the 11:11 min. video (below), inserted in this newspunch clip. It also features the General Manager of the Bank for International Settlement (BIS), Augustin Carsten, who already in 2020 was talking about the need for Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC) for total control of who spends money for what and especially for control of cross-border transactions. He deliberately avoids mentioning “personal control”.

In a juxtaposition, the video also shows a clip of Tucker Carlson’s Fox News interview with South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem (Rep), where she explains why she vetoes CBDC and that she is joined by at least another 20 US States, so far. She confirms what many economists have been saying since the concept of CBDCs is being pushed around the western hemisphere in the last ten years.

CBDCs would be an absolute control mechanism of every citizen on the planet. Nobody wants to be controlled, and – à la Great Reset, own nothing and be happy. People like their autonomy. See this for full interview (4 min) (video is below).

The massive planned banking collapse – already announced as a doomsday scenario in the aftermath of the 2008 / 2010 banking crisis and on several subsequent occasions — may already have begun. “They”, the “doomsday-people” who also command the WEF, are running ahead of schedule, execution of Agenda 2030, because people are gradually but increasingly waking up to the WEF-planned world disaster.

Of course, the WEF with its more than willing founder (1971) and CEO, Klaus Schwab, coming from a solid Nazi background and from a family deeply embedded into the Third Reich, is more than willingly complying.

Today the WEF is backed by Big-Finance looming in the shadows, BlackRock being WEF’s major financier. The likes of BlackRock, Vanguard and StateStreet, plus a series of smaller banks, Citi, Chase, Morgan, Bank of America – and further down the ladder, Deutsche Bank and Credit Suisse – all of them are controlling an estimated US$ 25 to US$ 30 trillion of assets around the globe.

In addition, they are all deeply “over-engaged” in the Derivatives Market. While nobody knows exactly what the total of this Casino Money amounts to, estimates range from US$ 500 trillion to over a quadrillion dollar. Compare this with the world’s projected GDP of US$ 112.6 trillion (2023 estimate).

According to the Economic Times, a derivative is a contract between two parties (mostly banks and other financial institutions) which derives its value / price from an underlying asset. The most common types of derivatives are futures, options, forwards and swaps. In other words, they may include short-term speculations, helped by AI, for example on exchange rate fluctuations, often in fractions of a second.

Derivatives are not real money, but under certain circumstances, they are allowed to be part of a bank’s asset base, thereby risking blowing the total volume of assets out of proportion.

Derivatives are the loose card in a house of cards. You pull it, and the house collapses. You pull a card in two or three houses and the domino effect may wipe out the entire city of cards – the entire banking system may go down the drain. Since derivatives are interconnected worldwide, the entire international banking cartel may suffer.

If one or two heavily derivative-exposed banks claim their derivative holdings from their partner bank or banks, it becomes a “derivative-run” on the banks, and the system may collapse – possibly on a worldwide basis, or at least in the western dollar-based banking system.

Derivative speculations should long be either forbidden or at least regulated. They are not, thanks to massive lobbying of Big Finance. And thanks to almost total banking deregulation by the Clinton Administration in 1999, i.e. the repeal of the Glass Stegall Act, the abolition of the separation between investment and commercial banking, as well as basically limitless lending, without mandatary asset-liability ratios. This facilitates risk and laissez faire banking.

In times of fast and substantial interest rate hikes as we experienced over the last 12 months, over-exposed banks run higher risks of failure.

Back to derivatives – which are key in the looming banking crisis. Warren Buffet calls derivatives “Financial Weapons of Mass Destruction”. He is right.

Let’s look at the derivative exposure of big banking, also called “systemically important financial institutions” (SIFI). In a better-known term, they are called Too Big To Fail Banks, and used to be eligible for government “bail-outs” with taxpayer’s money.
In an elaborate paper by Ellen Brown, Chair of Public Banking, she describes the conundrum of derivatives. As of the third quarter of 2022, a total of 1,211 insured U.S. national and state commercial banks and savings associations held derivatives, but 88.6% of these were concentrated in only four large banks: J.P. Morgan Chase ($54.3 trillion), Goldman Sachs ($51 trillion), Citibank ($46 trillion), Bank of America ($21.6 trillion), followed by Wells Fargo ($12.2 trillion). Unlike in 2008-09, when the big derivative concerns were mortgage-backed securities and credit default swaps, today the largest and riskiest category is interest rate products.

SIFIs, as defined by the Dodd-Frank Act, ratified in July 2010, is requiring insolvent SIFIs to “bail-in” the money of their creditors to recapitalize themselves. This banking law is seriously flawed because it incites depositors to run-on-their-bank to withdraw their money as soon as there are rumors of a bank’s instability. As we know, such consumer panics may bring down a bank and possibly the banking system, or parts of it, through a domino effect.

According to Ellen, “Technically, the cutoff for SIFIs is US$ 250 billion in assets. However, the reason they are called systemically important is not their asset size but the fact that their failure could bring down the whole financial system.”

“That designation comes chiefly from their exposure to derivatives, the global casino is so highly interconnected that it is a “house of cards.” Pull out one card and the whole house collapses. SVB held US$ 27.7 billion in derivatives, no small sum, but it is only .05% of the $55,387 billion ($55.387 trillion) held by JPMorgan, the largest US derivatives bank.”

For Ellen’s comprehensive article The Looming Quadrillion Dollar Derivatives Tsunami, see this.

The build-up of an up to a quadrillion dollar or more of a derivative casino does not happen overnight. And it does not happen haphazardly either. Could it possibly have been planned by a long hand – and prepared to fit the WEF’s Great Reset and Agenda 2030?

Massive growth of the derivative market started with the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act (banking deregulation) in 1999. At the end of 1999, total outstanding derivatives stood at US$ 88.2 trillion dollars. Today, 23 years later, it is estimated at perhaps one quadrillion US-dollars or more. Was this explosive and exponential growth planned?

Was the Clinton Administration 1999 banking deregulation / repeal of Glass-Steagall a deliberate precursor for what was planned to be part of the WEF’s Great Reseat which intends to reset, to destroy the global economy, to rebuild it according to WEF’s One World Order, directed from the shadows by Big Finance, that the deregulation has helped it to become monstruous and all-dominating?

The derivative market is internationally highly interconnected. The collapse of a Casino Bank in the US may trigger banking failures in Indonesia. It is like a financial “butterfly effect”.

All that serves global dominance, to create a well-controlled and regulated One World Order, run on Central Bank Digital Currency – CBDC – with any parallel currency, crypto or else, strictly forbidden.

It is the international pharma industry married to international banking. The former controlled by WHO, the latter by the BIS – Bank for International Settlement.  Both based in Switzerland. As we know there are no coincidences.

So far it is just a plan – a diabolical plan, that We, the People can and must stop.

*

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

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

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

Featured image is from MarketWatch

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

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

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

***

NATO prophesied a Second Russian Offensive (SRO) on the muddy heals of rasputitsa [Spring]. Then when queried, on February 13, about upcoming festivities, Secretary-General Stoltenberg imparted: “we are seeing the start already.” The SRO crept imperceptibly. April Fools’ came early.  

The Russo-Ukrainian War’s 800-kilometer front bisects the Donbass with a 240-kilometer incision. The SRO engages a segment of Donbass-situated line, with the Russian-held city, Donetsk, at its strategic core. The SRO’s operational theatre contiguously connects 5 small Ukrainian-held cities: (north-to-south) Bakhmut, Chavis Yar, Avdiivka, Marinka and Vuhledar

As missiles fly, Bakhmut sits 120 kilometers northeast of Vuhledar. Curves add length to lines; as do flanks of advancing Russian saliants. From the saliant northwest of Bakhmut to the southwestern environs of Vuhledar – the SRO’s battleline extends 160 kilometers; a third laying within or along urban terrain.

Source: Google Map

SRO attacks occur along this Bakhmut-Vuhledar front-segment. (Exceptions being the thermobaric-assisted Tstentr Group raids north of Kreminna.)

Digging beneath these 5 cities for years, Ukrainians built warrens impervious to light artillery. Javelins checked Russian armour. Stingers repelled ground-support airstrikes. Therefore, the SRO deigns to overrun these cities with infantry.

On February 22 Ukraine’s Defense Ministry began providing daily tallies of SRO ground assaults. By March, 10,000 Russian infantry charged fortified Ukrainian positions – daily. Hundred-strong companies, accompanied by armoured vehicles, attack freshly shelled targets along the Bakhmut-Vuhledar front. Ukraine reports up to 170 such attacks – daily.

The frontline separates Donetsk (pop 1.1 million) from 2 satellite cities, Avdiivka (prewar pop, 32,000) and Marinka (prewar pop, 10,000). Donetsk’s and Avdiivka’s downtowns were once a 10-minute spin away. Avdiivka’s abandoned. Every building’s been hit. Marinka got moonscaped. Ukrainians shell Donetsk from the Avdiivka-Marinka area, the capture of which is the SRO’s supreme mission.

Combatants near Avdiivka are never more than 200 meters apart. They’re often closer. They throw hand-grenades. Russian saliants annexed a dozen square kilometers on either side of Avdiivka. They’re now 7.5 kilometers apart. Encirclement looms. More urgently, Russians are breeching Avdiivka’s perimeter 3 to 4 times daily. Incursions penetrate hundreds of meters deep and kill hundreds of Ukrainians.

Russians have taken 3 square kilometers southeast of Marinka. They broke into west Marinka, March 8.

Source: Google Map

Twenty kilometers south and 20 west of Marinka one finds Vuhledar (pre-war pop, 14,000), [See first map above] the hub nearest the axis mundi where the frontline turns 90-degrees westward. So far, the SRO has captured 70 square kilometers south of Vuhledar. Raids on Vuhledar’s southern outskirts prep an armoured push.

Forty kilometers north of Avdiivka one arrives at Chavis Yar (prewar pop, 15,000). Chavis Yar, being 13 kilometers west-by-southwest of Bakhmut, serves as Bakhmut’s storage/supply nucleus. Bakhmut (pre-war pop, 80,000) spans 42-square-k.

Of the 5 cities targeted by the SRO, Bakhmut possesses the least strategic value. Chavis Yar is command and logistics center for the Avdiivka-Bakhmut line. If Chavis Yar falls the Russians will:

• encircle Bakhmut;
• disrupt 40 kilometers of critical frontline; and,
• imperil supplies to Avdiivka, Marinka and Vuhledar.

See Live Map of Ukraine Ministry of Defense

 

Nevertheless, in mid-2022 Kyiv sent 8 elite brigades (32,000 troops) to Bakhmut. These soldiers endured artillery hammerings while Russians glacially pushed two saliants a few kilometers deep – north and south of Bakhmut. Fearing encirclement, NATO recommended a retreat before Russia’s offensive. AFP, DW, BBC, CBC and the US networks badgered Zelensky for clinging to this “merely symbolic” and “strategically irrelevant” town.

Zelensky, heeding other angels, eulogised Bakhmut as Ukraine’s “fortress” and fashioned “Hold Bakhmut” into a patriotic war-cry.

The SRO yarded NATO’s dreads ashore. Saliants astride Bakhmut oozed toward Chavis Yar. The southern one is 4 kilometers from city limits; 150 meters from the Chavis Yar-Bakhmut railway. An arc of the northern saliant, 2 kilometers from Chavis Yar, seeps southward 300 meters per day.

Zelensky vacillated for weeks, then flip-flopped, then on March 7 addressed the planet via CNN to pitch “Hold Bakhmut.” Simultaneously, Bakhmut’s frontline collapsed!

This tragicomedy played-out because by February, 70% of the troops Ukraine sent to Bakhmut were statistics. Untrained, ill-equipped conscripts replaced them. During February, the SRO lashed thousands more casualties upon them. Bakhmut line life expectancy became measured in days.

In early March, this line stretched along 10 kilometers of eastern Bakhmut’s eastern outskirts. (The Bakhmutka River divides Bakhmut into 25-square-k western, and 17-square-k eastern, sections.)

Standard operating procedure for full-on frontal, brigade-size infantry assaults on fixed positions dictates that a 1,000-strong commando battalion of snipers, sappers and rocket-grenadiers blitz the line… amidst 3,500 target-dummies with minimal training and equipment.

In early March, Wagner Group began flinging brigade-size assaults at Bakhmut’s frontline. While 20,000 felon-soldiers got machine-gunned, tactical teams knifed through; ensconcing themselves several blocks behind enemy lines wherefrom they wrought havoc. Ukrainians fled en masse across the Bakhmutka. Subsequent fighting has seen:

• a third of western Bakhmut fall;
• protracted battles in the central business district; and,
• the entrapment of thousands of Ukrainians.

Bakhmut’s grander battleground is a 3-sided box open at the west by mercy of the winnowing gap between the Russian saliants approaching Chavis Yar. Its eastern front consists of 5 kilometers of blasted Bakhmutka beachfront. To behold this vista conscripts slog a 9-kilometer gauntlet from the burning suburbs of Chavis Yar. No mud-puddle in this box is further than 3 kilometers from Russian snipers or mortar-squads.

Drones bespeckle the sky. As Russia readies annihilating barrages, Ukraine rushes in more soldiers!

Vladimir sharpens the cleaver. Volodymyr fattens the calf.

 

*

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

William Walter Kay is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Sources

https://liveuamap.com/ (Ukrainian Ministry of Defence)

https://sputniknews.com/20230320/russias-special-military-operation-in-ukraine-and-how-it-is-progressing-1105665248.html (Russian Ministry of Defense)

These regularly updated maps identify the locations where the main action was occurring. Russian names for these locales were searched in: RIA Novosti, RT, TASS and Sputnik News etc. Ukrainian names were used when searching: AFP, AP, BBC, CBC, DW, Reuters etc.

Featured image is from Supratim Barman

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

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

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

***

These days it isn’t difficult to be cynical about politicians. This is especially the case given the draconian public health policies that most of them supported during the COVID-19 pandemic.

After enduring repeated lockdowns and being coerced into accepting experimental gene-based vaccines, it’s no wonder that many people have lost faith in their lawmakers.

While only rarely do we see politicians who are brave enough to speak out about the dangers of mRNA COVID-19 injections, there are a few who refuse to be silenced. Take Andrew Bridgen, for example, a Member of Parliament from the UK who, a few days ago, stood up to give a speech in a debate on mRNA COVID-19 booster vaccinations. Speaking to an almost deserted UK House of Commons (the video shows fellow parliamentarians quickly leaving the chamber as he began to speak), Bridgen openly described the deaths and serious harms caused by the shots.

Recently suspended from the UK’s ruling Conservative Party after he had tweeted an article questioning the safety of COVID-19 vaccines and labeled them “the biggest crime against humanity since the Holocaust,” Bridgen currently sits as an independent MP in the UK parliament. Predictably, since he began speaking out about the dangers of these vaccines, there have been crude attempts to censor him. After the video of his House of Commons speech was posted on YouTube, for example, it was rapidly taken down and only reinstated by the social media platform after a public outcry. Meantime, the speech has essentially been ignored in the mainstream media.

Video

The risk of serious adverse events

One of the most powerful aspects of this speech is that, far from resorting to conjecture or hearsay, Bridgen specifically refers to the UK government’s own data. Citing the Yellow Card scheme, for example, the system for reporting and monitoring adverse reactions to drugs and vaccines in the UK, he describes how the reported number of adverse events for COVID-19 vaccines is now far higher than those for all conventional vaccines administered over the past 50 years.

Bridgen also outlines how, in order to examine the frequency of serious adverse events following vaccination with the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA COVID-19 vaccines, data held by the US Government’s National Library of Medicine was used for a research study led by Dr. Joseph Fraiman. This revealed that there are 10.1 serious adverse events for every 10,000 Pfizer vaccinations administered, meaning that one in every 990 people vaccinated with the Pfizer booster will suffer a serious adverse event.

Dr. Fraiman further discovered that the risk from the Moderna mRNA vaccine was even greater than that of the Pfizer one, with an average of 15.1 serious adverse events for every 10,000 shots given. This means that one in 662 people vaccinated with the Moderna booster will suffer a serious adverse event. Combining the data for the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA vaccines or boosters gives an average of 1,250 serious adverse events for every 1 million vaccine boosters administered – in other words, a one in 800 chance of a serious adverse event occurring.

The true cost of using mRNA vaccines to prevent hospitalization

Bridgen describes how the UK government’s own data shows that, in order to prevent just one healthy adult aged between 50 and 59 from being hospitalized due to COVID-19, 43,600 people have to be given a booster shot. Based on a serious adverse event rate of one in 800, this means that in the healthy 50 to 59-year-old group, as a result of being given mRNA boosters, 55 people would die or be hospitalized simply to prevent one COVID-19 patient being hospitalized.

The same data also shows that in the healthy 40 to 49 age group, 92,500 booster jabs were required just to prevent one person being hospitalized due to COVID-19. This would have put 116 people at risk of death or having a serious adverse reaction. In the healthy 30 to 39 age group, a total of 210,400 booster jabs would be required to prevent one person being hospitalized. This suggests that 263 UK citizens in this age group will have been hospitalized or even died just to keep one single COVID-19 case out of hospital.

As Bridgen points out, however, hospitalization does not necessarily mean a serious medical intervention such as intubation or oxygen. To prevent severe hospitalization from COVID-19, the numbers needed to be boosted with the vaccines become astronomical. Here, the UK government’s own data shows that, in healthy adults aged 50 to 59, it was necessary to give 256,400 booster jabs to prevent just one severe hospitalization. This would put 321 people into hospital with a serious side-effect, including risk of death.

For healthy 40 to 49-year-olds, the number needing to be boosted to keep just one COVID-19 patient out of an intensive care unit increases to 932,500. This potentially puts 1,165 people into hospital with serious harms, disability, or death.

For the most vulnerable group – the over-70s with comorbidities – UK government data suggest it would be necessary to administer 800 vaccine boosters to prevent one hospitalization. This means that, by being boosted, all this group are essentially doing is swapping the risk of being hospitalized with COVID-19 for the risk of being hospitalized from the vaccine.

Examining the financial cost of the COVID-19 vaccination program in the UK, Bridgen says the government’s own data suggest that it cost over £1.9 million ($2.34 million) to prevent a single hospitalization among healthy 50 to 59-year-olds, and over £11 million ($13.54 million) to prevent one serious hospitalization in this group. The cost of preventing the hospitalization of one healthy 40 to 49-year-old was over £4 million ($4.93 million). For healthy 30 to 39-year-olds, preventing one hospitalization cost over £9 million ($11.08 million).

State-sponsored self-harm

Summing up, Bridgen says that the data are clear: for all healthy people and all those considered at risk under 70, the probability of being seriously harmed by COVID-19 is seriously outweighed by the risks associated with the experimental mRNA vaccines and boosters. Even for the most vulnerable group – the over-70s with health problems – he says the two risks are essentially identical. Describing the use of mRNA vaccines as “absolute madness,” he argues that if the UK were to continue employing them it would be engaging in “expensive state-sponsored self-harm on a national level.”

Nor does Bridgen shy away from identifying the biggest beneficiaries from the UK’s COVID-19 vaccine program. Pointing out that mRNA vaccines have made the pharma industry billions, he describes how the UK’s Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) is 86 percent funded by drug companies. He additionally alleges that members of the UK’s Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunization (JCVI), the body that advises UK health departments on immunization, have between them declared interests of more than £1 billion ($1.23 billion) in the pharma industry. Clearly, this hardly qualifies their advice as independent.

Accusing pharma companies of putting profits before people, Bridgen says governments across the globe have been their willing marketing agents in all this. He concludes by calling on the UK government to immediately stop the mRNA vaccine booster program and initiate a full public inquiry into not only the vaccine harms, but also how every UK agency and institution set up to protect the public interest has failed so abysmally in its duties.

Bridgen’s speech should be required viewing for politicians across the globe.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons 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 Dr. Rath Health Foundation.

Executive Director of the Dr. Rath Health Foundation and one of the coauthors of our explosive book, “The Nazi Roots of the ‘Brussels EU’”, Paul is also our expert on the Codex Alimentarius Commission and has had eye-witness experience, as an official observer delegate, at its meetings. You can find Paul on Twitter at @paulanthtaylor

He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from DRHF

---

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

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

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

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

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

***

This article was originally published in February 2018.

More than a decade and a half after the US-led NATO’s war of aggression against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (SRJ) in violation of international law using highly toxic and radioactive uranium shells, the enormity of this war crime is becoming clear.

In Serbia, aggressive cancer among young and old has reached epidemic proportions in recent years. The suffering of the people cries out to heaven. The south of Serbia and Kosovo are particularly affected. According to the Serbian Ministry of Health, a child falls ill with cancer every day. The entire country is contaminated. Due to the damage to the genetic material (DNA), generations upon generations of deformed children will be born. Knowingly and willingly, genocide has been committed.

Until recently, the politicians, with the help of the media, withheld the truth from the unsettled citizens of Serbia under pressure from the perpetrators of the genocide. Courageous and responsible doctors, ex-military, ex-politicians and scientists have now succeeded in breaking through this wall of silence – for the benefit of the Serbian people and the many other peoples of this world who share their fate.

Uranium weapons are weapons of mass destruction

When the USA used the defoliant “Agent Orange” and napalm in Vietnam, the world was horrified. That was no longer war, that was butchery of the civilian population and lasting destruction of nature. Fifty years later, generation after generation is born severely disabled – born to die. But the weapons industry, including the nuclear weapons industry, has rapidly developed its business since Vietnam. All wars are illegal wars of aggression according to the legal standards of the Nuremberg Tribunal, and they are becoming ever more murderous, insidious, widespread, genocidal. This was also the case with the first war of the US-led NATO on European soil against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in 1999.

Here, with the tacit acquiescence of NATO allies – including Germany – the US army used weapons of mass destruction that it had already tested in the 2nd Gulf War in 1991 and in Bosnia-Herzegovina in 1994/95: highly toxic and radioactive uranium weapons. NATO itself has admitted that it has fired 30,000 shells with depleted uranium (DU), the Serbian military speaks of 50,000 shells. This is equivalent to 10 to 15 tonnes of uranium.

Since extensive scientific literature and film material (“Deadly Dust”) on this war crime are already available in German, English and Serbian, here are just a few comments:

Because of the long degradation process of radioactivity and its toxicity, waste from the uranium and nuclear industry – mainly DU of the isotope 238 – is stored in secured dumps for a very long period of time. To reduce the high costs associated with this, DU is therefore readily given away free of charge to interested parties such as the military. DU has characteristics that are particularly attractive to the defence industry.

According to Professor Siegwart-Horst Günther, DU projectiles developed according to a German technology have a high penetrating power due to the high density of metallic uranium (1.7 times greater than that of lead) and are especially suitable for breaking steel armour and underground concrete bunkers. DU is also a combustible material that self-ignites when it penetrates armour plate, burning at 3,000 degrees Celsius to form uranium oxide dust and releasing highly toxic and radioactive material (uranium oxide).

This uranium oxide aerosol with particle sizes in the nanoscale enters the human body via the air we breathe, the water and, in the long term, also via the food chain.

In the lungs, the DU dust particles are also attached to the red and white blood cells and thus enter all organs of the body, including the brain, kidneys and testicles, causing cancer in many organs and irreversible damage to the genetic material (DNA). The strong carcinogenicity of DU is due to the fact that chemotoxicity and radiotoxicity act synergistically.

DU can also reach an unborn child via the placenta and cause severe damage. Possible long-term damage includes genetic defects in infants, childhood leukaemia, cancer and kidney damage. Since the uranium oxide particles have taken on the property of ceramics due to the heat of combustion, they are insoluble in water, are fixed in this form in the body and can develop their radioactive effect (alpha radiation) for years.

War with uranium weapons is genocide brought about knowingly and willingly

For biochemist Albrecht Schott, DU is an example of interventions in creation that endanger it existentially, and thus not a weapon against states, but a weapon against the planet. The well-known German journalist and filmmaker Frieder Wagner calls uranium weapons “weapons of extermination” and the victims of these murderous weapons the “dead of silent death”. Uranium weapons are the “perfect weapon” to kill masses of people, that is, to commit genocide.

Since the UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide of 1948, genocide has been a criminal offence under international criminal law that is not subject to a statute of limitations. It is characterised by the specific intention to destroy, directly or indirectly, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group as such, in whole or in part. This is why genocide is also called a “unique crime”, a “crime of crimes” or the “worst crime in international criminal law”.

The Australian doctor, nuclear weapons specialist and peace activist Helen Caldicott writes in her book “Nuclear Danger USA”:

“It is clear that the Pentagon knew about the health risks posed by uranium-containing munitions long before Operation Desert Storm [2nd Gulf War 1991; the author]. Numerous military reports acknowledge that uranium-238 can cause kidney damage, lung and bone cancer, (non-malignant) lung disease, skin disease, neurocognitive disorders, chromosomal damage and birth defects.”

For this reason, wars involving the use of highly toxic and radioactive uranium weapons are both war crimes and knowingly and willingly committed genocide – including the war against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in 1999. Under the UN Convention against Genocide, the Parties to the Convention undertake to punish genocide or persons committing genocide, whether they are governments, public officials or private individuals.

Aggressive cancers in Serbia reach epidemic proportions

The bombing of Serbia lasted 78 days. In the process, 1,031 soldiers were killed, 5,173 soldiers and police officers were wounded, 2,500 civilians died – including 78 children – and over 6,000 civilians were wounded. In addition to the projectiles with DU, which also contained traces of highly toxic plutonium, other explosive combinations and rocket fuels with certain chemical compounds were used, which have a very toxic effect when exploded and cause cancer. The number of these cancers grew year by year. Also, the number of newborns with deformities and those with aggressive childhood leukaemia increased.

More than a year ago, estimates by the Serbian Association for Cancer Control became known: Studies had shown that the use of uranium weapons had led to 15,000 cases of cancer and 10,000 deaths between 2001 and 2010, according to the head of the association and oncologist Prof. Slobodan Cikaric, MD. In total, there were 330,000 cancer cases in Serbia during this period. The death rate has increased by 2.5 per cent annually since 1999.

Back in 2013, Professor Cikaric said in the Serbian newspaper Blic that 14 years after the DU bombing, Serbia was expecting an explosion of cancers of all kinds. He was to be proved right. What is reported are breakdowns of the immune system with increasing cases of infectious diseases, severe functional disorders of the kidneys and liver, aggressive leukaemias and other cancers (including multiple cancers), disorders of the bone marrow, genetic defects and malformations, as well as miscarriages and premature births in pregnant women as after the Chernobyl disaster.

If you read a Serbian newspaper today or walk through a Serbian cemetery, you will notice the short lifespan of many of the deceased in the page-long obituaries or epitaphs. In each case it should read: “Died as a result of DU poisoning and radiation”.

Many citizens of Serbia are psychologically burdened because of their years of pity for sick relatives and because of the anxious waiting if and when they too might be caught up by one of the terrible and mostly fatal diseases. Even if most of them suspect the cause of the serious illnesses, there is still a great deal of uncertainty that triggers persistent feelings of stress.

Politicians in Serbia as well as in the other DU-contaminated countries in the Near and Middle East and in the NATO countries themselves have deliberately not informed the population. Among other things, they wanted to avoid recourse claims and continue their murderous trade undisturbed. Stress, anxiety and depression additionally weaken the already burdened immune system and lead to a higher susceptibility to infections. This is shown by research results from the interdisciplinary field of psycho-neuro-immunology (PNI).

The people have the right to the truth

In order to be able to organise one’s own life and that of one’s family satisfactorily, to make provisions for the future or, as a married couple, to decide whether or not to have children, every citizen must be able to realistically assess the economic, social and political conditions in his or her country. But they cannot do this if they are deprived of the truth about incidents that can severely affect their lives. Therefore, it is a moral obligation of all those who have dealt with the problem of contamination in the country – doctors, scientists, journalists, military personnel and civilians affected by contamination – to educate and assist their fellow citizens.

In addition, the identity of a nation is based on the citizens’ right to truth and knowledge of their history. Historians and representatives of other sciences have an important contribution to make. However, the debate must not be left to them alone. The search for truth and the enlightenment of the people is also a political task that must be solved by political leaders and must not be prevented by them under any circumstances. Government and parliament have to take a stand. How can citizens trust a government or people’s representation that withholds the truth from them about a problem that affects them existentially?

*

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

Dr. Rudolf Lothar Hänsel is a school rector, educational scientist and graduate psychologist. After his university studies, he became an academic teacher in adult education. As a retiree he worked as a psychotherapist in his own practice. In his books and professional articles, he calls for a conscious ethical-moral education in values as well as an education for public spirit and peace. In 2021, he was awarded the Republic Prize “Captain Misa Anastasijevic” by the Universities of Belgrade and Novi Sad for services to Serbia.

He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

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

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

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

***

Asia-Pacific is the US “priority theatre of operations” and lies at the heart of America’s grand strategy to assert global hegemony. The US Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin last year outlined the region as “center of strategic gravity” to gang up regional states against China, while trying to claim Washington wasn’t splitting the region into hostile blocs.

The Biden administration still contends it doesn’t want competition with China to veer into a conflict; the US officials continue to accuse China of taking aggressive actions and tempting Asia-Pacific countries with a delusive “gravitational pull of freedom.” Within this grand strategy, the US intelligence community alleges China of dominating the region, driving wedges between America and its partners and extending Chinese influence, particularly in East Asia and the western Pacific while itself conducting military exercises around the sensitive regional waterways.

An explicit intent is to rally allies under the pretense of deterrence and protection against China, contain Beijing’s rise and reinstate the US role as the world’s sole superpower. Japan’s major shift from a pacifist nation to a menacing force, signaling the biggest military posture since World War II, is welcomed and praised because the unprecedented defense budget increase will boost arms production and profit the US military-industrial complex.

Contrarily, China’s defense spending at $224 billion is dwarfed by the US Department of Defense budget of more than $1.7 trillion for the fiscal year 2023, which focuses on executing aggressive military plans and operations. In addition, America is a consistent threat to the region’s peace and stability as it has the largest aviation force in Asia-Pacific with more than half of its fighter planes comprising fourth or fifth generation models.

Former US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo last year suggested America must make “three lighthouses of liberty” (Israel, China’s Taiwan region and Ukraine) the hubs of new security architecture in the Middle East, East Asia and Europe and link these bastions with NATO and the new and expanded security framework of Asia-Pacific to form a “global alliance for freedom.”

His concept may hasn’t officially been endorsed by the Biden administration; it has increased Europe’s security dependence on the US, pitted Mideast countries against each other and is trying to take advantage of the Ukraine crisis to mend its frayed relations with its partners in Asia-Pacific. Washington is doing so by stoking tensions and increasing arms sales to regional states as well as reinvigorating the four-nation Quad and the trilateral AUKUS alliances not just to encircle China but to impose its leadership on the region.

Yet the strategy is backfiring. China’s emergence as a peace-broker between Saudi Arabia and Iran is shattering America’s great plan; the US efforts to use the Ukraine conflict as a conduit to restore its global hegemony is challenged by some wealthy, powerful and democratic US allies that have maintained their autonomy.

Given regional organizations such as Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) and the African Union are focused on regional development rather than catching “fever” of the US fixation with China, other Asia-Pacific states will be cautious of aligning too closely with Washington and may pursue an independent foreign policy.

The framing of competition with China by Republican Mike Gallagher, chairman of the House China Task Force, as an “existential struggle” is both misguided and risky. The committee “forged out of paranoia (and) hysteria” which tends to get locked into groupthink and xenophobic mindset as the US “actively” seeks to contain China and derail its technological progress. This approach will inevitably escalate tensions between China and the US and make engagement even more difficult.

Communication channels between the two militaries froze after China-US relations ebbed over America’s hyperboles on the balloon saga. The US defense officials dubbed the lack of communication as “destabilizing and dangerous” yet by calling off the US Secretary of State Antony Blinken’s trip to China, shooting down a Chinese object with a missile, planting NATO clones such as the Quad and the AUKUS in Asia-Pacific, the US has exposed its petty-minded approach to circumscribe China and its inclination to shutter communication channels.

The Biden administration has clearly set out its ambition, which is to implement the 2022 National Defense Strategy to tackle the “pacing challenge” from China. As part of this strategy, a US-led systematic campaign is underway to attribute false threats to China with claims of Southeast Asian states likely to become “wearier participants” in the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI).

But there’s a catch: the US Indo-Pacific Economic Framework, the means to advance the US Indo-Pacific Strategy, is more of a showpiece for it actually delivers very little to the region, especially to ASEAN. In contrast, Chinese infrastructure and development projects such as the BRI and the Global Development Initiative are lionized by regional states, indicating Asia-Pacific doesn’t want to become an avenue of a great power competition.

At the first anniversary of the Indo-Pacific Strategy, the Biden administration’s primary focus remains the Quad and the AUKUS, both of which take frequent mentions in the latest State Department’s report. But in Southeast Asia, nations have never greeted the military alliances with skepticism. They have criticized AUKUS for its propensity to trigger arms races in the region and remained concerned about these anti-peace and provocative security partnerships. As a result, the US grand strategy is condemned to failure.

*

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

Azhar Azam works in a private organization as “Market & Business Analyst” and writes on geopolitical issues and regional conflicts.

Featured image: A Harpoon missile is launched from the USS Shiloh, September 15, 2014. Image: US Navy/Mass Communication Specialist 3rd Class Kevin V. Cunningham

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

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

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

***

What a coup.  Nakedly amoral but utterly self-serving in its saccharine minted glory.  India’s showman Prime Minister Narendra Modi, who otherwise appears to have clerkish, desk-bound qualities, had what he wanted: an accommodating, possibly clueless guest in the form of the Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese; a common interest in India’s national sport cricket, and a show illuminating him as supreme Hindu leader presiding over a new age of politics.  For Albanese, this was ill-fitting and disturbing but all in keeping with the occasion.

This month, Albanese, who has been held to the bosom of great powers of late, found himself at the mercy of cricket diplomacy at the Narendra Modi stadium in Ahmedabad.  He had been placed upon an improvised golf car with Modi prior to the start of the fourth cricket test between Australia and India.  But Albanese was not merely Modi’s guest; he was also appearing in a stadium named after the prime minister he was keeping company with.  Modesty had been exorcised; pomp and narcissism had taken its place.

The cricketers of the national sides were not spared florid manipulation and flowery exploitation.  In India, cricket makes the god fearing, beer swilling followers of soccer look like mild agnostics of some reserve and domestic sensibility.  In the Indian cricket canon, players are sanctified from across the globe, added to a sanctuary of permanent adoration in something reminiscent of ancient tradition.  Much like the deities of the Roman Empire, all great cricket players, from Antigua to Sydney, find their spiritual holy ground on Indian soil, forever assimilated.

For Modi, this all meant opportunity and glory.  He is the classically dangerous politician for those of the broadly described West who think they understand him.  Supple, gentle, oleaginous, Modi is both unscrupulous and prone to wooing.  And Albanese was there to keep him company.  The teams of two great cricket nations were effectively shoehorned into the show, with Modi and Albanese giving the captains of their respective countries their caps before the game’s commencement.

The nexus of power in world cricket – and its link Modi – was also affirmed by the presence of officials from the enormously powerful Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI).  They were on hand to give Modi that most vulgar of gifts: a gaudily framed photo of himself.

The scenes should have made Albanese feel uncomfortable.  While Australian officials, business types and opportunists dream of market opportunities in India, it is also worth appreciating what Modi is.  This is only relevant given the mighty, moral bent Canberra takes on such matters: the Chinese and Russians are seen as barbarians hammering away at the rules-based order and shredding human rights – or some such – and there lies India, promising, vast and nominally democratic.

Things, however, are not well in the world’s largest democracy.  Only in February, the BBC offices in Delhi and Mumbai were paid a less than friendly visit from tax officials intent on conducting a “survey”.  This came just weeks after the organisation’s release of a documentary that shone a light less than rosy upon the dear leader.

For all this, Australian governments can hardly complain: the Australian Federal Police engaged in similar acts against the national broadcaster in June 2019, and even went so far as to suggest that two journalists from the Australian Broadcasting Corporation might be prosecuted for national security violations.

Modi also had a superb distraction to be used against the Australian PM.  He could chide his guest and prod him about what was happening regarding recent acts of vandalism against Hindu temples in Melbourne.  “It is a matter of regret that attacks on temples have been regularly reported in Australia over the last few weeks.”

These have primarily featured slogans of support for the pro-Khalistan Sikh separatist movement.  The wall of the ISKCON temple located in the suburb of Albert Park, for instance, featured the words “Khalistan Zindabad (Long Live the Sikh Homeland)”, “Hindustan Murdabad (Down with India)”, and “Sant Bhindranwale is martyred”.  Another incident at Carrum Downs featured, according to Victorian Police, damage that “included graffiti slogans of what appear to be [of] a political nature.”

Albanese, caught up in the role of being the good guest, could only say that such acts had “no place in Australia.  And we will take every action through our police and also our security agencies to make sure that anyone responsible for this faces the full force of the law.  We’re a tolerant multicultural nation, and there is no place in Australia for this activity.”

In India, on the other hand, there is more than enough space for intolerance when PM Modi and the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) authorities egg it on.  The rights of Muslims, for instance, have been  curtailed by the Citizenship Amendment Act, an instrument that enables non-Muslim communities originally from Pakistan, Bangladesh or Afghanistan to apply for Indian citizenship if they had arrived in India prior to December 31, 2014.

Violence against Muslims and Islamophobic statements from officials has also become more common, with India’s Supreme Court warning that mob attacks risked being normalised in the current environment.

None of this came up in the Modi-Albanese discussions. Nor did the conduct of India’s premier port-to-power conglomerate, the Adani Group, which has extensive mining, rail and port interests in Australia.  To add to its inglorious environmental report card, Adani was found by the activist short-seller Hindenburg Research earlier this year to be allegedly responsible for accountancy fraud and stock manipulation.  To keep that off the agenda was yet another mighty coup for the Indian leader.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons 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 is from PTI

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

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

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

***

It was snowing and the roads were empty on an early Saturday. The dread was, is it really him? Will he agree to speak?

We arrived at his apartment and were greeted by a friend who took us up. He introduces himself in smart attire. Meet Ali Shallal al-Qaysi, the man under the hood of the torture photos from the infamous Abu Ghraib prison.

He takes me to the kitchen and whispers as we set up for the TV interview in the other room – some details are too gruesome and painful to recount. I assure him, it is his story and I will listen to what he has to tell us. What ensues in the next couple of hours is not for the faint-hearted. His stories paint a horrific picture of inhumane abuse, humiliation, torture and sadistic behaviour.

Al Jazeera TV Interview of Ali Shallal 

“I was standing on the box. It is so strong, not breakable. They tied wires and started electrical shocks. I remember biting my tongue, my eyes felt they were about to pop out. I started bleeding from under the mask and I fell down,” says Ali.

Despite his hand losing complete function because of the torture, Ali likes to paint in his spare time. His apartment is full of canvases. One stands out – a hood, orange jumpsuit, and handcuffs with 151716 painted on it, Ali’s prisoner number. He says they wrote “Big Fish” with a marker on his forehead, a common practice of “marking” high-profile prisoners.

‘A top secret place’

Without prison records, we cannot verify he is the man under the hood. But with testimony from two decades ago, his deformed hand that earned him the nickname “the claw”, his photos, court cases, and interviews with former prison officials and lawyers, it is clear Ali was among the victims at Abu Ghraib.

Ali was kept for months, between 2003 and 2004, at the prison. At one point after his torture, he says, he lost track of time for weeks as he was left in the tents where prisoners were held.

Abu Ghraib was feared from the time of Saddam Hussein, who built torture chambers there. After the 2003 US-led invasion, US contractors built more cells equipped with deadbolts.

Now-demoted, General Janis Karpinski was commander of Abu Ghraib prison when the abuse scandal erupted. She told Al Jazeera she was unaware of the torture between May and September 2003 when she was in charge of the prison.

“There was a central wing which served as the cafeteria. On the left were cell blocks 1A and B, 2A and B … and on the right, the last building which was not damaged in the [air] strikes. This became a top-secret place. The last cell block was where Pappas [Colonel Thomas Pappas, who was in charge of Abu Ghraib prison’s intelligence unit] had his satellites and his men were stationed. They had a direct line to [Defense Secretary Donald] Rumsfeld there. They did interrogations there. Females were kept over at the airport facility. There may have been a few in Abu Ghraib,” says Karpinski.

Female ‘hostages’

Ali wells up when he describes the screams of women kept on the other side of his cell block. “Women were put on the sector to our left on the second floor. We heard their cries. The guards used to get a male detainee to serve them food but on one condition, he should serve them food while he is fully naked. We were all kept naked by the way. We used to hear their screams, there was a guy called Fredrik who used to harm them.”

Ali broke down at this point, sobbing. “We could not help them, we could not do anything for them. Some of us were banging heads against the wall, we do not want this to happen again and again. Occupation is the worst shape of terrorism, crushes the dignity of people and destroys countries. It was not easy to hear these women cry. They did nothing, they were brought as hostages. When [the Americans] carry out a raid against a former regime official or a nuclear scientist and fail to detain the wanted man, they brought women as hostages.

“We heard them crying and screaming what they have been going through. I have witnessed a horrible scene – a man had his wife raped before his eyes.”

Human rights groups have documented beatings, prolonged sleep and sensory depravation, and detainees being held naked and tortured.

Ali Shallal al-Qaysi at his apartment in Berlin, Germany [Osama Bin Javaid/Al Jazeera]

‘They were sadists’

The images – taken and released by an American soldier – shocked the world with their sheer brutality. The most explicit photographs depict nudity, degradation, simulated sex acts, and American guards posing with decaying corpses. After an international outcry, 11 US soldiers were convicted, but others were reprimanded without any charges.

“Abu Ghraib, Camp Bucca and other torture sites lowered the bar for adherence to the Geneva Conventions and other international obligations to treat prisoners humanely,” says Letta Tayler from Human Rights Watch.

“Ironically, one of the many flimsy justifications made by President George W Bush to invade Iraq was that Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein would aid terrorists. Yet it was the US-led invasion that created a security vacuum and fueled grievances that enabled the rise of al-Qaeda in Iraq, which morphed into ISIS [ISIL], prompting yet more cycles of violence.

“All US presidents since George W Bush, who started the Iraq war, have refused to prosecute any of the architects of the war crimes committed during the Iraq war. For example, no ranking official has been prosecuted for the horrors inflicted on detainees at Abu Ghraib, only lower-level military personnel who in most cases received negligible sentences. Most civilians never received any funding or other amends for deaths, injuries, or property damage by US forces, much less apologies.”

Ali says the pictures only reflect a fraction of the abuse that took place after the invasion.

“Abu Ghraib prison was one out of 75 other sites used as detention centres with these violations. What kind of human being can do such things? To force people to be naked, sexually humiliated, inserting broken wood sticks in sensitive parts until they bleed, electric shock to genitals. I remember one man … he died before our eyes while he was tortured. They were sadists.”

When we asked about the infamous dog photos, Ali replies, “I was humiliated, I was mauled by a dog right here”, pointing to a bite scar on his neck. “I was naked in the cell. You know there was no bed. They meant to harm us by bringing the dog into the cell.”

Ali says he has dedicated his life to seeking justice from the architects of the abuse. His lawyer Andreas Schüller works for the European Center for Constitutional and Human Rights (ECCHR).

“It’s a very clear-cut case of torture in prison under the military occupation by the US, but on the other hand you can also show the chain of command in setting up the prison system, the mistreatment of prisoners in Iraq by the US military. And this goes all up to Donald Rumsfeld,” Schüller says.

Ali’s lawyers say German authorities should have done much more since the case was filed in 2015. ECCHR requested the prosecutor to secure evidence and take testimonies of survivors and experts. Schüller says German federal prosecutors have not pursued Ali’s case as they did previous ones.

“There are political reasons not to do that, to go against an ally against the United States. Even 20 years after the invasion of Iraq, it’s a constant topic. You saw it in 2003 with the US-UK-led invasion of Iraq and now see it with Russia in Ukraine. And as long as it’s not punished, the risk is that we see it again in different constellations,” says Schüller.

Back in Ali’s apartment, I asked, “Why did they call you the claw at Abu Ghraib?”

“This happened when they hanged me on the wall. Because of the weight of my body, the handcuff was piercing my hand. The wound was almost rotten,” he says.

So were the hangings and electrocutions the worst of the torture?

“Another way of torture was music. It is worse than physical torture. They force you [to] lie on your stomach on the ground, all tied up. And they bring big speakers thumping with an unbearably loud noise placed on either side of your head. I remember the song they played called Babylon, Babylon, even when they turned off the speakers, it kept ringing in my ears.”

Ali’s ordeal ended when he was taken in a truck and released on a highway away from Abu Ghraib with dozens of other prisoners. He was never charged with a crime.

As he waits for justice, Ali refuses to let the world forget his story. He says his worst nightmare is if people do not remember and it happens again to others in another war.

Although his lawyer is not hopeful that Ali will see justice in his lifetime, he is adamant to carry on.

“I think even after 1,000 years, our great grandsons will receive our rights. The world is changing and people who were tortured in Vietnam and other places, they are getting their rights … Even for those who were tortured by the Nazis or by Stalin, Hitler and others, now they are getting their rights,” says Ali.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons 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: This handout photo from SBS TV received 15 February, 2006 shows a hooded prisoner allegedly being tortured at Iraq’s notorious Abu Ghraib jail supposely during interrogation by US soldiers in Baghdad in 2004. Australian public broadcaster SBS 15 February released a handful of what it said were previously unpublished photographs of the abuse of prisoners in Iraq’s notorious Abu Ghraib jail by US soldiers. RESTRICTED TO EDITORIAL USE AFP PHOTO/HO/SBS DATELINE

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

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

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

***

The 20^th anniversary of the US attack on Iraq for regime change coincides with the 12^th anniversary of the US attack on Syria for regime change. March 2003 and March 2011 have a great deal in common, but that is not where the story begins.

The destruction of two nations, sitting side by side in the Middle East, began in 1996 with the strategy paper called “A Clean Break”, written by the man known as “The Architect of the Iraq War”.

“A Clean Break” was authored in part by Richard T. Perle in 1996. Perle later became Assistant Secretary of Defense for Global Strategic Affairs in the George W. Bush Administration.

Perle delivered the paper to Benjamin Netanyahu, who had just been elected as Prime Minister of Israel.

The paper presented the reasons for the US to attack and destroy Iraq and Syria. After President Bill Clinton took office, the paper was presented to him for action, but he declined. But, by the time of the 9/11 bombing of the WTC in NYC in 2001, the time was ripe to dust off the paper and Perle and his associates found President George W. Bush a willing partner.

Perle was also the chairman of the Defense Policy Board, which was responsible for developing reasons for the US to attack other countries. The Pentagon does not develop policy, they simply are asked to report if a planned attack can be carried out successfully, or not. There is an old saying, “A soldier’s job is not to question why, a soldier’s job is to do or die”. Wars and attacks by the US cannot be blamed on the Pentagon, that blame must rest on the Oval Office, the State Department, the CIA, and the Defense Policy Board.

The 9/11 attack was [allegedly according to media reports] carried out on the orders of Osama bin Laden, a Saudi national living in Afghanistan, and a leader of Al Qaeda.

The trick was how could the Bush administration connect Al Qaeda to Saddam Hussein, the leader of Iraq?  The director of the CIA, George Tenet, repeatedly told Bush that there was no connection.

The second strategy of the Bush administration, was to build the case for invading Iraq based on Saddam Hussein having “Weapons of Mass Destruction” (WMD). The CIA was able to support that premise, not based on any facts, but based on the idea that Hussein might have WMD.  When Tenet was asked about the WMD, he replied

“We will find it when we get there.”

That proved to be wishful thinking, as no WMDs were ever found by thousands of armed and highly skilled US soldiers who combed every nook and cranny in Iraq, for years.

So how did the US public and Congress come to believe the Bush administration’s lies?

That was accomplished by the US mainstream media.  The Bush administration spoon-fed false information to key journalists in the most reputable media outlets.  The journalists were unable to personally verify the information on WMD, and they refused to reveal their sources who were the highest-ranking officials in the US government. Without the complicity of the media, the case for going to war in Iraq could never have been believed.

The events leading up to the first day of the bombing in Baghdad were unfolding so rapidly, that the ‘red flags’ of doubt were overlooked. Hans Blix was returning to his hotel in Baghdad when Bush announced to the world on TV that he would order the beginning of the bombing in 24 hours.  Blix was blindsided when confronted by a microphone thrust in his face at the entrance of the hotel. At first, he didn’t believe the Bush order, and reiterated the results of his visits to numerous sites in Iraq, that Hussein had no WMD, they had been destroyed previously.

Image: UN SG Ban Ki-Moon

But, that never stopped the bombing from commencing on time. While the bombs were falling across Baghdad, Blix was back in NYC delivering his detailed report to Ban Ki-Moon, UN Secretary-General, which made the case that the Bush attack was based on a lie. All of this was covered in the media, but it was too late to stop the war machine.

The US was not alone. The UK and many of the NATO allies signed up for the Bush war on Iraq. All of them bear responsibility for their participation in an unjustified war that cost millions of lives. The US coalition partners blame their decision to participate on the fact they believed in US intelligence, and they believed in the lies. Another factor in their decision to follow the US lead was the fact that the US had been the sole ‘Super Power’. Those days are over, as the international community recognizes the new multi-polar world.

When Perle penned “A Clean Break” in 1996 for the leader of Israel, the attack on Syria was included, sort of a ‘2 for 1’ idea.  Take out both Iraq and Syria at the same time, and Israel will be a safer place.  Once Donald Rumsfeld became involved in planning the 2003 attack on Iraq, he counseled against including Syria. His decision was based on knowing two countries’ destruction is too big of a goal to be accomplished. He decided to focus on destroying Iraq only.

Syria was not attacked, and the war next door did not spill over the border. Syria accepted 2 million Iraqi refugees, and Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt came to Damascus in 2009 and met President Assad because of his open-door Iraqi refugee policy.

The plans to destroy Syria began in the 1996 paper by Perle, and by March 2011 the Obama administration had already started on their plans to create a ‘new Middle East’ and Obama utilized NATO to assist in the attack, invasion, and occupation of Libya. The US-NATO attack on Libya was the precursor to the attack on Syria which used Syrian followers of the outlawed Muslim Brotherhood and later were replaced by international terrorists following Radical Islam, such as Al Qaeda and finally ISIS.

Today, Iraq lies destroyed. It has never been reconstructed.  Large areas still have no water, electricity, or medical care. The infrastructure of Iraq is broken.  The Iraqi constitution was drafted by the invaders and has set the parliament up as a sectarian and ethnic quota system. In the US, it would be unthinkable to base elected offices on religion or ethnicity, but it was the US invaders who developed the Iraqi constitution which has locked the country into an unworkable system of corruption based on who your parents were, and where did they live. The US also insisted the Iraqi form of government be a Parliamentary system, which has kept the country locked into chaos as there is no central leader who can get things done, unlike the US Presidential system.

Syria resisted the US-NATO attack and the people fought back. Now, after 12 years there exists a possibility that brighter days are ahead for the Syrian people and the hope of reconstruction. In Iraq, there is also hope that the suffering they endured at the hands of brutal invaders, who committed atrocities against civilians, can be relegated to the pages of history, and a new chapter in security and prosperity can begin.

*

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

This article was originally published on Mideast Discourse.

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

Featured image is from MD

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

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

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

***

Writing this, I must admit that my rage and pain build up inside, still twenty years later. Below, see what TFF and I wrote back then and why we were, simply put, making better predictions on a shoestring budget than the US and other NATO decision-makers on multi-billion-dollar budgets.

Like other wars and interventions, this was no “mistake”. It was an unavoidable consequence of Western MIRE – Militarism, Imperialism, Racism and Exceptionalism.

The West has learned nothing. Militarism is now its main cohesive force into its manifest destiny: Decline and fall.

President George W. Bush announcing that he has just started the war on Iraq. Listen carefully! All the arguments and aims he presents were either false, mistaken or outright lies. And sanctimonious.

Permit me start out with a quotation from the British Stop The War Coalition’s newsletter:

“A report released this week by the Costs of War Project estimates that between 550,000-580,000 people have been killed since March 2003 in Iraq and Syria and “several times as many may have died due to indirect causes such as preventable diseases.”

It goes on to say that “more than 7 million people from Iraq and Syria are currently refugees, and nearly 8 million people are internally displaced in the two countries.” These devastating statistics tell us more of what we already know: the Iraq War was an utter disaster, and the perpetrators should be brought to justice.

This coming week marks 20 years since the invasion led by George Bush and Tony Blair.”

You should be aware also that the US is still on the ground (the US Embassy in Baghdad is the largest anywhere in the world) – it has a series of military bases in Syria and steals its oil on a daily basis.

More people died in Iraq because of 13 years of sanctions than because of the military death and destruction.

And the costs of this war alone have been close to US$ 2 trillion. And here the estimated costs up to 2050.

And – I predict – the Western mainstream media will do very little about these crimes, the mass killing, this utterly failed war – morally, in terms of international law and in terms of winning the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people.

And they will keep on focusing on the European war in Ukraine and the suffering of those who are white, Christian and victims of Russia’s comparatively small – but yes, inexcusable – war there.

Why? Because it suits NATO, the EU and the declining West in general. And because, by focusing on Ukraine, NATO countries’ war crimes fall into the darkness. Harold Pinter would probably say about it – it didn’t happen; nothing ever happened there.

Is anybody in the political, military and media wars of the West having second thoughts today? Does anybody have the civil moral courage to apologise?

No – those same Military-Industrial-Media-Academic Complex (MIMAC) elites continue to destroy our world, incapable of learning any lessons. And there should be plenty to learn.

*

I did fact-finding in Iraq twice, the second time shortly before the US-misled coalition of the willing did its ‘shock and awe.’ My dear colleague, friend and former UN peacekeeper, retired lieutenant colonel Christian Hårleman – who at the time was also the chairman of the TFF Board – and I did 160 interviews with people at all levels, from the #3 man in the system, Tariq Aziz, Baath party member, military, UN staff – over scholars, diplomats, NGO/women’s organisations to the proverbial taxi driver and people in tea houses – in Baghdad, Babylon, Basra and the UN mission at the border with Kuwait. We gave a lecture for high-level militaries and diplomats at the House of Wisdom, Bayt al-Ḥikmah, also known as the Grand Library of Baghdad.

Although everyone we met felt misunderstood, demonised and tense at the prospect of Bush’s and Blair’s bombs soon falling, we – Westerners – were treated everywhere with respect and kindness. For instance, a lady in the reception of our hotel had found that both our birthdays were in January, so we found a beautiful bouquet of flowers in our room that day.

In the spring of 2004, I published my book (in Danish) “Predictable Fiasco. The Conflict With Iraq and Denmark As An Occupation Power” (Tiderne Skifter, Copenhagen, 296 pages). Being in Baghdad for just 24 hours, any fool – such as I – would predict that the US/West would never win the hearts and minds of the Iraqis. No way!

This is not the place to go through all that again.

At writing this, my rage and pain build up inside still twenty years later.

I wonder where this boy is today. If he is. I took these photos of him in the old town’s book bazaar – he would be about 25-16 today. If he is, what is his and his family’s life like today? How did this criminal war shape his childhood? What has it done to his well-being – innocent as he was?

And there were these two extraordinarily decent, competent and kind people with whom we spent hours – Saddam’s weapons expert and liaison with the West on the issue of weapons of mass destruction, Amir al-Saadi and Aquila al-Hashimi who was shortly after killed – as was the legendary CARE worker, Margaret Hassan, who was abducted and murdered, and whom we also interviewed.

Diagnosis – Prognosis – Solutions

So much about TFF’s Diagnoses and Prognoses. We did not continue the work in Iraq and have not visited Iraq since 2003.

But we did bring forward a series of peace proposals – Treatment/Solution – before the war. It was a 14-point program developed by Hans von Sponeck – who had resigned from the UN after more than 30 years of service, including as UN Assistant Secretary-General and UN Humanitarian Coordinator for Iraq because, as he said, he would not preside over a genocide on the Iraqi people – and myself.

We sent it to what was considered one of the finest and most trustworthy media in the world, International Herald Tribune. That was in December 2002, and it was accepted. Then it was delayed and then rejected. Read it here with an introduction to this bizarre and disgraceful example of the mainstream media manipulations then – and even worse now:

A Road to Peace With Iraq – Europe’s Choice.

In summary, the US/NATO/EU world has learned no lessons from Yugoslavia, Kuwait, Somalia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and Syria. NATO’s provocative expansion over 30 years right up to the border of Russia indicates the same – while not meant as an endorsement of the Russian invasion of Ukraine.

They’ve all been examples of the MIRE mentioned above – Militarism + Imperialism + Racism + Exceptionalism.

And the media play the same role now as back then – just more uniform, more ignorant of the basic criteria of quality media work – knowledge-based, diversity in perspectives, solid check of sources, independent investigation, aiming at objectivity to the extent humanly possible, serving public education and being critical of power as well as revealing its abuse.

In the field of global affairs, this type of journalism is no longer to be found in the Western mainstream, influential media – something I have dealt with at length in a 50-year perspective here. These media have, compared with 2003, become even more tightly integrated into the MIMAC – the Military-Industrial Media Academic Complex – the elites networking in a murky, criminal society far away from democracy with its checks and balances.

“It is enough that a lie is believed for three days – it has then served its purpose.“ — Marie de Medici, 1573-1642, queen consort and queen regent of France

*

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

All images in this article are from the author

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

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

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

***

It was a sight to behold and took the wind out of the bellicose sails of the AUKUS cheer squad.  Here, at the National Press Club in the Australian capital, was a Labor luminary, former Prime Minister of Australia and statesman, keen to weigh in with characteristic sharpness and dripping venom.  Paul Keating’s target: the militaristic lunacy that has characterised Australia’s participation in the US-led security pact that promises hellish returns and pangs of insecurity.

In his March 15 address to a Canberra press gallery bewitched by the magic of nuclear-propelled submarines and the China bogeyman, Keating was unsparing about those “seriously unwise ministers in government” – notably Foreign Minister Penny Wong and Defence Minister Richard Marles, unimpressed by their foolish, uncritical embrace of the US war machine.  “The Albanese Government’s complicity in joining with Britain and the United States in a tripartite build of a nuclear submarine for Australia under the AUKUS arrangements represents the worst international decision by an Australian Labor government since the former Labor leader, Billy Hughes, sought to introduce conscription to augment Australian forces in World War One.”

In terms of history, this was chilling to Keating.  The AUKUS security pact represented a longing gaze back at the Mother Country, Britain, “shunning security in Asia for security in and within the Anglosphere.”  It also meant a locking alliance with the United States for the next half-century as a subordinate in a containment strategy of Beijing. This was a bi-partisan approach to foreign policy that saw the US dominating East Asia as “the primary strategic power” rather than a balancing one.

For Keating, the impetus for such madness came from a defence establishment that dazzled the previous Prime Minister, Scott Morrison.  That effort, he argues, was spearheaded by the likes of the US-funded Australian Strategic Policy Institute and Andrew Shearer of the Office of National Intelligence.  They even, he argues, managed to convince PM Albanese, Marles and Wong to abandon the 20-month review period on the scope of what they were seeking.

The steamrolling Keating was also unsparing in attacking a number of journalists for their ditzy, adolescent belligerence.  The sword, once produced, was never sheathed.  Peter Hartcher, most notably, received a generous pasting as a war infatuated lunatic whose anti-China campaign at the Fairfax presses had been allowed for years.

In terms of the submarines themselves, Keating also expressed the view that the Royal Australian Navy would be far better off acquiring between 40 to 50 of the Collins Class submarines to police the coastline rather than having nuclear powered submarines lying in wait off the Chinese shoreline.

As we all should know, submarine policy is where imagination goes to expire, often in frightful, costly ways.  For all Keating’s admiration for the Collins Class, it was a nightmarish project marred by fiascos, poor planning and organisational dysfunction within the defence establishment.  At stages, two-thirds of the Australian fleet of six submarines was unable to operate at full capacity.  The lesson here is that submarines and the Australian naval complex simply do not mix.

The reaction from the Establishment was one of predictable dismissal, denial and distortion, typical of what Gore Vidal would have called deranged machismo.  Instead of being critical of the powers that are, they have turned their guns and wallets on spectres, ghosts and devilish images.  The tragedy looms, and it will be, like many tragedies, the result of colossal, unforgivable stupidity.

At the very least, the intervention by Keating, notably in the Labor Party, has not gone unnoticed.  Within the Labor caucus, tremors of dissatisfaction are being recorded, breaches growing.  West Australian Labor backbencher Josh Wilson defied his own party’s dictates by telling colleagues in the House of Representatives how he was “not yet convinced that we can adequately deal with the non-proliferation risks involved in what is a novel arrangement, by which a non-nuclear weapons state under the NPT (Non-proliferation of Nuclear Weapons Treaty) comes to acquire weapons-grade material.”

Wilson’s views are not outlandish to the man. He is keen to challenge the notion of unaccountable executive war powers, a problem that looms large in the Westminster system.  “To assume that such decision-making is already perfect, immutable, and beyond scrutiny,” he wrote in December last year, “puts Australia at risk of making the most dangerous judgments without the best institutional framework for doing so.”

A gaggle of former senior Labor ministers have also emerged, even if they initially proved sluggish.  Peter Garrett, former environment minister and front man of Midnight Oil, while proving a bit squeamish about Keating’s invective, found himself in general agreement.  “The deal stinks with massive cost, loss of independence, weaking nuke safeguards & more.”

Kim Carr, who had previously held ministerial positions in industry and defence materiel, revealed that the matter of AUKUS had never been formally approved in the Federal Labor caucus, merely noted.  Various “key” Labor figures – again Marles and Wong – agreed to endorse the proposition put forth to them on September 15, 2021 by the then Coalition government.

He also expressed deep concern “about a revival of a forward defence policy, given our performance in Vietnam”.  For Carr, the shadow cast by the Iraq War was long.  “Given it’s 20 years since Iraq, you can hardly say our security agencies should not be questioned when they provide their assessments.”

For former foreign minister, Gareth Evans, there were three questions: whether the submarines are actually fit for purpose; whether Australia retained genuine sovereignty over them in their use; and, were that not the case, “whether that loss of agency is a price worth paying for the US security insurance we think we might be buying.”

Will these voices make a difference?  They just might – but if so, Australia will have to thank that political pugilist and Labor veteran who, for all his faults, spoke in terms that will be considered, in a matter of years, treasonous by the Empire and its sycophants.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons 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]

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

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

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

***

On CNN March 14, Roger Altman, a former deputy Treasury secretary in the Clinton administration, said that American banks were on the verge of being nationalized:

What the authorities did over the weekend was absolutely profound. They guaranteed the deposits, all of them, at Silicon Valley Bank. What that really means … is that they have guaranteed the entire deposit base of the U.S. financial system. The entire deposit base. Why? Because you can’t guarantee all the deposits in Silicon Valley Bank and then the next day say to the depositors, say, at First Republic, sorry, yours aren’t guaranteed. Of course they are.

… So this is a breathtaking step which effectively nationalizes or federalizes the deposit base of the U.S. financial system.

The deposit base of the financial system has not actually been nationalized, but Congress is considering modifications to the FDIC insurance limit. Meanwhile, one state that does not face those problems is North Dakota, where its state-owned bank acts as a “mini-Fed” for the state. But first, a closer look at the issues.

Bail In, Bail Out, or “Socialism for the Rich”?

On Friday, March 10, Silicon Valley Bank (SVB) was put into receivership by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC). The FDIC announced that deposits over the $250,000 insurance limit would get an advance dividend within the next week, and would receive a receivership certificate for the rest of the funds. Most of the depositors were venture-backed startups that needed to keep large deposits in the bank to meet payroll and pay suppliers, and over 95% of the deposits were uninsured and at risk of being lost. It was basically a “bail in” of the uninsured deposits, which would be recoverable only if funds were available after the bank’s assets had been sold.

But that arrangement lasted only two days. On March 12, Signature Bank was put into receivership; and the FDIC, Treasury and Federal Reserve jointly announced that all of the deposits at the two banks, not just those under the insurance limit, would be available for withdrawal on demand.

At a Senate Finance Committee hearing on March 16, Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen said that the guarantee would not apply to all deposits at all banks. Rather, the determination would be made on a case-by-case basis.

In a Bloomberg News interview on March 16, former FDIC Chair Sheila Bair criticized that decision. She observed that the two banks getting special treatment were not “systemically important,” and that the cost of the expanded guarantee was to be covered by a special assessment against all insured banks, including the small community banks that provide essential credit to local businesses. She argued that if guarantees were going to be given over the $250,000 limit, they should apply to deposits everywhere.

Meanwhile, on March 12, the Federal Reserve announced that it had set up a special purpose vehicle of the sort arranged for COVID relief in March 2020, called the Bank Term Funding Program (BTFP). Like the COVID special purpose vehicles, it would be backstopped with $25 billion from the Exchange Stabilization Fund (ESF), a fund set up in 1934 to stabilize the exchange value of the dollar. The BTFP was to be available to any bank needing it, and many banks obviously did. Over $300 billion in short-term loans were withdrawn from the Fed’s various facilities just in the week after SVB’s collapse.

This money is not, however, the sort of “free lunch” provided to troubled banks in the last financial crisis. The money is to be advanced as a loan for up to a year, at a hefty interest rate as of March 22 of 4.88%. According to a Federal Reserve press release, advances will be made to “eligible depository institutions pledging U.S. Treasuries, agency debt and mortgage-backed securities, and other qualifying assets as collateral. These assets will be valued at par. The BTFP will be an additional source of liquidity against high-quality securities, eliminating an institution’s need to quickly sell those securities in times of stress.”

“Valued at par” means that banks can hold their long-term federal securities to maturity while acquiring ready cash against them to meet withdrawals, without having to “mark to market” and sell at a loss.

The Systemic Flaw

So what caused this crisis, and what can be done to remedy it?

In the midst of the 2008 economic crisis, former Fed Chair Alan Greenspan conceded that there was a flaw in his perception of the financial operating system. For 40 years, he had believed that banks could “self regulate” responsibly, a presumption that had proven to be flawed.

In the case of SVB, however, the bank was not engaged in the sort of risky lending seen in the subprime crisis, and increased “stress testing” wouldn’t have saved it. It had put its deposits largely in federal securities, purported to be the safest assets available – so safe that they carry a “zero risk weighting” requiring no extra capital buffer. What went wrong was that they were long-term bonds at low interest. When rates shot up, the market value of the bonds dropped, since buyers prefer newer bonds paying higher interest. Bonds that could be sold were sold at a loss, and some marked “hold to maturity” could not be sold at all. As a result, SVB lacked the liquidity to meet the sudden unexpected demand for withdrawals.

The flaw to which SVB and many other “troubled” banks have fallen victim is the age-old systemic problem of “borrowing short to lend long.” For centuries, banks have borrowed the money of depositors who expect to have it available on demand, and have invested it in long-term assets that cannot be immediately liquidated. The system works well so long as the depositors don’t panic and rush to pull their money out all at once. But when they do, if the problem is systemic, not just single banks but the whole banking system can collapse.

We used to see this flaw dramatized every December, when TV networks ran the 1946 Christmas classic “It’s a Wonderful Life.” When the Bailey Brothers Building and Loan suffered a bank run, George Bailey (Jimmy Stewart) had to explain to the panicked depositors that their money had been lent to their neighbors. He was on the verge of suicide, when a guardian angel showed him how critical he and his bank had been to the community; and the neighbors pitched in and rescued the bank.

Even closer to the situation today was the crisis of the savings and loan associations (S&Ls) of the 1980s, after the Federal Reserve raised interest rates dramatically to kill inflation. Most of the assets of the S&Ls were long-term fixed-rate mortgages. As rates rose, they had to pay more to attract deposits; but the amount they earned on their fixed-rate mortgages didn’t change. Losses mounted, but the S&L insurance fund, the FSLIC, lacked sufficient money to reimburse all the depositors at failed S&Ls; so the regulators turned a blind eye and allowed them to keep operating as “zombies.” The matter was finally resolved with legislation in 1989 that placed S&L insurance under the FDIC and established the Resolution Trust Corporation to resolve the remaining troubled S&Ls. The ultimate cost to the taxpayers was estimated to be as high as $124 billion.

As with George Bailey’s savings and loan, the flaw was not “fractional reserve” lending. The S&Ls pooled the money of their customers and lent only what they had. The systemic flaw was and still is that to make long-term loans, banks must borrow “other people’s money,” which is expected to be available on demand. Today the banks’ liquidity options include not just their own depositors but other banks’ depositors in the fed funds market, and pension funds and other institutional creditors lending in the repo market. But they all expect their money to be available on demand; and if the bank has lent it out in long-term loans, the bank can be caught short shuffling reserves around trying to meet that demand.

The Failed Banks Were Not Nationalized, But Maybe They Should Have Been

One option that was debated in the 2008-09 crisis was actual nationalization.  As Prof. Michael Hudson wrote in February 2009:

Real nationalization occurs when governments act in the public interest to take over private property. … Nationalizing the banks along these lines would mean that the government would supply the nation’s credit needs. The Treasury would become the source of new money, replacing commercial bank credit. Presumably this credit would be lent out for economically and socially productive purposes, not merely to inflate asset prices while loading down households and business with debt as has occurred under today’s commercial bank lending policies.

Gar Alperovitz, professor emeritus at the University of Maryland, also weighed in on the issue. In a 2012 New York Times article titled “Wall Street Is Too Big to Regulate,” he noted that the five biggest banks—JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America, Citigroup, Wells Fargo and Goldman Sachs—had amassed assets amounting to more than half the nation’s GDP. He wrote:

With high-paid lobbyists contesting every proposed regulation, it is increasingly clear that big banks can never be effectively controlled as private businesses. If an enterprise (or five of them) is so large and so concentrated that competition and regulation are impossible, the most market-friendly step is to nationalize its functions …

Nationalization isn’t as difficult as it sounds. We tend to forget that we … essentially nationalized the American International Group, one of the largest insurance companies in the world, and the government still owns roughly 60 percent of its stock.

Another example was Continental Illinois, the largest bank bankruptcy and the seventh-largest bank in the country when it failed in 1984. The FDIC wiped out existing shareholders, infused capital, took over bad assets, replaced senior management, and owned the bank for about a decade, running it as a commercial enterprise, selling it in 1994.

What constituted a radical departure from capitalist principles in the last financial crisis was not “nationalization” but an unprecedented wave of bank bailouts, sometimes called “welfare for the rich.” The taxpayers bore the losses while the culpable management not only escaped civil and criminal penalties but made off with record bonuses. Banks backed by an army of lobbyists succeeded in getting laws changed so that what was formerly criminal behavior became legal. Instead of nationalization, we got TARP, the Troubled Asset Relief Program, in which toxic assets were purchased from financial institutions by the Treasury.  Faced with the inequity of that solution, many economists recommended nationalization instead. Willem Buiter, chief economist of Citigroup and formerly a member of the Bank of England’s Monetary Policy Committee, wrote in The Financial Times in September 2009:

Is the reality of the modern, transactions-oriented model of financial capitalism indeed that large private firms make enormous private profits when the going is good and get bailed out and taken into temporary public ownership when the going gets bad, with the taxpayer taking the risk and the losses?

If so, then why not keep these activities in permanent public ownership? There is a long-standing argument that there is no real case for private ownership of deposit-taking banking institutions, because these cannot exist safely without a deposit guarantee and/or lender of last resort facilities that are ultimately underwritten by the taxpayer.

. . . Once the state underwrites the deposits or makes alternative funding available as lender of last resort, deposit-based banking is a license to print money. [Emphasis added.]

Those are all good arguments, but Congress is not likely to nationalize the whole banking system any time soon.

What About Nationalizing the Liquidity Pool?

Without going to those lengths, what could be made a public utility is the banks’ liquidity pool. Banks could borrow directly from the deep pocket of the central bank, the “lender of last resort” (or from the Treasury if it were reengineered so that it could issue money as credit without taxing or going into debt). Banks would still need to make “prudent” loans – loans to borrowers who had demonstrated an ability to pay the money back – since if they suffered substantial defaults, they would not be able to balance their books and could be put into bankruptcy. They would still charge interest to cover their costs, and they would still compete for borrowers by keeping their interest rates low, maintaining the principles of “market capitalism” operating now. Customer deposits could be sequestered separately from loans, e.g. at government-backed postal banks. In fact, sequestering customer funds is what brokerages (such as Schwab and Fidelity) do now. Rather than the bank gambling with your money, you gamble with it yourself. But that, of course, can be risky too!

In any case sequestering deposits is not likely to happen either. What is being sought is what Roger Altman predicted – FDIC insurance coverage of the entire deposit base. In a March 17 letter first reported by Bloomberg News, the Midsize Bank Coalition of America called on regulators “immediately … to reinstate full deposit insurance coverage for depositors,” for two years. That was done in 2008, the letter noted, “and was one of the most effective tools used in the great financial crisis and it needs to be brought back immediately. Importantly, as happened previously, this increase in insurance should be paid for directly by the banks themselves by simply increasing the deposit insurance assessment on banks who choose to participate in this increased insurance coverage.”

The concern for midsize banks is that depositors have been fleeing to giant “too big to fail” banks, perceiving them to be safer. But as Cornell Prof. Robert Hockett observes, midsize banks lend to the midsize businesses that are the backbone of the productive economy. He has drafted legislation to provide for universal deposit insurance, discussed in Forbes. However, it’s an uphill battle. Even Sheila Bair, who is clearly sympathetic to the plight of local banks, has reservations on full coverage. As reported on MSN.com:

FDIC Chairwoman Sheila Bair said Tuesday that Congress should consider temporarily providing guarantees for deposits in transaction accounts used by employers to pay their workers — a move that some Democrats are considering.

But Bair said it would be an “overreaction” to insure all bank deposits.

“Unlimited insurance would be very expensive to do. It would be assessed on the banking system, backstopped by taxpayers, and would primarily help very, very wealthy people,” Bair said on Washington Post Live.

Small community banks — defined as banks with $10 billion or less in assets — have spoken out against paying more to cover the failure of larger banks such as SVB.

The Public Bank Option

Meanwhile, one midsize bank that has escaped this furor is the Bank of North Dakota. With assets in 2021 of $10.3 billion and a return on investment of 15%, the BND is owned by the state, which self-insures it. There is no fear of bank runs, because the state’s revenues compose the vast majority of its deposits, and they must be deposited in the BND by law.

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

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

Small and local is good, but even small regional banks need to pool their resources for maximum efficiency and security. A state-owned bank on the model of the Bank of North Dakota can provide low interest loans, liquidity, and financial sovereignty, keeping financial resources in the state directed to public purposes, all while turning a profit for the state.

*

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

This article was first posted on ScheerPost.

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

Featured image: The monument sign in front of the parking lot of the Silicon Valley Bank headquarters at 3003 West Tasman Drive, Santa Clara, California. Minh Nguyen, CC BY-SA 4.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0, via Wikimedia Commons

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

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

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

***

It’s a zero-sum situation. The rich are robbing the poor to swell their coffers – and their bellies. 

In April 2022, Oxfam reported a terrifying prospect of more than a quarter of a billion people falling into extreme levels of poverty in 2022 alone.       

In its January 2021 report ‘The Inequality Virus’, it also stated that the wealth of the world’s billionaires increased by $3.9tn between 18 March and 31 December 2020. Their total wealth then stood at $11.95tn, a 50 per cent increase in just 9.5 months.

According to Oxfam’s analysis, 13 out of the 15 IMF loan programmes negotiated during the second year of COVID required new austerity measures such as taxes on food and fuel or spending cuts that could put vital public services at risk.

Oxfam and Development Finance International (DFI) also revealed that 43 out of 55 African Union member states face public expenditure cuts totalling $183 billion over the next five years.

The world’s poorest countries were due to pay $43 billion in debt repayments in 2022, which could otherwise cover the costs of their food imports. Governments across the world are now largely under the control of international creditors after COVID policies resulted in (deliberately) triggering a multi-trillion-dollar global debt crisis.

Meanwhile, oil and gas giants report record-breaking profits.

It’s similar for the world’s biggest agribusiness corporations. They have made more in profits since 2020 than the amount that the UN estimates could cover the basic needs of the world’s most vulnerable.

A February 2023 report by Greenpeace International – Food Injustice 2020-2022 – exposes rampant profiteering at a time when war and lockdowns have contributed to food insecurity across the world.

Twenty corporations in the grain, fertiliser, meat and dairy sectors delivered $53.5 billion to shareholders in the financial years 2020 and 2021. At the same time, the UN estimates that $51.5 billion would be enough to provide food, shelter and lifesaving support for the world’s 230 million most vulnerable people.

Davi Martins, campaigner at Greenpeace International, says that we are witnessing an enormous transfer of wealth to a few rich families that own the global food system. This at a time when the majority of the world population is struggling to make ends meet.

Martins says:

“These 20 companies could literally save the world’s 230 million most vulnerable people and have billions of profit left over in spare change. Paying more to shareholders of a few food corporations is just outrageous and immoral.”

Covering the period 2020-2022 when COVID policies were in force and the war in Ukraine had begun, the report looked at the profits of 20 of the biggest agribusiness corporations and how many people have been affected by food insecurity as well as the extreme rise of food prices across the globe.

These ‘hunger profiteers’ exploited crises to gain grotesque profits. They plunged millions into hunger while tightening their grip on the global food system. One of the firms mentioned is Cargill – owned by 14 billionaires.

Together with Archer-Daniels Midland, Bunge and Dreyfus – Cargill controls more than 70% of the world’s grain trade. None of these firms are under no obligation to disclose what they know about global markets, including their own grain stocks.

Table below from the Greenpeace International report listing the 20 firms included in its study. 

Greenpeace found that a lack of transparency around the true amounts of grain in storage following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine was a key factor fuelling speculation on food markets and inflated prices.

Aside from manipulating markets and prices, these corporations also fuel food insecurity by pushing small-scale farmers and local producers out of the system. Smallholder farmers actually feed most of the world, unlike the type of industrial agri-enterprises global agribusiness serves (and sometimes owns).

Global agribusiness corporations never tire of telling policy makers that what they do is essential for feeding the world and ensuring food security. But the opposite is true.

They create or contribute to hunger, illness and malnutrition, displace rural communities, destroy smallholder agriculture, place farmers on seed and chemical treadmills and wreck and pollute ecosystems.

Aside from hollowing out or capturing key institutions to forward their agenda, they misleadingly conflate strengthening and expanding their global supply chains (destroying indigenous systems of production in doing so) with serving the food needs of the world (for insight into these issues, see ‘Food, Dependency and Dispossession: Resisting the New World Order’ on the website of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG)).

To prevent profiteering on such a grand scale and lessen the vulnerability of food supply and production to shocks (war, energy shortages, etc), a decentralised food system based on short supply chains is required. This would be based on the principles of localisation and strengthening smallholder agriculture. What this means is food sovereign communities in which local people take ownership of seeds, land and water (commonwealth) and manage what is produced and how it is produced.

Governments and policy makers need to act now to protect people from the abuses wrought by giant agribusiness corporations. Greenpeace argues that without regulating and loosening the grip of corporate control on the global food system, current inequities will only deepen further. It adds that we need to change the food system – failure to do so will cost millions of more lives.

The Greenpeace report adds further weight to calls for governments at international, national and local level to put an end to corporate control and monopoly in the food system while instituting an international trade order based on cooperation and human rights instead of competition and coercion.

*

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

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

Featured image is from Harvard Gazette

---

Read Colin Todhunter’s e-Book entitled

Food, Dispossession and Dependency. Resisting the New World Order

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

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

Click here to read.

---

The Globalization of Poverty and the New World Order 

by Michel Chossudovsky

In this new and expanded edition of Chossudovsky’s international best-seller, the author outlines the contours of a New World Order which feeds on human poverty and the destruction of the environment, generates social apartheid, encourages racism and ethnic strife and undermines the rights of women. The result as his detailed examples from all parts of the world show so convincingly, is a globalization of poverty.

This book is a skilful combination of lucid explanation and cogently argued critique of the fundamental directions in which our world is moving financially and economically.

In this new enlarged edition –which includes ten new chapters and a new introduction– the author reviews the causes and consequences of famine in Sub-Saharan Africa, the dramatic meltdown of financial markets, the demise of State social programs and the devastation resulting from corporate downsizing and trade liberalisation.

Michel Chossudovsky is Professor of Economics at the University of Ottawa and Director of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), which hosts the critically acclaimed website www.globalresearch.ca . He is a contributor to the Encyclopedia Britannica. His writings have been translated into more than 20 languages.

Published in 11 languages. More than 100,000 copies sold Worldwide.

 TO ORDER ONLINE OR MAIL ORDER CLICK HERE

Note: At present, the print version is not available. The pdf version can be ordered online.

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

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

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

***

I am completely at a loss as to why the UK should seek to join in with the US in considering China an enemy, and in looking to build up military forces in the Pacific to oppose China.

In what sense are Chinese interests opposed to British interests? I am not sure when I last bought something which wasn’t maufactured in China. To my astonishment that even applies to our second hand Volvo, and it also applies to this laptop.

I have stated this before but it is worth restating:

I cannot readily think of any example in history, of a state which achieved the level of economic dominance China has now achieved, that did not seek to use its economic muscle to finance military acquisition of territory to increase its economic resources.

In that respect China is vastly more pacific than the United States, United Kingdom, France, Spain or any other formerly prominent power.

Ask yourself this simple question. How many overseas military bases does the USA have? And how many overseas military bases does China have?

Depending on what you count, the United States has between 750 and 1100 overseas military bases. China has between 6 and 9.

The last military aggression by China was its takeover of Tibet in 1951 and 1959. Since that date, we have seen the United States invade with massive destruction Vietnam, Cambodia, Korea, Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya.

The United States has also been involved in sponsoring numerous military coups, including military support to the overthrow of literally dozens of governments, many of them democratically elected. It has destroyed numerous countries by proxy, Libya being the most recent example.

China has simply no record, for over 60 years, of attacking and invading other countries.

The anti-Chinese military posture adopted by the leaders of US, UK and Australia as they pour astonishing amounts of public money into the corrupt military industrial complex to build pointless nuclear submarines, appears a deliberate attempt to create military tension with China.

Sunak recited the tired neoliberal roll call of enemies, condemning: “Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine, China’s growing assertiveness, and destabilising behaviour of Iran and North Korea”.

What precisely are Iran and China doing, that makes them our enemy?

This article is not about Iran, but plainly western sanctions have held back the economic and societal development of that highly talented nation and have simply entrenched its theological regime.

Their purpose is not to improve Iran but to maintain a situation where Israel has nuclear weapons and Iran does not. If accompanied by an effort to disarm the rogue state of Israel, they might make more sense.

On China, in what does its “assertiveness” consist that makes it necessary to view it as a military enemy? China has constructed some military bases by artificially extending small islands. That is perfectly legal behaviour. The territory is Chinese.

As the United States has numerous bases in the region on other people’s territory, I truly struggle to see where the objection lies to Chinese bases on Chinese territory.

China has made claims which are controversial for maritime jurisdiction around these artificial islands – and I would argue wrong under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. But they are no more controversial than a great many other UNCLOS claims, for example the UK’s behaviour over Rockall.

China has made, for example, no attempt to militarily enforce a 200 mile exclusive economic zone arising from its artificial islands, whatever it has said. Its claim to a 12 mile territorial sea is I think valid.

Similarly, the United States has objected to pronouncements from China that appear contrary to UNCLOS on passage through straits, but again this is no different from a variety of such disputes worldwide. The United States and others have repeatedly asserted, and practised, their right of free passage, and met no military resistance from China.

So is that it? Is that what Chinese “aggression” amounts to, some UNCLOS disputes?

Aah, we are told, but what about Taiwan?

To which the only reply is, what about Taiwan? Taiwan is a part of China which separated off under the nationalist government after the Civil War. Taiwan does not claim not to be Chinese territory.

In fact – and this is far too little understood in the West because our media does not tell you – the government of Taiwan still claims to be the legitimate government of all of China.

The government of Taiwan supports reunification just as much as the government of China, the only difference being who would be in charge.

The dispute with Taiwan is therefore an unresolved Chinese civil war, not an independent state menaced by China. As a civil war the entire world away from us, it is very hard to understand why we have an interest in supporting one side rather than the other.

Peaceful resolution is of course preferable. But it is not our conflict.

There is no evidence whatsoever that China has any intention of invading anywhere else in the China Seas or the Pacific. Not Singapore, not Japan and least of all Australia. That is almost as fantastic as the ludicrous idea that the UK must be defended from Russian invasion.

If China wanted, it could simply buy 100% of every public listed company in Australia, without even noticing a dent in China’s dollar reserves.

Which of course brings us to the real dispute, which is economic and about soft power. China has massively increased its influence abroad, by trade, investment, loans and manufacture. China is now the dominant economic power, and it can only be a matter of time before the dollar ceases to be the world’s reserve currency.

China has chosen this method of economic expansion and prosperity over territorial acquisition or military control of resources.

That may be to do with Confucian versus Western thought. Or it may just be the government in Beijing is smarter than Western governments. But growing Chinese economic dominance does not appear to me a reversible process in the coming century.

To react to China’s growing economic power by increasing western military power is hopeless. It is harder to think of a more stupid example of lashing out in blind anger. It is a it like peeing on your carpet because the neighbours are too noisy.

Aah, but you ask. What about human rights? What about the Uighurs?

I have a large amount of sympathy. China was an Imperial power in the great age of formal imperialism, and the Uighurs were colonised by China. Unfortunately the Chinese have followed the West’s “War on Terror” playbook in exploiting Islamophobia to clamp down on Uighur culture and autonomy.

I very much hope that this reduces, and that freedom of speech improves in general across China.

But let nobody claim that human rights genuinely has any part to play in who the Western military industrial complex treats as an enemy and who it treats as an ally. I know it does not, because that is the precise issue on which I was sacked as an Ambassador.

The abominable suffering of the children of Yemen and Palestine also cries out against any pretence that Western policy, and above all choice of ally, is human rights based.

China is treated as an enemy because the United States has been forced to contemplate the mortality of its economic dominance.

China is treated as an enemy because that is a chance for the political and capitalist classes to make yet more super profits from the military industrial complex.

But China is not our enemy. Only atavism and xenophobia make it so.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons 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: AUKUS nuclear submarine deal is already making ripples across the Indo-Pacific. Image: US Embassy in China

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

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

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

***

BP has pumped oil worth £15.4bn in Iraq since 2011 when it began production in the country for the first time in nearly four decades, new analysis shows.

The new information comes on the 20-year anniversary of the beginning of the invasion of Iraq, which was judged to be illegal by the UN. However, neither US president George W Bush nor British prime minister Tony Blair, the leaders who prosecuted the war, have been subjects of a criminal investigation.

The invasion began in March 2003 and unleashed a catastrophic humanitarian disaster with an estimated 655,000 Iraqis killed in the first three years of conflict, or 2.5% of the population.

It was widely denounced as a war for oil on the part of the US and UK: Iraq holds the world’s fifth largest proven oil reserves. Iraq had no connection to the September 11th terrorist attacks which had taken place 18 months before and initiated the so-called “War on Terror”.

The data on BP’s post-invasion production in Iraq comes from the company’s annual reports and was calculated using the average annual price for a barrel of oil for each year of production.

From 2011-22, BP pumped 262m barrels of Iraqi oil.

Blair Petroleum

The company started producing 31,000 barrels of Iraqi oil a day in 2011, but that number had increased rapidly to 123,000 barrels a day by 2015.

By 2020, BP produced more oil from Iraq than its whole European operation, including Britain’s North Sea.

In the months preceding the 2003 invasion, BP had been dubbed “Blair Petroleum” due to the British prime minister’s intensive lobbying on behalf of the company.

Both BP and Shell have histories in Iraq going back a century, and the country’s oil industry was to a significant extent dominated by the two British companies throughout much of the 20th century.

The Iraq Petroleum Company, which had a virtual monopoly on the country’s oil production in the four decades up to the 1960s, was headquartered in Oxford Street in London. BP and Shell together owned 48%, before it was nationalised in 1972 and its concessions expropriated.

‘Accessing resources’

But BP returned to Iraq for the first time since the 1970s six years after the British invasion. “We continually seek to access resources and in 2009 this included Iraq,” the company stated at the time.

The new opportunity was a contract won from a state-owned company to expand production from the Rumaila field near Basra, one of the largest oil fields in the world. The British Army was at the time occupying Basra and surrounding areas in southern Iraq.

The Rumaila field, which extends 50 miles from end to end, had originally been “discovered” by BP in 1953 and is the largest in Iraq.

The initial Bush administration plan was for the Iraqi government to sign a new oil law which would have indirectly privatised Iraq’s oil through an unconventional type of contracting called “production sharing agreements” (PSA).

These would have allowed foreign oil companies to sign contracts with the government to develop specific areas of Iraq’s petroleum sector in exchange for a share of the oil profits.

But the Iraqi constitution requires the parliament to ratify laws, and because of the internal dynamics in the country at the time the parliament ended up being controlled by nationalist parties with anti-occupation politics.

The Iraqi government had to revert to an older law that only allows for “technical service contracts” (TSC) which kept the oil under Iraqi ownership while giving foreign oil companies a flat rate in exchange for services.

BP’s investment in Rumaila took the form of a TSC, which became effective in December 2009. In the deal BP would recover costs, irrespective of oil price, and get a fee per barrel of production above a defined threshold.

However, the company reported “the technical service contract (TSC) under which we operate in Iraq functions as a PSA [production sharing agreement]”.

‘Lead contractor’

BP was the lead contractor on the Rumaila development, with a 38% working interest. The China National Petroleum Company (CNPC) held 37% with the remaining 25% held by the Iraqi government.

BP said, alongside CNPC, it intended to invest $15bn over the next 20 years to increase production in Rumaila to nearly 3m barrels per day, or 3% of global oil production.

At the time, Rumaila already produced half of Iraq’s oil exports and comprised five producing reservoirs. BP together with its partners would refurbish the wells and facilities.

In its first year of operation, BP increased production from the Rumaila field by 10% above the rate initially agreed with the Iraqi oil ministry, meaning the company became eligible for a share of the oil produced. Over the following decade, BP would extract an average of 65,000 barrels of oil a day from Rumaila.

In 2014, BP increased its working interest in the Rumaila TSC to 48% and the contract was extended by five years to 2034.

“Despite instability and sectarian violence in the north and west of the country, BP operations are continuing in the south,” the company reported.

In 2015, it reported that “we continue to build relationships in BP’s historic heartlands of the Middle East, with growing opportunities” including in Iraq, where BP production hit a high of 123,000 barrels a day. Iraq was now designated one of BP’s “principal areas of production”.

Special representative to Iraq

One figure who has done well out of BP is Sir John Sawers, the UK’s first special representative to Iraq in 2003, who joined the company’s board in 2015.

Over the following seven years, Sawers has earnt £1.1m in fees from the company. His BP shareholding was also worth £135,000 last year, up 181% from when he joined the company.

Sawers joined BP as a non-executive director in May 2015 having apparently been “identified” the previous year as he stepped down as head of MI6, Britain’s external intelligence agency.

“John brings long experience of international politics and security that are so important to our business,” the company reported. Sawers spent the bulk of his career in diplomacy “representing the British government around the world”, BP added. Owing to this experience, BP made Sawers chair of its Geopolitical Committee.

Sawers was close to prime minister Tony Blair in the period around the invasion of Iraq, serving as his foreign policy adviser from 1999-2001. In May 2003, Blair appointed Sawers Britain’s first special representative to post-invasion Iraq.

The role of the special representative was “to work with Iraqis, with Coalition partners and with other representatives of the international community to help and guide the political processes leading to the establishment of an interim administration.”

Sawers then became political director and main board member of the Foreign Office from 2003-07. His influence in Iraq continued as he returned to the country representing the British government in October 2005 in the aftermath of the successful constitutional referendum.

Close to MI6

It appears Sawers had been an MI6 officer earlier in his career. In 2009, when he was appointed head of MI6, the BBC commented: “As Downing Street coyly noted, Sir John is ‘rejoining’ the SIS [Secret Intelligence Service] – no details were given about his previous career in MI6.”

BP has long been close to MI6. In a 2007 Mail on Sunday article, which was subsequently taken down, a company whistleblower claimed “BP was working closely with MI6 at the highest levels to help it to win business…and influence the political complexion of governments.”

Renegade former MI6 officer Richard Tomlinson wrote in his 2001 memoir that BP has “MI6 liaison officers who receive relevant CX [intelligence]”.

Sawers’ predecessor as head of MI6, Sir John Scarlett, was the senior intelligence official responsible for Tony Blair’s notorious dossier on Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction produced in the run-up to the invasion. Scarlett “proposed using the document to mislead the public about the significance of Iraq’s banned weapons”.

Under his relevant skills section, BP reported Sawers’ “management of reform at MI6 also complements BP’s focus on value and simplification.”

Shell’s super giant oil field

The other UK “supermajor” oil company, Shell, also re-entered Iraq in 2009 when it “secured an important position” in the country with a government contract for developing the Majnoon field, again close to Basra in British-occupied southern Iraq.

The company described it as “one of the world’s super-giant oil fields” with an estimated 38bn barrels of oil.

Shell was awarded a 20-year TSC as lead operator with a 45% interest in developing Majnoon. Malaysian oil company Petronas would hold 30% with the Iraqi state holding the remaining 25%.

Production was expected to reach 1.8m barrels of oil a day, Shell said, up from the 45,000 it was producing at the time. Shell also said the field had “additional exploration potential”.

Also in 2009, Shell was awarded a 15% share in a contract for the development of the West Qurna 1 field – again near Basra – as part of an ExxonMobil-led consortium.

This contract was renegotiated in 2014 and the government share was reduced from 25% to 5% and dispersed to other shareholders, including Shell.

However, in 2018, Shell sold out its now 20% interest in the West Qurna 1 field, and its 45% interest in Majnoon field, to the Iraqi government.

BP and Sir John Sawers did not respond to requests for comment.

*

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

Matt Kennard is chief investigator at Declassified UK. He was a fellow and then director at the Centre for Investigative Journalism in London. Follow him on Twitter @kennardmatt

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

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

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

***

We have been discussing a comprehensive effort by the Biden Administration to blacklist or censor citizens accused of “disinformation” or “misinformation.” This effort includes dozens of FBI agents and other agency employees who worked with social media companies to bar or suspend accounts.  It also included grants to academic and third party organizations to create blacklists or pressure advertisers to withdrew support for conservative sites. Now, another such grant through the National Science Foundation has been identified, which gave millions to professors to develop a misinformation fact-checking tool called “Course Correct.” The tool will help fight “skepticism” and reinforce “trust” in what the government and the programmers define as true or reliable viewpoints.

The National Science Foundation reportedly awarded grants in 2021 and 2022 for more than $5.7 million for the development of Course Correct to allow media and government officials to target misinformation on topics such as U.S. elections and COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy. In addition, a Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security Act-funded NSF grant supported the application of Course Correct to mental health issues.

The system would use machine learning and other means to identify social media posts pertaining to electoral skepticism and vaccine hesitancy, including flagging at-risk online communities for intervention. Sound familiar?

This is very similar to the effort on the other grants through offices like the State Department’s Global Engagement Center and the National Endowment for Democracy.

Democrats have opposed efforts to investigate the full scope of censorship and blacklisting efforts by the federal government. However, it appears that there are a wide array of such grants targeting free speech under the guise of combating what researchers view as “disinformation” or “misinformation.” Those words are usually ill-defined and have repeatedly been found to shield bias on the part of the researchers.

In the case of the the British-based Global Disinformation Index (GDI), the results were the targeting of ten conservative and libertarian sites as the most dangerous sources of disinformation. It then sought to persuade advertisers to withdraw support for those sites, while listing their most liberal counterparts as among the most trustworthy.

The latest grant is being conducted by Michael Wagner of the University of Wisconsin-Madison’s School of Journalism and Mass Communication, Sijia Yang of the University of Wisconsin-Madison School of Journalism and Mass Communication, Porismita Borah of Washington State University’s Edward R. Murrow College of Communication, Srijan Kumar of Georgia Tech’s College of Computing, and Munmun De Choudhury of Georgia Tech’s School of Interactive Computing.

The grant abstract echoes the earlier work in warning that social media serves “as a major source of delegitimizing information about elections and vaccines, with networks of users actively sowing doubts about election integrity and vaccine efficacy, fueling the spread of misinformation.”

Of course, many of the scientists and groups who were previously suspended for disinformation in these areas were ultimately vindicated. The mask mandate and other pandemic measures like the closing of schools are now cited as fueling emotional and developmental problems in children. The closing of schools and businesses was challenged by some critics as unnecessary. Many of those critics were also censored. It now appears that they may have been right. Many countries did not close schools and did not experience increases in Covid. However, we are now facing alarming drops in testing scores and alarming rises in medical illness among the young.

The point is only that there were countervailing indicators on mask efficacy and a basis to question the mandates. Yet, there was no real debate because of the censorship supported by many Democratic leaders in social media. To question such mandates was declared a public health threat. The head of the World Health Organization even supported censorship to combat what he called an “infodemic.”

A lawsuit was filed by Missouri and Louisiana and joined by leading experts, including Drs. Jayanta Bhattacharya (Stanford University) and Martin Kulldorff (Harvard University). Bhattacharya previously objected to the suspension of Dr. Clare Craig after she raised concerns about Pfizer trial documents. Those doctors were the co-authors of the Great Barrington Declaration, which advocated for a more focused Covid response that targeted the most vulnerable population rather than widespread lockdowns and mandates. Many are now questioning the efficacy and cost of the massive lockdown as well as the real value of masks or the rejection of natural immunities as an alternative to vaccination.  Yet, these experts and others were attacked for such views just a year ago. Some found themselves censored on social media for challenging claims of Dr. Fauci and others.

The media has quietly acknowledged the science questioning mask efficacy and school closures without addressing its own role in attacking those who raised these objections. Even raising the lab theory on the origin of Covid 19 (a theory now treated as plausible) was denounced as a conspiracy theory. The science and health reporter for the New York Times, Apoorva Mandavilli, even denounced the theory as “racist.” In the meantime, California has moved to potentially strip doctors of their licenses for spreading dissenting views on Covid.

Censorship is now embraced even when the underlying information is true. In another recently disclosed disinformation project at Stanford University, experts insisted that even true stories could still be dangerous forms of disinformation if they contributed to “hesitancy” on vaccines or other issues.

As in these prior grants, it is not clear what Course Correct specifically defines “verifiably accurate information.” When pressed by the conservative site The College Fix, researchers reportedly failed to supply an answer. What constitutes “misinformation” depends on the views of the programmers. Yet, these systems are sold as somehow transcending bias and using science to protect us from our own bad ideas or biases.

Recently, we discussed the call of Bill Gates to use Artificial Intelligence (AI) to protect us from harmful thoughts or idea. In an interview on a German program, “Handelsblatt Disrupt,” Gates called for unleashing AI to stop certain views from being “magnified by digital channels.” The problem is that we allow “various conspiracy theories like QAnon or whatever to be blasted out by people who wanted to believe those things.”

Gates added that AI can combat “political polarization” by checking “confirmation bias.”

Confirmation bias is a term long used to describe the tendency of people to search for or interpret information in a way that confirms their own beliefs. It is now being used to dismiss those with opposing views as ignorant slobs dragging their knuckles across the internet — people endangering us all by failing to accept the logic behind policies on COVID, climate change or a host of other political issues.

This is not the first call for AI overlords to protect us from ourselves. Last September, Gates gave the keynote address at the Forbes 400 Summit on Philanthropy. He told his fellow billionaires that “polarization and lack of trust is a problem.”

The problem is again … well … people: “People seek simple solutions [and] the truth is kind of boring sometimes.”

Not AI, of course. That would supply the solutions. Otherwise, Gates suggested, we could all die: “Political polarization may bring it all to an end, we’re going to have a hung election and a civil war.”

Others have suggested a Brave New World where citizens will be carefully guided in what they read and see. Democratic leaders have called for enlightened algorithms to frame what citizens access on the internet. In 2021, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) objected that people were not listening to the informed views of herself and leading experts. Instead, they were reading views of skeptics by searching Amazon and finding books by “prominent spreaders of misinformation.”

Warren blamed Amazon for failing to limit searches or choices: “This pattern and practice of misbehavior suggests that Amazon is either unwilling or unable to modify its business practices to prevent the spread of falsehoods or the sale of inappropriate products.” In her letter, Warren gave the company 14 days to change its algorithms to throttle and obstruct efforts to read opposing views.

The priority for the House should be to establish the full range of these grants by the Administration in the development of blacklisting or censorship tools. That should be in addition to the effort to gauge the direct work of federal employees in censorship efforts at companies like Twitter. We can debate the wisdom or risks of such work, but we should first have transparency on the full scope of censorship efforts by the federal government, including the use of academic and third-party organizations.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons 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 Search Engine Journal

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

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

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

***

 

I wrote the following column ten years ago. Note the absence of any accountability or regret by Bush, Cheney and their co-war criminals.Ten years ago [now 20 years ago, on March 19, 2003] George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, as war criminals, launched the sociocide of the people of Iraq – replete with embedded television and newspaper reporters chronicling the invasion through the Bush lens. That illegal war of aggression was, of course, based on recognized lies, propaganda and cover-ups that duped or co-opted leading news institutions such as the New York Times and the Washington Post.

Wars of aggression – this one blowing apart a country of 25 million people ruled by a weakened despot surrounded by far more powerful adversaries – Israel, Turkey and Iran – are major crimes under international law and the UN Charter. The Bush/Cheney war was also unconstitutional, never declared by Congress, as Senator Robert Byrd eloquently pointed out at the time. Moreover, many of the acts of torture and brutality perpetrated against the Iraqi people are illegal under various federal statutes.

Over one million Iraqis died due to the invasion, the occupation and the denial of health and safety necessities for infants, children and adults. Far more Iraqis were injured and sickened. Birth defects and cancers continue to set lethal records. Five million Iraqis became refugees, many fleeing into Jordan, Syria and other countries.

Nearly five thousand U.S. soldiers died. Many other soldiers committed suicide. Well over 150,000 Americans were injured or sickened, far more than the official Pentagon under-estimate which restricts nonfatal casualty counts only to those incurred directly in the line of fire.

So far, the Iraq War has monetarily cost taxpayers about $2 trillion. Tens of billions more will be spent for veteran’s disabilities in addition to continuing expenses in Iraq. Taxpayers are paying over $600 million a year to guard the giant U.S. Embassy and its personnel in Baghdad, more than what our government spends for OSHA, whose task is to reduce the number of American workers who die annually from workplace disease and trauma – currently about 58,000.

All for what results? Before the invasion, there was no al-Qaeda in Saddam Hussein’s secular dictatorship. Now a growing al-Qaeda in Iraq is terrorizing the country with ever bolder car bombings, and suicide attacks taking dozens of lives at a time and spilling forcefully over into Syria.

Iraq is a police state with sectarian struggles between the dominant Shiites and the insurgent Sunnis who lived together peacefully and intermarried for centuries. There were no sectarian slaughters of this kind before the invasion, except for Saddam Hussein’s bloodbath against rebellious Shiites. The Shiites were egged on by President George H.W. Bush, who promptly abandoned them to the deadly strafing by Saddam’s helicopter gunships at the end of the preventable first Gulf War in 1991.

Iraq is a country in ruins with a political and wealthy upper class raking off profits from the oil industry. The U.S. is now widely hated in that part of Asia. Bush/Cheney ordered the use of cluster bombs, comprised of white phosphorous and depleted uranium, against the people of Fallujah where infant birth deformities have skyrocketed.

As Raed Jarrar, an Iraqi-American analyst observed, “Complete destruction of the Iraqi national identity.” Moreover, the sectarian system introduced by the U.S. invaders in 2003, resulting in Iraqis being favored or excluded based on their sectarian and ethnic affiliations, laid the basis for the current cruel chaos and violence – a nasty, brutish form of divide and rule.

The results back home in our country are soldiers and their extended families suffering in many ways from broken lives. Phil Donahue’s gripping documentary Body of War follows the pain-wracked life of one soldier returning in 2004 from Iraq as a paraplegic. That soldier, Tomas Young, nearing the end of his devastated life, has just written a penetrating letter to George W. Bush, which every American should read. [See this].

The lessons from this unnecessary quagmire should be: first, how to stop any more wars of aggression by the Washington warmongers – the same neocon draft dodgers are at it again regarding Iran and Syria. And second, the necessity to hold accountable the leading perpetrators of this brutal carnage and financial wreckage who are presently at large – fugitives from justice earning fat lecture and consulting fees.

In the nine months running up to the March 2003 invasion of Iraq, at least three hundred prominent, retired military officers, diplomats and national security officials publicly spoke out against the Bush/Cheney drumbeats to war. Their warnings were prophetically accurate. They included retired Generals Anthony Zinni and William Odom, and Admiral Shanahan. Even Brent Scowcroft and James Baker, two of President George H.W. Bush’s closest advisors, strongly opposed the invasion.

These outspoken truthsayers, notwithstanding their prestige and experience, were overwhelmed by a runaway White House, a disgraceful patsy mainstream media and an abdicatory Congress. Multi-billionaire George Soros was also courageously outspoken. Unfortunately, prior to the invasion, he did not provide a budget and secretariat for these men and women to provide continuity and to multiply their numbers around the country, through the mass media and on Capitol Hill. By the time he came around to organizing and publicizing such an organized effort, it was after the invasion, in July 2003.

Nine months earlier, I believe George Soros could have provided the necessary resources to stop Bush/Cheney and their lies from stampeding our government and our country into war.

Mr. Soros can still build the grassroots pressure for the exercise of the rule of law under our Constitution and move Congress toward public hearings in the Senate designed to establish an investigative arm of the Justice Department to pursue the proper enforcement against Bush/Cheney and their accomplices.

After all, the Justice Department had such a special prosecutors’ office during the Watergate scandal and was moving to indict a resigned Richard Nixon before President Ford pardoned him.

Compare the Watergate break-in and obstruction of justice by Nixon, with the horrendous crimes coming out of the Bush and Cheney war against Iraq – a nation that never threatened the U.S. but whose destruction takes a continuing toll on our country.

[Additional note: As Senators, Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden voted for the Iraq war in 2003. Will President Biden, Congress and other Americans recognize the massive war crimes committed against the Iraqi people with appropriate declarations and actions on March 19, 2023?].

*

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

Ralph Nader is a US political activist, author, lecturer, and attorney noted for his involvement in consumer protection, environmentalism, and government reform causes. The son of Lebanese immigrants to the United States, Nader attended Princeton University and Harvard Law School.

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

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

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

***

The participants of the conference Confidence Building Measures in the Face of Sharp Polarization in Europe, which was held at the European Parliament on March 20, 2023, have adopted the following appeal:

The war in Ukraine continues unabated, causing vast destruction to Ukraine’s people and its infrastructure, as well as enormous damage to the global economy. If the fighting continues, Ukraine will soon be a depopulated, devastated country.

Many people throughout Europe fear an escalation of the war. They fear for their future and that of their children.

The prolongation of the Ukrainian conflict is increasing the risk of nuclear, ecological, and socio-economic global disaster, and potentially risking the annihilation of humanity.

This is why we consider of utmost urgency to call for an immediate ceasefire and for a start of negotiations accompanied by the lifting of sanctions and a halt to the arming of Ukraine. Negotiating does not mean capitulating. Negotiating means making compromises. With the aim of preventing hundreds of thousands more deaths, or worse.

We call on all governments to stop the escalation of arms deliveries. Now! Every day this war continues costs up to 1,000 more lives – and brings us closer to World War 3.

There is no more important task for humanity today than to stop our descent towards disaster!

We call on the citizens of the world, on all social movements, intellectuals, trade unions, religious communities, and governments to act firmly in this direction and to coordinate their efforts to achieve lasting peace.

• Pino Cabras (Italy), former Member of Parliament, editor of online portal Megachip
• Aleksandar Ciric (Serbia), Board Member, Association of Lawyers of Black see – Caspian see regions
• Michel Collon (Belgium), journalist, Director of Investig’ Action
• Clare Daly (Ireland), Member of the European Parliament
• Gilbert Doctorow (Belgium), political analyst, writer
• Franceska Donato (Italy), Member of the European Parliament
• Leo Gabriel (Austria), Member of the International Council of the World Social Forum
• Marcel de Graaff (Netherlands), Member of the European Parliament
• Inaki Irazabalbeitia (Basque country), former Member of the European Parliament
• Dimitris Konstantakopoulos (Greece), journalist, member of the editorial board of online portal Defend Democracy Press
• Josifs Korens (Latvia), President, International Mouvement Pour un Futur Sans Fascisme
• Tamas Krausz (Hungary), Editorial board of quarterly journal Eszmélet/Consciousness
• Vladimirs Lindermans (Latvia), journalist, publicist
• Miroslav Radacovsky (Slovakia), Member of the European Parliament
• Ivan Vilibor Sincic (Croatia), Member of the European Parliament
• Mick Wallace (Ireland), Member of the European Parliament
• Zahari Zahariev (Bulgaria), President, Slavyani Foundation
• Tatjana Zdanoka (Latvia), Member of the European Parliament

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons 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 DDP

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

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

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

***

On March 18, German Chancellor Olaf Scholz visited Tokyo and promised Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida that their countries would strengthen military cooperation, even by sending German ships and planes to the Pacific region. Then, only three days later – and a day after Chinese leader Xi Jinping met with his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin in Moscow – Kishida made a surprise trip to Kiev and met with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. Kishida even visited the town of Bucha, the site of an infamous fake news campaign of alleged Russian war crimes.

The visit of the Japanese prime minister to the Ukrainian capital was undoubtedly timed to be immediately after the visit of Scholz to Tokyo and to nearly coincide with the Xi-Putin meeting, a clear expression that Japan is now fully behind the Western bloc in opposing Russia and China.

In a joint statement, Germany and Japan said that they will work on establishing “a legal framework for bilateral defence and security cooperation activities,” including on ways to protect critical infrastructures, trade routes and to secure future supply of sustainable energy.

For his part, Kishida said that the agreement with Germany was to “counter economic coercion, state-led attempts to illegally acquire technology and non-market practices,” an obvious reference to China.

With Japan embroiled in several disputes with China, and Germany pursuing a policy of aggression against Russia, it is rather surprising that they are teaming up to expand their hostile efforts considering their limited capabilities for global power projection, especially when compared to Russia and China.

None-the-less, First Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine, Emine Dzheppa, said the country was “happy to welcome” the Japanese premier in a way as if his visit was a gamechanger.

“This historic visit is a sign of solidarity and strong cooperation between Ukraine and Japan,” she tweeted. “We are grateful to Japan for its strong support and contribution to our future victory.”

This is obviously just another opportunity for a photoshoot. Japan has increasingly become hostile against Russia and China, and by Kishida visiting Kiev to take his photo alongside Zelensky, he is signalling to the West that Japan is prepared to do its part for Ukraine if they will do their part against China.

Tokyo’s decision will please the US, however, it is Germany’s reaction that is most telling. Although Kishida’s visit to Kiev was certainly a surprise to the unsuspecting public, undoubtedly Scholz would have been notified about the impending trip, perhaps from even before he arrived in Tokyo.

None-the-less, despite Germany and Japan having seemingly revived their World War II era alliance, it will do very little to deter China from defending its interests in the East and South China Seas or Russia from its military operation in Ukraine. This is for the simple fact that they, even in alliance, do not have the capability to challenge either country, let alone if Russia and China were in military alliance.

Although Japan is rapidly militarising, it is incalculably behind the Russian and Chinese militaries. The German military is in an even more pathetic state. Germany once had a very powerful military that was capable of instigating two world wars, but today the Bundeswehr only has 264,400 personnel, including 183,200 soldiers and 81,200 civil servants.

For comparison, even in 1989 the Bundeswehr numbered 486,000 personnel. After the reunification of the country in 1990, the great disarmament began.

Today, the German military has been exposed for having a severe lack of combat readiness, in terms of personnel numbers and the condition of military equipment. Germany not only faces serious problems in ensuring the combat effectiveness of its army, but also in the production of new military equipment and weapons. Although additional funds have been allocated for this, German experts still doubt that this will help.

Following the Russian intervention in the Ukraine conflict, the Bundeswehr made serious efforts to support the Ukrainian military. From January 2022 to March 13, 2023, arms, ammunition, and military equipment worth 2.7 billion euros were delivered to Ukraine. In addition, the Bundeswehr was forced to reinforce weaker NATO allies directly bordering Russia. About 1,000 German soldiers were sent to Lithuania and formed a fighting group with Lithuanian and Polish troops.

Yet, despite the pathetic condition of the German military, Scholz has promised to send forces to help Japan confront China. Although the statement is bold, it does raise the question on how many ships, soldiers, tanks and planes the Bundeswehr can send to the Pacific several thousands of kilometres away when a war is waging just a little more than a thousand kilometres away in Eastern Europe.

Sending such a force could signify a German presence in the region. But to say that a thousand or so German soldiers could possibly make a difference against the People’s Liberation Army of China is ludicrous, even if alongside Japan and the US. In this way, although the German-Japanese alliance is not a credible threat to Russia and China, it is an expression of intention that they will collectively pressure and provoke the two countries.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons 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. 

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

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

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

***

US weapons abroad are being relocated in line with Washington’s new strategic priorities. According to recent reports, the US will send old and outdated attack aircraft to the Middle East, replacing the modern and advanced aircraft that are currently stationed in the region. The goal is to transfer the most efficient military equipment to Europe and the Pacific, where it can eventually be used against Russian and Chinese forces – which are currently the main concerns for the US government.

The data was shared in an article published by the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) on March 21. According to information obtained by the authors, there is a plan to redistribute the planes in April. It is planned that aircraft of the type A-10, an older and less efficient model, will be sent to American bases in the Middle East. WSJ sources inform that the Pentagon considers such planes to be strong enough to protect US interests in the Middle East, therefore there is no need for more modern and equipped jets.

“The imperative is to get the most suitable aircraft to the Pacific for the higher threat challenges (…) The A-10 is still relevant to the mission CENTCOM (United States Central Command) flies over the Middle East”, Larry Stutzriem, a retired Air Force major general, told WSJ.

There is still a lack of official and more concrete information on the subject, but, in fact, this move was already expected. The Middle East is no longer part of the focus of attention in American foreign policy today. In the midst of a proxy war with Russia and the imminent emergence of a conflict with China in Taiwan, it is expected that more and more modern war equipment will be transported to regions close to Russian and Chinese territories.

According to the most recent issue of the National Defense Review, published by the Pentagon last year, China would be a kind of “pacing threat.” This means that the US sees China as a danger, but at the same time considers the threat “under control” – suggesting that Beijing is being closely “monitored”. Also, in recent speeches, US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin repeatedly corroborated this thesis, emphasizing the “Chinese threat”.

Regarding Russia, a country that is already the victim of American aggression – through the Ukrainian neo-Nazi proxies -, the same document states that Moscow would be an “acute threat”. This means that the rivalry between the countries would be something far beyond the mere collision of strategic interests, being also related to an antagonism of values. This would “justify” exceptional measures in search of increasing American military capacity against Russia.

For these reasons, it is likely that the next few months will see a wide redeployment of forces by the Pentagon. All sorts of modern, sophisticated, and efficient weapons may be located as close as possible to Russian and Chinese borders. Some sources claim that F-35 fighters are about to be sent on a large scale to Europe and the Pacific. This happens, of course, in addition to the official and regular arms supply that already takes place with the enemy states of Russia and China. So, a new wave of militarization is starting, and certainly will not end anytime soon.

Obviously, this wave will not end US military campaigns in the Middle East – nor in other regions where Washington maintains troops. There is a concern on the part of the US to avoid the loss of territories that are already under its military domain. After victory of the Taliban in Kabul, the image of the American Army among global public opinion was strongly shaken. And given the imminent defeat of pro-NATO forces in Ukraine, there is concern on the part of the Pentagon that anti-US rebellions will arise around the world, demanding an end to territorial occupation or the handover of military bases to local governments. For this reason, certainly these moves are calculated in a very careful way. It means that, in the face of the emergence of possible new conflict situations, more redistributions of weapons may be made, always in accordance with the updates of American strategic interests.

On the other hand, with these mobilizations becoming clear, the tendency is for Russia and China to prepare themselves for an eventual situation of open conflict. More than that, the greater the American pressure, the more the two countries tend to deepen their bilateral cooperation, which may adopt clearer military contours soon. And given the many reports of problems with the US defense industry and cases of corruption and financial speculation in the military-industrial complex, there are many doubts about the US capacity to face the integrated Russian-Chinese alliance.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons 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 Strategic Culture Foundation

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

a

***

“The invasion of Iraq was a bandit act, an act of blatant state terrorism, demonstrating absolute contempt for the concept of international law. The invasion was an arbitrary military action inspired by a series of lies upon lies and gross manipulation of the media and therefore of the public; an act intended to consolidate American military and economic control of the Middle East masquerading as a last resort all other justifications having failed to justify themselves as liberation. A formidable assertion of military force responsible for the death and mutilation of thousands and thousands of innocent people.

We have brought torture, cluster bombs, depleted uranium, innumerable acts of random murder, misery, degradation and death to the Iraqi people and call it ‘bringing freedom and democracy to the Middle East’. How many people do you have to kill before you qualify to be described as a mass murderer and a war criminal? One hundred thousand? More than enough, I would have thought. Therefore it is just that Bush and Blair be arraigned before the International Criminal Court of Justice”

– Harold Pinter, from Nobel Prize Acceptance Speech [1]

LISTEN TO THE SHOW

Click to download the audio (MP3 format)
Last Sunday March 19, marks the 20th anniversary of the start of the war in Iraq, a scene of mass slaughter, inhumanity, and suffering waged by a U.S. President and his coalition of hit-men. [2]

Many mainstream media outlets have commemorated the actions of two decades ago and its aftermath, noting that the war was, in fact, a disaster both for the millions of people in Iraq, and for the thousands of U.S. soldiers laid to rest. There has been plenty of talk about the difficulties facing Iraqis despite the execution of Saddam Hussein and the presence of elections. The war effort led to the decline in popularity of the hawkish leaders with the reigning whips in their hands. [3][4][5][6]

But from a casual glance at many major publication broadcasts and print articles, there has been relatively little attention to the fact that the war was based not on faulty intelligence of weapons of mass destruction that could be used against America or one of its allies. It was based on LIES! [7]

People in the peace movement, armed with the truth thanks to sites like Global Research, strove to prevent the bloodshed that would follow. It alarms these individuals that many years later, people are forgetting the extreme actions taken by the rulers acting in their name. Hence, the follow up conflicts in Libya, Syria, Yemen, and now Ukraine.

On this pivotal anniversary, the Global Research News Hour hopes to spark the flames of domestic resistance to finally burn down the U.S. war machine serving the lust of Neo-cons and the greed of defense contractors, and not the righteousness of humanity suffering drowned out by the amnesiac mainstream media din. We will look back twenty years at how the war started, how it was executed, and how the country is situated today as a so-called model of the free.

We will talk in this episode about the illegality of this war with the complicity of the United Nations Security Council, the truth that was known about WMDs, and the heartache and misery dispensed on the people we were supposedly there to fight for. The viewpoints we will hear come from former UN humanitarian coordinator Denis Halliday, former weapons inspector in Iraq Scott Ritter, Law professor Marjorie Cohn, and veteran turned war resister Joshua Key. We will also get a brief expression of outrage from another veteran turned journalist Mike Prysner.

Denis Halliday is the former UN Humanitarian Coordinator in Iraq ( September 1, 1997 until 1998.) He resigned from a 34 year career at the United nations in protest to what he saw as the ‘genocidal’ economic sanctions carried out against the Iraqi people through the UN Security Council.

Scott Ritter is a former U.S. Marine Corps intelligence officer who served in the former Soviet Union implementing arms control treaties, in the Persian Gulf during Operation Desert Storm and in Iraq overseeing the disarmament of WMD. His most recent book is Disarmament in the Time of Perestroika, published by Clarity Press.

Joshua Key  is an Iraq War veteran. He fled the war for reasons of conscience at the end of 2003, and with his then wife and children in tow, made his way across the border to Canada in early 2005. Joshua Key is the author, along with Lawrence (Book of Negroes) Hill of The Deserter’s Tale: The Story of an Ordinary Soldier who Walked Away from the War in Iraq.

Marjorie Cohn is professor emerita at Thomas Jefferson School of Law, former president of the National Lawyers Guild, and a member of the national advisory boards of Assange Defense and Veterans For Peace, and the bureau of the International Association of Democratic Lawyers. Her books include Drones and Targeted Killing: Legal, Moral and Geopolitical Issues. She is co-host of “Law and Disorder” radio.

Mike Prysner is an Iraq War veteran turned anti-war activist. He has co-produced the Empire Files with noted journalist Abby Martin. He also produces the Eyes Left podcast.

(Global Research News Hour Episode 385)

LISTEN TO THE SHOW

Click to download the audio (MP3 format)

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

Other stations airing the show:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Notes:

1. https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/literature/2005/pinter/lecture/
2. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-iraq-deaths-survey-idUSL3048857920080130
3. https://www.theguardian.com/world/series/iraq-war-20-years-on
4. https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/mps-mark-20th-anniversary-of-iraq-war-with-tributes-to-british-lives-lost/ar-AA18RTrz
5. https://www.ap.org/services/live-and-location-services/events/iraq-war-anniversary
6. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/18/world/middleeast/iraq-war-20th-anniversary.html
7. https://truthout.org/articles/for-20-years-team-bush-has-escaped-prosecution-for-war-crimes-in-iraq/

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

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

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

***

This article was originally published in October 2021.

This article provides data on the multibillion costs of the Climate Change Agenda, which is predicated on the reduction of Greenhouse Gas Emissions including C02. Amply documented, the Climate Change agenda is in large part based on scientific falsehoods. 

There are data from NASA, which is the North American Space Agency, and they show that in the last 18 years there was no general global warming.  What exists indeed – because we are not deniers of the problem – are  changes in different dimensions in the weather, in the climate and more so in the atmosphere, etc.  We are going to explain this more in this interview. 

The second is the CO2-question which is now very prominent as all these young people are now on the street, because they believe in this story and this dogma of the CO2.

And this is very strange because a lot of scientists, real scientists, are denying the influence of CO2 as a reason for climate change or as an influence at all.” (Prof. Claudia von Werlhof)

***

As a global society, we must increase spending to at least $4.13 trillion every year by 2030¹ to fund an energy transition sufficient to keep the planet below a temperature rise of 1.5 degrees Celsius, according to a 2021 report by environmental think tank Climate Policy Initiative. That’s a lot. Especially compared to current spending. The annual global climate investment averaged $632 billion per year over 2019 and 2020—15 percent of the $4.13 trillion target.

That $632 billion accounts for direct investment in things like infrastructure, energy efficiency, and other big-ticket initiatives around systemic change to mitigate or adapt to climate change. (The numbers don’t include donations or the funding of things like research and development or public information campaigns.)

Due to rounding, subtotals don’t quite add up to Climate Policy Initiative’s total of $632 billion.

Here’s another critical number: $3.5 trillion. That’s the gap. That’s how much more money the world needs to spend every year, on top of what’s happening now to reach the goals of the Paris Agreement. So who’s gonna fill it?

Source: Climate Policy Initiative, “Global Landscape of Climate Finance 2021.“

Despite the shortfall in current climate finance, there is growing optimism that nations, organizations, and individuals will rally to meet the challenge—with their checkbooks at the ready.

“Finance is a huge lever, and possibly the most important lever, for the low-carbon economic transition,” Cooper Wetherbee, an analyst with the think tank Climate Policy Initiative (CPI), told me in an interview in March 2021, “if we use it correctly.”

To understand what that means, here’s the Means & Matters guide to the myriad groups, sectors, and industries pouring billions into climate action, whether it’s through sustainable infrastructure, innovation, carbon offsetting activities, and individual actions to minimize emissions.

What They’re Doing with the Money — And What They’re Not

1. Governments and Intergovernmental Organizations Big spenders that must think bigger (and smarter)2019/2020 Climate investment: $321 BILLION¹Governments and intergovernmental organizations—such as the UN—are among the most significant funders of climate change action. The $321 billion in climate finance from public sources account for 51 percent of total global commitments.¹

Even so, public investment needs to grow. The 2019/2020 spending only increased 10 percent over 2017/2018 after two successive growth periods of 24 percent. The aim should be more like 450 percent.

But the European Union gives us some hope, leading the public-spending pack. The EU committed to making at least 20 percent of its spending climate-related between 2014 and 2020.² As of 2020, the EU reached these goals, with annual expenditures of more than €34 billion (equal to $40 billion) on climate change mitigation. The EU isn’t stopping there. Between 2021 and 2027, the EU plans to increase its climate spending to 25 percent of its total expenditure.The United States had fallen behind its European peers³ in climate change financing per capita after years of not even including the word “climate” in budgets⁴. But the Biden Administration is racing to catch back up. Between the 2021 Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act and 2022’s CHIPS and Science Act and the Inflation Reduction Act, US climate spending is set to triple over the next decade.⁵The $1 trillion infrastructure bill, for example, included more than $62 billion to support clean energy initiatives through the US Department of Energy, from manufacturing and workforce investments to expanding residential and commercial access to energy efficiency and renewable energy.⁶ This year’s Inflation Reduction Act includes $369 billion for cutting emissions, manufacturing clean energy products, and advancing environmental justice programs—investments the Biden Administration says will reduce US carbon emissions by 40 percent by 2030 and save $1.9 trillion in climate damages by 2050.⁷At the same time, some states have retained or stepped up climate investment. California, the fifth-largest economy in the world, announced $54 billion planned in climate spending in September of 2022.^{8, 9}Meanwhile, China, the world’s largest source of CO2 emissions, announced its allocation of $57 billion for ecology and environment protection in 2020 and pledged to become carbon neutral by 2060.^{10, 11} The fund will focus on air pollution prevention and control, as well as water and soil protection.While increasing the amount of public climate investment is critical, so is increasing the strategic approach of these investments.

“A massive transformation is needed to unlock the trillions required to help the world shift to a low-carbon future and build resilience to climate change,” wrote Sophie Yeo for Nature in 2019.¹² 

“Financiers will have to step away from approaching climate change on a project-by-project basis—a wind farm here, a solar plant there—and start thinking about the carbon impact of every dollar spent . . . it’s really up to policymakers to incentivize this shift by financially discouraging the wrong kinds of projects.”

2. Corporations

Bulls in the China shop of climate action

2019/2020 Climate investment: $124 BILLION¹

Industry is responsible for more than 20 percent of all global greenhouse gas emissions.¹³ That makes one thing very clear: Private sector climate investment shouldn’t be viewed as philanthropy, but a necessary and just response to the environmental damage corporations have caused.

“The historically and current biggest emitters are the ones that both can and should be increasing their climate finance,” Climate Policy Initiative analyst Matthew Solomon said to me during our March call. “They’ve caused this crisis, so they should be paying to fix it. But also, if you’re emitting hundreds of millions of tons of CO2 every year, you’re best positioned to reduce that.”

Globally, corporations may have invested an average of $124 billion into climate action in 2019 and 2020, but that’s actually a decrease from their 2018/2018 average of $183 billion.^1,14 And they’re investing in plenty of harm, too. Anti-climate politicians get nearly twice the corporate donations as those who vote in favor of climate action.¹⁵

Source: Climate Policy Initiative, “Global Landscape of Climate Finance 2021.“

There are signs of hope. Market pressure is creating an incentive for companies to act, and some companies are responding. Tech giants like Apple, Google, Facebook, and others vowed to power their data centers with 100 percent renewable energy.¹⁶ Companies known for their long commitment to climate action, such as Patagonia and REI, are demonstrating the market advantage of environmental investment. And the growing number of certified B corporations demonstrates a global shift toward building sustainability into companies’ business models. As many as 1,200 companies around the world have science-based targets in line with becoming net-zero by 2050.¹⁷

3. Funds and Institutional Investors

Private investors placing big-time bets on climate action

2019/2020 Climate investment: $8 BILLION¹

What’s this category? “Funds” include things like venture capital and private equity, and institutional investors are big stock market movers, like pension funds. For most folks, the spending in this category can seem a little confusing, but it basically all falls into big-time private sector investing. Fortunately, the rising popularity of ESG investing is helping motivate these forces to channel money toward the good of the planet.

Here’s a venture capital investment example that many people will recognize: Beyond Meat is a plant-based burger company with a tasty enough product to inspire consumers to grapple with the environmental impact of industrial farming—which is huge. One study found¹⁸ that if everyone in the US swapped a quarter of the meat they now eat with plant-based proteins, it would eliminate 82 million metric tons of greenhouse gas emissions annually.

Investments in sustainable food innovation may be helping us get there: growth in plant-based protein shipments to restaurants grew 20 percent in 2020, while meat shipments grew by two percent.¹⁹Beyond Meat serves as a case study for the potential impact of climate-focused venture capital. As of October 2021, the VC-backed Beyond Meat reached market capitalization of around $6.7 billion.²⁰

While massive investment is a key ingredient in the needed climate finance paradigm shift, so is strategic investment in potentially game-changing innovation. For instance, not long ago, it might have been unimaginable to give up on personal car ownership for many. However, thanks to the billions of dollars venture capitalists put into micro-mobility solutions such as e-scooters, a car-free life is now a possibility for millions.²¹

According to a PwC report, climate tech VC funding grew a whopping 3750% between 2013 and 2019.²² Led by the efforts of VC firms such as Khosla Ventures, Sequoia Capital, Breakthrough Energy Ventures, and others, more than 1,200 climate tech startups received a total investment of $60 billion.

4. Banks

Moderate climate investors with the capacity to change the game

2019/2020 Climate investment: $122 BILLION¹

The connection between banks and climate change can seem fuzzy at best. But it’s more direct than it seems: Most of the money people deposit in the bank goes back out into the world in the form of loans. Those loans can fund things like mortgages or small businesses, as well as climate startups and solar farms.

“Banks are playing a more prominent role as an intermediary of sustainable and green debt instruments as well as a broader trend of setting climate-related targets,” states the Climate Policy Initiative in their 2021 report.¹ There is no doubt that the banking industry has woefully underinvested in the climate in the past—but if there’s a silver lining to CPI’s new analysis it’s that commercial finance institutions increased their spending by 154 percent since the organization’s 2019 report.

Banks appear to be continuing on the right track. Based on financing data from the first few months of 2021, banks are on pace to lend more this year to renewable energy projects than to fossil fuel projects, according to an analysis by Bloomberg.²³ And 117 global banks representing $70 trillion in assets have joined the Net-Zero Banking Alliance (NZBA), committing their investment and lending portfolios to reach net-zero emissions by 2050.²⁴

Overall annual climate spending must grow 454 percent by 2030 to hold global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius, so it’s not as if banks’ 150 percent increase is anything close to a silver bullet. But given the size and influence of the industry, it’s encouraging to see banking moving in the right direction.

5. Individuals

Small-scale investors with big-time influence

2019/2020 Climate investment: $55 BILLION¹

“From the food we eat to clothes we wear or the buildings we live in, carbon is in everything we do. Consumers are increasingly more aware of this,” said Duncan Grierson, CEO and Founder of Clim8, a green investment app. “But a Swedish schoolgirl showed the world that no individual is too small to make a difference.”

The 2022 IPCC report on climate mitigation quantified that potential difference. For the first time, the IPCC working group measured the impact of “socio-cultural changes“—aka, shifts to public transit, reduced meat consumption and appliance use, shorter showers, and more.²⁵ The report said these behavior changes “can offer Gigaton-scale CO2 savings potential at the global level, and therefore represent a substantial overlooked strategy in traditional mitigation scenarios.”

Of course, behavior change includes people’s choices as consumers. Households’ average annual climate-related spending over both 2017/2018 and 2019/2020 was $55 billion, holding steady after rising 50 percent between 2013 and 2018.^1,15

Consumers are primarily investing in electric vehicles and installing solar panels on their homes. Some people are even finding ways to offset their own carbon footprint. Others are investing their wealth more sustainably. Today, one in three investment dollars that are professionally managed in the US use sustainable investing strategies, and 80 percent of investors believe companies with leading sustainability practices make better long-term investments.^{26, 27}

The downside is that when it comes to the kind of direct capital flows needed to reach global climate targets, the financial influence of individuals is simply much smaller than other actors, like governments, banks, and corporations. While $55 billion isn’t nothing, it is less than 10 percent of the 2019/2020 climate financing totals, and individuals simply aren’t in control of the kind of large-scale infrastructure decisions required to slow climate change. A single household can’t, for example, wake up in the morning and decide to fund a light rail system in their region.

However, they can—and increasingly do—use their power as consumers to influence the entities that do. That is, they can elect leaders who will invest in light rail, and then they can pay to ride it. In 2019, nearly half of consumers said they’d pay more for sustainable products—and Gen Z, the consumer of the future, was willing to pay 50-100 percent more. In the 2020 election, climate voters donated tens of millions of dollars to pro-climate action candidates.²⁸

“It’s important to know that consumers are not solely responsible for solving the climate crisis,” Solomon said. “But they do have power in numbers to influence the people who are making the problem worse.”

More Money and Beyond

The numbers on global climate finance tell a simple story: Everyone needs to do more—much more. Banks, corporations, and governments, in particular, have the capacity to ramp up their efforts. The Climate Policy Initiative’s report urges that “coordination across silos of public and private financial actors is needed to ensure coherence and impact on net-zero and sustainability.” ¹

Is that goal possible on a global scale—in a complex world? The experts are taking an optimistic view.

“A movement is underway to take renewables from being a niche sector to being an important part of the whole picture,” Wetherbee said. “We have to green the whole picture, not just have a little place on the shelf for renewables, alongside all the harmful things we’re doing.”

The task may seem enormous, but all around the world we know what is needed and the roadmap is clearly laid out. The momentous shift is already underway.

“We have the solutions,” Solomon said. “We know what we need to do. It’s just a matter now of doing it.”

*

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

Natalie Burg is a freelance writer and editor in Ann Arbor, where she spends much of her time getting out from under a pile of tiny people and large dogs, keeping her 1938 Cape Cod from falling over, and writing about sustainability, business, and public policy.

Notes

1. Climate Policy Initiative, “Global Landscape of Climate Finance 2021.” https://www.climatepolicyinitiative.org/publication/global-landscape-of-climate-finance-2021/

2. European Union, “Supporting climate action through the EU budget.” https://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/budget/mainstreaming_en

3. Joe Thwaites, World Resources Institute, “2020 Budget Shows Progress on Climate Finance, But US Continues to Fall Behind Peers.” https://www.wri.org/insights/2020-budget-shows-progress-climate-finance-us-continues-fall-behind-peers

4. Jean Chemnick, Thomas Frank, Scientific American, “Climate Change Once Again Left Out of Trump’s Federal Budget.” https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/climate-change-once-again-left-out-of-trumps-federal-budget/

5. Victoria Masterson, World Economic Forum “Three laws will triple US climate change spending over the next decade.” https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2022/09/us-climate-change-tech-spending/

6. US Department of Energy, “DOE Fact Sheet: The Bipartisan Infrastructure Deal Will Deliver For American Workers, Families and Usher in the Clean Energy Future.” https://www.energy.gov/articles/doe-fact-sheet-bipartisan-infrastructure-deal-will-deliver-american-workers-families-and-0

7. Emma Newburger, CNBC, “CLIMATE POLICYInflation Reduction Act could curb climate damages by up to $1.9 trillion, White House says.” https://www.cnbc.com/2022/08/24/inflation-reduction-act-could-cut-climate-damages-by-1point9-trillion.html

8. CBS News, “California now has the world’s 5th largest economy.” https://www.cbsnews.com/news/california-now-has-the-worlds-5th-largest-economy/

9. Office of Governor Gavin Newsom, “Governor Newsom Signs Sweeping Climate Measures, Ushering in New Era of World-Leading Climate Action,” https://www.gov.ca.gov/2022/09/16/governor-newsom-signs-sweeping-climate-measures-ushering-in-new-era-of-world-leading-climate-action/

10. Reuters, “China to allocate $57 billion to environment protection.” https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-environment-budget-idUSKBN22Y0BU

11. European External Action Service, “China carbon neutrality in 2060: a possible game changer for climate.” https://eeas.europa.eu/headquarters/headquarters-homepage/87431/china-carbon-neutrality-2060-possible-game-changer-climate_en

12. Sophie Yeo, “Where climate cash is flowing and why it’s not enough.” https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-02712-3

13. EPA, “Global Greenhouse Gas Emissions Data.” https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/global-greenhouse-gas-emissions-data

14. Climate Policy Initiative, “Global Landscape of Climate Finance 2019.” https://www.climatepolicyinitiative.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/2019-Global-Landscape-of-Climate-Finance.pdf

15. Bre Bradham, Andre Tartar and Hayley Warren, Bloomberg, “American Politicians Who Vote Against Climate Get More Corporate Cash.” https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/mar/22/top-oil-firms-spending-millions-lobbying-to-block-climate-change-policies-says-report

16. Greenpeace, “Clicking Clean:Who Is Winning the Race to Build a Green Internet?” http://www.clickclean.org/international/en/

17. United Nations Climate Action, “Net Zero Coalition.” https://www.un.org/en/climatechange/net-zero-coalition

18. Gidon Eshel, Paul Stainier, Alon Shepon & Akshay Swaminathan, Scientific Reports, “Environmentally Optimal, Nutritionally Sound, Protein and Energy Conserving Plant Based Alternatives to U.S. Meat.” https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-46590-1

19. Mihai Andrei, ZME Science, “The meat industry is freaking out over plant-based meat. They should.” https://www.zmescience.com/other/pieces/meat-industry-plant-alternatives-19022021/

20. Bloomberg, “BYND:US, NASDAQ GS” https://www.bloomberg.com/quote/BYND:US

21. Pitchbook, “Emerging Tech Research: Mobility Tech.” https://pitchbook.com/news/reports/q1-2020-emerging-tech-research-mobility-tech

22. Dr. Celine Herweijer and Azeem Azhar, PwC, “The State of Climate Tech 2020.” https://www.pwc.com/gx/en/services/sustainability/assets/pwc-the-state-of-climate-tech-2020.pdf

23. Tim Quinson and Mathieu Benhamou, Bloomberg, “Banks Always Backed Fossil Fuel Over Green Projects—Until This Year.” https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2021-wall-street-banks-ranked-green-projects-fossil-fuels/

24. Net-Zero Banking Alliance, https://www.unepfi.org/net-zero-banking/members/

25. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, “Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change.” https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg3/

26. US SIF: The Forum for Sustainable and Responsible Investment, “The US SIF Foundation’s Biennial “Trends Report” Finds That Sustainable Investing Assets Reach $17.1 Trillion.” https://www.ussif.org/blog_home.asp?Display=155

27. Morgan Stanley, Sustainable Signals: Individual Investors and the COVID-19 Pandemic.” https://www.morganstanley.com/assets/pdfs/2021-Sustainable_Signals_Individual_Investor.pdf

28. Lisa Friedman, New York Times, “‘Climate Donors’ Flock to Biden to Counter Trump’s Fossil Fuel Money.” https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/18/climate/climate-change-biden.html

Featured image is from Means and Matters

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

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

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

***

American ISR (intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance) capabilities are undeniable. The United States has been using the aforementioned capabilities to enhance its underhanded tactics, particularly in regard to stoking tensions between global powers such as China and India.

With the Asian giants being the pillars of both Greater Eurasia and the multipolar world led by BRICS nations, it’s adamant for America to ensure Beijing and New Delhi remain locked in perpetual border disputes that help neither China nor India in any way imaginable. On the other hand, prospects for deepening their cooperation in virtually all spheres are effectively endless and in the best interest of both.

It could even be argued that the areas Beijing and New Delhi are both claiming are of negligible economic and (geo)political value for either, especially given the fact they’re among the least developed regions in both countries, with little to no prospects for otherwise, as both global powers’ core cities and provinces are hundreds of kilometers away, at best.

Several American news sources recently reported that the US allegedly “provided India with unprecedented intelligence-sharing during a clash between Indian and Chinese troops in December 2022 along the disputed border high in the Himalayas, known as the Line of Actual Control [LAC]”.

The US News report cited several former and current Washington DC officials who claim that the intelligence shared with New Delhi was part of the 2020 agreement between the US and India known as BECA (Basic Exchange and Cooperation Agreement).

According to US News, the Pentagon

“provided India with real-time details of China’s positions and its force strength ahead of the [border] clashes, which the sources say were sparked by a Chinese military incursion, and Indian troops maneuvered to intercept the Chinese forces”. The information provided by the US apparently included satellite imagery and was “more detailed and delivered faster than anything provided by the US before”.

The sudden change of pace in American intelligence sharing with New Delhi can only be explained by the recent strides India and China have made toward full reconciliation and finding the final solution to the decades-old territorial disputes, the vast majority of which are the vestige of British colonial and imperialist policies.

Luckily, Chinese and Indian troops in the disputed areas are only armed with melee weapons, a part of mutually agreed measures to prevent escalation.

Washington DC (ab)used the 2020-early 2021 escalation of Sino-Indian border scuffles to further drive a wedge between them, all under the guise it supposedly “cares about India’s security”. In the last several decades, the US (particularly the Pentagon) has been trying to build closer ties with New Delhi in an attempt to enlarge the zone of strategic containment of China. One of the ways of achieving this has been the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue, colloquially known as the Quad, a largely informal security forum whose members are Australia, India, Japan and the US. It was initiated by Tokyo in 2007, with the obvious goal of strategically countering China’s rise. However, while New Delhi sees it as just another part of its multi-vectored foreign policy framework, the Quad is heavily (ab)used by the US and its satellites to derail China’s and India’s efforts to improve relations.

As a result, the ties between the US and India are slowly rupturing, particularly as New Delhi is coming under increased pressure due to its strategic partnership with Russia. Washington DC’s attempts to turn the Quad into a sort of quasi-NATO that would encompass most of the Indo-Pacific failed multiple times, as India repeatedly prevented joint Quad statements condemning Russia’s counteroffensive against NATO aggression in Europe. This has forced the US to turn to the much more tightly knit AUKUS which includes the US, UK and Australia, and is aimed at maintaining the political West’s power in the Asia-Pacific by targeting China, although in recent times this has also included North Korea’s and Russia’s Far Eastern interests. India simply wants to stay out of these disputes while maintaining its own independent geopolitical course.

For its part, Russia wholeheartedly supports this, as precisely such policies form the basis of the new multipolar world, where each individual country is encouraged to exercise the sovereign right to choose its own path while concurrently respecting the principles of indivisible security. The US-led political West finds each of these policies completely unacceptable and wants absolute subservience, which they are extremely unlikely to ever get from India.

However, Washington DC still needs New Delhi on good terms, as this is the only way to prevent the formation of a giant Eurasian monolith, which the US could never hope to circumvent or ignore, let alone defeat. In contrast, Moscow has been mediating and working on bringing China and India closer, an effort that only a world-class diplomacy such as Russia’s can achieve, something Washington DC can only dream of considering the fact that its foreign policy has long since degenerated into arm-twisting, blackmail and aggression.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons 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

Alle Artikel von Global Research können in 51 Sprachen gelesen werden, indem Sie die Schaltfläche Website übersetzen unterhalb des Namens des Autors aktivieren.

Um den täglichen Newsletter von Global Research (ausgewählte Artikel) zu erhalten, klicken Sie hier.

Folgen Sie uns auf Instagram und Twitter und abonnieren Sie unseren Telegram-Kanal. Sie können die Artikel von Global Research gerne weiterveröffentlichen und mit anderen teilen.

***

 

 

Einführung in Thematik

Es wird zunehmend schwieriger, sich im Schungel von Lügen und Halbwahrheiten zurechtzufinden. Immer mehr Zeitgenossen wollen deshalb nichts mehr hören von Politikern.

Mich persönlich halten die alternativen Medien „über Wasser“, weil sie wegen ihrer Regierungs-Unabhängigkeit der Wahrheit noch „die Ehre erweisen“.

Da wir aber nicht davon ausgehen können, dass „freie Geister“ uns jeweils lehren, was Wahrheit und was Lüge ist, sollten wir selbst in die Lage kommen, sie voneinander zu unterscheiden. Wir müssen lernen, selbst zu denken (Kant). Deshalb der Versuch einer psychologischen Annäherung an die Thematik. Erwähnenswert ist auch der Artikel von Dr. Garcia „Lügen, verdammte Lügen und Elefanten“ (1).

Der 20. Jahrestag des Beginns des völkerrechtswidrigen Angriffskrieges der USA, Großbritanniens und einer „Koalition der Willigen“ gegen den Irak ist sicherlich ein geeigneter Anlass, um über die zerstörerischen Auswirkungen von politischen Lügen und Manipulation aufzuklären.

Doch im Folgenden wird es nicht nur um die Gewalt als ultima ratio der Politik gehen, sondern ganz generell um die zerstörerischen Auswirkungen von Lüge und Manipulation auf die menschliche Seele und die menschlichen Beziehungen sowie um die Wahrheit als „Gegenmittel“.

Für den Aufbau von Vertrauen zum Mitmenschen sind die Informationen und kulturellen Werte, die Eltern und Erzieher täglich an das Kind herantragen, von großer Bedeutung 

Das Menschenbild der christlich-abendländischen Kultur besagt, dass der Mensch – auch schon das kleine Kind – schlechte Eigenschaften in sich trägt. Mit dieser Information – sei sie bewusst oder unbewusst – treten die Erzieher an das Kind heran. Immer vermuten sie einen bösen Willen beim Kind und sind deshalb oft unaufrichtig, streng und gewalttätig. Dadurch bekommt das Kind Angst vor dem anderen Menschen.

Wenn das Kind lernt, Angst zu haben, durchzieht dies sein ganzes Tun und Handeln, wie es sich in der Gemeinschaft bewegt und gibt. Die Gefühlsreaktion der Angst wird dann ein Bestandteil seines Charakters, den es bis ins Erwachsenenalter mehr oder weniger bewusst in jede zwischenmenschliche Beziehung hineinträgt.

Auch das Vertrauen zum Mitmenschen – das Fundament einer Persönlichkeit – entsteht in der Beziehung zu den Personen der Kindheit. Da der Mensch das Produkt der Erlebnisse, Erfahrungen und Eindrücke ist, die ihm Eltern, Lehrer und Erzieher von frühester Kindheit an vermitteln, ist entscheidend, welche Art von Informationen und welche kulturell vorherrschenden Werte sie an das Kind herantragen.

Wird das Kind durch unwahre Informationen und/oder verwirrende Lügen verunsichert und getäuscht, wird es sich von den Mitmenschen distanzieren. Das Vertrauen in den anderen kann nur entstehen, wenn es sich auf dessen Redlichkeit verlassen kann.

Liebe Leser, gestatten Sie mir, in diesem Zusammenhang auf ungünstige Auswirkungen der religiösen Erziehung auf die Kinder-Seele aufmerksam zu machen: es geht um nicht existente Geister, Teufel und Engel.

Kaum zeigen sich beim Kind die ersten seelischen Regungen und es lernt zu sprechen, wird es von den Eltern und der Kirche „in Obhut genommen“. Bildet sich einige Jahre später das Bewusstsein des „Ichs“, so schalten sich bereits Gott und Teufel der betreffenden Religion ein. Seinen Kristallisationspunkt findet der dem Kind beigebrachte Dämonenglaube in den Vorstellungen von Teufel und Hölle. Angstneurosen und schwere seelische Störungen sind nach Auffassung von Psychiatern bisweilen die Folge.

„Psychologische Operationen“ im gesamtgesellschaftlichen Raum 

Die Lüge ist eine Aussage, von der der Lügner weiß oder vermutet, dass sie unwahr ist. Er äußert sie mit der Absicht, dass der Empfänger sie glaubt. Auch die Manipulation eines anderen Menschen ist ein Betrug. Sie dient dazu, einen Vorteil zu erlangen und bedeutet die gezielte und verdeckte Einflussnahme oder Steuerung des Erlebens und Verhaltens von Einzelnen oder Gruppen, die diesen verborgen bleiben soll.

Bereits vor 500 Jahren verfasste Niccolò Machiavelli (1469-1527) mit der Schrift „Der Fürst“ („Il Principe“) eines der ersten Werke der modernen politischen Philosophie. Hierzu schreibt die Schweizer Psychologin Dr. Barben:

„Für Machiavelli bedeuteten Macht und Ruhm alles, Güte und Menschlichkeit nichts. Er lobte diejenigen Despoten als mächtig und erfolgreich, ‚die es mit der Treue nicht genau nahmen und es verstanden, durch List die Menschen zu umgarnen‘. Ein Herrscher müsse, so schrieb er, ‚Milde, Treue, Menschlichkeit, Redlichkeit und Frömmigkeit zur Schau tragen‘, diese Eigenschaften aber wenn nötig brutal ‚in ihr Gegenteil verkehren‘. Auch dürfe er ‚vor dem Schlechten nicht zurückschrecken‘ und müsse fähig sein, ‚sich zu drehen und zu wenden nach dem Winde‘“ (2).

Doch diese uralten und groben Methoden des politischen Manipulators Machiavelli sollten mit der Zeit verschwinden. Deshalb setzten amerikanische „Spin-Doktors“

nach dem deutschen Mauerfall auf sanfte Gewalt („Soft Power“). Ein „Spin-Doktor“ ist ein Kommunikationsexperte, der dafür arbeitet, dass zum Beispiel die Öffentlichkeit eine Aussage oder einen Beschluss so verstehen, wie es für den Auftraggeber oder Politiker vorteilhaft ist (3).

Diese Form der Propaganda war im Vergleich zu den kommunistischen Methoden diskreter, subtiler und „gefälliger“. Joseph S. Ney, US-amerikanischer Regierungsberater und Harvard-Professor bezeichnete sie als „ein ausgezeichnetes Instrument, um die Welt dazu zu bringen, ‚freiwillig‘ das zu tun, was Amerika wolle“ (4). Mit “Soft Power“ war es möglich, die öffentliche Meinung in einer Weise zu formen, wie das bloße Propaganda nie konnte. Doch damit nicht genug!

Um die „Kommunikation“ zu verbessern, das heißt, die Meinung der Weltöffentlichkeit speziell in Kriegszeiten zu „optimieren“, wurde die „Psy-Op“-Gruppe der US-Armee um Zehntausende von Mitarbeitern verstärkt und die Zusammenarbeit mit Hollywood-Studios intensiviert. „Psy-Op“ soll „psychologische Operation“ heißen anstelle des ehemals hässlichen Begriffs „psychologische Kriegsführung“. Larry Dietz, ein hochrangiger, auf psychologische Kriegsführung spezialisierter US-Militär, definierte „PsyOp“ jedoch so:

„Psychologische Operationen sind ein zusätzliches Waffensystem, um eine Mission zu erfüllen, die ein militärischer Kommandant befiehlt. (…). Das Ziel von PsyOp besteht darin, das Verhalten (von Zielpersonen) im Sinne des militärischen Kommandos zu beeinflussen.“ (5) Siehe hierzu auch den Artikel von Alan Lash: „Psyops sind nicht neu, nur gefährlicher“ (6).

Zieht man noch einmal das berühmte Zitat von Leo Tolstoi (1828-1910) über den Charakter von Regierenden heran und erfährt, dass die Politiker „die verlogensten Menschen“ sind, dann fragt man sich, wieso wir Bürger ihnen so leichtfertig die Macht übergeben:

„Man könnte die Unterordnung eines ganzen Volkes unter wenige Leute noch rechtfertigen, wenn die Regierenden die besten Menschen wären; aber das ist nicht der Fall, war niemals der Fall und kann es nie sein. Es herrschen häufig die schlechtesten, unbedeutendsten, grausamsten, sittenlosesten und besonders die verlogensten Menschen. Und daß dem so ist, ist kein Zufall.“ (7)

Auch ist die Frage des Krieges eine allgemeine Kulturfrage, die daran erinnert, dass unsere gesamte Kultur vom Prinzip der Gewalttätigkeit durchdrungen ist und deshalb immer wieder auch auf den Irrtum verfällt, völkische Probleme durch die Methode der Gewalt, das heißt, den Krieg lösen zu können. Überall wird die Macht über die menschliche Solidarität und das Gemeinschaftsgefühl gestellt. 

Psychologische Operation „Killerspiele“: harmlose „Unterhaltungsgewalt“? 

Eine weitere Zielgruppe von ‚PsyOp‘ sind Kinder und Jugendliche – ein besonders finsteres Kapitel. Hierzu schreibt Dr. Barben:

„Um die Tötungsraten bei militärischen Einsätzen zu erhöhen, setzt das Pentagon Simulatoren ein, an denen das routinemäßige Töten geübt wird. Mit diesen wird den Soldaten die natürliche Tötungshemmung abtrainiert. Sie üben das schnelle und automatische Töten möglichst vieler Menschen. Vor einigen Jahren schloss das Pentagon Verträge mit Hollywood ab. Die Film- und Unterhaltungsindustrie versah die militärischen Mordsimulatoren mit einem ‚attraktiven‘ Design und vermarktete sie als ‚Kinderspiele‘“. (8)

In Wirklichkeit bewirken diese „Spiele“ bei Kindern und Jugendlichen genau das gleiche wie bei den Soldaten. Nach Auffassung des US-amerikanischen Militärpsychologen Dave Grossman gewöhnen sie ans Töten und verrohen das Gefühl (9).  

Zur Thematik „Killerspiele“ verfasste der Autor zusammen mit anerkannten Universitätsprofessoren, Militärwissenschaftlern, Jugendpsychiatern, Heimleitern und betroffenen Gymnasiasten zwei Handreichungen für Eltern und Lehrer: „Da spiel ich nicht mit!“ (10) und „Game over!“ (11). Beide befassen sich mit den Auswirkungen dieser sogenannten „Unterhaltungsgewalt“ in Fernsehen, Video- und Computerspielen – und was man dagegen unternehmen kann. 

Wann wird sich das Menschheitsgewissen endgültig Gehör verschaffen?

Das wirksamste Gegenmittel gegen Lüge und Manipulation ist die Wahrheit beziehungsweise ihre Verbreitung. Doch noch können wir nicht sagen, wann sich das Menschheitsgewissen, dessen Mahnruf durch die Jahrhunderte gellt, endgültig Gehör verschaffen wird, um den schrecklichen Irrtum der Herrschsucht aufzuzeigen.

Auch wissen wir nicht, wann das Menschheitsgewissen die sogenannte „absolute Wahrheit“ verkünden wird, wonach die Menschen zusammengehören und unter dem Gesetz stehen, zusammenzuwirken und einander die Hände zu reichen. Es besteht jedoch kein Zweifel, dass der Bestand des Menschengeschlechts davon abhängen wird, dass sich die Menschen in weit höherem Maße als bisher zur allmenschlichen Solidarität bekennen.

Bis zum heutigen Tag wird unter denen, die darauf angewiesen wären, sich gemeinsam gegen die Naturgewalten zu wenden und allen Menschen auf dieser Erde ein erträgliches Dasein zu sichern, Zwietracht gesät und auch werden sie nach „Strich und Faden belogen“.

Somit ermöglicht das Vorrecht der Regierenden und die Verblendung der Regierten immer wieder Rückfälle in die kriegerische Gesinnung, die im Leben des Einzelnen wie der Völker unsägliches Leiden verursacht. Gleichzeitig wird in schamloser Weise vom „Ethos des Krieges“ gesprochen, in dem sich die edelsten Tugenden des Menschen wie Mut und Entsagung, Pflichttreue und Opferwilligkeit entfalten würden.

Aufklärung und Erziehung als wichtigste Maßnahmen gegen Lüge, Manipulation und Krieg  

Die Geschichte ist ein Werk des Menschen. Wenn man diese Welt ändern will, muss man den Menschen ändern. Demgemäß sind Aufklärung und Erziehung die erfolgversprechendsten Maßnahmen, die gegen den Krieg, die Manipulation und die Lüge ergriffen werden können.

Natürlich sollten Eltern und Erzieher die Kinder dazu anhalten, stets bei der Wahrheit zu bleiben. Und wenn man sie noch nicht kennt, sollte man den anderen dazu einladen, sie gemeinsam zu ergründen. Auch ist es von zentraler Bedeutung, dass die Erwachsenen den Kindern stets Vorbild an Redlichkeit und Wahrhaftigkeit sind.

Lüge und Manipulation achten weder die Würde noch die Gleichwertigkeit der Menschen. Sie verstoßen gegen das Gewissen und das Gebot der Brüderlichkeit. Indem sie den Mitmenschen zum Manipulationsobjekt herabwürdigen, respektieren sie ihn nicht als gleichwertigen Partner.

Wer die ehrliche Absicht hat zu informieren, kann sich zwar irren, aber er fühlt sich der Wahrheit verpflichtet. Er will dem anderen etwas Wahres mitteilen. Dabei verfolgt er keinen heimlichen Zweck, den er vor dem anderen verbirgt.

*

Hinweis an die Leser: Bitte klicken Sie auf die obigen Schaltflächen zum Teilen. Folgen Sie uns auf Instagram und Twitter und abonnieren Sie unseren Telegram-Kanal. Fühlen Sie sich frei, Artikel von Global Research erneut zu veröffentlichen und zu teilen. 

Dr. Rudolf Lothar Hänsel ist Schul-Rektor, Erziehungswissenschaftler (Dr. paed.) und Psychologe (Dipl.-Psych.). Nach seinen Universitätsstudien wurde er wissenschaftlicher Lehrer (Professor) in der Erwachsenenbildung: unter anderem Leiter eines freien Schul-Modell-Versuchs und Fortbildner bayerischer Beratungslehrkräfte und Schulpsychologen. Als Pensionär arbeitete er als Psychotherapeut in eigener Praxis. Bei einer Öffentlichen Anhörung zur Jugendkriminalität im Europa-Parlament war er Berichterstatter für Deutschland. In seinen Büchern und Fachartikeln fordert er eine bewusste ethisch-moralische Werteerziehung sowie eine Erziehung zu Gemeinsinn und Frieden. Für seine Verdienste um Serbien bekam er 2021 von den Universitäten Belgrad und Novi Sad den Republik-Preis „Kapitän Misa Anastasijevic“ verliehen.

Er schreibt regelmäßig für Global Research.

Noten 

1 https://www.globalresearch.ca/lies-damned-lies-elephants/5811493

2 Barben, Judith (2009). Spin doctors im Bundeshaus. CH-5401 Baden

3 https://www.bpb.de/kurz-knapp/lexika/politiklexikon/296497/spin-doctor/

4 Barben, Judith (2009). Spin doctors im Bundeshaus. CH-5401 Baden, S. 37

5 a. O., S. 40

6 https://www.globalresearch.ca/psyops-not-new-just-more-dangerous/5812602

7 Tolstoi, Leo N. (1968). Rede gegen den Krieg. Frankfurt a. M., S. 74

8 Barben, Judith (2009). Spin doctors im Bundeshaus. CH-5401 Baden, S. 41f.

9 a. O., S. 42

10 Hänsel, Rudolf und Renate (Hrsg) (2005). Da spiel ich nicht mit! Auswirkungen von „Unterhaltungsgewalt“ in Fernsehen, Video- und Computerspielen – und was man dagegen tun kann. Donauwörth

11 Hänsel, Rudolf (2011). GAME OVER! Wie Killerspiele unsere Jugend manipulieren. Berlin

 

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

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

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

***

2. Vitamin D

Vitamin D has multiple actions on the immune system, including enhancing the production of antimicrobial peptides by immune cells, reducing damaging pro-inflammatory cytokines, and promoting the expression of anti-inflammatory cytokines.⁴

A recent study found giving vitamin D to people with COVID-19 cut risk of death from SARS-CoV-2 by 51% and reduced risk of admission to the intensive care unit (ICU) by 72%.^5,6 Vitamin D also plays a role in heart disease, as it improves circulation and may be beneficial for high blood pressure. In addition, due to its effects on endothelial function, vitamin D may also help improve or prevent heart failure, heart attack, vasculopathy, stroke and diabetes.⁷

Ideally, optimize your vitamin D levels via sensible sun exposure, as there are many benefits to sun exposure even aside from vitamin D, such as increasing mitochondrial melatonin by near infrared (IR) exposure.

My vitamin D level is typically between 80 and 100 and I haven’t taken any vitamin D supplements so you can get your levels high if you are disciplined about your sun exposure. Just be sure to make sure you are eating a very low linoleic acid (LA) diet as it is excessive omega-6 fats that virtually everyone consumes, that cause sun-induced skin cancers.

However, if getting healthy sun exposure simply isn’t an option for you due to your location or lifestyle, daily vitamin D3 supplementation of 8,000 to 10,000 units is likely needed to reach a vitamin D level of 60 to 80 ng/mL.

Data from GrassrootsHealth’s D*Action studies suggest the optimal level for health and disease prevention is between 60 ng/mL and 80 ng/mL, while the cutoff for sufficiency appears to be around 40 ng/mL. In Europe, the measurements you’re looking for are 150 to 200 nmol/L and 100 nmol/L respectively.

The only way to gauge whether you might need to supplement, and how much to take, however, is to get your level tested, ideally twice a year — in the early spring and early fall — when your level is at its low point and peak, respectively. Make sure that your supplemental vitamin D intake is balanced with other nutrients, including vitamin K2 (to avoid complications associated with excessive calcification in your arteries) and magnesium.

3. Niacinamide

NAD+ (nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide) is one of the most important biomolecules in your body. It’s involved in the conversion of food to energy, maintaining DNA integrity and ensuring proper cell function. Together, these functions help protect against or delay aging and virtually all chronic disease.

NAD+ also acts as fuel for longevity proteins called sirtuins. Sadly, NAD levels dramatically decline with age, contributing to aging and chronic disease states. NAD is also used up by DNA repair enzymes and enzymes involved in inflammation and immunity, such that chronic inflammation, or acute illness in old age, can rapidly result in depletion.

To restore NAD_, you need to fix the root cause for NAD+ depletion, which primarily involves addressing the decline in the NAD salvage pathway. By increasing enzymes in that pathway, which decline with age, your body can recycle NAD_ like it did naturally when it was younger. For more information, please review my fantastic interview with molecular biologist Nichola Conlon, Ph.D.

In addition to optimizing NAD+ levels, it also blocks lipolysis which is important if you are the more than 99% of the population that have elevated linoleic acid (LA) levels. Reducing the release of LA from your tissues will lower the amount of oxidative stress in in your body.

Niacinamide, like progesterone, inhibits the production of nitric oxide, and also like progesterone, it improves recovery from brain injury and also:

Niacinamide can also lower your triglycerides, which are a potent cardiovascular disease risk factor. It also has a direct anti-adrenaline effect and increases the oxidation of glucose which is your primary metabolic fuel.

The best way to supplement niacinamide is by taking a very low dose of 50 mg three times a day. This is an order of magnitude less expensive than taking NAD precursors like nicotinamide riboside or nicotinamide mononucleotide to increase NAD+ levels.

Please do NOT take high doses like 500 mg or even 1,000 mg, because taking more is not better and will be highly counterproductive as higher doses will impair your sirtuin longevity proteins.

You can purchase a niacinamide powder and take one-sixty-fourth of a teaspoon three times a day or take a 50 mg niacinamide tablet three times a day. Because a 50 mg niacinamide tablet currently is not being made commercially, we will be launching one very soon.

4. B Complex

Vitamin B complex is important for your health because it’s involved in a wide range of bodily functions and processes including cell health and the growth of red blood cells, energy levels, eyesight, brain function, digestion and appetite, proper nerve function, hormones and cholesterol production, and cardiovascular health.

B vitamins have a direct impact on your energy levels, brain function and cell metabolism. Vitamin B complex help support or promote cell health, growth of red blood cells, energy levels, eyesight, brain function, digestion, appetite, proper nerve function, and cardiovascular health and may help prevent infections.

Vitamin B complex is also important for pregnant women as it helps to form the neural tube, which is the precursor to the baby’s brain and spinal cord. It also helps to prevent birth defects of the baby’s brain and spine. It is important to note that vitamin B complex is water-soluble, which means it is not stored in the body and needs to be taken more than once a day.

5. Magnesium

Magnesium is necessary for the healthy functioning of most cells, especially your heart, kidneys and muscles. It’s involved in the functioning of more than 300 enzymes,⁸ and low levels of magnesium impede cellular metabolic function and deteriorate mitochondrial function.

Magnesium is also required for the activation of vitamin D, and deficiency may hamper your ability to convert vitamin D from sun exposure and/or oral supplementation. Unfortunately, deficiency is common and rarely diagnosed.⁹

When it comes to oral supplementation, my personal preference is magnesium threonate, as it appears to be the most efficient at penetrating cell membranes, including your mitochondria and blood-brain barrier. Magnesium is also absorbed through your skin, so you can use a topical solution or take Epsom salt (magnesium sulfate) baths to increase your levels.

6. Vitamin E

Vitamin E is a fat-soluble antioxidant that I believe is important for nearly everyone to take. Why? Because it limits the production of very dangerous free radicals from the metabolism of the omega-6 fat, linoleic acid (LA), which virtually everyone reading this has too much of. It does this by inhibiting lipolysis, or the release of the stored LA in your tissues.

While exercise and fasting are wonderful tools to improve your health, the downside is that virtually everyone has too much LA in their tissues and both of these strategies will increase lipolysis of LA stored in your tissue and produce loads of free radicals and oxidative stress.

Vitamin E not only can prevent oxidative stress from too much LA, but it may also help your body convert this dangerous fat to a non-dangerous saturated fat. Bacteria in your intestine can use vitamin E to saturate the LA. So, vitamin E can actually transform the polyunsaturated fat rather than just protect against it after effects.

Vitamin E is an aromatase inhibitor, which means it blocks the enzyme that converts androgens like testosterone to estrogen, which is useful in reducing the risk for many cancers, especially breast and prostate cancers. Not only does it prevent the production of estrogen, but it also detoxifies xenoestrogens from synthetic chemicals.

Vitamin E is an iron chelator and can also remove age spots or liver spots and scars on your skin if applied topically. It does this because it is an iron chelator. Another term for liver spots is lipofuscin, which is an accumulation of oxidized fats like LA and iron.

While cosmetically unattractive, removing lipofuscin spots is key because what you see on your skin is the tip of the iceberg. They are also in your tissues and organs and will contribute to premature aging. Thankfully, taking vitamin E orally seems to help lower lipofuscin levels. Vitamin E also lowers prolactin, which helps counteract high estrogen levels which tends to increase fertility. Finally, it also blocks adrenaline and reduces cortisol and inflammation.

All of these are major reasons why I am huge fan of vitamin E and believe most people would benefit by taking it. However, you just need to be very careful in selecting your vitamin E supplements as most on the market are counterproductive. Natural vitamin E is a family of eight different compounds: four tocopherols and four tocotrienols. If you eat certain wholesome foods, all eight of the different vitamin E compounds are naturally available.

So, please be careful and make sure to avoid all synthetic vitamin E supplements. You also want to make sure that it has no soy oil in it as soy is typically a GMO, loaded with glyphosate and high in LA.

Your vitamin supplement should have all tocopherols (alpha, beta, gamma and delta) with the majority of tocopherol as alpha. Similarly, it should have balance tocotrienols (alpha, beta, gamma and delta). The most common vitamin E supplement on the market is made from GMO soy, is synthetic and only has alpha tocopherol with no other isomers and has no tocotrienols. You definitely don’t want to use supplements like that.

7. Vitamin C (Not Ascorbic Acid)

Vitamin C is a powerful antioxidant that can strengthen your body’s natural defenses. It may reduce your risk of chronic disease, including protection against immune system deficiencies, cardiovascular disease, prenatal health problems, eye disease and even skin wrinkling.

Vitamin C plays an essential role in your body, particularly for skin and immune health. It also boosts collagen production and helps protect your skin from UV damage. Some research has found that supplementing with vitamin C can shorten the duration of a cold and may help prevent and treat other infections, such as tetanus and pneumonia.

There are basically two types of vitamin C: that derived from whole foods with all the vital and important micronutrients and synthetic ascorbic acid. They both are important and serve crucial biological roles.

The best of the synthetic ascorbic acid would by liposomal forms as they can more easily penetrate cell membranes, especially when needed in large doses as when treating an acute infection, sepsis or cancer. However, it is best to avoid taking synthetic ascorbic acid daily as this can impair copper utilization by your mitochondria.

It is better to take whole food vitamin C daily as this will support the integration of copper into the electron transport chain in your mitochondria and allow you to generate cellular energy more efficiently. Ideally this can be in the form of fruits that are high in vitamin C, like oranges, tangerines, amla (also known as gooseberry) and, my favorite, acerola cherries. It is best to take it a few times a day as vitamin C is water soluble.

8. Probiotics

If you don’t eat fermented foods on a regular basis, a probiotic supplement can be useful for maintaining your gut health and microbial diversity. Your gut microbiome affects nearly all your physiological systems, but gut microbial diversity decreases with age.¹⁰

For each gram-per-day increase in the average national consumption of fermented vegetables, the mortality risk for COVID-19 decreased by 35.4% in one study.¹¹ Beneficial bacteria found in fermented foods may even be effective for suppressing colon cancer,¹² while your mental health is also affected.

One randomized controlled trial demonstrated that high-dose probiotic supplementation is beneficial for people with depression,¹³ while Lactobacillus has been found to produce gamma aminobutyric acid (GABA), a neurotransmitter that inhibits excessive neuronal firing, helping to induce a natural state of calm,¹⁴ in animal studies.¹⁵

9. Omega-3 Fat as DHA and EPA

Omega-3 fats are important for brain health, warding off autoimmune disease¹⁶ and decreasing mortality from cardiovascular disease, while also reducing heart attacks and coronary heart disease events.¹⁷ An omega-3 index test is one of the most important annual health screens that everyone needs, and it’s a more important predictor of your heart disease risk than your cholesterol levels.

Even research supported by the National Institutes of Health suggests an omega-3 test is a good predictor of overall health and all-cause mortality.^18,19 The ideal sources for EPA and DHA omega-3s include cold-water fatty fish, like wild-caught Alaskan salmon, sardines, herring and anchovies. If you do not eat these fish on a regular basis, consider taking a krill oil supplement.

Fish oil is among the most popular supplements in the U.S. Globally, the fish oil market was valued at $1.9 million in 2019, with estimates suggesting this will rise to $2.8 million by 2027.²⁰ Many of these dollars may be wasted, however, due to a chemical process that leaves many fish oil supplements lacking in actual EPA and DHA.

The issue with most fish oil supplements is the chemical process used — trans-esterification — which transforms the oil into a synthetic product that’s far removed from the oil you’d get when eating fish or a high-quality cod liver oil.

When you eat fish or a high-quality cod liver oil, the omega-3 is in a triglyceride form. However, the omega-3s in most all fish oil supplements are in an ethyl ester which is essentially a synthetic substrate, created through the micro distillation process of crude fish oil, in which ethanol and/or industrial alcohol is added. This mix is heat distilled in a vacuum chamber, resulting in a concentrated omega-3 ethyl ester condensate.

The problem with ethyl esters is they’re the least bioavailable form of omega-3. Manufacturers could convert them back into the triglyceride form by detaching the ethyl alcohol molecule and reattaching a glycerol molecule in a process known as re-esterification,²¹ but most don’t because it’s so costly.

Additionally, not only does this molecular distillation process remove vital resolvins and protectins that are important in reducing inflammation, but it also concentrates the EPA and DHA. You can tell the concentration of these two fats in any given supplement by looking at the label. In fish, the oil consists of 20% to 30% EPA and DHA, whereas purified fish oil concentrate typically contains between 60% and 85% EPA and DHA.²²

In my view it is best to avoid most omega-3 supplements as there are many dangers with them. Krill or a high-quality cod liver oil are some of the best choices I know of, but you must be careful here also, as most are very low quality and add synthetic vitamin A and D into the oil.

Krill oil stands out in this regard, however. It’s more bioavailable because the EPA and DHA are bound in a phospholipid form, allowing you to take lower doses while still reaping similar results. Research also suggests krill oil alleviates oxidative stress and iron accumulation, such that it could be used as a treatment for toxicity caused by iron overload.²³

10. L-Glycine

I personally take teaspoon (about 5 grams) of glycine twice a day, in the morning and before bed. Glycine is an amino acid and is an important methyl-group donor. Methyl groups are found in DNA, where they play a role in cellular reactions. Glycine helps protect against intracellular calcium overload and hypoxia and has anti-inflammatory effects.

In addition to supporting brain function,²⁴ supplemental glycine may be useful for the “prevention and control of atherosclerosis, heart failure, angiogenesis associated with cancer or retinal disorders and a range of inflammation-driven syndromes, including metabolic syndrome.”²⁵ Importantly, glycine is also a glutathione precursor, discussed below. Ray Peat has shown that glycine is:

11. N-acetylcysteine (NAC)

NAC, a form of the amino acid cysteine. It’s most well-known to help increase glutathione and reduce the acetaldehyde toxicity²⁶ that causes many hangover symptoms. Anyone who overdoses on acetaminophen (Tylenol) also receives large doses of NAC in the emergency room, as it helps prevent liver damage by increasing glutathione.

NAC can be combined with glycine (known as GlyNAC) for even more benefits. In a pilot trial of older adults, GlyNAC supplementation for 24 weeks corrected glutathione deficiency and improved multiple measures of health, including:²⁷

12. Quercetin

Quercetin, an antioxidant flavonol found in foods such as onions, apples, plums and green tea, is a natural antiviral²⁸which helps drive zinc into the cells to stop viral replications. It also combats inflammation and works as a natural antihistamine. A number of studies have also shown quercetin, when used early, also lowers your risk of hospitalization and death from COVID-19,²⁹ and improves clinical outcomes.

Quercetin is one of the supplements I recommend keeping in your medicine chest for times when you feel you’re “coming down” with something, be it the common cold or influenza. This is because it helps drive zinc ions into your cells, which then serves to halt replication of the virus that you are infected with.

Like vitamin E, quercetin also chelates iron. Like niacinamide, it also increases NAD+ levels but through a different mechanism. Rather than serving as a substrate to make NAD+, it helps to activate the rate limiting enzyme in the NAD+ salvage pathway, NAMPT, thus increasing NAD+ levels. Finally, it can also help with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD).

Plant-Based Diets Essential Supplements

If you are eating a plant-based diet or you do eat animal foods but are avoiding any organ meats, which are some of the most nutrient dense foods that we know of, then please seriously consider adding these supplements to your regimen.

13. Vitamin B12

Vitamin B12 is likely the most important nutrient that is missing from a plant-based diet and it is absolutely essential that you take it if you choose not to eat animal foods. Left undetected and unaddressed, a vitamin B12 deficiency can lead to fatigue, muscle weakness, intestinal issues, limited nerve development, mood disturbances and much more.

But it is not only vegetarians that can be deficient in this important B vitamin. There are three factors are involved in the widespread B12 deficiency we’re seeing today:

• Many people don’t have enough stomach acidity due to lower levels of pepsin secretion to release the vitamin B12 from dietary proteins.
• Factory-farmed meat and poultry (the most common types consumed today) contain lower levels of vitamin B12.
• Insufficient production of intrinsic factor, a special protein, required for B12 to be absorbed in your small intestine may be the result of aging or an autoimmune condition.

Your body needs vitamin B12 to make red blood cells, maintain nerves, produce DNA and to carry out essential functions for your heart, arteries and veins, nervous system, brain and cognitive function. There’s no way you can enjoy optimal health without adequate B12 levels.

When you supplement with vitamin B12 be sure to choose the more biologically active, methylcobalamin, or “methyl B12,” is the most bioavailable and most absorbable form of vitamin B12. Avoid using the most common form of B12, cyanocobalamin.

14. Retinol (Vitamin A)

Retinol, also known as Vitamin A, is a fat-soluble vitamin that is essential for many bodily functions, including vision, growth, cell division, reproduction and immunity. It is not to be confused with beta-carotene. Even though many nutritional labels conflate the two, they are completely different. Since many are unable to easily convert beta-carotene to vitamin A, it is important to make sure you are getting retinol not beta-carotene.

Vitamin A is necessary for producing hemoglobin, the protein in your red blood cells that transports oxygen. It is necessary to properly recycle and make copper available in your mitochondrial electron transport chain for energy production. It is also necessary for your body to produce two vitally important hormones, progesterone and pregnenoloneand has ant-estrogenic properties. It is also helpful for male fertility.

One of the most important benefits of retinol would be to help your body’s immune system and natural defense against illness and infection to work optimally. It also works synergistically with vitamin D with many similar benefits. Also, like vitamin E, retinol has anti-estrogenic properties.

Retinol is responsible for making the pigments in your eye’s retina, improves your vision and promotes good night vision. It also can help protect against cancer. It likely also improves skin health and helps keep your skin moist, and may help reduce the risk of skin and other cancers. Doses are typically from 5,000 to 10,000 I.U.s.

15. Copper

Copper is an essential mineral that plays a vital role in many bodily functions, including the production of red blood cells, the absorption of iron and the maintenance of nerve cells. Most importantly, it is vital to the proper functioning of your mitochondria so you can generate enough ATP.

Copper and its master protein, ceruloplasmin, are instrumental for mitochondrial function. Ceruloplasmin is what drives the copper into the mitochondria, and each mitochondrion needs about 50,000 atoms of copper to do its work.

There are five cytochrome complexes embedded in your inner mitochondrial membranes. Their purpose is to shuttle electrons created from the food you eat that is ultimately converted to acetyl-CoA to produce ATP. If these complexes are deficient in copper, you will not be able to generate enough cellular energy.

Despite its bad rap, most people are deficient in copper. To raise your copper level, you could use a copper bisglycinate supplement (about 4 to 8 mg), or foods like grass fed beef liver, and whole food vitamin C that has the enzyme tyrosinase which is loaded with copper. For additional information please review my podcast with Morley Robbins.

16. Zinc

Zinc plays many roles in your body. It is required for the healthy functioning of all your cells, tissues, organs and bones. Zinc is the second most abundant trace mineral in your body, coming in just after iron. It’s found in foods like beef, poultry, shellfish and mushrooms.

Zinc deficiency is not just an issue with vegetarians, but for those with GI and digestive disorders who can experience decreased zinc absorption. Those who eat seeds, grains, nuts and legumes that are loaded with phytates which can bind zinc and also prevent absorption, may also be deficient. Pregnant and nursing women require higher levels of zinc and those with excessive alcohol consumption also need extra zinc to metabolize the alcohol.

Researchers have discovered hundreds of ways zinc supports health in your body, and every year, they continue to discover more. In the last decade alone, there have been tens of thousands of studies investigating the roles zinc plays in promoting good health.

Zinc provides support for immune function, healthy cell growth, respiratory health and healthy metabolism. It also helps support brain health and healthy function of your taste, smell and vision.

One of the biggest challenges with zinc for people of any age is that zinc isn’t stored in your body, so you must consume the amount your body needs each and every day which is about 15 mg. If you are eating sufficient animal protein or organs, you should not need to supplement unless you are sick, as supplemental zinc can be quite useful to limit viral replication especially if taken with quercetin.

17. Vitamin K2

Vitamin K2 is needed to activate the protein osteocalcin, which is found in your bones. Without vitamin K2, this and other vitamin K2-dependent proteins remain inactivated, and cannot perform their biological functions.³⁰ Vitamin K2 also facilitates the transfer process of calcium from your arteries to your bone. Without it, your risk of arterial calcification increases. It does this by increasing the production of an important hormone for bone health, osteocalcin.

In one study, those who consumed foods with the highest amount of vitamin K2 were less likely to experience severe calcification in their arteries or less likely to die from heart disease over a seven- to 10-year period.³¹ Vitamin K2 also works in tandem with vitamin D and magnesium. As a rule, if you have osteoporosis, heart disease or diabetes, you’re likely deficient in vitamin K2.

If you are eating fermented foods such as natto, or vegetables fermented using a starter culture of vitamin K2-producing bacteria, then you may not need to take a supplement. Certain cheeses such as Brie, Munster and gouda, are also particularly high in K2, as are grass fed organic animal products such as egg yolks, liver, butter and dairy.

18. Collagen

Collagen, in addition to being rich in glycine, is well-known for its role in skin health, including helping mitigate age-related wrinkles.³² It may also reduce joint pain and stiffness³³ while improving glucose tolerance³⁴ and high blood pressure.³⁵

My personal preference is to use a less denatured (unhydrolyzed) organic collagen supplement, as it has a more balanced amino acid profile or, better yet, simply boost your collagen intake by making homemade bone broth using bones and connective tissue from grass fed, organically raised animals.

19. L-Carnosine

Carnosine is a dipeptide composed of two amino acids: beta-alanine and histidine. It’s a potent antioxidant as it binds to advanced lipoxidation endproducts (ALEs) that are the result of oxidized seed oils in your diet. The highest concentrations of carnosine are found in your muscles and brain.

If you’re a vegetarian or vegan, you will have lower levels of carnosine in your muscles. This is one reason why many strict vegans who do not properly compensate for this and other nutritional deficiencies tend to have trouble building muscle. Eating beef is known to efficiently raise carnosine levels in your muscle,³⁶ which is why if you’re a vegetarian or vegan this supplement may be particularly important.

Bonus Methylene Blue

While methylene blue is clearly not a vitamin or mineral and is, in fact, the oldest known modern drug, I consider it an important and, in many cases, essential supplement for most because it is the best product out there to increase mitochondrial electron transport efficiency and your production of cellular energy currency or ATP. In simpler terms, most anyone who is fatigued or tired will benefit from using methylene blue.

Additionally, it is very inexpensive if you avoid buying it in foolish ways. If you purchase 1 ounce (25 grams) of the bulk powder it will last you over three years if you take 20 mg/day, which is a solid maintenance dose, but if you are tired you can easily double or triple that.

Twenty mg is a very small amount and is about half of one-sixty-fourth teaspoon. That would be a one-one hundred twenty-eighth teaspoon, but those are not available. Just be really careful, though, as methylene blue is a dye and will stain your countertop. It’s best to measure over a stainless-steel sink. A dose of 50 mg is best taken by putting one-sixty-fourth teaspoon into an empty gel cap, as it can irritate your mouth at higher concentrations.

The best time to take it is prior to near infrared (IR) exposure from a near IR sauna, a photobiomodulation panel or sun exposure. For more details about methylene blue be sure to view my interview with the leading researcher in the field, Francisco Lima-Gonzalez, Ph.D.

The Timing of Your Supplements Matters

When and how you take supplements — such as with or without food and in the morning or evening — can make a difference in their safety and effectiveness. For instance, fat-soluble vitamin K2 is best taken with your largest meal that contains fat, while magnesium, which helps your body relax, is best taken in the evening. In the infographic above, you can see a simple breakdown of some of the most common supplements and when it’s best to take them.

*

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

Notes

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

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

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

***

A March 7, 2023 CBC article headline reads: “Nova Scotia tight-lipped about spike in deaths – Unexpectedly high numbers of people are dying in an untimely fashion,’ expert says” (click here)

All highly COVID-19 vaccinated countries and jurisdictions are seeing record excess deaths on the order of 1 per 1000 population in 2022.

• USA – 270,000 in 2022 (source: Ethical Skeptic, BMC Skidmore, USMortality.com)
• Germany – 103,000 in 2022 (source: German govt, OECD, EuroMOMO click here)
• UK – 54,000 in 2022 (source: BBC click here)
• Japan – 91,000 in 2022 (source: click here)
• Australia – 42,000 in 2022 (source: click here)
• Alberta – 4000 in 2022 (source: click here)

Now we can add the small Canadian province of Nova Scotia to the list.

From CBC article: “For the first 10 months of 2022, there were 848 more deaths than expected in Nova Scotia. The province said 546 of those were due to COVID-19. That means almost 36 per cent of the deaths are attributable to other causes.”

CBC News asked the Nova Scotia government what is causing the excess mortality in this province, but did not receive a specific answer. A spokeswoman noted excess mortality “represents all deaths — cancer, suicide, heart disease, natural causes, etc. — not just COVID-19.”

But it’s unclear what those other causes are. The province declined interview requests with Health Department officials and the chief medical examiner.

The population of Nova Scotia is 971, 395.

The annualized 2022 excess deaths is 848/(10/12) = 1018.

1018 deaths in 2022 for a population of 971, 395, is around 1 death per 1000 population.

Excess deaths in Canada

According to Statistics Canada, there were 53,741 excess deaths in Canada from March 2020 until end of August 2022 (click here)

Then we subtract “COVID-19 deaths” of 14,642 in 2020 (click here)

We are left with 39,099 deaths since the rollout of COVID-19 vaccines, until end of August 2022. Extrapolate that to end of 2022 and it’s about 47,000 deaths with more of those deaths occurring in 2022.

I believe when the numbers are in, we will see somewhere between 30,000 to 35,000 excess deaths in Canada in 2022, or about 1 in 1000 population.

My take

Over 80% of COVID-19 deaths in 2020 were in Long Term Care home settings where vulnerable elderly were euthanized with drugs like Midazolam + Morphine or abandoned and left to die. (click here) Most deaths were “with COVID” not “from COVID”.

Once COVID-19 vaccines were rolled out in late December 2020, all deaths in the first 14 days post vaccination were counted as unvaccinated COVID-19 deaths – this was done to fraudulently create a “pandemic of the unvaccinated” which didn’t exist.

This “pandemic of the unvaccinated” fraud was pushed by US President Joe Biden, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and their Public Health henchmen Anthony Fauci and Teresa Tam. In Alberta, it was pushed by Deena Hinshaw.

I believe there were very few true COVID-19 deaths in 2021 and 2022. Many of the deaths were in the COVID-19 vaccinated whose immune systems were severely damaged by the jabs, or they were post vaccine deaths in the first 14 days.

Therefore the vast majority of excess deaths in 2021 and 2022 were most likely due to COVID-19 vaccines.

These post COVID-19 vaccine deaths are accelerating. 2022 was worse than 2021 and we are seeing deaths on the order of 1 per 1000 population in 2022.

2023 is shaping up to be even worse than 2022.

*

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

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

Featured image is from NaturalNews.com

---

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

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

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

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

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

***

 

Declassified files show how Russia’s president, during the 1990s, repeatedly told Western counterparts he was “not against” expansion of the military alliance, Matt Kennard reports. He even devised an agreement to bring the Russian people onside. 

Boris Yeltsin privately stated he was not against NATO expansion in the 1990s while publicly opposing the military alliance, declassified files show.

This posture went back as far as 1993, two years into his presidency, which would last until 2000 when he appointed Vladimir Putin his successor.

Declassified notes from a meeting of the British cabinet in September 1993 include a statement from defence secretary Malcolm Rifkind on the “Russian attitude to the Enlargement of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation”.

Rifkind said that on a visit to Poland the previous month, President Yeltsin had told his Polish counterpart Lech Wałęsa “that the Russian Government had no objection to Poland and the Czech Republic joining the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation”.

Rifkind added that this statement “had not been agreed beforehand in Moscow” and “had surprised his Polish hosts and had disconcerted the rest of the Russian delegation”.

Rifkind concluded that “it was not to be assumed that the Russian authorities as a whole would be so relaxed about the extension eastwards of a Western, albeit defensive, military alliance.”

Yeltsin’s acquiescence in NATO’s expansion was not something shared by his prime minister, Viktor Chernomyrdin. In a private conversation with prime minister John Major in 1996, Chernomyrdin said NATO expansion “could explode” across Europe, declassified files also show.

The proposed NATO expansion after the collapse of the Soviet Union was a hugely controversial policy in Russia. The Western military alliance had originally been set up in 1949 ostensibly as a “defensive” bloc against the “threat” posed by the Soviet Union.

Declassified notes from a meeting of the British cabinet on 16 September 1993. (UK National Archives)

‘Not against the process of enlargement’

But as NATO’s first post-Soviet expansion was being negotiated through the 1990s, Yeltsin’s private support continued.

In December 1994, John Major and President Yeltsin had a bilateral meeting in Budapest. “This record should be handled discreetly, and is not suitable for passing on to the Americans,” the summary of the meeting read.

“Yeltsin said he had felt that he and the Prime Minister had come to an agreement…over NATO enlargement,” it added.

Yeltsin “was not against the process of enlargement, so long as it was well balanced and gradual”, it continued.

“It would be all right if, after a time, one country joined NATO, and then perhaps a year later another. But he could not agree to enlargement if it was a matter of taking in the whole of Central and Eastern Europe (comment: by implication as a block). This would affect all of Russia’s interests.”

Major said “he understood Yeltsin’s concerns”, adding, “we believe that enlargement had to be handled cautiously and without deadlines…After the division of Europe for so many years into two blocs, everyone needed to approach this subject with great caution.”

Yeltsin “said he understood the Prime Minister’s position and was satisfied with it”.

In December 1996, Major and Yeltsin talked on the phone as plans for the announcement of the first NATO expansion got closer. “On NATO enlargement, the message was…all sorts of voiced opposition, but in the end tacit acceptance that it would happen,” a summary of Yeltsin’s position read.

Madrid Declaration

These sentiments continued after Tony Blair’s Labour won the general election in May 1997. “The noises made by Yeltsin [on NATO expansion] were all positive,” read the summary of a call between new prime minister Blair and Yeltsin.

A British telegram from Washington, also from May 1997, recounted that a meeting between President Clinton and Yeltsin had “excellent atmospherics”. It added: “Yeltsin [is] in good shape. Clinton encourages him to come to Madrid, sketching out possible arrangements to ease the Russia domestic angle.”

The NATO Summit in 1997 was when the organisation put forward the “Madrid Declaration” which formally invited the Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland to join the alliance. They became members in 1999.

“Yeltsin asked Clinton’s advice on whether he should come [to Madrid],” the telegram noted. “He was worried about the domestic downside (ie being accused of blessing NATO expansion). His advisors…were cautioning against attendance.”

Clinton said it would be good if Yeltsin could come. “He recognised the Russian arguments for and against. But there was scope for Yeltsin to make this another personal and political success. Madrid would not focus only on NATO expansion. The Alliance would also be adapting itself, which should be congenial to Russia.”

Yelstin listened carefully and said “he would reflect”. The UK National Security Council concluded: “Yeltsin is personally keen to go to Madrid, provided he can devise the right presentational strategy.”

Founding Act

Also in 1997, the NATO/Russia Founding Act was signed, ostensibly to build up trust and habits of consultation and cooperation.

But the declassified files show that the Act, which NATO refused to make legally binding, was a public relations exercise requested by Yeltsin to help him dampen domestic opposition to NATO expansion.

One UK document noted that NATO expansion was “the catalyst for the NATO/Russia agreement, although we have been careful not to link the two issues.”

UK foreign secretary Robin Cook commented that Yeltsin continued to publicly oppose NATO expansion. However, the Russian leader was privately focusing efforts “on negotiating a joint document with NATO that would enable him to claim that NATO had taken Russian security concerns fully into account before proceeding with enlargement.”

Cook revealed that the Russians had wanted the document to be legally binding and allow for Russia to “enjoy wide-ranging joint decision-making with NATO”. The Russians also requested that the agreement state that the Baltic states and Ukraine should be ruled off-limits for future NATO expansion.

NATO refused all these requests, but the Russians signed anyway.

Cook concluded: “I judge that the NATO/Russia agreement has considerable net political benefits to UK and NATO interests. Russian opposition to NATO’s decision, at its Madrid Summit, to invite some countries to begin accession negotiations, is likely to be considerably more muted than it might otherwise have been.”

He added: “Russia’s leaders will have a vested interest in presenting the NATO/Russia deal in a positive light, and in portraying NATO not as a threat or adversary, but as a partner, sensitive to Russian security concerns.”

‘Develop his domestic defence’

The declassified documents also show the US was concerned with helping Yeltsin defend himself against domestic Russian attacks on NATO expansion.

A January 1997 message from Washington to London noted that the US government “would like to help Yeltsin develop his domestic defence of NATO enlargement”.

It added: “The underlying American objective was to reinforce Russian leaders (and particularly the younger generation) whose aim was to ‘normalise’ Russia.”

The US was focused on “finding ways to help Yeltsin minimise the domestic damage which NATO enlargement would cause by letting him claim victory on the basis of what could be negotiated with NATO in 1997”.

It added: “Yeltsin would want to be able to tell the Russian people that Russian interests had been secured”. The newly appointed US ambassador to Russia, James F. Collins “believed the West should help Yeltsin find the right formula to use domestically.”

Collins thought this “was one reason why Yeltsin liked the idea of a Five Power meeting”, which would include France, Germany, Russia, the US and the UK. “It could”, he said, “provide a good platform for Yeltsin to explain the NATO/Russia deal to his domestic constituency.”

Warnings of NATO expansion

But Yeltsin’s position was not official Russian policy. Dire warnings about the dangers of NATO expansion were being communicated to the British at the time by other senior figures in the Russian government.

A private 1996 conversation between the Major and Russian prime minister Viktor Chernomyrdin gives a window into the risks NATO knew they were taking to move forward with post-Soviet expansion.

Russia’s prime minister told his British counterpart that NATO expansion “could explode” across Europe in a passionate diatribe against the policy.

The Cassandra-like warning offers a remarkable account of the dangers and risk for European security and domestic reform in Russia if NATO expansion was pursued.

Russian president Vladimir Putin has repeatedly stated that NATO’s eastward expansion is one of the reasons for his invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, which has been condemned as illegal and has involved extensive war crimes.

Chernomyrdin was Russian prime minister from 1992-98, and was seen as a force for moving Moscow closer to the West and forging a friendship with the US. The Yeltsin administration was highly regarded by the British.

The conversation with Major took place in the margins of the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) summit on 2 December 1996. At the time Yeltsin was recovering from illness, but Chernomyrdin said he had been talking to him “almost every day”.

When Major asked Chernomyrdin what he thought of the OSCE summit, the Russian prime minister said the organisation’s “importance should be increased” as it could “lay the foundations for the new architecture of European security”.

He added: “It should be the pivotal organisation, rather than NATO, which had too obvious a military component to it.”

Nuclear ramp up

On NATO expansion Chernomyrdin conceded that Russia could not stop it but made clear “this would create a fragile situation which could explode”.

He added that “even those countries which wanted to join NATO could not explain why, and where the danger to them came from. Russia might have been seen as a danger in the past. This was no longer appropriate.”

But it was clear that NATO expansion was perceived as a significant threat to Russian security even by those in the Yeltsin administration prepared to acquiesce in that expansion. This meant that the scale down of nuclear weapons at the end of the Cold War would also be adversely affected by expanding NATO, Chernomyrdin said.

“If Russia had to face a unified Europe alone, she would need full nuclear protection, and nuclear reductions would no longer be appropriate,” he told Major.

Chernomyrdin warned that the proposed expansion would damage European security, which had been improving in the post-Soviet period.

“What would Europe and the new members gain in practice from NATO enlargement?” he asked Major. “Russia did not have a veto, but Russia was in danger of being vetoed by the rest of Europe. This would recreate volatility in Europe, just when peace and stability had been reestablished. Russia was not an enemy now but could become one.”

Damage to Russian reform

Major told Chernomyrdin: “We did not wish to do anything to unsettle Russia. The Russian leadership’s achievements of recent years were huge.”

But the Russian prime minister outlined the risks to the stability of the Yeltsin administration if new NATO members were invited in.

“The situation in Russia in those circumstances would not be controllable,” he said. “There would be a very negative reaction, as the public hostility – unifying Communists and fascists (Zhirinovksky) – to the latest decree on withdrawal from Chechnya had shown.”

Yeltsin had the previous month ordered the withdrawal of virtually all Russian forces in Chechnya. Vladimir Zhirinovsky was a Russian ultra-nationalist politician and the leader of the Liberal Democratic Party of Russia.

The withdrawal from Chechnya “had produced calls for the impeachment of Yeltsin, so the reaction to NATO enlargement could easily be imagined,” Chernomyrdin added. “Russian patience should not be tested again.”

He concluded: “An extreme reaction to NATO enlargement would also damage democracy and economic reform in Russia.”

New cooperation

NATO was at the time trying to create a new cooperation framework to soften the impact of its expansion on Russian opinion. But Chernomyrdin said Russia “was not clear about the path of cooperation, unless the functional core of NATO was changed. Russia could not rush into a partnership with NATO unless the ways of working together had been properly defined.”

At the time, NATO was pushing a new Charter with Russia.

“Russia could not be bought by a Charter – that would not convince the Russian people that NATO enlargement was not dangerous,” Chernomyrdin said.

For his part, John Major “repeated that sincere Russian fears were well understood” and conceded that “enlargement was obviously a sensitive issue, on which discussions would need to continue. Russian fears were well understood. He certainly did not brush them aside.”

But, he added, “enlargement would be an evolutionary and transparent process, moving in parallel with a better and broader security relationship with Russia.”

The final note in the document notes that “Chernomyrdin’s comments on NATO enlargement were both longer and more emotional than the above account would suggest. He was beginning to work himself up into quite a lather when lunch finally intervened.”

*

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

Matt Kennard is chief investigator at Declassified UK. He was a fellow and then director at the Centre for Investigative Journalism in London. Follow him on Twitter @kennardmatt

Featured image is from Wikimedia Commons

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

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

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

***

The Credit Suisse (CS) takeover by UBS, the largest Swiss bank, has taken place over the weekend, 18/19 March, when people are distracted and don’t focus on actions behind dark curtains. The merger was untransparent like in a dark room. See this on the build-up to the fusion to the UBS – CS fusion.

The Swiss bank, Credit Suisse (CS), Switzerland’s second largest bank, apparently one of the 30 most important players in international banking, which makes it a Too Big To Fail (TBTF) bank, has been in trouble for a while. Risky operations and several financial scandals around the world have eaten away on people’s trust in the bank. Billions of funds were withdrawn, and the share value plummeted from week to week, then from day to day.

International banking interlinkage and connectivity may only be challenged by international pharma. The duos dominance and control of worldwide business and people have never been stronger than it is today.

It’s frightening, when unbeknownst by most people, our very survival is exposed to the goodwill – or not – of these two economic monsters. Humanity needs food, water, and shelter to subsist. They control these too.

Given the global banking behemoth becoming more powerful by the day, is it wise to salvage a cog in the wheel of this financial predatory apparatus?

This is a fundamental question humanity must ask itself, when confronted with the collapse or saving of a TBTF bank. In the west such questions are not asked. They don’t even occur to the politicians. Private banking for the benefit of the shareholders, is widely overarching the need of the people, the needs of the real economy, as may be provided by public banking.

Private banking über alles!

Converting the failing CS, with a solid network of infrastructure, branch offices, sophisticated internal and external communication networks throughout Switzerland and abroad, into a public bank, belonging to the Cantonal (States) authorities, was never an option on the table for serious consideration.

The hundreds of billions that might have been saved, plus the infinitely more appropriate role for a potentially projected precarious economy ahead, was no consideration.

A Swiss sovereign, people-oriented solution was not even looked at. Instead, the Swiss Finance Minister consulted Washington on how to proceed.

Back to the UBS – CS merger

The Swiss banking “regulator”, FINMA – which is made up mostly of former bank and insurance execs – assured customers just a week before the alleged CS collapse that everything was fine. FINMA (Financial Market Supervisory Authority), is considered biased and lax towards the banking sector, when it comes to enforcing rules.

Over the past weekend – 18 / 19 March 2923 – the CS takeover by UBS, was brokered at ridiculous conditions, 3 billion Swiss francs (about US$ 3.2 billion). CS’s infrastructure throughout Switzerland alone is a worth a multiple of the take-over price.

Only about two weeks ago CS was assessed to be worth between 7 and 10 billion Swiss francs.

At the end of 2022, CS’s total assets were US$ 556.8 billion (CHF 531.4 billion 2022 end-year exchange rate); a decline of 32.7% from 2021. The bank’s liabilities were US$ 509.3 billion, a decline of 34.6% from 2021. Hence, CS’s net worth by end 2022 was US$ 47.5 billion (CHF 45.2 billion).

By the end of 2022, Credit Suisse had approximately CHF 1.3 trillion in assets under management.

It is true, with rumors of CS in crisis, combined with the memories of CS’s past 15 years of controversies and scandals in international banking, trust in the bank was fading. Here are some of the most talked about CS scandals:

• 2007 mismarketing (over-valuing) of security positions;
• 2009 assisting residents of sanctioned countries transferring money, an infraction against US and New York State laws;
• 2013 illegal Forex (foreign exchange) manipulations
• 2014 US tax fraud conspiracy;
• 2015 Malaysia Development Berhad scandal (Berhad is a public limited-liability company – PLC);
• 2017 Mozambique secret loan scandal;
• 2018 US Foreign Corrupt Practices Act violation;
• 2018 Climate Controversy;
• 2019 Espionage scandal;
• 2021 Greensill Capital – a supply chain investment fund liquidation causing a US$ 3 billion loss to investors;
• 2022 Drug money laundering scandal;
• 2022 Swiss secrets leak; and
• 2022 Russian oligarch loan-documents destruction after invasion of Ukraine – delinking them from their yacht properties.

For more details of CS scandals and controversies see this.

Until its acquisition by UBS this past weekend, CS was on Wall Street’s list as one of the largest and most profitable banks. It was considered one of the world’s most important banks, upon which international financial stability depends. The bank was also one of Fortune Magazine’s most admired companies.

Nevertheless, these larger and minor scandals have helped gradually nibble away on the public trust in the bank.

Finally, when in 2022 social media rumors projected the demise of the bank, stocks prices plunged. However, according to analysts, CS has a strong capital base and no liquidity problems.

Once a rumor takes hold about financial instability of an institution, the imagined “risk” factors explode exponentially. It has caused steady and ever-larger sums of fund withdrawals from the bank.

Yet, there was never a liquidity security risk, that the bank may collapse, cause a domino effect, and pull large segments of the worldwide international banking sector with it into the gutters.

On Friday March 17, the Swiss National Bank granted CS a “bail-out” line of credit of CHF 50 billion – which according to many analysts would have been enough to restructure and streamline the bank within a year or so into a new trustworthy financial institution.

Then suddenly, during the weekend 18 / 19 March, “the decision was taken” to force a marriage between UBS and CS. No transparent reason was given so far for this “fire sale” of a liquid bank with over a trillion dollars of asset management.

Strangely, there are no official figures available of CS net worth by 17 March 2022, when the heavily discounted price of CHF 3 billion was decided by the Swiss Government, led by Minister of Finance, imposed by decree, without any consultation with shareholders.

On Monday morning, 20 March, tumbling out of the black box, this and more aberrant decisions taken over the weekend were revealed. Minister of Finance, Ms. Karin Keller-Sutter, found an obscure law, “permitting” the government under certain emergency circumstances deciding on a take-over or merger by decree.

It was also revealed that before the UBS – CS take-over conditions were finalized, Ms. Keller-Sutter consulted with her US counterpart, Janet Yellen, Secretary of the Treasury.

Again, blowing Swiss sovereignty out of the window.

Here are some other facts that emerged since the coerced deal during the weekend:

• The UBS – CS merger should be finalized by end 2023;
• The Swiss Government (Swiss tax-payer) provides the UBS a loss guarantee of up to CHF 9 billion;
• The Swiss National Bank (SNB) grants UBS and CS a liquidity line of credit – called by its true name, a “bail-out” – of CHF 200 billion, of which the Swiss Government (tax-payer) is guaranteeing any uncovered amount.
• Compare the CHF 200 billion with the CHF 50 billion the SNB offered CS to restructure and sanitize itself – which a day earlier was assessed as being sufficient;
• In the context of the huge “bail-out”, it may be worth mentioning that on 5 March, two weeks ago, the SNB announced one of its biggest losses in recent history, of CHF 132.5 billion;
• The leadership of the merged banks will remain with UBS;
• The volume of the combined UBS/CS-managed assets will be about US$ 5 trillion.
• This banking giant is expected to gradually control 30% to 50% of the Swiss market and will become an important player in the international arena, next to BlackRock (US$ 10 trillion) and Vanguard (US$ 7.2 trillion).

The Bottom Line

Already on Day One, Monday 20 March, after the coerced shotgun-marriage of UBS and CS, Lawyers are preparing a Class Action Suit in favor of the non-consulted CS shareholders against the Swiss Government.

As reported by the Swiss Tages-Anzeiger, allegedly the world’s largest US-based business attorney’s office, Quinn Emanuel, is putting together a team to challenge the legality of the UBS take-over of CS. Similar steps were announced by the London-based attorneys, Pallas Partners.

It looks like this shady deal has not yet seen the end of the day.

In such cases, where shareholders rights are at stake, there is usually a delay of several weeks between the decision and the finalization of the action, for opponents to intervene.

Is there still time to change course and convert the wobbling Credit Swiss conundrum into a public banking institution, at a much lower cost, providing the current CS shareholders with a just compensation?

In the future the “new public CS” would be serving the people, rather than private shareholders – becoming especially useful for the economy, if the predicted rocky times are to play out. See Forbes about the highly successful public Bank of North Dakota (BND).

*

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

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

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

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

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

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

***

Divide and rule is the eternal law of Empire.

Above all, don’t let other big guys get together. Keep them at each other’s throats.  Half a century ago, stuck in the unwinnable Vietnam war, President Richard M. Nixon heeded Henry Kissinger’s advice to open relations with Beijing in order to deepen the split between the Soviet Union and China.

But which big guys, and when? Priorities have evidently shifted. Eight years ago, America’s most influential, private geostrategic analyst, George Friedman, defined the current dominant U.S. divide et impera priority, at work in Ukraine.

“The primordial interest of the United States is the relationship between Germany and Russia, because united, they’re the only force that could threaten us,” Friedman explained.

Russia’s main interest has always been to have a neutral buffer zone in Eastern Europe. But the U.S. purpose is to build a hostile cordon sanitaire from the Baltic to the Black Sea, as a definitive barrier separating Russia from Germany.

“Russia knows it. Russia believes the United States intends to break the Russian Federation,” said Friedman, jokingly adding that he thought the intention was not to kill Russia but only to make it suffer.

Speaking to an elite group in Chicago on April 13, 2015, Friedman noted that the U.S. Army commander in Europe, General Ben Hodges, had just visited Ukraine, decorating Ukrainian soldiers and promising them trainers.  He was doing this outside NATO, said Friedman, because NATO membership required 100 percent approval and Ukraine risked being vetoed, so the U.S. was going ahead on its own.

What the U.S. has long dreaded, said Friedman, is the combination of German capital and technology with Russian resources and labor.  The Nord Stream pipeline was leading in that direction, toward mutual trade and security arrangements that would no long require either the dollar or NATO.

“For Russia,” said Friedman, “the status of Ukraine is an existential threat. And the Russians cannot afford to let it go.”  For the United States, however, it is a means to an end: separating Russia from Germany.

Friedman concluded that the big question was, how will the Germans react?

So far, German leaders have been reacting like the loyal managers of a country under U.S. occupation – which it is.

The German Peace Movement Threat

German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock during a virtual press conference with U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken in Washington, D.C., Jan. 5, 2022. (State Department/Ron Przysucha)

Any sign of sympathy with Russia has been so demonized, repressed, even criminalized since the Russian invasion began on Feb. 24, 2022, that most German protests initially avoided taking any position on the war and focused on the economic hardships caused by sanctions.

But on Jan. 25 of this year, Chancellor Olaf Scholz gave in to U.S. pressure to send German Leopard 2 tanks to Ukraine, about the same time that German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock, of the Green Party, casually told an international meeting that “we are fighting a war against Russia.”

This jolted people into action.

Spontaneous demonstrations broke out in large and small cities all over Germany with slogans such as “Ami (Americans) Go Home!”, “Greens to the Front!”, “Make Peace Without German Weapons.” Speakers condemned the tank deliveries for “crossing a red line,” accused the United States of forcing Germany into war with Russia, and called for Baerbock’s resignation.

The wave of demonstrations peaked one month later on Feb. 25 when up to 50,000 people rallied to the “Uprising for Peace” (Aufstand für Frieden) in Berlin, called on the initiative of two women, left politician Sahra Wagenknecht and veteran feminist writer and editor Alice Schwartzer.

A demonstration in Berlin on February 25, initiated among others by the left-wing politician Sahra Wagenknecht, took a stand against further arms deliveries to Ukraine.#Germany #PoliticalWar pic.twitter.com/GYUkU4tueB

— Rossa Primavera International News (@NewsFromDonbass) February 25, 2023

Over half a million people signed their “Manifesto for Peace” calling on Chancellor Scholz to “stop the escalation of arms deliveries” and work for a ceasefire and negotiations.  Organizers called for reconstruction of a massive German peace movement, on the model of the anti-nuclear missile movement of the 1980s that led up to Russian acceptance of German reunification.

However, building a peace movement in Germany today faces many obstacles. Under U.S. military occupation since the end of World War II, German institutions and media are permeated with American influence, as is the legal order. Paradoxically, the trans-Atlantic American grip seems only to have tightened since German reunification.

Monitoring ‘Extremes’

Germany monitors political “extremism” through a domestic intelligence agency, the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution, BfV (Bundesamt für Verfassungsschutz). Although strictly speaking Germany does not have a constitution, it has a strong Constitutional Court designed specifically to prevent any reversion to Nazi power practices.

Instead of a constitution, a transitional Basic Law approved by the Western occupying powers (the U.S., Britain and France) in 1949 enabled the Federal Republic to assume the government of West Germany. Upon reunification, the Basic Law was extended to all of Germany.

In the spirit of liberal “antitotalitarianism,” the BfV monitors both “left-wing extremism” and “right-wing extremism” as potential threats. “Islamic extremism” has more recently come under supervision. The underlying political implication is that “right-wing extremism” designates Nazi tendencies, while “left-wing extremism” leans toward Soviet-style communism.

This 20th century political topography implicitly establishes “the center” as an innocent middle-ground where citizens can feel at ease.  Even the most radical militarism is not “extreme” in this scheme of things.

Article 5 of the Basic Law grants individuals the right to express opinions, but there are numerous limitations in the Criminal Code, with punishment for “inciting hatred,” racism, anti-Semitism and prison terms for Holocaust denial.  Also prohibited are propaganda or symbols of “unconstitutional” organizations, disparagement of the State and its symbols, blasphemy against established religions and especially failure to respect “human dignity.”

Of course, what matters in all these laws is how they are interpreted.  The ban on “rewarding and approving crimes” (Section 140), that was originally intended to apply to convictions for violent civil crimes, has now been extended to the geopolitical sphere, namely, outlawing “approval or support” of what it terms “aggressive war.”

Antiwar activist Heinrich Bücker’s speech in Berlin last June 22 calling for good relations with Russia on the anniversary of the 1941 Nazi invasion of the Soviet Union was condemned by a Berlin court for “approving Russia’s crime of invasion.” In practice, any effort to clarify the Russian position by referring to NATO expansion and Kiev regime attacks on Donbass since 2014 can be interpreted as such “approval or support.”

⚠️ Breaking

A anti-war activist in Germany has been convicted for speaking out about German involvement in the war with Russia.

He said:

"We Germans must never again be involved in a war against Russia"

Anti-war views are being criminalized.https://t.co/UghDrgJPJI pic.twitter.com/0FErMgN0L5

— Andre Damon (@Andre__Damon) January 31, 2023

Needless to say, Germans were never threatened with criminal prosecution for approving the U.S. invasions of Vietnam, Iraq or Afghanistan, much less the totally aggressive and illegal 1999 bombing of Serbia, in which they enthusiastically took part.  Widely celebrated as a laudable act of humanitarianism, that bombing campaign, killing civilians and destroying infrastructure, forced Serbia to allow NATO to occupy its province of Kosovo, where the Americans built themselves a huge military base. Ethnic Albanian rebels declared independence and thousands of non-Albanians were driven out.

German Police Enforce Centrist Conformity

As demonstrators gathered for the “Uprising for Peace” demonstration in Berlin, an organizer appeared on the speakers’ platform to read out a long list of things banned by police.  The list included numerous symbols or signs related to the Soviet Union, Russia, Belarus or Donbass; Russian military songs; “endorsement of the war of aggression currently being waged by Russia against Ukraine,” etc.

The day before, Berlin police had delivered to the organizers a detailed explanation justifying these prohibitions, specifying that “public safety was in imminent danger.” Police said that according to their information, “the participants of your meeting will mainly consist of people with an old-left, pro-Russian basic attitude, who are against the arms deliveries of the German government to Ukraine, the geopolitics of the ‘West/the USA’ and against NATO in general.”

The police had reason to believe that the Feb. 25 meeting would attract “very heterogeneous” participants “with their own views (state delegitimizers, conspiracy believers, supporters of the Putin regime, etc.)” and therefore, precautions must be taken.

The Cross-Front Threat

Weimar-era Communist Party of Germany, or KPD, leader Ernst Thälmann, in center front, with raised clenched fist, and members of the Alliance of Red Front-Fighters or RFB, marching through Berlin, 1927. (Bundesarchiv, CC-BY-SA 3.0, Wikimedia Commons)

Police referred to a comparable meeting a month earlier, on Jan. 27, whose organizers were accused by leftwing and antifascist groups of having “tolerated cross-thinkers (Querdenker)and people of the right scene at their meeting.” A cross-thinker is one who crosses the enemy front lines between left and right, an offense called “cross-front,” also referred to as “red-brown”.

What is remarkable is that in Germany, the establishment, the media, the BfV and notably the police have taken up the term “cross-front” (Querfront) with the same opprobrium as the Antifa movement where it is used ostensibly to enforce the ideological purity of the left. Initially it meant a rightwing appropriation of leftwing themes intended to seduce and mislead leftists into fascist combinations. The historical basis of the term lies in unsuccessful coalition attempts of rightwingers in the late Weimar Republic in a context of intense rivalry between strong Nazi and Communist movements vying for working class support, totally unlike the political atmosphere of today.

In the absence of either a strong Nazi or Communist movement, the term is currently used to denounce any cooperation, or even contact, between leftists and movements or individuals described as “extreme right.”  This label is frequently based on not much more than opposition to unlimited immigration, denounced as racism.

By this standard, the Alternative for Germany (AfD) opposition party (with 78 out of 736 seats in the current Bundestag) is “extreme right.” Since most Bundestag members critical of arming Ukraine come either from Die Linke (Left) party or the AfD, the anti-crossfront vigilance condemns in advance a broad, open antiwar opposition.

Subjective Evaluations by Police

German riot police during 2017 protests in Hamburg against the G20 meeting. (t–h–s -, CC BY 2.0, Wikimedia Commons)

According to the Feb. 24 Berlin police warning, “The approval of the war of aggression against international law, which the Russian Federation is currently waging against Ukraine, is punishable under Section 140 …”  Such approval can be expressed not only by words but by a number of signs and symbols.  In particular, the display of the letter “Z” (supposedly standing for the Russian expression za pobyedu – for victory) would constitute a criminal offense.

Even more far-fetched, the flag of the defunct U.S.S.R. is also criminalized, because, according to police: “the U.S.S.R. flag symbolizes a Russia within the borders of the former Soviet Union.” This, according to Berlin police, “is seen by experts as the actual desired goal of Russian President Vladimir Putin” and explains his attack on Ukraine.

“The present restrictions are expressly not directed against the content of expressions of opinion, which may not be prevented within the framework of Article 5 of the Basic Law, but are intended, from a contextual point of view, to prevent your assembly, in the manner in which it is conducted, from being suitable or intended for conveying a readiness to use violence and thereby having an intimidating effect, or from violating the moral sensibilities of citizens and fundamental social or ethical views in a significant manner.”

A Cautious Demonstration

The “Uprising for Peace” in the end provided no opportunities for police interventions or arrests.  Like the “Manifesto for Peace,” the German speeches largely avoided references to U.S. and NATO provocations leading to the war.

Only Jeffrey Sachs, whose opening speech in English was broadcast to the crowd on a screen, dared speak of the background to the Russian invasion: the 2014 Kiev coup, the U.S. arming of Ukraine, the U.S. opposition to peace negotiations, the likelihood that the U.S. was responsible for blowing up the Nord Stream pipelines and other facts susceptible of offending certain sensibilities.  But there was no chance that Berlin police would arrest Sachs, who was not in Germany.

Jeffrey Sachs hold an online speech in today's peace demonstration in Berlin. #b2502

More: https://t.co/FGbmEbjoBP pic.twitter.com/BXxUbff4gX

— Kevork Almassian🇸🇾🇦🇲 (@KevorkAlmassian) February 25, 2023

The other speakers largely ignored the origins of the war, concentrating instead on fears of where it might lead: constant escalation of arms deliveries, even nuclear war. The huge crowd was bundled up against the icy cold and light snow.  Flags mostly portrayed peace doves and slogans called for diplomacy, for peace negotiations instead of arms deliveries, for avoidance of nuclear war.  Neo-Nazis and extreme rightists were declared unwelcome and must have come in disguise as they were scarcely visible.  The whole event could hardly have been more well-behaved and respectable.

Attacking Wagenknecht

Despite all this niceness, the demonstration and its organizers were fiercely attacked by politicians and media.  Sahra Wagenknecht is a popular figure, being pushed out of her dwindling Left Party (Die Linke) by leaders who tend to follow the increasingly bellicose Greens in the hope of being included in leftwing coalition governments.

Wagenknecht, married to Oskar Lafontaine, who as a leading Social Democrat was prominent in the antimissile movement of the 1980s, is rumored to be preparing to found a party of her own. This would fill a yawning gap in the current German political scene: an antiwar party firmly on the left. She must therefore be seen as the main political threat to the reigning coalition.

Thus Wagenknecht has been vehemently attacked for the fact that her antiwar speeches have been applauded in parliament by members of the AfD. And despite having repeatedly condemned the Russian invasion for breaking international law, other things she has said have been described as “close to the narrative” of Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Despite her caution, she is blamed for “understanding” the Russian viewpoint, which is unacceptable.

In a major hit piece,  journalist Markus Decker called Wagenknecht the most influential enemy of democracy in Germany. Wagenknecht, he wrote, “is the personified embodiment of what intelligence officers have been warning about for years: the blurring of the boundaries between the political fringes and the extremes.”

Kundgebung am BRB Tor war Riesenerfolg & größte #Friedenskundgebung seit Jahren. Versuche, sie kleinzureden oder zu diffamieren, werden nicht funktionieren. Danke an alle, die gekommen sind! Meine Rede auf der Kundgebung: https://t.co/umAPY5H0Gw pic.twitter.com/mnWcb0xqIT

— Sahra Wagenknecht (@SWagenknecht) February 27, 2023

[Translation of Sahra Wagenknecht’s tweet: “Rally at the BRB gate was a huge success & biggest #peace rally in years. Attempts to belittle or defame them will not work. Thanks to everyone who came! My speech at the rally:”]

In other words, she should be monitored by the BfV as a sponsor of the dreaded cross-front. “Wagenknecht, who has been systematically blurring the lines between dictatorship and democracy since the beginning of the Russian attack on Ukraine, is not about peace. It’s about destroying democracy. Wagenknecht is probably its most influential enemy in Germany,” Decker wrote.

In the past few years, as hostility toward Russia has been building in the West, the Antifa exclusionary dogma has strengthened within the left. The result is that the left is less interested in winning over conservatives than in excluding them.  This is a sort of essentialist identity politics: anyone “on the right” must be inherently an irreconcilable enemy.

There is no thought that perhaps some people may vote for the Alternative for Germany because they feel let down by other parties, for instance by the Left Party.   This could be especially true in East Germany, where both parties have roots.

Freedom of Opinion Under Threat

On March 15, a group of leftist artists and intellectuals released a petition calling for the defense of free expression. It reads:

 “Germany is in a deep crisis. … Disinformation and manipulation of the population largely determine the current media culture. Anyone who does not share the prescribed official opinion on the Ukraine war, criticizes it and makes this known publicly, is defamed, threatened and sanctioned or ostracized. … In such an atmosphere, open debates, the exchange and presentation of differing views in the media, science, art, culture and other areas are hardly possible anymore. A truly free formation of opinion by weighing different arguments is impossible. Bias and ignorance, but also intimidation, fear, self-censorship and hypocrisy are the consequences. This is incompatible with human dignity and personal freedom.”

Last month, Federal Interior Minister Nancy Faeser (SPD) introduced a new law making it possible to dismiss “enemies of the constitution” from the civil service by a simple administrative act.  “We will not allow our democratic constitutional state to be sabotaged from within by extremists,” Faeser said.  But in the view of the German Civil Servants’ Association, the bill “sends a message of mistrust to both employees and citizens.”

A war atmosphere is supposed to unite a nation. But imposed artificially, it exposes and creates deep divisions.

*

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

Diana Johnstone is the author of Fools’ Crusade: Yugoslavia, NATO, and Western Delusions. Her latest book is Circle in the Darkness: Memoirs of a World Watcher (Clarity Press). The memoirs of Diana Johnstone’s father Paul H. Johnstone, From MAD to Madness, was published by Clarity Press, with her commentary. She can be reached at [email protected].

Diana Johnstone is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG)

Featured image: NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg in Berlin, December 2022. (NATO)

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

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

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

***

 

 

 

 

 

“None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free” ― Johann Wolfgang Von Goethe, Elective Affinities

***

What kind of culture do we want? What kind of culture do we need? Our culture reflects our fundamental ideologies and these ideologies are rooted in patriarchal religion and neoliberal politics in the main.

It’s a culture that depicts the class system, war, and in general, people dealing with the system in its many different facets, through drama, adventure, comedy, terror, horror, etc.

The origins of our culture are thought to go back thousands of years when, for example, (in the ideas of James DeMeo) “climatic changes caused drought, desertification and famine in North Africa, the Near East, and Central Asia (collectively Saharasia) and this trauma caused the development of patriarchal, authoritarian and violent characteristics” about six thousand years ago.

The coming of the Kurgan peoples across Europe from c. 4000 to 1000 BC is believed to have been a tumultuous and disastrous time for the peoples of Old Europe. The Old European culture is believed to have centred around nature-based pagan ideologies.

Some believe the rise of patriarchy was due to the sexual division of labour about 2 million years ago, while others believe it was due to the later development of agriculture and private property.

Christ as Martyr and Master
Jan van Eyck (before c. 1390 – 9 July 1441)
Crucifixion and Last Judgement diptych, c. 1430–1440.

However, these changes led to the growth of patriarchal religions that underpinned the ambitions of warring rulers, for example:

“In Christianity the rulers had a religion that assured their objectives. The warring adventurism of the new rulers needed soldiers for their campaigns and slaves to produce their food and mine their metals for their armaments and wealth. Thus, Christ was portrayed as Martyr and Master. In his own crucifixion as Martyr he provided a brave example to the soldiers, and as Master he would reward or punish the slaves according to how well they had behaved.”

The privatisation of property, extractivism, the necessity for food-producing slaves and a warrior class sustained and further extended the aims of elites throughout feudalism and capitalism up to the wars of today, and who are now competing for power and resources on a global scale. The terminology has changed but the fundamentals have not.

The exploitation of nature continues unabated with the ongoing destruction of the Amazon and wildlife, the global and mass use and abuse of animals, transnational polluting industries, chemical-driven industrial crop land, and factory ship over-fishing emptying our seas. The wars have also gotten greater with two world wars in the twentieth century and a third one hanging over our heads constantly threatening our very existence. The elites are a smaller group of people now but control ever-growing global monopolies.

Thus, looking at culture in general from this perspective, there are two important aspects of modern culture: the destruction of nature combined with death (war) and a culture of slavery (escapism, diversion, etc.).

The antithesis of these two aspects are respect for nature and life, and resistance to slavery in all of its forms. While we are surrounded by the culture of war and escapism, it is not easy to find an oppositional culture.

Yet it does exist, and two good recent examples are the Korean TV series Extraordinary Attorney Woo (2022) (pro-nature), and White Tiger (2021) (anti-slavery), a film based on an adaptation of Aravind Adiga’s 2008 novel of the same name. These two fine dramas show us that alternatives to the current system and ideology can be produced.

Nature and life – Extraordinary Attorney Woo (2022)

Image: Promotional poster for Extraordinary Attorney Woo (2022) By Naver, Fair use.

Extraordinary Attorney Woo is the story of Woo Young-woo, an autistic lawyer who is raised by her single father. She finds it difficult to get a job despite graduating with the highest distinction. However, she eventually gets a job in a top Seoul law firm, Hanbada, using her father’s connections.

Over time she learns to become an excellent lawyer and her colleagues grow to respect her. The series becomes a platform for progressive social, political, environmental and ethical issues fought out through the courts. Furthermore, the environmental theme is highlighted by her love of whales and dolphins especially when she “analogizes situations she faces in her professional and private life with the lives and characteristics of whales and dolphins [that] often surprises and confounds the people who surround her.”

These situations are often combined with beautiful, if surreal, photography of whales swimming past windows or combined with court scenes. Woo is also seen demonstrating with a colleague against the treatment of dolphins in a local aquarium.

However, Attorney Woo’s fellow rookie colleague, Kwon Min-woo, approaches their supervising lawyer Jung Myung-seok, angry at her sometimes unorthodox behaviour which he feels she is getting away with because of her disability. Jung Myung-seok reacts in a slightly annoyed tone:

“Attorney Kwon, you must really like penalties. […] When you experience a difference of opinion or a conflict at work, you need to talk with your colleagues and solve it.  Giving rewards or punishment over who is right or wrong for every single thing, that’s not like how I like to work.”

Here Myung-seok advises that conflict in life must be resolved through discussion, not by ‘giving rewards or penalties’, moving away from the authoritarian methods of the master.

Attorney Woo naturally reacts to selfishness, corruption and discrimination but she gradually learns that the pursuit of truth is a difficult path to carve out. Apart from Woo being a symbol of logic and reasoning in the service of truth, her connection with nature is direct and not mediated by a negative, consumer-orientated culture.

“Disobedience is the true foundation of liberty. The obedient must be slaves.” ― Henry David Thoreau

Resistance to slavery – White Tiger (2021)

Image: Promotional poster for White Tiger (2021)

White Tiger tells the story of Balram Halwai who relates the ups and downs of his life in a letter to Chinese premier Wen Jiabao.

Balram was an intelligent young boy in an isolated village who aspires to work as a chauffeur for the son of the rich village landowner, Ashok, who has just returned from America with his American-Indian wife, Pinky. Ashok and Pinky go to Delhi to bribe politicians to reduce his family’s taxes and Balram joins them as their driver. Although they have liberal ideas about their servants, as soon as things turn bad they treat him like any other wealthy, entitled masters.

Balram is asked to drive Ashok with a huge sum of money for a bribe and then decides to escape his servitude by murdering Ashok and stealing the money to make a better life for himself. He then sets up a taxi company in a different city where he treats his drivers well and helps them when they get into the kind of troubles he experienced himself as a servant.

Balram believes “that the Indian underclass is trapped in a perpetual state of servitude, like chickens in a chicken coop.”

He states that “The greatest thing to come out of this country in its ten thousand year history: The Rooster Coop. They can see and smell the blood. They know they’re next. Yet they don’t rebel, they don’t try and get out of the coop.” He asks why the workers are so honest in their relations with their masters. “Why? Because Indians are the world’s most honest and spiritual people? No. It’s because 99.9 percent of us are caught in the Rooster Coop. The trustworthiness of servants is so strong that you can put the key of emancipation in a man’s hand and he will throw it back at you with a curse.” He describes the main problem of Indian society: “In the old days, when India was the richest nation on earth, there were one thousand castes and destinies. These days, there are just two castes: Men with Big Bellies and Men with Small Bellies.”

The writer of the original novel (The White Tiger, p254, 2008) Aravind Adiga, noted in the novel that:

“I won’t be saying anything new if I say that the history of the world is the history of a ten-thousand-year war of brains between the rich and the poor. Each side is eternally trying to hoodwink the other side: and it has been this way since the start of time. The poor win a few battles (the peeing in the potted plants, the kicking of the pet dogs, etc.) but of course the rich have won the war for ten thousand years.”

Balram’s escape from slavery, his resistance to the master, comes with tragedy as his extended family is murdered by the village landlord. He believes that he is a White Tiger, a symbol of freedom, because he escaped slavery and ultimately encourages his own employees to do the same:

(monologue and description from the screenplay)

“Balram speaks directly to his Drivers as he gathers them and brings them outside to the front of his business.

BALRAM – Now, what happens in your typical Hindi film about murder? A poor man kills a rich man and then gets nightmares of the dead man pursuing him screaming: “Murderer! Shame!” It doesn’t happen like that. The real nightmare is the other kind – where you didn’t do it, that you didn’t kill your master, that you lost your nerve, and that you’re still a servant to another man. But then you wake up, the sweating stops, your heartbeat slows. The nightmare is over. You did do it. You killed your master.
Balram steps away from them and speaks directly into the camera:

BALRAM (TO CAMERA) – I have switched sides. I’ve made it. I’ve broken out of the coop.

He exits frame, leaving a wall of drivers, servants, perhaps new White Tigers, ready to strike, confronting the camera, confronting the audience…”

Balram takes chances and resists slavery. He may be wealthy now but he does not feel part of the wealthy class. He has broken out of the coop and ‘switched sides’, and he has no problem enlightening and even encouraging his drivers to do the same. In a way he plays the rich at their own game: using their tactics of murder and disloyalty to escape from their binds.

“Happy slaves are the bitterest enemies of freedom.” ― Marie von Ebner-Eschenbach

Of diets and glaciers

Given the current state of the political and financial crises of late capitalism. i.e., the possibility of an all-out global war and the worsening destruction of the environment (upon which our sustenance is based), the constant re-examination of our culture is of utmost importance. For many people the movement for change seems glacial and leads them to live out their lives on the cultural diet created mainly by producers whose primary motive is profit, not social and political change.

However, the illusion of peace and freedom created by this timeless culture is situated in real historical conditions that are constantly changing.

Over time and with different forces underneath, even the slowest of glaciers can suddenly break apart and form cracks. The greatest aspiration of cultural producers today would be to show that happiness does not consist in diversion from worry but in confronting the sources of our current ills instead, and to remember what Leonard Cohen wrote, “Forget your perfect offering. There is a crack in everything. That’s how the light gets in.”

*

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

Caoimhghin Ó Croidheáin is an Irish artist, lecturer and writer. His artwork consists of paintings based on contemporary geopolitical themes as well as Irish history and cityscapes of Dublin. His blog of critical writing based on cinema, art and politics along with research on a database of Realist and Social Realist art from around the world can be viewed country by country here. Caoimhghin has just published his new book – Against Romanticism: From Enlightenment to Enfrightenment and the Culture of Slavery, which looks at philosophy, politics and the history of 10 different art forms arguing that Romanticism is dominating modern culture to the detriment of Enlightenment ideals. It is available on Amazon (amazon.co.uk) and the info page is here.