The War on Iraq was launched 20 years ago on March 20, 2003. (Baghdad time)

The US-NATO led invasion of Iraq started on 20 March 2003 on the pretext that Iraq possessed Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD).

The 1991 Gulf War on Iraq began on the 17th January 1991. That was 32 Years ago. 

However, after the 28th February ceasefire was agreed and signed – following the Basra Road massacre of withdrawing soldiers and fleeing civilians on 26th/27th February –

The US 24th Mechanised Infantry Division slaughtered thousands on 2nd March 1991.

Thirty-two years ago. The so-called “Gulf War” (Iraq War I) was launched against Iraq on January 17, 1991.

Of relevance to the Ukraine Crisis, extensive crimes against humanity have been committed by the US and its NATO allies under the banner of “peace making operations”. 

On January 16, 1919 President George H. Walker Bush announced the start of what was called “Operation Desert Storm”, which was portrayed as “a peace-making operation” allegedly “to expel occupying Iraqi forces from Kuwait”.  

Remember: The 1991 Gulf War: The Massacre of Withdrawing Soldiers on “The Highway of Death”

There for 60 miles every vehicle was strafed or bombed, every windshield is shattered, every tank is burned, every truck is riddled with shell fragments. No survivors are known or likely. The cabs of trucks were bombed so much that they were pushed into the ground, and it’s impossible to see if they contain drivers or not. Windshields were melted away, and huge tanks were reduced to shrapnel.

Those extensive crimes against humanity were the beginning of a long and unending war against the people of Iraq. 

Historians often refer to the One hundred years war between England and France which in fact lasted more than One Hundred years. (1337-1453).

They also refer to devastation and destruction underlying The Thirty Years’ War (1618-1648) which led to the Westphalia Peace Treaty in 1648.

The WAR AGAINST IRAQ IS ONGOING

The Thirty-two Years Wars against Iraq was launched on January 17, 1991. It was called “The Gulf War”. It was heralded as a humanitarian intervention. A no fly zone was established. The Northern Republic of Kurdistan gained de facto “autonomy”, it became a US sponsored proxy state.

It was the onslaught of what should be identified by historians as:

The 32 years criminal war of the US against the people of Iraq. (1991-  )

Reviewing the history of US aggression against Iraq, we can distinguish three distinct stages:

Iraq War I (January 1991),

Iraq War II (March 2003),

Iraq War III (August 2014-), over several US presidencies, all of which are characterized by extensive crimes against humanity:

  • Iraq War I: The Gulf War (January 1991 launched under George H. W. Bush), invoking Iraq’s military occupation of Kuwait;
  • Iraq War II: The War on Iraq (March 2003 under President George W. Bush), invoking  Saddam’s “Weapons of Mass Destruction”
  • Iraq War III: The August 2014 War on the Islamic State (ISIS) under president Obama, consisting of a massive carpet bombing endeavour which was casually described by the media as an anti-terrorist operation.

These three so-called wars were part of a Thirty Year War which is still ongoing. It is a never-ending war.

The war on Afghanistan did not start in October 2001.

The US declared  war on Afghanistan in 1979 under the label of the Soviet-Afghan War, which was  sustained by US support to Al Qaeda’s Mujahideen referred to by President Ronald Reagan as “Freedom Fighters”.

President Reagan Meets leaders of Afghanistan’s Mujahideen at the White House (1980s)

Let us be under no illusions: The US has supported Al Qaeda and its affiliated organizations for almost half a century since the heyday of the Soviet Afghan war. 

The US has been at war with Afghanistan for over forty years.

Reflecting on Joe Biden. Firm Supporter of Never Ending Wars

In 2003, Joe Biden  as Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee firmly endorsed the Bush Administration’s decision to invade Iraq in 2003 on the grounds that Saddam Hussein “had weapons of mass destruction”.

“The American People were deceived into this war”, said Senator Dick Durbin. Do not let yourself be deceived again by Joe Biden.

.

.
UN Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter in a July 2002 statement said:

“Sen. Joe Biden is running a sham hearing. It is clear that Biden and most of the Congressional leadership have pre-ordained a conclusion that seeks to remove Saddam Hussein from power regardless of the facts, and are using these hearings to provide political cover for a massive military attack on Iraq. These hearings have nothing to do with an objective search for the truth, but rather seek to line up like-minded witnesses who will buttress this pre-determined result…. This isn’t American democracy in action, it’s the failure of American democracy.

Without Joe Biden’s endorsement of the WMD narrative, would the Democrats have endorsed the invasion of Iraq?

See the video above.

Obama’s “Operation Resolve” directed against ISIL-ISIS-Daesh (August 2014)

I should mention that during his tenure as Vice President, Joe Biden was firmly supportive of the carpet bombing of Iraq ordered by President Obama starting in August 2014 under a “Fake” anti-terrorist operation against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL-ISIS-Daesh).

On August 7, 2014: “President Obama authorises the first air strikes to protect US diplomats and aid Iraqi government forces”.

What shear nonsense. Why is this anti-terrorist operation “Fake”? ISIL-ISIS-Daesh is an al Qaeda affiliate, a creation of US intelligence.

The operation was directed against Iraqi and Syrian civilians. It resulted in extensive destruction of the civilian infrastructure of both countries. ISIS was the pretext which was heralded by the media.

And in September 2014, Obama announced the formation of “an anti-ISIS coalition” with the participation of NATO member states as well as US allies in Middle East (including Israel, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Kuwait, Bahrain, etc).

The incursion of the Islamic State (IS) brigades from Syria into Iraq starting in June 2014 was part of a carefully planned military-intelligence operation supported covertly by the US, NATO and Israel.

The counter-terrorism mandate was a fiction.

The Islamic State was protected by the US and its allies. If they had wanted to eliminate the Islamic State brigades, they could have “carpet” bombed their convoys of Toyota pickup trucks when they crossed the desert from Syria into Iraq in June.

\

The  Syro-Arabian Desert is open territory (see map below). With state of the art jet fighter aircraft (F15, F22 Raptor, CF-18) it would have been  -from a military standpoint-  a rapid and expedient surgical operation

The Obama administration’s carpet bombing operation against Iraq and Syria entitled Operation Resolve was carried out over several years. In many regards, it is still ongoing.

America’s Long War

During the period described by historians as The Post War Era” extending from 1945 to the present, the US has embarked upon the ultimate war crime, a military adventure, “a long war”, which threatens the future of humanity. 

The US and its allies have been involved in countless wars, military coups, “color revolutions”, so-called “civil wars”, “anti-terrorist” operations, etc. Among the major operations are the Korean War (1950-53), The Indonesia Massacre of Communists (1963), The Vietnam War (1965- 1975), the ongoing wars on Afghanistan (1979- ), Iraq (1991- ), Syria (2011- ), Libya (2011- ), Yemen (2016- ), numerous US sponsored military coups: Guatemala, The Congo, Egypt, Salvador, Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay, Chile… The list is long.

The Pentagon’s global military design is one of world conquest. The military deployment of US-NATO forces is occurring in several regions of the world simultaneously, resulting in millions of civilian deaths and countless atrocities.

It’s an unending “highway of death”.

In May 2012, the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Tribunal passed a historic judgment against George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Tony Blair, et al: 

After hours of deliberation, the tribunal, in the verdict that was read out by the president of the tribunal Tan Sri Dato Lamin bin Haji Mohd Yunus Lamin, found that the prosecution had established beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused persons, former President George Bush and his co-conspirators engaged in a web of instructions, memos, directives, legal advice and action that established a common plan and purpose, joint enterprise and/or conspiracy to commit the crimes of Torture and War Crimes, including and not limited to a common plan and purpose to commit the following crimes in relation to the “War on Terror” and the wars launched by the U.S. and others in Afghanistan and Iraq:

(a) Torture; (b) Creating, authorizing and implementing a regime of Cruel, Inhumane, and Degrading Treatment; (c) Violating Customary International Law; (d) Violating the Convention Against Torture 1984; (e) Violating the Geneva Convention III and IV 1949; (f) Violating the Common Article 3 of the Geneva Convention of 1949. (g) Violating the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the United Nations Charter.

The Tribunal finds that the prosecution has established beyond a reasonable doubt that the Accused persons are individually and jointly liable for all crimes committed in pursuit of their common plan and purpose under principles established by Article 6 of the Charter of the International Military Tribunal (the Nuremberg Charter), which states, inter alia, “Leaders, organizers, instigators and accomplices participating in the formulation or execution of a common plan or conspiracy to commit war crimes are responsible for all acts performed by any person in execution of such plan.”

Video: Michel Chossudovsky’s Presentation, Kuala Lumpur, March 2015

Starts at 8’30”

Michel Chossudovsky, January 17, 2021.

From 2005 to 2016, under the helm of Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad former Prime Minster of Malaysia, I served as member of the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Commission (KLWCC) which coordinated the prosecution and led the indictments against: 

Bush, Cheney, Blair et al (May 2012) (see report above)

Former Israeli army general Amos Yaron and the State of Israel (November 2013): crimes against humanity and genocide stemming from the massacre of Palestinians in Beirut’s Sabra and Shatila refugee camps in 1982. 

 

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on US Never Ending Wars: 32 Years Ago, America’s “First War” against 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.

***

Beijing accused the AUKUS alliance (US, UK, and Australia) of embarking on a “path of error and danger” when responding to the announcement that Australia will be supplied with nuclear-powered submarines. The multibillion-dollar deal, seen as a step to counter China’s rise in the Indo-Pacific region, was announced during a trilateral meeting between US President Joe Biden, UK Prime Minister Rishi Sunak, and Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese in San Diego on March 13.

Although Albanese did not mention China explicitly in his announcement of the AUKUS program, Australian Vice Admiral Jonathan Mead did directly mention China’s actions when speaking about the submarine deal.

“We recognise that there has been reclamation of land in the South China Sea and the military modernization of islands there,” Vice Admiral Mead said. “A whole bunch of factors have played into this.”

However, even if there was no acknowledgement of China by AUKUS leaders, it is beyond obvious that the AUKUS alliance and the nuclear-powered submarines deal is with the intent of limiting Beijing’s soft and hard power in the region.

“The latest joint statement from the US, UK and Australia demonstrates that the three countries, for the sake of their own geopolitical interests, completely disregard the concerns of the international communities and are walking further and further down the path of error and danger,” Beijing’s foreign ministry spokesperson Wang Wenbin said during a regular press briefing on March 14.

The spokesperson’s comment came after the Chinese delegation to the UN tweeted a statement which accused the three countries of fuelling an arms race. The tweet said the deal was a “textbook case of double standard.”

Biden rejected the accusation, saying the submarines would be “nuclear-powered, not nuclear-armed.” For her part, Australian Foreign Minister Penny Wong said the Chinese criticism was “not grounded in fact.”

Despite Beijing’s retaliatory response, the US president said he was expecting to speak with his Chinese counterpart Xi Jinping soon but declined to elaborate. Perhaps he did not do it because the Chinese foreign ministry spokesperson said his country did not want to “communicate for the sake of communicating” and that “the US side should come forward sincerely, with practical actions to promote China-US relations.”

Unsurprisingly, the foreign ministry of Taiwan, which Beijing considers a rebel province, said it “welcomes the continued advancement of the AUKUS partnership,” adding that Taiwan is “at the forefront of the fight against authoritarian expansion.” Although no announcements have been made, it is also likely that South Korea and Japan will welcome the latest deal as it is part of their collective effort to contain China.

Therefore, it is undeniable that Australia’s attainment of such a weapon is an example of the Anglo Alliance pursuing an anti-China policy. Washington has been conducting this policy in an aggressive manner since the Donald Trump presidency, with Biden only escalating it. The US and Britain for the better part of two centuries have dominated world affairs, and although the Soviets failed to dislodge this arrangement, today, it is China posing the greatest threat to their hegemony.

For this reason, they are empowering Australia as a junior partner in the Anglo alliance. New Zealand, another Anglo country that is even more isolated than Australia, warned Canberra that it will not tolerate Australian nuclear submarines in its territorial waters.

Both New Zealand’s ruling government and the opposition announced that Australia’s increasing nuclearization will not change their longstanding ban on nuclear-propelled vessels from entering New Zealand’s waters. The New Zealand government also reminded Australia of a 1980s treaty it signed to establish a nuclear weapons-free zone in the South Pacific.

According to Biden, the submarines “will not have any nuclear weapons of any kind of them.”

This of course cannot be fully trusted as Washington has a long and distinguished history of breaking agreements, such as not expanding NATO any further towards Russia, a key promise broken that eventually led to the current conflict in Ukraine.

Australia’s partnership with the US and UK in the AUKUS format began in September 2021. Under the recently signed AUKUS agreement, the Virginia-class submarines will be ready in the 2030s, meaning that US and UK submarines will be based in Australia on a rotating basis until then.

However, it is recalled that the AUKUS deal was brokered in secret and led to the 2021 cancellation of a $106 billion contract for a French-built fleet of conventional submarines. The cancellation sparked a diplomatic row within the Western alliance and re-imposed Anglo dominance over Europe, just as the EU’s self-destructive policies against Russia demonstrate.

Beijing argues that the AUKUS deal violates the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and says that the transfer of nuclear weapons materials from a nuclear-weapon state to a non-nuclear-weapon state is a “blatant” violation of the spirit of the pact.

Now that outrage has been expressed, the question is how Beijing chooses to respond because Australia will certainly not back away from the AUKUS deal like it did with the French one. China would have once considered Australia as a mid-country that regarded its economic interests as a priority; however, the consistent actions of Canberra demonstrates that it is fully integrated into the Anglo 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.

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

Featured image is from InfoBrics

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

***

As geopolitical confrontation intensifies between the United States and Europe on one side and China and Russia on the other, it has increasingly become tight for offering much information publicly. And of course, that would be the case especially with Russia facing criticisms for its ‘special military operation’ in the neighbouring Ukraine. Russia’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Kremlin administration have been extremely cautious the least on leaders visiting Moscow.

Local Russian media have reported that the Kremlin would not comment on the agenda of possible talks between Presidents Vladimir Putin and China’s Xi Jinping until their meeting is officially announced. “I don’t know. Once we make an announcement, we will be able to say something,” Presidential Spokesman Dmitry Peskov told TASS this March 14, when asked if Putin and Xi could discuss China’s plan to resolve the situation in Ukraine.

“We haven’t made any announcements (about the Chinese president’s visit). Every contact between the two leaders is an additional impetus for stepping up cooperation on a variety of tracks,” Peskov pointed out, adding that the two sides usually announced such visits simultaneously.

Moscow and Beijing have established friendly relations based on partnership and intend to develop them further collaboratively against the collective West.

“The Russian-Chinese dialogue continues. It is of a friendly, partnership-based, strategic nature. It will remain on course. The relationship is multidimensional, and it is important for both sides. And both sides devote significant attention to the theme of developing this relationship further,” Peskov said.

Nevertheless, the main news-stream are all awash with the forthcoming visit, various analysis and presumptive expections. The Chinese media have earlier followed up to splash the news over their media space and global foreign media, and that Xi Jinping intended to visit Moscow for a meeting with Putin as early as next week.

Our media monitoring, for instance, shows that the two leaders last met in person on the sidelines of a Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) summit in the Uzbek city of Samarkand in September 2022. In late December, Putin held a video conference call with Xi Jinping, inviting him to make a state visit to Moscow in the spring of 2023.

Nezavisimaya Gazeta reported that China’s Xi expected to make symbolic visit to Russia, and that comes off, soon after he was awarded a third term to lead China during the 14th National People’s Congress. Over the years, Xi Jinping has performed excellently, transforming the internal economy and prominently put his Asian country on the global stage. In addition, he consolidated the Chinese economic presence or footprints around the world. China is considered as an emerging global leader.

However, just like in any other country, authorities in China do not discuss everything openly and they sometimes allow leaks. These include a Reuters report saying that Xi will visit Russia next week. His visit will take place sooner than expected, and the news is important, for it is China who proposed a peace plan for Ukraine. Since Beijing has been providing diplomatic support to Moscow, the West was skeptical about the peace plan.

Scientific Director of the Russian Academy of Sciences’ Institute of China and Contemporary Asia Alexander Lukin told Nezavisimaya Gazeta that visits are paid every year, but that they were postponed during the pandemic. “Now, it’s the Chinese leader’s turn to visit Russia. This is fine. Of course, the international situation has changed. I think, they will discuss this as well as the political and economic cooperation which has been growing by leaps and bounds in price terms. Often, new contracts get signed and new gas or oil pipeline projects are approved during such visits,” Lukin said.

“Over the past decade, China has seen a significant consolidation of power in the hands of Xi Jinping, and the Communist Party’s supremacy over the state and society has also become more apparent,” Deputy Director of the Russian Academy of Sciences’ Institute of World Economy and International Relations Alexander Lomanov told Kommersant. According to him, the next decade will be a difficult one for China, given that the old economic development model is exhausted, with cheap labor and free resources no longer available, while the external environment – relations with the US and its allies – is getting more and more toxic.

“In this situation, the old structure of power, which involved fighting factions and looked like collective leadership from the outside, has lost its usefulness as it does not allow decisions to be made quickly when responding to threats and challenges. In contrast, Xi Jinping’s current model of government is aimed at ensuring stability amid internal and external difficulties. Hopes for the liberalization of this model may emerge only when China is confident that the hardest times are behind it,” Lomanov concluded.

The likelihood that the United States and China will continue consistently engaging in a direct confrontation is quite high, political scientist Vladimir Kireyev told Izvestia. According to him, some predicted back in the early 2000s that as China’s economic and hence political influence in the world increased, the country would “inevitably start collapsing the US-centric system” by the simple fact of its existence.

“These forecasts were made in the US political, expert and military communities. In the mid-2010s, this understanding drove (44th US President Barack) Obama and then (45th US President Donald) Trump to adopt a policy to contain China, which reflects real US interests aimed at preserving its global dominance,” the political scientist pointed out, added that economic tensions were invariably pushing political elites in both countries towards a confrontation, in one form or another.

According to the analyst, Washington has started to realize that it “wasted too much time,” because the best moment to contain China was ten years ago. However, the Americans’ focus was on Russia back then, Kireyev stressed.

“Now, the probability that the US and China will come to a direct conflict is quite high. It is the US that is provoking the situation as the window of opportunities to cause serious damage to China is closing. China is trying to postpone the conflict as much as possible and even avoid it altogether. The reason is that taking into consideration economic development, in 10 to 15 years, China will be much stronger than the US and the Chinese won’t need to engage in a conflict to protect their interests,” the expert concluded.

In spite of the arguments and debates on various important global issues involving China and Russia, however, the South China Morning Post said that Russia’s special military operation has harmed China’s national interests. What is of the most common interest and concern relates the emerging new configuration, multipolar system which should necessarily work to find suitable solution to the ongoing Russia-Ukraine crisis. China has called for cooperation while Russia adopts more confrontation approach.

Our monitor shows that majority of global leaders, researchers and analysts has already lifted their up for China’s expected muscular role, efforts to mediate between Russia and Ukraine. Under its headline “White House hails possibility of Xi Jinping speaking with Ukrainian president Zelensky” published March 14, South China Morning Post wrote that a senior White House official has praised a reported plan by Chinese President Xi Jinping to speak with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, and confirmed US President Joe Biden’s “willingness” to schedule a talk with the Chinese leader.

“We have been encouraging President Xi to reach out to President Zelensky because we believe that the PRC and President Xi himself should hear directly the Ukrainian perspective and not just the Russian perspective on this,” National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan said.

Sullivan was referring to a Wall Street Journal report which, citing people familiar with the plan, said that Xi would make the call after visiting Moscow next week. Beijing’s recent engagements with Moscow, including a trip there by its top diplomat√last month, have prompted US and other Western governments to accuse the Chinese government of siding with Russia in the war, which has dragged on for more than a year.

A 12-point peace proposal Beijing offered on the war’s one-year anniversary did little to change that assessment, partly because it did not call on the Kremlin to withdraw its forces. Reports that Xi would visit Moscow soon have thrown more doubt on Beijing’s claims to be impartial. Sullivan cast some doubt on the Xi-Zelensky call plan when he added that Kyiv officials were not able to confirm the report.

For the discussions here, it is necessary to consider carefully here, in the context the China’s Global Security Initiative (GSI) that could play important role in resolving he Russia-Ukraine crisis and many others around the world. In the first place, China prominently places “cooperation” as the key component in its foreign policy, as oppose to Russia that is confrontational and yet talk about multipolar – in fact ‘multipolar’ in its basic sense means inclusive and integrated approach to global developments including conflict resolutions.

According to the concept, the Global Security Initiative aims at eliminating the root causes of international conflicts, improve global security governance, encourage joint international efforts to bring more stability and certainty to a volatile and changing era, and promote durable peace and development in the world.

The concept is guided by six commitments or pillars,  which are

(i) pursuing common, comprehensive, cooperative, and sustainable security;

(ii) respecting the sovereignty and territorial integrity of all countries;

(iii) adhering to the purposes and principles of the UN Charter;

(iv) taking the legitimate security concerns of all countries seriously;

(v) peacefully resolving differences and disputes between countries through dialogue and consultation; and

(vi) maintaining security in both traditional and non-traditional domains.

Gleaning from these core principles, it’s safe to say that the GSI could and probably would become a catalyst for the world to chart a new path to building sustainable peace, stability and development. The Global Security Initiative (GSI) was first proposed by Chinese President Xi Jinping at the Boao Forum for Asia Annual Conference on April 21, 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.

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 InfoBrics

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on China-Russia Dichotomy: Cooperation or Confrontation on Global Issues? Forthcoming Talks between Putin and Xi regarding Ukraine Peace Plan?
  • Tags:

Financial Failure in America: The Cover-up Begins

March 15th, 2023 by Dr. Paul Craig Roberts

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

***

The disinformation service, Bloomberg, takes the lead. Bloomberg points its finger at Donald Trump and “Trump era deregulation.” In Bloomberg’s rewriting of history,  Trump is responsible because he signed a bill passed by Democrats and Republicans that allowed mid-sized banks to “skirt some of the strictest post-financial crisis regulations.” So, where was the federal reserve? Where were the bank regulators? Bloomberg doesn’t say.

Presidents don’t write financial legislation. Financial legislation that the Federal Reserve and the SEC don’t approve doesn’t get passed. A third world immigrant-invader, Ro Khanna, who somehow represents in Congress Silicon Valley says: “Congress must come together to reverse the deregulation policies that were put in place under Trump.”

What utter total BS.

Silicon Valley Bank failed because in 1999 the Clinton regime signed the repeal of the Glass-Steagall act and because the Dodd-Frank Act allows failing banks to seize the deposits of depositors in order to have a bail-in instead of a bail-out. The foolish legislation causes depositors to withdraw their deposits on any sign of bank trouble.

The utterly mindless Dodd-Frank Act set up the mechanism for modern-day bank runs. If you have more money on deposit than the $250,000 insured amount, Dodd-Frank allows the bank to bail itself out by seizing your deposits. Many companies and corporations have payroll deposits in excess of $250,000. If deposits are seized, business can’t pay their workers or their bills. Thus Dodd-Frank is an excellent way of initiating bank runs and collapsing businesses and employment and city and state tax revenues.

But don’t expect Bloomberg to ever tell you any truth. I have never read a correct report on Bloomberg.

Silicon Valley Bank got in trouble because the Federal Reserve raised interest rates and reduced the value of the bank’s bond portfolio which made the bank insolvent. Large depositors, seeing their money at risk, quickly withdrew it. Silicon Valley Bank had to sell its depreciating bond portfolio, thus depreciating its value more, to meet withdrawals, thus driving down the value of its bonds, with the consequence that the bank’s liabilities exceeded its assets leaving the bank bankrupt.

The Democratic Party is an anti-American political party. It does not represent anything envisioned by our Founding Fathers. It has no respect for a rule of law, the US Constitution, truth, and White Americans, who are racist and domestic terrorists by definition.

Trump was a challenge to Democrat woke hegemony. Consequently, everything wrong in America is blamed on Trump by Democrats and presstitutes.

The crazed woke politics that Democrats, presstitutes, and universities have inflicted on America precludes intelligence analysis. Everything that would save existing society from failure is dismissed as “white supremacy.”

Apparently, banks themselves are affected by this ideology. They hired not competence but diversity in support of the rainbow. If the Federal Reserve also has this problem, there is no hope of avoiding financial collapse.

*

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.

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

Featured image is from Shutterstock

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.

***

The supposed “spring counteroffensive”, which would be being prepared by Kiev’s forces is already starting to be discredited before it even starts. Local sources claim that Ukrainian troops are too weak to launch a major attack against the Russians in the near future, contradicting the optimistic expectations of pro-Kiev journalists and NATO’s authorities. Even the American press is beginning to admit the improbability of a Ukrainian counteroffensive, which in practice means that the West no longer believes in a Kiev’s victory.

In an article published by the Washington Post, it was said that the Ukrainian armed forces would be so “degraded” over this first year of Russian special military operation that the attempt to launch a counteroffensive after the winter will probably end up unsuccessful. According to the media outlet’s informants, many of the most experienced Ukrainian troops have already been killed or wounded during the intense battles that have taken place since February last year, leaving now only a few forces qualified enough to carry out a major offensive, as the one that is currently being planned by the Ukrainian government and the NATO strategists.

One of the sources heard by journalists was a Ukrainian official identified by the alias “Kupol”. Linked to Ukraine’s 46th Air Assault Brigade, Kupol stated that “unfortunately, they (skilled Ukrainian military) are all already dead or wounded”, adding that the new recruits are unprepared, inexperienced, inadequately trained, and that “(they) just drop everything and run” as soon as the battle begins.

Kupol also mentioned the seriousness of the current lack of ammunition on the part of the Ukrainian armed forces. Apparently, most of Kiev’s stocks have already been spent, with soldiers suffering from the absence of equipment to counterattack the Russians during the fighting. Kupol also comments that during offensive operations the attacking side loses two or three times more than the defending side, which is why he does not believe it will be possible for Kiev to start something like a great counteroffensive now, as so many losses have already been suffered.

“We can’t afford to lose that many people (…) You’re on the front line. They’re coming toward you, and there’s nothing to shoot with (…) We don’t have the people or weapons (…) If you have more resources, you more actively attack. If you have fewer resources, you defend more. We’re going to defend. That’s why if you ask me personally, I don’t believe in a big counteroffensive for us. I’d like to believe in it, but I’m looking at the resources and asking, ‘With what?’ Maybe we’ll have some localized breakthroughs”, he said.

At another point in the interview, the Ukrainian official also stated that the number of tanks promised by NATO to Kiev would be “symbolic”, contradicting all the allegations of Western authorities and propagandist journalists, whose discourse is based on the rhetoric that the aid with tanks will be a kind of “game changer” on the battlefield. In this sense, this report is important in showing how Western narrative is discredited among Ukrainian officials themselves, who are gradually beginning to admit that Kiev’s chances of victory are unlikely.

Currently, there is great expectation in Western public opinion that Ukrainians will advance and retake ground during this spring. There are many reports saying that Kiev is keeping its main reserves of fighters, including seniors and special forces, outside of the risk zone, perhaps even in Poland and other NATO countries. In these regions, they would be being trained to be sent on an anti-Russian offensive.

Indeed, this appears to be true. It is not by chance that Kiev is sending teenagers and poorly trained recruits to Bakhmut’s “meat grinder”. The objective is to avoid losing even more experienced soldiers, which would end any possibility of a counteroffensive. So, it is very likely that these skilled troops are currently being trained to prepare for a future attack.

The problem is the combat power of these troops. As Kupol said, there are few experienced soldiers left, with troop numbers being a key factor in such combat situations. Most likely, Kiev’s plans will fail if such large-scale attacks are actually implemented. The Russians have a much greater mobilization power and could easily replace any losses, while the Ukrainian reserve is already destroyed. So, in order to prepare public opinion for the certain failure of the counteroffensive, the western media has already begun to publish journalistic articles showing the difficulties of the Ukrainian troops, as seen in the Washington Post.

*

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 The Unz Review

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.

***

Who is behind the movement against racism and poverty in America. 

We are dealing with a network of corporate funding of so-called “progressive” organizations.

This networking of funding dissent is a powerful instrument. It constitutes the basis whereby the financial elites retain control over the protest movement. 

You cannot organize a meaningful mass movement against Wall Street and then ask the billionaire foundations to pay for your expenses. 

While Black Lives Matter has taken stance in leading the campaign against Racism and Social Inequality, it has been generously funded by “racist” corporate charities and foundations which are firmly committed to neoliberalism.  

What this carefully documented article reveals is that the leaders of the BLM movement have betrayed their Grassroots by accepting money from “White Supremacist” billionaire foundations, banking institutions and powerful corporations

It’s called “Manufactured Dissent”. 

Michel Chossudovsky, March 15, 2023

**

 

The Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement and related causes received an astonishing $82.9 billion from corporations, a new funding database from the Claremont Institute has found. 

The Claremont Institute’s Center for the American Way of Life explained the necessity of their report in an article published in Newsweek, where the Center asserted that the 2020 BLM movement was about more than just “rioting and destruction.”

The Center explained that “The BLM pressure campaigns, harassment, and moral blackmail also amounted to possibly the most lucrative shakedown of corporate America in its history.”

“As a point of reference, $82.9 billion is more than the GDP of 46 African countries. In 2022, the Ford Motor Company’s profits were $23 billion,” they also noted. The sum of $82.9 million includes “more than $123 million to the BLM parent organizations directly,” as well as much more to other organizations supporting BLM’s agenda.

The list reveals that several popular corporations from a wide range of different industries supplied the movement with large sums of cash. Walmart, for example, which is based in Arkansas, gave a whopping $100 million in support of BLM and related causes focusing on “racial equity.” Amazon gave even more, supplying the movement with an astonishing $169.5 million. Silicon Valley Bank gave the movement $73.45 million.

Meanwhile, the pharmaceutical company Abbvie gave the movement over $62 million in funding. Allstate gave $7.7 million to the cause and American Express gave $50 million. Apple gave $100 million while AT&T gave $21.5 million. The movement and its causes received another $90 million from Nike.

United Airlines, JetBlue, Southwest Airlines, and Delta Airlines all gave money to BLM and related causes as well.

Bank of America, meanwhile, provided $18.25 million to BLM and related causes while Wells Fargo diverted $210 million towards BLM and related causes. Deloitte gave $85 million to BLM and related causes.

Asset management giant BlackRock put a shocking $810 million towards BLM and related causes, while other powerful financial institutions also bankrolled the movement, with Capital One Financial giving $10 million, Morgan Stanley giving $30 million, US Bank giving $160 million, and Goldman Sachs giving $10.1 million.

Meanwhile, Prudential Financial supplied the movement and its related causes with a sum of $450 million but was outdone by Mastercard, which gave $500 million.

The database found that Boeing gave $15.6 million, while Northrop Grumman gave $2 million and Raytheon gave $25 million.

The Walt Disney Company gave $8.8 million to BLM and related causes while the Pokémon Company gave $200,000.

The Claremont Institute’s Center for the American Way of Life also explained how the funds have been used, remarking that

“The Global Network is investing tens of millions of dollars to support future operations, purchasing luxury real estate, engaging in nepotism, disbursing grants to dozens of BLM chapters and revolutionary organizations, and operating a PAC to “elect progressive community leaders, activists, and working-class candidates fighting for Black liberation.”

Meanwhile, “Local BLM chapters are spending millions on activism and initiatives to defund police departments” and “BLM At School is indoctrinating children around the country in critical race theory and queer theory, teaching them to hate themselves, their peers, and their country.”

“Left-wing nonprofits are effecting wholescale societal change too radical for normal legislative avenues, constituting a form of shadow governance,” they went on to note.

The agenda has also seeped into the financial industry’s loan operations, the Center explains, pointing out that “banks are issuing billions of dollars in subprime loans ‘to help end systemic racism,’” all while “corporations are funding leftist bail funds that release violent rioters and criminals onto our streets and collaborating to create racialized, anti-meritocratic hiring schemes.”

The shakedown “may be viewed as a form of reparations made to self-declared enemies of the American nation and way of life,” they added.

*

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.

Spencer Lindquist is a reporter for Breitbart News. Follow him on Twitter @SpencerLndqst and reach out at [email protected].

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.

***

I’ve been ranting all week about the shocking war-with-China propaganda escalation in Australian mainstream media, and I feel like I could easily scream about it for another month without running out of vitriol for the disgusting freaks who are pushing this filth into the consciousness of my countrymen. One really really can’t say enough unkind things about people who are openly trying to pave the way toward an Atomic Age world war; in a remotely sane world such monsters would be driven from human civilization and die cold and alone in the wilderness with nothing but their bloodlust to keep them company.

One of the most obnoxious things said during this latest propaganda push appeared in the joint statement provided by the five “experts” (read: empire-funded China hawks) recruited by The Sydney Morning Herald and The Age to share their obscenely hawkish opinions in an official-looking media presentation. This paragraph has been rattling around in my head since I first read it:

“Australia must prepare itself. Most important of all is a psychological shift. Urgency must replace complacency. The recent decades of tranquillity were not the norm in human affairs but an aberration. Australia’s holiday from history is over. Australians should not feel afraid but be alert to the threats we face, the tough decisions we must make and know that they have agency. This mobilisation of mindset is the essential prerequisite to any successful confrontation of China.”

Do you see what they’re doing there? These professional China hawks are explicitly trying to frame peace as a strange “aberration”, and war as the status quo norm. They’re saying Australians require a “psychological shift” and a “mobilisation of mindset” from thinking peace is normal and healthy to thinking war is normal and healthy.

Every normal, healthy person regards peace as the default position and violence as a rare and alarming aberration which must be avoided whenever possible.

We know this is true from our normal human experience of our own personal lives. None of us spend the majority of our time getting into fist fights, for example; anyone who spends most of their waking life physically assaulting people has probably been locked up a long time ago. If you have ever been in a fist fight you will recall that it was experienced as a rare and alarming occurrence, and everything in your body was screaming at you that this was a freakish and unnatural thing which must end as quickly as possible the entire time. In healthy people violence is experienced as abnormal, and its absence is experienced as normal.

This normal, baseline position is what imperial narrative managers spend their time trying to “psychologically shift” everyone away from, propagandizing us instead into accepting continuous conflict and danger as the norm. Such a shift is beneficial to the empire, to war profiteers, and to professional war propagandists, and is entirely destructive to everyone else. It causes us to accept material conditions which directly harm our own interests, and it makes us crazy and neurotic as a civilization.

You see it all the time though, like whenever there’s a push to withdraw imperial troops from some part of the Middle East they’ve been in for years, or the slightest discussion of maybe not raising the military budget this year, or skepticism that pouring weapons into a violence-ravaged part of the world is the wisest and most helpful thing to do.

Any time we see the slightest beginnings of the tiniest movement toward stepping away from the path of nonstop warmongering and militarism, pundits and politicians begin bleating words like “isolationism” and “appeasement” in an attempt to make calls for de-escalation, demilitarization, diplomacy and detente look freakish and abnormal in contrast to the sane, responsible status quo of hurtling toward nuclear armageddon at full tilt.

Their job is to abnormalize peace and normalize war, which means our job as healthy human beings is to do the exact opposite. We must help everyone understand the horrors of war and the unfathomable nightmares that can be unleashed by reckless brinkmanship, and help people to understand that peace is what’s healthy and to imagine a future where it is the norm.

The bad news is that we are pushing against a narrative-manufacturing apparatus that is backed by the might of a globe-spanning empire. The good news is that our vision is the one that’s based on truth, and deep down everyone can sense it. All we need to do to get people viewing peace as normal and war as abnormal is to remind people of what they already know inside.

*

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.

 

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Imperial Narrative Managers Always Try to Make Peace Seem Unnatural
  • Tags: ,

“Money Is No Mystery”. Towards a Massive Bank Crisis?

March 15th, 2023 by Emanuel Pastreich

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

***

The collapse of the Silicon Valley Bank and the following spectacle in which the media blares out about a massive bank crisis (without any hard figures for us to assess for ourselves) suggests that the parasite class is preparing for its war on money, the next step after COVID-19 of its war on citizens. After their destruction of the immune systems of Americans, and the dumbing down of the minds of Americans, they are ready to take over money completely.

Most likely, once all the banks are bankrupt, it will be easy to force-feed us a digital currency. But there may be other possible scenarios in store as well.

I wanted to share, in one place, my five lectures on the topic “Money is no mystery” to use the title of Charles E. Coughlin’s famous speech of 1934 which I recite as the final speech here.

Money Is No Mystery

Lecture One:

The Origins of the Money Crisis. “Money is Printed by the Fed., Using Black Magic, Doled out to the Rich for Free”.

By Emanuel Pastreich, September 06, 2022

Lecture Two:

Propping Up the Wobbly Dollar: “Addicted to the Dollar Economy as it Collapses”, The Decadence of Wealth and Power

By Emanuel Pastreich, September 07, 2022

Lecture Three:

Digital Currency Leads Us by the Hand Down the Primrose Path to Slavery

By Emanuel Pastreich, September 07, 2022

Lecture Four:

The Democratization of Money: A Revolutionary Dollar of the People, for the People, and by the People

By Emanuel Pastreich, September 08, 2022

Lecture Five:

“Money is no Mystery”; Charles E. Coughlin

By Emanuel Pastreich, September 11, 2022

*

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.

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.

He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

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

***

“There are three kinds of lies: Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics.” -Mark Twain, or Benjamin Disraeli, or anonymous (attribution disputed)

***

“Hate crime” is a made up legal category meant to prop up the systemic racism mythology.

Next to Russiagate neo-Mccarthyism, MSNBC loves nothing more than crowing about the supposed prevalence of “hate crimes” in an America captured by the specter of “White Supremacy™.

Exhibit A: the MSNBC clip below in which news actor Alex Wagner and guest, Rep. Judy Chu, chair of the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus, lament a Congressional investigation into Dominic Ng.

Ng was appointed to the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation’s Business Advisory Council but is currently under investigation for ties to the Chinese Communist Party.  The relevant portion we’re discussing here — the race-baiting over “hate crimes” — begins at the 3-minute mark.

First of all, the government’s categories are all wrong to start with. The “AAPI (Asian American and Pacific Islander) community,” as the Congresswoman on MSNBC terms it, is an entirely synthetic, stupid conjoining of ethnicities across Asia.

Via National Alliance on Mental Health:

“AAPI communities consist of approximately 50 distinct ethnic groups speaking over 100 languages, with connections to Chinese, Indian, Japanese, Filipino, Vietnamese, Korean, Hawaiian, and other Asian and Pacific Islander ancestries.”

The identities included under the AAPI umbrella have as much in common with each other culturally and genetically as Norwegians and Rwandans.

There is no “AAPI community,” and the suggestion that there is is itself, ironically, racist. Ask a Korean if he’s interchangeable with a Japanese and brace yourself for his rage.

Furthermore, what is a hate crime? Is not any interpersonal violence by definition an act of hate?

The Justice Department defines a hate crime as “a violent crime, such as assault, murder, arson, vandalism, or threats to commit such crimes. It may also cover conspiring or asking another person to commit such crimes, even if the crime was never carried out.”

So, not only does the government grant itself license to divine motive from a perpetrator of a violent crime to determine whether it qualifies as a “hate crime” – it’s also now including Minority Report-style “pre-crime” in the category.

But let’s take the dubious “hate crime” label at face value for the sake of argument. How common is it in the context of this MSNBC clip?

The MSNBC host Alex Wagner (Rachel Maddow’s failing replacement) cites 247 anti-Asian “hate crimes” in 2021 in California, the state that the Congresswoman represents.

So here’s some math: There were allegedly 247 “hate crimes” against Asians in California in 2021, according to her. That’s out of 39.24 million Californians in the overall population, of which 6,669,737 are counted as “AAPI.”

247 hatecrimed Asians divided by 6,669,737 AAPIs in California = 0.0037% of Asian-Americans hatecrimed – an astonishingly , vanishingly tiny figure that begs the question: why even devote precious airtime to covering it when there are so many more statistically relevant phenomena?

We’re just talking about Asians in this context, but similarly low numbers of “hate crimes” affect all protected classes.

In contrast, the overall rate of violent crime in the United States is 361.6 per 100,000 U.S. inhabitants. That’s .36% of Americans that are victims of violent crime on an annual basis — nearly 100 times higher than hate crimes against Asians.

The only obvious answer is that inciting racial hatred is MSNBC’s agenda, not objectively reporting the news.

And, assuming the “hate crime” statistics are correct, the next question is: who is committing all of these “hate crimes”? Is it MAGA domestic terrorists perpetrating White Supremacy™, as the Congresswoman on MSNBC claims, or perhaps another, less fashionable culprit?

Here’s a challenge: scour the web archives and try to find a single clip of an Asian attacked by a White Supremacist™, then compare it to the volumes of similar attacks perpetrated by Persons of Color™.

Note that, curiously, none of these headlines mention the racial identities of the attackers, which they most certainly would were they white.

You can be certain these are not cherry-picked; the corporate media would immediately latch on to such a video like catnip if it showed a white assailant. They’d play it on repeat for a month. Headlines would blare “White supremacist anti-Asian attack caught on video.” Joe Biden’s handlers would put out press releases condemning it. Vice would make a feature-length documentary on it.

The category of “hate crime” is an absurd hallucination. It does not describe any appreciable phenomenon in American society. Instead, it’s a wedge the ruling classes use to drive racial hatred, which it exploits via classic “divide-and-conquer” tactics perfected by the Roman and British Empires.

A divided people — along class or gender or whatever else — are a controllable people.

*

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 Daily Bell.

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

Featured image is from TDB

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

***

It is rattling again in the box.

In Tbilisi, the capital of the small Caucasus republic of Georgia, crowds gather on the streets. They carry oversized EU flags and flags of Ukraine through the avenues and project “Slava Ukraina!” on the buildings. Anti-Russian slogans everywhere. In the Georgian parliament, there are scuffles between the government and the opposition. The stumbling block is a bill that has just been discussed in Parliament and is still a long way from being able to come into force. The ruling party alliance “Georgian Dream” only wants donations from abroad to Georgian political parties and foundations to be reported to the authorities at the moment if they exceed one fifth of the total donations of these parties and foundations. Transparency is actually an integral part of any true democracy. However, some interested circles in Georgia are artificially upset about it. The protesters point to similar laws in Russia or Azerbaijan, which supposedly would give free rein to autocratic rule. Giga Bokeria from the European Georgian Party is among the protesters:

“This law, which targets civil society, is just part of the bigger picture, bigger anatomy of the treason, when we have a regime which sees the West and the Free World as our enemy, and tries to cultivate this Putinist idea in our society and betrays the future of Georgia.” [1]

The hatred and aggressiveness of the young rioters is disproportionate to the declared cause. It’s not about a drastic increase in electricity and gas prices. Not about the destruction of the livelihoods of the middle class, farmers or workers. Incidentally, the law is fairly closely modeled on the US Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA), which was enacted in 1938 and was only used again in 2017 against the broadcaster Russia Today [2]. With Putin’s money, Russia Today influenced the elections in such a way that the wrong man became President of the USA [3]. But as the ancient Romans said: what is permitted to the god Jupiter is far from being permitted to cattle. If the Georgian government does the same as the US government – that’s not possible!

In any case, the Georgian government was now so intimidated by the violence of the protest that the draft law was quickly withdrawn. But that in no way mitigates the aggressiveness of this street protest. The street fighters announced: we’ll keep going, no matter what ever will happen [4]! So it’s definitely not about preventing a law that you don’t see the point of. Here, the classic screenplay of a regime change theater staged by the West is unfolding before our eyes. The current events in Tbilisi are strikingly similar to the fateful events on Kiev’s Maidan Square in 2014. Here the notorious travel circus of the pro-American regime change network is mercilessly striking.

These service providers of ongoing pro-American hegemony. These include private public relations agencies, management consulting firms, strategy departments of large banks, as well as the networks of transatlantic foundations and think tanks such as the European Council on Foreign Relations, the German Marshall Fund of the US. Closely followed by the Carnegie Foundation, Freedom House and Soros Foundation. Just all those cliques that were meant by the recently failed transparency law, and who then flexed their muscles mightily.

There is plenty of money for changing governments. We know from the intercepted phone call between Victoria Nuland and the US Ambassador to Ukraine. There is talk of five billion dollars to oust the hated Ukrainian President Yanukovych and from this the US government derives the right to determine that “Klitsch” Klitschko should not hand over the new Ukrainian head of government as a western puppet , but Poroshenko[5] Everywhere in the late capitalist chaos economies there is a broad segment of unemployed proles who can be provided with earnest money at any hour of the day or night, in order to then organize riots under every imaginable and unimaginable slogan.

SState flag of Ukraine carried by a protester to the heart of developing clashes in Kyiv, Ukraine. Events of February 18, 2014.jpg

State flag of Ukraine behind a wall of anonymous protesters in Kyiv, Ukraine. Events of February 18, 2014 (Licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0)

The images are the same: then Ukraine, now Georgia. At that time, Yanukovych also wanted to bring Ukraine under the umbrella of the European Union. But he also wanted to maintain good relations with Russia. But that’s what the western NATO-fellows don’t want for the hell of it. So Yanukovych had to be ousted with a dirty coup. The same now in Georgia. The Georgian Dream government also wanted to bring the country into the European Union and even into NATO. While maintaining good relations with Russia. According to a pro-American reading, this is not possible at all, as we heard from a transatlantic Georgian politician at the beginning of this article.

Georgia also has problems with two breakaway republics. First, there is the Republic of South Ossetia in the interior. The Ossetians are culturally related to the Iranians and feel alien in the Georgian community. And then Abkhazia. A country on the beautiful coast of the Black Sea, with beautiful beaches to relax.

Both republics became independent after the collapse of the Soviet Union. In 2008, the then Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili, a staunch ally of the West, wanted to use military raids to bring these two republics home to the Reich. To everyone’s surprise, Russia did not remain passive this time and so not allowed the NATO border to be moved further east. Russia countered this attack and after five days had driven the Georgian troops out of the two republics.

This embarrassment was to severely damage Saakashvili’s political reputation. But the opposition couldn’t do much against Saakashvili at the time. It was divided, at odds and condemned to political impotence. At that moment Bidzina Ivanishvili appeared. Ivanishvili is Georgian, but made a lot of money in Russia during the Yeltsin era and is now ranked 153rd among the richest people in the world by Fortune magazine, with personal wealth estimated at $6.4 billion. However, Ivanishvili did not become a billionaire in Russia by stealing the national wealth of the Russians like the other oligarchs, but relatively respectably by importing electronics from the West and then selling them back in Russia. Ivanishvili had returned to Georgia and donated a significant part of his wealth to the common good. Now the billionaire, with an awareness of the social commitment of his property, had the necessary money and also the necessary strategic intelligence to bring together the divided opposition to the party alliance Georgian Dream. This alliance was now able to replace the NATO man Saakashvili in democratic elections. Twice Ivanishvili was head of government for a short time, but only to put the new government on the right track. When that was done, he resigned and left government to other people.

The Georgian Dream government has now reformed some of the worst pro-market excesses of the Saakashvili era. Financial help is available for those in need. The privatized health care system is now backed up by state measures so that the poor can once again afford medical care. As with Yanukovych, not that much has changed in foreign policy. Membership in the European Union and even in NATO is also sought under the government of the Georgian Dream. At the same time, the government makes it clear that Georgia is interested in good economic, cultural and political relations with Russia.

And that is exactly what cannot be conveyed to the Western community of values. There can only be one way for Georgia now: unconditional total war against Russia. The more difficult the military situation in Ukraine becomes for the Zelensky regime, the more important it becomes for the West to carry out a military pincer attack on Russia, carried out by Ukraine in cooperation with Georgia. We now understand all the better the rush and doggedness with which the downfall of the Georgian dream is now being pursued. Time is running out for the ambitions of NATO in that region [6]. And while in other countries the oligarchs are just gross and corrupt and nobody sheds a tear for them, Ivanishvili is a multi-billionaire with personal decency and enormous strategic intelligence.

So it’s no wonder that the full extent of the transatlantic hatred is not sparked off at the Georgian government, but against the person of Ivanishvili. The European Parliament in Strasbourg didn’t shy away from publishing a six-page resolution on June 9 of last year against the Georgian government and against Ivanishvili in particular. There is talk again of “eroding freedom of the press”. A phenomenon that, as is well known, we do not have in the West, right? Ivanishvili would maintain “personal and business ties with the Kremlin.” That was coupled, squire-style, with twelve “recommendations” on what Georgia must do in order to be graciously admitted to the European Union. A Lithuanian MEP said that by calling for de-oligarchization one explicitly means “de-Ivanishvilization”. And on December 14 last year, the European Parliament went one step further and called for Ivanishvili to be sanctioned for obstructing “political progress” in Georgia and for helping Russia bypass anti-Russian sanctions.

But that’s not all. Ivanishvili had deposited a significant part of his assets with the now compromised major Swiss bank Credit Suisse. First, Ivanishvili is massively deprived of funds by a criminal investment advisor. But that was not aimed at Ivanishvili. The criminal investment advisor was responsible for the investment advice of oligarchs living in Russia at Credit Suisse. The investment advisor has now been convicted and committed suicide two years ago [7]. While this is more of a “shit happens!” department, further amounts in the three-digit million range have not been paid back to Ivanisschvili by the fund consulting firms of the Credit Suisse Group for flimsy reasons to this day. This happened partly in connection with the European Parliament’s demands for sanctions, which, however, have not yet been implemented by the European Commission [8]. Ivanishvili is now suing Credit Suisse for $800 million in damages for lost investment opportunities. He has announced that if the lawsuit is successful, this money will be given to the solidarity community of Georgians for social purposes [9].

Another event is hotly debated in Georgia. Rumor has it that US Ambassador Kelly Degnan invited billionaire Ivanishvili to a three-hour talk on March 29 last year. During this conversation, Ms. Degnan is said to have offered to help Mr. Iwanischwili to return the money he had been holding at Credit Suisse. The condition, however, is that Georgia should enter the war against Russia on the side of Ukraine and use a considerable contingent of soldiers for this purpose. Rumors speak of 200,000 Georgian soldiers. But Ivanishvili politely but firmly refused. To this day we don’t know what is behind these rumours. Ivanishvili published a letter to the Georgian people on July 27 last year, in which he comments on the conversation with Ms. Degnan [10]. As is his custom, Ivanishvili puts it very cautiously and diplomatically. The above deal is not directly mentioned. Ivanishvili stressed all the more emphatically in the letter that it was important to him to keep Georgia out of “the war”.

Clearly, anyone who wants to keep his country out of NATO’s war against Russia has to leave.

The alliance party Georgian Dream emerged from a real grassroots movement. In recent years, the Georgian Dream has failed miserably to keep in touch with the grassroots and to translate their wishes into compact politics that everyone can understand. Apparently, it is now not possible to bring its own clientele onto the streets.

The other serious mistake is that the Georgian Dream alliance has made the non-party diplomat Salome Zurabashvili president. Mrs. Surabashvili grew up in France as a French citizen and started a diplomatic career. She completed her political studies with none other than former presidential adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski at Columbia University in New York. Surabashvili became a Georgian citizen, and the people from the Georgian Dream were probably happy to have elected a politician with profound knowledge of foreign policy and international connections as president. However, the lady now has nothing better to do than to expressly support the regime change rioters in a video message from New York.

What should we do? We must now reconstruct and uncover the anatomy of the recurring regime change maneuvers and develop instructions on how to recognize such attacks on a country’s national integrity in good time and then take countermeasures. The long overdue transparency law that has just been blocked in Georgia would have been a long overdue step in this direction.

*

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

https://www.dw.com/en/georgia-lawmakers-brawl-over-proposed-foreign-agents-law/a-64901809

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-64882475

3  https://www.faz.net/aktuell/politik/ausland/russland-erklaert-neun-us-medien-zu-auslaendischen-agenten-15325219.html

https://www.fr.de/politik/georgien-proteste-putin-krise-russland-agenten-gesetz-demokratie-eu-nato-sowjetrepublik-92133985.html

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hk38Jk_JL0g

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h2DiYwyMnb4

https://www.handelsblatt.com/finanzen/banken-versicherungen/banken/schweizer-grossbank-rechtsstreit-um-milliarden-verlust-ex-premier-iwanischwili-und-credit-suisse-wieder-vor-gericht/28659610.html

https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/cs-victims-former-prime-minister-of-georgia-bidzina-ivanishvili-alleges-political-pressure-in-legal-dispute-with-credit-suisse-301729675.html

https://www.boersen-zeitung.de/banken-finanzen/teurer-streitfuer-credit-suisse-25ceb0bc-add4-11ed-96eb-7f4be6535413

10 https://jam-news.net/ivanishvilis-letter-meeting-with-the-us-ambassador-war-money-and-non-participation-in-politics/

Featured image: Protesters in Tbilisi, 7 March 2023 (Licensed under the Public Domain)

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Georgia Protests: One More Regime Change, ” Then Ukraine, Now Georgia”
  • Tags: ,

US Schools Need to Teach Kids About Proxy War

March 15th, 2023 by Walt Zlotow

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.

***

The Russo Ukraine war has brought up a concept sorely lacking in the American vocabulary: Proxy War.

Most folks are familiar with the word proxy. Ask and they might respond “Oh yes, like when I sign over my right to vote stock shares to another who votes as my proxy.” But throw in “war” after “proxy” and you’ll likely get an eye roll.

Given how prevalent US reliance on proxy war has become in foreign policy, ignorance of proxy war has a debilitating effect on an informed electorate crucial to fostering a peaceful world.

OK, for the uninformed, Webster advises:

Proxy War. Noun. A war instigated by a major power which does not itself become involved. “The end of the Cold War brought an end to many of the proxy wars thru which the two sides struggled to exert their influence.

Today the US is involved in two devastating proxy wars that have taken over half a million lives. One is our proxy war against imagined US enemy Iran. Tho the targeted enemy, not a death has occurred on Iranian soil. Over are 400,000 dead, mainly in Yemen, inflicted by neighboring Saudi Arabia since 2015. The Saudis intervened in the Yemeni civil war to prevent the Houthi faction from controlling Yemen. We’re been supplying much of the air power, bombs, maintenance, logistics and moral support for Saudi Arabia to kill all those Houthis. Why? We view the Houthis as proxies for Iran to extend its influence in the Middle East. We deem that an existential threat to US national security interests. Regardless of how delusional and senseless, the US has been fueling this proxy war against Iran for 8 years now.

The other US proxy war is infinitely worse: our 8 year long proxy war against Russia that provoked their invasion of neighboring Ukraine 13 months ago. At that point the proxy war clueless respond incredulously, “Are you crazy? Putin woke up one morning and decided to reestablish the old Soviet Empire, starting with Ukraine. Once he takes Kyiv, he’ march westward into Western Europe. I know, read it in the NY Times and Washington Post.”

That is the problem. In the US national security state and its compliant media, proxy war is the term that dare not speak its name.

The information is out there but one must dig to get it. Try exploring the US supported coup of 2014 that deposed elected Ukrainian President Yanukovych to prevent Ukraine from partnering economically and politically with Russia. Check out the murderous civil war the coup started resulting in thousands of dead Russian leaning Ukrainians in Donbas. Learn how hundreds of millions in US weapons helped the US picked Ukrainian post-coup government kill those hapless Ukrainians. Investigate the 2015 Minsk II Agreement that was designed to give the Donbas independence under nominal Ukraine sovereignty, but free from further Ukraine government violence. One will find that France, Germany and the US neither supported nor intended Minsk II from providing Donbas independence. That would have been viewed as a Russian “win”, totally unacceptable to the US proxy war agenda.

Why is the US proxy war against Russia infinitely worse than our proxy war against Iran in Yemen? The former could pivot from proxy war to nuclear war in a heartbeat. It could take just one mistake, one miscalculation, one deranged “Dr. Strangelove” military renegade to trigger an unstoppable nuclear onslaught.

The forces of ignorance have won the narrative. Every media report on the war begins with “Russia’s unproved attack on Ukraine.” The term proxy war never has and never will appear.

Might be too late but time for grammar and high school curriculums to add a chapter, maybe even a semester, on proxy war in US foreign policy history and current events classes. After horrendous debacles in Afghanistan and Iraq, killing 6,879 Americans, the US only does proxy wars. No Americans die in proxy wars, only proxies in designated countries like Yemen and Ukraine. Maybe the next generation will gain enough wisdom to recognize a proxy war when it occurs, and possibly push back to keep it from devolving from proxy to nuclear.

*

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.

Walt Zlotow became involved in antiwar activities upon entering University of Chicago in 1963. He is current president of the West Suburban Peace Coalition based in the Chicago western suburbs. He blogs daily on antiwar and other issues at www.heartlandprogressive.blogspot.com.

Featured image is from The Unz Review

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

***

Fighting between Russia and Ukraine has been going on for a little over a year now, ending the lives of hundreds of thousands of young men and displacing millions.  Ukraine’s Defense Minister, Oleksii Reznikov, invited Western arms manufacturers to test their newest weapons against Russians in 2022. And indeed, all kinds of weaponry have been flowing into Ukraine.  It is truly a testing ground.

So, this begs the question, is anything else getting tested there?  The Ukrainian government seems pretty willing to use its own citizens as guinea pigs, and the American government seems pretty willing to foot the bill.  Are American tax dollars going to any other interesting projects?

Here’s what the US is funding in Ukraine.

Yes, actually.  Volodymyr Zelensky became president of Ukraine in May 2019, and almost immediately he introduced his idea of a “country in a smartphone.”

In early September 2019, Ukraine launched its Ministry of Digital Transformation, headed by a World Economic Forum participant, Mykhailo Fedorov. According to Federov, the goal of this new government department was to streamline government services, making it easier to apply for driver’s licenses, passports, and so on.  Ukraine has long held the reputation as Europe’s most corrupt country, and young politicians like Federov want to take advantage of new technology to make changes.

So, in early February 2020, the Ukrainian government launched its Diia app for smartphones.  Developed by volunteers from EPAM Systems, Diaa has been touted as a way to streamline government services.  By 2021 it had allowed Ukraine to become the first European nation to accord digital passports and one of the first to issue digital drivers’ licenses.  Federov reported in 2021 that about one-fourth of the Ukrainian population was using it, and it was gaining in popularity.  As of January 2023, about half the adult Ukrainian population was using it.

There is a positive side to streamlining government services.  Diia has allowed Ukrainians to easily start new businesses, making all the required government paperwork easily available.  I can see this being helpful for young entrepreneurs.

However, negative consequences became readily apparent, too.

Within a year of its launch, millions of Ukrainians found that their personal data, such as driver’s licenses, social media information, and banking information, were being traded online.  There’s always been the risk of losing your wallet and your driver’s license, but with everything online, the risks of fraud and identity theft increase astronomically.

Early on in his presidency, Zelensky talked about streamlining the voting process via the app.  Aside from the fact that experts have never agreed about the safety of online voting, by July 2022, Zelensky had banned political opposition parties and shut down media companies with alternative views. Having one central app that controls everyone’s important documents makes it far easier for any ruling party to maintain its power.

Controlling elections is only the beginning.  Diia launched in February 2020, and by March 2020, Diia was helping the Ukrainian government enforce its lockdown policies, as discussed in the recent report by Redacted.

The Redacted report shows portions of various WEF summits and at 2:06 has a clip of a WEF paper saying, “This digital identity determines what products, services, and information we can access—or conversely, what is closed off to us.”  Diia (and other digital identity products) have been marketed as a convenience, but don’t be fooled.  Developers of this technology have seen their potential as a control mechanism from the beginning.

The Redacted report also shows clips of Federov speaking at the 2021 WEF summit, and at 5:40 he openly admits that the pandemic allowed the Ukrainian government to speed up Ukraine’s digital transformation.  “The pandemic has accelerated our progress,” says Federov.  “People are really now demanding digital online services.  People have no choice but to trust technology.”

The Redacted report traces Diia’s transformation from a convenient service to a military tool.  At 6:39, they discuss an interview in Wired with Anton Melnyk, an adviser in Ukraine’s Ministry for Digital Transformation.  In March 2022, Dr. Melnyk stated, “We have restructured the Ministry of Digital Transformation into a clear military organization.”

Wartime features in an app

Shortly after the Russian invasion, Diia added all kinds of new wartime features.  Ukrainians can report Russian troop movements through Diia’s chatbot, eVorog (eEnemy).  Ukrainians can receive government payments even if they’re displaced.  But Diia doesn’t stop there.

Diia encourages citizens to snitch on their neighbors.  The wartime features allow any citizen to anonymously accuse any other citizen of being a Russian collaborator.  Stalin’s rule in the Soviet Union demonstrated how wrong this can go.  Ukrainians hate Stalin, and rightfully so.  But using cutting-edge technology to encourage the exact same kind of community-destroying snitching is a page right out of his playbook.  Between the snitching and its one official, government-approved news station, Diia is rapidly becoming Stalin in a smartphone.

Here’s why Americans should care.

In case you’re wondering why we should care about the ins and outs of Ukrainian bureaucracy, there are two big reasons worth paying attention to this.  The first is that Americans have been paying for much of the technical development.  The second is that the “government in a smartphone” concept is rapidly spreading around the world.

USAID has been supporting Ukraine’s digital transformation since 2016.  The volunteers that developed Diia were Ukrainians working with EPAM Systems, a software engineering company based in Pennsylvania.  And EPAM Systems may be a private company, but USAID isn’t. It’s taxpayer-funded.

After the Russian invasion, USAID donated another $8.5 million to Ukraine to help develop Diia’s wartime features.  USAID director Samantha Power spoke at the World Economic Forum in 2023, touting Diia’s success.  She and Federov both talked about the huge successes and discussed sharing Diia’s model with other countries.  Incidentally, Samantha Power is marriedto Cass Sunstein, the author of Nudge and a number of other books that some might consider pro-social-manipulation.

Power has stated that USAID intends to look for leaders in developing nations that have been running on anti-corruption platforms and sharing Diia-like technology with them to help modernize their countries.  She specifically cited Zambia, the Dominican Republic, and Ecuador. In January, Estonia announced that they would begin trial runs of their mRiik app, modeled after Ukraine’s Diia.

And, of course, all of this sounds very loving and charitable. However, it’s impossible to ignore the financial incentives.

The digital shift in America

The U.S. got a giant shove online when lockdowns were enforced in 2020 and 2021.  The U.S.’s “digital transformation,” even though it was only partial, still made already-wealthy tech companies even wealthier. Even though billionaire wealth can fluctuate pretty dramatically, by the end of 2022, American billionaires were still 50% richer than pre-pandemic.

Lovers of free-market economics will point out that increased technological ability is a rising wave that lifts everyone.  That can be true, but ask yourself, are most people you know 50% richer than before the pandemic?  Probably not.  Our lives have been getting pushed online over the past few years.  Some people profited, but the quality of life of the average citizen decreased.

Combine the shift to a digital world with the reconstruction after wartime destruction, and you see huge opportunities for profit.  It’s estimated that rebuilding Ukraine, so far, will cost over $1 trillion.  Zelensky and BlackRock CEO Larry Fink have already come to an agreement about managing the rebuilding of Ukraine.  USAID may be charitable, but BlackRock isn’t.  Ukraine is in the process of being destroyed and being rebuilt.  This is going to be hugely profitable for certain people, and Big Tech seems to be intent on getting their slice of the pie.

This kind of thing isn’t new.  Brigadier General Smedley Butler, combat veteran and Medal of Honor recipient, wrote War Is a Racket back in the 1930s.  The book is full of examples of industries generating huge wartime profits in conflicts a hundred years ago.  War profiteering isn’t new. It isn’t a conspiracy. It’s human nature.

There’s no reason not to think that the same powerful Big Tech figures will not continue to push the expansion of their businesses by pushing life around the world online, with or without violent conflict.

Will we all be pushed into government-by-smartphone?

Maybe some emerging markets will be helped by Diia-like apps.  But what about countries that already had reasonably safe and secure government services?  Will functional governments be pushed onto a smartphone?

It’s likely, though not imminent.  The Improving Digital Identity Act of 2021 is in Congress right now. There are a few versions of it under review. The Senate version actually states that the government cannot require digital identity for any kind of transaction.

Americans are still, on average, relatively concerned about privacy and the concentration of power.  The many concerns surrounding Centralized Bank Digital Currencies apply to digital identification, as well.  The OP ran an article last month discussing the total loss of anonymity that will occur when CBDCs become implemented.

And there are other, less discussed applications.  Look at geofencing.  A federal district judge just issued a first-ever “geofencing” warrant for anyone in the vicinity of the Capitol on January 6.  This gave police the authority to search the cell phone data of every American whose coordinates happened to be in the area, regardless of whether or not they had anything to do with the shenanigans at the Capitol.

Imagine if they could pull your driver’s license or freeze your bank account, too.  Right now, that’s not possible. With all of your important documents linked to something like Diia, it could be.

Here’s how it could unfold.

I don’t think we will all be forced onto something like Diia in the space of a year, but I think we’re at the beginning of a certain chain of events.  Digital IDs begin to be offered as a convenience, they become popular, they begin to be preferred by businesses and governments, and we eventually lose the option of physical IDs.  And, of course, some kind of crisis (climate change, another pandemic, a hot war) could speed this up more quickly, as happened in Ukraine.

The tools to implement a CBDC linked to a digital identity are already out there.  Look at China’s social credit system.  It’s technically possible for us, too. It sounds crazy, but conspiracy theorists have been proven correct so consistently lately I don’t think skepticism regarding these new, profitable technologies is unreasonable.

How to retain our privacy

We need to remember that life’s about more than convenience.  It’s about the freedom to try new things, some of which will fail spectacularly and some of which will lead to resounding successes.  That combination of failure and success is what leads to the deeper insights that make most of us into interesting people.  If we continue to trade privacy for convenience, we may find we don’t have much freedom left, either.

If we want to retain some measure of privacy and control over our own lives, if we want to avoid the techno-prison currently being constructed for us, if Americans don’t want our own “Stalin in a smartphone,” we need to avoid feeding the digital beast.  Yes, it’s hard, and no, it’s not going to be realistic for 99.9% of us to live completely offline.  But we can keep our friendships and purchases offline as much as possible.  We can drag our feet when it comes to getting the newest smart gadgets.  Perhaps most importantly, those of us with teenagers and young adults can spend time explaining our privacy concerns to the younger generation, so they try to live life offline, as well.

The digital prison is being constructed, but it’s by no means done yet.  Grand plans like “government in a smartphone” always fall apart at some point.  The problems with Diia are obvious to anyone paying attention.  If enough of us can postpone moving everything online, hopefully, this impetus will collapse on its own.

*

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.

A lover of novels and cultivator of superb apple pie recipes, Marie spends her free time writing about the world around her.

Featured image is from TOP

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.

***

Concurrent to rumblings of a color revolution in Georgia earlier this month, a plot attributed to Ukraine’s notorious SBU “national security service” against officials of the “breakaway” republic of Transnistria unfolded in central Tiraspol, according to prosecutors. The foiled assassination attempt targeted Transnistria’s leader, Vadim Krasnoselsky.

“The State Security Ministry of Transnistria has thwarted an assassination attempt on the top officials of the unrecognized republic, which was prepared under orders from the Ukrainian Security Service (SBU),” the Russian news agency TASS reported on March 9.

According to Lucas Leiroz de Almeida, a researcher at the Center for Geostrategic Studies,

The plan was discovered by the intelligence services of the secessionist republic. According to Tiraspol’s officials, the Ukrainian scheme was discovered in time to avoid the tragedy. It is believed that not only President Krasnoselsky would be targeted by the saboteurs, but also some other top Transnistrian officials would be assassinated. The agents behind the maneuver were linked to the Ukrainian Secret Service.

The attempt is a follow-up to the effort to destabilize Transnistria (officially, the Pridnestrovian Moldovan Republic), a narrow strip of land along both sides of the Dniester river on the border of Ukraine.

The “collective West” considers Transnistria to be part of Moldova, never mind the will of the people who live there. In 1991 and 1995, the population voted overwhelmingly (97.7%) for independence. In 2006, 97.2% of the population voted for “free association with the Russian Federation.” A mere 3.3% voted to become part of Moldova.

In April 2022, prior to the attempt to assassinate Krasnoselsky, Transnistria was the target of several terror attacks, according to TASS.

They started when grenade launchers were fired at the building housing the State Security Ministry. Then, broadcasting antennas [the Grigoriopol transmitter] were blown up at one of the region’s largest radio and TV centers, located in the village of Mayak. As well, military airfields near Tiraspol and Rybnitsa, and the location of the Transnistrian peacekeeping contingent were attacked.

In addition, drones from the direction of Ukraine targeted the Cobasna ammunition depot, in addition to a military reserve in Vladimirovca. As well, attacks were launched against the Cuciurgan power station in Pervomaisc.

The Institute for the Study of War, founded by the neocon Kimberly Kagan and financed by death merchants, insists the attacks were a Russian false flag. This claim is on par with the idiotic neocon claim the NordStream pipeline was destroyed by Russia (now we are told it was the Ukrainians).

It is claimed the CIA and the UK’s MI6 are working with the neo-nazis in Kyiv to carry out terror attacks. “Operatives from American and British intelligence services are directly participating in hatching secret plots with Ukraine’s Security Service (SBU) and training personnel to carry them out, SBU ex-employee Vasily Prozorov said at a news conference” held in 2019, well before the Russian SMO.

Vasily provided names:

“To give specific names, specifically MI6 agents—Charles Backford and Justin Hartman—it appears, of course, I may be mistaken, came to the SBU in 2016. I remembered them because they did not only come to a meeting with the leadership of the Ukrainian Security Service but also made visits to the area of the counter-terror operation, the town of Kramatorsk, and permission for visiting this area is granted through the headquarters of the anti-terror center and so these names were mentioned.”

The former SBU employee also said “a member of the Defense Department’s Intelligence Agency Harry Reid also visited Ukraine” and he “directly oversaw the development of the Ukrainian Special Operations Forces… in Berdichev, [and] he checked on the activity of US green berets who were staying there as instructors.”

The New York Times (paywall) admitted last June the CIA is operating in Ukraine. Kelley Beaucar Vlahos writes for Responsible Statecraft,

The news, based on sourcing from current and former U.S. government officials, is part of a broader report about a “stealthy network” of U.S. and European commandos and spies in “cells” run by the Pentagon’s European Command “to speed allied assistance to Ukrainian troops.” Much of this is operating from military bases in France and Germany and elsewhere. But as the NYT points out, there are European commandos and CIA agents working on the inside.

It would be naïve to conclude the CIA is in place merely to “speed allied assistance” to Zelenskyy’s post-coup government. The CIA has a long and sordid history of engineering terror plots, collaborating with brutal dictators, arranging false flags, and drawing up death lists.

Max Blumenthal and Esha Krishnaswamy wrote last April,

The Ukrainian SBU security services has served as the enforcement arm of the officially authorized campaign of repression. With training from the CIA and close coordination with Ukraine’s state-backed neo-Nazi paramilitaries, the SBU has spent the past weeks filling its vast archipelago of torture dungeons with political dissidents.

As usual, cui bono should be considered, but we shouldn’t expect the USG and its corporate propaganda media to draw obvious conclusions. Ukraine and the “collective West” need to sanitize Transnistria of its ethnic Russian population, the same as they are attempting to do in the Donbas and elsewhere in eastern and southern Ukraine.

The warped, neo-nazi mindset actively metastasizing in Ukraine, and promoted by the USG and its “partners” in Europe (also the UK, Australia, and New Zealand), dictates all Russians are to be ethnically cleansed, and Russian troops (specifically, OGRF, or the Operational Group of Russian Forces in Transnistria), assigned to secure the Soviet-era ammunition depot at Cobasna (initially sent as peacekeepers), are to be forced out of the country, as NATO demands. In 1992, elements of the 14th Russian Army participated in the Transnistria civil war (that is to say when Moldova attempted the quash Transnistrian independence).

Compare Russia’s foreign military bases in Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, and Tajikistan, under the Collective Security Treaty Organization, and its invited presence in Syria, with the USG’s 750 military bases around the world. USG bases have been used more than 25 times to launch wars and military interventions.

In late February, USG state department honcho Atony Blinken met in Munich with Maia Sandhu, the president of Moldova. Blinken said the USG is alarmed by “some of the plotting that we’ve seen coming from Russia to try to destabilize the government” of Moldova and “support… its territorial integrity,” that is to say, erase Transnistria and its association with Russia.

The USG and NATO are determined to initiate brushfires on Russia’s periphery, violently negate its diplomatic and trade relationships with other nations, destroy its economy, and foment color revolutions and terror attacks, including attacks inside Russia, killing Russian citizens.

Russia will respond. It will fight back, remembering well the last time a belligerent nation attempted to conquer and destroy it (Germany’s Operation Barbarossa, June 1941). The Germans were defeated during the Battle of Moscow. Historians later determined Germany’s defeat was the result of its military unpreparedness for such a large campaign. Likewise, the USG and its “partners,” if drawn directly into a war with Russia, will fail due to a complete lack of preparation, war materiel, and public support (although the latter is considered irrelevant).

That prospect is eminently frightening. Instead of maintaining a posture that nuclear weapons are to be used for the sole purpose of deterrence, the Biden administration “approved a version of a policy from the Obama administration that leaves open the option to use nuclear weapons not only in retaliation to a nuclear attack, but also to respond to non-nuclear threats,” according to the Arms Control Association.

*

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 (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.

***

CODEPINK along with Massachusetts Peace Action, Democratic Socialists of America, the Latin America Working Group, the Chicago Religious Leadership Network, and others calls  for a National Call-In to the White House to Remove Cuba from the List of State Sponsors of Terrorism. The call-in will occur on March 15th and 16th from 11 am to 3 pm EST.

The coalition of groups calls on President Biden to direct the State Department to remove Cuba from the list of State Sponsors of Terrorism immediately. Leaders from the public, religious, and civic sectors worldwide have called for Cuba’s removal from the list. Even the President of Colombia has stated that there is no justification for Cuba being on the list.

Former President Donald Trump designated Cuba as a State Sponsor of Terrorism during his final days in office. This designation has compounded the already immense challenges faced by the Cuban people, who have been struggling under the weight of the COVID-19 pandemic, 60 years of U.S. trade embargo, and 243 sanctions.

Those who wish to participate can do so here.

This action follows The International Conference for the Normalization of Relations between the United States and Cuba in New York with the presence of over a hundred organizations in solidarity with the liberation of the island from economic warfare.

CODEPINK has spent years as activists in solidarity with the people of Cuba. The U.S. blockade against Cuba has been going on for over 60 years. We condemn the U.S. hybrid war on Cuba and are working on everything from ending the blockade, to removing the Trump sanctions and uplifting the incredible international solidarity that Cuba shows the rest of the world.

Cuba Si, Bloqueo No!

*

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 Nation

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on CODEPINK Joins National Call-In Days to Remove Cuba from State Sponsors of Terrorism List
  • Tags:

The Not-So-Winding Road from Iraq to Ukraine

March 15th, 2023 by Medea Benjamin

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.

***

March 19th marks the 20th anniversary of the U.S. and British invasion of Iraq. This seminal event in the short history of the 21st century not only continues to plague Iraqi society to this day, but it also looms large over the current crisis in Ukraine, making it impossible for most of the Global South to see the war in Ukraine through the same prism as U.S. and Western politicians.

While the U.S. was able to strong-arm 49 countries, including many in the Global South, to join its “coalition of the willing” to support invading the sovereign nation of Iraq, only the U.K., Australia, Denmark and Poland actually contributed troops to the invasion force, and the past 20 years of disastrous interventions have taught many nations not to hitch their wagons to the faltering U.S. empire.

Today, nations in the Global South have overwhelmingly refused U.S. entreaties to send weapons to Ukraine and are reluctant to comply with Western sanctions on Russia. Instead, they are urgently calling for diplomacy to end the war before it escalates into a full-scale conflict between Russia and the United States, with the existential danger of a world-ending nuclear war.

The architects of the U.S. invasion of Iraq were the neoconservative founders of the Project for a New American Century (PNAC), who believed that the United States could use the unchallenged military superiority that it achieved at the end of the Cold War to perpetuate American global power into the 21st century.

The invasion of Iraq would demonstrate U.S. “full spectrum dominance” to the world, based on what the late Senator Edward Kennedy condemned as “a call for 21st century American imperialism that no other country can or should accept.”

Kennedy was right, and the neocons were utterly wrong. U.S. military aggression succeeded in overthrowing Saddam Hussein, but it failed to impose a stable new order, leaving only chaos, death and violence in its wake. The same was true of U.S. interventions in Afghanistan, Libya and other countries.

For the rest of the world, the peaceful economic rise of China and the Global South has created an alternative path for economic development that is replacing the U.S. neocolonial model. While the United States has squandered its unipolar moment on trillion-dollar military spending, illegal wars and militarism, other countries are quietly building a more peaceful, multipolar world.

And yet, ironically, there is one country where the neocons’ “regime-change” strategy succeeded, and where they doggedly cling to power: the United States itself. Even as most of the world recoiled in horror at the results of U.S. aggression, the neocons consolidated their control over U.S. foreign policy, infecting and poisoning Democratic and Republican administrations alike with their exceptionalist snake oil.

Corporate politicians and media like to airbrush out the neocons’ takeover and continuing domination of U.S. foreign policy, but the neocons are hidden in plain sight in the upper echelons of the U.S. State Department, the National Security Council, the White House, Congress and influential corporate-funded think tanks.

PNAC co-founder Robert Kagan is a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and was a key supporter of Hillary Clinton. President Biden appointed Kagan’s wife, Victoria Nuland, a former foreign policy adviser to Dick Cheney, as his Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs, the fourth most senior position in the State Department. That was after she played the lead U.S. role in the 2014 coup in Ukraine, which caused its national disintegration, the return of Crimea to Russia and a civil war in Donbas that killed at least 14,000 people.

Nuland’s nominal boss, Secretary of State Antony Blinken, was the staff director of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in 2002, during its debates over the impending U.S. assault on Iraq. Blinken helped the committee chairman, Senator Joe Biden, choreograph hearings that guaranteed the committee’s support for the war, excluding any witnesses who did not fully support the neocons’ war plan.

It is not clear who is really calling the foreign policy shots in Biden’s administration as it barrels toward World War III with Russia and provokes conflict with China, riding roughshod over Biden’s campaign promise to “elevate diplomacy as the primary tool of our global engagement.” Nuland appears to have influence far beyond her rank in the shaping of U.S. (and thus Ukrainian) war policy.

What is clear is that most of the world has seen through the lies and hypocrisy of U.S. foreign policy, and that the United States is finally reaping the result of its actions in the refusal of the Global South to keep dancing to the tune of the American pied piper.

At the UN General Assembly in September 2022, the leaders of 66 countries, representing a majority of the world’s population, pleaded for diplomacy and peace in Ukraine. And yet Western leaders still ignore their pleas, claiming a monopoly on moral leadership that they decisively lost on March 19, 2003, when the United States and the United Kingdom tore up the UN Charter and invaded Iraq.

In a panel discussion on “Defending the UN Charter and the Rules-Based International Order” at the recent Munich Security Conference, three of the panelists–from Brazil, Colombia and Namibia–explicitly rejected Western demands for their countries to break off relations with Russia, and instead spoke out for peace in Ukraine.

Brazilian Foreign Minister Mauro Vieira called on all the warring parties to “build the possibility of a solution. We cannot keep on talking only of war.” Vice President Francia Márquez of Colombia elaborated, “We don’t want to go on discussing who will be the winner or the loser of a war. We are all losers and, in the end, it is humankind that loses everything.”

Prime Minister Saara Kuugongelwa-Amadhila of Namibia summed up the views of Global South leaders and their people:

“Our focus is on solving the problem…not on shifting blame,” she said. “We are promoting a peaceful resolution of that conflict, so that the entire world and all the resources of the world can be focused on improving the conditions of people around the world instead of being spent on acquiring weapons, killing people, and actually creating hostilities.”

So how do the American neocons and their European vassals respond to these eminently sensible and very popular leaders from the Global South? In a frightening, warlike speech, European Union foreign policy chief Josep Borrell told the Munich conference that the way for the West to “rebuild trust and cooperation with many in the so-called Global South” is to “debunk… this false narrative… of a double standard.”

But the double standard between the West’s responses to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and decades of Western aggression is not a false narrative. In previous articles, we have documented how the United States and its allies dropped more than 337,000 bombs and missiles on other countries between 2001 and 2020. That is an average of 46 per day, day in day out, for 20 years.

The U.S. record easily matches, or arguably far outstrips, the illegality and brutality of Russia’s crimes in Ukraine. Yet the U.S. never faces economic sanctions from the global community. It has never been forced to pay war reparations to its victims. It supplies weapons to the aggressors instead of to the victims of aggression in Palestine, Yemen and elsewhere. And U.S. leaders–including Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Barack Obama, Donald Trump, and Joe Biden—have never been prosecuted for the international crime of aggression, war crimes or crimes against humanity.

As we mark the 20th anniversary of the devastating Iraq invasion, let us join with Global South leaders and the majority of our neighbors around the world, not only in calling for immediate peace negotiations to end the brutal Ukraine war, but also in building a genuine rules-based international order, where the same rules—and the same consequences and punishments for breaking those rules—apply to all nations, including our own.

*

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.

Medea Benjamin is the cofounder of CODEPINK for Peace, and the author of several books, including Inside Iran: The Real History and Politics of the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Nicolas J. S. Davies is an independent journalist, a researcher with CODEPINK and the author of Blood on Our Hands: The American Invasion and Destruction of Iraq.

Medea Benjamin and Nicolas J. S. Davies are the authors of War in Ukraine: Making Sense of a Senseless Conflict, published by OR Books in November 2022. They are regular contributors to Global Research.

Featured image source

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.

***

Former White House National Security Advisor Robert C. O’Brien has hinted at a sinister US contingency plan in the event of a Chinese invasion of Taiwan. Rather than see Taiwan’s semiconductor factories fall into the hands of the Communist Party of China, the US and its allies would simply pull a Nordstream.

“The United States and its allies are never going to let those factories fall into Chinese hands,” O’Brien told Semafor, a news outlet that has been funded by jailed Democratic financier Sam Bankman-Fried and his brother. O’Brien went on to compare the destruction of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company’s (TSMC) to Winston Churchill’s bombing of a French naval fleet after the country’s surrender to Nazi Germany.

Semiconductors made in Taiwan are necessary for the functioning of everything from smartphones to cars. Taiwan manufactures around 65 percent of the world’s semiconductors and close to 90 percent of advanced chips. Annually, a third of all new computing power generated globally is fabricated in Taiwan. The US National Security Council estimates that the loss of TSMC “could disrupt the world economy to the tune of more than $1 trillion.”

As tensions rise over the Taiwan Strait, the US Treasury Department has published at least two studies on “the overall market impact of an invasion,” while the National Security Council is conducting a study on “semiconductors and US dependencies on TSMC.”

TSMC’s advanced chips are used in “all major US defense systems and platforms,” making them an essential building block of American empire.

Given these facts, it is highly likely that the destruction of Taiwan’s chip manufacturing plants would be the most damaging act of economic sabotage in history.

Click here to watch the video.

Having served in senior positions in the three administrations that preceded Biden’s, few private American citizens are better positioned to receive and transmit the views of national security elites than O’Brien. As Donald Trump’s National Security Advisor, he traveled to Arizona in 2020 to congratulate the state’s governor on the opening of a $12 billion TSMC factory in the state, using the appearance as a platform to rail against Chinese communism. “Let us be clear, the Chinese Communist Party is a Marxist-Leninist organization. The Party General Secretary Xi Jinping sees himself as Josef Stalin’s successor,” O’Brien declared.

Ironically, it was the global capitalist system that led developing nations to place such strategic assets in non-strategic places like Taiwan. According to William Alan Reinsch, a Senior Advisor at Washington’s leading anti-China think tank, the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), chip manufacturers in the West preferred to place their plants in a “low-wage, nonunion country that probably doesn’t have environmental requirements” to maximize profits at the top.

Now, with such a vital industry located just 100 miles from mainland China, O’Brien is joining a chorus of foreign policy hardliners calling for a dog in the manger doctrine.

As Bloomberg reported in October 2022, former officials with ties to the Pentagon have urged the Biden administration to destroy Taiwan’s semiconductor industry in the event of a Chinese military assault. The outlet cited Elbridge Colby, a rabidly anti-China former Pentagon official, proclaiming,

“We can’t allow such a valuable equity to fall into Chinese hands, I think it would be nuts.”

Last year, the US Army War College’s most-downloaded paper called for a similarly ruthless strategy.

“To start, the United States and Taiwan should lay plans for a targeted scorched-earth strategy that would render Taiwan not just unattractive if ever seized by force, but positively costly to maintain,” the paper proposed. “This could be done most effectively by threatening to destroy facilities belonging to the Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, the most important chipmaker in the world and China’s most important supplier.”

“An automatic mechanism might be designed, which would be triggered once an invasion was confirmed,” the paper suggested, adding that the US and its allies could “give refuge” to Taiwanese workers in the sector, while Taipei could make “and publicize plans to target the mainland’s chip-fabrication lines using cruise and ballistic missiles, including the Semiconductor Manufacturing International Corporation facility in Shanghai.” The paper also proposed a “preplanned sanctions campaign against any chip exports to China.”

The CSIS think tank ran a recent series of 24 war games pitting the US military against China following a hypothetical invasion of Taiwan in 2026. In the simulations, the US “lost dozens of ships, hundreds of aircraft, and tens of thousands of service members,” while “Taiwan saw its economy devastated.”

*

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.

Alex Rubinstein is an independent reporter on Substack. You can subscribe to get free articles from him delivered to your inbox here. If you want to support his journalism, which is never put behind a paywall, you can give a one-time donation to him through PayPal here or sustain his reporting through Patreon here.

Featured image is from The Grayzone

Blood Does Not Wash Away Blood

March 15th, 2023 by Kathy Kelly

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.

***

The extraordinary March 10, 2023 announcement that China’s top diplomat, Mr. Wang Yi, helped broker a rapprochement between Saudi Arabia and Iran suggests that major powers can benefit from believing that, as Albert Camus once put it, “words are more powerful than munitions.”

This concept was also acknowledged by General Mark Milley, Chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff who said on January 20th, 2023, that he believes Russia’s war in Ukraine will conclude with negotiations rather than on the battlefield. In November of 2022, asked about prospects for diplomacy in Ukraine, Milley noted that the early refusal to negotiate in World War One compounded human suffering and led to millions more casualties.

“So when there’s an opportunity to negotiate, when peace can be achieved … seize the moment,” Milley told the Economic Club of New York.

Twenty years ago, in Baghdad, I shared quarters with Iraqis and internationals in a small hotel, the Al-Fanar, which had been home base for numerous Voices in the Wilderness delegations acting in open defiance of the economic sanctions against Iraq. U.S. government officials charged us as criminals for delivering medicines to Iraqi hospitals. In response, we told them we understood the penalties they threatened us with (twelve years in prison and a $1 million fine), but we couldn’t be governed by unjust laws primarily punishing children. And we invited government officials to join us. Instead, we were steadily joined by other peace groups longing to prevent a looming war.

In late January 2003, I still hoped war could be averted. The International Atomic Energy Agency’s report was imminent. If it declared that Iraq didn’t have weapons of mass destruction (WMD), U.S. allies might drop out of the attack plans, in spite of the massive military buildup we were witnessing on nightly television. Then came Secretary of State Colin Powell’s February 5, 2003, United Nations briefing, when he insisted that Iraq did indeed possess WMD. His presentation was eventually proven to be fraudulent on every count, but it tragically gave the United States enough credibility to proceed at full throttle with its “Shock and Awe” bombing campaign.

Beginning in mid-March 2003, the ghastly aerial attacks pounded Iraq day and night. In our hotel, parents and grandparents prayed to survive ear-splitting blasts and sickening thuds. A lively, engaging nine-year-old girl completely lost control over her bladder. Toddlers devised games to mimic the sounds of bombs and pretended to use small flashlights as guns.

Our team visited hospital wards where maimed children moaned as they recovered from surgeries. I remember sitting on a bench outside of an emergency room. Next to me, a woman convulsed in sobs asking, “How will I tell him? What will I say?” She needed to tell her nephew, who was undergoing emergency surgery, that he had not only lost both his arms but also that she was now his only surviving relative. A U.S. bomb had hit Ali Abbas’s family as they shared a lunch outside their home. A surgeon later reported that he had already told Ali that they had amputated both of his arms. “But,” Ali had asked him, “will I always be this way?”

I returned to the Al-Fanar Hotel that evening feeling overwhelmed by anger and shame. Alone in my room, I pounded my pillow, tearfully murmuring, “Will we always be this way?”

Throughout the Forever Wars of the past two decades, U.S. elites in the military-industrial-Congressional-media complex have manifested an insatiable appetite for war. They seldom heed the wreckage they have left behind after “ending” a war of choice.
Following the 2003 “Shock and Awe” war in Iraq, Iraqi novelist Sinan Antoon created a main character, Jawad, in The Corpse Washer, who felt overwhelmed by the rising numbers of corpses for whom he must care.

“I felt as if we had been struck by an earthquake which had changed everything,” Jawad reflects. “For decades to come, we would be groping our way around in the rubble it left behind. In the past there were streams between Sunnis and Shi͑ites, or this group and that, which could be easily crossed or were invisible at times. Now, after the earthquake, the earth had all these fissures and the streams had become rivers. The rivers became torrents filled with blood, and whoever tried to cross drowned. The images of those on the other side of the river had been inflated and disfigured . . . concrete walls rose to seal the tragedy.”

“War is worse than an earthquake,” a surgeon, Saeed Abuhassan, told me during Israel’s 2008-2009 bombing of Gaza, called Operation Cast Lead. He pointed out that rescuers come from all over the world following an earthquake, but when wars are waged, governments send only more munitions, prolonging the agony.

He explained the effects of weapons that had maimed patients undergoing surgery in Gaza’s Al-Shifa Hospital as the bombs continued to fall. Dense inert metal explosives lop off people’s limbs in ways that surgeons can’t repair. White phosphorus bomb fragments, embedded subcutaneously in human flesh, continue to burn when exposed to oxygen, asphyxiating the surgeons trying to remove the sinister material.

“You know, the most important thing you can tell people in your country is that U.S. people paid for many of the weapons used to kill people in Gaza,” Abuhassan said. “And this also is why it’s worse than an earthquake.”

As the world enters the second year of war between Ukraine and Russia, some say it’s unconscionable for peace activists to clamor for a cease-fire and immediate negotiations. Is it more honorable to watch the pile-up of body bags, the funerals, the grave digging, the towns becoming uninhabitable, and the escalation that could lead to a world war or even a nuclear war?

U.S. mainstream media rarely engages with professor Noam Chomsky, whose wise and pragmatic analysis rests on indisputable facts. In June 2022, four months into the Russia-Ukraine war, Chomsky spoke of two options, one being a negotiated diplomatic settlement.

“The other,” he said, “is just to drag it out and see how much everybody will suffer, how many Ukrainians will die, how much Russia will suffer, how many millions of people will starve to death in Asia and Africa, how much we’ll proceed toward heating the environment to the point where there will be no possibility for a livable human existence.”

UNICEF reports how months of escalating devastation and displacement affect Ukrainian children:

“Children continue to be killed, wounded, and deeply traumatized by violence that has sparked displacement on a scale and speed not seen since World War II. Schools, hospitals, and other civilian infrastructure on which they depend continue to be damaged or destroyed. Families have been separated and lives torn apart.”

Estimates of Russian and Ukrainian military casualties vary, but some have suggested that more than 200,000 soldiers on both sides have been killed or wounded.

Gearing up for a major offensive before the spring thaw, Russia’s government announced it would pay a bonus to troops that destroy weapons used by Ukrainian soldiers which were sent from abroad. The blood money bonus is chilling, but on an exponentially greater level, major weapons manufacturers have accrued a steady bonanza of “bonuses” since the war began.

In the last year alone, the United States sent $27.5 billion in military assistance to Ukraine, providing “armored vehicles, including Stryker armored personnel carriers, Bradley infantry fighting vehicles, Mine-Resistant Ambush Protected vehicles, and High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled vehicles.” The package also included air defense support for Ukraine, night vision devices, and small arms ammunition.

Shortly after Western countries agreed to send sophisticated Abrams and Leopard tanks to Ukraine, an adviser to Ukraine’s Defense Ministry, Yuriy Sak, spoke confidently about getting F-16 fighter jets next.

“They didn’t want to give us heavy artillery, then they did. They didn’t want to give us Himars systems, then they did. They didn’t want to give us tanks, now they’re giving us tanks. Apart from nuclear weapons, there is nothing left that we will not get,” he told Reuters.

Ukraine isn’t likely to get nuclear weapons, but the danger of nuclear war was clarified in a Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists statement on January 24, which set the Doomsday Clock for 2023 to ninety seconds before the metaphorical “midnight.” The scientists warned that effects of the Russia-Ukraine war are not limited to an alarming increase in nuclear danger; they also undermine global efforts to combat climate change. “Countries dependent on Russian oil and gas have sought to diversify their supplies and suppliers,” the report notes, “leading to expanded investment in natural gas exactly when such investment should have been shrinking.”

Mary Robinson, the former U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights, says the Doomsday Clock sounds an alarm for all humanity.

“We are on the brink of a precipice,” she said. “But our leaders are not acting at sufficient speed or scale to secure a peaceful and livable planet. From cutting carbon emissions to strengthening arms control treaties and investing in pandemic preparedness, we know what needs to be done. The science is clear, but the political will is lacking. This must change in 2023 if we are to avert catastrophe. We are facing multiple existential crises. Leaders need a crisis mindset.”

As do we all. The Doomsday Clock indicates we’re living on borrowed time. We needn’t “always be this way.”

Over the past decade, I was fortunate to be hosted in dozens of trips to Kabul, Afghanistan, by young Afghans who fervently believed that words could be stronger than weapons. They espoused a simple, pragmatic proverb: “Blood does not wash away blood.”

We owe to future generations every possible effort to renounce all war and protect the planet.

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

*

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

Kathy Kelly is a peace activist and author working to end U.S. military and economic wars. At times, her activism has led her to war zones and prisons.

Featured image is from PressTV

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.

***

Today, River Valley Organizing and more than 100 groups from Ohio, Pennsylvania, and across the country sent a joint letter to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Michael Regan and other EPA leadership with expert recommendations on how to test for dioxins in East Palestine, Ohio and other communities impacted by the Norfolk Southern train derailment disaster. Although the EPA recently ordered environmental testing for dioxins in the aftermath of the Norfolk Southern train derailment, the EPA has not shared the testing plan with the impacted communities for their review and input.

The full text of the letter and list of signers can be found here

Dioxins are persistent bioaccumulative toxic (PBT) chemicals that break down very slowly, build up in the food chain and in our bodies, and can cause cancer and other serious health problems. Dioxins are created when chlorinated chemicals and materials like vinyl chloride and polyvinyl chloride (PVC) plastic are burned—exactly what occurred following the East Palestine derailment. On March 2nd, the EPA finally ordered environmental testing for dioxins in the aftermath of the Norfolk Southern train derailment after pressure from River Valley Organizing, community members, advocates, and elected officials including Senators Sherrod Brown (D-OH) and J. D. Vance (R-OH).

The letter to EPA was developed in collaboration with key groups in Ohio and Pennsylvania such as River Valley Organizing (RVO), along with Toxic-Free Future, and other allies from across the country. In the letter, the groups make recommendations on how this testing should be conducted to improve transparency, rebuild public trust, and comprehensively address possible releases of dioxins from the disaster.

The letter states, in part:

“Communities surrounding and downwind of the derailment have a right to know whether the fire resulted in elevated concentrations of dioxins. The testing must be transparent and comprehensive. This would help demonstrate EPA’s commitment to comprehensively responding to this disaster, rebuilding trust with East Palestine and other impacted communities, and advancing environmental justice.”

River Valley Organizing has released a list of five community demands based on a community meeting attended by more than 200 residents in East Palestine, including independent testing and testing for dioxins. Those demands are outlined here.

“The people of East Palestine and surrounding communities have been clear: they want comprehensive, independent environmental testing – including for dioxins,” said River Valley Organizing Co-Executive Director Amanda Kiger. “This is a key demand that is necessary to build public trust. This community deserves to know what potential toxic chemicals they will have to live with for years to come due to Norfolk Southern’s greed.”

“The people of East Palestine and surrounding impacted communities in Ohio and Pennsylvania have a right to know if they’ve been exposed to these very dangerous chemicals,” said Mike Schade, Director of Mind the Store, a program of Toxic-Free Future. “It is critical that the EPA ensures that the testing process for dioxins is both transparent and comprehensive. Just like PFAS, dioxins are toxic even at very low levels of exposure. And, immediate action must be taken to protect these communities.”

“Expanding the range of testing to include dioxin makes sense,” said Matthew Mehalik, Executive Director of the Breathe Project.  “As more testing data continues to come in, it is clear that there is more to be concerned about than was initially communicated.  Innocent people who have been engulfed by this disaster need to know the extent to which this and other residual chemicals were and are present so that key questions at the foundations of their lives and livelihoods can be addressed and any chance of healing can begin.”

“Dioxin is one of the most toxic chemicals ever tested,” said Stephen Lester, Science Director of the Center for Health, Environment & Justice. “Exposure to dioxins can cause cancer, reproductive damage, developmental problems, immune effects, skin lesions, and other adverse effects. It’s important for the residents of East Palestine that accurate and transparent testing for dioxin be done at the lowest levels possible, so that the residents can begin to understand the risks they face and can make informed decisions to protect their health.”

“Any soil testing plan put together must be under rigorous oversight of the U.S. EPA, including strict quality control measures and split-sample testing so that reported findings can be verified,” said Ted Schettler, M.D., M.P.H., Science Director for the Science and Environmental Health Network. “Norfolk-Southern has obvious financial conflicts of interest in the outcomes of all environmental testing and public health evaluations.”

“It is unfortunate that the EPA took a month to decide to test for dioxins, and then rather than doing it itself, is having Norfolk Southern consultants to do the actual testing,” said Judith Enck, former EPA Regional Administrator and President of Beyond Plastics. “The testing plan is too limited and should be revised to require some testing inside people’s homes, at schools, and air filters in schools and buildings and cars should be tested, not just soil. Rain has likely driven contaminants toward groundwater and that water should be tested over a period of months and year.”

Background on the 2023 Ohio Train Derailment Disaster

Five train cars were punctured and burned containing 115,000 gallons of vinyl chloride in uncontrolled conditions for numerous days, making it possible that dioxins and related chlorinated substances were formed and released into the communities surrounding the disaster site. Four train cars of polyvinyl chloride plastic also burned, also possibly forming dioxins. Vinyl chloride is a known human carcinogen and is primarily used to manufacture PVC (vinyl) plastic materials, such as “luxury vinyl” flooring, piping, siding, packaging, and toys.   There have been elevated levels of dioxins released in other major accidents involving chlorinated chemicals—from the 2004 explosion at the PVC plant in Illiopolis, Illinois, to the 1997 Plastimet PVC recycling fire in Ontario, to the 2001 World Trade Center attacks.

*

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 TFF

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on More Than 100 Groups Demand EPA Conduct Dioxin Testing in Areas Impacted by the East Palestine Train Derailment
  • Tags: ,

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.

***

 

 

 

On Thursday the New York Times ran yet another report about Saudi Arabia’s entry into an “Abraham Accord,” but if only certain conditions could be met. It quoted longtime Israel lobby heavyweight Martin Indyk and reported on the American Israel Public Affairs Committee’s think tank the Washington Institute for Near East Policy “expert” delegation’s visit to Riyadh to finalize a deal. Then on Friday explosive news broke that China had successfully concluded a secret peace agreement between Iran and Saudi Arabia.

The plan aims to restore diplomatic relations by reopening embassies within two months. They also agree to restart their April 2001 Security Cooperation. Also back on the front burner is a 1998 General Agreement covering economic, trade, investment, technology, science, culture, sports and youth ties. It is well worth reading the entire statement.

As it often does, the New York Times quickly updated its March 9 story in an attempt not to look foolish having given too much credence to Israel lobby guidance.

Too late.

Israel and its lobby have for decades attempted to steer the United States into attacking Iran. The neocon policy coup of 2001 was not only a plan to get the U.S. to attack Israel’s arch enemy Iraq, it was also designed to steer the US into attacking seven countries in seven years, most prominently Iran.

When the US invasion of Iraq quickly turned into a quagmire, two American Israel Public Affairs Committee executives tried to place stolen classified Department of Defense information incriminating to Iran into circulation at the Washington Post. The operation failed, the Pentagon colonel leaking classified information was prosecuted, while the longtime AIPAC officials were dismissed.

Israel’s foreign influence operation AIPAC has steadily lobbied against Iran on behalf of Israel including punishing economic warfare from the US Treasury’s OTFI unit, which AIPAC lobbied to set up for just this purpose in the aftermath of 9/11.

The Trump era “Abraham Accords” were yet another attempt to isolate Iran while harnessing Arab countries to Israel’s undue foreign influence and war on Iran machine. Under the scheme, the US sacrifices its remaining international reputation to compel Arab governments to sign diplomatic and commercial accords with Israel their populations overwhelmingly reject. Target governments get access to advanced US weapons, or recognition of illegal land grabs in exchange for normalization.

Saudi Arabia was always the toughest prospect for sticking its head into the yoke of an Abraham Accord. The Saudi Initiative, or Arab Peace Initiative endorsed by the Arab League in 2002, re-endorsed in 2007 and 2017 was a legitimate path toward a somewhat just settlement through the creation of a Palestinian state with East Jerusalem as its capital in exchange for Arab normalization.

Under constant Israel lobby pressure, there was never any serious U.S. consideration of the Saudi led plan. Instead, Israel surrogates Jared Kushner and former real estate lawyer turned ambassador to Israel David M. Friedman among others pushed the so-called “Deal of the Century” that offered tenuous promises of economic development to Palestinians in exchange for relinquishing their rights under international law. A 2019 IRmep poll revealed that 68 percent of Americans would have rejected a similar deal if they were in Palestinians’ shoes, and the deal collapsed.

The Abraham Accords then attempted to “transcend” the Palestine question by making Palestinian claims under international law and the Arab Peace Plan irrelevant.

The new Joint Trilateral Statement signals a rejection of the Abraham Accords and yoking Saudi Arabia to Israel and its lobby’s foreign policy intrigues and domestic meddling. Saudi Arabia may not want to become as subject to Israeli prerogatives as America and has obviously been learning how to avoid it. Saudi Arabia skillfully cushioned the bad news by end-running AIPAC and placated the American military industrial congressional complex by simultaneously agreeing to purchase $35 billion in Boeing passenger jets. That is nearly the same amount as military aid the US agreed to give to Israel gratis over ten years under the Obama administration.

Israel and its lobby will not take this bad news lying down and still have many levers to pull in the region, establishment US media, Congress, the State Department, and the White House. But for now, the Saudi rejection of the Abraham Accords could signal the way out for UAE, squeezed by Israel and AIPAC to invest in sketchy Israeli schemes such as “Project Jonah,” and get into a war footing with Iran. UAE may be inspired and try to disentangle themselves from the Israeli undue influence and Palestine justice minimization machine.

*

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.

Grant F. Smith is the director of the Institute for Research: Middle Eastern Policy in Washington and the author of the 2019 book, The Israel Lobby Enters State Government: Rise of the Virginia Israel Advisory Board, available in paperback and audio book.

Featured image is from Antiwar.com

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The Dilemma of Opening Indonesia-Israel Diplomatic Relations

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.

***

The Pakistani people can compel China into taking urgent action behind the scenes to de-escalate this crisis by publicly calling upon it to do so, which would also create the optics of their country’s US-backed fascist post-modern coup regime literally shooting at Chinese-friendly peaceful protesters, thus forcing China to get diplomatically involved if it isn’t already.

The fascist authorities who were installed in Pakistan following last April’s US-orchestrated but superficially “democratic” post-modern coup against former Prime Minister Imran Khan risk replicating the East Pakistan tragedy if they don’t immediately stop shooting at their own people. The ousted leader’s supporters are rallying around his residence to prevent the local police from serving him an arrest warrant on a trumped-up graft charge that was concocted against him as “lawfare”.

Instead of reconsidering the wisdom of clashing with unarmed and purely peaceful civilians, the fascist authorities ordered their goons to assault them all with tear gas, rubber bullets, and reportedly even live ammunition that was shot into the air according to some accounts. This de facto declaration of war by the fascist post-modern coup regime on its own people could dangerously place the country’s political-security trajectory on the irreversible path towards civil war.

Former Prime Minister Khan warned as much in a tweet on Wednesday that he shared alongside a photo of himself sitting down in front of a pile of tear gas canisters that were shot at his home the other day. He wrote that

“My house has been under heavy attack since yesterday afternoon. Latest attack by Rangers, pitting the largest pol party against the army. This is what PDM and the enemies of Pakistan want. No lessons learnt from the East Pakistan tragedy.”

The military-intelligence establishment must urgently rescind their de facto declaration of war on the Pakistani people, do whatever’s required behind the scenes to have the fascist post-modern coup’s leading figures resign as the first step towards national reconciliation, and then hold early elections. It’s only through this three-step process that the worst-case scenario of replicating the East Pakistan tragedy can potentially be avoided since anything less than that makes this more likely by the hour.

One of the most populous countries in the world is being pushed towards civil conflict by those conspirators who illegally usurped power with the US’ help last April and subsequently crashed the economy. This factual framing of Pakistan’s latest political-security dynamics proves that the increasingly violent clashes provoked by the fascist post-modern coup regime against its own people could lead to a global crisis in the event that they soon spiral even further out of control.

If the military-intelligence establishment continues waging war on the Pakistani people, then their victims should consider publicly calling on their iron brothers in China to urgently rein them in as a last resort to avert the worst-case scenario that former Prime Minister Khan just warned about. China’s diplomatic miracle in brokering the IranianSaudi rapprochement last week proves that it has the political capabilities to peacefully resolve the Pakistani Crisis if the people request for it to do so.

After all, the People’s Republic also stands to geostrategically lose if that neighboring nation descends into civil war. The China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), which is the flagship project of Beijing’s Belt & Road Initiative (BRI) that’s aimed at creating a Community of Common Destiny for Mankind, would practically become inoperable should that happen. Not only could that block off China’s shortcut to the Indian Ocean, but it would deal an immense blow to its soft power and BRI’s reputation as well.

Without intending to come off as “conspiratorial”, observers can’t preclude the possibility that the fascist post-modern coup regime’s US backers encouraged them to provoke a civil war partially for the purpose of advancing America’s anti-Chinese “containment” strategy via unconventional means. At the very least, its military-intelligence establishment wouldn’t so publicly violate its people’s human rights and possibly even countenance war crimes against them without the US’ advance approval.

This means that the latest escalation of the nearly year-long Pakistani Crisis is connected to the US just like its origin is, thus extending credence to the preceding concerns that the events which Washington set into motion last April are actually part of its larger Hybrid War on China. This South Asian state was knocked out of the geostrategic game at the most sensitive moment in the global systemic transition shortly after this process accelerated following the start of Russia’s special operation.

That outcome hasn’t just proven disastrous for the Pakistani people who’ve suffered as a result of the crippling economic crisis that followed, but it also unexpectedly offset a key pillar of China’s grand strategy related to its reliance on CPEC as a non-US-controlled shortcut to the Indian Ocean. Furthermore, both the political and especially economic dimensions of the US-provoked Pakistani Crisis also raised serious doubts about CPEC’s future as well as that of BRI more broadly.

Nobody can therefore deny that the US’ regime change in Pakistan last year had very serious consequences for China that are becoming worse by the hour as that country’s fascist post-modern regime risks pushing it into civil war after de facto declaring war on its own people. China might already be working behind the scenes to try and de-escalate the latest and thus far most dangerous phase of this nearly year-long crisis on its borders, but it would still help a lot if Pakistanis publicly requested this.

That’s because this could compel China into taking urgent action behind close doors if it hasn’t already done so, not to mention creating the optics of Pakistan’s US-backed fascist post-modern coup regime literally shooting at Chinese-friendly peaceful protesters, which would force China to get involved. No other party apart from the US has the influence to peacefully resolve this crisis, and seeing as how Washington’s interests are perversely advanced by exacerbating it, the onus thus falls on Beijing.

Practically speaking, China has a credible chance of brokering peace and thus averting another Pakistani Civil War, but this best-case scenario can only happen if the fascist post-modern coup regime has the political will to save their country from this US-engineered collapse. If they do, then China can simply propose the previously suggested three-step peace plan related to immediately ceasing fire against unarmed peaceful protesters, creating a caretake government, and holding early elections.

The fascist post-modern coup regime might agree to this in exchange for a Chinese bailout that could replace the IMF’s continually delayed one that’s full of strings and has thus far been withheld by that body’s US leader for the purpose of keeping its proxies in check in case they consider “defecting”. That last-mentioned observation is precisely what China would be tempting them to do, basically “defect” from the US in exchange for much-needed aid and thus averting the seemingly impending civil war.

The latest and thus far most dangerous phase of the nearly year-long Pakistani Crisis is rife with unpredictability since everything is moving so rapidly right now so it’s difficult to predict what might come next. In any case, it would greatly help the cause of peace and preventing a replication of the East Pakistani tragedy that former Prime Minister Khan just warned about if his unarmed peaceful protesters publicly called on China to diplomatically intervene and prevent this from becoming a global crisis.

*

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.

This article was originally published on Andrew Korybko’s Newsletter.

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

He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from Countercurrents

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Pakistan’s Fascist Post-Modern Coup Regime Risks Replicating the East Pakistan Tragedy
  • Tags:

The Cell Phone Is a Pair of Red High Heels

March 15th, 2023 by Edward Curtin

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.

***

 

It is comical how easily one can be ignored for pointing out that new technology is dangerous and fetishistic.  So-called “smart” cell phones are a prime example.  For years I have been pointing out their dangers on many levels. To say most people are devoted to them is an understatement.  Maybe it is an exaggeration to say they revere them, but if asked, they will say they couldn’t live without them.  It’s sort of like saying I don’t revere my partner but couldn’t live without her or him.  Ah love!

But what’s love got to do with it?  Love and romance are out of date. Sex is a just a quick fill-in when there’s a break in the technological action.  Creative and erotic energy is pissed away on trivia.  Being lost and confused and having no time is in. But only the latter can be admitted.

Busy busy busy!  Beep beep beep as the eyes go down to the screens.  Thumbs athumbing or voices talking to the gadgets, while the busy beavers forget who is under whose thumbs.

Eros is replaced by Chaos while Aphrodite weeps in the woods, but no one hears.

Pass the remote.  The silence stings.

We are children of Greece but we forget its truths in our time of digital dementia, if we ever knew them.  Beauty is banished for ugliness and technology is worshipped as a god.  Art has become meaningless unless it’s falsely connected to celebrities and entertainment culture. There are no limits; everything is permitted.  Hubris reigns.  Even the thought that Digital IDs, Central Bank Digital Currencies, and vaccination passports are on the agenda does not dissuade the lovers.  It’s a game of control abetted by radical stupidity, and it is not a mistake, as Dylan, contrary to his public posturing and corporate imaging, lets his artist’s soul sing:

There are no mistakes in life some people say
It is true sometimes you can see it that way
But people don’t live or die, people just float

Floating in a void of gibberish and double-talk, heads barely above the water, alienated from reality while fixated on the Spectacle, while sometimes when panicky looking for a life preserver but never to the right source, this is where technology and capitalism have taken us.  On any issue – the bombing of the Nord Stream pipelines, the facts about the U. S. proxy-war against Russia in Ukraine, Covid-19, the economy, etc. –  the mainstream media daily pumps out contradictory stories to confuse the public whose attention span has been reduced to a scrolling few seconds.  Sustained attention and the ability to dissect the endless propaganda is a thing of the past and receding faster than the computer jargon of milliseconds and nanoseconds.  Planned chaos is the proper name for the daily news reports.

Fetishism, in all its forms, rules.

What else is the cell phone but a pair of red high heels?

What else are all those phone photos millions are constantly taking as they antique reality to store in their mausoleums of loss?

What about the constant messaging, the being in touch that never touches?

Despite the fact that everything digital is extremely ephemeral, the smart phone itself seems god-like, a way to transcend reality while entering it. “My phone is my rock, and my fortress, and my deliverer; my God, my strength, in whom I will trust; my buckler, and the horn of my salvation, and my high tower.”

A toehold on “reality.”  A machine in hand that saves nine – million abstractions.  And prevents boredom from overwhelming minds intent on floating, because, as Walter Benjamin wrote in “The Storyteller,” “Boredom is the dream bird that hatches the egg of experience.  A rustling in the leaves drives him away.”  Vibrating and dinging phones will suffice to disturb that dream bird of creative silence that is the only antidote to floating in the void of noise.

But fetishes come in many forms because the need for false gods is so attractive.  To think you have a way to control reality is addictive.

I recently saw an article about an auction sale at Sotheby’s in New York of the movie stars Paul Newman’s and Joanne Woodward’s personal effects.  These include Woodward’s (who is still alive and suffering from Alzheimer’s disease) wedding ring and dress, the shackles Newman wore in the film “Cool Hand Luke,” a suit from his racing car days, etc. – over three hundred items in all.  According to a Sotheby spokesperson, the Newman-Woodward family, who will receive the proceeds, are doing this to “continue telling the stories of their parents.”  Don’t laugh.  The article mentions that one of Paul’s watches sold at auction a few years ago for $17.8 million dollars and another for $5.4 million.

So I ask: what are the wealthy purchasers of these objects really buying?  And the answer is quite obvious.  They are buying fetishes or transference objects that they think will grant them a piece of the immortal stars’ magic.  They are buying idols, Oscars, illusions to worship and to touch in place of reality. Ways to enter the cultural hero system.

Ernest Becker put it this way in The Denial of Death: “The fetish object represents the magical means for transforming animality into something transcendent and thereby assuring a liberation of the personality from the standard bland and earthbound flesh.”  If one can possess a piece of the demi-god’s power – an autograph, a watch, a ring – one will somehow live forever.  It’s not about “trusting the science” but about believing in the magic.

Newman’s daughters who have pushed this sale, as well as a new documentary, The Last Movie Stars, and the memoir Paul Newman: The Extraordinary Life of an Ordinary Man – compiled from their father’s transcripts of conversations with his friend, Stewart Stern, over thirty years ago – have done something supremely ironic.  On one hand, they are selling their father’s and mother’s memorabilia, allegedly to tell their stories, through things that are fetishes for those desperate for holy secular relics, while at the same time publishing a book in which Paul honestly knocks himself off the pedestal and says he was always an insecure guy, numbed by his childhood and the false face Hollywood created for him.  In other words, an ordinary man with talent who was very successful in Hollywood’s dream factory, where illusions are the norm.

“I was my mother’s Pinocchio, the one that went wrong,” he tells us right away, leading us to the revelations of his human, all-too-human reality.  His was a life of facades and dead emotions, false faces, and his struggles to become who he really was.  He tells us he wasn’t his film roles, not Hud or Brick or Fast Eddie or Cool Hand Luke, but he wasn’t really the guy playing them either.  He was a double enigma, an actor playing an actor. He says:

I’ve always had a sense of being an observer of my own life. . . . I have a sense of watching something, but not of living something.  It’s like looking at a photograph that’s out of focus . . . . It’s spacey; I guess I always feel spaced out.

His courageous honesty reminds me of Friedrich Nietzsche’s final work, Ecce Home (Behold the Man), not because Paul waxes philosophical but because he’s brutally honest.  If a movie star’s truths strike you as not comparable to those of a great philosopher, I would suggest considering that Nietzsche’s key concern was the theater and how we are all actors, a few genuine and most false.  In The Twilight of the Idols he asked, “Are you genuine?  Or merely an actor?  A representative?  Or that which is represented?  In the end, perhaps you are merely a copy of an actor.”

Paul Newman lived for 17 years after speaking to his friend Stewart Stern.  I like to think those conversations helped him break through to becoming who he really was.  From what I know of the man, he was generous to a fault and did much to ease others’ pains, especially to bring joy to children with cancer.  I think he changed.  While his things that are on the auction block now serve as illusionary fetishes for those looking for crutches, I believe he finally threw away the mental crutches he used when playing Brick in Cat on A Hot Tin Roof.  Perhaps the wooden ones will be in the auction and some desperado will bid on them.

We know that with the planned chaos being used to shock people into submission through fear, there has been a drastic rise in depression and mental distress of all kinds, especially since the Covid-19 propaganda rollout with its lockdowns and deadly jabs.

The magic anti-depression pellets dispensed for decades by the criminal pharmaceutical cartels can not begin to contain this sense of helplessness that continues to spread.  They too are fetishes and ways to divert people’s attention from the social and spiritual sources of their anguish.

There is something very chilling in the way the reality of flesh and blood humans living in a natural world has been replaced by all types of fetishes – drugs, objects, celebrities, machines, etc.  While all are connected, the cell phone is key because of its growing centrality to the elites’ push for a digitized world.  No matter how many articles and news reports about Artificial Intelligence (AI) that appear, it is all just a gloss on a long-developing problem that goes back many years – machine worship.

“Smart” cell phones are the current apotheotic control mechanism promoted as liberation.  They are a form of slavery promoted by the World Economic Forum, their bosses, and their minions.  As Alastair Crooke puts it, “It is that a majority of the people are so numbed and passive – and so in lockstep – as the state inches them through a series of repeating emergencies towards a new kind of authoritarianism, that they don’t fuss greatly, or even notice much.”  Freedom is slavery.

Here is Ernest Becker again:

Boss [Medard Boss, Swiss psychanalyst and psychiatrist] says that the terrible guilt feelings of the depressed person are existential, that is, they represent failure to live one’s own life, to fulfill one’s own potential because of the twisting and turning to be ‘good’ in the eyes of the other.  The other calls the tune to one’s eligibility for immortality, and so the other takes up one’s unlived life. . . . In short, even if one is a very guilty hero he is at least a hero in the same hero-system [personal and cultural].  The depressed person uses guilt to hold onto his objects and to keep his situation unchanged.  Otherwise he would have to analyze it or be able to move out of it and transcend it. . . . Better guilt and self-punishment when you cannot punish the other – when you cannot even dare to accuse him [the social system], as he represents the immortality ideology with which you have identified.  If your god is discredited, you yourself die; the evil must be in yourself and not in your god, so that you may live.

I wonder if I should bid on the shackles Paul Newman wore as the prisoner in Cool Hand Luke.  They are probably the cheapest item on the auction menu.  I think they will remind me that the Captain was wrong when he said to Luke, “What we’ve got here is failure to communicate.”

“Where are you calling from,” she asked.  “My cell,” he said.

“Of course,” she answered.

*

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.

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

Edward Curtin is a prominent author, researcher and sociologist based in Western Massachusetts.  He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG). 

Featured image is from Environmental Health Trust

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The Cell Phone Is a Pair of Red High Heels
  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on What’s on the Table for the Kishida-Yoon Summit?

Political Insanity: The Real Face of the GOP’s “Non-interventionism”: Withdrawal of U.S. Troops from Syria Should be Redeployed to “Fight China”

By Kurt Nimmo, March 14, 2023

I am convinced Anna Paulina Luna, a republican representative from Florida, is a Lunatic. It has nothing to do with the Moon. Here she is, calling for the end of the world as we know it.

Geoengineering: Romanian General Emil Strainu on the Terrifying Possibilities of Geo-warfare

By General Emil Strainu and Dragan Vujicic, March 14, 2023

The topic of geoengineering and geowarfare always becomes “hot” after major “natural” disasters that hit the world from time to time. Romanian senator Diana Iovanović Sošaka is the first politician in Europe to warn of a series of strange coincidences that followed devastating earthquakes in Turkey and Syria in which tens of thousands of people died.

Six War Mongering Think Tanks and the Military Contractors that Fund Them

By Amanda Yee, March 14, 2023

From producing reports and analysis for U.S. policy-makers, to enlisting representatives to write op-eds in corporate media, to providing talking heads for corporate media to interview and give quotes, think tanks play a fundamental role in shaping both U.S. foreign policy and public perception around that foreign policy.

Crisis in Middle East and North Africa: US-UK Encroaching on Conduct of Elections in Libya. Interview with Journalist Martin Jay

By Martin Jay and Steven Sahiounie, March 14, 2023

The deal signed in China on March 10 was a surprise to the US and their western allies. They didn’t see that coming, as years of secret talks culminated in a successful restoring of full diplomatic relations between the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Withdraw From Syria Should Have Been a “Slam Dunk”

By Renee Parsons, March 14, 2023

Relying on an outdated foreign policy document of lapsed authority, the US House of Representatives rejected HR 21 by a lopsided 321 – 103 vote affirming that American belligerents span both political parties when the Uniparty needs to coalesce.

How U.S. Military Spending Works

By David Swanson, March 14, 2023

Biden proposes a massive increase in military spending — above and beyond both what he proposed the year before and what the Congress increased that to. If you look at U.S. military spending according to SIPRI in constant 2021 dollars from 1949 to now (all the years they provide, with their calculation adjusting for inflation), Obama’s 2011 record will probably fall this year.

Moveable Multipolarity in Moscow: Ridin’ the ‘Newcoin’ Train

By S. Tzu and Pepe Escobar, March 14, 2023

Ah, the joys of the Big Circle Line (BKL, in Cyrillic): circumnavigating the whole of Moscow for 71 km and 31 stations: from Tekstilshchiki – in the old textile quarter – to Sokolniki – a suprematist/constructivist gallery (Malevich lives!); from Rizhskaya – with its gorgeous steel arches – to Maryina Roscha – with its 130 meter-long escalator.

Apple: “Forced Labor” in India with Foxconn. Hourly Wage 88 Cents

By Dr. Werner Rügemer, March 14, 2023

Apple has its latest iPhones 12 and 13, and since this year also iPhone 14, finally assembled in the South Indian special economic zone Chennai in the state of Tamil Nadu. Numerous Indian electronics companies are established here, supplying Western car companies such as BMW and Ford, and digital companies such as Nokia, Dell, Hewlett Packard, Microsoft and Apple.

Interfering in Elections? Israel Uses High-technology to Influence Results

By Philip Giraldi, March 14, 2023

A week ago an interesting story surfaced briefly in the news about how the developing Republican presidential candidate bids by Nikki Haley and others had been attacked over the past eleven months by possibly as many as hundreds of thousands of false automated personas, referred to in the trade as “bots,” on Twitter and other internet based social media.

History: The Three Partitions of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. 1772, 1793 and 1795

By Dr. Vladislav B. Sotirović, March 14, 2023

Historical Poland (in fact, the Polish-Lithuanian Republic of Two Nations) became divided during the three partitions in 1772, 1793, and 1795 between the Kingdom of Prussia, the Habsburg Monarchy (later Austrian Empire and Austrian-Hungarian Monarchy), and the Russian Empire.

  • Posted in NO READ MORE LINK
  • Comments Off on Selected Articles: Political Insanity: The Real Face of the GOP’s “Non-interventionism”: Withdrawal of U.S. Troops from Syria Should be Redeployed to “Fight China”

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.

***

CNBC just announced: “Pfizer CEO says it will be able to deliver Seagen’s cancer therapy at a scale not seen before with $43 billion deal” (click here)

Seagen is a “leading developer” of medicine called antibody-drug conjugates, or ADCs, which are designed to kill cancer cells and spare healthy ones. ADCs use antibodies to deliver small molecule drugs directly to a tumor site, which may reduce side effects and offer greater efficacy, according to Seagen’s website.

What is Seagen’s Cancer treatment?

Sounds about right for Pfizer. But this warning is straight from Seagen’s website.

First, this is nothing like mRNA. These are monoclonal antibodies carrying cytotoxic drug molecules to tumor receptors; once they bind they get internalized into the tumor cell, release the cytotoxic compound which halts cell replication and instructs the cell to die (apoptosis). It sounds good in theory and it has been tried (unsuccessfully) many times before.

It’s important to stress that this is not a new technology, it has been around for at least a decade.

Problems with Antibody-Drug Conjugates (ADCs)

Early attempts at developing antibody-drug conjugates had disappointing results, largely because the linkers (between the antibody and the drugs) were not stable enough to get the cytotoxic agents to the cancer cells. If the toxins release early, they can kill off healthy cells instead of cancerous ones.

“One challenge is that cells often have proteases—enzymes that degrade proteins—and can split from the back end of the antibody, where the chemotherapy is bound to the antibody”

Monoclonal antibodies come with a whole list of side effects, which I won’t cover in this article, but they are covered well in this Uptodate article (click here).

FDA has been quietly approving these cancer treatments during 2019-2021 

To date, the FDA has approved a dozen ADCs to treat cancer, with more than 100 in development in different clinical trials. The antibody-drug conjugates now available are being used to treat forms of leukemia, lymphoma, breast cancer, cervical cancer, bladder cancer and multiple myeloma. Seven received their approvals from 2019 to 2021, including: (click here)(click here)

Profit potential

Seagen will bulk up Pfizer’s cancer treatment portfolio, bringing four approved cancer therapies with combined sales of nearly $2 billion in 2022. Seagen’s top seller Adcetris, which treats lymph system cancers, brought in $839 million alone in sales last year.

Pfizer added that Seagen could contribute more than $10 billion in risk-adjusted sales by 2030, “with potential for significant growth” beyond that year.

The deal comes as Pfizer prepares for a decline in Covid-related sales this year.

It will help Pfizer sharpen its focus on oncology, a field the company believes will be the industry’s biggest growth market.

Pfizer’s oncology division raked in $12.1 billion in revenue last year. The company has 24 approved treatments in the division.

Pfizer CEO Bourla emphasized during the interview that cancer’s impact reaches far beyond the patients themselves: “If not patients, they will be affected as husband or wife, they will be affected as daughter or son.

My Take… 

This looks like an attempt by Pfizer to eventually monopolize or corner the market on what it perceives to be the most profitable novel cancer treatments in the future.

With this acquisition, Pfizer will own 5 of the 13 FDA approved ADCs with many more in the pipeline.

Pfizer’s focus seems to be on leukemias and lymphomas, which are “coincidentally” skyrocketing in COVID-19 mRNA vaccinated individuals, as well as breast cancers and cervical cancers, which have also spiked since the rollout of COVID-19 vaccines.

As I have grown more cynical over the last three years, it would not surprise me in the least, to learn that Pfizer has perfectly positioned itself to profit off the cancers that its first mRNA vaccine, the COVID-19 vaccine, caused in the first place.

Interestingly, Pfizer CEO Bourla expects virtually everyone to be impacted by cancer going forward, and if you’re not one of every three people directly diagnosed with cancer, you will be a family member to a cancer patient.

And Pfizer will be right there to profit from everyone’s misery.

*

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 TrialSiteNews

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.

***

Luna is Latin for Moon. Lunatic is an insane person, once thought to be governed by phases of the Moon.

I am convinced Anna Paulina Luna, a republican representative from Florida, is a Lunatic. It has nothing to do with the Moon.

Here she is, calling for the end of the world as we know it.

That is to say, criminal troops, because the occupation of eastern Syria is illegal. They are to be pulled, not because stealing oil and killing Syrians is wrong, but because they will be needed when the USG declares war (without congressional authorization) against China.

Luna, Lunatic, indeed.

Because we live in a nation afflicted by amnesia, the Pentagon believes it can get away with espousing the following nonsense.

Naturally, no mention of SouthCom and its “theater architecture” in Latin America and the Caribbean, or its long history of military intervention, sponsored coups, training death squads, illegally financing murderous proxy thugs (the “Contras”), and supporting brutal dictators (for instance, Augusto Pinochet, Anastasio Somoza, General Castelo Branco, Jorge Ubico, General Manuel Noriega, Jorge Rafael Videla).

It began with James Monroe and his Secretary of State John Quincy Adams and was later codified (by partisan Democrats) as “Manifest Destiny,” an imperialist and expansionist policy supposedly endowed by USG “providence” (or “divinity”).

China has not established military bases in Latin America.

On the other hand…

Also left unmentioned —China has one military base beyond its borders, in Djibouti, in the Horn of Africa.

“There has got to be a role for China legitimately as an economic world power, but they’ve got to play by global rules,” declared Adm. Craig. S. Faller, SouthCom commander, in 2020.

Ah, yes. “Global rules,” the same “rules” stacked in favor of neoliberalism and the “exceptional nation,” by far the most aggressive, murderous, thieving, and as exemplified by Ms. Luna, criminally insane nation in the world.

*

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Political Insanity: The Real Face of the GOP’s “Non-interventionism”: Withdrawal of U.S. Troops from Syria Should be Redeployed to “Fight China”
  • Tags: ,

Conspiracy Theories Become Conspiracy Facts

March 14th, 2023 by Ramesh Thakur

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.

***

At first slowly but in recent weeks with seemingly gathering pace, two trends have emerged. On the one hand, many of the core claims behind lockdowns, masks, and vaccines are unravelling and the prevailing narrative has been in retreat on all three fronts. But there is still a long way to go, as indicated by the cussed refusal of the Biden administration to let Novak Djokovic play at Indian Wells.

On the other hand, the explosive lockdown files in the UK have blown apart the official narrative. We the sceptics were right in our dark suspicions of the motives, scientific basis, and evidence behind government decisions, but even we did not fully grasp just how venal, evil, and utterly contemptuous of their citizens some of the bastards in charge of our health, lives, livelihoods, and children’s future were. “Hell is empty, And all the devils are here” (Shakespeare, The Tempest) indeed. They will have to build a new circle of hell to accommodate all the perpetrators of evil let loose upon the world since 2020.

A mistake is when you spill coffee or take the wrong exit ramp off the highway. Lockdown was a policy pushed hard by politicians and health chiefs even against scientific dissent and substantial public opposition, using tools from every tyrants’ playbook of disinformation and lies whilst attacking and censoring truth. The depth of public opposition went unrecognized because the fear-peddling media colluded in not reporting on protests.

Genuine mistakes were few and are forgivable. Most were deliberate distortions of reality, outright falsehoods, and a systematic campaign to terrorize people into compliance with arbitrary diktats interspersed with efforts to vilify, silence, and cancel all critics by using the full powers of the state to co-opt, bribe, and bully. All in pursuit of the most maddening public policy insanity of modern times because it ignored existing canons of pandemic planning in blind panic just when calm was most needed. To call lockdown a mistake is to trivialize the shock to society.

Before coming to that, a few preliminary observations to summarize where we are at.

What is Now Known and Generally but Not Universally Admitted

Covid is now endemic. It will circulate throughout the world and keep returning with mutating variants. People who have been infected and/or vaccinated can contract and transmit it. Consequently we have little choice but to learn to live with it. What is important is to make sure the right policy lessons are learnt so that never again, neither for a novel coronavirus nor for any other infectious disease, do we go down the path of public policy insanity to lock up an entire city or country with the discovery of 1-10 cases and bring all social, cultural and economic activity to a shuddering halt – or give total power and control to sociopaths and psychopaths.

Meanwhile what is particularly striking is just how many suspicions voiced by sceptics from early 2020 onwards and mocked as conspiracy theories have turned into plausible claims and accepted facts:

  1. The virus may have originated in the laboratory of the Wuhan Institute of Virology;
  2. Covid modeling was dodgy and dressed up outliers as reasonable case scenarios;
  3. Lockdowns don’t work;
  4. Lockdowns kill through perverse consequences and inflict other damaging harms, including interruptions to critical life-saving children’s immunization campaigns in developing countries;
  5. School closures are particularly bad policy. They did not curb transmission but they did cause long-term harm to children’s education, development and emotional well-being;
  6. Masks are ineffective. They stop neither infection nor transmission;
  7. Infection confers natural immunity at least as effective as vaccination;
  8. Covid vaccines do not stop infection, hospitalization, or even death;
  9. Covid vaccines do not stop transmission;
  10. The safety of vaccines using new technology had not been definitively established, neither for the short term nor for the long term;
  11. Vaccine harms are real and substantial but safety signals have been summarily dismissed and ignored;
  12. mRNA vaccines are not confined to the arm but spread rapidly to other parts, including reproductive organs, with potentially adverse consequences for fertility and births;
  13. The harm-benefit equation of vaccines is, like the disease burden itself, steeply age-differentiated. Healthy young people did not need either initial or booster doses;
  14. Vaccination mandates don’t increase vaccine take-up;
  15. Vaccine mandates can fuel cross-vaccine hesitancy;
  16. Suppression of sceptical and dissenting voices will lessen trust in public health officials, experts and institutions, and possibly also in scientists more generally;
  17. Estimates of “Long Covid” were inflated (CDC estimate of 20 percent of Covid infections against UK study’s estimate of 3 percent) by using generalized, non-specific symptoms like mild fatigue and weakness;
  18. Health policy interventions involve policy trade-offs just like all other policy choices. Cost-benefit analysis is therefore an essential prerequisite, not an optional add-on.

The Lockdown Files

The last three years have seen lives lost in the millions with tens of millions more yet to be accounted for in the coming years, civilized lifestyles destroyed, previously inviolate freedoms shredded, civil liberties turned into privileges to be granted on the whim of bureaucrats, law enforcement officers corrupted into street thugs brutalizing the very people they are sworn to serve and protect, businesses destroyed, economies wrecked, bodily integrity violated.

The Lockdown Files, a treasure trove of over 100,000 WhatsApp messages in real time between all the principal policymakers on Covid in England while Matt Hancock was the Secretary of Health (2020–26 June 2021), offer an unparalleled and gripping window into the amoral and cynical arrogance circulating in the corridors of power. The daily drip-feed of revelations in the Telegraph is akin to watching with fascinated horror a slow-motion train wreck. Schadenfreude doesn’t come any more delicious.

The files are littered with flippant remarks, mocking comments and contempt for citizens. Among the revelations about the Johnson government:

  • The government knew there was no “robust rationale” for including children in the “rule of six” (the maximum number of people who could meet at any given time), but backed the controversial policy anyway.
  • Facemasks were introduced in secondary schools in England after Johnson was told it was “not worth an argument” with Scotland’s Nicola Sturgeon over the issue, despite England’s Chief Medical Officer (CMO) Chris Whitty saying there were “no very strong reasons” to do so. In other words, political calculations were knowingly prioritized over schoolchildren’s needs.
  • A plan to lift restrictions were dropped after Johnson was told it would be “too far ahead of public opinion.”
  • Consultants were paid over £1 million a day for more than a year on the totally ineffectual test and trace program, turning the scheme into the embezzlement of public funds to line private pockets.

We now know just how punch drunk on tyranny the political, bureaucratic, scientific, and journalist class was during the pandemic. The ruling elites, when liberated from democratic accountability and media scrutiny, morphed seamlessly into morally cavalier and inhumane petty tyrants. Averse to alternative ways of thinking outside the echo chamber, they developed neuralgia to any idea that might challenge lockdown fanaticism.

Lockdown sceptics like the authors of the Great Barrington Declaration (GBD) who argued for the elderly and frail to be protected were demonized as dangerous “Covid deniers” who wanted to “let it rip” in a callous and cruel strategy of herd immunity. But government officials whose policies had a direct, catastrophic impact on the health of the elderly and frail were treated as heroes and unimpeachable voices of moral authority.

Sociopath, Psychopath, or Both?

Among the revelations about Hancock:

  • More than 40,000 residents of care homes in England died with Covid. Hancock was advised by Whitty in April 2020 to test everyone entering the care homes. He rejected the advice because testing capacity was limited and, for political (PR) reasons, he prioritized reaching his grandiose, self-imposed target of 100,000 daily tests in the lower risk general community over protecting the care home residents, despite repeated claims of having thrown a “protective ring” around the homes. Patients discharged into care homes from hospitals were tested but not those coming in from the community. That is, “focussed protection” of the GBD was the right way to go. Instead Hancock rubbished the GBD and belittled its three eminent epidemiologist authors.
  • Social care minister Helen Whateley told Hancock that stopping visits to care homes by spouses was “inhumane” and risked the elderly residents “just giving up” after prolonged isolation, but he refused to budge.
  • He rejected advice in November 2020 to shift from 14-day Covid quarantinefor people who had been in close contact with anyone infected, to five days of testing because it would “imply we’ve been getting it wrong.” Talk of a sunk cost fallacy. Over 20 million people in total were told to self-isolate even if they had no symptoms. God I feel vindicated for refusing flatly to join Australia’s clunky test and trace program.
  • In a discussion on how to ensure the public complied with ever-changing lockdown restrictions, Hancock suggested “We frighten the pants off everyone” and Project Fear was born. Simon Case, Britain’s most senior civil servant, said the “fear/guilt factor” was “vital” in “ramping up the messaging” during the third lockdown in January 2021.
  • Informed of the emergence of the alpha/Kent variant in December 2020, Hancock and his aides canvassed the ideal time to “deploy” the new variant in order to sustain public fear of the virus to ensure continued compliance with directives.
  • A member of his team asked if they could “lock up” Nigel Farage after he tweeted a video of himself at a pub in Kent, because the troublesome politician was such a thorn in the government’s side.
  • Hancock and Case mocked people forced to isolate in quarantine hotels, joking about returning travelers being “locked up” in “shoe box” rooms. Case wished he could “see some of the faces of people coming out of first class and into a premier inn shoe box.” Informed by Hancock that 149 people had entered “Quarantine Hotels due to their own free will,” Case replied: “Hilarious.”
  • Hancock fought furious internal battles to hog the vaccine media limelight. He preened about his pictures in the media and boasted how the pandemic could propel his career “into the next league.”
  • He told other ministers to “get heavy with the police” to enforce lockdown restrictions and then boasted that “The plod got their marching orders.” This raises questions about the legality of interfering with the operational instructions of police.
  • Intoxicated by his own brilliance and infallibility, Hancock attacked vaccine czar Dame Kate Bingham, the chief of the National Health Service (NHS) Lord Stevens, and CEO of the Wellcome Trust (and now top scientist at the WHO) Sir Jeremy Farrar.
  • He schemed with his aides, with the help of a secret spreadsheet, to deny rebellious party MPs funding for pet projects in their constituencies if they did not fall in line, including a new centre for disabled children and adults.

I can relate therefore to this online comment on one of these stories in theTelegraph: “Hancock was intellectually stunted pondlife before the pandemic and still is now, but with more slime and a bit of a stink to him.” Or, to put it in more technical language: Hancock comes across as an ego-driven total f…wit.

The state criminalized quotidian activities like sitting on a bench in the park, walking on the beach and meeting with extended family. Public health messaging was weaponized to normalize and sacralize spirit-sapping levels of social isolation. Even East Germany’s Stasi did not stop the elderly from hugging their grandchildren. Elderly patients were forced to die alone and surviving family members were banned from saying final farewells and denied the solace of a full funeral.

Hancock was able to get away with exercising his lust for power because his prime minister, Boris Johnson, proved to be lazy, weak, and vacillating. The vivid description of Johnson by fired top aide Dominic Cummings – an out of control “shopping trolley” lurching from side to side in a supermarket aisle, depending on who he last talked to – has been amply validated by the leaked files. The instinctual libertarian rapidly morphed from a lockdown sceptic into a zealot.

Lessons

The Lockdown Files confirm that politics informed the policymakers in most of the key decisions on how to manage the pandemic. Accordingly, while medical specialists can debate the technical details of different medical approaches, policy specialists should be among the lead assessors in evaluating the justifications for and results and effectiveness of the policy interventions.

The existing frameworks, processes and institutional safeguards under which liberal democracies operated until 2020 had ensured expanding freedoms, growing prosperity, an enviable lifestyle, quality of life and educational and health outcomes without precedent in human history. Abandoning them in favour of a tightly centralized small group of decision-makers liberated from any external scrutiny, contestability, and accountability produced both a dysfunctional process and suboptimal outcomes: very modest gains for much long-lasting pain.

The sooner we return to the conviction that good process ensures better long-term outcomes and acts as a check against suboptimal outcomes alongside curbs on abuses of power and wastage of public funds, the better.

Interventions rooted in panic, driven by political machinations, and using all the levers of state power to terrify citizens and muzzle critics in the end needlessly killed massive numbers of the most vulnerable while putting the vast low-risk majority under house arrest. The benefits are questionable but the harms are increasingly obvious. The Johnson government in general and Hancock in particular revalidate Lord Acton’s astute observation that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

They weren’t following the science but Hancock’s ego and career ambitions. He exploited Johnson’s “stonking” laziness and shallowness. The Lockdown Files reveal a government gone rogue that viewed and treated the people as enemies. The UK, US, and Australia don’t need an inquiry strung out over years, focused on small details to the neglect of the big picture, with the tame conclusion that lessons will be learnt but blame cannot be apportioned. Instead we need criminal charges, and the sooner the better.

Britain’s top civil servant acted more like a partisan political hack than an apolitical, neutral and loyal-to-the-elected-government of the day civil servant. Case’s bias, immaturity, poor judgment, and unwillingness to support the PM with accurate, balanced, and impartial information were such as to warrant instant sacking. His hubris is such that he is yet to submit his resignation despite the publication of these appalling exchanges with Hancock who had effectively taken over the government.

The fact that as the “absolutely cringe-worthy” revelations came tumbling out, PM Rishi Sunak insisted Case has his confidence reflects poorly on Sunak’s judgment.

Flawed process produced bad outcomes.

In a modern-day version of sacrificing virgins to appease the viral gods, the young have lost many more years of their life to buy a few more lonely, miserable months for the infirm old.

If the vast sums thrown at Covid had been redirected to the leading killer diseases and upgrades to public health infrastructure, using the standard quality-adjusted life years (QALY) metric, many million deaths would have been averted around the world over the coming decades.

If we fail to heed the lessons of the last three years, we will indeed be condemned to repeat them, not just for new pandemics of infectious diseases but also for other crises like the “climate emergency.”

*

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.

Ramesh Thakur, a Brownstone Institute Senior Scholar, is a former United Nations Assistant Secretary-General, and emeritus professor in the Crawford School of Public Policy, The Australian National University.

Featured image is from Shutterstock


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

by Michel Chossudovsky

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

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

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

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

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

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.

***

The topic of geoengineering and geowarfare always becomes “hot” after major “natural” disasters that hit the world from time to time. Romanian senator Diana Iovanović Sošaka is the first politician in Europe to warn of a series of strange coincidences that followed devastating earthquakes in Turkey and Syria in which tens of thousands of people died.

Speaking about the suspicions that geo-weapons were used in the Middle East, Iovanović Šošaka mentioned the name of Romanian reserve general Emil Strainu as one of the few experts who openly discusses this topic. General Strainu agreed to speak to the media in Serbia with one condition: Before answering I would like to mention that what I will state below does not imply any state or private institution. 

Dragan Vujicic (DV): What are geoweapons and geoengineering?

General Emil Strainu (GES): Geo-weapons or environmental weapons are means of combat used to neutralize or destroy the enemy. At the basis of their use are techniques and technologies to modify the environment (lithosphere, hydrosphere and atmosphere) for military purposes.

Geoengineering refers to a range of emerging technologies for intervention, that can manipulate the atmosphere, lithosphere and hydrosphere to mitigate the effects of climate change or for military purposes.

There are currently three main directions in geoengineering, as follows: Carbon geoengineering which aims to remove carbon dioxide/bioxide from the atmosphere, solar geoengineering which aims to modify the amount of solar radiation absorbed and released into the Earth’s atmosphere, and geoengineering which uses environmental modification technologies for military purposes in all three environments – terrestrial (lithosphere), oceanic (hydrosphere) and the Earth’s atmosphere and ionosphere. There are expert opinions that say that current climate change has among its causes some military geoengineering projects (e.g. HAARP Project), some of them carried out for decades in secret.

Geoengineering can save but also destroy the planet depending on how we use it.There are international treaties prohibiting the use of outer space for military purposes and prohibiting active action in the atmosphere and the use of environmental modification technologies for military purposes, but they are not currently respected

DV: What are all the powerful countries trying to do with our climate and atmosphere and how dangerous are these experiments?

GES: There are currently at least ten countries in the world with HAARP-type installations. The most powerful is in the US, in Alaska at Gakona [officially transferred to University of Fairbanks, Alaska in 2016]. The most dangerous for our country’s area is the HAARP installation in Norway in the Tromso area, which belongs to the European Union.

While we have no evidence, HAARP installations could potentially be used for economic warfare, climate change and population control.

DV: You were in Alaska at the headquarters of HAARP, when, what is done there, what can and cannot be mentioned?

GES: I was in Alaska at the University of Fairbanks which is used as a cover by the U.S. Army and CIA for the activity taking place in the town of Gakona where the HAARP installations are spread over hundreds of acres.

The HAARP weapon can be used for the following purposes:

  1. Directed energy weapon;
  2. Communication system for submarines;
  3. System used to fight against satellites by blinding or shooting them down;
  4. Improved communication with own satellites under conditions of electronic warfare and solar flares;
  5. X-ray emitter;
  6. Means of voluntarily creating local, zonal or continental electrical blackouts;
  7. Electronic weapon of warfare;
  8. High-power wireless power transmission by the Nicola Tesla method;
  9. Means of detecting alien objects and craft in space;
  10. Means of countering an alien attack from space;
  11. A device capable of causing explosions comparable to nuclear explosions;
  12. Weapon capable of modifying the environment already used in Geoclimate Warfare;
  13. Creation of hurricanes, tornadoes, waterspouts and tsunamis in areas not specific to these types of natural phenomena;
  14. Creation of earthquakes by stimulating areas prone to such phenomena and activating volcanoes;
  15. Weapons used in psychotronic warfare that can alter brainwaves and control people’s thinking and reactivity (e.g. Havana syndrome).
  16. The study and evaluation of underground oil, gas and mineral deposits thousands of kilometres away;
  17. Remote survey and destruction of bunkers, depots and any other underground bases;

I would like to mention that these actions listed above are closely related to the emission power and operating regime of HAARP-type installations.

HAARP is also called the Ultimate Weapon or the Weapon of the Apocalypse.

DV: Americans say that HAARP is stopped and not working?

GES: The HAARP system has been in operation since 1993 and not only has it never been shut down, but it has been continuously upgraded and improved, increasing its power and the scope of missions it can perform. The number of antennas and transmitters has increased year by year, with more than 180 antennas and main generators in use. Today HAARP has the highest power in its history and can carry out remote missions anywhere in the world.

DV: Three assassination attempts were made against you in just one year. Who are these people?

GES: I was the president of a genuine nationalist party in Romania, the Great Romania Party after the untimely death of the former founding president Cornelui Vadim Tudor. At present I do not belong to any political party. I participated in rallies and protests against the aberrant measures taken during the so-called Covid-19 Pandemic and I took a stand in the press and on TV against the aberrations promoted by the neo-progressive current, and globalism, being considered a dangerous opinion leader for the Deepstate. So I was shut down and subsequently put under great pressure to stop expressing my views and opinions in public. Following very harsh threats against me and my family, I had to withdraw from political life, and a subsequent public programme of discrediting and defaming me was carried out. The most serious actions taken against me were dictated by the forces of the neo-progressive world cult.

DV: What should an ordinary person not know today because he will be punished by the powerful?

GES: There is currently a fierce battle going on in the world between the group of Sovereignist States and the group of States promoting Neo-progressivism, so-called Globalization or in other words Internationalist Corporatism which does not take into account nations and sovereignty of States. Knowledge as a phenomenon, the storage and use of information is not dangerous until you go beyond the level you are assigned in this field and social hierarchy. There are secret and discreet groups and movements that rule the world.

DV: How do you view the Serbian struggle from 1991 to today’s attempts by the West to seize Kosovo from the Serbs? What is your opinion on that.

GES: The West wants to monopolize the Eastern European states, especially the former socialist ones, and create small statelets on ethnically imposed principles in order to control and exploit them more easily. This is what happened to the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, which was broken up into small statelets which, with the exception of Serbia, are all controlled by the West. Another example is the break-up of the Czechoslovak Socialist Republic into two small states easily manipulated by the West, especially Germany.

At present, the process of the farimitarization of the national states continues by imposing the so-called Euro-Regions which are in fact the nuclei of the future small states that will appear with the blessing of the West, exacerbating certain problems and internal fractions in some national states until their secession.

The West is the main secessionist motor in Eastern Europe.

Since 1991, the Republic of Serbia has been waging a straight fight for statehood and the preservation of the national identity of the Serbian people. The former Autonomous Region of Kosovo in the former Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia is an integral part of the Republic of Serbia, the cradle of the Serbian nation. Kosovo must be an integral part of the territory and administration of Serbia and in the spirit of international law local ethical issues must be resolved without any foreign interference.

The West judges peoples with double standards: The West wants the independence of Serbian Kosovo but does not want the independence of Donbas. Kosovo is a historical territory of Serbia and the cradle of the Sirbian nation!

 

Romanian reserve general Emil Strainu is a physicist specialized in radiolocation. He published over 50 books, thousands of books, articles and studies in the field of airspace research on radar methods, geophysical weapons, climatology, UFO phenomenon. In his biography it is stated that he crossed the Arctic Circle five times (Alaska, Greenland, the Svalbard Islands, north of Murmansk and Kamchatka) and the southern polar circle.

He participated in expeditions and travels in areas such as: Alaska, Siberia, Tibet, Easter Island, Greenland, Iceland, Svalbard, Himalayas, Lake Baikal, Kamchatka, Bering Strait (Vladivostok-Russia, Elena Kozebuse-USA). a general who enters restricted areas, such as Area 51, Gakom – HAARP or dangerous areas such as the deserts of Nevada, Atacama, New Mexico, Arizona, Mojave.

*

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.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Geoengineering: Romanian General Emil Strainu on the Terrifying Possibilities of Geo-warfare
  • Tags: ,

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 April, 2021 at which time Raytheon had obtained $2.36 billion in Pentagon contracts since Austin’s appointment. Since that time, CAM has kept tabs on Raytheon’s contracts and the article has been updated. -CAM Editors

The Pentagon has awarded the defense giant Raytheon Technologies, the second largest weapons-maker in the world, over $30 billion in government contracts since Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin III’s confirmation on January 22nd, 2021.

Austin was on Raytheon’s board of directors prior to his confirmation.

Ben Norton on Twitter: "Biden's defense secretary pick Lloyd Austin has been on the board of directors of arms company Raytheon since 2016. Trump's defense secretary until last month, Mark Esper, was

Source: twitter.com

Austin at the time had made a commitment to resign from Raytheon’s board and recuse himself from all matters concerning Raytheon for four years and agreed to divest from his financial holdings in the company, amounting to between $500,000 and $1.7 million in stock.

These initiatives, however, have not prevented Austin from using his position to bolster Raytheon’s fortunes. Nor those of other defense contractors on whose board he has sat such as Booz Allen Hamilton, the world’s “most profitable spy organization,” according to Bloomberg News, and Pine Island Capital, a private equity firm that invests in military industry.[1]

At Austin’s nomination hearing, Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) questioned him about his ties to Raytheon—whose headquarters are based in Warren’s home district (Waltham, Massachusetts).

A year earlier, Warren had proposed legal changes to strengthen ethics at the Defense Department by blocking the revolving door between the Pentagon and giant defense contractors like Raytheon, including by prohibiting big defense contractors from hiring former Pentagon officials for four years after they leave government.

Warren paradoxically voted to confirm Austin’s appointment as Defense Secretary—even though he embodies the danger of the revolving door.

Mark Pocan (D-WI), who with Barbara Lee wrote a letter in November 2020 to President-elect Joe Biden requesting that he nominate a Secretary of Defense with no previous ties to weapons manufacturers, stated that “American national security should not be defined by the bottom lines of Boeing, General Dynamics and Raytheon.”

With men like Austin at the helm, however, it is very clearly being defined in this way.

Raytheon

Reporting revenues of more than $67 billion in 2022, up from $64 billion in 2021 and $56 billion in 2020, Raytheon began its corporate life in 1922 as the American Appliance Company. It developed refrigerators and radio parts and made advances in vacuum tube technology and related electronics.

The company was drawn into military contracting during World War II when it manufactured magnetron tubes for use in radar systems.

Text, letter Description automatically generated

Source: radiomuseum.org

One of Raytheon’s founders, Vannevar Bush, became president of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) and chairman of the U.S. Office of Scientific Research and Development (OSRD) during World War II, which initiated the Manhattan Project that led to the development of the atomic bomb.

Today, Raytheon is best known as the maker of Patriot and Tomahawk missiles.

It has also been a pioneer in the development of surface-to-air and air-to-air missiles and precision weapons—including guided missiles and laser-guided bombs—and manufactures air-launched nuclear missiles that are part of the U.S. nuclear triad.

Raytheon’s profits have increased considerably as a result of the Ukraine War: it manufactures Stinger and Javelin missiles, “the world’s premier shoulder-fired anti-armor system” that have been sold to Ukraine along with the Patriot Defense system.

Raytheon CEO Greg Hayes said the Ukraine War had boosted demand for Raytheon products as governments raise defense budgets. “We remain in lockstep with the U.S. government to ensure we can continue to support our allies,” Hayes told analysts on the company’s earnings call.

Back in 2003, Raytheon put out a press release bragging that half of all air-to-ground precision guided missiles (PGMs) used by coalition forces in Operation Iraqi Freedom were made by Raytheon.

Raytheon was also the first major defense contractor to sell weapons to Saudi Arabia, selling the kingdom over 1,000 cluster bombs designed to maximize civilian casualties between 1970 and 1995. The company hired members of the Saudi Royal Family as consultants, and opened a branch in Riyadh in 2017.

A group of men in white robes Description automatically generated with low confidence

Opening of Raytheon exhibit in Riyadh. [Source: eyeofriyadh.com]

After the Yemen war began in 2015, Raytheon, according to an analysis by The New York Times, booked more than $3 billion in new bomb sales to the Saudis, causing its stock prices to increase from about $108 to more than $180 per share.

Challenging Raytheon recruitment at UML career fair, March 2019

Protests against Raytheon outside the University of Massachusetts, Lowell where it was recruiting. [Source: masspeaceaction.org]

In 2019, Raytheon sold an estimated $8 billion in weapons to Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, which are centrally involved in the war in Yemen.

After an October 2016 Saudi airstrike on a funeral home in Sana’a that killed 140 people and wounded 500 more, human rights workers discovered a bomb shard bearing the identification number of Raytheon.[2]

It was one of at least 12 attacks on civilians that human rights groups tied to Raytheon’s ordnance during the first two years of the war.

In order to secure the lucrative Saudi deals, Raytheon took advantage of federal loopholes by sending former State Department officials to lobby their former colleagues, and later benefitted by having their former top lobbyist, Mark Esper, appointed as Defense Secretary in June 2019 in a precursor to General Austin’s hiring.

Phyllis Bennis of the Institute for Policy Studies, a left-wing think-tank, told The Intercept that since “Raytheon manufactures the bomb components that are used in Yemen, [General Austin] bears a direct responsibility [for war crimes and civilian deaths]. He was making money as a board member of this company that is directly responsible for the death and destruction there.”

William Hartung, the director of the arms and security project for the Center for International Policy, said that “picking Austin was tantamount to making the position of Secretary of Defense the Secretary of Defense contractors.”

Profiting Off of Death

Fitting with Hartung’s assessment, Raytheon has benefitted from multi-million-dollar government contracts on a near-daily basis since Austin has taken charge at the Pentagon.

On February 1st, 2021, the company secured a whopping $290,704,534 government contract to produce equipment for depot maintenance facilities and services in support of the F-35 Lightning II, which military analyst Pierre Sprey characterized as “overweight and dangerous.”

Sprey stated that “It’s as if Detroit suddenly put out a car with lighter fluid in the radiator and gasoline in the hydraulic brake lines: That’s how unsafe this plane is” and “full of bugs.”

On March 26th, 2021, Raytheon received another huge contract valued at $518,443,821 to produce advanced medium range air-to-air missiles (AMRAAM), which have been credited with air-to-air kills in conflicts over Iraq, Bosnia, Kashmir and Syria and are being supplied now to Ukraine.

Raytheon has also been awarded massive contracts for the Javelin anti-tank missile; the missile that allegedly “keeps Putin up at night;” and a $32,853,210 contract for autonomous swarm strike loitering munitions, or “suicide drones,” which can be launched from unmanned surface and underwater vessels.

A picture containing indoor, missile, fighter Description automatically generated

“Suicide drones” made by Raytheon. [Source: thedrive.com]

On November 30, 2022, Raytheon’s Tewksbury Massachusetts branch was awarded a $1 billion contract for procurement of surface-to-air missile systems, associated equipment, services and spares in “support of the efforts in Ukraine.”

The very same day, Raytheon’s McKinney Texas branch was awarded a $9 million contract for upgrading helicopter night vision systems; in mid February 2023, the McKinney branch got a $77 million contract for radar system upgrades for the U.S. Navy P-8A Poseidon aircraft.

In response to this kind of profiteering, activists with the group Resist and Abolish the Military-Industrial Complex (RAM Inc.) occupied the roof of a Raytheon building in Cambridge, Massachusetts in March 2022 and draped banners over the railing which read: “End All Wars, End All Empires” and “Raytheon Profits From Death in Yemen, Palestine, and Ukraine.”

Source: commondreams.org

One activist said in a statement: “With every war and every conflict, Raytheon’s profits multiply as bombs fall on schools, wedding tents, hospitals, homes, and communities. Living, breathing, human beings are being killed. Lives are being destroyed, all for profit.”

Image

Source: commondreams.org

Promoting More War

Though Austin claims to have recused himself from decisions involving Raytheon, the Pentagon under his direction is very clearly providing his old company with huge contracts on a daily basis that is bolstering its profits and stock price.

Austin furthermore has used his new bully pulpit to advocate for yet greater levels of military spending—to the benefit of Raytheon.

On February 25th, 2021, for example, on a visit to the U.S.S. Nimitz, Austin emphasized the need for U.S. warships throughout the globe to deter security threats—from China to Iran. A week later on a tour of Southeast Asia with Secretary of State Antony Blinken, Austin warned about China again and the North Korean nuclear threat and pledged that the U.S. would maintain a robust military presence in the Indo-Pacific.

He further cautioned North Korea that the United States, following military exercises with South Korea, was “ready to fight tonight.”

In a recent CNN interview, Austin touted U.S. military aid to Ukraine for “changing the dynamics on the battlefield” in the war against Russia, saying that it would in the future allow Kyiv’s forces to “breach Russian defenses.”

“We’re training and equipping several brigades of mechanized infantry — that’s a pretty substantial capability,” Austin said. “In addition to that, additional artillery, and so they’ll have the ability to breach Russian defenses and maneuver, and I think that will create a different dynamic.”

Previously, Austin took to Twitter to reaffirm the U.S.’s “unwavering support for Ukraine’s sovereignty, territorial integrity, and Euro-Atlantic aspirations.” The latter implied the joining of the European Union (EU) and North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), which would portend the outbreak of World War III.

In April of last year, Austin announced that the United States would increase its military presence in Germany by about 500 personnel and was scuttling plans introduced by President Donald Trump for a large troop reduction in Europe.

Austin around the same time in Tel Aviv affirmed the U.S. “ironclad commitment” to Israel, which receives a record $3.8 billion in U.S. military aid each year, and on a visit to Afghanistan stated that the Biden administration wanted to see a “responsible end” to the Afghan war, but that the “level of violence must decrease” for “fruitful diplomacy” to have a chance.

These comments and many others were music to the ears of Raytheon, which gave $506,424 in donations to Biden’s presidential campaign.

A Soldier’s Soldier

Besides his connection to Raytheon, Austin’s appointment as Pentagon chief was controversial because he had not been retired from the military for the requisite seven years and required a legal waiver.

Traditionally, the role of Defense Secretary is supposed to be a civilian position, ensuring the U.S.’s military apparatus is led not by a warfighter, but a policymaker. That requirement is laid out in the National Security Act of 1947 that established the Defense Department.

Heralded as a “soldier’s soldier” who would endure hardships with his troops, the 6’4” tall Austin graduated from West Point in 1975, and led infantry troops in the capture of Baghdad during the 2003 Operation Iraqi Freedom.

After a stint commanding the 10th Mountain Division in Afghanistan, Austin was appointed as chief of staff of the U.S. Central Command at McDill Air Force Base in Tampa, Florida, a high-tech command post where military officers could watch live imagery on plasma screens and order air-strikes through the Pentagon’s secure internet server.

General Austin with Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld at a meeting in Kandahar, December 4, 2003. [Source: wikipedia.org]

Groomed for high military command by Admiral Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff from 2007 to 2011, Austin was appointed as Commanding General of U.S. forces in Iraq in 2010, and Commander of the U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM), which is responsible for all military operations in the Middle East, by President Obama in 2013.

In this latter capacity, Austin drafted a war plan—approved by Obama—that allowed the U.S. military for the first time to directly provide ammunition and weapons to Syrian opposition forces, who included Islamic jihadists.

President Obama also endorsed General Austin’s idea to increase the air campaign on Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIS) from Incirlik Air Base in Turkey.

The result was an increase in civilian deaths. Journalists Anand Gopal and Azmat Khat determined that one in five of the 27,500 coalition air strikes in the 2nd Iraq War resulted in at least one civilian death, more than 31 times the number that was publicly acknowledged.

Just this week, before the 20th anniversary of the U.S. invasion of Iraq, Austin made a surprise visit to Iraq, where he assured Prime Minister Mohammed Shia al-Sudani that the U.S. would sustain its 2,500 occupying troops and continue to advise and train the Iraqi Armed Forces fighting against ISIS.

Austin’s personal history and connection to the military and Raytheon mark him as a fitting Pentagon chief in an era of destructive militarism and creeping fascism in the U.S.

When civilians no longer control the key institutions of government and war industries ensure the perpetuation of endless wars from which they make obscene profits, the political system can no longer be defined as a democracy.

*

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.

Jeremy Kuzmarov is Managing Editor of CovertAction Magazine. He is the author of four books on U.S. foreign policy, including Obama’s Unending Wars (Clarity Press, 2019) and The Russians Are Coming, Again, with John Marciano (Monthly Review Press, 2018). He can be reached at: [email protected].

The author thanks Puneet Kaur for her research assistance on this article.

Notes

  1. Secretary of State Antony Blinken was a partner at Pine Island Capital. 

  2. “People were on fire, and some people were burned alive,” one survivor, 42-year-old Hassan Jubran, told human rights workers. “There were also many children,” he said. “There were three children whose bodies were completely torn apart and strewn all over the place.” 

Featured image: General Lloyd J. Austin III at his confirmation hearing. [Source: euractiv.com]

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin—Former Member of Raytheon Board of Directors—Has Awarded Over $30 Billion in Contracts to Raytheon Since His Confirmation in January 2021
  • Tags: ,

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.

***

From producing reports and analysis for U.S. policy-makers, to enlisting representatives to write op-eds in corporate media, to providing talking heads for corporate media to interview and give quotes, think tanks play a fundamental role in shaping both U.S. foreign policy and public perception around that foreign policy. Leaders at top think tanks like the Atlantic Council and Hudson Institute have even been called upon to set focus priorities for the House Intelligence Committee. However, one look at the funding sources of the most influential think tanks reveals whose interests they really serve: that of the U.S. military and its defense contractors.

This ecosystem of overlapping networks of government institutions, think tanks, and defense contractors is where U.S. foreign policy is derived, and a revolving door exists among these three sectors. For example, before Biden-appointed head of the Pentagon Lloyd Austin took his current position, he sat on the Board of Directors at Raytheon.

Before Austin’s appointment, current defense policy advisor Michèle Flournoy was also in the running for the position. Flournoy sat on the board of Booz Allen Hamilton, another major Pentagon defense contractor. These same defense contractors also work together with think tanks like the Center for Strategic and International Studies to organize conferences attended by national security officials. On top of all this, since the end of the Cold War, intelligence analysis by the CIA and NSA has increasingly been contracted out to these same defense companies like BAE Systems and Lockheed Martin, among others — a major conflict of interest. In other words, these corporations are in the position to produce intelligence reports which raise the alarm on U.S. “enemy” nations so they can sell more military equipment!

And of course these are the same defense companies that donate hundreds of thousands of dollars each year to think tanks. Given all this, is it any wonder the U.S. government is simultaneously flooding billions of dollars of weaponry into an unwinnable proxy war in Ukraine while escalating a Cold War into a potential military confrontation with China?

The funding to these policy institutes steers the U.S. foreign policy agenda. To give you a scope of how these contributions determine national security priorities, listed below are six of some of the most influential foreign policy think tanks, along with how much in contributions they’ve received from “defense” companies in the last year.

All funding information for these policy institutes was gathered from the most recent annual report that was available online. Also note that this list is compiled from those that make this information publicly available — many think tanks, such as the hawkish American Enterprise Institute, do not release donation sources publicly.

1 – Center for Strategic and International Studies

According to their 2020 annual report

$500,000+: Northrop Grumman Corporation

$200,000-$499,999: General Atomics (energy and defense corporation that manufactures Predator drones for the CIA), Lockheed Martin, SAIC (provides information technology services to U.S. military)

$100,000-$199,999: Bechtel, Boeing, Cummins (provides engines and generators for military equipment), General Dynamics, Hitachi (provides defense technology), Hanwha Group (South Korean aerospace and defense company), Huntington Ingalls Industries, Inc. (largest military shipbuilding company in the United States), Mitsubishi Corporation, Nippon Telegraph and Telephone Corporation (provides intelligence and information technology services to U.S. military), Qualcomm, Inc. (semiconductor company that produces microchips for the U.S. military), Raytheon, Samsung (provides security technology to the U.S. military), SK Group (defense technology company)

$65,000-$99,999: Hyundai Motor (produces weapons systems), Oracle

$35,000-$64,999: BAE Systems

2 – Center for a New American Security

From fiscal year 2021-2022

$500,000+: Northrop Grumman Corporation

$250,000-$499,999: Lockheed Martin

$100,000-$249,000: Huntington Ingalls Industries, Neal Blue (Chairman and CEO of General Atomics), Qualcomm, Inc., Raytheon, Boeing

$50,000-$99,000: BAE Systems, Booz Allen Hamilton, Intel Corporation (provides aerospace and defense technology), Elbit Systems of America (aerospace and defense company), General Dynamics, Palantir Technologies

3 – Hudson Institute

According to their 2021 annual report

$100,000+: General Atomics, Linden Blue (co-owner and Vice Chairman of General Atomics), Neal Blue, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman

$50,000-$99,000: BAE Systems, Boeing, Mitsubishi Heavy Industries

4 – Atlantic Council

According to their 2021 annual report

$250,000-$499,000: Airbus, Neal Blue, SAAB (provides defense equipment)

$100,000-$249,000: Lockheed Martin, Raytheon

$50,000-$99,000: SAIC

5 – International Institute for Strategic Studies

Based in London. From fiscal year 2021-2022

£100,000+: Airbus, BAE Systems, Boeing, General Atomics, Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, Rolls Royce (provides military airplane engines)

£25,000-£99,999: Northrop Grumman Aerospace Systems, Northrop Grumman Corporation

6 – Australian Strategic Policy Institute

Note: ASPI has been one of the primary purveyors of the “Uyghur genocide” narrative

From their 2021-2022 annual report

$186,800: Thales Australia (aerospace and defense corporation)

$100,181: Boeing Australia

$75,927: Lockheed Martin

$20,000: Omni Executive (aerospace and defense corporation)

$27,272: SAAB Australia

*

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 Strategic Culture Foundation

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Six War Mongering Think Tanks and the Military Contractors that Fund Them
  • Tags:

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.

***

The deal signed in China on March 10 was a surprise to the US and their western allies. They didn’t see that coming, as years of secret talks culminated in a successful restoring of full diplomatic relations between the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and the Islamic Republic of Iran.

This new relationship has the potential to change the Middle East and North Africa (MENA).  The global center of power is shifting towards the east, and the west may be left behind.

Steven Sahiounie at MidEastDiscourse interviewed veteran journalist Martin Jay to get his take on the region that he knows so well. Jay is a British journalist who is currently living in Morocco, working as editor in chief of Maghrebi.org

Previously, Jay was based in Beirut where he recently won the UN’s prestigious Elizabeth Neuffer Memorial Prize (UNCA) in New York in 2016. He works on a freelance basis for a number of respected British newspapers as well as previously Al Jazeera, TRT, RT and Deutsche Welle TV. Before Lebanon, he worked in Africa and Europe for CNN, Euronews, CNBC, BBC, Sunday Times and Reuters. @MartinRJay

*

Steven Sahiounie (SS):   The President of Tunisia, Kais Saied, has been trying to reform the country in an effort to distance the government from direct involvement from the Muslim Brotherhood.  In your opinion, have the Tunisian citizens responded well to this?

Martin Jay (MJ):  I’m not sure if Saied really is reforming the country, and has he really distanced himself so far from the Brotherhood? I think if that were the case, the UAE would have helped him financially as they did with Sisi originally. Saied, in my view, is confused about geopolitics and is unsure who to align himself with. He shocked the Moroccans by welcoming Polisario officials which ruined a relationship which went back decades. It seems that he is destined to move closer to the sphere of Russia, China and Iran. Whether that will work for him though, as he struggles to keep on close relations with the West, is unclear.

SS:   There are tensions between Algeria and Morocco. According to media reports recently, Israel has been feeding the tensions. In your opinion, will other Arab countries intervene to stabilize the situation?

MJ:  Tensions between Morocco and Algeria are nothing new. The Ukraine war has certainly raised the stakes though given that Algeria has just bought $12 billion worth of Russian arms, and wants to conduct military trials on the border with Morocco, which was averted at the last minute. I’m quite positive that the new relations between Iran and KSA will have a knock on effect to Morocco and Algeria, although it wouldn’t surprise me to learn that Israel has been stoking the tensions. Like a lot of players who have invested in Morocco, they would gain by heightened tensions as they are keen to be the chief benefactors of an arms race between Rabat and Algiers.

SS:  Libya is long overdue for a Presidential election. How do you view the political situation in Libya, and do you see a potential for Saif al-Islam Gaddafi playing a role?

MJ:  Libya is stuck for the moment due, largely, to Joe Biden’s moronic foreign policy and his limited grasp of the events in the MENA region as a whole.

He has signaled through his own CIA chief that the Americans and British do not really want presidential elections to go ahead as this would probably result in Saif al-Islam Gaddafi winning which would be like blowing your own foot off with your own shotgun – given that the West’s intervention was such a dog’s breakfast in the first place.  The thinking seems to be “just how much more can we f””’ it up?

No way we can let Gaddafi’s son take over, even through elections!”  The Americans have a useful tool though to use to create a smokescreen to make it look like they welcome elections as soon as possible: the UN. Recently, though it looks like the UN chief overlooking events there, a Senegalese, proved to be the useful idiot he was expected to be, as his own comments about elections have backfired. This is perfect for the UK and US, who will wait and see if they can meddle in the internal politics and create their own republic with their own son-of-a-bitch as president. Problem is, that there is no one to fill those boots at the present time.

SS:  The Egyptian economy is collapsing.  Will other North African countries be affected by this situation, and will we see Arab Gulf countries come to the Egyptian rescue?

MJ:  Egypt’s economy spiraling is a lesson to many MENA despots: this is what happens when you bite the hand that feeds you, from a big brother GCC country. Sisi has fallen out with the UAE and KSA. The Muslim Brotherhood may well have to come back to power in Egypt just for the Gulf States to give a lesson to elites there. Ironically, it may well be Erdogan who might offer a helping hand. Other Arab countries? Unlikely.

SS:  The Chinese brokered agreement between Saudi Arabia and Iran surprised the world. In your opinion, will we witness something similar in the Arab world, such as between Egypt and Ethiopia, or others?

MJ:  I really hope that the first steps of reconciliation between KSA and Iran will be important ones, which are both taken seriously, and done well. The reopening of embassies is really just a symbolic thing but it’s important. If both these countries can move forward, then for sure there is a real chance together they can end the war in Yemen, and start on reconstruction. Iran also is advanced in many areas that KSA really could benefit from; especially nuclear energy, so if there can be peace between these two, and they stop spending hideous amounts of money on defense, and plough that into job creation and education, then it’s win-win. There should be a knock-on effect to the whole MENA region, in places like Lebanon, where both these countries play a big role in local politics, and deciding on who should be the next president, but also in Morocco and Algeria where we really do need something to kick start a cooling off process and dialogue.

*

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.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Crisis in Middle East and North Africa: US-UK Encroaching on Conduct of Elections in Libya. Interview with Journalist Martin Jay
  • Tags:

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.

***

There is no shortage of activists, journalists, academics, and people of conscience who have some story to share about the impact of the “Collateral Murder” video.

The U.S. military footage of an Apache helicopter crew shooting indiscriminately at a dozen Iraqi civilians — including Reuters journalists Namir Noor Eldeen and Saeed Chmagh, and two young children — is widely recognized for exposing the true nature of the United States war in Iraq and for making WikiLeaks and Julian Assange household names.

Three years before WikiLeaks made it possible for the public to watch this video, Dean Yates, Reuters bureau chief in Iraq, learned of its existence. Yates testified about the impact of the video at the Belmarsh Tribunal in Sydney, Australia on March 4, 2023.

Later in the Tribunal, another delegate, Australian lawyer Bernard Collaery, called Yates’ testimony “admissible evidence,” which could serve as witness testimony in defense of Assange. (In fact, a statement from Yates was submitted to a British court during Assange’s extradition trial.)

It has now been nearly 13 years since WikiLeaks published the video, and nearly 16 years since the attack took place. No one responsible for the attack or the invasion of Iraq has faced even a modicum of accountability.

In contrast, Assange is languishing in Belmarsh Prison under torturous conditions. He sits in legal limbo while the United States continues to pursue his extradition under Espionage Act charges, in a case which poses an unprecedented threat to press freedom.

While WikiLeaks’ publication of military documents from Iraq and Afghanistan are at the heart of the case, the “Collateral Murder” video is absent from the 18-count indictment that spans 37 pages.

“The U.S. military usually didn’t investigate civilian casualties in Iraq. It did in this case because Namir and Saeed worked for a major international news organization,” Yates said as he started his speech.

“I was shown—without advance warning—less than three minutes of footage from the gun-camera of Crazy Horse 1-8, up to where it opened fire for the first time. I was told the gunship then attacked a minivan because it was believed to be helping wounded insurgents and picking up weapons. U.S. forces had acted in accordance with the rules of engagement for Iraq, I was told.”

Yates spent the next three years trying to convince the Pentagon to provide the full footage through the Freedom of Information Act, yet his effort was met with repeated refusals.

Then, in 2010, WikiLeaks published the video. It immediately was clear that what the Pentagon had claimed was deceptive and dishonest.

Screen shot from the “Collateral Murder” video

“It was obvious why the U.S. government didn’t want to share the tape with Reuters,” Yates said. “It showed grainy figures on a Baghdad street. The hellish clack of Crazy Horse 1-8’s chain gun firing rounds the size of a small soft-drink bottle, the length of a man’s hand. Clouds of dust as those cannon shells crashed into men.”

Yates further explained in his testimony that he highlighted sections of the indictment against Assange when the charges were announced. He concluded they were “an attempt to criminalize what journalists do,” and then Yates recalled something U.S. Army whistleblower Chelsea Manning explained at her court-martial.

“After saving a copy of the tape, Ms. Manning told her court-martial that she searched for and found the ROEs, a 2007 flow chart outlining the chain of command for the use of force in Iraq and a laminated ‘ROE Card’ soldiers carried with them that summarized the rules,” Yates explained. “Then I got it. The U.S. government didn’t want the video in a courtroom. Too embarrassing.”

“Potential war crimes. Cruel pilot banter. The U.S. military repeatedly lied about the events of July 12, 2007, in which my Iraq staff were killed.”

Yates debunked, point-by-point, the lies in the original statement that the U.S. military put out justifying the attack, as well as the excuses U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates made following WikiLeaks’ publication of the footage. Yates emphasized that U.S. troops were well aware of the rules of engagement that they were violating, and despite this clear breach of rules, a U.S. military investigation cleared the pilots.

The Pentagon engaged in a cover-up to try to keep the footage from ever seeing the light of day.

Zoomed in screen shot from the “Collateral Murder” video

“All this shows why the U.S. government didn’t put the tape in Assange’s indictment – that snapshot of the war would have exposed the hypocrisy of its case against him,” Yates said. “The breach of the ROEs, the blatant way the military ignored the wrongdoing and the extent senior military and civilian officials lied about it. Collateral Murder is so powerful because it is pure truth-telling. No military officials could deflect, sanitize, or provide ‘context.’”

Yates finished his testimony by comparing the video to the Pulitzer Prize-winning photo taken by photojournalist Eddie Adams at the start of the Tet Offensive in the Vietnam War. The photo powerfully documented the casual execution of Nguyen Van Lem, and is credited for changing public perception of the war in Vietnam.

The “Collateral Murder” video certainly impacted the public perception of the Iraq War. However, 20 years after the invasion of Iraq, many of the war’s architects have succeeded in memory-holing their crimes, lies, and abuses of power.

Thanks to Assange and WikiLeaks, even if the criminals behind the war and occupation in Iraq never face any justice for their actions, this video will always be available to anyone who wants to know the truth about the conflict.

*

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: Dean Yates, who was the Reuters bureau chief in Iraq when his colleagues were gunned down by the U.S. military on July 12, 2007 (Source: The Dissenter)

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.

***

What would happen if the media and intelligence agencies applied the same standard used regarding China to the Israel lobby?

In the Globe and Mail Andrew Coyne has written two columns in recent days arguing that the discussion over Chinese interference should focus on “domestic accomplices”. “What we need a public inquiry to look into is domestic complicity in foreign interference”, noted the regular CBC commentator.

In a similar vein Justin Trudeau responded to criticism regarding purported Chinese interference by noting, “We know that Chinese Canadian parliamentarians, and Chinese Canadians in general, are greater targets for interference by China than others.” The prime minister added,

“We know the same goes for Iranian Canadians, who are more subject to interference from the Iranian government. Russian speakers in Canada are more vulnerable to Russian misinformation and disinformation.”

Why ignore how Israel and its Canadian lobby use Jewish MPs and Jewish organizations as their agents?

The leading Israel advocate in parliament, Anthony Housefather chairs the Canada-Israel Interparliamentary Group. That group was previously led by another Jewish Liberal MP, Michael Leavitt, who resigned to head Israel lobby group Friends of Simon Wiesenthal Center. Housefather and Leavitt have repeatedly met Israeli officials in Canada.

As part of the media frenzy about Chinese interference, there has been significant discussion about Trudeau attending a 2016 Liberal Party fundraiser at the Toronto home of Chinese Business Chamber of Canada chair Benson Wong. Among the attendees was Chinese Canadian billionaire Zhang Bin who is alleged to have donated to the Trudeau Foundation/University of Montréal at the request of a Chinese government official.

But Trudeau has far more extensive ties to pro-Israel funders. Since 2013 the chief fundraiser for the Trudeau Liberals has been Stephen Bronfman, scion of an arch Israeli nationalist family. Bronfman has millions invested in Israeli technology companies and over the years the Bronfman clan has secured arms for Israeli forces and supported its military in other ways. Bronfman openly linked his fundraising for Trudeau to Israel. In 2013 the Globe and Mail reported:

“Justin Trudeau is banking on multimillionaire Stephen Bronfman to turn around the Liberal Party’s financial fortunes in order to take on the formidable Conservative fundraising machine…. Mr. Bronfman helped raise $2-million for Mr. Trudeau’s leadership campaign. Mr. Bronfman is hoping to win back the Jewish community, whose fundraising dollars have been going more and more to the Tories because of the party’s pro-Israel stand. ‘We’ll work hard on that,’ said Mr. Bronfman, adding that ‘Stephen Harper has never been to Israel and I took Justin there five years ago and he was referring at the end of the trip to Israel as ‘we.’ So I thought that was pretty good.’”

In 2016 Trudeau attended a fundraiser at the Toronto home of now deceased billionaire apartheid supporters Honey and Barry Sherman. The event raised funds for the party and York Centre Liberal party candidate Michael Levitt. In 2018 CBC reported on multimillionaire Mitch Garber attending one of Bronfman’s fundraisers with Trudeau. On Federation CJA Montréal’s website Garber’s profile boasts that his “eldest son Dylan just completed his service as a lone soldier serving in an elite Cyber Defense Intelligence Unit of the IDF in Israel.”

A thorough investigation of pro-Israel Liberal fundraising would uncover a litany of other examples. And they’ve had far greater success. While the Trudeau government has banned Chinese firms, arrested a prominent Chinese capitalist and targeted that country militarily, they’ve been strikingly deferential to Israel. The Trudeau government has expanded the Canada-Israel free trade agreement, organized a pizza party for Canadians fighting in the Israeli military, voted against over 60 UN resolutions upholding Palestinian rights, sued to block proper labels on wines from illegal settlements and created a special envoy to deflect criticism of Israeli abuses. During a 2018 visit to Israel former foreign affairs minister Freeland announced that should Canada win a seat on the United Nations Security Council it would act as an “asset for Israel” on the Council.

Part of the Chinese interference story is about funding University of Montréal and University of Toronto initiatives tied to China. But Jewish Zionist donors have set up far more initiatives, including numerous Israel and Israel-infused Jewish studies programs.

Having fought to establish Israel and with major investments in Israel, David Azrieli spent $5 million to establish Israel studies and $1 million on Jewish studies at Concordia University. At the University of Toronto more than $10 million was donated to establish the Anne Tanenbaum Centre for Jewish Studies and the Andrea and Charles Bronfman Chair in Israeli Studies. Millions of dollars more have been donated to launch similar initiatives at other universities.

On many occasions pro-Israel donors have leveraged donations to block academic appointments or suppress discussion of Palestinian rights. The hundreds of millions of dollars donated by Israel supporters (Schwartz/Reissman, Peter Munk, Seymour Schulich, etc.) partly explains why over a dozen Canadian university presidents recently traveled with apartheid lobby group, the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs, to Israel despite opposition from significant segments of their institutions.

Much more influential than the ‘China lobby’, the Israel lobby has largely been ignored in recent discussion about the need for an inquiry into foreign interference. But any serious foreign agent registry ought to include the apartheid state’s domestic accomplices.

*

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

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.

***

Chinese President Xi Jinping plans to speak with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky for the first time since the Russian invasion of Ukraine was launched, The Wall Street Journal reported Monday.

The report, which cited people familiar with the matter, said Xi is also planning to meet with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Moscow next week and will likely hold his talk with Zelensky following his trip to Russia.

The report indicates Xi is looking to mediate between the two sides and comes after Beijing released a 12-point peace plan for the conflict in Ukraine that focuses on calling for a pause in fighting and a resumption of peace talks.

Zelensky expressed openness to China’s proposal, but it was dismissed by President Biden and other US officials. Biden rejected altogether the idea of China mediating an end to the war that wouldn’t solely benefit Russia.

But China’s mediating credentials just got a major boost after Iran and Saudi Arabia announced they plan to normalize relations, an agreement that was brokered by China and came after days of negotiations in Beijing. Tehran and Riyadh are long-time regional rivals and haven’t had formal diplomatic relations since 2016.

Throughout the conflict in Ukraine, China has called for a ceasefire and negotiations. The US recently accused Beijing of considering arming Russia but provided no evidence for the claim. There’s no sign that China has decided to take such a step, as Chinese officials have warned sending arms to be used in the war would only prolong the fighting.

*

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.

Dave DeCamp is the news editor of Antiwar.com, follow him on Twitter @decampdave.

Featured image is from New Eastern Outlook

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.

***

I often joke that I survived Washington because I had low expectations, but last week’s hearing of the House Weaponization of the Federal Government subcommittee would have tested the lowest of my low expectations. The purpose of the subcommittee is to look into the politicization of US government agencies and its effect on our civil liberties. But last week’s inaugural hearing of the committee was not at all a good look for the Democrats, who brought nothing but insults for the witnesses.

Things got off on the wrong foot very quickly, as Democrat committee Members seemed less interested in what witnesses Matt Taibbi and Michael Shellenberger had to say than in attacking the messengers. Ranking Committee Member Stacey E. Plaskett, a Democrat from the Virgin Islands, began by calling Taibbi a “so-called journalist” who poses a “direct threat” to people who disagree with the work he has done on the “Twitter Files.”

Taibbi, who to the likely dismay of the Democrats on the subcommittee is hardly a right-wing Republican, corrected Plaskett’s smear, pointing out to her that, “I’m not a so-called journalist. I’ve won the National Magazine Award, the I.F. Stone Award for Independent Journalism, and I’ve written 10 books including four New York Times bestsellers.” In addition, Taibbi pointed out that most of his journalism career was spent at Rolling Stone Magazine, which is hardly a conservative political outlet.

The Democrat decision to make this hearing a partisan political issue and attack the journalists who brought us the truth about secret US government censorship-by-proxy of Americans who hold views unacceptable to government elites is extremely unfortunate. The Democrat decision to attack honest liberals like Taibbi for bringing us the truth is baffling. Taibbi and Shellenberger and the other journalists involved in exposing government malfeasance in the Twitter Files have done a great service to all Americans concerned about the collusion between government and corporations to silence speech that the government does not like.

Matt Taibbi posted his statement to the subcommittee as another episode in the “Twitter Files” series and it may have been the most disturbing release to date. In this release Taibbi documented what he calls the “Censorship-Industrial Complex.” This is the collusion not only between government and big tech to censor “wrong” views, but also those parts of the so-called “non-governmental” sector that are directly funded by government.

This “NGO” sector, it turns out, has been a key tool in the US government’s efforts to censor Americans who fail to toe the US government line on everything from Covid to Ukraine. The “non-government” organizations such as the National Endowment for Democracy, the Atlantic Council’s DFRLab, the Alliance for Securing Democracy and dozens more pose as simply good citizens concerned about disinformation while in fact they are mostly or completely funded by the US government to do the US government’s bidding.

Taibbi calls this the “absolute fusion of state, corporate, and civil society organizations,” but there is another word for it: fascism. And that is where we are headed in the United States unless all of us – conservatives, libertarians, liberals, and progressives – wake up and fight for the restoration of the First Amendment.

*

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: A US government propaganda poster from the 1940s (Source: Multipolarista)

Foreign Devils on the Road to Afghanistan

March 14th, 2023 by M. K. Bhadrakumar

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

***

On March 7, the western powers huddled together in Paris for a restricted meeting on Taliban and the Afghanistan situation. It was an exclusive meeting of the Special Representatives and Envoys for Afghanistan of Australia, Canada, the European Union, France, Germany, Italy, Norway, Switzerland, the United Kingdom and the United States.

The random pick was striking — on a need-to-know basis — Turkiye out, Norway in. Presumably, the West won’t trust the Turks to keep secrets. But Norway makes itself indispensable as a European country with a first-rate intelligence apparatus that has served western interests.  

Curiously, Australia and Canada took part, but then, they belong to the Five Eyes. And the Five Eyes goes wherever an agenda to destabilise Russia or China is mooted. Washington decides such things. 

The Paris meeting rings alarm bells. On March 7, the UN Security Council also held a meeting on women and peace at UN headquarters in New York, where, interestingly, the US Ambassador Linda Thomas-Greenfield bracketed the “the violence and oppression of women and girls” in Afghanistan, Iran and “areas of Ukraine occupied by Russia.” 

France’s excessive interest in hosting the meeting comes as no surprise. France is mentoring the so-called National Resistance Front of Afghanistan [NRFA] headed by the Panjshiris loyal to Ahmad Massoud, eldest son of anti-Soviet military leader Ahmad Shah Massoud.

President Emmanuel Macron took a hands-on role to woo Tajikistan President Emomali Rahmon to lend his country as the sanctuary for NRFA to stage an armed insurrection against the Taliban government in Kabul with western help. 

Macron has a chip on his shoulder that Russia’s Wagner Group replaced the French troops in the Sahel region in north Africa, which used to be France’s playpen since the deployment of troops in 2015 to Burkina Faso, Chad, Mali, Mauritania and Niger to set up military bases, ostensibly to fight ‘jihadists’. 

But the French presence became increasingly unpopular in the region and the Islamist threat only spread while France dabbled in local politics in its former colonies, and eventually, Macron’s motives became suspect in the African eyes and the perception grew that the French expeditionary force was acting more like an occupation force.

As the African states began replacing the French contingents with Russia’s Wagner Group, Macron announced in November the end of his celebrated ‘Operation Barkhane’. 

Macron is looking for opportunities to hit back at Russia in its own backyard in the Caucasus and Central Asia. But he’s punching way above his weight. Nonetheless, the Paris meeting on Tuesday expressed “grave concern about the increasing threat of terrorist groups in Afghanistan, including ISKP, Al Qaeda, Tehrik-i-Taliban-Pakistan and others, which deeply affects security and stability inside the country, in the region and beyond, and called on the Taliban to uphold Afghanistan’s obligation to deny these groups safe haven.” The joint statement is carefully drafted — an alibi for western intervention is available now. [Emphasis added.]

The Taliban has actually had considerable success on the ground in stabilising its rule against heavy odds. But the Western powers are furious that the Taliban is no longer bending over backward to seek engagement. The West’s sponsorship of NRFA antagonised the Taliban. Taliban sees NRFA as presaging the return of warlords bankrolled by the West. 

The NRFA has failed to get traction. Macron’s personal diplomacy with Rahmon notwithstanding, the latter cannot afford to annoy Moscow — and the Kremlin’s top priority is to somehow stabilise the Afghan security situation. The Russians and the Chinese are willing to work with the Taliban and make them stakeholders in the security and stability of their country. 

Indeed, on the same day the western powers ganged up in Paris, Delhi announced that it was shipping another consignment of 20,000 tons of wheat to Afghanistan via the Chabahar route as humanitarian assistance. The Russian Ambassador in Kabul Dmitry Zhirnov also spoke about Russia’s deepening engagement with the Taliban, focused on economic ties. (Interestingly, the ambassador disclosed that Moscow may repair and reopen the hugely strategic Salang Tunnel — a Soviet legacy — connecting Kabul with northern Afghanistan and Central Asia.) 

China recently signed a $540 million oil-and-gas deal reached an agreement to extract oil in the Amu Darya basin in northern Afghanistan. One of the first phone calls the new Foreign Minister Qin Gang made after his appointment was to call up the Taliban counterpart in Kabul to stress the security concerns in Afghanistan. No doubt, similar concerns were reflected in the meeting in the Kremlin between Russian President Vladimir Putin and India’s National Security Advisor Ajit Doval recently. 

Russia is very keen to work with India regarding Afghanistan. China shares Russian concerns in Afghanistan’s security and stability. On the contrary, the US and EU visualise that Russia’s preoccupations in the Ukraine conflict is an opportune time to stir up the Central Asian pot. But that is a simplistic, self-serving assumption. 

The US Secretary of State Antony Blinken who toured Central Asia last month learnt to his dismay that the regional states are simply not interested in getting entangled in Washington’s zero sum games. The joint statement issued after Blinken’s meeting with his Central Asian counterparts steered clear of any references critical of Russia (or China.) 

Prof. Melvin Goodman at Johns Hopkins and noted author who used to be a CIA analyst, has described Blinken’s Central Asian tour, first by a senior Biden Administration official to the region, to be “a fool’s errand that merely exposed the futility of U.S. efforts to practice dual containment against Russia and China… All five Central Asian countries refused to support the United States in last month’s UN resolution calling for Russia to withdraw its troops from Ukraine and to recognise Ukraine’s full sovereignty over its territory. All five Central Asian countries will need support from Russia or China if faced with internal opposition in their own countries.”  

The neutral stance of the Central Asian states is consistent with their independent position alike on the breakaway ex-Soviet regions of Abkhazia, Ossetia, Crimea, Lugansk, Donetsk, Zaporozhya and Kherson. The salience is: Moscow never threatened the Central Asians that ‘Either you’re with us, or are against us.’ 

The Central Asians witnessed the retreat of the Western alliance from Afghanistan and will not regard them as dependable providers of security. They are also wary of the West’s dalliance with extremist groups. The widely held belief in Central Asia is that the Islamic State is an American creation. Above all, the western countries pursue mercantilist foreign policies eyeing the region’s mineral resources but take no interest in the region’s development. On the other hand, they are intrusive and prescriptive. 

At the Paris meeting, behind closed doors, the American input would have been that the Central Asian states will not support a regime change project in Afghanistan. Even Tajikistan, which has ethnic affinities with the Tajik population of Afghanistan, will mark distance from the NRFA lest it got sucked into an Afghan civil war. Macron fancies himself to be a born charmer, but Rahmon is a harcore  realist. 

Looking ahead, the real danger is that, having failed to get the Taliban to bend while also unable to build an anti-Taliban resistance movement or incite the Central Asian states to decouple from Moscow and Beijing, the US and its allies may now be left with the only remaining option, which is to create anarchical conditions in Afghanistan where there are no winners. 

The ascendance of the Islamic State and its open threats to the Russian, Pakistani, Chinese, Iranian and Indian embassies functioning in Kabul are signposts. The Paris meeting of western spies and ‘diplomats’ was an exercise in stocktaking.

*

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: UN Security Council held a meeting on women and peace and security at UN Headquarters, New York, March 7, 2023 (Source: IP)

Withdraw From Syria Should Have Been a “Slam Dunk”

March 14th, 2023 by Renee Parsons

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

***

Relying on an outdated foreign policy document of lapsed authority, the US House of Representatives rejected HR 21 by a lopsided 321 – 103 vote affirming that American belligerents span both political parties when the Uniparty needs to coalesce.

Introduced by Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fl), the Resolution would have, under Congressional approval of the War Powers Act,  directed President Biden to withdraw US military forces from northeast Syria within 180 days of enactment.

Especially revealing has been the role of two prestigious House Committees with obvious jurisdiction: Armed Services and Foreign Affairs are predominant Congressional authorities yet neither grasped the contradiction that being a War Party is about peddling public money in pursuit of speculative military adventures like Syria.

How many Members of Congress are cognizant that there are fiscal consequences for every militaristic whim or conflated armed conflict that are contrary to the long term interests of the American people?  How would those committees occupy their time if there were no countries to interfere with, no wars to initiate, no statutory nuance to debate – which may justify public discussion about downsizing to a part time Congress.

The overwhelming predisposition of each Committee was disturbing with 171 Republican Noes and 150 Democratic Noes against the Resolution as 47 Republicans and 56 Democrats voted Aye.

While an archetypical illustration of President Obama’s unwelcomed intervention in 2014 as a US interloper intent on stealing Syrian oil, with air strikes and military occupation in the name of counterterrorism with no tangible American interests, Syria remains an enigmatic quagmire with no end in sight.

While opposition to the Resolution relied on an outdated  22-year old military authorization, the AUMF of 2001 (Authority for Use of Military Force) was adopted specific to the 9/11 attack and is better known today as the ‘forever war’ authority.   Never meant to be a wide open door to future decades of war, Congressional hawks use the AUMF as Constitutional and political cover for airstrikes and ground ops in Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen, Somalia, Syria or wherever needed.

It is readily apparent that a “civil war’ facilitated a US-backed deal taking control of Syrian oil fields as a façade for the State and Defense Departments to legitimize American troop presence as counter to the Islamic State. It does not take a PhD in poli science to speculate that many terrorists, some repugnant in their brutality, protest the theft of the US taking their natural resources.

We now know that a week before the House vote, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Mark Milley made a surprise, more like a tiptoe, visit into northeast Syria stressing the ‘enduring defeat” mantra of  PKK/YPG terrorists who, according to Turkish sources, both receive US aid.  Milley’s unlikely visit came the day after a series of US led operations killed IS operatives.

Even before Milley’s trip, it has been a source of speculation why a relatively insignificant number of 900 US troops were left behind.  Of special interest is their assignment in the petroleum-rich northeast, why Milley would make a clandestine visit and whether such a negligible number is sufficient to thwart a dedicated terrorist presence. The answer may lie in the closing days of the Trump Administration which has been reconfigured by the Biden Administration.

The CRS Report Armed Conflict in Syria, March, 2019 confirms that the Syrian conflict is riddled with complexity and contradictions which cost American taxpayers an estimated $30 Billion from 2014 – 2019.  Trump’s 2018 order for removal of all US troops from Syria was refuted by National Security Advisor John Bolton stating that Americans would remain until an Iran presence in Syria was eliminated. At about the same time, the Worldwide Threat Assessment prepared by US intelligence stated that “The conflict has decisively shifted in the Syrian regime’s favor…”

By 2019, Trump announced ISIS defeat and again ordered removal of all US troops prompting the resignation of Defense Secretary Mattis.  Senators Graham (SC), Shaheen (NH), Ernst (Iowa), King (Maine), Cotton (Ark), and Rubio (FL) opposed the withdrawal in a letter to Trump stating, “We believe that such action at this time is a premature and costly mistake…” until Trump’s Secretary of Defense Mark Esper confirmed that 900 US troops would remain as a “stabilization operation” to guard Syrian oil fields from Islamic terrorists and deny Syria its own oil.

With the Delaware-based Delta Crescent Energy company in charge of the Syrian fields and a waiver from US sanctions, Trump’s response in October, 2019 was ‘we are keeping the oil..” “ $45 million a month”  “we are leaving troops behind only for the oil.”  The deal has since been discarded by the Biden Administration thus reinstating US sanctions against Syria.  A Senior State Department official confirmed that ‘We have a military presence there exclusively fighting Daesh.”

Not surprising, after the House vote,  Chinese foreign affairs spokesman Mao Ning called on the US to end its ‘illegal unilateral sanctions’ and cease raiding  “80% of Syria’s daily oil production” without allowing access by the Assad government.  The US Treasury Department has applied sanctions on 35 sovereign nations around the world as Syria remains caught in the cross hairs.

Supporting the Gaetz resolution was former Obama Ambassador to Syria Robert Ford whose letter to Congress probably went unread since Ford specifically addressed that the “last ISIS territory was captured by Syrian militia in March 2019’  consequently leaving  “serious debate about whether  their mission is achievable” and given that “many more American resources would be required without guarantee of success.”  Ford could not have been more explicit but those who are devoted to war will not be denied.  Ford continued “After more than eight years of military operations in Syria, there is no definition of what the ‘enduring defeat’ of ISIS would look like.”

The House floor debate was disappointing with the observance that no HR 21 opponents seemed aware of Ford’s message but rather allowed their own machismo to dominate their thinking despite facts on the ground.   Most especially Rep. Ryan Zinke  (R-Mont.)  myopic justification that “either we fight’em in Syria or we’ll fight ‘em here’ or that ‘we’ll fight them on the streets of our nation’ as one example of 1950’s cold war mentality that guide the majority of Members decision making.

As Rep. Andy Biggs (R- Az.) pointed out there is “no statutory authority for the US to be in Syria.”  There was no mention of the role of Israel as a rationale for US undermining Assad until Trump’s 2019 proclamation recognizing usurpation of the Golan Heights as Israel territory.

While the House Armed Services Committee chaired by Rep. Mike Rogers (R-Ala.) has thirty voting members with only three Members of the Committee voting in favor of HR 21.  Those opposing the Resolution included Rep. Jim Banks (R-Ind.) who is expected to run for the Senate in 2024 and Rep. Mike Gallagher (R-Wisc) Chair of the newly formed Select Committee on China.  Those Republican members voting in favor of the Resolution included newly elected Rep. Corey Mills (Fl) who spoke eloquently during the debate, Rep. Nancy Mace (R-SC) and its author Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fl.)

On the other hand, the House Foreign Affairs Committee which is chaired by Rep. Mike McCaul (R-Tex) has 28 eight voting members with four  Committee Members voting in favor including Rep. Mills who serves on both committees, Rep. Matthew Perry (R- Pa.), Rep. Ken Buck (R-Co.) and Rep. Tim Burchett (R- Tenn.)   Voting against the Resolution included newly elected, Trump-endorsed Rep. John James (R-Mich.).

In a position to understand fiscal reality, the House Budget Committee with 37 members exhibited a better appreciation that Math speaks Truth.  With a $1.5 Trillion annual service debt payment and for every $1 the Federal government collects, the Feds spend $1.29 as an unsustainable bad habit, 14 members (seven Dems and seven Republicans) voted in support of the Gaetz resolution – setting an example for those Members of the House unable to connect the dots.

*

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.

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

Featured image is from Mideast Discourse


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.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Withdraw From Syria Should Have Been a “Slam Dunk”

How U.S. Military Spending Works

March 14th, 2023 by David Swanson

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.

***

Here’s how this works each year.

1) Biden proposes a massive increase in military spending — above and beyond both what he proposed the year before and what the Congress increased that to. If you look at U.S. military spending according to SIPRI in constant 2021 dollars from 1949 to now (all the years they provide, with their calculation adjusting for inflation), Obama’s 2011 record will probably fall this year. If you look at actual numbers, not adjusting for inflation, Biden has set a new record each year.

If you add in the free weapons for Ukraine, then, even adusting for inflation, the record fell this past year and will probably be broken again in the coming year.

You’ll hear all sorts of different numbers, depending on what’s included. Most used is probably $886 billion for what Biden has just propoosed, which includes the military, the nuclear weapons, and some of “Homeland Security.” In the absence of massive public pressure on a topic the public hardly knows exists, we can count on an increase by Congress, plus major new piles of free weapons to Ukraine. For the first time, U.S. military spending (not counting various secret spending, veterans spending, etc.) will likely top $950 billion as predicted here.

War profiteer-funded stink tankers like to view military spending as a philanthropic project to be measured as a percentage of an “economy” or GDP, as if the more money a country has, the more it should spend on organized killing. There are two more sensible ways to look at it. Both can be seen at Mapping Militarism.

One is as simple amounts per nation. In these terms, the U.S. budget is more than those of most nations of the world combined. Only 29 nations, out of some 200 on Earth, spend even 1 percent what the U.S. does. Of those 29, a full 26 are U.S. weapons customers. Many of those receive free U.S. weapons and/or training and/or have U.S. bases in their countries. Only one non-ally, non-weapons customer (albeit a collaborator in bioweapons research labs) spends over 10% what the U.S. does, namely China, which was at 37% of U.S. spending in 2021 and likely about the same now despite the highly horrifying increases widely reported in the U.S. media and on the floor of Congress. (That’s not considering weapons for Ukraine and various other expenses.)

The other way to look at it is per capita. As with a comparison of absolute spending, one has to travel far down the list to find any of the designated enemies of the U.S. government. But here Russia jumps to the top of that list, spending a full 20% of what the U.S. does per person, while only spending less than 9% in total dollars. In contrast, China slides down the list, spending less than 9% per person what the United States does, while spending 37% in absolute dollars. Iran, meanwhile, spends 5% per capita what the U.S. does, compared to just over 1% in total spending.

Meanwhile, the list of U.S. allies and weapons customers that lead the rankings (among those nations trailing behind the United States itself) shifts. In more familiar overall terms, we’d be looking at India, Saudi Arabia, France, Germany, UK, Italy, Brazil, Australia, and Canada as the top spenders. In per capita terms, we’re looking at Israel, Saudi Arabia, Oman, Norway, Australia, Denmark, France, Finland, and UK as the most militarized countries. The top militarists in absolute terms overlap more heavily with the top weapons dealers (the United States, trailed by France, Russia, UK, Germany, China, Italy) and with the permanent members of that organization created to end war, the UN Security Council (U.S., UK, France, China, Russia).

The leaders in military spending per capita are all among the closest U.S. allies and weapons customers. They include an Apartheid state in Palestine, brutal royal dictatorships in the Middle East (partnered with the United States in destroying Yemen), and Scandinavian social democracies that some of us in the United States often see as better directing resources to human and environmental needs (not just better than the United States at this, but better than most other countries as well).

2) The corporate media reports on the budget proposal mostly as if the single item that takes up more than half of it doesn’t even exist.Nobody is asked for a preferable budget proposal, just as no presidential or congressional candidates ever are. The basic facts discoverable from a simple pie-chart are kept secret from most people.

Stephen Semler provides this pie chart:

3) Zero Democrats object or encourage No votes or vote-withholding threats or even state that they will personally vote No. (But the Congressional “Progressive” Causus publishes an “explainer” with three sentences at the end vaguely objecting.) This stands in sharp contrast to various blather one hears in election seasons, such as these excerpts from the 2020 Democratic Party Platform:

4) Congress, with Republicans in the lead, proposes a massive increase over and above Biden’s massive increase.

5) “Progressive” Democrats whimper about the Republican increase, suggesting through omission that it was the only increase.

6) But, zero Democrats object or encourage No votes or vote-withholding threats or even state that they will personally vote No (the one exception I know of was in the Senate one year, and not exactly a Democrat: Bernie Sanders once said he would vote No).

7) The bill passes both houses and is signed into law.

8) “Progressive” Democrats tell people they voted No, and moreover they’ve cosponsored the People Over the Pentagon Act.

There’s a bill in Congress, as there always is, called The People Over Pentagon Act, which would reduce military spending by $100 billion. Who the heck isn’t for that?! Everybody who’s got any sense has endorsed the thing, as they always do. Who wouldn’t? I don’t blame anybody in the least. Except the bill’s sponsors in Congress. I blame them. And not just because they want to cut $100 billion from whatever the military budget may be, while that budget has risen by more than $100 billion since they started introducing this sort of bill. And not just because they’ve dumped $100 billion into free weapons for Ukraine above and beyond the budget that they supposedly want to reduce by $100 billion.

To understand why this thing is a scam, it helps to look at an account of how wonderfully awesome the Progressive Caucus is. It reads in part:

“In December 2022, when then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) agreed to support Manchin’s permitting deal in the military budget—or National Defense Authorization Act—Jayapal polled CPC members before announcing that the caucus opposed the measure and would fight its inclusion in any legislation. More significantly, Jayapal told Pelosi that CPC members would vote against any “rule” on the National Defense Authorization Act that included it. Rules for debate on the House floor are generally adopted on party-line votes because they often add seemingly extraneous items supported by members of the majority party, such as Manchin’s permitting deal. The idea is to provide a quick path for passage of the final legislation—in this case, the National Defense Authorization Act. While Republicans would likely have lined up to pass the record-breaking military budget, they would not vote for the rule putting it on the floor, since those are virtually always taken by a party-line vote. This gave the CPC the leverage it needed to block Manchin’s permitting deal.”

This is a cheerleader for the Progressive Caucus effectively telling us something that I’ve been telling anyone who would listen since somewhere far back in the mists of time, namely that there is a way for a group of Democrats in the House of Representatives to accomplish something if they actually want to. It’s not unlike the way a group of Republicans withheld their votes for the current Speaker of the House until they got some stuff they wanted. When a group of Democrats withheld their votes, blocking a military spending bill, they were able to get something they wanted, the removal of the dirty oil deal. Terrific. Good for them. Awesome indeed.

But they didn’t so much as try to get — as they have NEVER ever once tried to get — something else that they supposedly want, namely reduced military spending. And, of course, they often don’t try to get anything at all. So, the excuse that demanding two things would just be unreasonable doesn’t get you very far. They typically demand zero things. This was a freak occasion when they were motivated to demand anything at all. And they got what they demanded. Did anyone learn anything from that?

You see, as I’ve been screaming myself blue in the face trying to communicate for decades, if you have a group of people in one house of Congress claiming to be against something, they can block it. They don’t need permission from the other chamber (the Senate), or the White House, or MSNBC. They can simply withhold their votes — either on partisan rule votes or on full-house votes in which the other party may join them for its own insane reasons.

Or they can go on letting record military spending bills come to the floor and pass, voting against them in small enough numbers to not endanger passage while still allowing them to show their constituents their noble “No” votes. If they take this route, they can also introduce bills proposing to reduce the military spending they’re allowing to pass. And organizations can get funding for tracking how a few more Congress Critters cosponsor the charade than did two years ago. It’s win-win. Except that it’s never brought to a vote, never passes the House, wouldn’t matter anyway without passing the Senate, and would be vetoed if it miraculously passed both houses.

I think this phony approach gets a boost from the “I’m for something, not against something” crowd. It’s pleasant to endorse a bill that says it will reduce military spending, whereas withholding votes from a procedural vote nobody’s heard of sounds rather weird and unpleasant, even contrary to good Party spirit and loyalty. But would you rather actually reduce military spending or go on “reducing military spending” as it soars upward forever?

A few years ago, a couple of members of Congress, the same ones sponsoring this bill, claimed they were going to create a “Defense Spending Reduction Caucus.” That sounds like something that might do just what’s needed. Except it was never created, has no website, has no staff, has no identity, has never organized anybody to do anything, and seems simply poised to burst onto the scene with a strongly worded letter in support of the People Over Pentagon Act as soon as there’s a Republican in the White House.

Two days ago, the Congress voted overwhelmingly for more war in Syria. Not a single Democrat spoke for peace or even for Congress doing its job and forbidding presidential wars.

One day ago, the President proposed his record-high military budget, which we can expect Congress to increase further in the absence of massive public pressure against it.

Most of the funding for weapons for Ukraine is above and beyond the standard budget, and that war is escalating with no end in sight, with the U.S. and UK sabotaging peace (not to mention pipelines).

The risk of a nuclear war that could end all life on Earth is as high as it has ever been.

The U.S. government seems intent on risking war with Iran and China, while continuing the war on Yemen.

We need ceasefires. We need negotiations. We need sane, diplomatic, “rules-based,” resolution of conflicts. We need sustainable self-governance free from imperial agendas.

Let’s all be at the White House at 1 p.m. on Saturday, March 18th!

Learn more at ANSWER, or the People’s Forum, or CODE PINK.

*

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 WorldBeyondWar.Org.

David Swanson is an author, activist, journalist, and radio host. He is executive director of WorldBeyondWar.org and campaign coordinator for RootsAction.org. Swanson’s books include War Is A Lie. He blogs at DavidSwanson.org and WarIsACrime.org. He hosts Talk World Radio. He is a Nobel Peace Prize nominee, and U.S. Peace Prize recipient. Longer bio and photos and videos here. Follow him on Twitter: @davidcnswansonand FaceBook, and sign up for: Activist alerts. Articles. David Swanson news. World Beyond War news. Charlottesville news.

He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from NationofChange

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on With AUKUS, Australia Has Wedded Itself to a Risky US Policy on China – And Turned a Deaf Ear to the Region

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.

***

Ah, the joys of the Big Circle Line (BKL, in Cyrillic): circumnavigating the whole of Moscow for 71 km and 31 stations: from Tekstilshchiki – in the old textile quarter – to Sokolniki – a suprematist/constructivist gallery (Malevich lives!); from Rizhskaya – with its gorgeous steel arches – to Maryina Roscha – with its 130 meter-long escalator.

The BKL is like a living, breathin’, runnin’ metaphor of the capital of the multipolar world: a crash course in art, architecture, history, urban design, tech transportation, and of course “people to people’s exchanges”, to quote our Chinese New Silk Road friends.

President Xi Jinping, by the way, will be ridin’ the BKL with President Putin when he comes to Moscow on March 21.

So it’s no wonder that when a savvy investor at the top of global financial markets, with decades of experience, agreed to share some of his key insights on the global financial system, I proposed a ride on the BKL – and he immediately accepted it. Let’s call him Mr. S. Tzu. This is the minimally edited transcript of our moveable conversation.

***

Pepe Escobar (PE): Thank you for finding the time to meet – in such a gorgeous setting. With the current market volatility, it must be hard for you to step away from the screens.

S. Tzu: Yes, markets are currently very challenging. The last few months remind me of 2007-8, except instead of money-market funds and subprime mortgages, these days it is pipelines and government bond markets that blow up. We live in interesting times.

PE: The reason I reached out to you is to hear your insights on the “Bretton Woods 3” concept introduced by Zoltan Poszar. You’re definitely on top of it.

S. Tzu: Thank you for getting straight to the point. There are very few opportunities to witness the emergence of a new global financial order, and we are living through one of those episodes. Since the 1970s, perhaps only the arrival of bitcoin just over fourteen years ago came close in terms of impact to what we are about to see in the next few years. And just as the timing of bitcoin was not a coincidence, the conditions for the current tectonic shifts in the world financial system have been brewing for decades. Zoltan’s insight that “after this war is over, ‘money’ will never be the same again…” was perfectly timed.

Understanding “external money”

PE: You mentioned bitcoin. What was so revolutionary about it at the time?

S. Tzu: If we leave aside the crypto side of things, the promise and the reason for bitcoin’s initial success was that bitcoin was an attempt to create “external” money (using Mr. Zoltan’s excellent terminology) that was not a liability of a Central Bank. One of the key features of this new unit was the limit of 21 million coins that could be mined, which resonated well with those who could see the problems of the current system. It sounds trivial today, but the idea that a modern monetary unit can exist without backing of any centralized authority, effectively becoming “external” money in digital form, was revolutionary in 2008. Needless to say, Euro government bond crisis, quantitative easing, and the recent global inflationary spiral only amplified the dissonance that many felt for decades. The credibility of the current “internal money” system (again, using Mr. Poszar’s elegant terminology) has been destroyed long before we got to the Central Bank reserve freezes and disruptive economic sanctions that are playing out currently. Unfortunately, there is no better way to destroy credibility of the system based on trust than to freeze and confiscate foreign currency reserves held in Central Bank custody accounts. The cognitive dissonance behind the creation of bitcoin was validated — the “internal money” system was fully weaponized in 2022. The implications are profound.

PE: Now we are getting to the nitty-gritty. As you know, Zoltan argues that a new “Bretton Woods 3” system will emerge at the next stage. What exactly does he mean by that?

S. Tzu: I am also not clear on whether Mr. Poszar refers to the transformation of the current Western “internal money” system into something else, or whether he hints at the emergence of the “Bretton Woods 3” as an alternative, outside of the current financial system. I am convinced that a new iteration of the “external money” is unlikely to be successful in the West at this stage, due to the lack of political will and to the excessive government debt that has been building up for some time and grew exponentially in recent years.

Before the current Western financial order can move to the next evolutionary stage, some of these outstanding liabilities need to be reduced in real terms. If history is any guide, it typically happens via default or inflation, or some combination of the two. What seems highly likely is that the Western governments will rely on financial repression in order to keep the boat afloat and to tackle the debt problem. I expect there will be many initiatives to increase control over the “internal money” system that will likely be increasingly unpopular. Introduction of CDBC’s, for example, could be one such initiative. There is no doubt in my mind that we are in for eventful times ahead in this respect. At the same time, it also seems inevitable at this stage that some sort of an alternative “external money” system will emerge that will compete with the current “internal money” global financial order.

PE: And why is that?

S. Tzu: The global economy can no longer rely on the “internal money” system in its current weaponized state for all its trade, reserve, and investment needs. If sanctions and reserve freezes are the new instruments of regime change, every government out there must be thinking about alternatives to using someone else’s currency for trade and reserves. What is not obvious, however, is what the alternative to the current flawed global financial order should be. History does not have many examples of successful “external money” approaches that could not be reduced to some version of the gold standard. And there are many reasons why gold alone, or a currency fully convertible into gold, is too restrictive as a foundation of a modern monetary system.

At the same time, recent increases in trade in local currencies unfortunately have a limited potential as well, as local currencies are simply a different instance of “internal money.” There are obvious reasons why many countries would not want to accept other’s local currencies (or even their own, for that matter) in exchange for exports. On that I fully agree with Michael Hudson. Since “internal money” is a liability of a country’s Central Bank, the lower the credit standing of the country, the more it needs investable capital, and the less willing other parties become to hold its liabilities. That is one of the reasons why a typical set of “structural reforms” that IMF demands, for example, is aimed at improving credit quality of the borrower government. “External money” is badly needed precisely by the countries and the governments that feel they are hostages to the IMF and to the current “internal money” financial system.

Enter the “newcoin”

PE: A lot of experts seem to be looking into it. Sergey Glazyev, for instance.

S. Tzu: Yes, there were some indications of that in recent publications. While I am not privy to these discussions, I certainly have been thinking how this alternative system could work as well. Mr. Pozsar’s concepts of “internal” and “external” money are a very important part of this discussion. However, the duality of these terms is misleading. Neither option is fully adequate for the problems that the new monetary unit – let’s call it “newcoin” for convenience – needs to solve.

Please allow me to explain. With the weaponization of the current US dollar “internal money” system and a simultaneous escalation of sanctions, the world has effectively split into the “Global South” and the “Global North,” slightly more precise terms than East and West. What is important here, and what Mr. Pozsar immediately noticed, is that the supply chains and commodities are also getting weaponized to some extent. Friend-shoring is here to stay. The implication is that the newcoin’s first priority would be facilitating intra-South trade, without relying on currencies of the Global North.

If this were the only objective, there would have been a choice of relatively simple solutions, ranging from using renminbi/yuan for trade, creating a new shared currency (fashioned after euro, ECU, or even Central African CFA franc), creating a new currency based on the basket of participating local currencies (similar to the SDR of IMF), potentially creating a new gold-pegged currency, or even pegging existing local currencies to gold. Unfortunately, history is full of examples of how each one of these approaches creates their own host of new problems.

Of course, there are other parallel objectives for the new currency unit that neither of these possibilities can fully address. For example, I expect that all participants would hope that the new currency strengthens their sovereignty, not dilutes it. Next, the challenges with the Euro and previously gold standard demonstrated the broader problem with “fixed” exchange rates, especially if the initial “fix” was not optimal for some members of the currency zone. The problems only accumulate over time, until the rate is “re-fixed,” often through a violent devaluation. There needs to remain flexibility in adjusting relative competitiveness inside the Global South over time for participants to remain sovereign in their monetary decisions. Another requirement would be that the new currency needs to be “stable,” if it were to become successful unit of pricing for volatile things like commodities.

Most importantly, the new currency should be able to become an “external money” storage of capital and reserves down the road, not just a settlement unit. In fact, my conviction that the new monetary unit will emerge comes primarily from the current lack of viable alternatives for reserves and investment outside of the compromised “internal money” financial system.

PE: So considering all these problems, what do you propose as a solution?

S.  Tzu: First allow me to state the obvious: the technical solution to this problem is a lot easier to find than to arrive at the political consensus among the countries which might want to join the newcoin zone. However, the current need is so acute, in my opinion, that the required political compromises will be found in due course.

That said, please allow me to introduce one such technical blueprint for the newcoin. Let me start by saying that it should be partially (I suggest a share of at least 40% of value) backed by gold, for reasons that will soon become clear. The remaining 60% of the newcoin would be composed of the basket of currencies of the participating countries. Gold would provide the “external money” anchor to the structure and the basket of currencies element would allow the participants to retain their sovereignty and monetary flexibility. There would clearly be a need to create a Central Bank for the newcoin, which would emit new currency. This Central Bank could become a counterparty to cross-swaps, as well as provide clearing functions for the system and enforce the regulations. Any country would be free to join the newcoin on several conditions.

First, the candidate country needs to demonstrate that it has physical unencumbered gold in its domestic storage and pledge a certain amount in exchange for receiving corresponding amount of newcoin (using the 40% ratio mentioned above). Economic equivalent of this initial transaction would be a sale of the gold to the “gold pool” backing the newcoin in exchange for proportional amount of the newcoin backed by the pool. The actual legal form of this transaction is less important, as it is necessary simply to guarantee that the newcoin that is being emitted is always backed by at least 40% in gold. There is no need to even publicly disclose the gold reserves of each country, as long as all participants can be satisfied that sufficient reserves are always present. An annual joint audit and monitoring mechanism may be sufficient.

Second, a candidate country would need to establish a gold price discovery mechanism in its domestic currency. Most likely, one of the participating precious metals exchanges would start physical gold trading in each of the local currencies. This would establish a fair cross-rate for the local currencies using “external money” mechanism to set and adjust them over time. The gold price of the local currencies would drive their value in the basket for the newly-emitted newcoins. Each country would remain sovereign and be free to emit as much of local currency as they choose to, but this would eventually adjust the share of their currency in the newcoin’s value. At the same time, a country would only be able to obtain additional newcoin from the central bank in exchange for a pledge of additional gold. The net result is that the value of each component of newcoin in gold terms would be transparent and fair, which would translate into the transparency of newcoin’s value as well.

Finally, emissions or sales of newcoin by the central bank would be allowed only in exchange for gold for anyone outside the newcoin zone. In other words, the only two ways external parties can obtain large amounts of newcoin is either receiving it in exchange for physical gold or as a payment for goods and services provided. At the same time, the central bank would not be obliged to purchase newcoin in exchange for gold, removing the risk of the “run on the bank.”

PE: Correct me if I’m wrong: this proposal seems to anchor all trade inside the newcoin zone and all external trade to gold. In this case, what about the stability of newcoin? After all, gold has been volatile in the past.

S. Tzu: I think what you are asking is what could be the impact if, for example, the dollar price of gold were to decline dramatically. In this case, as there would be no direct cross-rate between newcoin and the dollar, and as the central bank of the Global South would be only buying, not selling gold in exchange for newcoin, you can immediately see that arbitrage would be extremely difficult. As a result, the volatility of the currency basket expressed in newcoin (or gold) would be quite low. And this is exactly the intended positive impact of the “external money” anchoring of this new currency unit on trade and investment. Clearly, some key export commodities would be priced by the Global South in gold and newcoin only, making the “run on the bank” or speculative attacks on newcoin even less likely.

Over time, if gold is undervalued in the Global North, it would gradually, or perhaps rapidly, gravitate to the Global South in exchange for exports or newcoin, which would not be a bad outcome for the “external money” system and accelerate the broad acceptance of newcoin as reserve currency. Importantly, as physical gold reserves are finite outside of the newcoin zone, the imbalances would inevitably correct themselves, as the Global South will remain a net exporter of key commodities.

PE: What you just said is packed with precious info. Perhaps we should revisit the whole thing in the near future and discuss the feedback to your ideas. Now we’ve arrived at Maryina Roscha, it’s time to get off!

S. Tzu: It would be my pleasure to continue our dialogue. Looking forward to another loop!

*

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.

Pepe Escobar, born in Brazil, is a correspondent and editor-at-large at Asia Times and columnist for Consortium News and Strategic Culture. Since the mid-1980s he’s lived and worked as a foreign correspondent in London, Paris, Milan, Los Angeles, Singapore, Bangkok. He has extensively covered Pakistan, Afghanistan and Central Asia to China, Iran, Iraq and the wider Middle East. Pepe is the author of Globalistan – How the Globalized World is Dissolving into Liquid War; Red Zone Blues: A Snapshot of Baghdad during the Surge. He was contributing editor to The Empire and The Crescent and Tutto in Vendita in Italy. His last two books are Empire of Chaos and 2030. Pepe is also associated with the Paris-based European Academy of Geopolitics. When not on the road he lives between Paris and Bangkok. 

He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is licensed under the Public Domain

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Moveable Multipolarity in Moscow: Ridin’ the ‘Newcoin’ Train
  • Tags:

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.

***

Apple has its latest iPhones 12 and 13, and since this year also iPhone 14, finally assembled in the South Indian special economic zone Chennai in the state of Tamil Nadu. Numerous Indian electronics companies are established here, supplying Western car companies such as BMW and Ford, and digital companies such as Nokia, Dell, Hewlett Packard, Microsoft and Apple.

In the U.S., the Western world’s best-looking, best smartphone from the “world’s largest democracy” costs from $1,500 – up to $2,099 depending on the model.

For this Apple has contracted Taiwan’s Foxconn (Hon Hai Precision Industry Co.). Foxconn is the world’s largest organizer of barracked lowest-wage labor, especially in microelectronics. Foxconn uses subcontractors to recruit young women from poor rural areas. They can be fobbed off with particularly low wages, working eight hours, six days a week, spread over three shifts. They do not have a regular employment relationship, but a contract for work that can be terminated at any time. This is standard practice at Foxconn.

Hourly wage: 88 cents

Foxconn operates its own dormitories for this purpose. Up to ten of the women are housed there in mass accommodation, in bunk beds. When it gets crowded, the women have to sleep on the floor. The exit is highly regulated. The dormitories are guarded by security companies. The women are paid the hourly wage of 88 cents hourly for the 8-hour shifts in three shifts six days a week.

However, Foxconn deducts up to half of this, for accommodation, food, a minimum amount for social security – and also for the costly transport. The mass accommodation is up to 60 kilometers away from the factory, so that it takes up to two hours a day in the morning and two hours again in the evening.

The physical and mental strain on the women is enormous. Because of the three-shift operation and the long transports, sleep is often too short. The food is often poor, causing stomach problems. Sometimes the women prefer to go to work hungry so as not to endanger themselves. These women are disciplined and deliberately worn out – and after a few years of intensive use, Apple/Foxconn can replace them with new, unused young women – several placement agencies are constantly on the road in poor regions for this purpose. The state labor inspectorate lets such conditions pass.

Protest in faraway India – unheard by buyers of iPhones

In mid-December 2021, thousands of women working for Foxconn/Apple suddenly protested. They blocked a highway between Chennai and Bangalore for hours. Since then, Foxconn has conceded some small improvements: Women no longer have to sleep on the floor in the shelters, and they have running water instead of the water tank in the yard. But that’s about all.

These working conditions are extremely contrary to human rights. The unions of Tamil Nadu demand “an end to this forced labor and exploitation.” But the racist and nationalist government and Prime Minister Modi, is increasingly promoting such practices with its “Make in India” program.

That’s why India is considered an ally of the West and the “largest democracy in the world”. BlackRock & Co are happy to go along with that. That’s why Apple, with Foxconn, has expanded such subcontracting in Chennai in recent years.

Foxconn emerged under dictatorship in Taiwan

Indeed, Foxconn is not only the largest supplier of barracked low-wage labor to Apple. Foxconn is the world’s largest organizer of this type of subcontracting industry in microelectronics, primarily for U.S. corporations and for the U.S. military. And Foxconn is the largest company in Taiwan, even ahead of the world’s largest chip manufacturer Taiwan Semiconductor Manufactury Co. (TSMC).

Foxconn was founded in Taiwan in 1974, under the US-backed dictator Chiang kaishek. Martial law prevailed on the island until 1987, and unions were banned. Precisely because the U.S. diplomatically backed away from Chiang in the 1970s and recognized the People’s Republic of China, it simultaneously promoted Taiwan as a military and economic outpost against China. Taiwan was therefore incidentally the largest brothel for U.S. soldiers when they took leave from their deployment in Vietnam.

Foxconn has been assembling for Apple, Microsoft, Intel and other Silicon Valley companies since the 1980s: The lowest-wage workers in Taiwan were grouped together in homes, forced to work three to four hours of overtime a day without pay, given no paid vacation. Production was and is almost exclusively for export.

It was not until 1997 that the trade union umbrella organization TCTU was allowed to be founded, and it was not until 2000 that it was recognized by the state. Its influence remained limited. Even in 2022, Foxconn publicly boasts that it has no union in its own company. Foxconn’s direct workforce of about 50,000 is cared for with well-run canteens and courses in fitness and weight loss: after all, they do not suffer from malnutrition and hunger like Foxconn-Apple workers in India, but suffer from obesity because of eating too well.

Migrant workers from Vietnam and Indonesia in Taiwan

In addition, Foxconn has brought and continues to bring several hundred thousand migrant workers annually, mainly from Vietnam, but also from Indonesia and the Philippines: They must submit a new application every three years, have their health checked, and are allowed to work in Taiwan for a maximum of 12 years: At the latest then they have to leave, must not be a burden to Taiwan in their old age. Because they are usually heavily indebted to intermediaries, they are willing, cheap, submissive and hardworking.

Currently, 700,000 migrant workers in Taiwan are subject to this form of forced labor. They do the lowest jobs, the 3D jobs: dirty, dangerous, difficult. During the Corona pandemic, they were subject to much harsher restrictions than the local workers. This is at the same time a modern form of racism.

Taiwan also hosts the next largest low-wage labor organizers, Pegatron and Wistron. They also work as suppliers in India and other poor countries.

Export of service first to Japan and South Korea, then to China, now to India

This is how Foxconn became Taiwan’s largest company. Foxconn exported this extreme exploitation and low-wage practice first to Japan and South Korea, then on a larger scale to China: there, at its peak, Foxconn had up to one million low-wage workers under contract, also in many cases young women from poor rural regions. Here, too, low wages are cut for housing, food, and transportation.

Beginning in the early 2000s, workers in Foxconn factories in particular went on strike in China. Frequent suicides of young women in Apple assembly briefly became an international “scandal.” Apple CEO Steve Jobs, however, continued to describe working conditions at Foxconn as “very good.” China has been restricting such practices since 2006: wages have been gradually increased, and workers’ labor and grievance rights have been strengthened. Apple, Microsoft & Co. protested against the improvements in China.

That’s why Foxconn and Apple have been relocating assembly for more than a decade out of China to U.S.-friendly low-wage states, to India, Vietnam, Thailand, Indonesia, Malaysia, but also to EU states like the Czech Republic and Slovakia. With new subsidiaries in Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, Thailand and also in non-union states of the U.S., Foxconn is pushing its e-car supply contracts.

BlackRock in Apple and Foxconn

BlackRock, the leading shareholder of banks and companies of the U.S.led western capitalism, is also the leading western propagandist for the „new values“ of renewed sustainable capitalism: E S G, wich means good environment, good social life and work conditions, and good corporate governance.

But BlackRock is among the top five Apple shareholders, along with affiliated investors Vanguard, Berkshire Hathaway, State Street and Fidelity.

And BlackRock and Vanguard are also the third and fourth largest shareholders in Foxconn, the world’s largest organizer of barracked lowest-wage labor.

The working conditions for the Apple smartphones and other Silicon Valley products are widely unkown in the West. And also the global supply chains for the Chennai factory are secret. The working and life conditions violate all human rights. And this is „good corporate governance“?

Worldwide information and resistance is needed!

*

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. Werner Rügemer, author, lecturer at the University of Köln/Cologne, www.werner-ruegemer.de. He has published „The Capitalist of the 21st Century. An Easy-to-Understand Outline on the Rise of the New Financial Players“, tredition 2019, 308 pages. paperback, hardcover, e-Book (also in german, french and italian)

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.

***

A week ago an interesting story surfaced briefly in the news about how the developing Republican presidential candidate bids by Nikki Haley and others had been attacked over the past eleven months by possibly as many as hundreds of thousands of false automated personas, referred to in the trade as “bots,” on Twitter and other internet based social media. Interestingly, the activity was discovered and shared with Associated Press by an Israeli internet security company called Cyabra, which also claimed that the “bots” generation seem to have originated in three separate networks of false Twitter accounts. The accounts appear to have been created in the United States and it is believed that Artificial Intelligence (AI) applications are increasingly being used to create completely lifelike fake personas, extremely difficult for security filters and censors to detect.

The article claimed that those thousands of electronically generated non-personas had been programmed to disparage Haley and Ron DeSantis and others, often using “fake news” or alleged leaks of embarrassing personal information, while also praising the virtues of Donald Trump. The apparent intention was to build popular support for Trump by exploiting the social media sites’ algorithms to reach a large audience at the expense of the other possible GOP candidates. There are also concerns among some Republicans that the effort to give life to the Trump campaign by materially impacting on online political discussion might possibly be orchestrated and paid for by major outside interests that could actually be either foreign or criminal. Of course, as the operation has been exposed by an Israeli company, the possibility exists that the story is itself at least in part a false flag to plausibly deny any involvement by the Jewish state if that were to be demonstrable.

The story is nevertheless of interest, to be sure, based on its own merits, but it surfaced at the same time as a much bigger tale of international subversion, also linked to Israel, that was in addition linked to elections and regime change. While the United States must certainly be considered the world leader in compelling all nations to conform to the political and moral values that it insists be adhered to, Israel has stealthily become the nation that covertly uses its prowess in cyberwar and technology, particularly via the internet, to penetrate and disrupt the activities of friend and foe alike. One recalls the unleashing of the computer virus Stuxnet against Iran prior to 2010 and the more recent placement of cellphone surveillance listening devices near the White House and other federal buildings in Washington.

Israel’s prowess apparently includes the ability to influence more foreign elections than anyone else. Curiously enough, a leading Israeli group, referred to by its founder Tal Hanan as Team Jorge, has particular expertise in hacking and spreading disinformation using thousands of false identities and profiles, very much like the story of the Republican Party hijinks. The organization has been exposed in long articles appearing in a number of European publications which had been party to an undercover investigation of its activities, but oddly enough no US media picked it up and ran with it even though there were clear similarities to what had been taking place with the Republicans.

The investigation determined that Team Jorge has worked for a number of apparently mostly private clients, including political organizations, who pay generously for the special services it provides. Its activities, now exposed, add to a growing body of evidence that there exist shadowy private firms across the world that are exploiting invasive hacking tools and the power of online social media platforms to manipulate public opinion and even to sway voters in elections.

Hanan, a former Israeli special forces operative, claims his company, which he regards as a legitimate corporate contractor, has been operating under the radar for two decades out of an office near Tel Aviv. Team Jorge also has six overseas affiliates which have been providing services both to political groups and businesses. Hanan is not shy about his successes. He boasted that “We are now involved in one election in Africa… We have a team in Greece and a team in [the] Emirates… [We have completed] 33 presidential-level campaigns, 27 of which were successful… Most of the campaigns – two-thirds – were in Africa” but Hanan also claimed “work” in Latin America, the US and Europe. He said at one point that he was involved in two “major projects” in the US but denied interfering directly in US politics. No matter where it operates, Team Jorge’s business is profitable. Tal Hanan told one potential client that he would accept payments in a variety of currencies. Interference in an election would cost between 6 and 15 million Euros.

Hanan was exposed by a team of three undercover reporters who posed as prospective clients in the latter half of 2022. The story appeared in the British Guardian on February 15th, and was also picked up by the Daily Mail. It also appeared in the French and German media. The lengthy articles revealed the content of secretly recorded meetings in which Tal Hanan described in detail how his services, which some might describe as “black ops”, were available to intelligence agencies, political campaigns and private companies that wanted to secretly manipulate public opinion. To demonstrate the power of his hacking tools, Hanan hacked into the Gmail inbox and Telegram account of several political operatives in Kenya a few days before a presidential election there. Telegram is marketed as a top-level security communications system.

Team Jorge’s most sought-after service is a sophisticated software package, Advanced Impact Media Solutions, or AIMS. Per Hanan, it can create and control thousands of fake social media profiles on Twitter, LinkedIn, Facebook, Telegram, Gmail, Instagram and YouTube. Some of the AIMS avatars even have backup credit accounts to establish their bona fides, using bank cards, bitcoin wallets and Airbnb account numbers.

Team Jorge also has had what might be described as a business relationship with the now notorious British consulting firm Cambridge Analytica. Cambridge Analyticais now out of business but it participated in a Nigerian election with Team Jorge. It is best known for having stolen the personal data belonging to 87 million Facebook users. It then allegedly used the data to provide analytical assistance to the 2016 presidential campaigns of both Ted Cruz and Donald Trump and some believe the service provided may have influenced the result of the subsequent US presidential election.

Israel has long been the home of start-up cyberwarfare companies due to its government’s intense focus on developing the tools and skills to attack targets like Iran’s alleged nuclear program. It now might also face increased international pressure to rein in the former employees who were schooled in its military technology sector. Most of Hanan’s employees are, in fact, formerly with the government. The Team Jorge revelations come on top of accounts of how the powerful Israeli-made Pegasus spyware had been developed and sold by the cyber intelligence company NSO Group Technologies to various governments and other users. NSO reportedly spent lavishly in a bid to convince the US government to buy its advanced spyware. It even paid a consulting fee of $100,000 to Michael Flynn before he became President Donald Trump’s National Security Adviser. The company’s software was reportedly used internationally by governments to spy on political dissidents and, in particular, on journalists. Some others targeted by Pegasus included human rights activists and religious leaders, as well as politicians including French President Emmanuel Macron.

There has been a sharp reaction within the social media and internet communications communities since the revelations about Team Jorge. Meta, the owner of Facebook, immediately took steps to identify and take down possible AIMS-linked identities on its platform. It is presumed that other companies are doing the same. Team Jorgeclaims to have had great success in its disinformation efforts relating to elections, but until someone does an essentially forensic analysis of what was done and how, no one will ever know the truth. Presumably the company has already destroyed any and all particularly embarrassing documents. What is known, however, is that the toxic mix of Israel’s advanced cyberwar programs combined with the private enterprise of those cyberwarriors who leave government and apply their skills is something that has to be addressed. It has to be regulated or controlled in some fashion or the credibility of the social media and communications systems that current bind much of the world together will be suspect, which is precisely what some observers of what has just been revealed regarding the Republican Party nomination process should be thinking.

*

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 Unz Review.

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

He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

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

***

Historical background

Historical Poland (in fact, the Polish-Lithuanian Republic of Two Nations) became divided during the three partitions in 1772, 1793, and 1795 between the Kingdom of Prussia, the Habsburg Monarchy (later Austrian Empire and Austrian-Hungarian Monarchy), and the Russian Empire. At that time, the rulers of all these three states which divided Poland-Lithuania (the Kingdom of Poland and the Grand Duchy of Lithuania) have been by ethnic origin the Germans – Frederick the Great of Prussia, Catherine the Great of Russia, and Joseph II of Austria. It means that the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth (established in 1569 by the Union of Lublin), or the Republic of Two Nations was partitioned by the mutual agreement of the three ethnic German monarchs (one Roman Catholic, one Protestant and one originally Protestant, later Orthodox).

The Republic of Two Nations from the 1720s became extremely weakened from all points of view – political, military, social, geopolitical, and financial. As a direct result, the Republic’s inner political life became gradually dependent on the powerful neighboring Russian Empire. It became obvious during and after the 1733−1735 War of the Polish Succession when the last Republic’s rulers Augustus III (1734−1763) and Stanislaw Poniatowski (1764−1795) became substantially dependent on Russia. In order to gain more independence from St. Petersburg, it was organized the Confederation of Bar in 1768 followed by the Polish revolt which was soon suppressed by the direct intervention of the Russian army.

undefined

The Union of Lublin joined the Kingdom of Poland and the Grand Duchy of Lithuania in 1569. (Licensed under the Public Domain)

The First Partition (1772)

The First Partition of the Republic in 1772 was a direct outcome of the Russian geopolitical interests in the region of the time based on regaining Russian-populated territories occupied earlier for centuries by the Polish-Lithuanian state (the first Polish-Lithuanian state-political union was in 1385 – the Union of Krevė/Krewo). In 1772, it was the Russian victory over the Ottoman Empire as a consequence of the course of the Russo-Ottoman war 1768−1774 which alarmed the Habsburg Monarchy to such a degree that Vienna was even ready to go to war against Russia. As a mediator for the reason to avoid a new European military conflict between great powers, the Prussian king Frederick II (the Great) proposed to St. Petersburg and Vienna simply to annex parts of the Republic’s territory by their three countries in such a way that Russian territorial gain would not be objectionable to the Habsburg Monarchy. Nevertheless, as the result of the First Partition of the Republic in 1772, Russia annexed the easternmost regions of the Republic of Two Nations – Polish Livonia, Polatsk, Vitebsk, and Mohylew, having now the borders on Dnieper and Western Dvina (93.000 sq. kilometers with 1.300.000 inhabitants). The Kingdom of Prussia annexed 36.000 sq. kilometers with 580.000 people (West Prussia, Netze District, and Elbląg but not the city-port of Danzig/Gdańsk). Finally, the Habsburg Monarchy received 81.000 sq. kilometers with 2.650.000 inhabitants (Galicia-Lodomeria with Lemberg/Lwów, Belz, parts of Podolia, Sandomierz, and Cracow district but without the city of Cracow itself on the north bank of the Vistula River). The new land annexed by Vienna became officially named the Kingdom of Galicia-Lodomeria (without West Galicia). That was, basically, the Palatinate of Rus’. The new name was recalling the title in the old Hungarian crown (Hungary was ruled by the Habsburgs since 1526). Hungarian kings since the 12th century claimed this territory of the medieval Rus’ principalities of Galicia and Volhynia (Lodomeria).

The Second Partition (1793)

After the 1772 partition, Poland-Lithuania adopted a constitution on May 3rd, 1791 (the first constitution in Europe and the second in the world after the U.S. 1787 constitution) which was giving more political power to a hereditary monarchy in order to make the inner structure of the country stronger and viable to resist further partitions of the Republic. However, Polish opponents to such a design formed another military confederation drawn up in Russia – the Confederation of Targowica. This confederation was cooperating with the Russian tsarist authorities for the reason to restore pre-1791 constitutional democratic liberties of the feudal aristocracy against the potential absolute power of the ruler (king/grand duke). The result of the such situation was the military invasion by Russia in 1792 (supporting the legitimate claims by the confederation based on its formal invitation to intervene) that was followed by a Prussian military intervention which both of them ended with the Second Partition of the Republic in 1793. The Habsburg Monarchy did not participate in the second partition. On this occasion, the Russian Empire re-annexed parts of the territories of old Kieven Rus’ from the left bank of Western Dvina including Minsk, Pinsk, and Zelentsi to the mid-Southern Bug with Podolia up to the mid-Dnieper (the right bank). In fact, Russia included some 250.200 sq. kilometers populated by 3.000.000 people. Those lands belonged in the 15th century to the Grand Duchy of Lithuania as occupied since the second half of the 13th century onward. Prussia from its side included 1793 around 57.100 sq. kilometers of territory from Poland-Lithuania populated by around one million people of South Prussia (Great Poland) and territory around Danzig. However, in addition, Russia was given the right to station its military troops in what was left at that time from Poland-Lithuania and to control its foreign relations. Actually, the remains of the Republic of Two Nations became since 1793 supervised by St. Petersburg.

The Third Partition (1795)

The Third Partition of the Republic in 1795 was an outcome of a last attempt to reverse the fortune of the Commonwealth which started in March 1794 with the beginning of the widespread uprising led by Tadeusz Kościuszko (a participant in the American War of Independence against the Great Britany). However, the Polish-Lithuanian rebels finally became defeated by Russia in 1795. Consequently, the remains of the Republic of Two Nations were partitions between victorious Russia and Prussia and the noncombatant Habsburg Monarchy for the sake to keep a geopolitical balance between these three European great powers. In order words, in 1795, Russia received the greatest portion of the Republic (120.000 sq. kilometers with 1.200.000 people) including Courland, Samogitia, Lithuania proper with Wilno/Vilnius and Troki/Trakai, and Volhynia. The Kingdom of Prussia annexed 48.000 sq. kilometers populated by 1.020.000 people (New East Prussia up to the Neman/Memel River including Mazovia and a small portion of land northwest of Cracow – New Silesia). The Habsburg Monarchy occupied West Galicia or the lands beyond the Vistula River up to the Western Bug with 1.500.000 inhabitants (18.200 square miles) including the rest of Cracow (on the right bank of Vistula).

Epilogue

As a direct consequence of the three partitions of the Republic in 1772, 1793, and 1795, both the Kingdom of Poland and the Grand Duchy of Lithuania have been erased from the political map of Europe by the three European great powers – Russia, the Habsburg Monarchy, and Prussia. In sum, the total territorial acquisitions by all these three neighbors of the Republic from 1772 to 1795 have been as follows: the Russian Empire – 463.200 sq. kilometers (5.500.000 inhabitants); the Kingdom of Prussia – 141.400. sq. kilometers (2.600.000 inhabitants); and the Habsburg Monarchy – 128.900 sq. kilometers (4.150.000 inhabitants).

Finally, in such a way, the three great European powers resolved the Polish-Lithuanian question in East Europe at the end of the 18th century. Such a solution was alive in the practice until the end of WWI. In the interwar period, both Poland and Lithuania existed as separate national states quarreling over the Vilnius region. However, in 1939 the Fourth Partition of Poland occurred in which four Polish neighbors took participation: Germany, USSR, Slovakia, and Lithuania.

*

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

Featured image: Kraków Militia, a local guard formation in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth during the 16th and 17th centuries (Licensed under the Public Domain)

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on History: The Three Partitions of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. 1772, 1793 and 1795

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.

***

I was recently on the Stew Peters Show discussing how Canada is moving towards euthanizing Canadian children without parental consent, and how this is being led by Trudeau Liberal Senators and Liberal members of parliament. (click here)

Alberta begins vaccinating minors without parental consent 

On March 2, 2023, Alberta Health Services issued new guidelines on COVID-19 vaccination in the province of Alberta. (click here)

“All Albertans six months of age and older are eligible (to get COVID-19 vaccines)”

“Moderna – approved for age 6 months and older”

“Pfizer – approved for age five and older”

This is standard procedure from Alberta’s corrupt and grossly incompetent healthcare leaders who earn $700,000 a year to force toxic experimental pharmaceutical products on Alberta’s children and pregnant women.

But hidden in the guidelines is a shocking revelation that Alberta has now begun vaccinating children for COVID-19 without parental consent:

Notice 2 things:

  1. There is no age limit to what constitutes a “mature minor”
  2. Guidelines don’t describe what is meant by “in some circumstances” and “on a case by case basis”.

Trudeau Foundation Fellow Timothy Caulfield has been pushing for vaccinating teens without parental consent since 2019

Look who has been pushing for vaccination of teens without parental consent as early as May 2019 – University of Alberta Law Professor Timothy Caulfield (click here)

Timothy Caulfield is a Trudeau Foundation Fellow (click here), who received more than $2 million from the Trudeau Liberal government to “encourage vaccine acceptance and uptake”. (click here)

He has been aggressively pushing mRNA vaccines in Canada and it’s no surprise that he was pushing for children to be vaccinated without parental consent as far back as 2019, before the pandemic started.

This new Alberta AHS guideline allows any of the thousands of woke far left extremist pharma-compromised, vaccine-trigger-happy Canadian doctors to forcefully COVID-19 vaccinate vulnerable children without parental consent, without any repercussions, something that recently happened in the United States.

D.C. mother files lawsuit against doctor who force vaccinated her children with COVID-19 vaccines without their consent or hers…

This is one of the most sickening stories I’ve read in months. (click here)

The mother of two children who were given COVID-19 vaccines without the mother’s consent is suing the doctor who administered the vaccines.

On Sep.2, 2022, NaTonya McNeil took her two children, age 15 and 17, to a clinic to complete their required annual physical exam for the 2022-23 school year.

Dr. Janine Rethy, director of the clinic, held the children in the examination room longer than necessary and vaccinated them against COVID-19 over their objections and without consulting their mother.

As they were heading home, McNeil said she was shocked when her daughter complained that her arm hurt “pretty bad.” When McNeil asked her why it hurt, her daughter said she was given the COVID-19 shot, even though she told the doctor she didn’t want it.

When she had the needle in her hand and she was coming towards me, I backed up and I asked her what is that needle, and she said it was the COVID shot and I … told her I didn’t want it and she said, ‘Well it is mandatory, you have to get it in order to go to school.’

Dr. Rethy allegedly administered the shot to her daughter, and then to her son.

He’s 14 and he said they didn’t even ask him if he wanted it or not, but when they gave it to him, he said he thought he had to get it because his sister got it.

According to the complaint, both children received the  Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine.

Both children were upset and angry they had been coerced into vaccination, the complaint says.

COVID-19 Vaccine “accidents” involving children

Below are some of the “accidents” that have happened involving administration of COVID-19 vaccines to children. Do you think these were truly just “accidents”?

Oct.29, 2022 – 36 UK children ages 5-11 were given higher than normal COVID-19 vaccine dose (click here)

Jun.15, 2022 – A 6 year old received double dose of COVID-19 vaccine (click here)

Feb.14, 2022 – 42 Australian children ages 5-11 received incorrect dose of COVID-19 vaccine (click here)

Feb.3, 2022 – Two children under age 12 in Kentucky got COVID-19 vaccines instead of flu shots – lawsuits filed (click here)

Dec.22, 2021 – Two Ontario children ages 6 and 8 were given adult COVID-19 vaccine dose (click here)

Dec.3, 2021 – A 3 year old Brandon, Manitoba girl went for a flu shot, got an adult COVID-19 vaccine instead (COVID-19 vaccines were not approved for 3 year olds) (click here)

Dec.3, 2021 – A 7 yo boy in Georgia received adult dose COVID-19 vax (click here)

Nov.26, 2021 – 70 children in Maryland, ages 5-11 received expired dose of Pfizer pediatric vaccine (click here)

Nov.24, 2021 – More than 100 kids in Iowa receive accidental double dose of COVID-19 vaccine (click here)

Nov.20, 2021 – A 4 year old in Boston went for a flut shot, given COVID-19 vaccine instead (click here)

Nov.17, 2021 – 14 children ages 5-11 in California received a too-large dose of COVID-19 vaccine at Bay Area Sutter Health clinic, some got sick (click here)

Nov.10, 2021 – Miami child age 5 was given adult dose of COVID-19 vaccine (click here)

Nov.4, 2021 – Two Texas children ages 6 and 7 years old accidentally receive adult doses of COVID-19 vaccine (click here)

Oct.14, 2021 – Couple in Indiana took their kids (4 and 5 years old) to get flu shots, got adult COVID-19 vaccine shots instead (click here)

Oct.7, 2021 – Many mix-ups between flu vaccine and COVID-19 vaccine (click here)

Sep.29, 2021 – A 4 year old child in Maryland went to get a flu shot and got adult COVID-19 vaccine instead (click here)

May 31, 2021 – A dozen kids ages 12-17 mistakenly got Moderna instead of Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine (click here)

Apr.2, 2021 – A 8 yo boy in Texas was accidentally COVID-19 vaccinated (click here)

My Take…

Children are no longer “safe” in the hands of most Canadian and US doctors.

Alberta Health Services is now deliberately harming Alberta children under the Trudeau Liberal concept of “mature minors” which has no age limit. This institution must be purged of its far left extremist Trudeau-allied leadership once and for all.

There are far too many “accidents” involving kids getting a toxic COVID-19 jab their parents didn’t want them to get.

*

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 COVID Intel


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

by Michel Chossudovsky

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

“My objective as an author is to inform people worldwide and refute the official narrative which has been used as a justification to destabilize the economic and social fabric of entire countries, followed by the imposition of the “deadly” COVID-19 “vaccine”. This crisis affects humanity in its entirety: almost 8 billion people. We stand in solidarity with our fellow human beings and our children worldwide. Truth is a powerful instrument.”ISBN: 978-0-9879389-3-0,  Year:2022,  PDF Ebook,  Pages: 164, 15 Chapters

Price: $11.50 Get yours for FREE! Click here to download. (download button on top)

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

The Warring Peace: The AUKUS Submarine Announcement

March 14th, 2023 by Dr. Binoy Kampmark

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

***

History is filled with failed planners and plans, threats thought of that did not eventuate, and threats unthought of that found their way into the books.  The AUKUS agreement is an attempt to inflate a threat by developing a number of fictional capabilities in an effort to combat an inflated adversary.

The checklist of imminent failure for this security pact between the United States, the UK and Australia is impressive and comically grotesque.  In terms of the nuclear-powered submarine component, there are issues of expertise, infrastructure, hurdles of technology transfer, the hobbling feature of domestic politics, and national considerations.  There are also matters of irresponsible costs, of the exhaustion of public money best spent elsewhere.

To put it bluntly, Australia and all its resources spanning across a number of industries will be co-opted in this enterprise against a phantom enemy, subjugating an already subordinate state to the US war-making enterprise.

All of this was laid bare at San Diego’s Point Loma Naval Base on March 13, where the US imperium, backed up by a number of lickspittles from Australia and the United Kingdom, betrayed the cause of peace and announced to the world that war with China was not only a possibility but distinctly probable.

Central to the project is a staggering outlay of A$368 billion for up to thirteen vessels over three decades.  Canberra will purchase at least three US-manufactured nuclear submarines while contributing “significant additional resources” to US shipyards.  (Bully for the US builders.)  Given that the United States is unable to make up its own inventory of Virginia class nuclear submarines at this stage, the purchase will be second hand, a point which is bound to niggle members of Congress.  Two more vessels are also being thrown in as a possibility, should the “need” arise.

During this time, design and construction will take place on a new submarine dubbed the SSN-AUKUS, exploiting the work already undertaken by the UK on replacing the Astute-class submarines.  It will be, according to the White House, “based upon the United Kingdom’s next generation SSN design while incorporating cutting edge US submarine technologies, and will be built and deployed by both Australia and the United Kingdom.”

This point was also reiterated by the UK Prime Minister, Rishi Sunak. “The Royal Navy will operate the same submarines as the Australian Navy and we’ll share components and parts with the US Navy.”  Five of these are intended for the Royal Australian Navy by the middle of the 2050s, with one submarine being produced every two years from the early 2040s.

The speech by the Australian Prime Minister, Anthony Albanese, was more than a touch embarrassing.  It certainly did its bit to bury conventional understandings of sovereignty.  “This will be an Australian sovereign capability, commanded by the Royal Australian Navy and sustained by Australians in Australian shipyards, with construction to begin within the decade.”  The lexically challenged are truly in charge.

And what about the submarine personnel themselves?  Australian submariners as yet unacquainted with nuclear technology would be trained in the US.  “I am proud to confirm that they are in the top 30 per cent of their class.”  Can the Australians do a bit better than that?

The US President could only express satisfaction at such displays of unflagging, wobbly free obedience.  “Today, as we stand at the inflection point of history, where the hard work of announcing deterrence and enhancing stability is going to reflect peace and stability for decades to come, the United States can ask for no better partners in the Indo-Pacific where so much of our shared future will be written.”

As the White House statement promises, visits by US nuclear submarines to Australia will begin this year, with Australian personnel joining US crews for “training and development”.  The UK will take its turn at the start of 2026.

Australia promises to become even busier on that front, with a US-UK rotational presence commencing in 2027 which will be named the “Submarine Rotational Force-West” (SRF-West).  One UK Astute class submarine, and as many as four Virginia class submarines will find themselves at HMAS Stirling near Perth.

The effusive punditry on the Australian morning proved indigestible.  For those inclined towards peace, this must have seemed like a chance to initiate a few citizen arrests.  Deputy Prime Minister Richard Marles, who also holds the defence portfolio, was a quivering sight.  He remarked about the scale of the enterprise, justifying it against “the biggest conventional military build-up” in the region – those sneaky authoritarians in Beijing again – in an environment hostile to the “international rules-based order”.  Failure to do so would see Australia “condemned”.  (No mention here that the US military budget remains the largest on the planet.)

As for the issue of budgetary costs, Marles bizarrely and brazenly suggested that these would be “neutral” in the context of defence, despite the likelihood that cuts will have to be made, and various policy priorities jettisoned.

For morning viewers already fearing for their lives, there was a beaming South Australian Premier Peter Malinauskas thrilled that his state would eventually be producing the SSN-AUKUS at the as yet non-existent Submarine Construction Yard in Adelaide.  The fact that his state has neither the resources, infrastructure nor the personnel for such a task, was hardly reason to spoil the flag fluttering show.  “There are smiles all around,” he beamed to the hosts of the ABC Breakfast show.

US commentators, notably Charles Edel of the Center for Strategic and International Studies, emphasised that Australian defence was being vastly improved, or “augmented”, along with its military industrial base.  Blame China, suggested Edel, for exploiting a “permissive security environment” and exciting such urges on the part of the three countries.  The US Ambassador to Australia, Caroline Kennedy, even thought that this colossal waste of resources would add to the quotient of regional prosperity.

The opposite is very much the case: a profligate exercise that serves to turn Australia into a multi-generational garrison state at the beckon call of Washington’s war machine that will host, at stages, nuclear weapons.  The latter aspect is bound to fly in the face of the Treaty of Rarotonga, otherwise known as the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty.  But the Alice in Wonderland quality to the AUKUS agreement is bound to paper over that inconvenience.  For a warring peace is exactly what awaits.

*

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 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.

***

There has been additional information which contradicts the state and local authorities’ statements in Atlanta, Georgia where an environmental activist was gunned down by the police.

An independent autopsy requested by the family of the deceased activist announced on March 13 that the victim was in the process of surrendering when shot to death by armed law-enforcement agents.

Cop City is the popular name that has been given to the construction of a training center for police and firefighters in a forest area in Atlanta. It is part and parcel of an enhanced militarization of the police taking place at the aegis of the federal government.

Despite the mass demonstrations across the United States since 2020 against the brutality of law-enforcement, the administration of President Joe Biden, after receiving broad electoral support in order to oust his predecessor Donald Trump, stated publicly at the State of the Nation Address in 2022 that he did not want to defund the police. Instead Biden called for additional resources for law-enforcement along with more training.

The question is: training to do what? Civilians murdered by law-enforcement are rising at an alarming rate. Anti-crime specialized police units such as the Scorpions in Memphis, Tennessee whose operatives brutally beat to death 29-year-old African American Tyre Nichols in early February, have been established in urban areas in all regions of the U.S.

Attorney General Merrick Garland announced in early March that the Department of Justice had found evidence of racial profiling and abuse in Louisville, Kentucky where 25-year-old Breonna Taylor was killed by police conducting a no-knock raid. The police had the wrong residence and would shoot Taylor to death while lying in her bed. Although this incident occurred three years ago, no one has been indicted in her murder.

With specific reference to the struggles surrounding the construction of Cop City in Atlanta, the Associated Press and Fox News reported on the situation saying:

“According to the law enforcement narrative, (Manuel Esteban Paez) Teran was inside a tent in Intrenchment Creek Park during the January raid. The official autopsy conducted by the DeKalb County Medical Examiner’s Office said Teran was shot 13 times by multiple different guns. The family’s independent autopsy report concluded Teran’s hands were raised and facing multiple individuals at the time of the shooting…. The family filed a lawsuit last week against the city of Atlanta under the Georgia Open Records Act. The suit alleges the Georgia Bureau of Investigation asked the Atlanta Police Department to not release further body camera video from that operation, as originally promised, leaving the family no option but to file suit in an attempt to get to the truth. ‘The only people who know what happened in the forest that day are the officers who were present and the GBI, who is investigating,’ (Jeff) Filipovits, a civil rights lawyer representing the family said.”

The GBI has stated that there is no police bodycam video of the actual shooting of Teran, known by his friends and comrades as Tortuguita. Georgia officials claim that in this particular case there was no requirement to wear recording equipment.

All indications are that a massive cover-up by the State of Georgia, the City of Atlanta and various law-enforcement agencies is well underway. The withholding of pertinent information by the GBI and the governmental entities is being justified by the state through evoking the notion of not compromising the investigation.

Nonetheless, the interest of the public in the case must factor into these decisions. Distrust and skepticism of law-enforcement agencies is accelerating as the brutality of the police remains a major concern for people within the African American, Latin American and other People of Color communities.

Protesters Attacked by Police

Demonstrations have been ongoing against the construction of the Atlanta Public Safety Training Center (Cop City). Activists are demanding the halting of the project along with justice for the family  of Tortuguita.

The facility is said to cost $90 million and is being supported by both public and private funds. A police foundation connected with the project has accepted donations from wealthy individuals and interests in the Atlanta area. Corporations with financial interests in Cop City include Delta, Waffle House, the Home Depot, Georgia Pacific, Equifax, Carter, Accenture, Wells Fargo and UPS.

Cop City is being built on 85 acres (34.4 hectares) of a 400-acre property of what is designated as an unincorporated area in DeKalb County. The property is owned by the City of Atlanta. The training center is located within the larger South River Forest, which is also known as the Weelaunee Forest, a territory of the Indigenous Creek Nation.

This may explain the support for the Cop City training center among the municipal government in Atlanta. The Republican and Democratic politicians are heavily invested in the expansion of such training facilities which link local, state and federal law-enforcement agencies. According to activists opposed to the project, the overwhelming majority of people in the Atlanta and DeKalb County communities are against the construction of Cop City.

Although within the municipal governance authorities, the City Council majority voted to move ahead with the construction irrespective of public opposition. Atlanta Mayor Andre Dickens on January 31 announced a supposed “compromise” aimed at protecting the environment while granting a permit for the final construction. His actions have been condemned by environmentalists and anti-police brutality organizers.

Demonstrations were held in Atlanta on March 5 where 23 people were arrested and charged with terrorism. The police are alleging that they were attacked without provocation. However, activists deny these assertions by the police and state officials.

The clashes on March 5 took place while a concert was being held as part of a week of action in the DeKalb County area and in other cities around the U.S. Demonstrations in solidarity with the struggle to save the forest and end the militarization of the police have occurred in numerous cities in the U.S. and Canada.

Another Associated Press report on the events of March 5 emphasized:

“On Sunday, Atlanta Police Chief Darin Schierbaum said at a midnight news conference, pieces of construction equipment were set on fire in what he called ‘a coordinated attack’ at the site for the Atlanta Public Safety Training Center in DeKalb County. Surveillance video released by police shows a piece of heavy equipment in flames. It was among several destroyed pieces of construction gear, police said. Protesters also threw rocks, bricks, Molotov cocktails, and fireworks at police, officials said. In addition, demonstrators tried to blind officers by shining green lasers into their eyes, and used tires and debris to block a road, the Georgia Department of Public Safety said Monday (March 6).”

Convictions under terrorism laws would carry severe prison terms without the possibility of parole. Even in the situation of a first-time offender, the possibility of leniency is ruled out by law.

The Role of the Federal Government in Militarizing the Police

There have been periodic investigations by the Justice Department into criminal activity and civil rights violations by police operating within oppressed communities. As in Louisville, the interventions by the Attorney General always comes after an horrendous killing such as what happened to Breonna Taylor in 2020.

At the same time, funding and logistical efforts are continuing in support of local police agencies nationally. Military equipment utilized in war zones outside the U.S. are supplied to law-enforcement departments ostensibly to fight crime and violent unrest.

This ongoing role of the federal government was further exposed during the demonstrations which sprung up in the aftermath of the police killings of Breonna Taylor and George Floyd three years ago. Hence the strong emphasis on defunding and restructuring the police.

A report published by National Public Radio in June 2020 on this issue said the following:

“Federal departments ranging from the Department of Justice to the Department of Agriculture have grant programs aimed at hiring more police, equipping them and constructing new police facilities. Some experts say that federal involvement undermines community accountability and focuses more on enforcement than minimizing harm. Probably the most well-known of all such initiatives is the Community Oriented Policing Services program, established as part of the 1994 crime bill. The Department of Justice, which oversees the COPS program, says it has provided $14 billion since its inception to hire and train local police involved in community policing.”

Therefore, communities around the U.S. should pressure Republican and Democratic administrations in Washington to end their funding of law-enforcement which only results in abuse, unwarranted injuries and deaths due to the entire process of militarization. Prosecutors and the courts often exonerate the police when they engage in abusive behavior.

What is required is a complete break with the character and structures of law-enforcement as it is known today. More resources should be directed towards ending poverty, environmental degradation and the neglect of the needs of working class and oppressed peoples that are the victims of aggressive policing and draconian sentencing guidelines that entrap the masses within the criminal-industrial-complex.

*

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.

Abayomi Azikiwe is the editor of the Pan-African News Wire. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

All images in this article are from the author

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Militarizing the Police. Activist Had Hands Up When Killed by Georgia Police?
  • Tags:

China’s Initiative: Iran and Saudi Arabia Are Back on the Diplomatic Track. Ending the Atrocious War in Yemen?

By Peter Koenig, March 13, 2023

The Sunni Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and the Shia Republic of Iran have agreed – in a China brokered deal – to re-establish diplomatic relations within the coming two months.

Biden Weaponizes Hate to Win Votes

By James Bovard, March 14, 2023

Throughout his career, Biden has relied on a two-step routine —first appealing to “our better angels” before demagogically vilifying his opponents. In December 2020, after the Electoral College had certified his presidential victory, he declared, “Now it is time to turn the page, to unite, to heal.”

War, Terrorism and the Global Economic Crisis. Ninety-nine Interrelated Concepts

By Prof Michel Chossudovsky, March 14, 2023

Everything is interrelated: war, terrorism, the police state, the global economy, economic austerity, financial fraud, corrupt governments, poverty and social inequality, police violence, Al Qaeda, ISIS, media disinformation, racism, war propaganda  weapons of mass destruction, the derogation of international law, the criminalization of politics, the CIA, the FBI, climate change,  nuclear war, Fukushima, nuclear radiation, crimes against humanity, The China-Russia alliance, Syria  Ukraine, NATO, false flags, 9/11 Truth, ….

The Geopolitics of the Iran-Saudi Arabia “Rapprochement”: What Are the Implications for Pakistan?

By Andrew Korybko, March 13, 2023

The Iranian-Saudi rapprochement presents Pakistan with some unexpected challenges that it arguably would have been in a much better position to deal with had last year’s post-modern coup not taken place.

It’s Not Just the Settlers – or Israel – Responsible for the Torching of Huwwara

By Jonathan Cook, March 13, 2023

A sustained violent attack by hundreds of Jewish settlers on the Palestinian town of Huwwara last week – as well as the response of Israel’s new far-right government – has divided Jewish opinion in Israel and deeply discomfited Jews abroad.

Death of a Myth. Americans Need to Wake Up to the Realities of a Post-unipolar World Before It’s Too Late.

By George D. O’Neill, Jr., March 13, 2023

As we witness the collapse of various mainstream narratives, especially those surrounding the U.S./NATO war with Russia in Ukraine, Americans should begin to reassess their understanding of U.S. national leadership.

Disastrous Harvest: Silicon Valley Bank and the Anti-Regulation Bank Lobby

By Dr. Binoy Kampmark, March 13, 2023

Three days prior to the second-largest failure of a US financial institution since the implosion of Washington Mutual (Wamu) in 2008, lobbyists for the banking sector had reason to gloat.  They had the ears of a number of GOP lawmakers and were pressing the case that Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell had little reason to sharpen regulations in the industry.

Capsule Summaries of All Twitter Files Threads to Date, with Links and a Glossary

By Matt Taibbi, March 13, 2023

For those who haven’t been following, a compilation of one-paragraph summaries of all the Twitter Files threads by every reporter. With links and notes on key revelations…

FDA and CDC Assertions in Doubling Down on COVID-19 Vaccination

By Dr. Peter McCullough, March 13, 2023

In a March 10, 2023 letter from FDA Commissioner Robert Califf, MD, and CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, MPH, to Florida Surgeon General Joseph Ladapo, MD, PhD, the agencies give their rationale.

As Color Revolution Rages in Georgia, Neocons Lie About 2008 Conflict in South Ossetia

By Kurt Nimmo, March 13, 2023

First and foremost, let’s address the historically incorrect assertion Russia “assaulted” Georgia. An honest reading of history—which usually results in an allergic reaction on the part of the CFR—dispels the myth Russia invaded South Ossetia, an ethnic Russian enclave.

  • Posted in NO READ MORE LINK
  • Comments Off on Selected Articles: China’s Initiative: Iran and Saudi Arabia Are Back on the Diplomatic Track. Ending the Atrocious War in Yemen?

Biden Weaponizes Hate to Win Votes

March 14th, 2023 by James Bovard

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.

***

Historian Henry Adams observed a century ago that politics “has always been the systematic organization of hatreds.” President Biden confirmed this axiom in his raging speeches prior to the mid-term congressional elections.

Throughout his career, Biden has relied on a two-step routine —first appealing to “our better angels” before demagogically vilifying his opponents. In December 2020, after the Electoral College had certified his presidential victory, he declared, “Now it is time to turn the page, to unite, to heal.” In his inaugural address last year, Biden appealed to his audience: “We can join forces, stop the shouting, and lower the temperature.”

Except when turning up the temperature. After rowdy protestors briefly entered the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021, Biden and his Democratic allies portrayed any Republican who did not unquestioningly endorse the 2020 election as a traitor. President-elect Joe Biden condemned the protestors as “domestic terrorists” and said their action “borders on sedition.” (Actually, Republican members of Congress who objected to the Electoral College verdict were being denounced as the “sedition caucus” even before January 6.) Pervasive allegations of treason are demands for a political death sentence (if not actual execution) for one’s opponents. This became the template for the Biden administration’s effort to preemptively demonize dissent. Biden piled on additional charges, such as his comparison of Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) to Nazi propaganda chief Joseph Goebbels.

In May 2021, Biden proudly signed the COVID-19 Hate Crimes Act, creating new federal penalties for attacks against Asian Americans or other groups blamed for COVID. But Biden subsequently sought to maximize hatred toward anyone who did not obey his COVID edicts. In 2020, Biden pledged not to impose a compulsory mandate for COVID vaccines. When he betrayed that pledge in a September 2021 televised speech, Biden portrayed the unvaxxed as Public Enemy No. 1, warning that “your refusal has cost all of us.” Biden sneered that vaccine skeptics only wanted “the freedom to kill you” with their COVID. In December 2021, Biden delivered ghastly Christmas greetings to Americans: “We are looking at a winter of severe illness and death for the unvaccinated.” But within a few weeks after that fearmongering, the efficacy of COVID vaccines collapsed and more than a million Americans a day were being hit with COVID infections — even though the large majority had followed Biden’s admonition. Biden kept railing about a “pandemic of the unvaccinated” long after the efficacy of the Pfizer vaccine had fallen even lower than Biden’s approval ratings.

Biden’s hate speech campaign against the opposition

Biden’s harsh rhetoric in the congressional campaign races last fall made a mockery of his preening as the Great Unifier. Hatred became simply another issue conscripted for a desperate Democratic “get out the vote” drive.

In an August 26 campaign rally in Rockville, Maryland, Biden scoffed at Republicans before announcing: “We’ve chosen a different path: forward, the future, unity, hope, and optimism.” But Biden railed that “the MAGA Republicans don’t just threaten our personal rights and economic security, they’re a threat to our very democracy. They refuse to accept the will of the people. They embrace — embrace — political violence. They don’t believe in democracy.” Biden warned, “It’s not hyperbole, the very survival of our planet is on the ballot.” Anyone voting for Republicans became complicit with the destruction of Earth.

A few hours earlier, at a private event for Democratic donors in ritzy Bethesda, Biden denounced Republicans for “semi-fascism.” Other Democrats quickly picked up that gauntlet. Democrat Max Frost, running for a Florida congressional seat, denounced Republicans such as Gov. Ron DeSantis for seeking to build “right-wing fascist power.”

On September 1, Biden made history with the first prime-time presidential speech with a backdrop inspired by the movie “V for Vendetta” and Nazi filmmaker Leni Riefenstahl. The harsh red atmospherics perfectly complemented Biden’s attempt to portray ex-President Donald Trump and Republicans as the Antichrist waiting to crucify American democracy.

Biden called for everyone to “unite behind the single purpose of defending our democracy.” In other words, everyone must support Joe Biden or democracy will be destroyed. Biden’s endless calls for “unity” were a demand for submission to whatever he decrees. Law professor Jonathan Turley observed, “President Biden has arguably the worst record of losses in [federal court] the first two years of any recent presidential administration.” Biden “compensated” for such losses by denouncing Republican-appointed judges whenever convenient.

In that Philadelphia speech, Biden declared that “Trump and the MAGA Republicans represent an extremism that threatens the very foundations of our republic.” But he didn’t confess to the audience that he considered almost half of all Americans to be “extremists.”

A few hours before Biden’s speech, White House press secretary Jean-Pierre asserted, “When you are not with where majority of Americans are, then, you know, that is extreme. That is an extreme way of thinking.” Was this wacko definition of extremism designed to vilify anyone who doubts Biden will save America’s soul? (The speech was titled, “The Continued Battle for the Soul of the Nation.”) But denouncing hatred is one of the best ways to spur hatred — especially if you identify the “haters” to include practically half the U.S. population.

Four days later, speaking in Wisconsin, Biden declared, “Extreme MAGA Republicans in Congress have chosen to go backwards — full of anger, violence, hate, and division…. Extreme MAGA Republicans don’t just threaten our personal rights and our economic security, they embrace political violence.” Biden made it sound as if tolerating hardline Republicans would be the death of the nation. The only way to defeat hate is to worship Biden and cheer when he denounces all his opponents as “semi-fascists.”

On September 15, Biden hosted a White House “United We Stand” summit. That summit verified that, for Team Biden, “hate” is a flag of political convenience. In announcing the summit, White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre stretched back a decade to list a “disturbing series of hate-fueled attacks, from Oak Creek [Wisconsin Sikh temple, 2012] to Pittsburgh [synagogue, 2018], from El Paso [Walmart shootings, 2019] to Poway [California synagogue, 2019], from Atlanta [massage parlors, 2021] to Buffalo [grocery store, 2022].” The common element in those attacks is that the killers are white — fitting the Biden administration theme that “white supremacists” are the biggest terror threat in America. Yet, while those killers deserve the harshest punishment, the Biden scorecard ignored 99.9% of the murders committed in America.

Biden told the summit attendees: “Hate-fueled violence is born into the fertile soil of a toxic division. We won’t solve the problem by going after the extreme fringes alone. We have to confront the ways in which our toxic divisions fuel this crisis for all of us — our differences.” And then Biden suggested fighting hate by banning assault weapons — as if federal agents confiscating tens of millions of privately owned firearms would magically commit peace in our times, give or take a few dozen Waco-type slaughters. And just in case disarming peaceful Americans didn’t create paradise, Biden also tub-thumped for a big boost in pay for AmeriCorps recruits.

Biden’s incitement to violence

While Biden was seeking to hold all Republican officials and voters collectively guilty for the rhetoric of any Republican candidate, Democrats also uncorked plenty of “full moon” howlers. On a Sunday morning talk show, Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Mark Warner (D-Va.) equated participants in the Jan. 6 Capitol ruckus with the 9/11 terrorists. Vice President Kamala Harris also equated Jan. 6 with 9/11 and threw in Pearl Harbor to score a trifecta. Rep. Tim Ryan (D-Ohio), then a Senate candidate, proclaimed: “We have to kill and confront that [“extremist” Republican] movement.” “Kill all the extremists” was the natural conclusion of Biden’s demonology.

Throughout his career, adulatory media coverage has enabled Biden to get away with his Jekyll and Hyde routines. Two weeks before the mid-term congressional election, the New York Times weighed in with a comically slanted piece that implied that the rhetorical sins were almost all on one side of the ledger. The Times blazoned its front page with a story about Republicans’ use of “devil terms.” Times reporters sifted through millions of documents to prove that Republicans “used divisive words and phrases more than twice as often as Democrats in tweets.” The Times quoted a Texas A&M professor who explained that devil words are “things that are so unquestionably bad that you can’t have a debate about them.”

The Times piece is akin to a TV wrestling referee who ignores the wrench that his favored wrestler pulled from his trunks to whack his opponent on the head. The Times condemned Texas Republican congressman Pat Fallon for saying that Biden “needs to take a cognitive test.” When did questioning any president’s mental acuity become illicit? Inflation has increased more than fivefold since Biden took office, but the term “Bidenflation” was condemned as extremist rhetoric. The Times even considered the phrase “Biden border crisis” as devil words.

A few days before the congressional elections, Biden shuffled to Union Station in Washington, D.C., to do some last-minute fearmongering. Biden railed against “lies told for power and profit, lies of conspiracy and malice, lies repeated over and over to generate a cycle of anger, hate, vitriol and even violence.” He assured the audience that they were in a “struggle for democracy, a struggle for decency and dignity, a struggle for prosperity and progress, a struggle for the very soul of America itself.”

Speaking on the edge of Capitol Hill, Biden portrayed himself as the savior of the republic. He declared, “Autocracy is the opposite of democracy. It means the rule of one, one person, one interest, one ideology, one party.” But Biden offers a “Trust Me” version of democracy in which the Supreme Leader is entitled to be revered, regardless of how many secrets he keeps from the American people. Biden warned, “Make no mistake, democracy is on the ballot for all of us. We must remember that democracy is a covenant.” And Biden is the Moses waiting to lead his people out of the chains of hatred.

No matter how much vitriol Biden uses on opponents, his pundit and press corps allies will soon be portraying him as Uncle Joe —the kindly grandfather simply concerned about his wayward flock. No matter how many Orwellian “two-minute hate” routines that Biden performs, he will be Mr. Nice Guy within moments after he ceases vilifying opponents.

Unfortunately, the media has focused far more on political rhetoric than on Biden’s abuses of power. The greatest threat our democracy faces is not the words of political candidates but the dictatorial actions of elected politicians. Neither Biden nor his opponents have done anything to disprove the verdict of Thomas Paine: “The trade of governing has always been monopolized by the most ignorant and the most rascally individuals of mankind.”

*

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.

James Bovard is a policy adviser to The Future of Freedom Foundation. He is a USA Today columnist and has written for The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post, New Republic, Reader’s Digest, Playboy, American Spectator, Investors Business Daily, and many other publications. He is the author of Freedom Frauds: Hard Lessons in American Liberty (2017, published by FFF); Public Policy Hooligan (2012); Attention Deficit Democracy (2006); The Bush Betrayal (2004); Terrorism and Tyranny (2003); Feeling Your Pain (2000); Freedom in Chains(1999); Shakedown (1995); Lost Rights (1994); The Fair Trade Fraud (1991); and The Farm Fiasco(1989). He was the 1995 co-recipient of the Thomas Szasz Award for Civil Liberties work, awarded by the Center for Independent Thought, and the recipient of the 1996 Freedom Fund Award from the Firearms Civil Rights Defense Fund of the National Rifle Association. His book Lost Rights received the Mencken Award as Book of the Year from the Free Press Association. His Terrorism and Tyranny won Laissez Faire Book’s Lysander Spooner award for the Best Book on Liberty in 2003. Read his blog. Send him email.

Featured image is from Summit News

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Biden Weaponizes Hate to Win Votes
  • Tags:

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

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

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 January 11, 2023

I asked Ed Dowd if I could have space in his book, “‘Cause Unknown’: The Epidemic of Sudden Deaths in 2021 and 2022,” for an article about what we saw around the world as mass vaccination commenced.

In light of Dowd’s stunning analysis, it is particularly instructive to look at data for those countries that did not have high numbers of COVID-19 deaths prior to mass vaccination, because they afford the simplest comparison:

  1. They had very low rates of death attributed to COVID-19.
  2. Then they commenced mass vaccination.
  3. Then they experienced huge increases in deaths attributed to COVID-19.

South Korea gives us a fast example among many: Prior to the country’s wide rollout of mRNA vaccines, Korea had almost no COVID-19 deaths. You see that nearly all their COVID-19 deaths occurred after mass vaccination.

2 daily new deaths south korea

Due to frequent supply problems, South Korea’s mass vaccination program really took off after the third quarter of 2021 when they borrowed hundreds of thousands of Pfizer doses from Israel. Their COVID-19 deaths soon followed. That wasn’t supposed to happen.

In November 2021, President Moon began a massive campaign to push boosters: “The vaccination can be completed only after receiving the third jab.” His citizens complied, reaching more than 90% of adults fully vaccinated — the chart shows the COVID-19 deaths that followed.

The same pattern repeats all over the world, and since seeing is believing, I’ll pause here and resume in more detail after some quick sample charts …

3 covid deaths mass vaccination thailand

4 covid deaths mass vaccination malaysia

5 covid deaths mass vaccination uganda

6 covid deaths mass vaccination nepal

7 covid deaths mass vaccination portugal

8 covid deaths mass vaccination mongolia

9 covid deaths mass vaccination zambia

10 covid deaths mass vaccination paraguay

11 covid deaths mass vaccination bahrain

12 covid deaths mass vaccination uruguay

13 covid deaths mass vaccination tunisia

14 covid deaths mass vaccination sri lanka

15 covid deaths mass vaccination afghanistan

16 covid deaths mass vaccination taiwan

Israel was the world’s poster child for Pfizer’s vaccine product: Like all these countries, Israel had the majority of its COVID-19 deaths after mass vaccination.

17 covid deaths mass vaccination israel

And finally, Vietnam: They began mass vaccination in March 2021, purchasing five different vaccine products from around the world — and they saw no jump in COVID-19 deaths.

However, in early July 2021, the U.S. government began donating millions of Pfizer and Moderna mRNA vaccines — and that’s exactly when Vietnam experienced the massive spike in COVID-19 deaths you see in the chart.

18 covid deaths covid vaccines mass vaccination vietnam

Any way you think about it, those charts should not look like that if vaccination was effective.

Why would so many countries big and small, rich and poor, in different parts of the world, some with congested cities, some sparsely populated, cold weather or hot weather, tropical or desert, high altitude or low altitude, small islands or landlocked — why would they all see increases in COVID-19 deaths after mass vaccination?

That’s a question one imagines public health officials and media would be motivated to carefully analyze and answer. Instead, they’ve been united in keeping such facts out of public discourse.

The reality displayed on the graphs you’ve seen is undeniable, cannot be unseen and is available to anyone more interested and more industrious than media and government have been.

For curious minds, one explanation to consider is revealed through extensive pre-COVID-19 research establishing that people’s immune systems are weakened by some vaccines. Just a few examples among many:

  • 2011 study: Annual vaccination for influenza “may render young children who have not previously been infected with influenza more susceptible to infection with a pandemic influenza virus of a novel subtype.”
  • 2013 study: Vaccination may make flu worse if exposed to a second strain [as has been the case with COVID-19 for billions of people].
  • 2018 study: Acute respiratory infections increase following vaccination. This study compared vaccinated people to unvaccinated people.

More recently, a Danish study of healthcare workers showed a massive increase in COVID-19 infection in the two weeks after the first shot.

Aware of this Danish study, The BMJ published a letter calling for an urgent investigation:

“Given the evidence of white cell depletion after COVID vaccination and the evidence of increased COVID infection rates shortly after vaccination, the possibility that the two are causally related needs urgent investigation.”

The Danish study showed “a 40% increase in infections in the first two weeks after Pfizer-BioNTech vaccination, despite not vaccinating in homes with recent outbreaks,” meaning they knew it wasn’t because people happened to already be infected at the time they were vaccinated.

The 40% number comes up again, in The BMJ letter:

“The original Pfizer trial demonstrated a statistically significant 40% increase in suspected COVID.”

Looking for a more comfortable answer to the sad riddle, some people might speculate that the deaths you’ve seen on all those graphs occurred because people became less cautious after vaccination.

The BMJ considered and discounted that theory, citing several studies that show increased infections in the weeks after vaccination, and pointing out the example of care home residents, who actually shielded more after vaccination:

“No one is suggesting there was a change of behaviour within care homes. However, care homes in every corner of the country saw outbreaks from December. What changed?”

Excellent question. Obvious answer.

If these new Pharma products had been bound by the same laws as all other Pharma products, their TV commercials would have to end with the familiar announcer hurriedly rushing through side effects:

COVID-19 vaccines will leave some people more vulnerable to infection and sickness. Some people will experience side effects including cardiac arrest, blood clots, stroke and sudden death.

It wouldn’t make for a very good sales pitch.

Of course, Pfizer and Moderna didn’t need any sales pitch for these vaccines — since the products were developed, ordered, purchased, promoted, defended, indemnified and even mandated by our own government.

*

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.


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

by Michel Chossudovsky

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

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

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

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

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Seeing Is Believing: What the Data Reveal About Deaths Following COVID Vaccine Rollouts Around the World
  • Tags: ,

First published by Global Research on May 19, 2013

Image Patrice Lumumba

Five decades since the formation of the Organization of African Unity (OAU) while the Pentagon and NATO escalates its war drive on the continent

The following lecture was delivered at the Africa & U.S. Imperialism Conference held in Detroit on May 18, 2013. The event was sponsored by the Michigan Emergency Committee Against War & Injustice (MECAWI)

May 25, 2013 represents the 50th anniversary of the founding of the Organization of African Unity (OAU), the forerunner of the present African Union which formed in 2002. This conference today is taking place at a critical time within the history of Africa and the Diaspora.

Even though there has been tremendous progress in Africa and throughout the African world since 1963, the imperialists have devised mechanism to continue and expand the exploitation and consequent oppression of African people on the continent and indeed throughout Europe, North America and Latin America. This conference sends congratulatory messages to the AU in the midst of this anniversary.

We are following the situation surrounding the summit which begins on May 19 and extends through May 27. The meeting in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia is being held under the theme of “Pan-Africanism and the African Renaissance,” in an attempt to return the continental organization back to its political origins born in the ferment of the African revolutionary struggle of the 1960s.

According to the description on the African Union website publicizing the 21st Summit of the AU, it says that

“The year 2013 marks the 50th anniversary celebration of the formation of the Organization of African Unity (OAU). It will also be a little more than a decade since the formation of the African Union, which seeks to promote ‘an integrated, prosperous and peaceful Africa, driven by its own citizens and representing a dynamic force in global arena.’ Consequently, the Heads of State declared 2013 the Year of Pan-Africanism and the African Renaissance.”

This same synopsis goes on to say that

“The anniversary is expected to facilitate and celebrate African narratives of past, present and future that will enthuse and energize the African population and use their constructive energy to accelerate a forward looking agenda of Pan-Africanism and renaissance in the 21st century. It provides a unique opportunity, and comes at a moment when Africa is on the rise, and must therefore build its confidence in its future. The 50th Anniversary commemorations will be anchored by the Theme Pan Africanism and the African Renaissance.” (AU website)

During the course of the following days through the Pan-African News Wire we will cover the deliberations and addresses extensively to provide the African world and the international community in general with the most comprehensive review of developments taking place in Addis Ababa. The peoples of Africa scattered throughout the globe are intensely awaiting the outcome of the summit in order to gain clearer insight into the character of the thinking and actions being advanced by the heads-of-state and other leading organs of this esteemed institution.

Nonetheless, our purpose here today is to reflect on the significance of the history of Africa and the African liberation struggles that have evolved over the last five decades. Where have we been and where are we going into the successive decades of the 21st century must be the questions that are paramount in our minds.

African Heads of State. Foundation of the OAU in May 1963

The Post World War II Political Situation

It has been acknowledged by the leading progressive and revolutionary African historians that the advent of the Atlantic Slave Trade and colonialism shaped the character of African societies throughout the world. Beginning in the 15th century, Africa engaged Europe coming out of the so-called “Dark Ages”, a society and culture desperately seeking to advance its own internal development at the expense of other peoples around the globe.

Between the 15th and 19th centuries, millions of Africans were subjected to super-exploitation through slavery and colonialism. This period in the history of the continent spawned the conquering by Europe of the Western hemisphere and the building of an industrial empire which intensified the exploitation of both the indigenous people of the West as well as those of the African continent, Asia and the South Pacific.

Africans and other oppressed peoples of course resisted the onslaught of slavery and colonialism with vigor. History today is revealing even more detailed accounts of the heroic role that Africans played in the struggle against imperialism in its infancy and continuing into its maturity and consequent devolution under the present system of neo-colonialism.

All exploitative and oppressed systems meet resistance from within leading to the organization and mobilization of the forces which are victimized by the ruling interests within the society. These internal struggles along with challenges from the outside result in the transformation of the system into something different that could be an advance or a step backward in the development of humanity.

Although imperialism attempted to create a system of exploitation and oppression that was insulated from internal and external attacks, these efforts proved to be futile. By the conclusion of World War I, national liberation movements and communist tendencies were well in evidence in the struggle for the overthrow of capitalism and colonialism.

Rebellions and revolutionary uprisings spread throughout North America, Europe, Africa and Asia beginning in 1917 with the Bolshevik Revolution, the first total overthrow of capitalism and the replacement of this exploitative system with socialism which is based upon empowering the working class and the oppressed.

The 1920s saw additional uprising and attempts to build a worldwide alliance between national liberation movements and socialist parties. By the conclusion of the 1920s, the capitalist world would fall into its worst economic crisis which lasted for over twelve years until the entry of the United States into World War II in 1941.

This collapse of the capitalist system during the 1930s would also lead to the spreading of fascism in Europe and Japan. However, the fight against fascism in the 1930s and 1940s brought to the fore the communist and national liberation organizations which served as the decisive factor in the outcome of the war in 1945.

Beginning in 1945 the communist and national liberation movements accelerated their efforts aimed at the overthrow of capitalism and colonialism leading to decisive victories in Korea, Vietnam, Eastern Europe and eventually China. By 1947, India had gained its independence from British imperialism and the African continent had begun popular uprising aimed at breaking the yolk of colonial rule.

The aftermath of World War II resulted in the dominance of the U.S. ruling class throughout the capitalist world. Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Spain and Japan had experienced extensive fighting within its borders during the 1930s and 1940s leaving the U.S. unscathed by the military impact of the war.

The Soviet Union which had experienced some of the most intense fighting during 1942 and 1943 at the “Battle of Stalingrad” emerged from World War II as a major power internationally only second in military might and political strength to U.S. imperialism. Socialism spread throughout Eastern Europe during this period and the people of Yugoslavia had largely liberated themselves through their resistance to fascism where they later would establish a socialist system.

Despite the devastation of World War II and the founding of the United Nations in 1945 whose objective in part was to avoid another international conflagration, war erupted on the Korean Peninsula in 1950 after the establishment of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea in 1948. The DPRK and the people of China under Mao Tse-Tung fought to preserve their national sovereignty and socialism in Asia.

By 1954, the people of Vietnam defeated French imperialism forcing the U.S. to take total responsibility for the continued occupation of the south of that Southeast Asian nation. That same year, the Algerian National Liberation Front (FLN) began its armed struggle against French imperialism in North Africa, where it had occupied the country since 1830.

Dr. Kwame Nkrumah, the leader of the Ghana independence struggle through the Convention People’s Party (CPP), founded on June 12, 1949, and the chief strategist and tactician of the African Revolution between the late 1940s and the time of his death in 1972, pointed out that the movements led by Africans against colonialism and imperialism were not isolated but very much connected with the global struggle for freedom, justice and self-determination. Nkrumah placed the rising tide of the African liberation movements and the struggle for socialism on the continent within the context of the worldwide efforts against all forms of exploitation and oppression.

Nkrumah wrote that “A number of external factors affect the African situation, and if our liberation struggle is to be placed in correct perspective and we are to KNOW THE ENEMY, the impact of these factors must be fully grasped. First among them is imperialism, for it is mainly against exploitation and poverty that our peoples revolt.” (Handbook of Revolutionary Warfare, p. 1, 1968)

This Pan-Africanist revolutionary leader continues by pointing out that

“It is therefore of paramount importance to set out the strategy of imperialism in clear terms: the means used by the enemy to ensure the continued economic exploitation of our territories and the nature of the attempts made to destroy the liberation movement. Once the components of the enemy’s strategy are determined, we will be in a position to outline the correct strategy for our own struggle in terms of our actual situation and in accordance with our objectives.” (Nkrumah, p. 2)

With specific reference to the period after World War II, Nkrumah observes that

“after the war, serious economic, social and political tensions arose in both spheres” being the colonial territories and the industrialized capitalist states in Europe and North America. He notes that “Inside the capitalist-imperialist states, workers’ organizations had become comparatively strong and experienced, and the claims of the working class for a more substantial share of the wealth produced by the capitalist economy could no longer be ignored. The necessity to concede had become all the more imperative since the European capitalist system had been seriously shaken up by the near-holocaust which marked the experience of imperialist wars.”

During the same time period, he continues that

“While the capitalist system of exploitation was coming to grips with its internal crisis, the world’s colonized areas were astir with the upsurge of strong liberation movements. Here again, demands could no longer be cast aside or ignored especially when they were channeled through irresistible mass movements, like the Rassemblement Democratique Africain (RDA), the Parti Democratique de Guinee (PDG) and the Convention Peoples’ Party (CPP) in Ghana. In certain areas, for example in Vietnam, Kenya and Algeria, direct confrontation demonstrated the readiness of the oppressed peoples to implement their claims with blood and fire.”

Nkrumah stresses that “Both in the colonial territories and in the metropolitan states, the struggle was being waged against the same enemy: international finance capital under its external and internal forms of exploitation, imperialism and capitalism. Threatened with disintegration by the double-fisted attack of the working class movement and the liberation movement, capitalism had to launch a series of reforms in order to build a protective armor around the inner workings of its system.”

Within the U.S. during the late 1940s through the 1970s, a deliberate division was institutionalized between the white working class and middle classes and the African American people, most of whom were working class with a shrinking number of farmers and agricultural proletarians in the rural areas. The advent of the mass Civil Rights Movement in the mid-1950s served to crack open the cloak of McCarthyism and bring broader sections of the oppressed into the struggle against racism and national discrimination.

By 1960, the student sector of the African American people would take the lead as the most militant force in the struggle against legalized segregation. These efforts by the youth led by the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC) and others awakened a generation of young people within the Latino, Native and Asian communities along with their counterparts inside the white community. A culture of resistance and protracted programmatic struggle was born which was able to challenge U.S. imperialist militarism in Southeast Asia and in other parts of the world.

There developed during this period a movement against the status-quo which had not been experienced since the height of the Great Depression of 1929-1941. The role of the Left in building resistance to capitalist exploitation and racism created the conditions for the general strikes of 1934 and the subsequent formation of the Committee on Industrial Organizations (CIO) and the United Autoworkers Union (UAW).

The period of struggle between the Great Depression–interrupted with the force of the state during the McCarthy era of the late 1940s and early 1950s–and the burgeoning mass movements of the late 1950s leading into the early 1970s, opened up new avenues of struggle which threatened the ruling class and its system of exploitation. In response the system embarked upon a period of major restructuring by the mid-to-late 1970s which was specifically designed to preserve and enhance the world capitalist system.

Of this period, Nkrumah wrote that

“To avoid an internal breakdown of the system under the pressure of the workers’ protest movement, the governments of capitalist countries granted their workers certain concessions which did not endanger the basic nature of the capitalist system of exploitation. They gave them social security, higher wages, better working conditions, professional training facilities, and other improvements. (Nkrumah, p. 4)

Nkrumah points out that

“These reforms helped to blur fundamental contradictions, and to remove some of the more glaring injustices while at the same time ensuring the continued exploitation of the workers. The myth was established of an affluent capitalist society promising abundance and a better life for all. The basic aim, however, was the establishment of a ‘welfare state’ as the only safeguard against the threat of fascism or communism.”

Nevertheless, the objective was to maintain the system of ever-increasing profits for the banks and other multi-national corporations. Even with the establishment of the so-called “Welfare State” in Western Europe and North America in the aftermath of World War II extending through the early 1970s, the system of exploitation and oppression remained intact.

The world capitalist and imperialist system extended reforms not only inside the industrialized states but also within the oppressed nations outside its borders. The system began to depend to greater degrees on the extraction of strategic resources from Africa, Asia and Latin America as well as the exploitation of labor in these geo-political regions.

In assessing this strategy by imperialism, Nkrumah said that

“The urgent need for such reforms was made clear by the powerful growth and expansion of the liberation forces in Africa, Asia and Latin America, where revolutionary movements had not only seized power but were actually consolidating their gains. Developments in the USSR, China, Cuba, North Vietnam, North Korea, and in Egypt, Ghana, Guinea, Mali, Algeria and other parts of Africa, showed that not only was the world balance of forces shifting, but that the capitalist-imperialist states were confronted with a real danger of encirclement.” (p. 5)

Some Concrete Examples in the National Liberation Revolution

The imperialist states utilized its extensive resources and networks of global finance and political intrigue to undermine the independent African states as well as the Civil Rights, Black Power, Anti-War, Women and Left movements inside the U.S. and Western Europe. In this section we want to briefly review some of these developments which occurred between the 1950s and the 1990s in Africa and throughout the Diaspora.

These events can in no way be separated from trends within the world capitalist system. Africa is still very much integrated into the networks of finance capital making the continent dependent upon mineral extraction and the extension of credit from Western financial institutions for survival.

Ghana: The Fountainhead of Pan-Africanism

Kwame Nkrumah studied in the U.S. during 1935-1945 when he went to Britain to work with George Padmore in the organization of the Fifth Pan-African Congress in October of 1945. The outcome of the Fifth Pan-African Congress which was chaired by Dr. W.E.B. Du Bois, led to the mass mobilization of the workers, farmers and youth of Africa for the national independence movement.

The Gold Coast in 1951 established a transitional government after Nkrumah was released from prison in order to move toward national independence in 1957. Nkrumah placed tremendous emphasis on state spending for education, social services, healthcare, economic plans for industrialization and unconditional support for the national liberation movements in other parts of Africa and the Diaspora along with a stated aim of building socialism in Ghana and throughout the continent.

The First Conference of Independent African States was held in Accra in April 1958 bringing together the peoples of Africa both north and south of the Sahara. In December of that same year, the First All-African People’s Conference was also held in Accra, bringing revolutionary Pan-African deliberations to the continent itself.

By 1960, when Ghana became a Republic, Nkrumah and the CPP had committed to building a socialist state where the formation of a United States of Africa was the principle foreign policy objective of the government. These actions were met with tremendous opposition by imperialism led by the U.S. in league with internal reactionaries who succeeded in overthrowing the Ghana state on February 24, 1966 through a military and police coup.

Nkrumah took refuge in Guinea where he had made an alliance with the ruling Democratic Party of Guinea (PDG) in 1958 at the time of independence under President Ahmed Sekou Toure. Nkrumah was made Co-President of the country and continued to write and organize for the realization of Pan-Africanism and Scientific Socialism in Africa.

Guinea followed similar policies as Ghana through state control of the economy and an anti-imperialist foreign policy. Like Ghana under Nkrumah, Guinea under Sekou Toure gave maximum support to the national liberation movements and progressive states on the continent.

Guinea played a key role in the liberation of neighboring Guinea-Bissau which waged an armed struggle against Portuguese colonialism and NATO during the period of 1961 to 1973. Nkrumah after the coup placed more emphasis on the class struggle taking place throughout Africa as is reflected in his writing published after 1966.

Algeria and the Armed Phase of the African Revolution

The FLN triumphed in its national campaign to win independence in 1962. What is often overlooked is the support given to Ben Bella and the Algerian revolutionaries by the All-African People’s Conference and in particular the independent government of Mali under President Modibo Keita.

The opening of a southern front in Algeria after 1960 ensured the success of the revolutionaries. Dr. Frantz Fanon, an African born in the Caribbean, Martinique, played a critical role in the foreign policy of the FLN during the late 1950s to 1961 when he died of cancer.

Algeria provided the first military training to the African National Congress military leaders known as Um Khonto we Sizwe (Spear of the Nation) co-founded by Nelson Mandela. In fact when Mandela was arrested in 1962 he was charged with leaving the country to undergo military training in Algeria.

Algeria is rich in natural gas and oil and is strategically located in North Africa. The split within the FLN in 1965 leading to the coup against Ben Bella, although tragic, did not result in lessening the country’s commitment to the African Revolution.

Algeria played a key role in apprehending and liquidating the CIA-backed neo-colonialist agent Moise Tshombe of Congo. In 1967 Tshombe was captured and later died in an Algerian prison two years later.

In 1969, Algeria hosted the Pan-African Cultural Festival which re-ignited the international struggle of Black people in the aftermath of the coup against Nkrumah three years earlier. That same year, Algeria would grant political asylum to the Black Panther Party, then under vicious attack by the U.S. government through its counter-intelligence program (COINTELPRO).

The Black Panther Party set up an international section in Algiers and remained there until 1972. Algeria continued to support the national liberation movements in the still-colonized regions of the continent.

The Congo Crisis and the Consolidation of Neo-Colonialism in Africa

Patrice Lumumba, the first elected Prime Minister of the former Belgian Congo made his international debut at the All-African People’s Conference in Accra, Ghana held during December 1958. Lumumba would win the support of the majority of people within Congo in his efforts to build revolutionary Pan-Africanism and a United States of Africa.

The imperialists saw developments in Congo in 1959-1960 as a threat to its neo-colonial designs for post-independence Africa. Lumumba was soon deposed, kidnapped, tortured and executed at the aegis of the CIA and other Western states.

For over three decades Congo remained within the orbit of imperialism serving as a vast reservoir for exploitation of its natural resources by the multi-national mining firms and international finance capital. Under Mobutu it also served as a rear base for the imperialists in their efforts to stifle and defeat the genuine liberation movements fighting for the total liberation of Southern Africa which was not realized until 1994 with the coming to power of the African National Congress in South Africa under Nelson Mandela.

Today, the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) remains a bastion of Western intrigue and exploitation. Whole sections of the large country are still not under the control of the central government in Kinshasa.

Since 1996, it has been estimated that as many as six million people have been killed in the DRC through civil wars that are largely the result of imperialist intervention. This pattern of mass killings has its origins in Belgian colonialism where under King Leopold II, anywhere between 8-10 million were slaughtered between 1876 and 1908.

The OAU Compromise of 1963

With the efforts of the imperialist states to sabotage the African Revolution there developed to major political blocs on the continent after the Congo crisis of 1960-61. The Casablanca Group was composed of the anti-imperialist states committed to Pan-Africanism and the Monrovia Group, which encompassed the moderate and conservative forces still wedded politically to the former colonial powers and the now dominate U.S. government.

Nkrumah described the new situation in Africa as “collective imperialism.” He wrote that

“The modifications introduced by imperialism in its strategy were expressed through the disappearance of the numerous old-fashioned ‘colonies’ owing exclusive allegiance to a single metropolitan country through the replacement of ‘national’ imperialisms by a ‘collective’ imperialism in which the USA occupies the leading position.” (Handbook, p. 5)

He later goes on to highlight that “The militarization of the U.S. economy, based on the political pretext of the threatening rise of the USSR and later of the People’s Republic of China as socialist powers, enabled the U.S. to postpone its internal crisis, first during the ‘hot’ war (1939-1945) and then the during the ‘cold’ war (since 1945). “ (p. 6)

Nkrumah says that

“Militarization served two main purposes, it absorbed, and continues to absorb, an excess of unorganized energy into the intense armaments drive which supports imperialist aggression and many blocs and alliances formed by imperialist powers over the last twenty years. It also made possible an expensive policy of paternalistic corruption of the poor and oppressed people of the world.” (p. 7)

The formation of the OAU brought together both the majority of moderate and conservative states with the smaller number of anti-imperialist governments led by Egypt, Ghana, Mali, Guinea, Tanzania and Algeria. Such a compromise would limit the capacity of the continental organization to take a firm position against imperialism and neo-colonialism, the major enemy of the African Revolution.

Despite these limitations Nkrumah continued to call for the formation of a United States of Africa. In 1963 at the founding summit of the OAU, Nkrumah distributed his newly-completed book entitled “Africa Must Unite” in an effort to wage ideological struggle against imperialism and its agents operating within various states on the continent.

A chapter entitled “Towards African Unity” it states that

“There are those who maintain that Africa cannot unite because we lack the three necessary ingredients for unity, a common race, culture and language. It is true that we have for centuries been divided. The territorial boundaries dividing us were fixed long ago, often quite arbitrarily, by the colonial powers.”(Nkrumah, Africa Must Unite, p. 132)

Yet Nkrumah goes on to stress that “All this is inevitable due to our historical background. Yet in spite of this I am convinced that the forces making for unity far outweigh those which divide us. In meeting fellow Africans from all parts of the continent I am constantly impressed by how much we have in common. It is not just our colonial past, or the fact that we have aims in common, it is something which goes far deeper. I can best describe it as a sense of one-ness in that we are Africans.”

In this book a strong emphasis is placed on the successes of the Soviet Union and China in regard to economic development. Nkrumah attributes these advances in the socialist states to national unity, state planning and the empowerment of the working class and the peasantry.

He rightfully observes that the development of Western Europe and the United States was based upon centuries of enslavement and colonization of Africa and other regions of the world. The fact that Africa needs to develop rapidly and on an egalitarian basis rooted in collective planning, there is a chapter dedicated to Ghana’s commitment to socialist construction.

Also in 1964 and 1965, Nkrumah called for the formation of a United States of Africa at the OAU summits in Egypt and Accra respectively. This same theme was later taken up by Libya under Muammar Gaddafi through the Sirte Declaration of 1999 and the opening summit of the African Union in 2002 in South Africa.

OAU Liberation Committee: A Success Amid Challenges

Perhaps the most successful aspect of the OAU’s history between 1963 and the early 1990s was the Liberation Committee which coordinated continental and international assistance to the national liberation movements. The decolonization process would reach a watershed in 1975-76 with the attempted sabotage of the national independence of Angola by imperialism.

The divisions between the three liberation groups provided an opening for the U.S. in alliance with the-then racist apartheid regime based in South Africa and Namibia to intervene in coordination with the CIA to impose a reactionary leadership over the state. The appeal by Dr. Agostinho Neto, leader of the Popular Movement for the Liberation of Angola (MPLA), to the Cuban government under President Fidel Castro resulted in the deployment of 55,000 Cuban internationalist forces.

These forces in cooperation with anti-imperialist states in Africa such as Guinea-Conakry resulted in the first military defeat of the racist South African Defense Forces in early 1976. Cuban internationalists remained in Angola until 1989 when a comprehensive agreement for the withdrawal of South African Defense Forces from the country and the liberation of Namibia along with the release of political prisoners in South Africa and the beginning of negotiations to end the apartheid system was assured.

Earlier in Zimbabwe, the armed revolutionary forces of the Zimbabwe African National Union-Patriot Front and the Zimbabwe African People’s Union-Patriotic Front led to the national independence of the country formerly known as Rhodesia in April 1980. Zimbabwe, Angola, Mozambique, Zambia, Tanzania and Lesotho all served as rear bases for the ANC military and political forces which fought for the liberation of South Africa.

Structural Adjustment Programs (SAP) Reveal the Economic Face of Neo-Colonialism

After the overthrow of the CPP in Ghana in 1966, the country no longer took a progressive stand in regard to building socialism and Pan-Africanism on the continent. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank virtually took over the management of the state leading to the abandonment of state enterprises and the emphasis on industrialization and a progressive foreign policy.

By the 1980s this method of restructuring post-independence African states began to spread throughout the continent. In Ghana, the so-called Economic Recovery Program (ERP) was instituted in 1983 under military leader Flight-Lieutenant Jerry Rawlings who had come to power for a second time in a military coup on January 31, 1981.

The ERP would later be named the Structural Adjustment Program (SAP) and these methods were managed by the IMF and the World Bank in various African states. Uganda, after the coming to power of National Resistance Army leader Yoweri Museveni, the East African state moved in the same direction as Ghana.

Both Ghana and Uganda had been at the forefront of the Pan-African states attempting to advance continental unity and socialism during the 1960s. Ghana under Nkrumah was closely allied with Uganda under President Milton Obote who was overthrown by Gen. Idi Amin in a Western-backed coup in 1971.

Today there are many reports that would suggest that Africa is undergoing and economic revival. Nonetheless, there is still a heavy reliance on foreign exchange earnings from exports and unemployment and poverty remains high although there has been a reduction in poverty in several states.

During the so-called “Arab Spring” of late 2010 and early 2011, the underlying causes of the uprisings in Tunisia, Egypt, Morocco and Algeria were related to the failure of these governments to provide employment to youth and workers in general. The governments of Tunisia and Egypt were forced to resign in January and February 2011 respectively where Algeria was able to weather the demonstrations which seemed to be related to the country’s long term positions that were independent of the West.

In Libya, even though the imperialists and the corporate press attempted to link the western-backed rebellion which erupted in February of 2011 to developments in Tunisia and Egypt, the character of these demonstrations quickly proved to be of a totally different character politically. When the Libyan rebellion took up arms against the Jamahiriya, the revolt was suppressed by the Gaddafi government.

Utilizing the successful military and political defense of the Jamahiriya as a pretext, the imperialist states rapidly went to the United Nations Security Council to pass two resolutions, 1970, placing an arms embargo on the Gaddafi government but not the CIA-trained rebels and defectors and 1973, which imposed a so-called “no-fly zone” over Libya which was a code name for a massive bombing operation that lasted for seven straights months and was carried out by the U.S. and NATO. In addition to an arms embargo and blanket bombing of Libya, the country foreign assets were frozen and the CIA was sent into the country to identify targets for aerial bombardment.

Several attempts were made on the lives of Gaddafi and his family during the course of the war. His family members were killed in airstrikes and eventually on October 20, 2011 Gaddafi’s convoy was struck by bombs in Sirte. He was later captured, brutally beaten, tortured and shot to death by an alleged militia group that was supported by the Pentagon, the CIA and NATO.

Since the overthrow of Gaddafi in Libya, the oil-rich North African state has sunk into chaos. Four U.S. CIA officers were killed in Benghazi last September 11 posing as Washington diplomats. The New York Times reported that the killing of Ambassador Christopher Stevens and the other three Americans was the greatest blow to the CIA in three decades.

AFRICOM-NATO and the Militarization of Africa

The U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM) was formed officially in early 2008 with its headquarters in Stuttgart, Germany. Attempts to place the AFRICOM headquarters in Africa was met with substantial resistance from individual states and the African Union. However, the U.S. does have a military base in the Horn of Africa nation of Djibouti.

In addition to this base, there are drone stations, CIA stations and other joint operations between the U.S. and various African states in Somalia, Ethiopia, Seychelles, South Sudan, Uganda, Central African Republic, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Egypt, Ghana and other states. Obama announced in December of 2012 that his administration was dispatching 3,500 Special Forces and military trainers to 35 African states in purported efforts to assist in the fight against “terrorism.”

Yet the horrendous war crimes carried out by the U.S. under Obama gets relatively no opposition within the U.S. Congress even among the Congressional Black Caucus. In Libya some two million people were displaced and anywhere between 50,000-100,000 people were killed by the U.S.-NATO war of aggression and regime-change.

Thousands of Africans remain in post-Gaddafi Libyan jails that are run by militias who are given free reign by the U.S.-NATO backed General National Congress (GNC). An International Criminal Court (ICC) delegation which visited Libya during 2012 to investigate the conditions surrounding the detention of Seif al-Islam, the oldest son of Gaddafi and his heir apparent, was detained by the Zintan militia holding this political prisoner.

The ICC, commonly referred to as the “African Criminal Court” due to its sole preoccupation with African statesmen and rebel leaders, had indicted Gaddafi and members of his government during the imperialist war against Libya in 2011. These leaders were indicted on false charges related to the efforts to defend the country against the western-led rebels who had terrorized the country for months but have escaped the scrutiny of the ICC based in The Hague.

The United Nations and other international bodies have remained largely silent on the crimes against humanity being committed in counter-revolutionary Libya. This also holds true of developments in Somalia, where the CIA and the Pentagon has carried out drone and airstrikes that have resulted in the murder of thousands of people.

Africans have continued to resist the onslaught of AFRICOM and its surrogates on the continent. It was reported in May 2013 that at least 3,000 AMISOM troops have been killed in Somalia in efforts to attempt to suppress the resistance by Al Shabaab to imperialist-backed interference in this Horn of Africa state.

The wars in Libya and Somalia have spilled over into neighboring Mali, Niger and Kenya respectively. Kenya has 2,000-3,000 troops occupying southern Somalia at the aegis of the U.S.

The military intervention by the Pentagon, the CIA and NATO countries will escalate in the short term due to the growing strategic role Africa is playing within the world capitalist system. Throughout East and Central Africa there have been large finding of oil, natural gas and other strategic resources. At present at least 25 percent of the oil that is imported into the United States is coming from the African continent, which now exceeds the amount of petroleum that is exported to the U.S. from the entire Arabian Peninsula.

The Way Forward For Africa and the Diaspora

In order for Africa and its people to develop there must be decisive a break with the imperialist system of finance capital. With the deepening crisis of the world capitalism, the economic system is providing no real solutions to the problems of Africa, nor for its own peoples in Europe and North America.

Europe remains in deep recession with the countries of the South facing astronomical unemployment rates that exceed 25 percent. Even in France, Britain and Germany, the economic crisis has drained the national reserves compelling the central banks to bailout the financial institutions in order to stave off a total collapse.

In the U.S. the rates of poverty and unemployment in real terms are staggering. Nearly half of the people in the U.S. consider themselves to be living in poverty or near poverty.

This economic crisis has become a political one since the White House, Congress, Downing Street, Brussels and Paris are providing no alternative ideas on how to extricate the capitalist system from the economic malaise impacting hundreds of millions of workers, farmers and youth. The only proposals coming out of the halls of the ruling class and their surrogates in government call for greater austerity measures and mechanism to limit any semblance of democratic debate, discussion and collective action.

Our task relates to political education, mobilization and organization of the masses of people to work towards the solutions of these challenges. The crisis in Africa and the Diaspora is by no means isolated from the broader struggle of the peoples of the world.

In Africa there has been a tremendous degree of movement towards alliances with other states on the continent and throughout the so-called Global South. The Forum on China-Africa Cooperation (FOCAC) has held five summits since 2000 resulting in an escalation of both economic and political cooperation between the two regions. Africa is now the largest trading partner with the People’s Republic of China.

In Zimbabwe the ZANU-PF government in 2000 took decisive action by seizing the land which the people fought long years for during the armed revolutionary struggle. The government of President Robert Mugabe was vilified by the West and its allies where today research has shown that the land seizures have improved both productivity and income for the African agricultural workers and farmers.

This experience in Zimbabwe is being looked at by other African states in the Southern Africa region and other areas. In South Africa and Namibia the masses of workers, youth and farmers long for the full realization of the objectives of the national democratic revolutions.

South Africa has the largest and most organized working class on the continent. The unrest in the mining industry and the agricultural sector is pushing the country towards looking at nationalization and seizure of the land and the means of production.

The African Union must take action to remove the U.S., France, Britain, Germany, Israel and other imperialist states and their partners from the continent. The ongoing problems of Africa can be traced back to the dominance of the imperialist system throughout the continent.

With reference to the African Diaspora in North America and Europe, the struggle against racism and national oppression takes on critical significance. The forces of the African Diaspora, motivated by Pan-African ideals has and can continue to play a decisive role in the overall consolidation of the African independence movement and the move towards Pan-Africanism and the African Renaissance.

Nkrumah in Africa Must Unite wrote that

“The expression ‘Pan-Africanism’ did not come into use until the beginning of the twentieth century when Henry Sylvester Williams of Trinidad, and William Edward Burghhardt Du Bois of the United States of America, both of African descent, used it at several Pan-African Congresses which were mainly attended by scholars of African descent. A notable contribution to African nationalism and Pan-Africanism was the ‘Back to Africa’ movement of Marcus Garvey.” (p. 133)

Since 1963, the African American and Caribbean African people have played a pivotal role in the struggle to popularize the concept of African liberation. During the 1980s and early 1990s, the Southern African solidarity struggle influenced by African Americans brought into existence the first legislative and administrative actions against the apartheid regime.

With the advent of the Obama administration the need to emphasize a class character to the Pan-African struggle is essential. Africa is not the backyard of U.S. imperialism and must be given the opportunity to exercise full and genuine independence and sovereignty.

In the U.S. the cities in which African Americans reside are facing monumental economic crisis and the evisceration of political power won through the popular struggles of the post-World War II period. Principled alliances with progressive African states and mass organizations will provide avenues for the struggle to eradicate underdevelopment and neo-colonialism from the continent and among the oppressed nations held captive by the West.

Therefore as Nkrumah stressed in the Handbook of Revolutionary Warfare “African unity implies that imperialism and foreign oppression should be eradicated in all their forms. That neo-colonialism should be recognized and eliminated and that the new African nation must develop within a continental framework.” (p. 27)

Nkrumah goes on to say that “At the core of the concept of African unity lies socialism and the socialist definition of the new African society. Socialism and African unity are organically complementary. There is only one true socialism and that is scientific socialism, the principles of which are abiding and universal. “(p. 29)

Short of revolutionary Pan-Africanism based on scientific socialism, Africans and their allies throughout the world must work toward defining and exercising the maximum degree of organization and mobilization aimed at the transformation of capitalist society and the world imperialist system. These are the lessons of the last five decades and they must be assessed in order to move forward with the total liberation of Africa and its people.

Abayomi Azikiwe, Editor, Pan-African News Wire

The lecture was delivered at the Africa & U.S. Imperialism Conference held in Detroit on May 18, 2013. The event was sponsored by the Michigan Emergency Committee Against War & Injustice (MECAWI) and also featured presentations by Atty. Jeff Edison of the National Conference of Black Lawyers, Dr. Rita Kiki Edozie, Director of African American and African Studies at Michigan State University in East Lansing, Cheick Oumar and Moussa Rimau, two graduate students at MSU from Mali, Tachae J. Davis of Workers World Youth Fraction and a student at Macomb Community College. A special address was delivered by the Venezuelan Consulate in Chicago Jesus Rodriguez Espinoza. To watch the video of the address delivered by the Venezuelan diplomat just click on the website below:

(Part 1)

(Part 2)  

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Africa and U.S. Imperialism: Post-Colonial Crises and the Imperatives of the African Revolution

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.

***

The Iranian-Saudi rapprochement presents Pakistan with some unexpected challenges that it arguably would have been in a much better position to deal with had last year’s post-modern coup not taken place. The past 11 months have crippled its capability to respond to game-changers such as this one, which means that it’ll probably miss out on the opportunities connected with this black swan event while remaining at risk of sliding further into regional isolation.

The Chinese-mediated Iranian-Saudi rapprochement is unquestionably a positive development for all members of the international community apart from the US and Israel, both of which have a stake in dividing-and-ruling West Asia by indefinitely perpetuating those two’s rivalry. Pakistan had previously been victimized by their competition so it makes perfect sense why it praised their unexpected reconciliation, but it might also struggle to adapt to the new grand strategic reality that it created.

On the one hand, Pakistan is now no longer tacitly conceived by either of them as an object of rivalry against the other, within whose territory they previously competed with their counterpart by proxy. This will in turn relieve enormous pressure on that country at one of its most sensitive security moments in decades characterized by unprecedented political polarization, rising terrorist attacks from Baloch sub-nationalists and the TTP, and an ever-worsening economic-financial crisis.

On the other hand, however, there’s an inadvertent chance in the short-term that the Baloch aspect of its security challenges might worsen. The Cradle, which is a popular Alt-Media outlet with exclusive sources known for their reliability, cited an unnamed individual who was part of the Beijing-based negotiations to report that one of the hidden security clauses agreed to was that Riyadh “pledges not to fund organizations designated as terrorists by Iran, such as…militants operating out of Pakistan.”

This can be understood as a reference to Jundallah, an extremist group that operates out of Pakistan’s Balochistan region allegedly with the tacit approval of that country’s military leadership and which has been previously accused by Iran of being a Saudi proxy. Upon being cut off by Riyadh and out of work, its fighters might join other extremists like the TTP or sub-nationalists like the BLA unless Islamabad successfully detains them first or begins their disarmament, demobilization, and reintegration.

It can’t be taken for granted that the post-modern coup regime that came to power last April will do so, however, since it’s irresponsibly redirected a significant share of the security services’ attention from preemptively addressing those threats to persecuting their peaceful political opponents. That’s one of the reasons for the upsurge of terrorism across the country in the past 11 months, and it’s unlikely to be rectified in a timely enough fashion even if the political will was present (which it isn’t) to deal with this.

Failure to proactively address the abrupt rise of unemployed anti-Iranian militants could further exacerbate Pakistan’s already difficult security challenges in the coming future, thus contributing to its cascading crises that are pushing that geostrategically positioned country closer to the brink of chaos. Not only that, but it can no longer take the scenario of Saudi bailouts for granted either since the Kingdom appears poised to invest more in Iran than in Pakistan going forward.

The Iranian-Saudi rapprochement will unlock the North-South Transport Corridor’s (NSTC) maximum potential by connecting the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) to this promising series of Eurasian megaprojects between Russia and India that run through the Islamic Republic. This is the official assessment of influential Chairman of the Russian State Duma Committee on International Affairs Leonid Slutsky, which he shared with his country’s publicly financed international media flagship TASS.

Pakistan can “piggyback” on these projects by using them to comprehensively enhance its connectivity with Iran, Azerbaijan, and Russia, which would align with the geo-economic grand strategy promulgated by former Prime Minister Imran Khan, but economic stability and political will are the prerequisites. Both are presently lacking, however, which reduces the chances that it’ll benefit from Saudi Arabia and the rest of the GCC’s participation in the NSTC anytime soon.

With the Kingdom likely to focus more on mutually beneficial Iranian investments than on dumping billions into seemingly never-ending Pakistani bailouts that haven’t ever brought it anything in return, Islamabad will predictably become more dependent on the US-controlled IMF. China will always provide the bare minimum required to keep Pakistan afloat in the worst-case scenario, but even it seems to be getting cold feed nowadays for a variety of reasons, thus meaning that US influence might further grow.

About that, last year’s post-modern coup restored American suzerainty over Pakistan to a large degree, which now makes that country a regional anomaly in the geopolitical sense considering the broader region’s drift away from that declining unipolar hegemon. The very fact that previously US-aligned Saudi Arabia patched up its seemingly irreconcilable problems with Iran as a result of Chinese mediation reinforces this factual observation. Pakistan now stands alone as the broader region’s only US vassal.

That country’s military leaders will predictably try to leverage this to their benefit, both personally as well as in terms of what they believe (whether rightly or wrongly) is the national interest, but the power asymmetry is obviously in the US’ favor and therefore places Pakistan at a supreme disadvantage. It’ll thus probably continue being exploited and led down the counterproductive path charted by last year’s post-modern coup due to Pakistan’s desperate hunger for the carrot of American financial aid.

Just like international perceptions of Pakistan will continue moving in a negative direction due to its status as the broader region’s only US vassal, so too will domestic ones of its post-modern coup regime as a result of the counterproductive path that its patron will continue leading it down. Political polarization will expectedly spike with uncertain consequences for stability considering the brutal methods that the authorities have employed for persecuting peaceful protesters.

Their perception management efforts will also be dealt a blow by the Iranian-Saudi rapprochement since The Cradle’s previously mentioned source also reported that neither party will “engage in any activity that destabilizes either state, at the security, military or media levels.” This is only relevant in the Pakistani context to Saudi Arabia’s clandestine funding of anti-Iranian propagandists who coincidentally happen to be the post-modern coup regime’s loudest supporters.

The authorities turned a blind eye to the activities of these literal foreign influence agents as a quid pro quo for their support against the opposition, but now this increasingly bankrupt country is forced into the dilemma of either having to foot the bill for their propaganda or have them shill for someone else. Levers of pressure might be exploited to coerce them into remaining loyal despite the cut in their pay if the regime replaces the Saudis as their boss, but others might still work elsewhere or even emigrate.

For all the reasons shared in this analysis, the Iranian-Saudi rapprochement presents Pakistan with some unexpected challenges that it arguably would have been in a much better position to deal with had last year’s post-modern coup not taken place. The past 11 months have crippled its capability to respond to game-changers such as this one, which means that it’ll probably miss out on the opportunities connected with this black swan event while remaining at risk of sliding further into regional isolation.

*

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.

This article was originally published on Andrew Korybko’s Newsletter.

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

He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from the author

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” 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

***

Transcript

On March 6, Seymour “Sy” Hersh spoke about the Nord Stream explosion on September 26, 2022. He reveals in his substack how it was the result of Washington Administration authorizing C4 explosives be planted on the pipelines in June under the cover of a NATO exercise in the Baltic Sea, and then setting them off using a signal from a sonar buoy dropped on the surface. Hersh discusses the discussion of the sabotage at the UN, the decline of his brand of journalism in mainstream media and more!

Watch on bitchute 

Seymour Myron “Sy” Hersh is an investigative journalist and a political writer. He won a Pulitzer Prize for International Reporting in 1970 for exposing the My Lai massacre and the cover-up. At the New York Times he covered the Watergate scandal, the secret U.S. bombing of Cambodia and the CIA’s program on Domestic spying. He has written eleven books and has also won a record five George Polk awards, and two National Magazine Awards.

Select quotes from the interview:

“When they’re talking about two dark ships, they’re talking about images, electronic pulses. And I can tell you that, on a mission like this – I’ve actually asked that question – open-source becomes a great asset, because you can make up anything.

“People in the intelligence community, that I know of, this is – the NSA, the National Security Agency was involved in this too, the mission to build – to give the President an option to bomb the pipelines. They could have recreated a major Japanese task force scheming towards Hawaii, you know, for Pearl Harbor, you know. They could have created anything they wanted in the water. So, when you start talking about, ‘They couldn’t track this and they couldn’t track that,’ they’re just ignoring the possibility that there are people that know exactly what an open-source intelligence does. And rather than ignore it, you use it as part of a cover. Of course he didn’t have his transponder on, of course he wasn’t seen, of course the ship, the Norwegian Alta-class minesweeper, whatever it was – it could have been squawking on a different frequency. It turns out, when you’re given a code, detonating code, you have to punch in the code. But you can punch in any code in an emergency, you don’t have to punch in your own. You could fake it up, it’s that simple.”

” I’ve been in this business for 50 or 60 years and I’ve never had anybody that – who talked to me ever get in trouble.”

“You know, the President, when he went to Kyiv he took a walk in mid-day. And you know what happened? The bombing alarm signal, the sirens that indicated a Russian bombing was coming, a Russian attack – their warning signal, I guess, I forget. In World War II – I don’t know what they called it – you know, the sirens would ring. And it hadn’t rung in 10 days before, and it – I know for a few days afterwards it hadn’t rung. But when they were taking the walk, the warning signals came on of an imminent air attack. And you know what I say? I say, if I’d been a reporter I would have said to the White House, ‘Did you guys set it up so it rang when he was walking in mid-day in the middle of Kyiv so he could look more heroic?’ But that’s what I basically – that’s the only explanation I have for it. Because there was no air raid. So, here comes all these air raid sirens and the press all writes about it. It’s amazing.”

“If I had a chance to ask a question of Mr. Biden…I would just say…’why don’t you just test the American intelligence community to do a deep study and tell you who did it?’ Because we monitor everything, we could find out who did it. You could ask the guy who runs the intelligence – for the Director of National Intelligence – has access to everything. Everything: covert, non-covert, signals. The CIA has a branch called the Directorate of Intelligence that does great work. And another lower level if you have a group in the field like there was in Norway, at that time there/s a special unit in the CIA that – and an agency that monitors even local phone calls to make sure they’re still covert, they’re not being exposed. Or somebody’s neighbour is saying there’s something funny going down, you know, across the street. Of course they’re on an island, but still. Why didn’t they ask that question?”

“Well, of course they’re going to want to downplay it because they obviously know what happened and can’t admit they know. The whole purpose of – you have to know historically, since the Kennedy days there’s been an enormous amount of worry of America in the Cold War in our days of containment – that was the big theory, containment – containing the evil spread of communism or the spread of evil communism. And so, they’ve always been worried about the enormous reserves of Russian gas and oil that they were selling to Western Europe even back then. And pipelines were just beginning to go into Europe and there was a lot of stuff coming through Ukraine. And there was a lot of worry – constantly phrased, again and again – about Russia weaponizing its gas, cheap gas, and oil for sale to Germany and Europe in order to get some leverage with them. And maybe it diminished the power of NATO, diminished the cohesiveness. Western Europe has no gas or oil, they get raw materials from elsewhere.”

“In Stalingrad, the last Stalingrad, the Russians lost 2,400 dead and wounded every four hours and they beat Germany, the Nazis then. They’re not going to lose that war, they’re not going to win that war. And so, I think by Fall that was clear to everybody and I think Biden and his zeal to keep the war going because it was politically useful to him. Americans, we love our Presidents at war. I think at that point he chose to destroy the pipeline so that Chancellor Scholz, who controls – and that’s the second pipeline called Nord Stream 2 – he controlled – he had shut it down at the request from us, he sanctioned it. It was full of gas, 750 miles of methane gas, that’s why there was such a big outpouring of gas. It hadn’t started delivering yet, it was just frozen. He had the – or the chance to unfreeze it. I think Biden decided to take that away from him. And I think, ultimately, that’s going to be the big problem for Biden, particularly maybe next winter if it’s a bad winter.”

“The politics of the destruction of the gas line, whether it’s an act of war or what, but it was a slap in the face of Europe. Saying, you know, ‘If you’re not going to play ball with me and Ukraine –’ says the President, ‘–I don’t care what happens there.’ ‘I don’t care if it’s going to be harder to keep your people wealthy and warm,’ basically that’s what he’s done. And that’s the real input of the story.”

“It’s as if what I hear from people who write me, who read stuff from the Substack and other places, is that they understood that this kind of journalism did exist and has existed before. They just weren’t seeing enough of it. I mean, we actually had a story that the New York Times ran on Page 1 for two days about two or three years ago when the Afghan War was still going on. And there were occasions where the Aghans would shoot an American, because they were very angry at what happened there. The Afghan army wasn’t happy with our total control of most things there. And so, one of the stories said that Afghan soldiers – quoting anonymous sources, speaking of anonymous sources – that the Kremlin was paying bounties to Afghan soldiers that killed an American GI on duty in Afghanistan. And that story disappeared because it was a complete fraud. But when you run that kind of stuff, you really lose credibility, you know, that kind of madness.”

“I guess they think it doesn’t – you know, Tony Blinken, Secretary of State, wouldn’t go to a meeting with his peers in China because of a balloon….Weather balloon or whatever it was. I mean, a balloon? He cancelled a meeting because he was – they’re just, you know… They’re just children. And this is a really serious business. And I’m sorry, about the President’s leadership isn’t there on this issue.”

“And so, I come to My Lai 10 years later as a police reporter and I worked for the United Press covering a State House in South Dakota which was fun. I’d never been there. I spent the winter in South Dakota. And then I worked for the AP in Chicago where I had a great time. And then, in Washington where I had covered the War. Covered the Pentagon. And then, a couple years later I do My Lai. And I’m 11 years out of college. I know no rich people. And I do this story sticking two fingers to the My Lai story about a massacre that was covered up by everybody: Kissinger, Nixon, you name ‘em. And Westmoreland, who ran the War. I’m sticking two fingers in the eye of a sitting president, Richard Nixon. And in many countries in the world, I would’ve been in a gulag for doing that. Not here.”

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.

***

A sustained violent attack by hundreds of Jewish settlers on the Palestinian town of Huwwara last week – as well as the response of Israel’s new far-right government – has divided Jewish opinion in Israel and deeply discomfited Jews abroad.

The Board of Deputies, which claims to represent Britain’s Jewish community and is usually a reliable defender of Israel, felt compelled last week to issue a short statement condemning comments by a senior Israeli government minister, Bezalel Smotrich, after he called for Huwwara to be “wiped out”.

At the weekend, the distinguished British historian Simon Schama described the events in Huwwara as “absolutely, utterly horrifying” and urged fellow Jews to speak up.

He was joined by Margaret Hodge, a veteran Labour MP who was at the forefront of attacks on the party’s previous leader, Jeremy Corbyn, over his activism in solidarity with Palestinians. She said Israel was at a “dangerous moment” and British Jews could not just “stand by”.

Even Yehuda Fuchs, the Israeli army commander whose soldiers allowed the settlers to rampage, described the attack as a “pogrom”, a word with especially troubling connotations for Jews. It is historically associated with massacres and the ethnic cleansing of Jewish communities in eastern Europe that served as a prelude to the Nazi Holocaust.

But Palestinians don’t need very belated sympathy from Israel or its supporters, least of all from the Israeli army, any more than they need empty calls for “restraint” and “calm” from western capitals.

What they need is genuine solidarity and real international protections, all the more so as the appeal of overt religious fascism sweeps across Israel. Instead, much of the rhetoric in the wake of the attack, even if it is well-meant, misleads far more than it clarifies.

Reign of terror

On 26 February, a mob of several hundred settlers stormed Huwwara and spent several hours terrorising the local inhabitants, looting and burning homes and cars.

A Palestinian man was shot dead during the events, and some 100 other Palestinians were injured. Videos show that Israeli soldiers and armed police either stood by or assisted in the settlers’ attack.

The rampage followed the shooting of two settlers by a Palestinian gunman earlier that day. For many months, there has been growing unrest among Palestinians – both at the continuing failure of their leaders to secure any kind of diplomatic achievement, and at the steady rise in Israeli state and settler violence. Last year was the most deadly for Palestinians in the West Bank for nearly two decades.

Huwwara is especially vulnerable. It sits on a major intersection close to the large Palestinian city of Nablus. It is a critical artery for settlers because most traffic, whether Palestinian or Jewish, needs to pass through Huwwara to move between the southern and northern parts of the occupied West Bank.

It was close to this intersection, hours before the attack, that the two settler brothers were killed.

The settlers in this area are among the most extreme and violent in the occupied territories, the kind who vote solidly for the religious fascists who are now key partners in Benjamin Netanyahu’s government. The Religious Zionism faction, led by Smotrich and Itamar Ben-Gvir, emerged from last year’s general election as the third largest in the parliament.

Nearly 30 years on from the signing of the Oslo Accords, with Israel still refusing to honour a process that was expected to lead to the dismantling of the settlements and Palestinian self-rule, Huwwara has found itself permanently trapped under Israeli military control.

Israeli soldiers are supposed to guarantee the security of the town’s Palestinian inhabitants. Instead, like so many other Palestinians in the West Bank, those inhabitants live under a reign of terror from unwelcome Jewish settler “neighbours” endlessly indulged by the Israeli army.

At the weekend, the United Nation’s rapporteur for the occupied territories, Francesca Albanese, told the BBC that Israel should be investigated for crimes against the Palestinian people.

‘Merciless attacks’

Smotrich, Israel’s finance minister, who has also been awarded unprecedented powers by Netanyahu to run the occupation, responded to the Huwwara attack by urging greater violence. He called for the town to be “wiped out”.

But he qualified his statement by arguing that it was important the Israeli state organise the violence rather than that it be left to the settler movement he represents.

“Heaven forbid it should be done by private individuals,” he said. “I think the village of Huwwara should be wiped out, but I think the State of Israel should do it.”

His comment did not come out of the blue. Hours before the settlers’ invasion of Huwwara, Smotrich had called on his own government to abandon discussions with Palestinian officials in Jordan to ease tensions. He demanded instead that Israel attack Palestinian cities “mercilessly with tanks and helicopters”.

Other legislators in his faction have echoed him. Zvika Fogel, a retired general who was once in charge of Gaza, said in response to the settlers’ rampage: “Huwwara closed and burned down – that’s what I want to see.” Last December, he told the UK’s Channel 4 News that Israel was “too merciful” towards Palestinians and it was “time for us to stop being so”.

Both were giving succour to a familiar slogan against Palestinians shouted out at demonstrations by Israel’s fascist right: “May your village burn.”

In any other context, calls by a senior government minister for state-organised violence against civilians because of their ethnic or national status would be clearly understood as genocidal. But, of course, other standards apply to Israel, a key partner for the United States and Europe in projecting western power into the oil-rich Middle East.

Instead, the full significance of Smotrich’s threat – given that he and his partner, Ben-Gvir, the police minister, control the means by which such genocidal actions can be undertaken – is not being addressed.

The Biden administration called his remarks “irresponsible” and “repugnant”.

The liberal Haaretz newspaper warned only that Smotrich was urging “collective punishment” of Palestinians, in violation of international law. But collective punishment has been the stock-in-trade of Israeli policy towards Palestinians for decades.

Genocidal project

In my view, something far more sinister is going on. Smotrich’s comment that it should not fall to individuals to “wipe out” Palestinian communities – that it was the duty of the state – was directed at his supporters among the fanatical settlers. He was intimating two things to them.

First, he was reminding these religious fascists, the constituency that propelled him into government, that he and Ben-Gvir are now the state – thanks to them. He was not seeking to dissuade the settlers from perpetrating genocidal violence against Palestinians. He was reassuring them that he is there to help.

He and Ben-Gvir now effectively run the occupation. He was telling the settlers they have allies for their genocidal project in the highest places.

But, in my opinion, he was doing something more. He was also reminding them that he and Ben-Gvir are fighting their corner but cannot win the battle alone. They need the settlers to aid them in their struggle against wavering ministerial colleagues, or those in government who might hold back from fear of the international reaction.

Smotrich’s remarks were intended not to curb the settlers’ excesses. He wants them to exert even more pressure on the government to strengthen his hand.

The more effective he is in forcing the state to “wipe out” places like Huwwara – or help the settlers to do so – the larger his support base will grow, the more he will become a central figure in Israeli politics, and the more his and settlers’ agenda will become normalised.

And Smotrich knows too that opposition to the settlers’ genocidal violence may be only skin deep among much of the wider Israeli Jewish public. The dehumanisation of Palestinians and incitement towards violence is standard fare, on both the right and the supposed left.

Singling him out pretends that more respectable government ministers, even prime ministers, have not been talking and thinking this way for decades.

Generals, senior politicians and rabbis regularly compare Palestinians to cockroaches, snakes, lice and cancer. Settler rabbis have even called for Jews to kill Palestinian babies.

In 2008, Matan Vilnai, an army general who at the time was a Labor deputy defence minister, called for a “shoah” – the Hebrew word for the Holocaust – against the Palestinians of Gaza.

Ehud Barak, a former Labor prime minister, famously compared Israel to a “villa in the jungle”, implying that the dangerous creatures outside needed exterminating.

And Netanyahu himself suggested in the 2019 general election that the parties representing Israel’s large, much-oppressed minority of Palestinians, “want to annihilate us all – women, children and men”. The implication was clear: Israel had a right to pre-empt such annihilation.

Smotrich knows that most Israeli Jews understand, at least subconsciously, that their self-declared Jewish state was founded by wiping out – literally blowing up and demolishing – many hundreds of communities like Huwwara in 1948. So why not continue that process in the occupied territories? Why not make explicit in the areas occupied in 1967 what was entirely routine in the areas seized in 1948?

‘Zero tolerance’

While criticism is focused on Smotrich, wider patterns are being ignored. The settlers and army – and behind both, the Israeli state – have been working hand in glove to drive out Palestinians from swaths of the occupied West Bank and East Jerusalem for more than half a century.

Even the US State Department noted in 2021 that Israeli security forces often failed to prevent settler attacks against Palestinians and that violent settlers were almost never held to account.

It was the army and police that allowed the settlers free reign for their rampage in Huwwara. Those same security forces arrested almost none of the hundreds of pogromists, and released the half a dozen who were arrested almost immediately.

It is not as though the Israeli state is incapable of dealing with Israeli Jews – let alone Palestinians asserting their rights – when it wishes to.

The same army and police that stood by, or assisted, as the settlers attacked Huwwara proved quite capable on Friday last week of sealing off the town from a convoy of Israeli human rights activists trying to pay a solidarity visit. It did so even as settlers continued to drive through the Palestinian community.

And unlike their hands-off approach with the settlers, the army was ready to beat and fire stun grenades at the solidarity activists.

Similarly, the security forces presented an iron fist at the weekend towards Israelis who protested against the settler takeover of Palestinian homes in the Sheikh Jarrah neighbourhood of Jerusalem, and peaceful anti-government protesters in Tel Aviv, who were charged by police on horseback and had water cannon used against them.

Ben-Gvir ordered the police to show “zero tolerance” in Tel Aviv, as he turned a blind eye in Huwwara. The minister whose police force could not foresee an entirely predictable pogrom by the settlers warned darkly on Monday that the Israeli left was “planning the next murder”, supposedly of Netanyahu and his wife, Sara.

The difference in treatment was not lost on the demonstrators in Tel Aviv, who called out to the security forces: “Where were you in Huwwara?

Comfort blanket

The reality is that Smotrich’s comment was reckless, coarse and undiplomatic. But outrage at his and Ben-Gvir’s rhetoric is now serving chiefly as a comfort blanket for those who have always supported Israel as a Jewish supremacist state.

Smotrich’s biggest offence is not that he called for the destruction of Huwwara, or even that he fuels the crimes committed by his fascist settlers’ allies. It is that he highlights a little too clearly what has been going on for more than five decades in the occupied territories – and before it, inside Israel.

His crime is offering the unvarnished truth. His transgression is to be seeking to intensify and speed up a state policy of violence and ethnic cleansing that has until now been conducted a little more discreetly and incrementally – a policy of “creeping annexation” that dates back to the Labor politicians and generals Moshe Dayan and Yigal Allon.

Before the Board of Deputies issued its denunciation of Smotrich’s remarks, it issued a much more typical statement as the settlers unleashed their violence on Huwwara. This earlier statement not only tied the rampage against the Palestinian community, backed by the Israeli security forces, with the earlier killing of the two settler brothers, it implied that the attack was a form of retaliation – or, in the settlers’ parlance, “a price tag”.

Had a critic of Israel done something similar but the other way around, the board would have lost no time in suggesting that such linkage served to minimise or excuse Palestinian violence.

But has this not been the strategy of Israel’s apologists from the outset. Any crime, any outrage by Israel can be justified because the Palestinians started it, or because they don’t listen to reason, or because they want to drive Jews into the sea.

The excuses have been interminable. And now, with religious fascism at the heart of the Netanyahu government, still they come. Smotrich and Ben-Gvir have become the excuse. They are the problem. They are the cause of Israel’s woes. It is yet more self-delusion and misdirection.

Israel was founded as a Jewish supremacist state and it continues along that path, growing more confident, and less ready to compromise, with every passing year.

All the signs are that Israel’s defenders in the West will continue to stand by as Palestinians suffer, as they are denied statehood and stripped of their dignity. The clamour will grow, but only for Smotrich and Ben-Gvir to stop disturbing these apologists’ slumber as the embers burn.

*

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.

Jonathan Cook is the author of three books on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and a winner of the Martha Gellhorn Special Prize for Journalism. His website and blog can be found at www.jonathan-cook.net

Featured image: Palestinian residents of Huwara walk among their burned homes, cars, and businesses the morning after Israeli settlers rampaged through their town in the West Bank, Feb. 27, 2023. (Oren Ziv) Source: +972 Magazine

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on It’s Not Just the Settlers – or Israel – Responsible for the Torching of Huwwara
  • Tags: , ,

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.

***

As we witness the collapse of various mainstream narratives, especially those surrounding the U.S./NATO war with Russia in Ukraine, Americans should begin to reassess their understanding of U.S. national leadership. Most American citizens have no notion of the great disparity between what their government does overseas and the stories they hear from its mouthpieces. As a result, Americans unwittingly support all sorts of foreign operations with little or no understanding of what is actually going on. For years, they have been misled by a non-stop propaganda campaign that is only now beginning to crumble.

We are experiencing the death throes of the United States’ unipolar hegemony over large parts of world. Until citizens begin to realize the magnitude of their government’s policy deceptions, it will become increasingly difficult to understand the United States’ changing global position and adjust to the effects of the growing negative perception of our country held by many people around the world.

Since World War II, and particularly after the collapse of the Soviet Union, the United States was the dominant and unrivaled world power. Instead of being a peacekeeper and honest “world’s policeman,” the U.S. has increasingly been a destabilizing bully. Many leaders worldwide have been reluctant to speak up about the increasingly destructive nature of U.S. foreign policy for fear of being punished. But as U.S. stature and power declines, large parts of the world have been seeking arrangements to protect themselves from U.S. predation.

Most Americans do not understand why such realignments are occurring, thanks to a constant stream of propaganda about America being the “most generous,” the “exceptional nation,” a “nation that sets aside its interests for the benefit of the world,” an “important source of good” around the globe as the “protector of the rules based order,” always shouldering the heavy responsibility to protect the international system and weak nations from bad actors, ad nauseam. According to a number of sources, U.S.-caused wars have been directly responsible for the deaths of more than 10 million people since World War II. The neoconservatives will scoff at these facts and their sources, but most of the rest of the world believes this to be true.

Most Americans cannot accept these observations because they contradict the narrative given them by the omnipresent state propaganda machine. While the ever growing list of American misdeeds abroad has for years been largely unchallenged at home, it has become increasingly obvious to many across the globe. Americans should take note. For example, the Chinese Foreign Ministry has just published an overview of what they see as U.S. misbehavior. The U.S. establishment and well-meaning patriots may dismiss the Chinese observations, but they ring true to many who live outside of the neoconservative propaganda bubble.

Contrary to establishment mythology, the U.S. is famous for breaking its promises, violating treaties, and abandoning agreements. The list is long: the U.S.’s 1990 promise not to move NATO east into former Warsaw Convention countries, the abrogation of the ABM, INF, Open Skies, START treaties, the JCPOA, the  agreement with Libya, and others. The U.S. has also repeatedly flouted international law by invading countries that do not bow to U.S. hegemony.

There are a number of U.S. agencies that covertly fund NGO election interference operations. Most Americans have no idea that the Cold War–era National Endowment for Democracy was created to influence elections in countries around the world, and has interfered in many. (The National Endowment for Democracy was spending money in Russia until the Russians expelled them.) Then there are the famous “Color Revolutions” sponsored by various U.S. agencies. Some estimate the U.S. has interfered in as many as fifty countries.

The days of pretending to ignore this destructive behavior are drawing to a close. We are entering a period in which the populations of many countries may decide that being subject to American hegemony is not in their interests. Increasing numbers of countries have joined and formed alternative alliances outside U.S. influence. SCO, BRICS+, OPEC+, and others have experienced growing membership as countries that believe their interests are better protected by these non-U.S. affiliated alliances sign on.

The fallout of the tragic and unnecessary Ukraine war has accelerated this movement to seek other cooperative associations. As America’s European allies are learning, there can be huge political and economic costs to being associated with the U.S. The populations of Europe have watched their own economies suffer and paid dearly for energy because of the ten rounds of self-destructive sanctions imposed on Russia.

The purveyor and protector of the “rules-based order” decided that Germany should not import cheap Russian natural gas. America’s president and a senior State Department official threatened to cut off the pipeline supplying Russian natural gas if Russia did not bow to Washington’s wishes. Coincidentally, the Nord Stream gas pipelines were blown up not long after. The U.S. Secretary of State said the sabotage was an “opportunity,” and the assistant secretary of State appeared to be satisfied. The neoconservatives lauding this act of terrorism against an ally of the U.S. may believe pretending Washington was not responsible will reassure America and Europe, but the rest of the world believes otherwise.

Many will ignore or diminish the consequences of a possible U.S. role in the destruction of the Nord Stream pipelines. But this addition to the list of callous acts believed abroad to be perpetrated by the U.S. further would undermine the narrative of America as the “generous nation,” “leader of the free world,” “protector of the rules-based order.” For years, these contradictions were skillfully finessed and ignored by a compliant press and complicit institutions that profited from these deceptions. But as the U.S. appears less powerful, the rest of the world is beginning to take notice and are moving to seek other protective friendships.

Less than two years ago, the “most powerful military in the history of man” was chased out of Afghanistan by a group of ragtag militants armed with small arms and mounted on donkeys, bicycles, and motor scooters. The Taliban now has $80 billion worth of U.S. military equipment our leaders left behind. The excuses may have been convincing to the Washington elites and were sold strenuously by regime-aligned media outlets. The rest of the world knows better. The old post-Vietnam collapse tropes, claiming “we would have won if only we were really allowed to fight,” ring hollow after twenty years, hundreds of thousands killed and made homeless, and several trillion dollars spent on that disaster.

Contrary to the many assertions that the Russians would collapse from the shock and awe of the “sanctions from Hell,” the ruble has not turned into rubble as Joe Biden predicted. The U.S. and its NATO clients are running out of ammunition and arms to send to Ukraine, which is being bled white at their behest. It appears that Russia will steadily grind down the Ukrainian military. All of this is reminiscent of World War I. The proto-neoconservatives sold that war as a quick engagement that would be over by Christmas 1914. Four years later, 20 million were dead and many more were wounded or displaced; subsequently most of the European Christian monarchies collapsed, Russia descended into communism’s seventy-year nightmare, and the “War to End all Wars” to make the world “safe for democracy” set the stage for the even more horrific World War II.

A century later, we are sleepwalking into World War III. Americans should ignore the state-sponsored propaganda (eerily similar to that which led up to WWI), wake up, look at what their leaders have wrought, and do all they can to end support for this cruel war before we face a Great War–like conflagration or worse.

*

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.

George D. O’Neill, Jr., is a member of the board of directors of the American Ideas Institute, which publishes The American Conservative, and an artist who lives in rural Florida.

Featured image is from Treason.news

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Death of a Myth. Americans Need to Wake Up to the Realities of a Post-unipolar World Before It’s Too Late.

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.

***

The Sunni Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and the Shia Republic of Iran have agreed – in a China brokered deal – to re-establish diplomatic relations within the coming two months.

Question is, will this new Riyadh-Tehran diplomacy bring an end to the horrendously atrocious war in Yemen? The worst killing and maiming of a most impoverished people in the last hundred years. Maybe this was a key objective of China’s in bringing these two countries back together.

Background

Diplomatic relations between the two countries broke down in January 2016, when Iran’s Foreign Minister claimed that Saudi warplanes had “deliberately” targeted Iran’s Embassy in Sana’a, Yemen’s capital city.

As a precursor to that event, on 2 January 2016, the Saudi Government executed 47 people throughout Saudi cities, one of them was a prominent Shia scholar. Iranian protesters about the execution ransacked and set ablaze the Saudi Embassy in Tehran.

This prompted the Saudi Sunni Foreign Minister to cut diplomatic ties with Shia enemy Iran. In hindsight and knowing what we know today, this rather harsh action by the Saudis, smells like provoked and directed by the powers that be – the US and the UK; those who also are the principal arms suppliers to Riyadh for their war against Yemen.

The Riyadh-Tehran conflict is, in fact, a triangular conflict involving Yemen in the first degree.

In September 2014, the Houthis, a humanitarian rebel group, invaded and took control of Sana’a to oust then Yemeni President Abdrabbuh Mansur Hadi, whose government was controlled by Riyadh. The Shiite Houthis have links to Iran.

The Houthis also had a history of rising up against the Saudi Sunni government which for years has played an influential role in Yemen’s internal affairs.  

Yemen, being situated in an extremely strategic geographic location overseeing the Sea of Arabia, where 70% of the world’s energy is shipped through, it is likely that the Saudi influence on Yemen is “peddled” by the Pentagon, which has several military bases in Saudi Arabia.

They are Washington’s counterpart – a solid military protection – to the US deal with the Saudi King in 1971, that Saudi Arabia, leader of OPEC, would henceforth trade all hydrocarbons in US-dollars.

This resulted in the world being flooded by petro-dollars. It became an important cornerstone in the US-dollar-hegemony over the world.

Yemen’s so-called civil war began in 2014 when the Houthis took control of Yemen’s capital, Sana’a. The Houthis had – and still have – the support of a large majority of the Yemeni people.

Image: Brendan Bell-Taylor, Action Corps Idaho organizer, and Laura Burton protest the war on Yemen in front of the Idaho State Capitol, in Boise, on January 25, 2021, as part of a Global Day of Action: World Says No to War on Yemen. Sen. Jim Risch, U.S. senator from Idaho, is the top Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. [Source: twitter.com]

In March 2015, Saudi Arabia, presumably leading a large coalition of nine countries from West Asia and North Africa, launched a “military intervention” – a war against Yemen – which officially is still called, as of this day, the Yemeni Civil War.

The official version is that the Saudis reacted to deposed Yemeni President Hadi’s call for military support to bring him back as the head of Yemen and to get rid of the Houthi movement.

Looking back, and knowing what we know today, the real instigators of this atrocious war against one of the world’s poorest countries, are the US and the UK. They finance the Saudis and supply them with weapons to literally slaughter Yemenis. Predominantly suffering are women and children.

They also starve Yemenis to death by closing vital ports for shipments of food and other life-necessities, the port of Aden and the Red Sea port of Hudeidah, the second largest port in the country.

The US is again fighting a proxy war. Sounds familiar? One of many precursors to the war in Ukraine. How many more are to follow before the killer-empire falls?

This eight-year-old conflict in Yemen is a confrontation between the internationally recognized government, which is backed by a Saudi-led military coalition, and of course, the US and the UK, against the Houthi rebels, supported by the people of Yemen and by Iran.

The country’s humanitarian crisis is said to be among the worst in the world, due to widespread hunger, disease, and attacks on civilians.

According to the UN, over 150,000 people have been killed in Yemen, as well as an estimated more than 227,000 dead as a result of an ongoing famine and lack of healthcare facilities due to the war. Yemen’s population as of March 2023 is estimated 31.6 million.

There are no reliable statistics about the death toll of this war. But it is estimated that at least a third of the victims are women and children. When it comes to starvation, mostly children are concerned.

According to an Oxfam spokesperson, “The armed conflict in Yemen has exacerbated discrimination and inequalities.Women are, in general, struggling from unequal access to services and resources, as decision-making is often made by men in their communities.”

Looking forward

Will this new diplomatic agreement between Riyadh and Tehran, mediated by China over several days in Beijing, bring the long overdue peace to Yemen and the necessary aid funding to rebuild Yemen’s infrastructure and social rehabilitation?

Both countries, Iran and Saudi, committed to “non-interference” in each other’s internal affairs, according to a joint statement by Saudi, Iranian, and Chinese officials.

Representatives of both countries also said that they would resume a security cooperation agreement signed in 2001 and would work to enhance “regional and international peace and security.”

Does this latter include peace in Yemen?

The regional conflict between Riyadh and Tehran is further exacerbated by the two countries supporting opposing sides also in Syria, while Iran backs the Hezbollah movement in Lebanon. Saudi Arabia, along with the US and Israel, consider Hezbollah a terrorist group.

China’s initiative to bring these two Middle-East countries again together and in peace is multi-faceted. It is a major achievement. Iran and Saudi Arabia are among the world’s largest oil and gas producers. Their common interests go way beyond joint OPEC membership.

Both are keen in detaching themselves from the western ever-more chaotic, sanction-prone, fraudulent economic system, intending to shift eastwards – into eastern coalitions led by China and Russia.

Both countries would like to join the BRICS alliance, which is in turn hoping to be admitted to the China-Russia led Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO).

China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) has during the last year or so provided strong support to the BRICS-plus, an indication that the BRICS association with eastern groupings and eventually full integration is welcome.

The BRI may also become instrumental in rebuilding Yemen – which would be a positive development for Yemen, plus a quasi– invitation to move towards eastern alliances.

Beijing’s role in brokering the agreement is a major diplomatic win for China, but also for Iran, Saudi Arabia and hopefully also for Yemen. It is a true win-win solution.

While Iraq and Syria conflicts are still lingering on, there are prospects that the dynamics created by China through the renewed diplomatic relations between Riyadh and Tehran, may eventually bring lasting Peace to the Middle East.

*

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 Silent Crow News

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.

***

Before the financial collapse come the aggressive anti-regulation lobbyists.  These are often of the same ilk: loathing anything resembling oversight, restriction, reporting and monitoring.  They are incarnations of the frontier, symbolically toting guns and slaying the natives, seeking wealth beyond paper jottings, compliance and bureaucratic tedium.

The collapse of Silicon Valley Bank (SVB), for a period of time the preferred bank for start-ups, is the bitter fruit of that harvest.  Three days prior to the second-largest failure of a US financial institution since the implosion of Washington Mutual (Wamu) in 2008, lobbyists for the banking sector had reason to gloat.  They had the ears of a number of GOP lawmakers and were pressing the case that Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell had little reason to sharpen regulations in the industry.

As a matter of fact, the converse case was put: the financial environment was proving too stringent, and needed easing up.  This effort built on gains made during the Trump administration, which saw the passing of the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act.  Then House majority leader Kevin McCarthy was particularly keen on winding back elements of the Dodd-Frank banking measures introduced in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis.  In 2018, he got much of what he wished for.

Lobbyists for SVB were particularly aggressive in that endeavour, and even went so far as to seek exemptions from the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), the body responsible for insuring bank deposits in times of crisis and institutional oversight.  Two former staffers for McCarthy so happen to be registered lobbyists for SVB, a fact that shows how the US revolving door between politics and business continues to whirr at some speed.  The SVB lobby list also includes figures who found employment under former President Bill Clinton, former Senator Mike Enzi (R-My), former Senator Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) and former Senator Arlen Specter (D-Pa.), just to name a few.

The crisis duly came.  On March 9, startups and venture capitalists made a run on SVB as its share price took a tumble.  SVB had sold its available-for-sale (AFS) portfolio for US$21 billion at a US$1.8 billion loss.  In a patch-up, capital raising response, SVB then announced that it would sell US$2.25 billion in new shares.

By the next day, the FDIC had placed SVB into receivership.  The corporation promised that insured depositors would have access to their insured deposits on March 13; uninsured depositors would have to wait a bit longer, expecting an “advance within the next week.”  But given that 90% of the bank’s deposits exceeded the amount guaranteed by the FDIC, the prospects for adequate recovery proved uncertain, at least till the FDIC, Federal Reserve and US Treasury promised protection for them.

Deputy Treasury Secretary Wally Adeyemo proved rather green in suggesting that the financial system, as things stood, would be resilient enough to hold off any contagion.  “Federal regulators are paying attention to this particular financial institution,” he told CNN, “and when we think about the broader financial system, we’re very confident in the ability and the resilience of the system.”

This is bound to be misplaced.  It’s certainly not the view held by former FDIC head, Sheila Blair, who argues that there are other banks in the system with large amounts of uninsured deposits and unrealised losses.  “These banks that have large amounts of institutional uninsured money … that’s going to be hot money that runs if there’s a sign of trouble.”

David Sacks of Craft Ventures is also of the view that immediate intervention at the government level was required.  “Where is Powell?” he wondered.  “Where is [US Secretary of the Treasury Janet] Yellen?  Stop this crisis NOW.”  SVB, he proposed, should be placed with a top four bank. “Do this before Monday open or there will be contagion and the crisis will spread.”

Questions are being asked whether the anti-regulatory bug has gotten to the various authorities and agencies. Mike Novogratz, founder of Galaxy Digital, pondered whether all banks were now being treated like hedge funds.  “Seems like a policy mistake.”

Economists such as Peter Schiff are even more damning, claiming that the entire US banking sector is set for a cathartic clean-up that will be greater than that following 2008.  US banks were holding “long-term paper at extremely low interest rates.  They can’t compete with short-term Treasuries.”  In such an environment, depositors, in the pursuit of higher yields, would initiate mass withdrawals, resulting in a tidal wave of bank collapses.

Blame for the SVB debacle has been extensive. “This was a hysteria-induced bank run caused by VCs [venture capitalists],” opined Ryan Falvey, a fintech investor based at Restive Ventures.  “This is going to be remembered as one of the ultimate cases of an industry cutting off its nose to spite its face.”

The oversight advocates are bound to agree.  Dennis Kelleher, CEO of the non-profit Better Markets, is certainly one.  “SVB’s stunningly quick collapse should put an end to the nonstop attempts by banks, lobbyists and their political allies to weaken capital and other financial regulations that protect depositors, consumers, investors and financial stability.”

This is likely to prove to be a flight of fancy.  The banking lobbyists have destructive form and staying power.  In 2019, the International Monetary Fund published a working paper noting that bank lobbying, in general, produced “regulatory capture, which lessens the support for tighter rules and enforcement.  This, in turn, allows riskier practices and worse economic outcomes.”

As the great financial crisis showed, financial regulation is often the antidote to banditry.  The pillaging and frontier types will always resist such tendencies. Again, they have been found wanting, and again, the harmful consequences of their ideas are going to prove deep and extensive.

*

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: An office building at 3003 Tasman Drive in Santa Clara, California; at the time this photo was taken, it was home to the headquarters of Silicon Valley Bank. Photographed by user Coolcaesar on September 4, 2022. (Licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0)

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Disastrous Harvest: Silicon Valley Bank and the Anti-Regulation Bank Lobby
  • Tags:

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.

***

 

 

It’s January 4th, 2023, which means Twitter Files stories have been coming out for over a month. Because these are weedsy tales, and may be hard to follow if you haven’t from the beginning, I’ve written up capsule summaries of each of the threads by all of the Twitter Files reporters, and added links to the threads and accounts of each. At the end, in response to some readers (especially foreign ones) who’ve found some of the alphabet-soup government agency names confusing, I’ve included a brief glossary of terms to help as well.

In order, the Twitter Files threads:

  1. Twitter Files Part 1: December 2, 2022, by @mtaibbiTWITTER AND THE HUNTER BIDEN LAPTOP STORY

    Recounting the internal drama at Twitter surrounding the decision to block access to a New York Post exposé on Hunter Biden in October, 2020.

    Key revelations: Twitter blocked the story on the basis of its “hacked materials” policy, but executives internally knew the decision was problematic. “Can we truthfully claim that this is part of the policy?” is how comms official Brandon Borrman put it. Also: when a Twitter contractor polls members of Congress about the decision, they hear Democratic members want more moderation, not less, and “the First Amendment isn’t absolute.”

    1a. Twitter Files Supplemental, December 6, 2022, by @mtaibbi

    THE “EXITING” OF TWITTER DEPUTY GENERAL COUNSEL JIM BAKER

    A second round of Twitter Files releases was delayed, as new addition Bari Weiss discovers former FBI General Counsel and Twitter Deputy General Counsel Jim Baker was reviewing the first batches of Twitter Files documents, whose delivery to reporters had slowed.

  2. Twitter Files Part 2, by @BariWeiss, December 8, 2022TWITTER’S SECRET BLACKLISTS

    Bari Weiss gives a long-awaited answer to the question, “Was Twitter shadow-banning people?” It did, only the company calls it “visibility filtering.” Twitter also had a separate, higher council called SIP-PES that decided cases for high-visibility, controversial accounts.

    Key revelations: Twitter had a huge toolbox for controlling the visibility of any user, including a “Search Blacklist” (for Dan Bongino), a “Trends Blacklist” for Stanford’s Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, and a “Do Not Amplify” setting for conservative activist Charlie Kirk. Weiss quotes a Twitter employee: “Think about visibility filtering as being a way for us to suppress what people see to different levels. It’s a very powerful tool.” With help from @abigailshrier, @shellenbergermd, @nelliebowles, and @isaacgrafstein.

  1. Twitter Files, Part 3, by @mtaibbi, December 9, 2022THE REMOVAL OF DONALD TRUMP, October 2020 – January 6th, 2021

    First in a three-part series looking at how Twitter came to the decision to suspend Donald Trump. The idea behind the series is to show how all of Twitter’s “visibility filtering” tools were on display and deployed after January 6th, 2021. Key Revelations: Trust and Safety chief Yoel Roth not only met regularly with the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security, but with the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI). Also, Twitter was aggressively applying “visibility filtering” tools to Trump well before the election.

  1. Twitter Files Part 4, by @ShellenbergerMD, December 10, 2022THE REMOVAL OF DONALD TRUMP, January 7th, 2021

    This thread by Michael Shellenberger looks at the key day after the J6 riots and before Trump would ultimately be banned from Twitter on January 8th, showing how Twitter internally reconfigured its rules to make a Trump ban fit their policies.

    Key revelations: at least one Twitter employee worried about a “slippery slope” in which “an online platform CEO with a global presence… can gatekeep speech for the entire world,” only to be shot down. Also, chief censor Roth argues for a ban on congressman Matt Gaetz even though it “doesn’t quite fit anywhere (duh),” and Twitter changed its “public interest policy” to clear a path for Trump’s removal.

  2. Twitter Files Part 5, by @BariWeiss, December 11, 2022THE REMOVAL OF DONALD TRUMP, January 8th, 2021

    As angry as many inside Twitter were with Donald Trump after the January 6th Capitol riots, staffers struggled to suspend his account, saying things like, “I think we’d have a hard time saying this is incitement.” As documented by Weiss, they found a way to pull the trigger anyway.

    Key revelations: there were dissenters in the company (“Maybe because I am from China,” said one employee, “I deeply understand how censorship can destroy the public conversation”), but are overruled by senior executives like Vijaya Gadde and Roth, who noted many on Twitter’s staff were citing the “Banality of Evil,” and comparing those who favored sticking to a strict legalistic interpretation of Twitter’s rules — i.e. keep Trump, who had “no violation” — to “Nazis following orders.”

  1. Twitter Files Part 6, by @mtaibbi, December 16, 2022TWITTER, THE FBI SUBSIDIARY

    Twitter’s contact with the FBI was “constant and pervasive,” as FBI personnel, mainly in the San Francisco field office, regularly sent lists of “reports” to Twitter, often about Americans with low follower counts making joke tweets. Tweeters on both the left and the right were affected.

    Key revelations: A senior Twitter executive reports, “FBI was adamant no impediments to sharing” classified information exist. Twitter also agreed to “bounce” content on the recommendations of a wide array of governmental and quasi-governmental actors, from the FBI to the Homeland Security agency CISA to Stanford’s Election Integrity Project to state governments. The company one day received so many moderation requests from the FBI, an executive congratulated staffers at the end for completing the “monumental undertaking.”

  1. Twitter Files Part 7, by @ShellenbergerMD, December 19, 2022THE FBI AND HUNTER BIDEN’S LAPTOP

    The Twitter Files story increases its focus on the company’s relationship to federal law enforcement and intelligence, and shows intense communication between the FBI and Twitter just before the release of the Post’s Hunter Biden story.

    Key Revelations: San Francisco agent Elvis Chan “sends 10 documents to Twitter’s then-Head of Site Integrity, Yoel Roth, through Teleporter, a one-way communications channel from the FBI to Twitter,” the evening before the release of the Post story. Also, Baker in an email explains Twitter was compensated for “processing requests” by the FBI, saying “I am happy to report we have collected $3,415,323 since October 2019!”

The ten teleporter documents referred to in Mike Shellenberger’s FBI thread.
  1. Twitter Files Part 8, by @lhfang, December 20, 2022HOW TWITTER QUIETLY AIDED THE PENTAGON’S COVERT ONLINE PSYOP CAMPAIGN

    Lee Fang takes a fascinating detour, looking at how Twitter for years approved and supported Pentagon-backed covert operations. Noting the company explicitly testified to Congress that it didn’t allow such behavior, the platform nonetheless was a clear partner in state-backed programs involving fake accounts.

    Key revelations: after the U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) sent over a list of 52 Arab-language accounts “we use to amplify certain messages,” Twitter agreed to “whitelist” them. Ultimately the program would be outed in the Washington Postin 2022 — two years after Twitter and other platforms stopped assisting — but contrary to what came out in those reports, Twitter knew about and/or assisted in these programs for at least three years, from 2017-2020.

    Lee wrote a companion piece for the Intercept here:

  2. Twitter Files Part 9, by @mtaibbi, December 24th, 2022TWITTER AND “OTHER GOVERNMENT AGENCIES”

    The Christmas Eve thread (I should have waited a few days to publish!) further details how the channels of communication between the federal government and Twitter operated, and reveals that Twitter directly or indirectly received lists of flagged content from “Other Government Agencies,” i.e. the CIA.

    Key revelations: CIA officials attended at least one conference with Twitter in the summer of 2020, and companies like Twitter and Facebook received “OGA briefings,” at their regular “industry” meetings held in conjunction with the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security. The FBI and the “Foreign Influence Task Force” met regularly “not just with Twitter, but with Yahoo!, Twitch, Cloudfare, LinkedIn, even Wikimedia.”

  1. Twitter Files Part 10, by @DavidZweig, December 28, 2022HOW TWITTER RIGGED THE COVID DEBATE

    David Zweig drills down into how Twitter throttled down information about COVID that was true but perhaps inconvenient for public officials, “discrediting doctors and other experts who disagreed.”

    Key Revelations: Zweig found memos from Twitter personnel who’d liaised with Biden administration officials who were “very angry” that Twitter had not deplatformed more accounts. White House officials for instance wanted attention on reporter Alex Berenson. Zweig also found “countless” instances of Twitter banning or labeling “misleading” accounts that were true or merely controversial. A Rhode Island physician named Andrew Bostom, for instance, was suspended for, among other things, referring to the results of a peer-reviewed study on mRNA vaccines.

  1. and
  2. Twitter Files Parts 11 and 12, by @mtaibbi, January 3, 2023HOW TWITTER LET THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY IN

    and

    TWITTER AND THE FBI “BELLY BUTTON”

    These two threads focus respectively on the second half of 2017, and a period stretching roughly from summer of 2020 through the present. The first describes how Twitter fell under pressure from Congress and the media to produce “material” showing a conspiracy of Russian accounts on their platform, and the second shows how Twitter tried to resist fulfilling moderation requests for the State Department, but ultimately agreed to let State and other agencies send requests through the FBI, which agent Chan calls “the belly button of the USG.” Revelations: at the close of 2017, Twitter makes a key internal decision. Outwardly, the company would claim independence and promise that content would only be removed at “our sole discretion.” The internal guidance says, in writing, that Twitter will remove accounts “identified by the U.S. intelligence community” as “identified by the U.S.. intelligence community as a state-sponsored entity conducting cyber-operations.”

    The second thread shows how Twitter took in requests from everyone — Treasury, HHS, NSA, FBI, DHS, etc. — and also received personal requests from politicians like Democratic congressman Adam Schiff, who asked to have journalist Paul Sperry suspended.

  1. Twitter Files Part #13, by @AlexBerenson, January 9, 2023HOW TWITTER COVERED UP COVID TRUTHS

    New addition Alex Berenson details how Twitter throttled down or erased true information about COVID-19, with the help of a former Pfizer lobbyist, Scott Gottlieb.

    Key Revelations: Twitter senior political liaison Todd O’Boyle feared that onetime acting FDA commission Brett Giroir’s correct observations about the effectiveness of natural immunity were “corrosive” and might “go viral,” and put a misleading label on the tweet. Gottlieb also pressured Twitter to remove Berenson himself.

  1. Twitter Files Part #14, by @mtaibbi, January 12th, 2023THE RUSSIAGATE LIES

    One: The Fake Tale of Russian Bots and the #ReleaseTheMemo Hashtag

    Internal communications at Twitter show that Russian bots were not in fact hyping the classified memo of Republican congressman Devin Nunes in January of 2018.

    Key Revelations: Three key Democrats — Senators Dianne Feinstein and Richard Blumenthal, and former House Intel Committee chief Adam Schiff — cited a think tank called Hamilton 68 in denouncing a memo by Nunes as aided by “Russian influence operations.” Yet all three were told by Twitter executives there were no Russians in the picture. Said former Trust and Safety chief Yoel Roth, “I just reviewed the accounts that posted the first 50 tweets with #releasethememo and… none of them show any signs of affiliation to Russia.”

    Twitter Files Supplemental, by @mtaibbi, January 13th, 2023

    MORE ADAM SCHIFF BANS, AND “DEAMPLIFICATION.

    A brief thread of 10 tweets showing that the former head of the House Intelligence Committee, Adam Schiff, sent repeated requests for bans of people critical of their office.

    Key Revelation: Schiff and the DNC both not only asked for the takedown of an obvious satire by “Peter Douche,” but requested takedowns of accounts that were critical of the Steele dossier and outed the name of the supposed “whistleblower” in the Ukrainegate case, Eric Ciaramella. Schiff staffers said that while they “appreciate greatly” efforts by Twitter to deamplify certain accounts, they worried such effort s “could… impede the ability of law enforcement to search Twitter.”

  2. Twitter Files #15 by @mtaibbi, January 27, 2023MOVE OVER, JAYSON BLAIR: TWITTER FILES EXPOSE NEXT GREAT MEDIA FRAUD Internal communication about Hamilton 68, a project by the Alliance for Securing Democracy purporting to track 600 account “linked” to “Russian influence activities.” Reporters used Hamilton 68 as the basis for countless news stories, from CNN’s “Russian bots are using #WalkAway to try to wound Dems in midterms” to “After Florida School Shooting, Russia’s Bot Army Pounced.”

    Key Revelation: Twitter’s Yoel Roth was suspicious of Hamilton 68’s methodology and reverse-engineered their list, which he quickly discovered to be bogus, full not of Russians but “legitimate right-leaning accounts” who were being implicitly called Russian assets. “Virtually any conclusion drawn from [the dashboard],” Roth wrote, “will take conversations in conservative circles on Twitter and accuse them of being Russian.” Roth urged Twitter to “call this out on the bullshit it is,” but Twitter higher-ups worried about the political consequences, choosing instead to play a “longer game.” Neither the actors involved, nor any of the media outlets who ran Hamilton-based stories intitally commented, though the ASD later replied, prompting a back-and-forth (and forth) with this site.

  3. Twitter Files #16, by @mtaibbi, February 18, 2023COMIC INTERLUDE: A MEDIA EXPERIMENT

    Mainstream outlets finally cover the Twitter Files with excitement, after House testimony elicited a claim that Donald Trump complained, unsuccessfully, to Twitter about a tweet by Chrissy Teigen (who in turn complained that she didn’t “know how to go on” after her tweet about Trump being a “pussy ass bitch” was read to congress). Irritated that this became the big censorship story after releasing thousands of takedown requests from government agencies involving people all over the world, I decided to do an experiment.

    Key Revelations: We released a list of 354 names Maine Senate Angus King wanted taken down for reasons like “Rand Paul visit excitement,” “followed by [former Republican opponent Eric] Brakey,” and my personal favorite, “mentions immigration.” For balance we also released a letter from a Republican official at the State Department, Mark Lenzi, who tells Twitter about 14 real Americans “you may want to look into and delete.” Surely, if the main objection to the Twitter Files is that they’re “one-sided,” someone will cover a Republican doing the bad thing? But no, more crickets. With help from @Techno_Fog

  4. Twitter Files #17: by @mtaibbi, March 2, 2023NEW KNOWLEDGE, THE GLOBAL ENGAGEMENT CENTER, AND STATE-SPONSORED BLACKLISTS

    A review of the activities of the Global Engagement Center, or GEC, what one source called “an incubator for the domestic disinformation complex.”

    Key Revelations: A GEC-funded think tank, the DFRLab, sent Twitter a list of 40,000 names of people suspected of supporting “Hindu nationalism” that somehow had scads of ordinary Americans with handles like @mad_murican and @TrumpitC on the list; GEC sent Twitter a list of 5500 “Chinese accounts” that among other things had three CNN contributors on it (“Not exactly Anderson’s besties, but CNN assets if you will,” commented Twitter’s Patrick Conlon), GEC sent another list of 499 accounts deemed Iranian disinformation, using criteria like: used Signal and Telegram to communicate and used hashtags like #IraniansDebateWithBiden. Other GEC reports deemed various actors part of foreign propaganda “ecosystems” for offenses like following more than one Chinese diplomat, retweeting an Iranian-created “FREE PALESTINE” meme, and for retweeting material that was “anti-Macron in nature.”

Glossary of “Twitter Files” Terms

  1. Government Agencies and NGOsCISA: The Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, an agency within the Department of Homeland Security (DHS)

    CENTCOM: Central Command of the Armed Forces

    ODNI: Office of the Director of National Intelligence

    FITF: Foreign Influence Task Force, a cyber-regulatory agency comprised of members of the FBI, DHS, and ODNI

    “OGA”: Other Government Agency, colloquially — CIA

    GEC: Global Engagement Center, an analytical division of the U.S. State Department

    USIC: United States intelligence community

    HSIN: Homeland Security Information Network, a portal through which states and other official bodies can send “flagged” accounts

    EIP: Election Integrity Project, a cyber-laboratory based at Stanford University that sends many reports to Twitter

    DFR: Digital Forensic Research lab, an outlet that performs a similar function to the EIP, only is funded by the Atlantic Council

    IRA: Internet Research Agency, the infamous Russian “troll farm” headed by “Putin’s chef,” Yevgheny Prigozhin

  2. Twitter or Industry-specific termsPII: Can have two meanings. “Personally identifiable information” is self-explanatory, while a “Public Interest Interstitial” is a warning placed over a tweet, so that it cannot be seen. Twitter personnel even use “interstitial” as a verb, as in, “Can we interstitial that?”

    JIRA: Twitter’s internal ticketing system, through which complaints rise and are decided

    PV2: The system used at Twitter to view the profile of any user, to check easily if it has flags like “Trends Blacklist”

    SIP-PES Site Integrity Policy — Policy Escalation Support. SIP-PES is like Twitter’s version of a moderation Supreme Court, dealing with the most high-profile, controversial rulings

    SI: Site integrity. Key term that you’ll see repeately in Twitter email traffic, especially with “escalations,” i.e. tweets or content that have been reported for moderation review

    CHA: Coordinated Harmful Activity

    SRT: Strategic Response Team

    GET: Global Escalation Team

    VF: Visibility Filtering

    GUANO: Tool in Twitter’s internal system that keeps a chronological record of all actions taken on an account

    VIT: Very Important Tweeter. Really.

    GoV: Glorificaiton of Violence

    BOT: In the moderation content, an individualized heuristic attached to an account that moderates certain behavior automatically

    BME: Bulk Media Exploitation

    EP Abuse: Episodic abuse

    PCF: Parity, commentary and fan accounts. “PCF” sometimes appears as a reason an account has escaped an automated moderation process, under a limited exception

    FLC: Forced Login Challenge. Also called a “phone challenge,” it’s a way Twitter attempts to verify if an account is real or automated. “Phone challenges” are seen repeatedly in discussions about verification of suspected “Russia-linked” accounts

    IO: Information Operations, as in The GEC’s mandate for offensive IO to promote American interests.

*

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 Racket News

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Capsule Summaries of All Twitter Files Threads to Date, with Links and a Glossary
  • Tags:

FDA and CDC Assertions in Doubling Down on COVID-19 Vaccination

March 13th, 2023 by Dr. Peter McCullough

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.

***

I am frequently asked: why are the government agencies still pushing COVID-19 vaccination after there have been calls in the US Senate and all around the world to pull them off the market for lack of safety and efficacy?

In a March 10, 2023 letter from FDA Commissioner Robert Califf, MD, and CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, MPH, to Florida Surgeon General Joseph Ladapo, MD, PhD, the agencies give their rationale. While Walensky does not have a compelling academic track record, her FDA counterpart Califf has been considered a staunch advocate of randomized trials and a hawk on safety of cardiovascular drugs over his career which was notable for building the Duke Clinical Research Institute, one of the most impressive academic research organizations in the world.

Here are 10 assertions that Califf and Walensky make to Ladapo and Americans on why the COVID-19 vaccines should be “pushed.”

  1. “The claim that the increase of VAERS reports of life-threatening conditions reported from Florida and elsewhere represents an increase of risk caused by the COVID-19 vaccines is incorrect, misleading and could be harmful to the American public.” They are assuming unproven benefit at the start. The Bradford Hill criteria have been applied to VAERS and causality has been met. Autopsy studies have conclusively demonstrated causality for fatal syndromes. Doctors use the VAERS system when they believe COVID-19 vaccines caused the death, NOT when the death is unrelated to the vaccine in practice.
  2. “The FDA-approved and FDA-authorized COVID-19 vaccines have met FDA’s rigorous scientific and regulatory standards for safety and effectiveness and these vaccines continue to be recommended for use by CDC for all people six months of age and older.” The FDA has relied on the false surrogate of antibody elevations after injection eight times. This is neither rigorous nor valid. Large randomized, double blind placebo controlled trials with hospitalization/death as the primary endpoint are required to prove efficacy in all age groups.
  3. “Despite increased reports of these events, when the concern was examined in detail by cardiovascular experts, the risk of stroke and heart attack was actually lower in people who had been vaccinated, not higher.” They cite a nonrandomized study with inadequate control for the known determinants of cardiovascular disease. Both selection bias and confounding eliminate any valid claims of benefit. There is no mechanism by which COVID-19 vaccination would reduce cardiovascular events. There are >200 published manuscripts on COVID-19 vaccines mechanistically causing cardiovascular events including myocarditis, accelerated atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, aortic dissection, hypertensive crisis, etc.
  4. “FDA and CDC physicians continuously screen and analyze VAERS data for possible safety concerns related to the COVID-19 vaccines. For signals identified in VAERS, physicians from FDA and CDC screen individual reports, inclusive of comprehensive medical record review. Most reports do not represent adverse events caused by the vaccine and instead represent a pre-existing condition that preceded vaccination or an underlying medical condition that precipitated the event.” The agencies have not produced a report giving their analysis of what caused death after vaccination. Since many deaths occur on the day of the shot or in the next few days that follow, the public deserves to see regulatory evidence for cause of death.
  5. “In addition to VAERS, FDA and CDC utilize complementary active surveillance systems to monitor the safety of COVID-19 vaccines.” CDC V-safe is one of the active systems mentioned. The CDC refused to release to the public until ordered by the courts, demonstrated an unacceptable 7-8% rate of hospitalization, emergency care, or urgent office visit caused by vaccine side effects. So agency use of systems demonstrate lack of safety and are not reassuring to the public.
  6. “Based on available information for the COVID-19 vaccines that are authorized or approved in the United States, the known and potential benefits of these vaccines clearly outweigh their known and potential risks. Additionally, not only is there no evidence of increased risk of death following mRNA vaccines, but available data have shown quite the opposite: that being up to date on vaccinations saves lives compared to individuals who did not get vaccinated.” There are no randomized placebo controlled trials demonstrating hospitalization/death are reduced as primary endpoints. Thus the agencies cannot make an efficacy claim from a regulatory perspective. Nonrandomized studies have the following threats to validity: 1) selection bias—healthier more health conscious people take vaccines, 2) vaccinated are more likely to seek early treatment which reduces hospitalization/death, 3) no control over prior COVID-19 infection which greatly influences risk of hospitalization/death, 4) no adjudication of COVID-19 endpoints.
  7. “Another study using mathematical modeling estimated that the vaccines saved an estimated 14 million lives from COVID-19 in 185 countries and territories between December 8, 2020, and December 8, 2021.” Modeling studies start with the unproven assertion that vaccination reduces death which has not been demonstrated in proper randomized trials, hence extrapolations to large populations are invalid.
  8. “The most recent estimate is that those who are up to date on their vaccination status have a 9.8 fold lower risk of dying from COVID-19 than those who are unvaccinated and 2.4 fold lower risk of dying from Covid-19 than those who were vaccinated but had not received the updated, bivalent vaccine. Roughly 90% of deaths from COVID-19, as carefully classified by the CDC, in recent months have occurred among those who were not up to date on their vaccines.” This estimate did not account for the two known determinants of COVID-19 mortality: early treatment and natural immunity.
  9. “Over the course of the pandemic, FDA and CDC have held numerous public meetings to discuss the safety and effectiveness of the COVID-19 vaccines where detailed safety data are shared with outside experts and public comment is encouraged. Further, FDA publishes the full regulatory action package containing hundreds of pages summarizing clinical studies and review for each COVID-19 approval on FDA’s website (see “COVID-19 Vaccines Authorized for Emergency Use or FDA Approved”) and CDC publishes an extensive amount of information on their clinical use in Interim Clinical Considerations. Complete information about both benefits and risks helps health care providers better care for their patients.” The FDA/CDC have never reviewed or commented on the Pfizer 90-day post-marketing data which reported 1223 deaths shortly after the shot. The FDA attempted to block these data to the public for 55 years. The agencies have never conducted a symposium to review the >1000 peer-reviewed published papers on serious adverse events and death after COVID-19 vaccination.
  10. “Unfortunately, the misinformation about COVID-19 vaccine safety has caused some Americans to avoid getting the vaccines they need to be up to date.” The Rasmussen Report indicates 28% of Americans know someone who has died after the vaccine. Nothing in that report suggested “misinformation” was leading to hesitancy, moreover it was word of mouth on the horrifying outcomes Americans are witnessing among their family and friends that is leading to refusal rates of boosters.

There are easily another ten invalid assertions made by the agency that could be handled by experienced clinical investigators. Take a look at the letter yourself. Keep in mind the FDA/CDC deceived America by asserting that SARS-CoV-2 did not come out of the Wuhan Laboratory and just a few days ago the US House of Representatives voted to declassify our documents from the laboratory after multiple agencies and witnessed capitulated on the lab origin. This casts doubts on truthfulness of any agency public health assertions during the crisis.

The important message to Americans is that our agencies have no intention of carefully considering vaccine safety or changing course on their relentless pursuit of frequent, mass, indiscriminate COVID-19 vaccination down to 6-month old babies. It will be up to you to protect yourself and your family.

*

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

Califf R, Walensky R, letter to Dr. Joseph Ladapo, Florida Surgeon General, March 10, 2023

McCullough PA. US FDA Willfully Blind on the Safety of COVID-19 Vaccination

McCullough PA. Found Dead at Home after COVID-19 Vaccination

McCullough PA. Modeling Study Makes False Conclusions on COVID-19 Vaccination

McCullough PA. McCullough Protocol©: Risk Stratification

McCullough PA. Good News on Omicron Outcomes from Prison

Public Health and Medical Professionals for Transparency

National Survey Finds finds 28% Personally know of a Death Caused by COVID-19 Vaccines

Kaplan R. House votes 419-0 to declassify intelligence on COVID-19 origins, sending bill to Biden’s desk Mar 10 2023

Featured image is from Children’s Health Defense


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

by Michel Chossudovsky

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

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

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

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

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

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.

***

China has repeated calls for the US to end its illegal military occupation of Syria and stop looting the country’s resources, stressing that its continued presence has worsened Syria’s humanitarian crisis.

“We call on the United States to sincerely respect the sovereignty, independence, and territorial integrity of other countries and to immediately stop its illegal military presence and marauding in Syria,” Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Mao Ning said during a news conference on 11 March.

“The United States has illegally intervened in military activities related to the Syrian crisis, which has led to the death of a large number of innocent civilians and a serious humanitarian disaster,” Mao added before calling on US officials to lift crushing economic sanctions on Syria.

Beijing’s call came just two days after US lawmakers voted against a War Powers Resolution that called for withdrawing troops from Syria.

Around 900 US troops are currently deployed in the Levantine nation, controlling nearly a third of the country and a large portion of its oil fields. Their deployment is illegal under international law as it was not approved by the government in Damascus.

This is not the first time Beijing has bashed Washington’s illegal presence in Syria. Back in January, Chinese Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Wang Wenbin said Syria’s energy crisis and humanitarian disaster are a result of the US and its proxy militias plundering its resources.

“US stationing troops in Syria is illegal. US smuggling oil and grain from Syria is illegal. US missile attacks against Syria are also illegal,” he said then.

A year ago, Chinese and Syrian officials signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) welcoming Damascus into the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI).

Launched nine years ago, the BRI is a mega-infrastructure project that seeks to bring capital and infrastructure to Global South countries while dramatically strengthening connectivity for commerce, finance, and culture.

China was among the first nations to send aid to Syria following last month’s devastating earthquake when aid deliveries from the west were being held up due to US sanctions.

*

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 Islamic Relief Canada

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.

***

I am unable to read the Foreign Affairs take on Georgia. It is sealed behind a paywall, available only to those willing to shell out money for Council on Foreign Relations war propaganda.

The article in question, “Make Russia Pay: Lessons From the West’s Botched Response to Moscow’s 2008 Assault on Georgia,” was penned by Vasil Sikharulidze, the former defense minister of Georgia, now a Senior Fellow at the Foreign Policy Research Institute. He is a Founder of the Atlantic Council of Georgia.

Considering this gentleman’s bio, the positions he held in the Georgian government, and his association with an institute once led by the neocon Daniel Pipes, we can assume the post is simply more anti-Russian propaganda, as the headline suggests.

First and foremost, let’s address the historically incorrect assertion Russia “assaulted” Georgia. An honest reading of history—which usually results in an allergic reaction on the part of the CFR—dispels the myth Russia invaded South Ossetia, an ethnic Russian enclave.

“Late in the evening of the 7th of August, 2008, when the whole world anticipated the opening of the Olympic Games in Beijing, the Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili ordered his [western-trained] troops to invade the South Ossetian capital of Tskhinval,” writes Anatoly Kudryavtsev.

The Georgian military shelled Tskhinval, and the villages of Dmenis, Znaur, Tsunar-Khetagurovo, and Khetagurovo with GRAD rockets, howitzer artillery, and large-caliber mortars, according to the RES Information Agency.

Georgian SU-25 aircraft strafed South Ossetia. Infrastructure was attacked, including an irrigation pipeline in the northern part of Tskhinval. Basements, where civilians huddled to escape the bombardment, were flooded by Georgian troops.

Civilian population, elderly and children are under intensive fire of GRAD artillery systems, as well as large-caliber cannons and mortars. At the entries to Tskhinval, street fighting is ongoing. Majority of projectiles and shells are blowing up in the center of the town. There are killed and wounded. It is still impossible to bring the wounded to the hospital. Tens of houses in the capital of South Ossetia are burning. The fire is opened from the Georgian territories in the direction of Gori adjacent to the borderlines with South Ossetia… Georgian aggressors are bombing houses of civilians. People have no place to find shelter from the enemy’s fire, they are killed in their houses. It is impossible to estimate the number of casualties.

At this point, there were only Russian peacekeepers in South Ossetia, positioned there in 1992 after the fall of the Soviet Union. Calls for independence by South Ossetia and Abkhazia resulted in ethnic conflict.

Prior to this, the South Ossetian Autonomous Oblast of the Georgian SSR had peaceful relations with Georgia (with the exception of the Georgian–Ossetian conflict of 1918–1920). Georgia targeted Russian peacekeepers. It was reported ten were killed and 30 were wounded. However, it was later reported around 2,000 civilians and 71 Russian peacekeepers were killed.

Within hours of the attack on civilians in South Ossetia, Russia demanded an emergency session of the United Nations Security Council. A few hours later, Russian leader Putin warned there would be “retaliatory measures” in response to the attack. In addition, Dmitry Medvedev, recently elected as president, said Georgian actions in South Ossetia would not go unpunished.

Russia’s envoy to NATO, Dmitry Rogozin, said the Georgian leader, Mikhail Saakashvili, was encouraged by NATO at a summit in Bucharest. Rogozin said the attack was “an undisguised aggression accompanied by a mass propaganda war.”

Georgia moved to block access to the Roki Tunnel, the only passage between South Ossetia and Russia. “However, before this could happen, Russia entered the war, with the support of almost the entire population,” writes Christian Wipperfürth for Global Research.

“Within two days after the beginning of the war, defeat was already apparent, and Georgia claimed that its own operations had been carried out in reaction to a Russian attack.”

Saakashvili told CNN Russia “is waging war against Georgia,” an assertion plainly at odds with the facts.

“What is playing out in the Caucasus is being reported in US media in an alarmingly misleading light, making Moscow appear the lone aggressor,” author F. William Engdahl wrote at the time.

The USG, under the sway of Bush neocons, accused Russia of “bullying” Georgia while ignoring the fact the conflict was precipitated by Georgia with its illegal act of aggression.

The defeat of Georgia did not settle the matter. In 2012, the president of South Ossetia informed international intermediaries activity near South Ossetia’s border suggested Georgia was preparing a new war, according to RT.

Leonid Tibilov told the representatives of the European Union, OSCE and United Nations that South Ossetian intelligence possessed serious information that the Georgian side was building fortifications and creating ammunition dumps in the villages near the border between the two countries. He added that such events invoked thoughts that Georgia plans [as a USG-NATO proxy]… military action against the people of South Ossetia.

In fact, NATO and the USG have planned destabilizing conflict across the span of Russia’s western border for some time. This was apparent prior to Russia’s SMO in Ukraine. In January 2022, during a NATO meeting, USG Secretary of State Antony Blinken and NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg issued brazen statements indicating, according to a summary by Anti-Bellum,

Russia has the choice of capitulating to NATO’s terms and demands regarding the ongoing war in Ukraine (and implicitly the return of Crimea) and NATO’s absorption of any former Soviet republics not already in the bloc or NATO will revert to its role as the military alliance it has been for 73 years: it will employ the military expedient against Russia. As it has not hesitated to do in Europe, Asia and Africa in the past twenty-three years.

The current government in Tbilisi, in the opinion of the USG and its NATO attack dog, is far too friendly with Russia, and therefore a USAID-spawned color revolution is required.

If the current street violence in Georgia successfully overthrows the government, NATO membership for Georgia will be fast-tracked. South Ossetia will once again be brutally attacked, as ethnic Russians in the Donbas and elsewhere in Ukraine were mercilessly attacked after the USG-orchestrated 2014 coup in Kyiv.

The “protests” in Georgia have little to do with the aspirations of the Georgian people, as disingenuously claimed, or a previously tabled bill designed to eject USAID and its subversive NGOs (subsequently withdrawn).

The objective, as publicly stated by USG war boss Lloyd Austin, is to “weaken” Russia.

In the case of Georgia, following the conflict in Ukraine, the plan is to tie down Russia in a two-front war for an indeterminate amount of time, and thus hope the Russian people will turn against Putin and the government. This will not happen.

The USG is looking for a repeat of the Soviet defeat and retreat from Afghanistan, a climatic event that we are told resulted in a Russian “Vietnam” and the fall of the Soviet Union soon thereafter.

Russia, while somewhat naive in the past and preferring to hedge its bets, is now fully aware of the existential threat it faces. It is acting accordingly. The Russian economy is now on a war production footing, ready to face the inevitable.

Meanwhile, in the “collective West,” death merchants are unable to produce enough armaments to help Ukraine fight to the “last Ukrainian,” and it will certainly be unable to supply Georgia with the required amount of armament and munitions required to push Russia out of South Ossetia.

*

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on As Color Revolution Rages in Georgia, Neocons Lie About 2008 Conflict in South Ossetia
  • Tags: