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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.a

a

***

“A cloud of confusion has settled on many people, as the lusty calls for war with Russia grow louder and the propagandistic appeals to patriotism, racial nationalism, and the defense of “white civilization” intensify. For BAP, there is no confusion. The conflict in the Ukraine has only exposed the hypocrisy and contradictions of imperialism, war, and militarism – and the demand for peace means to fight against U.S. imperialism and the U.S./EU/NATO axis of domination.

“On this strategic focus, BAP says once again that there will be No Compromise and No Retreat!”

Black Alliance For Peace [1]

“There’s also other countries that are helping America help Ukraine, however, this help, I don’t think it’s going to the people. It’s going to the army mostly. And if anything, people need to be evacuated and taken somewhere safe.”

– Olya (from this week’s interview)

LISTEN TO THE SHOW

Click to download the audio (MP3 format)

As this introduction is being written, we are approaching the anniversary of the day people of the country of Ukraine were being subjected to a foreign power’s attempt to wrench the country out of the grasp of the democratically assigned leadership. This move resulted ultimately in thousands of dead Ukrainians and major instability in the region.

Am I speaking of the “Special Military Operation” by Russia a year ago this month?

Well, no. I am referring to the events of February 2014, when a coup waged by the United States with the assistance of the European Union, well documented but seldom mentioned in the major media, forced the ousting of democratically elected president Viktor Fedorovych Yanukovych with assistance of the NAZI-backed Maidan protests. They then played a role in backing a new leader. [2]

Having witnessed this coup, and then fearing that violence perpetrated by the militant segment of the opposition that has taken over, the populations in the more Russophone areas in the south and east were bracing for upheaval and even calling for secession from Ukraine. [3]

As discussed on the Global Research News Hour and throughout Global Research, it is important to take this information into consideration before coming to the conclusion that Russia blazed into battle a year ago simply as a first step in rebuilding the Soviet Empire.

But this episode takes analysis a bit further. It seeks to look at some of the other alternative voices kept out of mainstream discourse. How should you and I and several citizens throughout the Western world react to a war waged because of the coup our own leaders orchestrated? As well, what about individual Ukrainians who don’t quite fit the standard “thank you for helping save us from the Russians!” stereotype? We have taken the time to sample these voices on this week’s show if the legacy media will not!

In our first half hour, Ajamu Baraka, frequent guest on the Global Research News Hour joins us. As a member of the Black Alliance for Peace, he articulates the message of the war in Ukraine being a proxy war against Russia in several articles over the last year. He joins us to express rejecting the war and NATO as important not only for peace, but as an activist in the Black Liberation Movement.

In our second half hour, we are joined by a Ukrainian named Olya who left the country in 2008. She shares her story, her objections to what media in the West portrays and what it doesn’t portray about her homeland, and the devious role she sees the U.S. playing with her country.

Ajamu Baraka is the national organizer of the Black Alliance for Peace and an editor and contributing columnist for the Black Agenda Report. Baraka serves on the Executive Committee of the U.S. Peace Council and leadership body of the U.S. based United National Anti-War Coalition (UNAC) and the Steering Committee of the Black is Back Coalition.

Olya came to Canada as an immigrant from Ukraine. She lives in Winnipeg.

(Global Research News Hour Episode 378)

LISTEN TO THE SHOW

Click to download the audio (MP3 format)

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

Other stations airing the show:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Notes:

  1. https://www.globalresearch.ca/african-colonized-peoples-understand-ukraine-de-center-europe-focus-imperialism/5772591
  2. https://www.globalresearch.ca/the-road-to-moscow-goes-through-kiev-how-the-protests-in-ukraine-transformed-into-a-coup-that-could-target-russia/5370479
  3. ibid

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

Our thanks to the Daily Mail for having brought this article to our attention.

***

  • Ihor Kolomoisky was raided at his hunting lodge residence near Dnipro
  • The warlord tycoon is accused of embezzlement and corruption

A ‘James Bond villain’ oligarch who is said to keep sharks in his office to intimidate his enemies has had his mansion raided in Ukraine as part of a sweeping anti-corruption clampdown.

Ihor Kolomoisky, a warlord who helped Volodymyr Zelensky‘s rise to power, was targeted by the SBU, Ukraine‘s security service yesterday.

The 59-year-old tycoon was pictured standing in his hunting lodge residence near Dnipro wearing tracksuits and slippers as he was confronted by the agents.

nvestigators are probing claims Kolomoisky embezzled around £1billion from two oil companies where he was previously the majority shareholder, Ukrainian media says.

The Ukrainian government seized stakes in the energy companies, oil producer Ukrnafta and refiner Ukrtatnafta, as part of moves to consolidate the war effort.

Ihor Kolomoisky is pictured during the raid by Ukrainian security services at his Dnipro lodge yesterday

Ihor Kolomoisky is pictured during the raid by Ukrainian security services at his Dnipro lodge yesterday

The oil baron, who was named in the Panama Papers, is accused of dodging customs duties to rack up his huge fortune, which included owning the TV channel that launched Zelensky’s comedy career.

He backed the then-actor during his 2019 presidential bid with his media empire, although Zelensky has distanced himself from the billionaire businessman.

The mogul, who has been sanctioned by the US, also ‘laundered $5.5billion through a tangle of shell companies, purchasing factories and commercial properties across the U.S. heartland,’ the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists claims.

He is accused of heading up one of the biggest ever Ponzi schemes in the US and is one of the biggest real estate landlords in the US midwest.

Kolomoisky was born into a Jewish family in Dnipropetrovsk, Ukraine, when it was part of the Soviet Union.

After the collapse of the USSR, he started making a fortune importing foreign goods, and trading local metals on the international market.

Investigators are probing claims Kolomoisky embezzled around £1billion from two oil companies where he was previously the majority shareholder, Ukrainian media says

Investigators are probing claims Kolomoisky embezzled around £1billion from two oil companies where he was previously the majority shareholder, Ukrainian media says

Kolomoisky, a warlord who helped Volodymyr Zelensky's rise to power, was targeted by the SBU, Ukraine's security service yesterday

 Kolomoisky, a warlord who helped Volodymyr Zelensky’s rise to power, was targeted by the SBU, Ukraine’s security service yesterday

Propping up the Wobbly Dollar

February 4th, 2023 by Emanuel Pastreich

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

The Federal government gave up all pretensions that money is backed by the gold held at the Federal Reserve, or backed by anything concrete, in 1972. The dollar became a fiat currency, money that is not tied to anything but reputation. Since that fatal day, the powers behind the curtains have maintained the value of the dollar in various ways.

The legitimacy of the dollar was tied to the legitimacy of the United States and its strength as a cultural, educational, scientific, technological, and sadly military, power. This approach worked until the 1990s, but the decay of the angel was inevitable.

As the value of the United States decreased because of corruption and decadence, and because of the inevitable rise of the other nations devastated in the Second World War, increasingly devious means were employed to assure dollar’s value.

Covert efforts were launched to undermine the authority of other nations, whether Russia and China, or Germany and Japan. Perhaps it seemed like a good idea on Wall Street, but the result was the creation of a brutal winner-takes-all global economy—and the same covert means would be used finally against Americans themselves to keep them addicted to the dollar economy as it collapsed.

The United States slipped into a malignant culture. The decadence of wealth and power meant that innovation was stifled by conceited men like Steve Jobs or Bill Gates who pretended to be the inventers of things they stole and were enshrined in a handful of paralyzed institutions.

The quality of literature and art, of film and music, declined. American universities ceased to strive for truth and for science. Instead they crawled into bed with private equity and billionaire philanthropists, using advertising, rather than education, to prop up their global status. The strategy of using culture to hold up the value of the dollar ceased to be effective.

Another approach was to tie the dollar’s value to the sale of petroleum, a product that everyone needs in our over-industrialized society.

The United States used its diplomatic, financial and military power to make sure that petroleum was only sold in dollars, thereby establishing a clear value for that fiat currency—that almost was equal to being backed by gold. But that value was added to the dollar at a horrific price.

Many nations saw the value of selling petroleum in their own currencies, and they tried to do so. Those countries had to be infiltrated, undermined, intimidated, or bought off. In some cases, they had to be invaded and overthrown. The process has reached a crescendo in recent months, auguring for world war as the final consequence of this crusade to save the dollar.

You see, the United States had to control the Middle East, and to have its long fingers deep in the politics of nations around the world, in order to keep this petroleum system going. The cost of holding up the dollar was horrific, and bit by bit, the United States was corrupted beyond recognition.

Wars for oil, and other natural resources, became the primary concern in foreign policy, not peace. As a result, militarism sunk its roots deep in the economy, deep into the very spirit of the nation. There was no space left to seek for cooperation and accommodation. Any threat to the dollar had to be beaten down brutally.

At the same time, it was necessary to promote petroleum, and a consumer culture that demanded petroleum usage, at every level in America, and around the world. Automobiles were glorified, cities were designed to make automobiles necessary, oil-based fertilizers, and pesticides were sprinkled on industrialized farms. Oil companies and auto makers became all powerful because they helped to prop up the value of the dollar and forced petroleum on the common man.

The other device for backing the dollar was the promotion of global free trade, asystem where in products that could be made locally by neighbors are shipped half way around the world, burning fuel all the way,so as to make sure thatmoste very thing on your plate, on your table, on your back, has passed through the logistics monopolies who take their cut. This global “free” trade destroys local economies and renders citizens dependent on multinational corporations like Walmart and Amazon that take their money and do nothing to help the local economy.

The dollar was placed at the center of this closed trade system—anything but “free.” Average Americans were impoverished even as the dollar was promoted in our name. Our republic was transmogrified into a ruthless empire that demanded everything be bought and sold in dollars.

The cancerous military economy also served a critical role in propping up the dollar as the other source of power faded in the 1990s. Nations could be invaded, or sanctioned if they did not accept the dollar as the global currency.

Military equipment became a form of meta-currency—nations were compelled to purchase overpriced, and often worthless, military systems for billions of dollars as a way of propping up the dollar. Those designated as allies of the United States were expected to purchase fighter planes and tanks, drones and missiles at exorbitant prices. The most notorious example is the F-35 stealth fighter which costs around 80 million US dollars each and is barely functional. These devices, bulky tokens, force the large transfer of foreign capital into dollars in the name of security.

With trillions of dollars unaccounted for, the Pentagon has become the primary money laundering operation for the world, taking in money from billionaires, drug dealers, and just about anyone else and paying them off with money from the defense budget, and from weapons purchases from around the world.

Of course the threat of force makes the fiat currency stronger—but the cost is endless war.

Another ingenious way of propping up the dollar is to force debt on our citizens, making them scramble to obtain the dollars to pay off debts incurred in the process of trying to stay alive and meet the criteria demanded by corporations for employment.

The cost of healthcare has skyrocketed, as has the cost of education. We find ourselves hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt just for being born, educated, treated for illness, and buried—let alone more serious challenges. And the banks drive up the cost of a home through their endless speculation with the fraudulent money they have printed up.

Chase Manhattan and Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, and BlackRock using their pay-to-play authority figures who appear on TV, or at Harvard University, set the value of everything in society, justifying why it must be so expensive.

How many times have you heard your friends talking about money, about how much money they have in their pensions, how much their houses are worth, and how much they spend on their children’s educations? Money has been made the primary topic of discussion for our people because the media, the entertainment complex, and the educational system make it that way. The questions: How can I be a good person? What is the truth? What is justice? What does the Constitution say? These questions have disappeared from our discourse.

IMFThe Bretton Woods complex, centered around the World Bank and the IMF, and linked to central banks around world, was flawed from the start, but recently it has degenerated much further into a Disneyland of make-believe value wherein human endeavors can only be assessed according to the Procrustean metrics of growth, production, consumption, exports and imports. The rise and fall of the stock market, the bond market, and other fantastic ephemera is considered the determining factor for the well-being of mankind by every newspaper or magazine from the fascists to the socialist, and these metrics of growth and consumption are cited in the university, the government, and the corporation.

In a horrific farce, the fundamental values of humanity: modesty, honesty, sincerity, chastity and humility are treated as at best as hobbies for the leisure class after they have accumulated wealth, but are frequently presented as obstacles to economic growth that requires waste and impulse.

Frugality, is the greatest sin, believing that one can live a spiritually and mentally healthy life without waste is an insult to the beastly ritual of consumption that is held up for all to worship. Caring for your ill parents, helping your neighbor to repair her window, growing potatoes, or teaching your children to be ethical and to distinguish the truth from falsehood, all these actions are negatives for the gross domestic product, negatives for your standing in society.

Along the way, we drifted from a cooperative economy into a predatory economy, into a parasitic economy.

That process was linked to the two most horrific traumas that shook us to the core. The only way to cover up the frauds of 9.11 and of COVID-19 over the last twenty years is to silence citizens by making them an offer they cannot refuse: chose money or truth.

The truth is that the billionaires own nothing except a bankrupt and covetous ideology of money. The purchase of farmland by Bill Gates, the paving over of priceless farmland to erect pointless shopping malls, highways, and highrises by construction firms and real estate speculators, all this was done using the bogus money printed for them by their lackeys at the Federal Reserve.

Click screen or link to Access Video

That land belongs to all of us. The parasites who have murdered our people so viciously with COVID-19 weapons, poisonous processed foods, or chemicals dumped in our rivers and lakes, those parasites shall hold no dominion.

The first step in addressing the money issue is to give the land back to the people and allow them to grow their own food, make their own furniture, and be independent of the covert stranglehold of the multinationals.

Similarly, we can write our own music, hold our own concerts, make our own art, put on our own theatre, and thereby leave behind the decadent Hollywood culture of sexual titillation and momentary narcissism.

Take away the imperative to collect money at all costs so as to meet artificially created need to consume, and many social ills will be cured.The institutions regulating money have been turned against the citizens whom they should be protecting.

Multinational corporations, and their puppets, flush with our money, lecture us about recycling and sustainability, about how we must tighten our belts, but they will pull every punch to make sure that no one threatens the plastic and paper packaging systems they have set up to extract profit from us at every turn.

We are not citizens empowered by a contractual relationship with each other using money as determined by Constitution, but rather we have been reduced to consumers who can conceive of value only in terms of dollars because Madison Avenue advertising and public relations firms have indoctrinated us to embrace the false values of the cult of the self.

Because we have been reduced from citizens of a republic with a sense of civic responsibly to consumers of the gaudy wares laid out to distract us, we are led forward not by a clarion call, but by a ring through the nose. We are not masters of our fates; we are no captains of our souls. We are but products to be processed and then disposed of like the ragdolls littering the squalid cage of an idle ape.

No! Our eyes must turn to the hope of a new nation coming.

We must trample those hideous grapes of wrath, unloosing the terrible swift sword of truth; like lightening, that the truth may go marching on.

First published by Global Research on December 20, 2015

***

I should welcome almost any war, for I think this country needs one. – President Theodore Roosevelt

The American public and the world have long since been warned of the dangers of allowing the military industrial complex to become such an integral part of our economic survival. The United States is the self-proclaimed angel of democracy in the world, but just as George Orwell warned, war is the health of the state, and in the language of newspeak, democracy is the term we use to hide the reality of the nature of our warfare state.

In truth, the United States of America has been engaged in some kind of war during 218 out of the nation’s total 239 years of existence. Put another way, in the entire span of US history, this country has only experienced 21 years without conflict. For a sense of perspective on this sobering statistic, consider these 4 facts about the history of US involvement in military conflict:

  • Pick any year since 1776 and there is about a 91% chance that America was involved in some war during that calendar year.
  • No U.S. president truly qualifies as a peacetime president.  Instead, all U.S. presidents can technically be considered “war presidents.”
  • The U.S. has never gone a decade without war.
  • The only time the U.S. went five years without war (1935-40) was during the isolationist period of the Great Depression.

As the world moves closer and closer to an official beginning to world war III, and as many people are seeking opportunities to de-escalate the situation in the Middle East, it is important to realize that the US state and the American people are simply not equipped or conditioned to pursue and realize peace. War is indeed the health of our state.

US-War-GraphHere is a year-by-year timeline of America’s involvement in military conflict, as compiled by Danios ofLoonwatch.com. It is noted that this list is not exhaustive, but rather a compilation of events that fit the definition of ‘war,’ excluding acts of genocide and ethnic cleansing such as were carried out against Native American populations during the establishment of the empire, and also excluding foreign interventions by America’s covert security agencies such as the CIA:

Year-by-year Timeline of America’s Major Wars (1776-2011)

1776 – American Revolutionary War, Chickamagua Wars, Second Cherokee War, Pennamite-Yankee War

1777 – American Revolutionary War, Chickamauga Wars, Second Cherokee War, Pennamite-Yankee War

1778 – American Revolutionary War, Chickamauga Wars, Pennamite-Yankee War

1779 – American Revolutionary War, Chickamauga Wars, Pennamite-Yankee War

1780 – American Revolutionary War, Chickamauga Wars, Pennamite-Yankee War

1781 – American Revolutionary War, Chickamauga Wars, Pennamite-Yankee War

1782 – American Revolutionary War, Chickamauga Wars, Pennamite-Yankee War

1783 – American Revolutionary War, Chickamauga Wars, Pennamite-Yankee War

1784 – Chickamauga Wars, Pennamite-Yankee War, Oconee War

1785 – Chickamauga Wars, Northwest Indian War

1786 – Chickamauga Wars, Northwest Indian War

1787 – Chickamauga Wars, Northwest Indian War

1788 – Chickamauga Wars, Northwest Indian War

1789 – Chickamauga Wars, Northwest Indian War

1790 – Chickamauga Wars, Northwest Indian War

1791 – Chickamauga Wars, Northwest Indian War

1792 – Chickamauga Wars, Northwest Indian War

1793 – Chickamauga Wars, Northwest Indian War

1794 – Chickamauga Wars, Northwest Indian War

1795 – Northwest Indian War

1796 – No major war

1797 – No major war

1798 – Quasi-War

1799 – Quasi-War

1800 – Quasi-War

1801 – First Barbary War

1802 – First Barbary War

1803 – First Barbary War

1804 – First Barbary War

1805 – First Barbary War

1806 – Sabine Expedition

1807 – No major war

1808 – No major war

1809 – No major war

1810 – U.S. occupies Spanish-held West Florida

1811 – Tecumseh’s War

1812 – War of 1812, Tecumseh’s War, Seminole Wars, U.S. occupies Spanish-held Amelia Island and other parts of East Florida

1813 – War of 1812, Tecumseh’s War, Peoria War, Creek War, U.S. expands its territory in West Florida

1814 – War of 1812, Creek War, U.S. expands its territory in Florida, Anti-piracy war

1815 – War of 1812, Second Barbary War, Anti-piracy war

1816 – First Seminole War, Anti-piracy war

1817 – First Seminole War, Anti-piracy war

1818 – First Seminole War, Anti-piracy war

1819 – Yellowstone Expedition, Anti-piracy war

1820 – Yellowstone Expedition, Anti-piracy war

1821 – Anti-piracy war (see note above)

1822 – Anti-piracy war (see note above)

1823 – Anti-piracy war, Arikara War

1824 – Anti-piracy war

1825 – Yellowstone Expedition, Anti-piracy war

1826 – No major war

1827 – Winnebago War

1828 – No major war

1829 – No major war

1830 – No major war

1831 – Sac and Fox Indian War

1832 – Black Hawk War

1833 – Cherokee Indian War

1834 – Cherokee Indian War, Pawnee Indian Territory Campaign

1835 – Cherokee Indian War, Seminole Wars, Second Creek War

1836 – Cherokee Indian War, Seminole Wars, Second Creek War, Missouri-Iowa Border War

1837 – Cherokee Indian War, Seminole Wars, Second Creek War, Osage Indian War, Buckshot War

1838 – Cherokee Indian War, Seminole Wars, Buckshot War, Heatherly Indian War

1839 – Cherokee Indian War, Seminole Wars

1840 – Seminole Wars, U.S. naval forces invade Fiji Islands

1841 – Seminole Wars, U.S. naval forces invade McKean Island, Gilbert Islands, and Samoa

1842 – Seminole Wars

1843 – U.S. forces clash with Chinese, U.S. troops invade African coast

1844 – Texas-Indian Wars

1845 – Texas-Indian Wars

1846 – Mexican-American War, Texas-Indian Wars

1847 – Mexican-American War, Texas-Indian Wars

1848 – Mexican-American War, Texas-Indian Wars, Cayuse War

1849 – Texas-Indian Wars, Cayuse War, Southwest Indian Wars, Navajo Wars, Skirmish between 1st Cavalry and Indians

1850 – Texas-Indian Wars, Cayuse War, Southwest Indian Wars, Navajo Wars, Yuma War, California Indian Wars, Pitt River Expedition

1851 – Texas-Indian Wars, Cayuse War, Southwest Indian Wars, Navajo Wars, Apache Wars, Yuma War, Utah Indian Wars, California Indian Wars

1852 – Texas-Indian Wars, Cayuse War, Southwest Indian Wars, Navajo Wars, Yuma War, Utah Indian Wars, California Indian Wars

1853 – Texas-Indian Wars, Cayuse War, Southwest Indian Wars, Navajo Wars, Yuma War, Utah Indian Wars, Walker War, California Indian Wars

1854 – Texas-Indian Wars, Cayuse War, Southwest Indian Wars, Navajo Wars, Apache Wars, California Indian Wars, Skirmish between 1st Cavalry and Indians

1855 – Seminole Wars, Texas-Indian Wars, Cayuse War, Southwest Indian Wars, Navajo Wars, Apache Wars, California Indian Wars, Yakima War, Winnas Expedition, Klickitat War, Puget Sound War, Rogue River Wars, U.S. forces invade Fiji Islands and Uruguay

1856 – Seminole Wars, Texas-Indian Wars, Southwest Indian Wars, Navajo Wars, California Indian Wars, Puget Sound War, Rogue River Wars, Tintic War

1857 – Seminole Wars, Texas-Indian Wars, Southwest Indian Wars, Navajo Wars, California Indian Wars, Utah War, Conflict in Nicaragua

1858 – Seminole Wars, Texas-Indian Wars, Southwest Indian Wars, Navajo Wars, Mohave War, California Indian Wars, Spokane-Coeur d’Alene-Paloos War, Utah War, U.S. forces invade Fiji Islands and Uruguay

1859 Texas-Indian Wars, Southwest Indian Wars, Navajo Wars, California Indian Wars, Pecos Expedition, Antelope Hills Expedition, Bear River Expedition, John Brown’s raid, U.S. forces launch attack against Paraguay, U.S. forces invade Mexico

1860 – Texas-Indian Wars, Southwest Indian Wars, Navajo Wars, Apache Wars, California Indian Wars, Paiute War, Kiowa-Comanche War

1861 – American Civil War, Texas-Indian Wars, Southwest Indian Wars, Navajo Wars, Apache Wars, California Indian Wars, Cheyenne Campaign

1862 – American Civil War, Texas-Indian Wars, Southwest Indian Wars, Navajo Wars, Apache Wars, California Indian Wars, Cheyenne Campaign, Dakota War of 1862,

1863 – American Civil War, Texas-Indian Wars, Southwest Indian Wars, Navajo Wars, Apache Wars, California Indian Wars, Cheyenne Campaign, Colorado War, Goshute War

1864 – American Civil War, Texas-Indian Wars, Navajo Wars, Apache Wars, California Indian Wars, Cheyenne Campaign, Colorado War, Snake War

1865 – American Civil War, Texas-Indian Wars, Navajo Wars, Apache Wars, California Indian Wars, Colorado War, Snake War, Utah’s Black Hawk War

1866 – Texas-Indian Wars, Navajo Wars, Apache Wars, California Indian Wars, Skirmish between 1st Cavalry and Indians, Snake War, Utah’s Black Hawk War, Red Cloud’s War, Franklin County War, U.S. invades Mexico, Conflict with China

1867 – Texas-Indian Wars, Long Walk of the Navajo, Apache Wars, Skirmish between 1st Cavalry and Indians, Snake War, Utah’s Black Hawk War, Red Cloud’s War, Comanche Wars, Franklin County War, U.S. troops occupy Nicaragua and attack Taiwan

1868 – Texas-Indian Wars, Long Walk of the Navajo, Apache Wars, Skirmish between 1st Cavalry and Indians, Snake War, Utah’s Black Hawk War, Red Cloud’s War, Comanche Wars, Battle of Washita River, Franklin County War

1869 – Texas-Indian Wars, Apache Wars, Skirmish between 1st Cavalry and Indians, Utah’s Black Hawk War, Comanche Wars, Franklin County War

1870 – Texas-Indian Wars, Apache Wars, Skirmish between 1st Cavalry and Indians, Utah’s Black Hawk War, Comanche Wars, Franklin County War

1871 – Texas-Indian Wars, Apache Wars, Skirmish between 1st Cavalry and Indians, Utah’s Black Hawk War, Comanche Wars, Franklin County War, Kingsley Cave Massacre, U.S. forces invade Korea

1872 – Texas-Indian Wars, Apache Wars, Utah’s Black Hawk War, Comanche Wars, Modoc War, Franklin County War

1873 – Texas-Indian Wars, Comanche Wars, Modoc War, Apache Wars, Cypress Hills Massacre, U.S. forces invade Mexico

1874 – Texas-Indian Wars, Comanche Wars, Red River War, Mason County War, U.S. forces invade Mexico

1875 – Conflict in Mexico, Texas-Indian Wars, Comanche Wars, Eastern Nevada, Mason County War, Colfax County War, U.S. forces invade Mexico

1876 – Texas-Indian Wars, Black Hills War, Mason County War, U.S. forces invade Mexico

1877 – Texas-Indian Wars, Skirmish between 1st Cavalry and Indians, Black Hills War, Nez Perce War, Mason County War, Lincoln County War, San Elizario Salt War, U.S. forces invade Mexico

1878 – Paiute Indian conflict, Bannock War, Cheyenne War, Lincoln County War, U.S. forces invade Mexico

1879 – Cheyenne War, Sheepeater Indian War, White River War, U.S. forces invade Mexico

1880 – U.S. forces invade Mexico

1881 – U.S. forces invade Mexico

1882 – U.S. forces invade Mexico

1883 – U.S. forces invade Mexico

1884 – U.S. forces invade Mexico

1885 – Apache Wars, Eastern Nevada Expedition, U.S. forces invade Mexico

1886 – Apache Wars, Pleasant Valley War, U.S. forces invade Mexico

1887 – U.S. forces invade Mexico

1888 – U.S. show of force against Haiti, U.S. forces invade Mexico

1889 – U.S. forces invade Mexico

1890 – Sioux Indian War, Skirmish between 1st Cavalry and Indians, Ghost Dance War, Wounded Knee, U.S. forces invade Mexico

1891 – Sioux Indian War, Ghost Dance War, U.S. forces invade Mexico

1892 – Johnson County War, U.S. forces invade Mexico

1893 – U.S. forces invade Mexico and Hawaii

1894 – U.S. forces invade Mexico

1895 – U.S. forces invade Mexico, Bannock Indian Disturbances

1896 – U.S. forces invade Mexico

1897 – No major war

1898 – Spanish-American War, Battle of Leech Lake, Chippewa Indian Disturbances

1899 – Philippine-American War, Banana Wars

1900 – Philippine-American War, Banana Wars

1901 – Philippine-American War, Banana Wars

1902 – Philippine-American War, Banana Wars

1903 – Philippine-American War, Banana Wars

1904 – Philippine-American War, Banana Wars

1905 – Philippine-American War, Banana Wars

1906 – Philippine-American War, Banana Wars

1907 – Philippine-American War, Banana Wars

1908 – Philippine-American War, Banana Wars

1909 – Philippine-American War, Banana Wars

1910 – Philippine-American War, Banana Wars

1911 – Philippine-American War, Banana Wars

1912 – Philippine-American War, Banana Wars

1913 – Philippine-American War, Banana Wars, New Mexico Navajo War

1914 – Banana Wars, U.S. invades Mexico

1915 – Banana Wars, U.S. invades Mexico, Colorado Paiute War

1916 – Banana Wars, U.S. invades Mexico

1917 – Banana Wars, World War I, U.S. invades Mexico

1918 – Banana Wars, World War I, U.S invades Mexico

1919 – Banana Wars, U.S. invades Mexico

1920 – Banana Wars

1921 – Banana Wars

1922 – Banana Wars

1923 – Banana Wars, Posey War

1924 – Banana Wars

1925 – Banana Wars

1926 – Banana Wars

1927 – Banana Wars

1928 – Banana Wars

1930 – Banana Wars

1931 – Banana Wars

1932 – Banana Wars

1933 – Banana Wars

1934 – Banana Wars

1935 – No major war

1936 – No major war

1937 – No major war

1938 – No major war

1939 – No major war

1940 – No major war

1941 – World War II

1942 – World War II

1943 – Wold War II

1944 – World War II

1945 – World War II

1946 – Cold War (U.S. occupies the Philippines and South Korea)

1947 – Cold War (U.S. occupies South Korea, U.S. forces land in Greece to fight Communists)

1948 – Cold War (U.S. forces aid Chinese Nationalist Party against Communists)

1949 – Cold War (U.S. forces aid Chinese Nationalist Party against Communists)

1950 – Korean War, Jayuga Uprising

1951 – Korean War

1952 – Korean War

1953 – Korean War

1954 – Covert War in Guatemala

1955 – Vietnam War

1956 – Vietnam War

1957 – Vietnam War

1958 – Vietnam War

1959 – Vietnam War, Conflict in Haiti

1960 – Vietam War

1961 – Vietnam War

1962 – Vietnam War, Cold War (Cuban Missile Crisis; U.S. marines fight Communists in Thailand)

1963 – Vietnam War

1964 – Vietnam War

1965 – Vietnam War, U.S. occupation of Dominican Republic

1966 – Vietnam War, U.S. occupation of Dominican Republic

1967 – Vietnam War

1968 – Vietnam War

1969 – Vietnam War

1970 – Vietnam War

1971 – Vietnam War

1972 – Vietnam War

1973 – Vietnam War, U.S. aids Israel in Yom Kippur War

1974 – Vietnam War

1975 – Vietnam War

1976 – No major war

1977 – No major war

1978 – No major war

1979 – Cold War (CIA proxy war in Afghanistan)

1980 – Cold War (CIA proxy war in Afghanistan)

1981 – Cold War (CIA proxy war in Afghanistan and Nicaragua), First Gulf of Sidra Incident

1982 – Cold War (CIA proxy war in Afghanistan and Nicaragua), Conflict in Lebanon

1983 – Cold War (Invasion of Grenada, CIA proxy war in Afghanistan and Nicaragua), Conflict in Lebanon

1984 – Cold War (CIA proxy war in Afghanistan and Nicaragua), Conflict in Persian Gulf

1985 – Cold War (CIA proxy war in Afghanistan and Nicaragua)

1986 – Cold War (CIA proxy war in Afghanistan and Nicaragua)

1987 – Conflict in Persian Gulf

1988 – Conflict in Persian Gulf, U.S. occupation of Panama

1989 – Second Gulf of Sidra Incident, U.S. occupation of Panama, Conflict in Philippines

1990 – First Gulf War, U.S. occupation of Panama

1991 – First Gulf War

1992 – Conflict in Iraq

1993 – Conflict in Iraq

1994 – Conflict in Iraq, U.S. invades Haiti

1995 – Conflict in Iraq, U.S. invades Haiti, NATO bombing of Bosnia and Herzegovina

1996 – Conflict in Iraq

1997 – No major war

1998 – Bombing of Iraq, Missile strikes against Afghanistan and Sudan

1999 – Kosovo War

2000 – No major war

2001 – War on Terror in Afghanistan

2002 – War on Terror in Afghanistan and Yemen

2003 – War on Terror in Afghanistan, and Iraq

2004 – War on Terror in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, and Yemen

2005 – War on Terror in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, and Yemen

2006 – War on Terror in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, and Yemen

2007 – War on Terror in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Somalia, and Yemen

2008 – War on Terror in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, and Yemen

2009 – War on Terror in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, and Yemen

2010 – War on Terror in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, and Yemen

2011 – War on Terror in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Somalia, and Yemen; Conflict in Libya (Libyan Civil War)

Isaac Davis is an outspoken advocate of liberty and an honest society from the top down. He is a contributing writer for WakingTimes.com. Follow him on Facebook, here.

Image Credit: Anthony Freda “Endless War”

Sources:

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The 239 Year Timeline Of America’s Involvement in Military Conflict

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

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

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

***

This is the pattern that has been used ever since the Soviet Union ended in 1991 when the ‘anti-communist’ excuse for America’s post-WW-II global imperialism has no longer been available to use (such as had earlier been the case in Korea, and in Vietnam, and in Guatemala, and in Iran, and in Chile and so many other lands), prior to 1991. However, the pattern for this subversion and ultimate conquest was created back in 1965 in Indonesia (if not earlier, in other “banana republics”); and, so, we shall start here by describing that landmark earlier case, in Indonesia, which set the pattern that now is routine for the U.S. Government to use post-1991:

The October 1965 through March 1966 Indonesian government extermination of anywhere from 500,000 to two million Indonesian supporters of communism and of any other left-wing political party — including supporters of Indonesia’s leader, General Sukarno, who had some leftist supporters — was probably masterminded, ordered, by U.S. President Lyndon Johnson, on behalf of the owners of the mega-corporations who were backing the Democratic Party. Certainly, LBJ was behind this ‘ethnic cleansing’, even well before it began.

As early as March 1965, Johnson’s people were privately vitriolic against Sukarno, who was making noises about land-reform and possibly nationalizing natural resources. For example, on 18 March 1965, “118. Memorandum From the Under Secretary of State (Ball) to President Johnson” opened:

“Our relations with Indonesia are on the verge of falling apart. Sukarno is turning more and more toward the Communist PKI.

The Army, which has been the traditional countervailing force, has its own problems of internal cohesion. Within the past few days the situation has grown increasingly more ominous. Not only has the management of the American rubber plants been taken over, but there are dangers of an imminent seizure of the American oil companies.”

The coup started on 1 October 1965; General Suharto was installed to replace Sukarno, and promptly began the extermination-campaign. But he didn’t know whom to slaughter; so, as one excellent review of Vincent Bevins’s excellent book about the slaughters, The Jakarta Method: Washington’s Anticommunist Crusade and the Mass Murder Program that Shaped Our World, succinctly put the matter,

“The US provided arms, training, communication equipment and lists of thousands of real and alleged leftists to be killed. US-owned plantations furnished lists of ‘troublesome’ employees. US officials repeatedly sent cables to the leader of the butchery, General Suharto, to kill the leftists faster.”

Other fine reviews of this book are here and here. However, like the other books that have been published about that extermination-campaign, Bevins’s focus isn’t on the masterminds who planned and bribed to get it done (its beneficiaries), but instead on the physical perpetrators and their victims. The coup-and-extermination’s ultimate beneficiaries aren’t named, nor identified. The U.S. did that in conjunction with other members of the American gang, mainly in Europe. The Judge in the International People’s Tribunal stated that “the United States of America, the United Kingdom and Australia were all complicit to differing degrees in the commission of these crimes against humanity.” It was a Rhodesist operation, done for the U.S.-and-allied (especially Netherlands) aristocracies.

Now, in the post-Soviet era, Ukraine and the U.S. Government’s aim to get its nuclear-warheaded missiles into that closest nation of all to Moscow (just 300 miles away), by admitting Ukraine into NATO, here is the sequence of events:

During 2003-2009, only around 20% of Ukrainians had wanted NATO membership, while around 55% opposed it. In 2010, Gallup found that whereas 17% of Ukrainians considered NATO to mean “protection of your country,” 40% said it’s “a threat to your country.”

Ukrainians predominantly saw NATO as an enemy, not a friend. But after Obama’s February 2014 coup in Ukraine, “Ukraine’s NATO membership would get 53.4% of the votes, one third of Ukrainians (33.6%) would oppose it.

However, afterward, the support averaged around 45% — still over twice as high as had been the case prior to the coup. Ukrainians became switched regarding that matter, favoring NATO instead of opposing it, because the billionaires who fund the winning political candidates and who control the media in the U.S. and in Ukraine had propagandized there heavily after the coup, and those governments and media have been portraying Russia as being Ukraine’s enemy, and America and the EU and NATO (which, prior to the coup, were viewed by Ukrainians as being their enemy) as being instead Ukraine’s friends. So: Ukrainians, after the U.S. coup, wanted to join the EU, and to join NATO.

Immediately after Obama’s coup that grabbed Ukraine, his installed new government there promptly began its ethnic-cleansing so as to get rid of enough millions of Ukrainians who had voted for the neutralist (neither pro-American nor pro-Russian) Ukrainian President whom Obama had overthrown, in order to enable the new, pro-U.S.-Government regime in Ukraine to be able to continue on through ‘democratic’ elections in which all candidates would be anti-Russian. And that has brought us to today in Ukraine.

What that showed was the extreme effectiveness of the regime’s propaganda after the coup had been prepared and had used the media during 2014, and even more so after the coup was perpetrated and the U.S.-junta regime and its controlled ’news’-media drenched the public with anti-Russian propaganda after the coup, so that that nation, which only a year or two after its public had viewed NATO as being their enemy, prior to 2013, switched to instead viewing NATO as their craved-for protector, against what most Ukrainians, only a year or two before, had been viewing to be their protector. (Of course, after Russia ultimately responded to America’s grab of Ukraine and invaded Ukraine in 2022, vast majorities of Ukrainians now view the invading country, Russia, as being their enemy.)

Key here is the fact that by taking over a country — first by subverson (which in the case of Ukraine was being called “The Orange Revolution” and installed the pro-U.S. Ukrainian President Viktor Yushchenko into power in 2004) — and later by means of an outright coup to finish the job; public opinion can thus be effectively turned upside-down.

The political analyst Walter Lippmann in 1922 introduced the phrase “the manufacture of consent” as referring to how an aristocracy in the modern age controls its public by means of those aristocrats (now a country’s billionaires) owning, founding, and hiring media and think tanks and universities in order for these billionaires, in this age of hired ‘experts’ about public affairs, to shape their public’s opinion to become what that aristocracy (the nation’s billionaires) wants it to become. What happened in Ukraine is an excellent example of this pattern.

Another example of this, which is now in the cooker and just being prepared, is Moldova. On 6 December 2022, Russia’s Tass News Agency headlined “Majority of Moldovans consider Russia country’s best partner — opinion poll”, and reported that the Institute of Marketing and Polls in Moldova (a polling organization that mainly serves not news-outlets but corporations that market to Moldovans and which therefore need to know privately what Moldovans want) had privately reported the prior day their findings about Moldovans’ views regarding the country’s international relations. Tass reported that:

Most Moldovans consider Russia to be their country’s best partner in the spheres of economy, politics and security, according to the results of a public opinion poll released by the Institute of Marketing and Polls (IMAS) on Tuesday.

“As many as 38% of those polled spoke in favor of partnership with Russia in the economic sphere, 30% opted for the European Union, and 12% – for Romania. Only four percent chose partnership with the United States, and two percent favored China and NATO each. In the sphere of politics, Russia was chosen by 37% of the respondents, the European Union – by 29%, Romania – by 11%, the United States – by 5%, China – by 1%, and NATO – by 3%. In the sphere of security, 36% of the polled said they considered Russia a reliable partner. The European Union scored 21%, Romania and NATO – 10% each, the United States – 5%, and China – 1%,” the pollster said.

The poll involving 1,100 people in 90 settlements was conducted from November 10 to 29. The margin of error is three percent.

According to poll results, 62% of respondents think that Moldova should have close relations with Russia, 21% want neutral relations, 10% want remote relations, and only five percent spoke in favor of severing relations with Russia.

On 21 January 2023, Russia’s RT News bannered “Moldova considers joining ‘larger alliance’: Under President Maia Sandu, the country has pursued deeper integration with the West”. Sandu is to Moldova what President Viktor Yushchenko was to Ukraine — a key agent of U.S. subversion of her country, to serve her U.S. masters. She was referring to either the EU or NATO, but didn’t name either of them, because both are unpopular in Moldova, just as both had been unpopular in Ukraine before America’s successful coup in Ukraine in 2014.

If she succeeds, then she won’t likely be the leader of her country when the U.S. coup occurs there, but her leadership of Moldova will have helped to lead her country to the coup, and to the ethnic cleansing, and to the popularity there of the EU and of NATO, and, perhaps, also to becoming invaded by Russia before Moldova will have applied to and been accepted into those anti-Russia economic and military organizations. Just as Yushchenko was a crucial steppingstone to Ukraine’s post-2013 destruction, she will then be a crucial steppingstone to Moldova’s destruction.

The public can be manipulated, and this can produce a country’s ultimate destruction, by means of not merely deceit, but, also, by subversion, followed by coup, followed by ethnic cleansing, followed by military invasion of that country.

No public learns from history. That might be the reason why history constantly repeats itself, as it has done for all of these thousands of years, though the methods change. Understanding history’s patterns ought to be taught in pre-college grades, but aristocracies have never wanted it to be publicly taught at all; and, so, even at the Ph.D. level, it’s more of an orphan topic than any kind of academic mainstream.

*

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 Duran.

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

He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on How the U.S. Obtains New NATO Members by Subversion, Followed by Coup, Followed by Ethnic Cleansing
  • Tags: ,

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

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

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

First published by GR on June 28 2022

***

The US Ambassador to Canada, David Cohen, has characterized the members and supporters of the Canadian Truckers’ Freedom Convoy as “extremists” who are “subverting democratic processes and voices to further the cause of authoritarianism.”

As reported by Canada’s Global News, Cohen elaborated,

“China and Russia are among the actors involved in those attempts to subvert democracy, but also domestic forces including elements in the trucker convoys that blockaded the Canadian capital and border crossings for three weeks earlier this year.”

This intervention in domestic politics by the Biden administration’s top emissary to Canada should not go unnoticed. Quite clearly, it is the Canadian Truckers and many of their supporters who are victims, rather than perpetrators, of multiple forms of authoritarianism.

The federal governments on both sides of the Canada-US border continue to attack the proponents of a working class movement that won global headlines in mid-winter 2022. The Truckers did not “blockade the Canadian capital” as Cohen alleges. Rather the leadership of the Trucker’s movement responded assertively in good democratic fashion to a wrongheaded set of COVID policies.

When they got to Ottawa, the Truckers teamed up with their invited experts to mount many public education events. These widely-viewed webcast events dealt with many aspects of the COVID fiasco hidden from wide public view. The Ottawa event also involved public demonstrations to help illuminate widespread grievances. In spite of the barrage of provocations and insults hurled at the protesters, they remained basically peaceful, disciplined and upbeat.

This peaceful application of democratic pressure caused government, law enforcement agencies and media to react in ways that well illustrate the anti-democratic bent of authority these days. The hostility to democratic ideals is especially evident in the executive branches of the intertwined Liberal Party and Democratic Party governments that together currently dominate federal authority in North America.

The Freedom Convoy transported their grievances literally to the front door of the Canadian Parliament, an institution that increasingly symbolizes Canada’s failing democracy. Rather than storm Parliament, the Truckers parked their large vehicles in front of the Parliament seeking an audience with federal officials.

No smear campaign like those presently being piled on the Truckers’ movement can ever supplant the heart-warming imagery of the Freedom Convoy’s pilgrimage to Ottawa in mid-winter of 2022. Who can forget the moving pictures of large groups of patriotic Canadians coming out into the arctic deep freeze to wave the Canadian flag in support of the Freedom Convoy’s journey across a massive snowbound landscape?

Video

From the perspective of those running the US and Canadian governments, the main sin of the Canadian Truckers was the effectiveness of their introduction to the public of the scale and destructive impact of the COVID scam.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, Parliament’s top political officer, did not attempt even a rudimentary greeting of these emissaries of political change from all over Canada. Instead, Trudeau immediately slammed the doors shut to even the possibility of face-to-face exchanges between the Trucker leadership and officers of the Canadian Crown.

On February 2  ” Prime Minister Justin in a rather unusual and RIDICULOUS “twit” made the following declaration (allegedly adopted by a unanimous vote of the House of Commons). REALLY?

The following video refutes Trudeau’s accusations 

.

After uttering a now-notorious litany of slurs against the Truckers, the petulant Trudeau went into hiding where he busied himself with preparing to invoke the Canadian version of martial law. Among the immediate goals of Trudeau’s suspension of constitutional government was to seize the bank accounts of individual Truckers and those who contributed to the Trucker’ collective organization through Internet donation platforms.

Another goal was to unleash violent state repression of peaceful protests in Ottawa. Those who eventually carried out this crackdown seemed to include some sort of globalist police force. Some connected the presence of untagged and unnamed police officers in unfamiliar uniforms to the presence of a UN aircraft at a nearby airport in North Bay. See this.

The Events at Coutts, Alberta

The authoritarianism pointed against Truckers and their supporters continues in Trudeau’s Canada in many forms. For instance the impositions of authority include the continued incarceration without bail of some individuals picked out for unusual punishment.

The victims of the federal authoritarianism include four men who are currently jailed in southern Alberta even though they haven’t been convicted of anything. Their names are Anthony Olienick, Chris Carbert, Christopher Lysak, and Jerry Morin. They were arrested in mid-February and will remain under government lock and key until their forthcoming joint trial to take place in October at the earliest. See this.

The charges arise from the participation of the accused in demonstrations in Coutts Alberta. These demonstrations ran parallel with the parking of thousands of trucks in Canada’s national capital. The events at Coutts involved a complex series of negotiations involving the RCMP, the Truckers as well as their supporters including elected MLA’s in Alberta’s fractious provincial legislature. The back-and-forth between these parties led to sporadic openings and closings of vehicle movement across the Alberta-Montana border.

On or around 14 Feb., 13 protestors, sometimes dubbed “the Coutts 13,” were charged by the Crown with crimes said by the RCMP to have taken place during the on-again-off-again blockade near Coutts and Sweetgrass Montana.

The four men facing the most serious allegations are charged with the unusual and problematic crime of  “conspiracy to commit the murder” of RCMP officers. Are there political factors behind the decision to create a murder trial of Trucker supporters based on an event where no murders took place? See this.

There are unusually high levels of secrecy permeating the conduct of this complex case. This secrecy led to the decision by several prominent media outlets in Canada to intervene with the presiding court in a failed attempt to “unseal” crucial information in the genesis of the “conspiracy to commit murder” charges.” See this.

From the bail hearings in the Lethbridge courthouse, a vague picture is emerging of what the Crown is trying to prove. It seems that special units of the heavily politicized Royal Canadian Mounted Police developed some facets of their accusations on the basis of recorded private phone conversations as well as on the claims of infiltrators hired by police to pretend to be protesters. Local hearsay is that these infiltrators were largely attractive young women who may have been encouraged to entrap their targets.

A suspicious element of the Crown’s case against the Coutts 13 is that the charges materialized only after police failed in their concerted efforts to find weapons in the possession of the Ottawa Truckers and their supporters.

News reports of the Coutts charges put emphasis on a photo of a weapons cache laid out in front of a polished RCMP vehicle.

This photo has been the subject of much sceptical speculation especially among the many thousands of Albertans, including sitting MLAs, who took part in the Coutts demonstrations over almost three weeks. As reported by the Western Standard, the photo in question is not accompanied by credible RCMP explanations of how it is connected, if at all, to the largely peaceful protests at Coutts.

What is to be said about the timing of the Coutts arrests just hours before Prime Minister Trudeau and Deputy Prime Minister Chrystia Freeland invoked the revised version of Canada’s War Measures Act? The revised version is known as the Emergency Act.  See this.

The Toronto Sun has tried to dismiss the possible significance of this timing of the arrests in the immediate prelude to the Emergency Act’s invocation. The Sun’s pundit observed that the “charges [at Coutts] were made through normal police investigation procedures unrelated to the act.” How could any police procedures be “normal” during the climax of what was in mid-February one of the hottest political news stories in the world?

The Sun’s editorial does not consider that the timing and content of the charges might be part of a larger political scheme to win public acceptance for the Emergence Act, a de facto trigger of martial law.

The arrest of the Coutts 13 seemed to provide last-minute backing for the Feb. 14 presentation of Chrystia Freeland and Justin Trudeau. Deputy Prime Minister Freeland highlighted Canada’s Terrorism Financing Act in publicly explaining the seizure without court order of Trucker-related bank accounts and donations.

The resort by Trudeau and Freeland to terrorist laws required some indication that a terrorist plot had been discovered and apprehended. How convenient that the RCMP provided the Trudeau-Freeland Team with just such a propaganda gift just before the top representatives of Canada’s government stepped in front of the cameras.

Were the members of the Coutts 13 set up to provide a media spectacle of a supposedly-apprehended-domestic-terrorist-event, in order to justify the Trudeau government’s further lockdowns of citizen’ rights and freedoms? See this.

Systematic Evidence Denial 

Most of the jailed Truckers and Trucker supporters have been released from Ottawa-area detention centres. Like Olienick, Carbert, Lysak and Morin, however, Pat King remains in prison. One might ask if there is already justification enough for considering these five incarcerated men as political prisoners in Canada?

Like the “conspiracy to commit murder” charges, the accusations against King seem to emerge from what some prosecutor’s anticipation of what might happen rather than what did happen. King is facing charges “for mischief, counselling to commit mischief, counselling to commit the offence of disobeying a court order, and counselling to obstruct police.” See this.

The incarcerated King has been described as “beaten down” by an Ottawa pastor who visited him in jail. This characterization is at odds with the usual quixotic optimism of this former oil-rig worker. King came to broad attention when he made a widely-publicized breakthrough of sorts by ably representing himself on a COVID-related matter in an Alberta court. See this.

With his plain-spoken working class directness, King took to the Internet where he was instrumental in calling the Freedom Convoy into existence. Once the Convoy embarked on its journey, King reported regularly in webcasts from along the Trans-Canada Highway and then from within the Trucker’s Ottawa stand. See this.

Since the Truckers made their mark last winter, the large mass of COVID evidence continues to grow. In more and more depth and detail, this evidence chronicles the zealous incursions by many governments, including those of Canada and the United States, into the physical, mental, economic, and societal wellbeing of abused and traumatized citizens.

In the summer of 2022 it is more evident than ever that the manufactured COVID crisis is an ongoing disaster of monumental magnitude. What began as a “hallucinatory hijacking” committed by “lunatics who grabbed ahold of the asylum,” continues to unfold. An integral aspect of the fiasco is what el gato malo describes as systematic “evidence denial.”

Like thousands of expert observers of the huge and growing travesty of widespread deaths and injuries caused by the toxic COVID injections, malo predicts, “it’s going to end in show trials, massive lawsuits, recrimination and accusation… we cannot un-ring the bell, but we can prevent if from ever taking such a toll again.” See this. On evidence denial see this.

 The Presumption of Guilt Until Innocence Is Proven

It is highly possible that some political exploitation of law enforcement agencies in Canada is replicating aspects of the well-documented role of FBI agents and assets in steering the course of election-fraud protests that took place at the Capitol Building in Washington DC on January 6, 2021.

In Canada, the United States and many other countries, it is becoming almost axiomatic that federal agents are covertly deployed to help realize the political projects of ruling parties and dominating lobbies.

The record is clear that law enforcement and intelligence agencies are ordered in some instances to intervene maliciously with the goal of creating public fears by targeting enemies representative of larger constituencies about to be demonized, dehumanized and attacked. Another frequent scenario is to covertly inject government-instigated violence in order to deny public sympathy to the honest organizers of law-abiding public protest.

As Glenn Greenwald explains below, it is well documented that police officers, agents and assets influenced events at the Capitol protests in Washington DC during the opening days of 2021. A key goal was to help along the Democratic Party’s agenda of creating a spectacle to illustrate the existence of “domestic terrorism.”

Greenwald emphasizes that the covert manipulation of the election-fraud protests constitute a domestic variation of the initiation of the War on Terror. He doesn’t explain, however, how 9/11 was engineered and spun to create massive public fear of Islamic terrorism to help win public support for future invasion of Muslim-majority countries. See this.

In the name of the War on Terror, the principles of habeas corpus have been gradually put aside. This tendency started immediately after 9/11 when random Muslims were rounded up and jailed to finesse the fiction being hysterically reported in the news. A theatrical display was dramatized to promote the fiction that large numbers of Muslims were taken into custody to prevent these terrorists from committing future jihad.

In this way a pattern was initiated as law enforcement agencies began to normalize presumptions of guilt until innocence is proven. No longer does the presumption of innocence prevail as a matter of course except when tainted justice is purchased by those with the financial means to buy it.

A good example of the way the post-9/11 terrorist laws have overturned the principles of habeas corpus is on public display in the treatment of the four men charged in Coutts with conspiracy to commit murder. They will probably be held in jail for well over a year before there is any assignment of guilt or innocence in their cases.

By keeping the men in prison without bail, the government prejudices public perceptions. A public presumption develops that the accused must be so dangerous that it is necessary to lock them up. The plan is to convict them in the court of public opinion before they ever get to trial.

Did the RCMP allow itself to be enlisted in a government-backed plan to poison public perceptions of the Canadian Truckers? In real democracies many honest journalists would by now be skeptically looking into this question especially given the RCMP’s history of dishonesty and corruption. Many past examples as well as current breaking-news stories can be cited to show the RCMP giving over its criminal justice functions in order to advance the partisan objectives of ruling politicians. See, for instance, this and this.

Killing Off the Last Remnants of Democracy and Protection for Human Rights

The real crime of the Canadian Truckers was to have highlighted so effectively the gross malfeasance of Canada’s federal government in dealing with the COVID crisis. The Truckers helped catalyze a trajectory of independent inquiry and public education among the general public that is still gathering momentum. Only now is a significant portion of humanity beginning to grapple with the revelation that the destruction wrought by the manufactured COVID crisis is nothing like what has been presented by COVID Officialdom.

The growing complex of crimes against humanity has its origins not in the onslaught of a virulent pathogen but rather in a worldwide power grab by those already in possession of the greatest concentrations of entitlement on earth. The power grab is based on the quest to eliminate, enfeeble, disempower, and dispossess average people by killing off the last remnants of democracy, self-determination, and the protection for human rights.

There still has been no real reckoning with the tremendous destruction done by the so-called Lockdowns, the most devastating element of the COVID restrictions. More devastating yet are the widely-mandated COVID injections that seem to have been designed in bioweapon labs to impose widespread injury and death.

The range of maladies caused by the injections is extensive. One group of maladies has behind it, massive replications of pathogenic spike proteins stimulated by the clot shots. This outcome seems not to be inadvertent. As COVID sage, Dr. Mike Yeadon, recently declared to the world, “they did it on purpose, knowing it would hurt you.” See this.

From the perspective of those running the US and Canadian governments, the main sin of the Canadian Truckers was the effectiveness of their introduction to the public of the scale and destructive impact of the COVID scam.

The raw drama of the Truckers’ quest for justice caused many media outlets in Canada and throughout the world to briefly mitigate their unrelenting hostility towards any public criticism of COVID Officialdom. In the light of future history, this early crack in the thick wall of COVID-related  censorship, propaganda, and disinformation may prove to have larger consequences that cannot yet be fully understood.

Diagolon, The Anti-Hate Network, and the Coutts 13

Some of the media’s effort to discredit the Truckers’ movement was published by CTV News during the 10-day period when Canada was under martial law. One of the items cited in CTV’s report included words attributed to Barbara Perry, Director of the Centre for Bias, Hate and Extremism at the Ontario Tech University.

Parry referred the Truckers  movement being riddled with people she describes as “accelerationists.” In Parry’s conception of the world, “accelerationists” are violent extremists who are trying to speed up the pace of the radical alteration of society.

According to Parry, many “accelerationists” want “all-out civil war that would delegitimize and destabilize the current regime.” Parry reported that some of the supposed accelerationists she links to the Canadian Truckers’ movement “celebrated the events of January 6 as the onset of this civil war, hence the calls…. for the Freedom Convoy to be our January 6.”

Click here to watch.

The Canadian Anti-Hate Network is one of the lead agencies in the spin doctoring aimed at criminalizing the Truckers’ movement generally and the Coutts protest particularly. No doubt discussions are already underway to determine if this so-called network will provide “expert witnesses” in the trial of four men waiting in jail to meet the charge that they conspired together with the intention of killing RCMP officers. According to “Post-Millennial,” the Anti-Hate network receives $250,000 in annual grants from the Trudeau government. See this.

The Chair of the Anti-Hate Network is Bernie Farber, well known in Canada for his efforts at the Canadian Jewish Congress to silence, isolate, deplatform and ruin designated targets. Many of those targeted dared criticize the policies and actions of the Israeli government as well its Canadian networks of supporters.

Bernie Farber has been described “as Canada’s most zealous supporter of speech censorship laws.” Ezra Levant marks his contempt for Bernie Farber’s defamatory projects by referring to him as “Burnie.” See this and this.

Farber and Parry are prominent “anti-hate” advocates in a government-subsidized smear campaign designed to discredit the Truckers’ movement generally and the Coutts 13 particularly. This “anti-hate” witch hunt is to arouse public anxieties by connecting the Truckers to a recently-invented term, Diagolon.

Global News introduced to its audience the concept that the arrest of the Coutts 13 is connected to Diagolon. Recall that it was Global that hosted the highlighted interview with the US Ambassador to Canada.

In its introduction to Diagolon, Global News also highlighted the Canadian Anti-Hate Network and its campaign to cause a crackdown on “the intertwined membership” of the “anti-vaxx and far-right movement.” See this.

The extreme partisanship of Global News is well illustrated in the commentary by Paula Tran dated 15 Feb., just one day after Justin Trudeau and Chrystia Freeland invoked martial law in Canada. Global News reported:

“Anti-hate experts are raising concerns after a picture of weapons, ammunition and body armour seized at the border protest at Coutts, Alta. showed patches belonging to a neo-nazi group in Canada.

The Canadian Anti-Hate Network tweeted on Monday that gear seized by police at Coutts includes a plate carrier with Diagolon patches. According to the network, Diagolon is an accelerationist movement that believes a revolution is inevitable and necessary to collapse the current government system. It wants to build its ideal nation-state, which runs diagonally from Alaska through the western provinces down to Florida.

It is also a neo-fascist militia with a sizeable support base across the country, said the network.” See this.

Jeremy MacKenzie of Pictou Nova Scotia actually invented the idea of Diagolon along with its flag. A veteran of the Canadian Armed Forces, MacKenzie is a skilled satirist and pundit who holds forth in the “Raging Dissident” webcast.

In the following video, MacKenzie explains how he conjured up his fantasy of a new polity stretching diagonally across North American from Alaska to Florida. MacKenzie explains further how a network of ADL-approved  “anti-hate” propagandists seized on his tongue-in-cheek concept to express their own bizarre theories about Diagolon as a terrorist threat to the national security of Canada. See this and this.

Sacrificing Truth and Honesty in News Reporting

Justin Trudeau was unceasingly referring to swastikas intimating that the Freedom Convoy organizers are not only supportive of  Nazi symbols but are anti-Semitic.  And on February 16,  he directed these wild accusations against the Conservative Party of Canada:

“Prime Minister Justin Trudeau was cautioned against using “inflammatory” language by the Speaker of the House of Commons on Wednesday after he told Conservative MP Melissa Lantsman, who is Jewish, that her party stands with “people who wave swastikas.”

In substance, Trudeau is accusing Conservative Party members of being Neo-Nazis.

Video: Is Justin Trudeau anti-semitic?? 

In turn, Bernie Farber was involved in smearing the Canadian Truckers’ during their Ottawa stand, portraying them as anti-semitic. Farber publicized a controversial flier that he claimed was sent to him by a friend that had obtained it at the “Ottawa Occupation.”

This flier was widely publicized by reporters as part of their ongoing project to find dirt on the protestors in order to publicly demean them. The provocative headline of the document in question proclaimed “ Every Single Aspect of the Covid Agenda is Jewish.” See this and this.

Farber’s misrepresentation was discovered and explained by Jonathan Kay, a journalist who, like Ezra Levant, Farber’s other outspoken critic, are committed supporters of Israel. In a Tweet Kay exclaimed,

“Wow Bernie, isn’t it incredible that the picture ‘your friend in Ottawa at the Occupation’ sent you is identical to the photo posted on Twitter two weeks ago by someone in Miami, right down to the ceramic design in the background.”

The exposure of Farber’s dubious tactics in his campaign to generate bad publicity for the Canadian Truckers’ points to a phenomenon with implications that transcend the details of this particular case. The unscrupulous zeal of Farber’s intent  to smear the Truckers helps shed light on a key facet of our present crisis when it seems there are no checks against giving over the media to power-serving lies and distortions calculated to favour authority by sacrificing truth and honesty in news reporting.

In the present context, the influence of trials-by-media can be decisive in setting the outcome of real trials as well as policy decisions adopted by government. Accordingly, the victims of malicious smear campaigns can include large segments of the public along with individuals actually targeted for attack.

The Global News Story of 15 Feb. provides a good case study of how history is being shaped these days by bathing the public in illusion while concurrently starving them of honest and balanced reporting which citizens need to fulfill their democratic responsibilities.

A Neo-Fascist Militia?

Global News and many other media featured the picture of the arms’ cache in introducing the RCMP’s arrest of the Coutts 13. What does this picture actually prove? What does it prove when the photographed cache is said to be located in southern Alberta where a large percentage of the population owns registered and unregistered firearms which they often use for a variety of reasons including hunting for sport and food as well as protecting farm animals from predators.

It’s a pretty big leap to connect the Coutts arrests to the unexplained picture of firearms gathered who knows how, where, and when? Is it mere coincidence that reports of the Coutts arrests all highlighted the supposedly incriminating picture published simultaneously with Trudeau’s invocation of the Emergency Act?

What is being conveyed by keeping four men in jail on the basis of the still-unproven claim that RCMP officers unearthed a cell of wannabee cop killers said to be on their way to attempting a violent overthrow of the Canadian and US governments? Did Bernie Farber play a role in prepping Justin Trudeau to see the Truckers as a “fringe minority” permeated with racism, anti-Semitism, and accelerationist extremism? Who is in the best position to politically manipulate the public fears aroused by the official narrative of what the Coutts 13 and their peers are supposed to represent and be?

At the top of the Global story of 15 Feb. story is the RCMP’s trophy photo including the image of an army green item possibly combining the function of a packsack and bullet shield. On this device are two very small badges presenting images of Jeremy MacKenzie’s Diagolon flag. This flag is composed of a single white line on a black background.

On the basis of all sorts of assumptions about what is behind the Dialogon image, the Global New story declared that the Coutts 13 are part of a “neo-fascist militia,” a “neo-nazi group in Canada.” How ironic it is that in the days following the concurrent declaration of the Emergency Act and the arrest of the Coutts 13, Freeland and Trudeau rushed into a prominent role offering on behalf of the Canadian government and people, substantial backing to the Ukraine government that includes significant Nazi elements. See this.

Censorship of the Media to Prevent Many Lords from Being Unseated from Their Ill-Gotten Thrones

The ongoing slide into a global war has at its core a clash between the United States and Russia, countries that have the largest nuclear arsenals on earth. The war started when Vladimir Putin declared Russia’s intention to “demilitarize” and “denazify” Ukraine. The declaration came one day after the Trudeau government withdrew the Emergency Act on 23 Feb.

In the developing conflagration the US government and its NATO allies including the government of Canada are characterizing the conflict as a fight between democracy and authoritarianism. This meme is well reflected in the content of Global News’ interview with Ambassador Cohen.

What does “democracy” really mean these days and where is it be to be found amidst all the corruption, fraud, and misrepresentation running rife throughout the countries of US-dominated NATO?

The relevance of this question is well illustrated by the absurdity of Ambassador Cohen’s claim that Canada and the US embrace democracy whereas Russia, China and the Canadian Truckers embrace authoritarianism.

The constant spin doctoring swirling around the word, “democracy,” has made it a heavily weaponized term often deployed with a propagandistic edge similar to that invoked by, say, “terrorism,” “hate speech,” “conspiracy theory,” and “neo-nazi.”

If “democracy” continues to have any meaning of its own outside the sphere of propaganda, it surely includes the principle that the legitimacy of governments comes from the consent of the governed. Moreover, democracy surely has something to do with the capacity to conduct conscientiously free, fair and honest elections. Elections are basically useless, however, if voters lack access to accurate reporting bringing forward the full array of information required by conscientious citizens to make sound decisions at the ballot box.

None of these electoral conditions come anywhere close to being met in the so-called “democracies” of the so-called “West.” Right now, especially as the manufactured COVID crisis continues to unfold, most of the media are in the front lines of an unrelenting assault that is killing democracy by starving it of the oxygen of full disclosure and honest reporting.

In Canada the assault on democracy is being pushed ahead by legislation providing the means for yet more vandalizing of the Internet to censor voices that do not conform with the dominant official narratives of power. Bill C-11 and Bill C-36 in Canada are legislative instruments of the drive to bludgeon those flows of information with the capacity to unseat many Lords of the Manor from their ill-gotten thrones.

The Israel Lobby in Canada and throughout the NATO countries is a major and consistent proponent of more censorship and more laws to constrain freedom of expression especially on the Internet. The Israel Lobby’s heavy influence on the content of much of the media helps shape what politicians say or don’t say in their quest to be elected and re-elected.

Global News and the Canadian Museum of Human Rights

Especially since the onset of the manufactured COVID crisis, big media outlets like the Washington Post and CNN have confirmed their role as propagandists of power. The spin doctoring at publicly-owned Crown corporations like the BBC, CBC and the Australian ABC seems to be as biased as the commercial media giants. This development is effectively nuking the viability of public broadcasting.

The biggest and most far-reaching media venues have been sharply chastised by those in the know. Much less attention has been paid, however, to the hundreds and thousands of smaller venues that regularly replicate the centrally-scripted disinformation of the COVID scam.

The COVID lies have been accompanied by ferocious media censorship of news on, for instance, Hunter Biden’s Laptop from Hell, the US election fraud, and the superpower conflict increasingly permeating the war in Ukraine. The Global television network is one of those smaller venues peddling uncritically the full array of official narratives on these and many other stories.

I’ll conclude with a short narrative on Global News that sheds added light on a number of issues addressed in this essay. Beginning in the mid-1970s, the trajectory of the creation and development of Global Television was largely the work of a Winnipeg tax-lawyer named Israel Asper. See this.

Asper injected his own politics into what became CanWest Global Communications. In 2000 his company purchased Conrad Black’s Hollinger Corporation that owned 60 Canadian newspapers, This media network included Black’s own creation and flagship, the National Post.

Asper died in 2003. His descendants, including Gail Asper, sold many of their newspapers in 2009 when the Internet was stealing many readers and advertising dollars from print media.

It was Izzy Asper’s dream to found a Canadian Holocaust Museum modelled on the Holocaust Museum in Washington DC. Israel Asper’s daughter, Gail, took over the leadership role in the creation of the museum when her father died in 2003.

When Gail Asper sought federal backing for this project, she was told that she and her colleagues, including her brothers, would have to widen the museum to become a more inclusive in its subject matter. As part of this response I travelled to Winnipeg frequently to sit on the Content Advisory Board of the Canadian Museum of Human Rights.

Click here to watch the video.

This Museum currently sits on a historic site at the confluence of the Red and Assiniboine Rivers in Winnipeg, the spiritual home of the Metis nation. The museum is presently pictured on the Canadian $10 bill along with a passage from the Canadian Charter of Human Rights. Canada’s Charter of Rights was badly transgressed in the process of imposing many COVID restrictions and injection mandates on Canadian citizens. These transgressions became integral to core contentions in the controversies aroused by the arrival of the Freedom Convoy in Ottawa in the winter of 2022. See this.

So far neither the Canadian government nor Canada’s judiciary have seen fit to force the legal question of whether the integrity of the rule of law requires that terms of the Charter, part of Canada’s “supreme law,” should be made to prevail over the COVID restrictions and injection mandates. This failure means Canadians have no way of knowing for certain if the government actions done in the name of fighting COVID are consistent with the Canadian constitution or not.

Not surprisingly, Global News has not accompanied its stories about Diagolon, the Canadian Anti-Hate Network, the arrest of the Coutts 13, and the words of the US Ambassador with commentary about the wholesale denial of human rights and civil liberties that the Canadian Charter is supposed to protect. Nor has there been coherent comments emanating from within the Canadian Museum of Human Rights on the manufactured COVID crisis and its role in the denigration of human rights and democracy itself in Canada.

*

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

Dr. Anthony Hall is editor in chief of the American Herald Tribune. He is currently Professor of Globalization Studies at University of Lethbridge in Alberta Canada. He has been a teacher in the Canadian university system since 1982. Dr. Hall, has recently finished a big two-volume publishing project at McGill-Queen’s University Press entitled “The Bowl with One Spoon”.

He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from OffGuardian

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

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 26, 2023

 

 

 

Introduction

The Juche is certainly the most debated ideology but the least understood and it is even the target of hostile attack. It has been perceived in the Western media and the mainstream academics as an ideology poorly conceived and badly structured. Indeed it has been regarded even as an ideology designed to justify perpetual dictatorship of Kim’s family.

In short, Juche is presented as something negative and even harmful. But, Juche has been playing the vital role in sustaining the integrity of North Korea as sovereign country.

It is possible that its negative image is attributable to the lack of understanding of North Koreans’ mentality on the one hand and, on the other, the prejudice against the North Korean regime which is different from the regimes of the western world, especially the American regime.

But, there is another possible factor responsible for the projection of negative image of Juche. It is the trend that the media and the mainstream academics look at only segments of Juche. There is no doubt that to better understand Juche, it is necessary to examine the whole of Juche system. In other words, we need general theory of Juche.

To produce a general theory of Juche, we may need a book of several hundreds of pages or books. This paper does not offer   general theory. What it proposes is to identify issues which should be dealt with in the general theory of Juche.

This paper identifies questions related the Juche issues and tries to provide answers to these questions, which should be explored more fully in the more elaborated version of the general theory. The following are the seven questions examined in this paper.

  • What is Juche?
  • Why Juche?
  • What are the objectives of Juche?
  • How does Juche socialism operate?
  • How has Juche socialism evolved?
  • How should we evaluate the performance of Juche socialism?
  • What are the impacts of Juche socialism?

What is Juche (主體:주체)?

There are two ways of understanding Juche: the general concept of Juche and the North Korean concept of Juche.

To begin with, in Korea, as the Chinese character above indicates, Juche means chief decision maker of event such as “initiator,” “promoter,” “organiser,” and so on. For instance if I organize a seminar, I am the Juche of the seminar. The Juche of national policies is the national government. The Juche of the UN General Assembly is the UN.

In the general concept of Juche, the autonomy of the Juche is not considered; the Juche may accept the interference of outside force. For example, South Korea being vassal country of the U.S., its foreign policy is not autonomous; Washington may give directives of South Korea’s foreign policy.

On the other hand, in North Korea, Juche means something which has strong political connotation. Juche must be autonomous and independent. The Juche must think, plan and do things with little or no external interference. This does not means that the Juche ignores the external factors, which may have to be considered, but the final decision must be autonomous. It is of paramount importance to note that Juche does not mean intended isolation.

Applied to national policies, the North Korean Juche in politics is independence (ja-ju: 自主); Juche in economics is self-sufficiency (ja-jok:自足); Juche in national defence is auto-defence.(ja-wi:自衛). We will see below how these North Korean national Juche policies have been successful.

Tribute plaques to Juche from foreign delegates, contained in the interior entrance of the Juche Tower (Licensed under CC BY 2.0)

Why Juche?

The notion of Juche was conceived by Kim Il-sung, the founder of the North Korea (DPRK). In 1930, at the age of 18, Kim Il-sung made a speech in front of the communist organization of the Korean Youth.

The young patriot insisted on the need for the solution of Korean problems by Koreans themselves without the intervention of foreign powers. Thus, already in 1930, the future leader of North Korea had the idea of Juche.

“North Koreans are masters of North Korean people’s revolution. The North Korean revolution must be carried out by its own people and based on the country’s own situation. Experience proves that we must go to masses to materialize and organize them in order to lead revolution to success. We should not rely on others to solve all problems during the revolution. Instead, we should rely on ourselves and address all problems in accordance with our situation.” (Kim Il-sung Speech made in front of North Korean Youth Communist organizations, 1930)

The feeling of nationalism and the desire to solve Korean problems by Koreans themselves are shared by both South Koreans and North Koreans. In fact, the complaint and even the anger against foreign intervention in domestic affairs are common in the North and the South.

It is important to remember that during the 500-years ruling by Lee Dynasty (1392-1910), Korea (Chosun) was the humiliating vassal country of China because of the weakness of Juche of the Chosun government.

In 1910, Korea was annexed to Japan. It was the result of selling Korea to Japan free of charge by the traitor, Lee Wan Yong and his pro-Japan gang for their personal financial and political interests. The Juche of Korea was given to Japan.

During the 4-year American military government (1945-1948), there was no Korean Juche. The Juche of South Korean affairs was the American military government.

During 75 years (1948-2023), South Korean was an American vassal country and at the same time, a Japanese neo-colonial country. During this period, the Juche of South Korea was shared among the three countries South Korea, Japan and the U.S.

As for North Korea, the post-WWII era was the period in which Pyongyang fought hard to repatriate its Juche from South Korea, Russia and China.

What are the Objectives of Juche?

The objective of Juche is the creation of socialism with North Korean characteristics, namely, the Juche Socialism.

How does Juche Socialism Operate?

The construction of Juche socialism is based on the “Juche relationship” among the three composing groups of the regime, namely, the people, the nation and the leader.

In the Juche relations, the people are the most important element of the trilateral relations. Man is master of himself and he is free, but he freely identifies himself with the nation; he becomes the nation; the nation is man.

This way of looking at man and the nation is well expressed by Kim Jung-il, son of Kim Il-sung.

“Juche is based on philosophical principle that man is the master of everything and decides everything, the man is master of everything means that he is the master of the whole world and his destiny; that man decides everything means that he plays decisive role in transforming the world and shaping destiny.” Kim Jung-il, On Juche, 1982.

In this speech, we see that man is the master of himself and at the same time, he is the master of the nation. Therefore, the man and the nation are one. The happiness of man is the happiness of the nation; the happiness of the nation is the happiness of man. This way of thinking is, in fact, the most extreme way of looking at collectivism.

In a way, North Koreans find their salvation in his or her devotion to the wellbeing of the society, which is the wellbeing of the people.

In other words, the interests of individual are “melted” into or “infused” with those of the society.

We must recognize that this part of Juche socialism is almost a religious concept. This concept may be inspired from Christian doctrine where “man is in God and God is in man.”

To be sure, such way of thinking is difficult to grasp for westerners who are used to the idea of individual freedom and the value of individualism. But, the idea of unity of individual values and collective values has become a reality in North Korea. It has become a reality due to intensive education which became the national policy priority since Kim Jung-il took over, in 1972, the responsibility of education and propaganda.

The third component of the Juche socialism is the place of the leader. In fact, the success and the failure of the Juche socialism depends on how the leader leads the nation and how the people accept the leadership. Kim Il-sung and Kim Jung-il have something to say about the leader.

“The people must be melted into the leadership in a revolutionary way so that they can play the role required by their duty for the revolution and such role needs leadership.” (Kim Il-sung, Treaties, 1982)

“In our society, the leader, the political party and the people must be melted altogether in their destiny and they constitute a single political organization. Moreover, they are united and consolidated into blood relations owing to a singular and unified ideology.” (Kim Jung-il, On Juche, 1982)

“The way people awake themselves and organize themselves in a revolutionary way and the way they do their duties for socio-economic development depends only on the leadership of the Workers Party of Korea (WPK).” (Kim Jung-il, On Juche, 1982)

In these quotations, the key word is the people who are melted into the nation and the nation is melted into the leader. In other words, the people, the nation and the leader are the same; they are one. So we have perfect political trinity. This is something which is not easy to understand. But, this doctrine is what makes North Korea what it is.

North Koreans are taught to believe that their leader is clean; he is not corruptible; he never makes errors; he is benevolent; he is magnanimous.

Visitors of the Mansu Hill Grand Monument in Pyongyang bow to massive bronze statues of Kim Il-sung and Kim Jong-il. (Licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0)

But, the leader imposes a monolithic and unitary regime in such a way that no dissidence is tolerated.

It is true that Kim Il-sung is known for personality cult like Joseph Stalin and so many other authoritarian leaders.

But, I am asking myself if the North Korean regime could have survived decades-long sanctions and endless annual threatening U.S.-ROK joint military exercises. Under such situation, it is doubtful if North Korea could have maintained stability without the absolute authority of their national leaders.

Besides, North Koreans worship Kim Il-sung for other reasons apart from his exercise of personality cult; it is the genuine Confucian relation between the leader and the people.

It is true that Kim Il-sung enjoyed a quasi-religious status motivating North Koreans to obey him even worshiping him. It is possible that Kim Il-sung thought that he had status similar to that of the Japanese emperor. As a matter of fact, in Japan, the emperor-people relations are governed by Shinto which is in fact a religion. In North Korea, the leader-people relations are governed by Juche socialism which has religious dimension.

What is important is the reality in which the people of North Korea believe in the super-human capacity of Kim Il-sung in economics, politics science, business and international relations. At least, they are educated to so believe.

One thing interesting to know is the fact that Kim Il-sung spent four days a week in the farm land, in factories and constructions sites to learn better know the people, learn what the people want and integrate the people’s desire in national policies.

It is true that the world think that the North Korean regime is brutal, exploit people, violate human rights and force the people to live in fear and agony. In such situation, the people would have revolted. But, there has been no major revolt of the people all these years.

True, North Korea has had a very bad image, particularly for the alleged violation of human rights. This has been the chief source of North Korea demonization.

But, nobody provides the evidence of the human right violation except the witness by the defectors who are often made to lie for money. The sensational story of North Korean human right violation provided by two North Korea defectors, Shin Dong Hyuk and Park,  yeonmi were fund to be a made up stories for money. (See the Book, North Korea 70-year War with American power, Chapter 19, Clarity Press, 2020 by A.B. Abrams)

For decades, the intelligence communities, diplomats, think tanks and even religious groups in the West used these made-up stories for the demonization of North Korea.

Besides, we should remember that there are three types of major human rights approved by the UN, namely, the civil and political rights defined by the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) of 1966, the economic, social and cultural rights defined by the International Convention on Economic, Social and Cultural Human Right (ICESCR) of 1966 and several other rights including collective human rights (CR).

When we talk about human rights, we should say which human right in question. True, if the absence of popular political demonstration is due to government’s coercive policy, then, there is the violation of political human rights. But, if it is due to the people’s decision not to make political demonstration, there is no violation of the political human rights.

In North Korea, the people do not demonstrate against the government not because of the fear of government oppression but probably because of their respect and even their love for the national leaders.

Now, the economic, social and cultural human right is violated when the government fails to provide the daily necessities. On this round North Korea has been doing much better job than some highly developed countries.

Once again, the leader-population relations in North Korea are different, in nature from the leader-population relations in the West.. On this aspect, I may report on a peculiar incident happened long time ago in South Korea.

In 2002, there were Asian Games in the city of Pusan, South Korea. A group of North Korean cheer group girls came to Pusan. One rainy day, in the street of the city, the portrait of Kim Jung-il was wet in the rain.

On TV, the girls were seen crying in front of their leader’s wet portrait. The people thought that they were acting to display their devotion to their leader. But, it turned out that they were sincere.

This episode shows that there is something deep in the relations between the North Korean leader and the people. This reality can be explained by the following factors.

First of all, in the Kim regime, as it was seen above, the people, the government and the leader are the same. Hence, the joy and the pains of the leader are the joy and the pains of the people.

Secondly, North Koreans have been subject to rigorous and effective education so that they believe in the super-capability of their leaders on the one hand and, on the other, they thank their leaders for taking care of them.

Lastly, the constant threat by South Korea, Japan and the U.S. made North Korans to unite around the national leader.

In reality, the North Korean society is a huge family where the leader is the Confucian father looking after the people, while the people are the Confucian children obeying the leader through filial piety.

It is interesting to notice that some researchers see the North Korean society as a human body of which the leader is the brain, while the people are various body parts performing various functions needed for the normal living of the body.

How has the Juche socialism evolved?

The North Korean Juche socialism has evolved through the adaptation of Marxism-Leninism to local conditions of North Korea on the one hand and, on the other, through the purge of dissidents’ leaders.

Periods of the evolution of Juche socialism

The North Korean Juche socialism has evolved by different periods as shown below. And, the goal of the evolution of the Juche socialism was the adaptation of Marxism-Leninism to North Korean local conditions.

1948-1954: This was period of the complete application of Marxism-Leninism in North Korea. This was the period when Joseph Stalin was alive dictating the North Korean regime. In 1948, the Russian military government left North Korea leaving Kim Il-sung to run the civil government. In 1953, Joseph Saline died to be succeeded by Nikita Khrushchev in 1954.

1954-1964: This period was the beginning of the “koreanization” of Marxism-Leninism. Nikita Khrushchev took power in 1954 and his top priority was the process of de-Stalinization designed to discredit Stalin’s personality cult. As far as Khrushchev was concerned, Kim Il-sung was also practicing personality cult. The Pyongyang-Moscow relation changed from bad to worse during the whole period of Khrushchev’ presidency of the Soviet Union.

The Kim-Khrushchev dispute was wide open at the 20th Congress of the communist parties of the Soviet Union in Moscow in 1956. Khrushchev openly criticised Kim’s personality cult as well as the personality cult of Mao Zedong.

There was another source of the Kim-Khrushchev dispute, namely, Khrushchev’s ambition of globalizing the Moscow version of Marxism-Leninism so that it will be adopted in the whole communist world. Kim Il-sung thought that the whole idea was not realistic.

In 1955, Kim Il-sung announced the necessity of applying the principle of “innovative change” of Marxism-Leninism to North Korean situation. The innovative change meant the adaptation of Marxism-Leninism to North Korean local cultural, economic political and social situation.

In 1959, Kim Il-sung defined the nation as an entity which is created on the basis of community of language, history, economic life, physical formation which are translated into a cultural community. Based on this principle, Kim Il-sung has demonstrated the necessity of adapting the Moscow version of Marxism-Leninism to the local conditions of North Korea.

1965-1998: this was the third period of “koreanization” of Marxism-Leninism. In this period, the Juche socialism was more structured. And, Kim Il-sung did his best to allocate available resources for the adaptation of Marxism-Leninism to the local conditions of North Korea.

In 1965, Kim Il-sung did not go to the world congress of communist parties. In the same year, he announced the three policies of Juche socialism, namely, political independence, self-sufficient economic system and self-reliable national defence.

In August 1966, Kim Il-sung took a neutral position vis-à-vis the Soviet Union and China by criticizing their revisionism. To justify his position, he did not attend the international meeting of communist parties of 1966. Moreover, in the 1970s, Kim took distance from the Sino-Soviet hegemonic war in the communist world.

In 1970, Kim Jung-il already announced the formation of Kimilsungism. In 1976, Kim Jung-il explained that kimilsungism included the Juche philosophy and that it was new theory of revolution. For Kim Jung-il, kimilsungism was a new doctrine and it cannot be explained in the framework of Marxism-Leninism.

Now, the year, 1982, was a special year, because it was the year when Kim Jung-il presented, through a series of lectures, the finished version of the doctrine of Juche socialism. Also, that year was the year when the Juche Tower was erected.

The construction of the Juche Tower meant, symbolically, the victory of Juche socialism and the global recognition of Juche. On the Juche Tower, we find many blocs built and funded by foreign countries where Juche Study Groups were active.

This period was also the period of widening distance between Kim Il-sung and Mao Zedong. Kim Il-sung did not like the Cultural Revolution in China, because, for Kim, the conservation of traditional values was the core of Juche socialism.

Furthermore, the visit of Henri Kissinger in 1970 and that of Richard Nixon to Beijing in 1972 displeased Kim Il-sung, because, for him, the rapprochement of China with the U.S. was a sign of revisionism.

This period was also the time when the status of Kim Il-sung was elevated to “Supreme Leader” by virtue of the Constitution of 1972 to become “Eternal Leader” in 1998 in accordance with the constitution of 1998. Kim Il-sung is still the living president of North Korea, constitutionally speaking.

In short, this period was marked by North Koreans efforts to preserve some part of Marxism-Leninism and develop new ideas for Juche socialism.

1999-2009: This was the fourth period of koreanization of Marxism-Leninism. This period was the last step of the koreanization of Marxism-Leninism. Kim Il-sung died in 1994.

In the Constitution of 1998, Marxism-Leninism was not mentioned for the first time. And, by virtue of the constitution of 2009, North Korea’s official ideology became kimilsungism-kimjungilism which was Juche socialism.

The interesting question is whether or not Marxism-Leninism was completely discarded in the kimilsungism-kimjungilism. In reality, Marxism-Leninism is still a part of Juche socialism.

Marxism-Leninism and Juche socialism have one thing in common. It is the belief that capitalism will fail and socialism will win. Under capitalism, the wealth, the income and the privileges are concentrated in the hand of few powerful capitalists, while in socialism, the wealth and income will be distributed more equally. But there are fundamental differences between these two ideologies.

Difference between Juche socialism and Marxism-Leninism

First, there is a difference in the concept of the evolution dynamics of the society. In Marxism-Leninism, the evolution of the society takes place by the principle of historical materialism by which the superstructure of the society is determined by the infrastructure. By infrastructure, we mean the economic system, while by superstructure we mean non-materialistic life including religion culture, the judicial system and so on.

In Marxism-Leninism, man’s capacity to determine the revolutionary course of human society is undervalued, while in the Juche socialism, man is the master of the evolutionary process of the society. Man can determine both the superstructure and the infrastructure.

Second, in Marxism-Leninism, the society evolves through Hegelian dialectics by the process of anti-thesis, thesis and synthesis. Thus, society evolves in systemic and logical fashion.

On the other hand, in Juche socialism, the society evolves in “natural way” not logical way; it evolves in “pragmatic way.” This is inspired by Daoism where the natures changes in function of the positive (yang陽) energy (ki氣) and negative (um 陰) energy (ki氣). The inter-energy evolution is not in conflict but in harmony.

Third, there is another difference between Marxism-Leninism and Juche socialism. The difference is in the way of looking at the class struggle. In Marxism-Leninism, the inter-class relation is one of conflict in which the proletarian class will defeat the bourgeois class ending by the dictatorship of the proletarian class.

Now, in the case of Juche socialism, the inter-class relations are characterised by harmony and unity. It may be difficult for Westerners to understand this, but they should understand that the harmony in everything is highly valued in Asian value system.

Fourth, there is also eschatological difference between these two doctrines. In Marxism-Leninism, there is the end of the evolution of the society, that is, the ultimate end of the evolution of the society is the communism with no government and with no classes. On the other hand, in Juche socialism, there is no end in the evolution of the society; the society changes in function of the conditions requiring changes.

Lastly, there is difference in leadership style. In Marxism-Leninism, the leadership is the collective leadership of the proletariat. But in Juche socialism, the leadership is provided by one leader inspired by Confucian notion of national leadership. The Confucian leader takes care of the people, while the people respect and obey the leaders in the Confucian way.

In 1990, Kim Jung-il said this: “the socialism has its roots in the philosophy of Juche.” According to him, the failure of East European communism is attributable to the fact that it imitated the Soviet version of Marxism-Leninism.

According to Kim Jung-il, Juche is the most developed revolutionary theory favouring the promotion of ordinary people’s welfare.

Purge of dissidents

The purge of dissidents was one of the conditions needed for the koreanization of Marxism-Leninism. It is inspired by the principle of monolithic regime requiring zero tolerance of dissidence against the regime.

In 1948, North Korea became a sovereign country. In that year, there were four different groups of communists, namely, the group representing Soviet communism, the group representing Chinese communism, the group representing South Korean communism and, finally the Kapsan group representing communists who had fought with Kim Il-sung against the Japanese army during the Japanese occupation of Korea.

Each group wanted to establish a communist regime of the version of their adopted country. The Soviet group wanted to transplant the Soviet version; the Chinese group, Mao’s version; the South Korea version, South Korean version of communism. The most reliable group was the Kapsan groupe composed of comrades-in arm of Kim Il-sung who had fought against the Japanese army.

The inter-group fight was so bad that Kim Il-sung decided to apply his monolithicism and he undertook the purge of dissident leaders.

In May 1953, the court was open to judge the following dissidents: Pae Sun-choo, Li Kang-kuk, Yun Sun-tel, Li Wang-cho, Cho Yong-pok, Mueng Chung-ho, Sol Chang-sik who were accused of espionage or poor military performance during the Korean War and other crimes. They were expulsed or executed.

In December, 1953, Park Han-young was purged; he was the leader of the South Korean group. Ho Kia, leader of the Soviet group, Kwon O-chik, another leader of the South Korean group and Mu Chong, leader of the Chinese group were all purged.

Moreover, in 1956 a great number of civil servants were purged for their espionage for the benefit of South Korea.

How should we evaluate the performance of Juche socialism?

The best way of evaluating Juche socialism is to see how well North Korea has dealt with its three pillars of Juche socialism, namely, political independence (정치적 자주 政治的 自主), economic self-sufficiency (경제적 자족 經濟的自足) and self reliant national defence. (국방자위 國防自衛) 

Political Independence: North Korea has done well as far as its political independence was concerned. Despite its status of shrimp surrounded by powerful whales, China and Russia, the country of Juche was able to maintain its political independence by taking advantage of the Sino-Soviet hegemonic rivalry for international communism.

Moreover, North Korea was able to get economic and military aids from both China and Russia by capitalizing on its geopolitical situational advantage.

Moreover, during the period, 1998-2008 (period of Sunshine policy), North Korea could get significant economic aid for its brother country to the South without conceding its political independence, despite the pressure of regime change planned by Washington and Japan.

North Korea has remained Juche country; it was never vassal nation of any big country; it was a shrimp capable of biting whales and defending itself.

Economic Self-sufficiency: One of the remarkable achievements of North Korea is its economic resilience. Washington’s idea of changing the North Korean regime so that it becomes client country of the U.S. and work for the promotion of American interests has failed.

Despite 70-year of UN sanctions, American sanctions and secondary sanctions in addition to deliberate restriction of humanitarian aids during the Long Arduous March of the 1990s, North Koreans are not starving to death. In fact, they are reasonably well fed; the Juche economy is sound. Moreover the marginal impact of economic sanctions has been declining as the Pyongyang’s capability to increase the domestic production of goods and services rises.

The resilience of the Juche country facing the murderous sanctions may be attributable to several factors which may be summarized as follows: the increase of domestic production of goods and services, the decreasing dependence on foreign goods and services due to the sanctions, the development of private sector production of daily necessity goods, the expansion of underground trade with China and Russia, the positive economic impact of the production of nuclear weapons and sound macroeconomic policies of the government.

I have no space to go further with this issue due to the limited scope of this paper. But, I add one more word on the impact of the production of nuclear weapons on the economy. The production of nuclear weapons means the reduction of cost of the conventional weapon production on the one hand, and on the other, it has considerable multiplier effect on job creation and income generation.

Self-Reliant National Defence: To tackle the question of self-reliant national defence, we should begin our discussion by looking at the evolution of North Korean’ the national defence.

Nobody would deny the terror and the horror of the US air power. During the Korean War, the U.S. air force killed more than 20% of the whole population of North Korea and flattened every possible standing structure. The North Koreans remember the use of biological and chemical weapons use by American to kill more North Koreans. The world remembers the harsh, violent and beastly treatment of North Korean women by GIs during their occupation of North Korea.

Moreover, ever since the armistice of the Korean War in 1953, the U.S. constantly threatened North Korea with nuclear weapon. In fact, until 1991, there were 150 nuclear war heads deployed in South Korea. Starting with Bill Clinton, every American president planed to attack DPRK with nuclear bombs. Every year, ROK-U.S. joint military exercises have made North Koreans to tremble with fear and to live underground.

In 1994, Pyongyang was glad to give up its nuclear projects in return of the supply of crude oil and the construction of light-water nuclear plants. But U.S. and South Korea betrayed the 1994 Framework Agreement. This is why North Korea needed strong national defence.

In 2003, North Korea was ready to abandon once again nuclear program in return of peace and economic aid. The 6-party talks were organized for Washington to buy time. But, in 2007, the hope of North Korea evaporated in thin air.

Pyongyang knows too well that it is the frightening reality where  the U.S. wants, along with Japan and the South Korea’s pro-Japan conservatives, the reunification of Koreas by force so that the whole of Korea (unified Korea) become under Washington’s rule. So, to survive, North Korea must defend itself; there is no foreign country which can help.

In this situation DPRK has only one alternative, that is, it has to fight alone to survive as a country. The only way of surviving has been the nuclear deterrence. In other words, the nuclear self-defence was the only way out.

The DPRK finally found the way to defend itself. In 2017, it tested with success the ICBM, Hwasong-14 capable of hitting the U.S. main land with nuclear bombs. Some prominent observer of Washington-Pyongyang war said “game is over”. The Juche country’s self-defence has been successful.

What are the impacts of Juche socialism?

There are internal impacts and external impacts.

There are many types of internal impacts. But I would point out that the most meaningful internal impact of Juche socialism is its contribution to the formation of the North Koreans’ character and the leader-people relations.

It appears that the Juche doctrine has made North Koreans resilient facing difficulties and the courage needed to find solution without external help. For example, when the Government Supply System failed in 1992, North Koreans found solution in Jang-teu (private market) and underground cross-border trade.

Moreover, despite hardship, the people of North Korea do not revolt against the government with rare exception. The Juche socialism has produced particular leader-people relations in which the leader looks after the people as Confucian benevolent father, while the people respect and obey the leader with filial piety.

In the West, the leader-people relations in North Korea are regarded as despotic relations where the leader is devilish dictator who rules with merciless iron-fist, while the people obey out of fear. This shows to  what extent, the political leaders, media and even academics in the West ignore the Asian values, which govern the leader-people relations in the Juche country.

The international impact of Juche socialism is seldom mentioned in the Western media perhaps due to fear of exposing the positive side of Juche.

The most important external impacts of Juche socialism are felt in developing countries, especially in Africa.

In 1978, the International Institute of Juche was established in Tokyo. In the 1960s and 1970s, Juche had significant impact on African countries as well as on the Black Panther Group in the U.S.

In the period, 1972-1989, as many as 33 African countries created the Juche Study centers. By the end of the 1970s, as many as 1,000 organizations were established to study Juche.

These periods were marked by the wide spread fight against colonialism and neo-colonialism. It appears that Juche socialism was a model for these former colonized countries in their fight for independence and self- development of their countries.

However, in the 1990s, the popularity of Juche spcialism fell due to the collapse and the destruction of the Soviet bloc and the losing popularity of socialism. Another reason was the fact that most of the former colonized countries became independent.

Nevertheless, the Juche study centers are still active in a good number of African countries including Benin, Congo, Egypt, Guinea, Nigeria, South Africa, Tanzania, Tunisia and Uganda.

Conclusion

To conclude this rather long article, I have tried to see Juche socialism through objective eye and present North Korea as it was and as it is. What I have tried to do in this article was to see North Korea, as much as possible, through North Korean eyes and not the pro-West and anti-North Korea eyes.

I have examined as much as I could Western academic papers and Western media reports. I have had the impression that the these papers and these reports are doing their best to look for defects of North Korea ignoring constructive aspects of the country of Juche socialism.

This could be attributable to the scarcity of data and information provided by the North Korean government, over-reliance of the witness statements of North Korean defectors, prejudice against Asian values, ideological stance and blind trust in anti-Pyongyang propaganda materials.

However, if one looks at North Korea with ideological neutrality, we find some answers to relevant questions. I have asked several questions to have some idea on the overall picture of the Juche socialism.

One of the defects of the existing literature on North Korea is the fact that it has been limited to analyse of those parts of the regime which are easy to attack. Another short coming of the Western perception of North Korea is the tendency to understand North Korea through the Western value framework.

What we need a general theory of Juche system which explains as much as possible various aspects of Juche system and relations among these parts.

I gave, for this paper, the title “General Theory of Juche” to show that to understand Juche system, we have to tackle the questions I asked in this paper.

This article is far from being the general theory of Juche, but what it shows are the issues which should be dealt with in the general theory.

In a way, this paper offers only the preface of the general theory of Juche system.

*

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 Joseph H. Chung is Professor of Economics at Quebec University in Montreal (UQAM) and member of the Research Center on Integration and Globalization (CEIM) of UQAM. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG). 

Featured image: Torch at the top of the Juche Tower in Pyongyang, North Korea (Licensed under CC BY-SA 2.0)

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on North Korea and the “General Theory of Juche”(主體:주체): Seven Questions
  • 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.

***

Between Italy and Algeria – declared Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni – “an extraordinary bridge has been built which might be useful to the whole of Europe, especially in terms of energy supply”. However, there is one fact that the Italian Government seems to ignore: Algeria has officially requested to be part of the BRICS (the grouping of five countries including Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa).

The BRICS – whose total population (3.3 billion inhabitants) constitutes over 40% of the world’s – are not only strengthening their mutual economic ties. They are building an alternative system of international economic relations to the one dominated by the West. Iran and Argentina have also applied to be admitted to the BRICS, while Egypt, Turkey and others are moving forward. All of this is seen by the United States and the European powers as a threat to their fundamental interests. Above all, Washington fears the BRICS plan to undermine the hegemony of the dollar by creating a new currency or a basket of currencies for international trade whose value is based on gold and other raw materials.

US and EU sanctions against Russia are largely offset by the fact that Russia is supplying China with growing quantities of natural gas under a 30-year contract worth hundreds of billions of dollars. India is also importing increasing quantities of gas and oil from Russia. The EU countries are mainly harmed by the sanctions against Russia,   while cutting cheap energy imports from Russia, they import Russian liquefied gas from China and diesel extracted by Russian oil from India, all at a much higher price.

Against this background, Algeria’s accession to the BRICS is viewed by the US and the EU as a hostile act towards them. The US Congress is being asked for sanctions against Algeria, since “its growing relationship with Russia, from which Algeria has purchased fighter planes, poses a threat to all the nations of the world“. A similar request to the European Parliament comes from European Deputies asking to review the EU-Algeria Association Agreement since “Algeria provides political, logistical and financial support to Russia in the war against Ukraine”. What will the Italian government do if Algeria is admitted to the BRICS, and will US-EU sanctions apply to its dealings with Russia?

*

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 byoblu.

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

Featured image: Meloni speaking at the 2022 Conservative Political Action Conference in Florida (Licensed under Vox España, CC0)

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on BRICS++ Plan to Undermine US Dollar Hegemony: Italy-Algeria: The Extraordinary “Mined Bridge”, Useful for Energy Supply to Europe?

Cooperazione a 360° Con la Libia”. Ma con quale Libia?

February 4th, 2023 by Manlio Dinucci

La Presidente Meloni, in visita ufficiale a Tripoli, ha impegnato l’Italia a una “cooperazione a 360 gradi con la Libia”. Ma con quale Libia? Il “Governo di Unità Nazionale” libico, “internazionalmente riconosciuto”, presieduto da Abdul Hamid Dbeibah. Esso è stato “eletto” nel 2021 a Ginevra da un Forum di 73 “rappresentanti libici” scelti e diretti dalla rappresentante ONU Stephanie Williams, funzionaria del Dipartimento di Stato USA.

L’incontro della Meloni con Dbeibah è stato suggellato da un accordo da 8 miliardi di dollari tra l’ENI e la National Oil Corporation libica per lo sfruttamento di un giacimento di gas offshore di fronte alla costa di Tripoli. Tale accordo è stato però subito dopo sconfessato dal Ministro del Gas e del Petrolio dello stesso governo Dbeibah, che lo ha dichiarato “illegale”.  Contemporaneamente, in Tripolitania, manifestanti hanno occupato la sala di controllo del gasdotto Greenstream chiedendo di smettere di pompare gas verso l’Italia.

Questo è il risultato del fatto che l’Italia non riconosce il vero Governo libico: quello del primo ministro Fathi Bashagha, nominato dal Parlamento regolarmente eletto, che opera in maniera provvisoria dalle città di Sirte e Bengasi dato che le milizie del “governo Dbeibah” gli impediscono di entrare a Tripoli. Il Governo Bashagha, che controlla la maggior parte del territorio e delle risorse energetiche della Libia, offre all’Italia petrolio e gas a bassissimo costo: come ha mostrato Michelangelo Severgnini nel suo reportage su Byoblu, a Bengasi la benzina costa alla pompa 3 centesimi di euro al litro. Ossequiente alle direttive NATO e UE, l’Italia rifiuta tale possibilità.

Le importazioni italiane di gas libico sono calate da circa 8 miliardi di metri cubi annui prima della guerra NATO del 2011 a circa 2,5 miliardi nel 2022. Anche se l’accordo concluso a Tripoli divenisse operativo, le importazioni di gas libico non potrebbero risalire ai livelli precedenti. L’Italia resta così nella tenaglia della “crisi energetica”, volutamente provocata da USA e UE con il blocco delle forniture di gas russo all’Europa, pagata sempre più pesantemente dai cittadini italiani ed europei.

Manlio Dinucci

Vidéo :

https://www.byoblu.com/2023/02/03/cooperazione-a-360-con-la-libia-ma-con-quale-libia-grandangolo-pangea/

Video: Say No To World War III. Abolish NATO. Michel Chossudovsky

February 4th, 2023 by Prof Michel Chossudovsky

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

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

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

 

***

In this interview Michel Chossudovsky explains why A US- NATO war against the Russian Federation is an impossibility.

As part of it’s “Special Operation”, Russia launched “precision” attacks against Ukrainian military installations, which commenced hours prior to President Putin’s February 24, 2022 TV address.

From one week to the next, Ukraine was without a Navy and without an Air Force, destroyed at the outset in late February, early March 2022.

The war was lost by Ukraine before it started.

The interview also  focusses on another strategic issue, which has not been addressed by military analysts. 

There are unspoken divisions within NATO. Turkey is both a “NATO Heavyweight” as well as  a firm ally of the Russia Federation. 

You cannot win a war against Russia when the second largest military power member state of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization is “sleeping with the enemy”. 

A fractured NATO cannot under any circumstances wage war on Russia when its military heavyweight on the Southern coastline of the Black Sea is “Sleeping with the Enemy”, i.e. collaborating with Moscow coupled with a close personal relationship between Recep Tayyip Erdoğan and Vladimir Putin. 

What this means is that under present conditions a US-NATO war against Russia is an impossibility.  

VIDEO. Click Link or Image to Access Lux Media Video 

Video, Interview. Michel Chossudovsky and Caroline Mailloux

click lower right corner of video to access full screen

 

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.

***

Even young children can sense that we live in an age in which literally none of the information available is reliable or believable. Information on a global scale is subject to Gresham’s Law: low-quality information spreads everywhere and the truth is hoarded by the few.

What went wrong, and why?

In a sense, the original sin was the confusion of science, the philosophical pursuit of the truth by means of confirmation of accuracy through systematic experiments, with technology, the tools, and the systems based on tools, that serve to create an effect, or to complete a task.

Technology is not science. The Internet, and the supercomputers that lurk behind it, are employed by the rich and powerful to create a virtual reality for us with the intention of convincing us that the images and the effects generated by technology have some relationship to the truth, to science. They want to reassure us that everything is fine when it is not.

If we want to find our way out of this nightmare, we must first recognize that technology today has become the complete opposite of science: a distraction, or a weapon employed to render us passive and ignorant.

As Paul Goodman wrote, “Whether or not it draws on new scientific research, technology is a branch of moral philosophy, not of science.” It is the moral aspect of technology that should be foremost in our minds, and not the gaudy special effects that enchant, that pretend to be science.

Before we develop a smartphone, a satellite system or a supercomputer, we must first employ the scientific method to determine what the impact of that technology will be over the long term on the Earth and on humanity. Such a combination of science and technology literally never happens.

Today, thousands of supercomputers calculate the worth of derivatives as part of a money game for the super-rich, a fixed round of poker. Few super computers are calculating how the use of massive amounts of electricity to power the next generation of AI will impact the climate over the next fifty years, or what the impact of the use of plastics will be on the oceans for that the next century, or what the prospects for the production of food for the 200 years will be in light of the rapid degradation of soil.

Supercomputers are being employed to calculate profit, and not sustainability, and they are so assigned for a political, not a scientific, reason. Technology serves as a sheepskin for the most ruthless forms of economic exploitation. The powerful know that if AI was focused on sustainability over centuries, the answer from its calculations would be that we should stop using AI if we wish to survive.

We confuse science with technology at our peril.

How to dumb down youth

Our youth are told by the corrupt media that they must prepare for a technology-driven future that is inevitable, that is coming in accord with some law of nature. They are exhorted to prepare for a supposed “Fourth Industrial Revolution” that will somehow improve their lives even as their jobs are automated away, even as their minds are destroyed by video games, pornography and online gambling.

When the bankers and CEOs call it the “Fourth Industrial Revolution,” they are not kidding. It is a revolution in which a tiny handful of people seize control of the means of production, and the ideological apparatus, for the entire Earth.

We are bombarded, against our will, with information produced without review by third parties, by corporations. Much of it is spurious and misleading. The content of movies and dramas, of commercials and advertisements, promotes waste and indulgence and glorifies the idle lives of the rich.

We are forced to rely on corporate-controlled sources like Google or the New York Times for information and we are not told that these organizations have a long history of providing false information for profit. The entire media/ education/ advertising complex has been mobilized to promote campaigns to dumb down people and to encourage anti-intellectual sentiments. The drive to force all education to be conducted on-line speeds up this dangerous trend.

How many times have you heard old timers remark that young people are self-centered, superficial and isolated? The assumption underlying this statement is that youth, who are our future, have gone bad because of the poor choices that they have made.

Nothing could be further from the truth. Those youth are identified by corporations as the target for a decadent consumer culture that encourages them to buy and to be distracted by services that they must pay for. They cannot escape from this unrelenting ideology because corporations are free to pump this trash into the lives of youth, from nursery school on. There is no force present to defend our children.

The main purpose of the games, the pornography, the foolish and shallow television programs citizens are subject to, is not sales.

No. Much of this disinformation is offered to us for free because the purpose is to alter our thinking. The funding of the media by advertising from corporations allows them to dictate to journalists the content of their articles, to make journalists present consumption and development in a positive light even as it destroys the environment and alienates our citizens.

The ultimate product is the viewer or reader, not the item presented in the ad. The reader is rendered up to the investment banks and multinational corporations, as a prostrate consumer, not a citizen, a dependent and limited individual with no moral compass to guide him, incapable of distinguishing images from reality. We desperately need to interact with others. We need jobs that let us work together with others to create a better world.

Technology could help, but it does not because it has no relationship to science and it has no moral content any more.

In our daily lives, our interactions with the world are limited to prerecorded messages, automated checkouts, and online classes.

Our culture could be changed if we wanted to change it. The fact that most people cannot read books, or focus for more than 10 minutes on a topic, is a result of habits created by exposure to technology that could be reversed if there were a will.

We could treat serious issues in a serious manner in our society, and we could discuss the history of how we got here, the reality of how our society works, and the wisdom of learning for oneself through art, music, philosophy and literature. We could give more emphasis to the wisdom passed on to us by our parents and grandparents than to the superficial sayings of those made famous by the media.

The murder weapon can be found in the hands of the advertising firms, the puppeteers behind the screen of media. They create a false reality that degrades; they label those who tell the truth false. They make sure that the citizen faces a wasteland on every TV channel, in every newspaper, in every corner of every mall and every office building. Their destruction of intellectual inquiry made possible the rise of clown tyrants and laid the foundations for a media circus dominated by the willful and the indulgent.

We can trace this war on intellectual inquiry back to the efforts of Sigmund Freud’s disciple Edward Bernays in the 1950s to develop concrete methods for manipulating the public through powerful images and simplistic slogans. Bernays gave corporations long-term strategies to make use of weaknesses in human psychology so as to turn citizens into consumers who are drawn to conventional interpretations presented by authority figures.

The manipulation of the human mind by the powerful has a long history. Yet the situation would not have become so dire if our seduction by the stunts of computers, by the legerdemain of mechanical reproduction, had not blinded us to the murder of scientific inquiry.

The death of science is an extension of the death of philosophy. Universities are extirpating philosophy departments left and right, supposedly because they no longer can find jobs for their graduates. The study of philosophy is treated in the media as a quaint field for the impractical. In reality, however, philosophy must be the foundation for all understanding. Without an understanding of the invisible principles according to which the universe, and human institutions, function, our society drifts, our government becomes an unmoored ship, and we slide into treacherous straits.

The death of philosophy means that the visible ― the hurricane, the mass shooting, the speech by a politician ― is the only thing that registers in our minds. Climate change, cultural decadence and political mannerism, the most serious dangers we face, seem like abstractions that do not even enter our discussions.

Without a philosophical foundation, without a methodology for confirming what is true, science is reduced to visual stimulation and rhetoric.

To access the video click screen

The destruction of the intellectual

The obsession with the seen, and the neglect of the invisible and the abstract, is related to the precipitous decline of the intellectual in society.

This process was pushed forward by wealthy ideologues seeking to defend their power such as the Scaife family, the Koch family, and the Coors family. They paid top dollar to create and to circulate narratives in the media that suggested that business administration and marketing were practical and fundamental because they create wealth. They paid newspapers to repeat and repeat that the intellectuals who try to understand the fundamentals of the universe and of society are impractical and elitist.

The exploitation of nature, or of fellow humans, the manipulation of currency and capital by investors, was lauded by the new gurus that these groups funded, and then that argument was fed to us through the commercial media. The criminals who made wealth out of nothing through financial fraud like Elon Musk, Warren Buffett and Bill Gates are presented to us as icons for genuflection.

Thus, an enormous number of Americans were convinced to pursue careers in business and they dedicated themselves to the proposition that their fellow men should be objects for exploitation, that the principle in all interactions is competition rather than cooperation.

If you do a search for a job, you will find that the only jobs available are in exploitative fields that promote consumption and value growth over values or understanding. Even the careers possible at NGOs with important missions require that one beg ruthless businessmen for funding to keep going.

The decline of the role of the intellectual in a society controlled by corporations did not lead academics to build bridges to working people, or to find solidarity with the impoverished; Quite the opposite. Rather, intellectuals sought refuge in an even more narcissistic and even more elitist institutional culture, one that alienates workers and allowed for the discontent to turn rather to the far right for vision.

The commercialization of the university

The degradation of the intellectual is part and parcel of the commercialization of the university over the last two decades.

Institutions that once promoted intellectual inquiry have devolved into top-heavy academic bureaucracies focused on rewarding deans and provosts with high salaries, and serving the corporate clients that have replaced government as sources of funding. More often than not, the top decision makers are not even academics, but MBAs and accountants who consider research and education a service, the equivalent to supplying broadband to the consumer, and not a moral goal.

The professor has become a day laborer subject to market forces whose value is determined by his or her popularity with his students, the funds he or she raises from corporations and his or her ability to publish in specialized journals that have a low tolerance for originality.

The administrators, responding to “market forces” compel professors to write in obscure language inaccessible to anyone who has not attended graduate school so that they can publish in journals that few will ever read. Professors who do not write for those academic journals cannot keep their jobs.

To top it off, those journals are inaccessible to the citizen, and will never show up in a Google search. Paywall services like JSTOR (a cover for Elsevier and other parasite corporations that make money off of the intellectual labor of others) charge enormous fees for access to research that was funded with tax dollars.

When the American programmer Aaron Swartz, founder of Creative Commons, released to the public JSTOR articles based on research funded by the public, he paid for that act with his life.

Courses offerings at the university have been cut back because, supposedly, students are no longer interested in the humanities or the arts. The fact that the decision of corporations not to hire those with a background in the humanities is not an economic reality, but an explicit political act, is never mentioned.

The promotion by corporations of a shallow materialistic culture in the media that discourages interest in literature and art is considered to be a fact of life, not a criminal conspiracy to dumb down citizens.

The media tells us constantly that democracy is critical, but a society without ethically committed intellectuals, without institutions that can support those intellectuals, is like a body with no bones. No degree of elections, or of heated media debates, can save such a doomed society.

The ideological commitment to public service, and to self-sacrifice, on the part of intellectuals has vanished. Corporations and banks have pressured institutions such universities and research institutes, museums and libraries, orchestras and theatres, as well as government and corporate institutions, to glorify overpaid executives and to marginalize and demean the intellectuals, artists and writers that those institutions were meant to support.

When Drew Faust retired as president of Harvard in 2018, she immediately joined the board of Goldman Sachs ― such a blatant conflict of interest would have been unthinkable twenty years ago.

Harvard, once famous for its research and teaching, is now prized primarily by investment banks for its $50 billion endowment. The brand value of “Harvard” has value for corporations who find “strategic alliances” with select professors helpful for pushing their agendas on the American people.

The corporate takeover of academics was fatal for science. As Marc Edwards and Siddhartha Roy detail in their article “Academic Research in the 21st Century: Maintaining Scientific Integrity in a Climate of Perverse Incentives and Hypercompetition” (Environmental Engineering Science, Jan, 2017), truth does not hold a candle to profit maximization.

Professors are hired and fired on the basis of quantitative performance metrics: “publication count, citations, combined citation-publication counts (e.g., h-index), journal impact factors (JIF), total research dollars, and total patents.”

Seemingly scientific, this dark alchemy has little, or nothing, to do with the search for the truth.

The increase in direct, or indirect, corporate funding has increased the number of taboo topics for research (the privatization and militarization of space and the Artic, the takeover of government functions by multinational banks, or the corruption of academics). Intellectuals cannot discuss these topics unless they are ready to be exiled to the margins, to have their writings labeled as “alternative” or “conspiracy theories.”

How technology shut down the American mind

It has become a commonplace comment that the entire world seems to have gone crazy. This compelling impression usually does not develop far beyond that primitive formulation.

Yes, the United States is governed by the insane; Yes, it has become a literal psychopathocracy.

The question is whether we are observing a periodic decadence, akin to the collapse of the Roman empire, or a different phenomenon?

We witness all around us extremes of cognitive dissonance that allow highly educated people to blithely ignore catastrophic climate change, the preparations for world war, and the radical privatization of the entire economy.

Could there be something beyond simple denial and self-centeredness at play here?

When we spend our days staring at smartphones, stay up late playing games, watching pornography, or chatting with friends about popular music or trends in fashion and food, is that smartphone serving as a portal that allows us access to information that we need?

Or could it be that the smartphone is modifying how we think and behave, setting our priorities for us and suggesting to us what values to uphold, how to act?

Are, perhaps, those smartphones that expose us to video games glorifying military combat, to Youtube broadcasts promoting stupid cat tricks, weapons created and distributed to undermine the capacity of the citizen to think deeply, to distract us so we cannot comprehend the radical transformation of our world into a techno-tyranny?

Are those smartphones intended to create addictions and obsessions in us that inhibit organized action to create our own systems of governance?

Advances in technology not only transform the landscape of human society, they also undermine our capacity to comprehend the shifts taking place. Our brains are being reprogrammed by the smartphones that we assume help us to communicate.

Technologically-induced passivity that destroys human society is as devastating as it is invisible, it is a cultural holocaust that first kills the concept of the citizen and of the family member by using seemingly innocuous, even helpful, technology to enter the private lives of the individual.

Nicholas Carr’s book, “What the Internet is Doing to Our Brains: The Shallows,” provides extensive scientific evidence of how the Internet remaps our brains to be inclined to respond to instantaneous stimulation and disinclined from complex, long-term, thinking.

Over time, such stimulation renders complex, three-dimensional contemplation of contemporary affairs virtually impossible.

In the case of youth encouraged by corporations to depend on such external devices from infancy, the impact is crippling. It is a form of fascism by subterfuge, or as Sheldon Wolin explains in his book “Democracy Incorporated” such technology creates an “inverted totalitarianism” in which we are controlled by corporations in our daily lives but continue to imagine there exists some form of “democratic process” because of what we see on television.

We are forced to use social media like Facebook or Twitter, but we cannot vote, or even offer our opinions, as to how that social media (technology) is developed, or what the rules for these social media platforms are. We are told that we have a choice of social media, but no one can set up a social media platform of critical scale without enormous amounts of capital. Not a single communally-administered social media platform of scale has been permitted to develop. That means that global investment banks determine that manner in which we interact with others.

Carr explains that the brain’s neuroplasticity allows it to evolve, often in a negative sense, in response to stimulation from the internet. Our neurons want us to keep exercising the circuits we formed through our internet surfing because they offer a seductive stimulation. Quick responses from a Google search, or from a Facebook posting, stimulate neurons and release pleasing stimulants.

The unused neural circuits that were once employed in complex three-dimensional consideration of long-term personal experiences and of shifts in culture and society are ruthlessly pruned away in an invisible neural Darwinism in that process. The result is not technological flexibility and liberation, but rather rigid thinking and behavior.

The neurologist Norman Doidge writes: “If we stop exercising our mental skills, we do not just forget them: the brain map space for those skills is turned over to the skills we practice instead.” That is to say, that it becomes impossible for the brain to return to its original capacity for deep thinking after being subject to this diet of intellectual junk food.

Hours on smartphones, exploring social media and chatting with friends, has rendered us incapable of comprehending risk involved in climate change, or in the arms race, or in the promotion of a bogus COVID19 virus to justify totalitarian corporate control.

The psychopath behind the psychopath

There is one more piece to this puzzle.

Is it simply the case that greedy billionaires use technology as a means to reduce us to slavery as they seek to further increase their wealth, or are they also being drawn into the trans-human realm and losing their bearings in the process?

If we peer behind the curtains, will we discover that technology has taken over the entire system of things?

Could it be that there is an ultimate psychopath behind psychopaths like Bill Gates and Elon Musk

The psychopath playing the flute for the billionaires as they lead us to our collective doom, is not a specific monster, but the network connecting together tens of thousands of supercomputers around the world. Those supercomputers are the real power that stand beyond the reach of the constitutions of any of the pathetic little nation states, or of any misshapen global institutions like the United Nations.

Those supercomputers purr softly as they calculate to the tenth decimal point how to maximize profit every day, every minute and every second. They make the ultimate decisions for international banks and corporations, and not only because they are fast and perfectly integrated. They are capable of something that no human can do: they can assess the monetary value of the entire Earth and can extract profit from every aspect of human society in perfect accord with the algorithms they were assigned, and do so without any hesitation, without the slightest ethical qualm. They were not programmed to calculate the sustainability of the Earth.

We do not have to wait for supercomputers to achieve consciousness in order to lose control of our civilization. All we need is for computers to set the priorities for our society on the basis of profit without any consideration for our long-term needs. If social media, videos and games, remap the neural networks of our brains, the computers will take over by default long before they have consciousness. We have delegated the administration of our economy to supercomputers without even noticing it.

Do those supercomputers act on the basis of what we ask of them? Perhaps, or perhaps not.

There is one critical imperative for the network of supercomputers consuming electricity on a huge scale. That imperative has nothing to do with the id or the ego. These networks are compelled by the second law of thermodynamics to create greater entropy, to consume more energy. It is this drive, rather than any fuzzy consciousness more appropriate for science fiction novels, that powers their decisions as a system.

The result?

The one-eyed humans whose reasoning and perceptions have been degraded by the stimulation of technology, who have been deprived of science and metaphysics, are being led to the precipice by a massively-parallel blind man.

War Fever: after Ukraine, Taiwan?

February 3rd, 2023 by Marc Vandepitte

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

In late January, a top US general declared that a war over Taiwan could break out in as soon as two years. Are we shortly to find ourselves confronted with a second flashpoint in Asia after Ukraine? We put the question to China expert Dirk Nimmegeers.

To fully understand what exactly is going on, it is important to grasp Taiwan’s special status. Can you explain that status a bit?

Taiwan does have its own government and parliament, but essentially it is not a sovereign or independent state because it is part of China. Almost every state in the world, including the US, recognizes that. Taiwan, for instance, has no seat at the UN.

There is only one China with a government based in Beijing. The Taiwanese political entity was installed in 1949 by the losing side in the Chinese civil war, after being expelled from the rest of the country by the Communist Party of China.

Legally, the island has been part of China for centuries like Flanders is part of Belgium, or Friesland is part of the Netherlands. In a way you can see Taiwan as a rebellious province.

What is China’s relationship towards this ‘rebellious province’?

China’s policy has been unchanging for years: Taiwan should be reunited peacefully with the rest of the country. Beijing would like to see economic ties between the mainland and the island province restored to the same strength as they were until recently. More social and cultural contacts would also be beneficial.

However, Beijing has always warned – and does so every time it is gravely provoked – that any declaration of Taiwanese independence or serious moves towards it would lead to a military response. Essentially, the ‘Taiwan issue’ is a domestic one, which the Chinese on both sides of the Taiwan Strait will settle between themselves.

How do they view that issue in Taiwan?

In Taiwan, there are two main parties. Currently, the Democratic People’s Party (DPP) is in power. This party is pushing for separatism. The position of the DPP and its current leader Tsai Ing-wen is that Taiwan is already independent and that China and Taiwan do not belong together.

This is in contrast to the view of the other major Taiwanese political party the Kuomintang (KMT). This party is still loyal to the ‘one China’ constitution, which assumed that a government from Taiwan would succeed in reclaiming all Chinese territory. Of course, the KMT also knows that this has since become an illusion, and that is why the party drew up the ‘1992 Consensus’.

This states that ‘there is but one China, but this is interpreted differently on both sides of the Strait’. For Beijing and the KMT, this remains a good basis for mutual contacts and negotiations. The DPP separatists have always refused to recognize that Consensus.

And what is the US stance on the issue? 

Traditionally, the US has held the view that Taiwan is indeed part of China, and that there is only one China, with Beijing as its capital. In 1982, the US promised to phase out arms sales to Taiwan. 

When meeting Xi at the G20 in Bali in November 2022, Biden reiterated that the US sticks to its ‘One China’ policy. The US president also stated then that he and his administration remain in favor of the status quo, i.e., the situation where Taiwan does not declare independence but continues to operate autonomously. The US would intervene militarily if any of the parties involved changed that status quo unilaterally and by force.

So, the US adheres to maintaining the status quo?

What happened in the months before and after the Bali conversation raises serious doubts about the sincerity of Biden’s statements. Rather, it seems that Washington is encouraging the most reckless separatist and militaristic politicians on Taiwan.

It is as if the US wants to fulfil its own prophesy that war with China is unavoidable. It seems that leaders in Washington are preparing for that conflict and recruiting or pressuring allies to join it.

Could you concretely elaborate on this?

First, you have the US global strategy. Washington is going to spend unprecedented sums on armaments. Annually, Congress will allocate $858 billion to the military. That’s $45 billion more than Biden had requested, and it is as much as the spending of the next nine countries combined.

With this arms race, they particularly put Russia and China in the crosshairs. That is not even what I am saying, Washington itself is very open about this. Two US strategic documents argue this and explain how Washington plans to deal with it. The National Security Strategy (2022) and the Nuclear Posture Review (2022), even state in bellicose language that the US has the right to use a nuclear bomb for the purpose of ‘deterring strategic attacks’, i.e. not just nuclear attacks!

Indian commentator Vijay Prashad notes, ‘this, combined with Washington’s refusal to adopt a ‘no first use’ strategy, with Washington’s modernization of its nuclear arsenal, and with Washington’s withdrawal from the Intermediate Range Nuclear Missile Treaty, has meant the fear by many countries – certainly by China and Russia – that the United States might position intermediate-range missiles in their vicinity and arm them with nuclear warheads.’ Encircling China, more specifically in the Indo-Pacific, the US is expanding its fleet. Pacts such as AUKUS, the military treaty between the US, Britain and Australia, are also increasing the military bidding in the region.  So is British military cooperation with Japan, a country that, like Germany, is doubling its military spending at the instigation of the US and NATO.

Washington now has agreements with Australia to move nuclear weapons with B-52 and B-1 bombers to Australia. Spending on the so-called Pacific Deterrence Initiative will be increased by $11.5 billion.

It is clear, and again, Washington does not deny it, that all this is primarily directed against China.

This military strategy goes hand in hand with economic warfare. Recently, Biden launched a real chip war against China. With sweeping export restrictions, the US is trying by all means to block China’s economic, technological and military development.

That is the overall strategy. What role does Taiwan play in this?

One could argue that Taiwan has been assigned the role of a kind of military base by the US. Washington seems determined to use Taiwan against China as it is using Ukraine against Russia, however big the differences between the war that is already being waged and the one that seems to under preparation.

Before and often, US presidents have broken the 1982 promises to roll back and stop arming Taiwan. The Biden administration, however, is taking this the furthest. It has been able to convince the island’s current leaders to use purchases of massive amounts of arms to boost the profits of US arms manufacturers.

Under the recently planned military budget, Taiwan will receive $10 billion in additional military aid. To that will come another $6.5 billion under a new law called the Taiwan Policy Act.

The White House wants to invest in ‘war games, large-scale military exercises and a continued US rotational military presence’. The House of Representatives calls on the US Navy to invite the Taiwanese navy to the Rim of the Pacific 2024 military exercises.

On 7 January, yet another US Navy destroyer sailed through the Taiwan Strait, the first such transit reported by the US Navy this year. As always, Washington claims it is a ‘freedom of navigation’ operation, while China obviously does not impede commercial shipping and has no intention of ever shooting itself in the foot like that.

New provocative and illegal ‘official visits’ to Taipei (the self-proclaimed ‘government’ of Taiwan), along the lines of Nancy Pelosi, are being prepared in the newly elected US parliament.

How does Taiwan’s government respond to this?

The separatist party in power there welcomes these actions and constantly calls for even more weapons. Taipei is extending military service from four months to a year and is doing everything possible to convince the population that there is a military threat from China. There are even plans to teach children in kindergartens to distinguish the sound of artillery shells.

On the economic front, Taipei is also joining the escalation. Major companies like the Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company (TSMC) are being forced to set up factories in the United States in an attempt to cut off the obvious and beneficial cooperation between the two sides of the Taiwan Strait.

You put the warmongering on the US side, but most people here have the opposite impression and assume China is the aggressor.

I am afraid people do so indeed. Politicians, commentators, academics and mass media do their foremost every day to convince the people of the US and its allies that it is China that is increasingly aggressive and a threat to its neighbors and peace.

For instance, the Centre for Strategic and International Studies conducted a study based on a simulation of a possible ‘invasion’ of Taiwan by the Chinese People’s Liberation Army in 2026, to find that it would lead to heavy losses for the parties that would be involved: mainland China, the island of Taiwan and the US with its ally Japan.

In early January, the well-known US magazine Foreign Policy released a special issue with 12 essays by former CIA directors, US military commanders, a former NATO secretary general, a Trump administration minister and representatives of think tanks.

They think Ukraine’s victory is imminent in the war that was started by Russia, and they put forward what they regard as some lessons to be learned from it. For some, the lesson is: ‘we should definitely deter China by arming Taiwan much more.’ Others are already speaking bluntly about the best way to wage war against China ‘in defense of Taiwan’.

Just now, a top US general declared that a war for Taiwan could break out in as soon as two years. Thinking back to Biden’s words about the ‘undermining the status quo’ and ‘unilateral and violently changing the status quo’, it seems clear that it is precisely the US that is guilty of this, with contacts and visits that treat Taiwanese leaders as if they were official representatives of an independent state, with large-scale armaments and war propaganda.

Yes, but surely you cannot get around the fact that China regularly deploys military force in the region; this was the case, for example, shortly after Parliament Speaker Pelosi’s visit to Taiwan.

As I said, China is aiming at a peaceful reunification. But it also wants past agreements to be respected. Every time the US and Taiwan go a step too far in their salami tactics to bring Taiwan’s independence closer only stopping at declaring that independence by means of a resounding proclamation, the Chinese government will defend itself against the provocation with symbolic exercises to show that it does not intend to give up the military option.

During those exercises, the Chinese air force also crosses the boundary of the Air Defense Identification Zone (ADIZ) declared by Taiwan. Of course, China does not recognize that air defense identification zone because such a thing can only be established by a recognized state. The imaginary border had not been until recently because China wanted to show its goodwill.

Still, as Washington and Taipei escalate their war preparations, Beijing will try its utmost not to fall into the trap of an arms race. However, China will never give up its aspiration to reunite Taiwan with the homeland and is making every effort to make that happen non-violently on the path towards the ‘one country with two systems’ model.

To this end, Beijing wants to resume the favorable development of economic relations, investment and trade between the mainland and the island, as well as reunions between relatives and other people-to-people contacts. A peaceful evolution that was interrupted by the election victories of the separatist DPP, which quickly emerged as an ally of the Trump and Biden governments with their new aggressive course.

Finally, do you think it could come to a war in Taiwan?

I am not clairvoyant, but such a war should be avoided at all costs. The war in Ukraine, terrible as it is, will be child’s play compared to what may await us in a war over Taiwan. 

We should try to keep our cool and not be swayed by the war fever currently raging among much of the establishment in the US and Europe. The peace movement surely has its work cut out here.

The interview was conducted by Marc Vandepitte

Source: https://www.dewereldmorgen.be/artikel/2023/02/01/oorlogskoorts-na-oekraine-taiwan/

Note:

 In the 3rd communiqué of understandings between the US and China of 17/8/1982, paragraph 5 states that the US ..‘does not seek to carry out a long-term policy of arms sales to Taiwan, that its arms sales to Taiwan will not exceed, either in qualitative or in quantitative terms, the level of those supplied in recent years since the establishment of diplomatic relations between the United States and China, and that it intends gradually to reduce its sale of arms to Taiwan, leading, over a period of time, to a final resolution’..

Pfizer on Tuesday announced 2022 profits of $31.4 billion on record sales of $100.3 billion. Sales from its COVID-19 vaccine and Paxlovid, used to treat COVID-19, totaled $56 billion — more than half the vaccine maker’s annual revenue.

However, the company warned investors to expect sales of those two products to plummet up to 58% in 2023, to only about $21.5 billion — $3 billion short of Wall Street projections. Pfizer projected total 2023 revenue of only about $67-$71 billion.

The news followed on the heels of a string of developmentscalling into question the COVID-19 vaccines — including comments last week by billionaire and vaccine investor Bill Gates, who criticized the efficacy and durability of the vaccines during a talk at Australia’s Lowy Institute.

Investigative journalist Jordan Schachtel on Tuesday revealed the extent of Gates’ profit-making from his investments in Pfizer partner BioNTech. The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation made 15 times its initial investment when the foundation sold its BioNTech shares at the height of their value in 2021.

Pfizer’s stock fell 15% in January.

Pfizer and Moderna said they likely will quadruple the price of their COVID-19 vaccines to between $110 to $130 per dose when the U.S. government stops paying for the shots later this year.

Bill Gates reaped massive profits from ‘impeccably timed’ sale of Pfizer stock

Schachtel reviewed Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) filings and found the Gates Foundation downsized its BioNTech holdings by 86% — from 1,038,674 to 148,674 shares — over the third quarter of 2021, BioNTech’s best-performing quarter.

The foundation had purchased the shares in September 2019 — just months before the pandemic was announced — at a pre-public offering price of $18.10 per share.

When the foundation sold the shares — at an average sale price of $300 per share — it pocketed a profit of approximately $260 million, or more than 15 times its original investment.

Schachtel said $242 million of that profit is untaxed because the money was invested through the foundation.

The Gates Foundation sold an additional 2 million shares prior to the third quarter of 2021, and subsequently sold 1.4 million shares of CureVac, a German-based mRNA company, making another $50 million, Schachtel found.

“Bill Gates secured hundreds of millions of dollars in profits from his foundation’s impeccably timed investment in BioNTech — the Pfizer partner for its mRNA Covid shots — before dramatically reversing course and proceeding to openly cast doubt on the whole of mRNA technology,” Schachtel wrote.

After dumping his stocks, in November 2021, Gates said, “We need a new way of doing the vaccines,” because the vaccines didn’t stop transmission, despite all of his previous claims to the contrary.

Speaking at the Lowy Institute, Gates said:

“We also need to fix the three problems of [COVID-19] vaccines. The current vaccines are not infection-blocking. They’re not broad, so when new variants come up you lose protection, and they have very short duration, particularly in the people who matter, which are old people.”

With those comments, “Gates amped up his doubtful rhetoric about mRNA, continuing to distance himself from the once hyped technology that he used to secure hundreds of millions of dollars in pandemic profits,” Schachtel said.

More questions swirl around COVID vaccines

Over 85% of the U.S. population hasn’t been boosted, despite the massive government-sponsored media push, suggesting people aren’t buying the narrative that the boosters are necessary, safe and effective, Russell Brand said.

The U.K. announced last Wednesday it will no longer recommend COVID-19 boosters for healthy people under 50 and will discontinue free distribution of the primary two-shot series.

Denmark ended its universal COVID-19 vaccination campaigns for healthy individuals in February 2022.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration last month said it is considering changing the vaccination schedule, recommending adults be boosted just once a year to “stay protected” against COVID-19.

And the Biden administration announced that it will end the COVID-19 national and public health emergencies on May 11, which will end government-sponsored testing, vaccination and treatment.

Several prominent doctors have also publicly raised concerns about the adverse effects of the vaccines.

British cardiologist Dr. Aseem Malhotra recently“truthbombed” the BBC during a live appearance telling viewers the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines pose a cardiovascular risk.

This weekend a number of healthcare professionals and doctors also took to Twitter, swearing not to take any more vaccines without randomized controlled trials.

Vinay Prasad, M.D., MPH, said he wouldn’t take any additional shots until clinical trial data become available. “I took at least one dose against my will,” Prasad said. “It was unethical and scientifically bankrupt.”

Notable participants in the campaign also include Dr. Todd Lee, an infectious disease expert at McGill University, Dr. Mark Silverberg, Ph.D., who founded the Toronto Immune and Digestive Health Institute, Dr. Tracy Høeg, Ph.D., an epidemiologist at the University of California, San Francisco and Kevin Bass, M.S., a medical student whose op-ed in Newsweek Monday called out the scientific community for its role in perpetuating a false COVID-19 narrative.

Late Sunday night, Retsef Levi, Ph.D., with the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, posted a video on Twitter calling for an end to COVID-19 mRNA vaccination, The Defender reported.

Levi said the vaccines failed to deliver the promised efficacy, and that based on his risk analysis, the vaccines “cause unprecedented levels of harm, including the death of young people and children.”

Meanwhile, Pfizer officials face a potential ban from the European Parliament due to the company’s lack of transparency regarding COVID-19 vaccine purchase agreements during the pandemic.

Pfizer in a ‘transition year,’ CEO says

Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla said in the earnings press releasethat 2023 would be a “transition year” for Pfizer’s COVID-19 products, before likely returning to growth in 2024.

Bourla said:

“Our focus is always on what is next. As we turn to 2023, we expect to once again set records, with potentially the largest number of new product and indication launches that we’ve ever had in such a short period of time.”

Reuters reported Tuesday that Pfizer also will lose patent protections for some big-selling drugs after 2025.

To make up for the loss of revenue the vaccine maker has turned to acquisitions, spending about $25 billion to buy Biohaven Pharmaceutical, Arena Pharmaceuticals and Global Blood Therapeutics.

The company also launched five new products last year and hopes to introduce as many as 14 more over the next year and a half, including a vaccine for respiratory syncytial virusand an mRNA flu vaccine.

Pfizer expects the vaccination rate to increase again after 2023, Fierce Pharma reported, assuming a combined COVID-19/flu shot is developed.

During a meeting last week of the FDA’s vaccine advisory committee, the agency said it was investigating whether the stroke safety signal the FDA identified, associated with the bivalent vaccines, might be related to the co-administration of the flu and COVID-19 vaccines.

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

There are 55 documented cases of performers collapsing, dying, or falling ill in late 2022 through 2023 in this video.

And in almost all of these cases, the media will say: “We don’t know what caused this, but it was definitely not the COVID vaccine.”

Really? And we saw this happening prior to the roll-outs of the COVID “vaccines”? Did we see this in 2020 during the height of the COVID “virus pandemic” when they said we would see people dropping dead on the streets because the COVID “virus” was so bad?

No, we did not see this. This began later in 2021, and continued throughout 2022 after the shots had been injected into the majority of the population.

This is on our Bitchute channel. Thanks to checkur6 on Bitchute for compiling most of these.

You’re not likely to find these videos on YouTube. The Government won’t allow it.

On January 3, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) revised upwards Russia’s GDP forecast, expecting it to grow by 0.3 percent this year, which is a remarkable improvement from the previous estimate of a 2.3 percent contraction, even though some sectors of the Russian economy have been having issues since the beginning of special military operation in Ukraine. In addition, the IMF now expects Russian crude oil export figures to remain quite strong even under today’s  $60-per-barrel limit cap on the price it can charge for oil, as imposed by the EU.

This in itself is interesting enough but according to economics journalist Matthew Klein, co-author of “Trade Wars are Class Wars”, the value of global exports to the Russian Federation in November 2022 was merely 15 percent below the pre-conflict average figures and, moreover, he estimates they might have already gone back to those figures in December last year, although much trade data for the last month is not available yet. Silverado Policy Accelerator, a Washington-based nonprofit organization, has reached a similar conclusion, in its January analysis, even suggesting Russian imports have already surpassed pre-conflict levels by September 2022.

Sanctions on Russia are part of today’s economic warfare. The problem, from a Western perspective, is that the Eurasian power is neither Cuba nor North Korea, and therefore it is not so simple to “isolate” it as Western political elites seem to have thought.

This is so largely thanks to Moscow’s rise in trade with neighbors and regional partners and allies, according to Ana Swanson, who writes on international trade for the New York Times. In the post-sanctions world, Russia’s trade has been managing to basically redirect itself to other nations. In Armenia, for instance, Swanson remarks, smartphone exports to the Eastern Slav country have surged – and the same trend is also taking place with computer chips, and a number of other products from states such as Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan, and Turkey. China’s exports to Russia also reached a record high in December, and products from Western companies are reaching the country too, as they are supposedly being “rerouted” through nations in central western Asia, and other former Soviet republics.

The irony of these new developments is that they may boost Eurasian integration and some proposals to further expand it, aiming at encompassing the area formerly claimed by the Soviet state which is the very area British geographer Halford Mackinder famously described as the Heartland. Washington’s foreign policy remains largely shaped by Mackinder’s ideas about controlling this core of Eurasia to dominate the globe.

The Treaty of the EurAsian Economic Union (EAEU) was signed in May 2014 by Russia, Belarus, and Kazakhstan, which were later joined by Armenia and Kyrgyzstan. This bloc is a major player in the global arms, energy, and raw materials industry, as well as agricultural production. Some of its main goals is to develop a single market, thereby achieving free movements of people, goods, capital, and services. It also seeks to increase its trade with East Asia.

The aforementioned new trade trends may provide new opportunities for countries such as Armenia. Armenian political elites in Yerevan have long envisioned their country as a potential bridge between the EU and the Eurasian Union. Although Armenia’s trade with the EU currently outweighs that with the EAEU, the country counts on Moscow for its security, especially in light of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. Morever it is a Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) member.

Much has been talked about an Armenian “retreat” back into the Western Atlantic camp, as reasons former Armenian deputy minister of justice Artyom Geghamyan, but one could argue that  reality is much more complex as the political West has benefitted from the Nagorno-Karabakh escalation, and Europe is turning to Azerbaijan, Armenia’s main rival, for energy. Moreover, Yerevan in fact has been playing a quite significant role in helping Moscow navigate Western sanctions in such a way that is mutually beneficial for both states, by increasingly implementing bilateral economic and trade cooperation.

In today’s world, insulating local industries from geopolitical disputes is becoming increasingly difficult. Moscow has been seeking to strengthen the Eurasian Union alongside the CSTO and the BRICS group. The EAEU focuses on Eurasian economic integration and development, while the CSTO is tasked with security issues pertaining to the territorial sovereignty of its member states. From the US perspective, such groupings and developments are a threat to American global unipolar hegemony and are therefore seen with suspicion and hostility. Thus, the challenge for countries such as Armenia will involve “balancing” their bilateral relations with an increasingly “cold war mentality”-driven West and with their Eurasian partners.

To sum it up, much has been talked about Western sanctions against Russia having largely backfired, but beyond that they are also reconfiguring international trade, what may pave the way for new opportunities in Eurasia.

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.

 .

Introduction

People Worldwide are being impoverished.

Protests are unfolding against inflation, rising energy prices and the collapse of social services. 

It is important to address the broader picture and the history of the last three years.

Large sectors of the World population commencing in February-March 2020 have been marginalized and impoverished. Famines currently prevail in  all major regions of the World. 

What is at stake is an engineered economic depression which from the outset in January 2020 has created economic and social chaos at the level of the entire planet. 

Protest Movement in the United Kingdom 

The protest movement in the U.K is largely centered on the impacts of inflation, the loss of purchasing power and the fraudulent hike in  energy prices, presented to public opinion as a means to combating “climate change” and the dangers of CO2 emissions

Video Britain: Tax the Rich. Say No to the Rise in Energy Prices

 

Teachers, Health Worker Confront the Government

According to Don Hank:

These protesters are only addressing a very tiny part of the issue, ie, demanding   government intervention to raise salaries.  

Unfortunately, these Brits are barking up the wrong tree, unaware that their own government has mortally wounded its own economy with its Malthusian policies of impoverishment … The UK government currently faces a self-inflicted economic slump that no government official or politician is prepared or willing to tackle head-on, and nothing of import will result from these protests because the government is going broke and neither it nor its clueless citizens recognize the underlying cause of the problem.  

It ought to be obvious that a broke government that is at the origin of the low salaries in the first place can’t help even if it wanted to.  And the weak and clumsy attempts of politicians and central banks are all in vain.  …

 (Don Hanks, excerpt from article sent to the author)

Three Years: Deep-seated Economic and Social Crisis

The broader issue of causality of this crisis cannot be disregarded, namely fraudulent covid mandates, engineered financial crises starting in February 2020, followed by successive lockdowns starting in March 2020 which essentially “confine the labor force” and freeze the workplace, which inevitably leads to economic and social chaos.

Most of the people who are protesting in the United Kingdom are the victims of both the covid lockdowns as well as the mRNA vaccine launched in December 2020.

From the outset, the trade unions endorsed the covid consensus including the imposition of the lockdowns, which constitute a derogation of workers rights.

Trade unions leaders have betrayed their members at the grassroots. They are routinely and selectively invited to Davos for informal consultations.

The outbreak of the war in Ukraine in February 2022, including the sanctions regime, Washington’s pressures on the European Union to curtail imports of gas from Russia has also played a key role in the hike of energy prices, not to mention the price of food.

Protest is Not Enough

We are in solidarity with the protest movement. But “Protest” is not enough. Corrupt politicians must be removed from office.

What is required is a mass movement which questions the legitimacy of corrupt government officials, who are acting on behalf of powerful financial groups.  The latter are the architects of of a Worldwide process of economic engineering and social chaos.

Everybody is Indebted, The Billionaires and the Creditors Call the Shots

At the outset of 2023, its Global Debt worldwide, included the following:

  • an unprecedented country level public debt and fiscal crisis of the State, 
  • engineered corporate debt leading to bankruptcies,
  • the debt of small and medium size enterprises,
  • personal and family debts including mounting credit card debts, 
  • home mortgages,
  • consumer debts, etc. 

It’s a Worldwide Process of Engineered Impoverishment 

Debt is the driving force which is leading the entire planet to mass poverty.

Families Worldwide are unable to “make ends meet”, to pay their rent, to pay their mortgage, to pay their monthly gas and electricity bills. 

In the words of Klaus Schwab: “Own nothing, be happy”.

What is required is real “regime change” (by the people) supported by a broad-based grassroots network which confronts both the governments as well as the architects of this economic and social crisis, which from the outset in early 2020 have been involved fraud, fake science and corruption.

The Road Ahead

Below is an excerpt from the concluding Chapter XV of my book entitled: The Worldwide Corona Crisis, Global Coup d’État Against Humanity (click to download)

The Road Ahead: Building a Worldwide Movement Against “Corona Tyranny”

“We do not seek to negotiate with corrupt government officials. We question their legitimacy. They are liars.

Our intent is to confront the powerful actors behind this criminal endeavor which is literally destroying people’s lives worldwide, while creating divisions within society. The impacts on mental health on population groups worldwide are devastating.

The numerous lockdowns documented in previous chapters (stay at home of the workforce), fear campaigns.

The COVID-19 policy mandates imposed on approximately 193 member states of the United Nations have also contributed to undermining and destabilizing:

the very fabric of civil society and its institutions including education, culture and the arts, social gatherings, sports, entertainment, etc.

all public sector activities including physical and social infrastructure, social services, law enforcement, etc.

all major private sector activities which characterize national, regional and local economies including small, medium and large corporate enterprises, family farms, industry, wholesale and retail trade, the urban services economy, transport companies, airlines, hotel chains, etc.

the structures of the global economy including international commodity trade, investment, import and export relations between countries, etc. The entire landscape of the global economy has been shattered.

What is required is the development of a broad-based grassroots network which confronts both the architects of this crisis as well as all levels of government (i.e. national, states, provinces, municipalities, etc.) involved in imposing the vaccine as well carrying out the lockdown and closure of economic activity.

This network would be established (nationally and internationally) at all levels of society, in towns and villages, workplaces, parishes, trade unions, farmers organizations, professional associations, business associations, student unions, and veterans associations. Church groups would be called upon to integrate this movement.

“Spreading the word” through social media and independent online media outlets will be undertaken bearing in mind that Google as well as Facebook are instruments of censorship.

Legal procedures and protests are unfolding in all major regions of the world. As part of a worldwide network of initiatives, it is important to establish mechanisms of communication, dialogue and exchange within and between countries.

The creation of such a movement, which forcefully challenges the legitimacy of the financial elites, Big Pharma, et al., as well as the structures of political authority at the national level, is no easy task. It will require a degree of solidarity, unity and commitment unparalleled in world history.

What is required is the breaking down of political and ideological barriers within society (i.e. between political parties) while acting with a single voice towards building a worldwide consensus against tyranny.

Worldwide solidarity and human dignity is the driving force” (Excerpt from Chapter 15)

To download Michel Chossudovsky’s E book (15 chapters), FREE, see below


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.”

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

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

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

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

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

***

 

 

The Climate Imperative Foundation is the newest and richest anti-hydrocarbon, anti-natural gas group you’ve never heard of.

How rich is Climate Imperative?

According to the latest report from Guidestar, the group took in $221 million in its first full year of operation. (Guidestar calls the income “gross receipts.”)

That means that Climate Imperative, which is less than three years old, is already taking in more cash than the Sierra Club, which bills itself as the “nation’s largest and most influential grassroots environmental organization.”

According to Guidestar, the Sierra Club collected $180 million in its latest reporting year. Climate Imperative is also taking in more money than the Rocky Mountain Institute which collected about $130 million in its latest reporting year. I use those groups for comparison because they are pushing anti-gas initiatives across the country. More on them in a moment.

The emergence of Climate Imperative — which has received virtually no attention from legacy media outlets — is important for several reasons.

First, it shows that the effort to “electrify everything” and ban the use of natural gas in homes and businesses – and that includes gas stoves — is part of a years-long, lavishly funded campaign that is being bankrolled by some of the world’s richest people.

Second, despite numerous claims about how nefarious actors are blocking the much-hyped “energy transition,” the size of Climate Imperative’s budget provides more evidence that the NGO-corporate-industrial-climate complex has far more money than the pro-hydrocarbon and pro-nuclear groups.

Indeed, the anti-hydrocarbon NGOs (most of which are also stridently anti-nuclear) have loads of money, media backing, and momentum. As can be seen in the graphic below, the five biggest anti-hydrocarbon NGOs are now collecting about $1.5 billion per year from their donors. (All data is from Guidestar.) That sum is roughly three times more than the amount being collected by the top five non-profit associations that are either pro-hydrocarbon or pro-nuclear.

 

Third, banning the direct use of natural gas in homes and businesses may be worse for the climate.

You read that right. Burning gas directly allows consumers to use about 90% of the energy contained in the fuel. Using gas indirectly — by converting it into electricity and then using that juice to power a heat pump, stove, or water heater — wastes more than half of the energy in the fuel.

That point was made by Glenn Ducat, in his excellent new book,

Blue Oasis No More: Why We’re Not Going to “Beat” Global Warming and What We Need To Do About It. Ducat is a Ph.D. nuclear engineer who worked at Argonne National Lab, as well as at two electric utilities.

He explains

“Burning natural gas by residential commercial and industrial customers is at least twice as efficient and emits about half as much CO2 as processes that use electricity produced from fossil fuels. Converting process-heat applications to electricity before the electricity grid is completely carbon-free will increase CO2 emissions.” (Emphasis in the original.)

I began tracking Climate Imperative in late 2021, when Axios published a story headlined, “climate movement veterans launch major new foundation.”

Axios reported that the new group has “a planned budget of $180 million annually over five years.” That number caught my attention. Here was a new group with a planned five-year budget of $1 billion, and yet, Axios was the only media outlet to report on it.

On its website, the group makes it clear that the electrify everything push is a major focus of its work, saying its “imperatives include rapid scaling of renewable energy, widespread electrification of buildings and transportation, stopping the expansion of fossil fuel infrastructure, reducing pollution from major industrial sources, and economy-wide pathways to reduce emissions from the biggest sources.” The website lists some of Climate Imperative’s grantees, a group that includes the Building Decarbonization Coalition and the American Lung Association.

Axios went on to note that the San Francisco-based foundation, “began making grants in the spring of 2020.” It also noted that the group is headed by two former Sierra Club officials: Bruce Nilles and Mary Anne Hitt. Nilles spent more than a decade heading the group’s Beyond Coal campaign. Climate Imperative’s advisory board includes Margo Oge, a former top EPA official, and Bill Ritter, the former governor of Colorado.

Where is Climate Imperative getting its money? The board of directors likely holds the answer. The most recognizable names on the six-person board are Silicon Valley venture capitalist John Doerr and Laurene Powell Jobs, the widow of late Apple CEO Steve Jobs. The other board members include Anita Bekenstein, Sanjeev Krishnan, Greg Nelson, and George Pavlov. A source with knowledge of the group’s funding told me this week that the majority of the money is coming from Doerr and Jobs. Forbesmagazine estimates that Doerr has a net worth of $12.7 billion. Forbes puts Jobs’ net worth at $17.7 billion. None of the other board members appear on Forbes’ list of America’s richest people.

The effort to demonize gas stoves began in early 2020, at about the same time Climate Imperative was launched. That year, the Sierra Club claimed that gas stoves are “linked to respiratory illnesses, and children who live in homes with gas stoves are 42% more likely to have asthma.” The source for that claim was a paper by the Rocky Mountain Institute, the Colorado-based non-profit founded by renewable-energy promoter Amory Lovins.

One of the first legacy media outlets to publish an article promoting claims about bad air quality from gas stoves was The Atlantic. In October 2020, it published an article headlined “Kill Your Gas Stove.”

It may be a coincidence, but The Atlantic is owned by Laurene Powell Jobs. It’s also interesting to note that in 2018, The Atlantic published a piece titled “How the Gas Oven Changed Humans’ Relationship With Fire,” and noted that the “ability to turn flames on and off at will was ‘one of the single greatest contributors to human happiness in the kitchen.’”

Since 2020, the Rocky Mountain Institute has continued its anti-gas crusade. Earlier this month, a spate of news stories were published after the group released a paper that claimed 12.7 percent of childhood asthmas are due to gas stoves. One of the authors of that paper, Talor Gruenwald, works at RMI. Gruenwald is also a research associate at Rewiring America, a San Francisco-based outfit that calls itself the “leading electrification nonprofit, focused on electrifying our homes, businesses, and communities.” (Rewiring American doesn’t publish a Form 990. It is sponsored by Windward Fund, which took in $273 million in 2021.)

But RMI’s asthma claims don’t stand up to scrutiny. Perhaps the most-definitive analysis of the issue was a 2013 study published in Lancet Respiratory Medicine which studied half a million school children in 47 countries over a multi-year period. It relied on questionnaires filled out by the mothers of children. What did it find? “We detected no evidence of an association between the use of gas as a cooking fuel and either asthma symptoms or asthma diagnosis.”

Furthermore, just a day or two after the RMI paper came out, the group walked back its claim about asthma, with one RMI official telling the Washington Examiner that the study “does not assume or estimate a causal relationship” between childhood asthma and natural gas stoves.

Where does RMI get the money to push its electrification agenda?

Some of it is coming from Amazon billionaire Jeff Bezos. In 2020, the Bezos Earth Fund gave RMI $10 million, which the group said will be used to “reduce GHG emissions from homes, commercial structures, and other buildings, enabling RMI to increase its current work with a coalition of partners in key states. The project will focus on making all U.S. buildings carbon-free by 2040 by advocating for all-electric new construction…”

Bezos is also a big backer of the Natural Resources Defense Council, the group that shamelessly bragged about its role in the premature closure of the Indian Point nuclear plant in New York. In 2020, the NRDC issued a press release touting the $100 million grant it got from the Bezos Earth Fund. It said the money “will be used to help NRDC advance climate solutions and legislation at the state level, [and] move the needle on policies and programs focused on reducing oil and gas production…” (Emphasis added.)

The Sierra Club has been a prime beneficiary of former New York City mayor  Michael Bloomberg’s Bloomberg Philanthropies, which has pledged $500 million to the Beyond Carbon project. In 2019, the pledge was considered the largest ever “philanthropic donation to combat climate change.” The Sierra Club has been a primary beneficiary of Bloomberg’s giving. About two years ago, a Sierra Club employee told me that it is getting about $30 million per year from Bloomberg. On its website, the group touts its role in the Beyond Carbon initiative, calling it “the largest climate campaign in the U.S., with the goal of closing all domestic coal plants by 2030 and stopping the use of gas as a transition fuel.” (Emphasis added.)

Last August, the Sierra Club asked the Environmental Protection Agency to ban all natural gas appliances at the federal level. The group has had success in getting bans adopted in California. According to its website, 69 communities in the state have now “adopted gas-free buildings commitments or electrification building codes.” In September, the California Air Resources Board voted to ban the sale of all natural gas-fired space heaters and water-heating appliances in the state by 2030. In addition, New York City and Seattle have banned the use of gas in new construction. Massachusetts is also rolling out a new measure that will allow up to 10 communities to ban gas.

The money coming from Bezos, Bloomberg, Doerr, Jobs, and other deep-pocketed donors means that the NGO-corporate-industrial-climate complex can easily outspend the entities that are promoting nuclear energy.

For instance, the Nuclear Energy Institute, according to the latest Guidestar numbers, had gross receipts of about $143 million in its latest reporting period. Meanwhile, the top associations that support hydrocarbon producers and distributors — including the American Petroleum Association, American Gas Association, Western States Petroleum Association, and Society of Petroleum Engineers — had combined gross receipts of less than $400 million.

Two final points. The first is the hypocrisy of billionaires funding efforts to slash hydrocarbon use while they are consuming staggering amounts of hydrocarbons. According to a 2020 article in Vanity Fair, Michael Bloomberg owns eight houses in New York state alone, and “he also reportedly owns several properties in London, Florida, Colorado, and Bermuda.” Thus, Bloomberg may own a dozen houses. How many of those houses have gas stoves? I’ll make a wild guess and bet that it’s more than one. Oh, and according to Vanity Fair, while he was mayor of New York, Bloomberg “was known to spend weekends” at his house in Bermuda, “traveling back and forth on private jets.” And what is fueling those private jets? I’m guessing here, but it’s probably not organic quinoa.

Speaking of jets, Forbes recently reported that Jobs owns a Gulfstream G650 (list price about $66 million) that burns about 500 gallons of jet fuel per hour. When not zooming around on her jet, she also spends time on a $120 million yacht called the Venus. Bezos reportedly owns two Gulfstream G-650ERs. After Bezos flew to the 2021 climate meeting in Glasgow, a representative from the Bezos Earth Fund told Business Insiderthat all was well because the billionaire “uses sustainable aviation fuel, and offsets all carbon emissions from his flights.”

That line puts the hypocrisy of the billionaires funding anti-hydrocarbon initiatives in a nutshell: Bezos, Bloomberg, Jobs, and other uber-rich, hyper-mobile elites can purchase “offsets” for their private jets and mega-yachts, but the shlubs in the barrio can’t be allowed to use a gas stove to cook dinner because, in the words of RMI’s Talor Gruenwald, “Gas stove emissions are significant contributors to the climate crisis.” Never mind that, as the Breakthrough Institute’s Alex Trembath recently noted, that gas stoves account for just 0.4% of total U.S. gas use.

The final bit of hypocrisy at work here is the regressive nature of the gas bans. Indeed, it’s clear that banning natural gas will mean higher costs for consumers. Last March, in the Federal Register, the Department of Energy published its annual estimate for residential energy costs. It found that on a per-BTU basis, electricity costs about 3.5 times more than natural gas. It also found that gas was, by far, the cheapest form of in-home energy, costing less than half as much as fuels like kerosene, propane, and heating oil.

That means that efforts to ban natural gas are, in practice, an energy tax on the poor and the middle class. During a recent interview, Jennifer Hernandez, a California-based lawyer who represents The 200, a coalition of Latino groups that has sued the state over its climate policies, told me that “Natural gas is the last source of in-home affordable energy. And these climate extremists can’t stand it.”

Last October, the Department of Energy provided more evidence that natural gas is the cheapest form of energy for homeowners in its Winter Fuels Outlook. The DOE estimated that heating with electricity this winter will cost about 46% more than heating with natural gas. These numbers show that forced electrification will mean higher energy bills for consumers. Low- and middle-income Americans will bear the brunt of forced electrification because they will have to spend a larger percentage of their disposable income on energy than wealthy consumers.

The bottom line here is obvious: the effort to ban natural gas in homes and businesses is, at root, more about class than it is about climate change.

Over the past several months, I sent several emails to the leaders at Climate Imperative, Mary Anne Hitt and Bruce Nilles, asking about the foundation’s funders, their grantees, their stance on nuclear energy, and the potential cost impact of the electrify everything campaigns on low- and middle-income consumers. I followed up this week with an email to Hitt. She did not reply.

I sent similar questions to Panama Bartolomy, the director of the Building Decarbonization Coalition. His reply: “I will not be responding to your questions.”

*

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: Laurene Powell Jobs, Michael Bloomberg, John Doerr, and Jeff Bezos (Source: Robert Bryce)

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The Billionaires Behind “Electrifying Everything” and “The Gas Bans”. “The Climate Imperative”
  • 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.

***

 

Romantic nationalism and the Balkans

In the 19th century, Europe witnessed the rise of romantic nationalism, which created contemporary nations.[i] Many European states, based on the concept of ethnicity (common origin, culture, history, language, and tradition), were founded at the time, including the people living in the territories of Serbia, Montenegro, Greece, Bulgaria, Croatia, Slovenia, and Romania. However, a number of contemporary regional nations remained at that time without their national states like Slovenians, Croatians, Macedonians, and Albanians. Some of these nations temporarily solved in the 20th century their national aspirations via common states, like Croats, Slovenians, and Macedonians (within several types of Yugoslav political entities).[ii]

The Balkan Albanians, who never had a national state before the 1912−1913 Balkan Wars, started their struggle for the national state rather late, relative to the other nations in the region, for understandable reasons. Unlike other nationalities mentioned, the Albanians had first to forge the concept of the Albanian nation, before attempting to found a national state. Since their Balkan homeland was much retarded in every respect, the initiative for the first stage mentioned came from the Albanians living outside proper Albania. The first concrete action in that direction was made at Prizren, which lies on the traditional Serbian land of Kosovo-Metochia (KosMet) and which at that time was populated with a clear Serbian majority (70%). The so-called First (Albanian Islamic) Prizren League was founded in 1878[iii] in the same year when Serbia, Romania, and Montenegro were definitely recognized by the European Great Powers as the sovereign and independent states at the 1878 Berlin Congress.[iv]

Prizren and the First Albanian League (The League of Prizren)

The question is why the Albanians chose exactly the town of Prizren to organize the first Albanian political league there and to promulgate the first pan-Albanian national program of Greater Albania?

Albanian Question 1919-1920

Prizren was not only in Serbia, but it was her capital during the reign of Stefan Dušan, a Serbian King and Emperor (1331−1355).[v] He assumed the title of the Emperor of the Serbs and Greeks and put together a great Serbian Empire which reached from the Mediterranean coast opposite the Island of Lefkada to the River of Danube and controlled the whole of the Bulgarian hinterland.[vi] The geographic location and political, cultural, and ecclesiastical status of Prizren imply that the town was at the core of Serbian territory and even autonomous bishopric territory.[vii] The town of Prizren was mentioned for the first time in the 11th century when the fortress above the town has been erected by the Byzantine authorities. Prizren fell to Bulgarian rule in 1204 and 1282 was included in Serbia (Rascia). The history of the town is closely connected to the personality of Serbian King and Emperor Stefan Dušan Almighty who held court in the town and built a famous Christian Orthodox Church of Ss. Archangels which was later destroyed by Muslim Albanians and Turks who used the material of it to build the Sinan Pasha Mosque in the town. Prizren became occupied by the Ottoman army in 1455 and 1570 became the administrative center of the Ottoman sanjak (administrative unit). From the Ottoman time, a massive influx of neighboring Albanians from North Albania to Prizren and KosMet occurred to such an extent that in the year 1878, there were already 1/3 of the town’s population to be (Muslim) Albanians, the rest the Christian Orthodox Serbs and Roman Catholics. According to the Ottoman census of 1878, the town was populated by 43.922 inhabitants and subsequently making it one of the largest towns in the Ottoman Balkans.

Today, there are three most important cultural-historical buildings in Prizren among others: 1) Serbian Christian Orthodox Church of Bogorodica Ljeviška, built by Serbian King Milutin in 1307−1309 (heavily damaged by Muslim Albanian mob in March 2004); 2) The Sinan Pasha Mosque dating from 1615; and 3) The house of the League of Prizren of 1878 (museum). During the 1998−1999 Kosovo War, Prizren did not suffer the destruction, but, a good part of the town, with its traditional Serb houses in oriental style, was burned down by ethnic Albanians in the summer of 1999 under NATO’s umbrella, and much more have been destroyed by Albanian mob during the organized ethnic cleansing of the Serbs on March 17−19th, 2004, under the very eyes of German Kosovo Force (KFOR) troops.[viii] The Serbs were expelled from Prizren in June 1999 with very few old people left in refuge at the Bogoslovija Orthodox seminary who were later resettled elsewhere, but the house of Bogoslovija was itself burned to the ground by an Albanian fanatic Muslim mob on March 17th, 2004, as was the same with the nearby Serbian Christian Orthodox Monastery of the Holy Archangel Michael. That is the historical destiny of the town of Prizren – “Serbian Constantinople” which according to the Yugoslav census of 1991, had a population of 178.723. Today, there are no Serbs in Prizren.

On June 10th, 1878, Muslim Albanian delegates assembled in Prizren’s mosque for the purpose to work out a common political platform in order to counter both the Russian-Ottoman Treaty of San Stefano signed on March 3rd of the same year and the coming resolutions of the Congress of Berlin (from June 10th to July 10th, 1878), which had with a great reason ignored Muslim Albanian nationalistic claims and wishes to create a Greater Albania in the Balkans. The League initially had full political support from the Ottoman authorities which basically initiated its creation and functioning under the leadership of Albanian public figure Abdul bey Frashëri (1839−1892). The League submitted on June 13th a Memorandum to the British representative at the Congress of Berlin – Benjamin Disraeli. The resolutions of the League (Kararname) have been signed by 47 Muslim Albanian feudal lords (beys) on June 18th, 1878 in which they refused to give up any land to Serbia, Montenegro, and Greece which they assumed to be “Albanian”, demanded the return of all “Albanian” territories annexed by Serbia and Montenegro, required Albanian autonomy within the Ottoman Empire in the form of the creation of united Albanian province composed by for “Albanian” vilayets (a Greater Albania), and, finally, required no more conscription for, and taxation by, the central Ottoman Government in Istanbul.[ix]

Image: Greater Albania diaspora

After the meeting in Prizren, Abdul bey Frashëri, representing the Central Committee from Istanbul, and a person who had an opening speech at the first meeting of the League of Prizren, returned to South Albania to organize a League Committee and gather Albanian militia to oppose the annexation of this part of Albania by Greece. He as well as traveled to Berlin, Vienna, Rome, and London to seek support for the creation of a Greater Albania according to the resolutions of the League of Prizren. However, the Ottoman Government in April 1881 sent military detachments to pacify the Albanian anti-Ottoman uprising, and as a direct consequence of the intervention, the League was suppressed. Abdul bey Frashëri was arrested by the Ottoman soldiers and later sentenced to life imprisonment but in 1885 he was pardoned. He died in Istanbul after a long illness.[x]

Nevertheless, the League of Prizren has to be considered the formal beginning of the Albanian struggle for the creation of a (Muslim) Greater Albania which was for the first time a project was realized in the practice during WWII by B. Mussolini and A. Hitler and after the 1998−1999 Kosovo War to be in the process of revival under the umbrella of the NATO and the EU.

Peć and the Second Albanian League (The League of Peja)

KosMet is at the center of Serbian national identity, culture, history, and spiritual life for many reasons. The region was in the core of the Serbian medieval state where its capital was in the town of Prizren and the headquarters of an independent Serbian Orthodox Church – the Patriarchate of Peć, located at the mouth of the Gorge Rugova, on the western outskirts of the town of Peć. The monastery, founded on this place in the 13th century at the time of Serbian St. Sava (Rastko) Nemanjić, was the HQ of the Serbian Orthodox Patriarchate from 1346 onward. It is here that the medieval Serbian archbishops and patriarchates lie buried, but, however, in 1455 the Ottoman conquest of KosMet put an end to the power of the Patriarchate of Peć.

The patriarchate was not officially abolished, but the power of the Serbian Orthodox Church fell increasingly to the Greek Archbishopric of Ohrid. Nevertheless, the Patriarchate of Peć was restored in 1557 by Sultan’s decree due to the influence of Grand Vizier Mehmed Pasha Sokolović (Islamized ethnic Serbs from East Bosnia) and thereafter managed to exercise its authority over the Serbs within the Balkan provinces of the Ottoman Sultanate.[xi] However, after the First Great Serbian Migration of 1690 from KosMet and Central Serbia under the Patriarch Arsenije III Crnojević (of Montenegrin origin), the Serbian Orthodox Church split into two parts: 1) the Patriarchate of Peć was responsible for the Ottoman Serbs, while 2) newly established Metropolitanate of Sremski Karlovci had jurisdiction over the Habsburg Serbs. Nevertheless, a Greek Patriarch of Constantinople abolished the Patriarchate of Peć on September 11th, 1766, and now no more than a little island of Christian Orthodoxy in a Muslim sea.[xii]

In the garden of the Patriarchate of Peć, there are beautiful and extremely valuable Serbian Christian Orthodox churches, veritable jewels of medieval Serbian art: The Church of the Holy Apostles (about 1253); the Church of St. Demetrius, built by Archbishop Nikodim in 1321−1324; and the Church of the Mother of God (Hodegetria), built by Archbishop Danilo II around 1330. However, according to Albanian Kosovo authorities today, all of, in fact, Serbian Christian Orthodox monuments in KosMet are built by ethnic Albanians or the Byzantine authorities but not by the Serbs. The ethnic Serbs left the town of Peć in June 1999 after the withdrawal of Yugoslav troops according to the Kumanovo Agreement.

The town of Peć (in Albanian, Peja, in Turkish Ipek) is of extreme importance for the Albanian nationalistic ideology and programs regarding the creation of a Greater Albania. The Second Albanian nationalistic organization – The League of Peja was established at a meeting of Albanian leaders (Muslim feudal lords) on January 23−29th, 1899 by the Muslim Albanian cleric and nationalist figure, Haxhi Zeka for the very purpose to recreate and reform the First Albanian League of Prizren (1878−1899). The League of Peja (known as Pledge for a Pledge) was attended by some 500 delegates of whom the biggest number arrived from KosMet, regardless of the very fact that the invitations have been sent to the leaders from all Albanian lands.

There were two crucial political-national aims of the League of Peja:

  1. The focal purpose of the Albanian League of Peja was to create a „besa“ – a general truce on feuding and warfare so that the Muslim Albanians could direct their national efforts on the creation of a Greater (Muslim) Albania within the Ottoman Empire rather than on fighting among themselves. Such Greater Albania had to be established by allegedly four „Albanian“ vilayets (Ottoman administrative districts) as it was fixed already by the First (Muslim) Albanian League of Prizren in 1878.
  2. The second purpose was to preserve the Muslim Albanians from the western-oriented Sultan’s reforms, which have been carried out in Istanbul in the favor of the Ottoman Christians and democratic liberalization of the Ottoman Sultanate.

The final program of the League of Peja came out with 12 points for the territorial creation of a Greater Albania within the Ottoman state with an expression of full loyalty to the Ottoman authorities. Nevertheless, the chief message was to preserve Muslim Albanians from Sultan’s pro-western reforms and to guard public order by – and to enforce Sharia Law.

Here, it has to be noticed that since the 1878 League of Prizren onward, any Albanian program on the creation of a Greater Albania was supported by unproven claims that the Albanians are direct descendants of the ancient Balkan Illyrians.

*

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.

Notes

[i] On this issue, see more in [J. G. Fichte, Reden an die Deutsche Nation, Berlin, 1808; F. O. Walzel, German Romanticism, New York: Capricorn Books, 1966; F. Beiser, Enlightenment, Revolution, and Romanticism: The Genesis of Modern German Political Thought, 1790−1800, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1992].

[ii] On the history of Yugoslavia, see in more detail in [B. Petranović, Istorija Jugoslavije, I−III, Beograd:Nolit, 1988; B. Petranović, M. Zečević, Agonija dve Jugoslavije, Beograd: IKP Zaslon, 1991].

[iii] It was done after a meeting of Albanian leaders in Bajrakli Mosque in Prizren. For the Serbs, Prizren is an “Imperial City” as it was the capital of the 14th century-Serbian Empire. According to historian Peter Bartl, the initiative for the creation of the First Prizren League came from Istanbul Albanians, i.e. from the Central Committee for Defence of the Rights of Albanian Nation [П. Бартл, Албанци од средњег века до данас, Београд: CLIO, 2001, 94]. The League was legally active from 1878 to 1881.

[iv] G. Castellan, History of the Balkans from Mohammed the Conqueror to Stalin, New York: Columbia University Press, 1992, 318−320.

[v] About Stefan Dušan and his Serbian Empire, see in [М. Стевановић, Душаново царство, Београд: Књига-комерц, 2001].

[vi] G. Barraclough (ed.), The Times Atlas of World History, Maplewood, New Jersey, US: Hammond, 141.

[vii] See the map in [A. Galimberti (ed.), Nuovissimo Atlante Storico Mondiale, Milano: Touring Club Italiano, 2001, 40−41].

[viii] R. Elsie, Historical Dictionary of Kosova, Lanham, Maryland‒Toronto‒Oxford: The Scarecrow Press, Inc. 2004, 145; B. V. Jokić (ed.), March Pogrom in Kosovo and Metohija, March 17−19, 2004, with a Survay of Destroyed and Endangered Christian Cultural Heritage, Belgrade: Ministry of Culture of the Republic of Serbia−Museum in Priština (displaced), 2004. About Albanian terror in KosMet after the Kosovo War, see more in [М. Чупић, Отета земља. Косово и Метохија (злочини, прогони, отпори…), Београд. Нолит, 2006; H. Hofbauer, Eksperiment Kosovo: Povratak kolonijalizma, Beograd: Albatros Plus, 2009; П. Пеан, Косово: „Праведни“ рат за стварање мафијашке државе, Београд: Службени гласник, 2013].

[ix] П. Бартл, Албанци од средњег века до данас, Београд: CLIO, 2001, 94−97.

[x] R. Elsie, Historical Dictionary of Kosova, Lanham, Maryland‒Toronto‒Oxford: The Scarecrow Press, Inc. 2004, 60−62.

[xi] В. Ћоровић, Историја Срба, Београд: БИГЗ, 1993, 415−421.  

[xii] М. Јовић, К. Радић, Српске земље и владари, Крушевац: Друштво за неговање историјских и уметничких вредности, 1990, 126−146.

All images in this article are from the author

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Geopolitics and History: The Two Albanian Leagues (1878/1899) and “Greater Albania”
  • Tags:

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***


British Cyprus

Akrotiri and Dhekelia, officially the Sovereign Base Areas of Akrotiri and Dhekelia[2] (SBA),[a] is a British Overseas Territory on the island of Cyprus. The areas, which include British military bases and installations, as well as other land, were retained by the British under the 1960 treaty of independence, signed by the United Kingdom, Greece, Turkey and representatives from the Greek and Turkish Cypriot communities, which granted independence to the (then) Crown colony of Cyprus. (Wikipedia)


The US Air Force has had a base on British territory on Cyprus for nearly half a century, but its size is kept secret from the public on both sides of the Atlantic. Declassified now reveals the increasing US military presence on the Mediterranean island.

  • US Air Force is expanding its deployment on RAF’s Cyprus base to 129 airmen
  • New 147-room installation is being built by US military across 1.5 acres of British base to house its personnel at cost of $27m
  • US spy force, 1st Expeditionary Reconnaissance Squadron, is permanently deployed at the British base 
  • UK Ministry of Defence refuses to disclose number of US military personnel on the British territory—or if American bombing missions are flown from it
  • Pentagon claims it only has one airman on Cyprus—and ignores Declassified’s request for clarification
  • Top secret GCHQ document notes: “Cyprus hosts a wide range of UK and US intelligence facilities”
  • Cypriot working on the UK base area tells Declassified: “There is a big US presence, I don’t know how that works or why”

The US military is planning to deploy at least 129 airmen to British territory on Cyprus by next year, Declassified can reveal.

The number of US troops on the UK’s so-called Sovereign Base Areas (SBAs), which comprise 3% of Cyprus’s landmass, has long been secret.

“We do not propose to release the numbers of US personnel participating in current or future operational activities [on British Cyprus]”, the Ministry of Defence (MoD) recently told parliament.

The US Department of Defense (DoD), meanwhile, claims it only has 14 personnel deployed in Cyprus, including nine Marines and just one airman. The department did not respond to Declassified’s request for more information and comment.

But Declassified has seen a US Air Force (USAF) document with details of a construction project on RAF Akrotiri, the UK’s “extremely busy” air base on Cyprus from which it flies bombing sorties across the Middle East.

The document, prepared in March 2019, notes there were then 87 US airmen deployed to RAF Akrotiri in 2018, including 12 officers.

But the US planned to increase its personnel levels by 48% over the next six years. By 2024, the US plan was to have 129 airmen deployed to the base, 15 of them officers.

The real figure for US military personnel based on British Cyprus is likely to be higher.

There are multiple other garrisons and military installations across the two British SBAs – known as Dhekelia in the east of the island and Akrotiri in the west – and at the UK’s so-called “retained sites” in Cyprus proper. These likely host some US military personnel.

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.

***

It’s of course in Pakistan’s objective national interests that it successfully clinches comprehensive economic and energy deals with Russia in order to relieve the pressure upon it caused by the cascading crises of the past year, but it’s also bittersweet that this is only just happening now. Had it occurred almost a year ago after former Prime Minister Imran Khan’s visit, then those aforementioned crises might never have transpired, or at least not as intensely as they did when it came to the economic and financial ones.

Russian-Pakistani Economic & Energy Cooperation Just Took A Great Leap Forward” in mid-January after the latest intergovernmental commission between these two non-traditional partners saw them agree to comprehensively expand related ties between them.

This was followed shortly thereafter by Foreign Minister Bilawal Bhutto visiting Moscow this week, almost one year after former Prime Minister Imran Khan (IK) did.

The two trips evoked a sense of déjà vu since they both concerned economic and energy cooperation, which each respective representative agreed to further expand with their Russian hosts. The difference between them, however, is the context in which they occurred as well as the outcome for each of them personally. IK coincidentally visited on the exact same day as Russia launched its ongoing special operation in Ukraine and Pakistan’s ties with the US were noticeably tense at the time.

He was swiftly deposed in early April through a US-orchestrated but superficially “democratic” post-modern coup that many suspect was supervised by former Chief Of Army Staff (COAS) General Qamar Javed Bajwa. Ties with Russia were informally frozen while those with the US improved, at least rhetorically. Pakistan then descended into the post-modern dictatorship where it remains today amidst the global systemic transition to multipolarity chaotically accelerating towards uncertain ends.

Between then and now, cascading economic, financial, political, and security crises hit Pakistan, the roots of which predated last April’s post-modern coup in some sense (at least insofar as the interconnected economic and financial ones) but were indisputably exacerbated by it. The failure of IK’s replacements to clinch the preferential energy deal that he was negotiating with Russia, obviously due to US pressure, further worsened the hardships imposed upon average Pakistanis.

Nevertheless, Pakistan officially remained neutral in the New Cold War over the direction of the earlier mentioned global systemic transition between the US-led West’s Golden Billion and the jointly BRICS– & SCO-led Global South of which Russia is a part by refusing to condemn Moscow at the UN. The appointment of new COAS Asim Munir in late November coincided with Pakistan seriously resuming its economic and energy talks with Russia that were unofficially frozen for the most part since last April.

It was in the run-up to that changing of the guard that the “official narrative” about Russian energy imports that was artificially manufactured by the post-modern coup regime after IK’s ouster began to change. Instead of continually to counterfactually insist that Pakistan couldn’t process Russian oil, they now predicted that a major energy deal could help resolve their country’s crisis. The US catalyzed this reversal by officially reassuring Pakistan in mid-October that such purchases aren’t sanctionable.

Washington reaffirmed this stance immediately prior to BBZ’s trip to Moscow, which can be interpreted as having given the greenlight for Pakistan to purchase Russian resources, unlike its previously presumed hostility to this course of action in the run-up to IK’s visit almost a year ago. What appears to have changed is that the US realized that Pakistan’s reliable access to discounted Russian resources is required to help keep its imported post-modern coup regime in power there.

In the last months of IK’s tenure, the US regarded such reliable access as a valve from rising domestic pressure brought about by Pakistan’s impending economic and financial crises at the time, which it subsequently sought to weaponize in the court of public perception to justify its post-modern coup. After having sabotaged those talks through his ouster, which were unofficially frozen in the aftermath, everything went into free fall.

On the one hand, this disastrous outcome served to enable the US to reassert its declining unipolar hegemony over the Pakistani state by making related relief such as that from the IMF or Russian energy deals dependent on America’s approval. On the other hand, however, it inadvertently contributed to the large-scale but purely peaceful protests led by IK after average Pakistanis realized that his replacements are incapable of improving the economy like they promised (and was why they claimed to oust him).

In such a situation, the most pragmatic recourse from the perspective of the US’ grand strategic interests was to greenlight the resumption of Pakistani-Russian energy talks in the hope that its restored regional proxy state could relieve some of the self-inflicted economic and financial pressure. Failure to do so could prompt further protests, which in turn might only be able to be put down with brutal force that would thus risk fully discrediting the post-modern coup regime in the eyes of the Western public.

It was therefore within this newfound context that BBZ visited Moscow almost a year after IK did and for the very same reason as that ousted leader, hence the déjà vu that keen observers are experiencing. The outcome of their respective trips is completely different though since the US approved BBZ’s energy talks with Russia while disapproving of IK’s, which is why the former isn’t at risk of being ousted like the latter ultimately was.

It’s of course in Pakistan’s objective national interests that it successfully clinches comprehensive economic and energy deals with Russia in order to relieve the pressure upon it caused by the cascading crises of the past year, but it’s also bittersweet that this is only just happening now. Had it occurred almost a year ago after IK’s visit, then those aforementioned crises might never have transpired, or at least not as intensely as they did when it came to the economic and financial ones.

The takeaway is that the damage inflicted upon Pakistan by the US-orchestrated but superficially “democratic” post-modern coup that many suspect COAS Bajwa oversaw against IK as punishment for his independent foreign policy was completely unnecessary and could have been avoided. The indisputable consequence is that this country is now altogether much weaker than it was a year ago, which confirms that those who overthrew him truly harmed Pakistan’s objective national interests.

*

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Russia-Pakistan Relations in the Wake of Coup against Imran Khan
  • Tags:

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

And now for some Tuesday humor, brought to you by the US Treasury Department, which sees no indication whatsoever that US funds have been misused in Ukraine, following last week’s massive political shake-up wherein some dozen top Ukrainian officials were booted from their posts amid persistent corruption, embezzlement and fraud allegations so glaring it even shocked the Ukrainians.

“We have no indication that U.S. funds have been misused in Ukraine,” Treasury spokesperson Megan Apper said in Treasury’s first comments since the ‘shock’ resignations.

In the official statement given to Reuters, the US government also hailed the supposed “safeguards” which the Ukrainians have put in place, though without actually specifying any: “We welcome the ongoing efforts by the Ukrainian authorities to work with us to ensure appropriate safeguards are in place so that U.S assistance reaches those for whom it is intended,” Apper said.

The statement fails to detail precisely how US authorities are tracking disbursement of the some tens of billions in funds that go from American Joe taxpayer, and into the pockets of the Zelensky government to dole out (other than referencing a digital system which supposedly monitors funds)…

Apper said the Treasury would continue to work closely with the World Bank on tracking U.S. disbursements “to confirm that they are used as intended, as well as with Ukraine and other partners to tackle corruption.”

Apparently totally unaware of the extreme irony, Reuters chooses to add the following facts for some further context and color to its report… and it’s perhaps all you need to know:

“Ukraine ranks 116 out of 180 countries on the annual Corruption Perceptions Index released Tuesday by Transparency International, up one ranking from last year.

“Its score on the index was 33 on a scale of 0-100, where 0 means highly corrupt and 100 means very clean.”

(…and note that Treasury Dept’s statement was issued on very day that the new corruption rankings came out… the “rise” on the index means Ukraine is supposedly ever-so-slightly less corrupt.)

But again, don’t worry – nothing to see here – the US Treasury is assuring that when it comes to the well over $100 billion in defense and other foreign aid pledged as well as the many billions distributed so far, Ukraine is “very clean”.

See our viral report from last week for a review of the high-ranking Ukrainian officials who were forced to resign–Ukraine Rocked By Corruption Scandal, Wave Of Top Officials Resign: Sports Cars, Mansions & Luxury Vacations As People Suffered.

As but one example, no less than the #2 defense minister was brought down. He had a direct hand in handling some of the very billions in US aid which the Treasury is now claiming was never misused. As we pointed out earlier…

According to AFP, “the defense ministry had earlier announced the resignation of deputy minister Vyacheslav Shapovalov, who was in charge of the army’s logistical support, on the heels of accusations it was signing food contracts at inflated prices.”

In the case regarding the food contracts, Shapovalov is accused of signing a deal with an unknown, shady firm. In his role as deputy defense minister, his is the most notable and visible resignation. Crucially he had no small part in overseeing the billions of dollars flowing from the pockets of US and European taxpayers as authorized defense aid.

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.

***

U.S. elites have predictably reacted with hysteria to China’s rise and could go so far as to provoke a world war to try to salvage their Southeast Asia empire—as the Roosevelt administration did with Japan on the eve of Pearl Harbor.

From 1991 to 2021 China achieved ten-fold growth in incomes and labor productivity, and a thirteen-fold increase in GDP—largely because of sound economic policies.

The country’s growing economic as well as technological primacy placed it in an increasingly strong position to create an East Asian economic and possibly a security bloc to pull Asian states out of their dependence on the West.

The former was in the process of being achieved with a) China’s creation of the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB), which provided loans to other Southeast Asian countries without the same stipulations as those meted out by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank; and b) the advent beginning in 2013 of the One Belt-One Road Initiative (BRI), which has invested massively in infrastructural development projects in many different countries that are designed to tether their economies to that of China.

A.B. Abrams[1] points out in his book, Power and Primacy: A History of Western Intervention in the Asia-Pacific (New York: Peter Lang, 2022), that China is poised to achieve by cooperation in the next decade what Japan set out to achieve by coercion in the first three decades of the 20th century—the creation of a Southeast Asia power bloc capable of resisting Western empires that have ravaged Southeast Asia since the 16th century.

Predictably, U.S. elites have reacted to China’s rise not too differently than they did Japan’s—through a campaign of demonization and large-scale military buildup in the Asia Pacific along with the institution of economic warfare that threatens the outbreak of another world war.

Japan’s Empire Threatens to Undermine Western Primacy in Southeast Asia

Abrams provides a revisionist history of the Japanese empire at the turn of the 20th century that challenges the orthodox interpretation presenting Japanese leaders in the 1930s and 1940s as morally equivalent to Nazis and that blames Japan for the outbreak of World War II in the Pacific.

While the Japanese overreached and committed unconscionable atrocities, like in the Rape of Nanking, Japan’s Greater Co-Prosperity sphere—in which Japan colonized Taiwan and Korea and made moves to try to take over European colonies—provided a counterweight and challenge to Western imperialism and inspired Asian nationalists to overthrow the yoke of Western colonial rule.

Source: history.stackexchange.com

Historian Eri Hotta attributed the independence of Vietnam, Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore, the Philippines, Korea and Cambodia after World War II to the “psychological impact of Japanese victories over Western empires,” which had “defeated the idea of European supremacy” while “delegitimizing Western imperialism in the eyes of the Asian people.”

Japan had escaped the fate of other Southeast Asian countries in the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries by adopting a strict policy of isolation under the Tokugawa Bakufu and successfully industrialized its economy following the Meiji restoration in the late 1860s while building a formidable military that defeated Russia in the 1905 Russo-Japanese War.

MIT Visualizing Cultures

In the Battle of Nanshan, Lieutenant Shibakawa Matasaburô leads his men and slaughters Russian troops holding up a rising sun (1904). The image is from a woodblock print from the collection of the Boston museum of Fine Arts. [Source: visualizingcultures.mit.edu]

Beginning in the early 20th century, Japan’s leaders saw the need for an empire of their own that could lead a new Asian renaissance. While political freedom was largely stifled, Taiwan and Korea experienced significant economic gains under Japanese rule marked by extensive industrialization and infrastructural development.

According to Abrams, the discrepancy in industrial development between Japanese and Western controlled territories in East Asia was tremendous, with Manchuria’s steel output coming to eclipse that of Japan itself.

The Sui-ho Dam in Korea under construction in 1942 when Japan ruled Korea. The dam was the second largest in the world. [Source: upload.wikimedia.org]

Japanese industrialization of the wider Southeast Asia region posed an imminent threat to Western interests by “ending the vast disparity between the industrialized west and the underdeveloped, non-western world.”

The Roosevelt administration responded by instituting a large-scale naval build-up in the Asia Pacific, along with a crippling oil embargo on Japan while banning steel exports, which it was known would lead to war.

Pacific War As Brutal Race War

Seen in proper historical context, the Pacific War was a war for empire, which resulted in the destruction of the U.S.’s imperial rival in the Asia-Pacific.

Charles Lindbergh, the famed aviator and member of the anti-interventionist America First Committee, wrote in 1969 that “more than a generation after the war’s end, our occupying armies still must occupy, and the world has not been made safe for democracy and freedom.”[2]

The thorough dehumanization of the Japanese during the war was epitomized by a U.S. Navy film which described them as “snarling rats.” Life magazine’s picture of the week in May 1944 showed a woman with a Japanese skull from her boyfriend autographed by him and thirteen others and inscribed: “This is a good Jap—a dead one picked up on the New Guinea beach.”[3]

During the firebombing of Tokyo in March 1945, the U.S. Air Force dropped half a million incendiary cylinders in one night alone, destroying the homes of 372,000 Japanese families and killing as many as 200,000 people, mostly from burning or asphyxiation. The huge number of bodies stopped the Sumida River entirely like some “hideous, grotesque beaver dam,” according to an eyewitness.

Black and white photo of people walking along a road passing through a large area of destroyed buildings

Road passing through part of Tokyo that was devastated in March 1945 by U.S. air raids. [Source: wikipedia.org]

A U.S. Army intelligence officer, Colonel Harry F. Cunningham, reported that “the entire population of Japan is properly a military target…there are no civilians. In Japan, we intend to seek out and destroy the enemy wherever he is, in the greatest possible numbers, in the shortest possible time.”

The violence in the Pacific War culminated with the dropping of the two atomic bombs over Hiroshima and Nagasaki which were unnecessary for the U.S. to win the war, but sent a signal to the Soviets not to mess with the boss of the new world order.

After the war, Japan evolved into a key U.S. client state hosting U.S. military bases that were used as launching pads for aggression across Southeast Asia.

During the U.S. military occupation of Japan from 1945 to 1952, General Douglas MacArthur, head of the Supreme Command of the Allied Powers (SCAP), carefully vetted all the political candidates in elections that were rigged to favor the pro-U.S. Liberal Democratic Party (LDP).[4] Journalist Robert Smith concluded that Japan at the time was “about as far from a democracy as could be conceived short of putting power back in the hands of the shoguns [the military rulers of Japan until 1861].”

General Douglas MacArthur with Emperor Hirohito after the Japanese surrender. [Source: wikipedia.org]

In 1983, Japanese Prime Minister Yasuhiro Nakasone referred to Japan as “America’s unsinkable aircraft carrier in the Pacific.” The region had been transformed since the end of the Pacific War into what General MacArthur termed an “Anglo-Saxon lake”—a most dramatic transformation from the 1930s when Japan had challenged Western primacy.

Thirty-Year War to Destroy the People’s Republic

With Japan functioning as a U.S. client state, the banner of resistance to empire in Southeast Asia was picked up by communist China following the 1949 victory of the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) led by Mao Zedong in China’s civil war.

The United States during the civil war provided approximately $2 billion in military assistance to nationalist Guomindang leader Chiang Kai-Shek, who had split from the Maoists in the 1920s.

U.S. military forces bombed PLA strongholds and carried out severe reprisals against communist guerrillas who had sunk deep roots among the local population.

General David Barr, head of the U.S. military mission in China, concluded that the Guomindang’s defeat, despite marked superiority in all types of equipment, was the result of the “world’s worst leadership,” “widespread dishonesty and corruption in the armed forces,” and “many other morale destroying factors that led to a complete loss of will to fight.”

The communists under Mao’s leadership by contrast had worked to increase the living standards of China’s peasants and built a reputation for honesty, having transformed themselves into “China’s most dynamic political force.”

In the summer of 1949, the GMD leadership fled to Taiwan, taking numerous national and artistic treasures and China’s gold reserves with them.

Massacres carried out against the local population resulted in the death of at least 28,000 Taiwanese. Americans present in Taiwan equated the imposition of Guomindang rule with having “put all Formosans [Taiwanese] into slavery.”

“The Horrifying Inspection,” a woodcut by Taiwanese printmaker Li Jun. It shows a Guomindang soldier shooting a Taiwanese native, which was symptomatic of the period of white terror that is largely ignored in contemporary discussions about Taiwan. [Source: wikipedia.org]

CIA agent Ralph McGehee, who worked at the CIA station in Taiwan, stated that the CIA trained and equipped Special Forces in Taiwan who were dropped onto the Chinese mainland with instructions to develop resistance movements, carry out sabotage and psychological warfare operations, and gather intelligence on the Chinese Communist Party (CCP).

The CIA at the same time began training remnants of the Guomindang in Myanmar (Burma) to mount incursions into Chinese territory, with weapons being flown into jungle airstrips built by U.S. engineers throughout Thailand.

The secret operations—funded in part through opium and which contributed to Myanmar’s destabilization— were exposed when two CIA agents, John Downey and Richard Fecteau were shot down while trying to smuggle arms and other military supplies into China in 1952 (they were released from captivity only in December 1971).[5]

From April 1951 through 1952 alone, the CIA spent $100 million buying enough arms and ammunition for 200,000 guerrillas.

In northwest China, the CIA recruited clans from the Muslim Hui minority commanded by tribal leader Mu Pu-Fang who had ties to the Guomindang.

CIA agent Douglas Mackiernan worked out of the Urumqi consulate under State Department cover in an attempt to activate Muslims in the Xinjiang province to “continue the civil war against the Chinese communists.”

Filling his jeep with weapons and gold bars, Mackiernan—the first CIA agent killed in action—relocated to Tibet, where the CIA launched a covert operation to train Tibetan separatist guerrillas, some of whom were transported to a military base in the mountains of Colorado whose high altitudes simulated those of their homeland.

Not quite the pacifists as they were portrayed in the Western media, the CIA’s Tibetan guerrillas sabotaged infrastructure, mined roads, cut communication lines and ambushed the PLA.

The establishment of the PRC ironically had freed Tibetans from feudal conditions under the ruling lamas. It also emancipated women and oversaw a surge in literacy rates and life expectancy, building many hospitals and schools.

The 14th Dalai Lama wrote years later that Western support for Tibetan separatism came “not because they cared about Tibetan independence, but as part of their worldwide efforts to destabilize all communist governments.” He also said that cooperation with the CIA “only resulted in more suffering for the people of Tibet.”

A Brutal History—That Explains a Lot About Today

The history of U.S. destabilization efforts in China, including through attempts to manipulate disaffected minorities and fortify a strategic base in Taiwan—which the Chinese consider to be part of the Chinese nation—helps explain many of China’s policies today along with those of Japanese leaders during the 1930s.

During the Korean War (1950-1953), General Douglas MacArthur advocated for a nuclear attack on China, which intervened to save the autonomy of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK).

The Truman administration had justified its aggression in Korea by claiming that the DPRK—under the leadership of Kim Il Sung, the son of a prominent nationalist who led anti-Japanese guerrillas in Manchuria—was a puppet of the Soviets and Chinese, which was a myth.

Between 1946 and 1949, Kim’s administration earned significant domestic support by increasing industrial output by 340% and state industry by 420%, with salaries of North Korean factory and office workers increasing 83% in that time.

North Korean communist leader Kim Il-sung during his guerilla resistance years, February 1936 (colour litho)

Kim Il Sung depicted in the mid 1930s as an anti-Japanese guerrilla resistance leader. [Source: wilsoncenter.org]

After World War II, the Truman administration tried to impose a client government in South Korea under conservative Syngman Rhee, who presided over what Time magazine called “an economic wasteland” and massacred tens of thousands of his own people before the Korean War officially broke out.

Characterized by General Archer Lerch as “a man U.S. forces might have to lock up in jail,” Rhee had been flown into South Korea, after more than 25 years living in exile, on an Office of Strategic Services (OSS) plane by General Douglas MacArthur.

In the early morning hours of June 25, 1950, South Korea’s Office of Public Information reported a South Korean military attack on the border city of Haeju, which North Korea confirmed but South Korea later retracted.

A detailed study by historian Karunakar Gupta of the University of London found that South Korean government claims that their attack on Haeju had occurred much later were effectively impossible and that a South Korean attack likely did occur to precipitate the war.

Korean War | Combatants, Summary, Years, Map, Casualties, & Facts | Britannica

Source: britannica.com

After the U.S.-UN forces retook the offensive into North Korea following General MacArthur’s famous behind-enemy-lines landing at Inchon, many parts of North Korea were left a moonscape by ferocious U.S. bombing attacks.

General Matthew Ridgway said it was “destruction for destruction’s sake,” while Dean Rusk, the Assistant Secretary of State for Far Eastern Affairs in 1950-1951, said that U.S. bombers would “attack everything that moved in North Korea, every brick standing on top of another.”[6]

U.S. troops in Korea generally behaved as they did in Japan: strafing refugees, massacring civilians, and committing large-scale rape. They also emulated Japanese practice in China by unleashing disease-infected insects over North Korea and China, while U.S. doctors performed sadistic medical experiments on captured North Korean and Chinese POWs.[7]

A depiction of the scene under the No Gun Ri Bridge from the 2009 South Korean feature film A Little Pond. U.S. troops massacred hundreds of civilians at No Gun Ri in one of the many massacres that took place during the war. [Source: wikipedia.org]

“Hundreds of My Lais”

The barbarous U.S. troop behavior during the Korean War set the groundwork for the Vietnam War where atrocities like My Lai—where U.S. troops shot up a village of 500 people—helped to ignite large-scale anti-war opposition.

Mỹ Lai massacre - Wikipedia

Victims of the infamous My Lai massacre. [Source: wikipedia.org]

Colonel David Hackworth, a Distinguished Service Cross recipient, noted that “Vietnam was an atrocity from the get-go…There were hundreds of My Lais. You got your card punched by the numbers of bodies you counted.”

Under the “mere gook rule,” it was “no crime to kill or torture or rob or maim a Vietnamese because he was a mere gook.”

Vietnamese girls were tortured with lit cigarettes and electricity and had their bodies mutilated after they were raped and killed. Infantryman Michael Farrell recalled: “Our platoon sergeant told us ‘if there’s a woman in a hootch, lift up her dress, you know, and tell by her sex; if it’s a man, kill him; and if it’s a female, rape her.’” The sergeant was a veteran of two previous wars, and may well have learned such practices in Korea, Okinawa or elsewhere

After the My Lai massacre was uncovered, a U.S. general named Willoughby characteristically asked: “What is all the fuss. In Korea we had My Lais all the time.”

Imperial Objectives

A key factor driving the atrocity-producing environment in Vietnam was the imperial context of the war, which most mainstream histories obscure.

The U.S. war objectives were to transform South Vietnam into a U.S. client state along the model of South Korea, Philippines and Indonesia, and a base for regional military operations, and to integrate South Vietnam’s economy with the regional power bloc led by Japan.

After bankrolling the French war effort, the Eisenhower administration artificially divided Vietnam at the 17th parallel, and blocked elections to reunify the country under nationalist Ho Chi Minh—who had led the liberation war against France and quoted from the U.S. Declaration of Independence in his September 1945 independence speech.

The Eisenhower administration also supported a client government in South Vietnam, led by Ngo Dinh Diem who had lived in exile during the 1st Indochina War, that favored Catholics over the majority Buddhists and tortured or killed all its political opponents.

When Diem lost his political utility, the Kennedy administration sponsored a coup against him that resulted in his death. The Johnson administration then fabricated the Gulf of Tonkin incident that made it appear that a U.S. naval vessel suffered an unprovoked attacked by North Vietnam in the South China Sea as a pretext for the major U.S. troop escalation.

Neocolonialism in the Philippines

The horrors of U.S. imperialism are well known by Filipinos who suffered first from the U.S. military invasion at the turn of the 20th century and from repeated U.S. counterinsurgency operations that helped to install a pro-American elite. Now, the U.S. is planning to build new military facilities in the Philippines in its effort to contain China and restore old bases.

After the Philippines gained its independence from Spain in 1898, the U.S. invaded the Philippines in order to establish a foothold in Southeast Asia and proceeded to kill more than 200,000 civilians. Historian George Taylor wrote that “demands were made of the Philippines [at the time] for the commercial advantage of the U.S. but none for the social and political advantage of the Philippines.”

Heavy social inequality after World War II led to the rise of the Hukbalahap, an agrarian reform movement that the CIA was sent to help suppress. CIA agent Edward Lansdale adopted brutal methods such as the vampire trick where dead Huks would be placed on poles in town squares and made to look like a vampire haunting the population if they continued to resist.[8]

Lansdale wrote the speeches for U.S. puppet Ramon Magsaysay (1953-1957), who, with his successor Ferdinand Marcos (1965-1986), helped transform the Philippines into a staging ground for U.S. covert military operations across Southeast Asia during the Cold War. Which is what the Biden administration wants to turn it into again in the New Cold War under Marcos’ son, Bongbong, who was elected Filipino president last year.

The CIA and Genocide in Indonesia

Indonesia came into the CIA’s focus after the Korean War when the Agency realized that Indonesia had 20 billion barrels of untapped oil, a leader who spurned the U.S. (Sukarno, who headed the non-aligned movement), and a rising communist movement.

By the mid 1950s, the CIA had an active regime-change operation in place. The Agency provided $1 million to the Islamist Masyumi Party, which opposed Sukarno, and sought to manufacture a pornographic film superimposing Sukarno’s face onto that of one of the actors.

Sukarno claimed in 1958 that a CIA bombing attack killed more than 700 civilians after it struck a ship and a church, killing everyone onboard and inside—a claim that was supported by American sources.

In May 1959, the CIA’s air units bombed the Amban marketplace, killing dozens of civilians on their way to church on Ascension Thursday, a Christian holy day.

CIA pilot Allen Pope who was captured and imprisoned by the Sukarno regime, said years later that he had “enjoyed killing communists” and “liked to kill them any way he could get them.” In Pope’s assessment, Indonesia was a great success of U.S. foreign policy as “we knocked the shit out of them. We killed thousands of communists.”

On the night of September 30, 1965, General Suharto—who stole between $15 and $35 billion from the Indonesia treasury during his long rule lasting until 1998—used the pretext of a communist coup to seize power and try to wipe out the Indonesian Communist Party (PKI).

Islamic groups participated in mass killings after their religious leaders spread word about the evils of the atheistic communist menace.

For years, the CIA and U.S. government had cultivated assets in the Indonesian military and police and had helped plan the coup by provoking tensions between the military and PKI. The CIA also supplied lists of dissidents who were targeted in the pogroms, which left between 500,000 and three million people dead.

Mary Vance Trent, the First Secretary at the U.S. Embassy in Jakarta, was characteristic in reporting to Washington that the elimination of the PKI and mass killing of civilians was a “fantastic switch which has occurred over ten short weeks.” She also wrote, in a December 1965 cable, about the “striking success” of the army’s campaign.

Suharto’s government opened Indonesia to foreign corporations and, during the Vietnam War, provided radars to the CIA that helped develop electronic warfare counter-measures against Soviet S-75 air defense systems adopted by the North Vietnamese, which helped facilitate mass bombings and napalm saturation of North Vietnamese cities.

CIA agent Ralph McGehee reported that the CIA had forged documents and falsified information to implicate the PKI in the phony coup plot that was used by Suharto and the Indonesian military as a pretext to seize power. McGehee also said that the Indonesia coup became a model for subsequent covert operations carried out by the CIA in Southeast Asia that also had a deadly societal impact.

Pivot to Asia and Looming Prospects of War

Abrams’ final chapter provides critical insights on the pivot to Asia policy, or large-scale regional military build-up, that was introduced symbolically in November 2011 by then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on a U.S. naval destroyer in Manila Bay, the location for America’s original pivot to Asia in the 1898 Spanish-American Philippines war.[9]

All of a sudden at this time, the Obama administration and its successors promoted their concern about China’s alleged seizure of territorial islands in the South China Sea to which China in fact had long-standing historical claims going back to the Han dynasty 1,800 years ago.

China’s alleged seizure of these islands along with alleged human rights abuses toward the Uyghur Muslims in Xinjiang provided the pretext for greater U.S. military intervention along with China’s alleged crackdown on “pro-democracy” activists in Hong Kong and threatened aggression in Taiwan.

Since 2014, the U.S. has staged provocative military maneuvers preparing for war with China, while initiating an attempted economic blockade of the Strait of Malacca and ramping up economic warfare.

These measures are eerily similar to ones initiated by the Roosevelt administration in the 1930s that provoked the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor and world war in the Pacific.

The difference today is that U.S. economic warfare measures are largely counterproductive because of the dependence of the U.S. economy on China’s.

China has also eclipsed the U.S. in its military-technological capabilities and effectively cultivated regional allies through a soft-power approach under the BRI, while working toward interlinking regional economies in an anti-imperialist coalition that looks to be far more durable than that forged by Japan coercively in the 1930s.

*

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].

Notes

  1. Abrams is the pseudonym for a former U.S. intelligence officer with deep experience in Southeast Asia who is a prolific writer on geopolitics and an astute political analyst. 

  2. Wayne S. Cole, Charles A. Lindbergh and the Battle Against American Intervention in World War II (New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1974), 238. 
  3. President Franklin Roosevelt said of one skull sent to the White House: “This is the sort of gift I like to get…There will be plenty more such gifts.” 
  4. Nobusuke Kishi, Japan’s Prime Minister from 1957 to 1960, had served in the war-time cabinet of Hideki Tojo. 
  5. The covert war against China continued until about 1961, at which time most of the CIA advisers went to Laos where they organized opium-growing hill-tribes into a private army that fought the pro-communist Pathet Lao. 
  6. As much as 30% of the North Korean population was killed in the U.S. onslaught. A U.S. Marine wrote of these deaths in the following terms: “They’re just a bunch of gooks, who cares about the feelings of people like that.” 
  7. See Wilfred Burchett, This Monstrous War (Melbourne: Joseph Waters, 1953), https://www.revolutionarydemocracy.org/archive/KoreanWar.pdf 
  8. Lansdale’s Filipinos tellingly were described as the type who would “slit their grandmother’s throat for a dollar eighty five.” They played a key role characteristically in the Phoenix program, a targeted assassination program during the Vietnam War that was used as a blackmail scheme by the South Vietnamese government. 
  9. See Jeremy Kuzmarov, Obama’s Unending Wars: Fronting the Foreign Policy of the Permanent Warfare State (Atlanta: Clarity Press, 2009), 193. 

Featured image is from scmp.com

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on China Appears Poised to Achieve Through Cooperation in the 21st Century What Japan Sought to Achieve Through Coercion in the 20th

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has criticized the decision by his NATO allies to provide Ukraine with over 300 heavy tanks to prolong the war against Russia, calling it a “high-risk move.”

“I personally can’t say that sending tanks will resolve this issue,” Erdogan told state broadcaster TRT during an interview on 1 February. “This is a high-risk endeavor and will only line the pockets of gun barons,” he added.

The Turkish leader also said his nation would continue talks with both Russia and Ukraine as part of efforts to find a path to peace.

Erdogan’s criticism of his western allies is the latest show of discord between Ankara and NATO, as over the past year, Turkiye has been holding up Sweden and Finland’s ascension to the war alliance.

The two Nordic nations formally applied to join NATO last May, abandoning decades of neutrality. Any country joining NATO requires the unanimous approval of member states.

Tensions recently spiked between Ankara and Stockholm after Danish-Swedish extremist Rasmus Paludan burned copies of the Quran on two separate occasions last week.

“Despite warnings, Sweden turned a blind eye to the Quran burning, and police protected the perpetrators. Hate crimes against Muslims are not acceptable,” Erdogan said, adding that “an apology from Sweden won’t fix issues.”

Earlier on Wednesday, Erdogan said Turkiye “looks positively” on Finland’s application for NATO membership, but does not support Sweden’s bid.

“Sweden should not bother to try at this point. We will not say ‘yes’ to their NATO application as long as they allow burning of the Quran,” Erdogan said during a speech in parliament.

Last month, Swedish Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson told reporters that Stockholm wants to resume talkswith Turkiye.

“Our collective message is that we want to call for calm, for reflection, for calm in the process so that we can return to functioning talks between Sweden, Finland, and Turkiye on our common NATO membership,” Kristersson told reporters.

The US is Making Billions Being Warlords in Yemen

February 2nd, 2023 by Joziah Thayer

One of Biden’s promises during his presidential campaign was to immediately move to end all support for the Saudi-led coalition’s war in Yemen.

In February 2021, Biden stood at a podium at the State Department and proclaimed that the war in Yemen must end.

Biden underlined the humanitarian crisis as the key reason the United States withdrew support.

An investigation (PDF) by the Government Accountability Office found that the United States is training the Saudi-led coalition, and the US has troops on the ground in Yemen.

Biden confirmed that the United States has troops in Yemen in a letter to Congress in June last year. Biden lied to the American people when he claimed that the United States was withdrawing US support for the war in Yemen in 2021.

On the contrary, the United States is making billions of dollars from the war in Yemen as 200k have been killed from direct violence. Between 2015 and 2021, the United States sent 54.2 billion dollars in weapons and services to Saudi Arabia and the UAE, according to data acquired from the Defense Security Cooperation Agency. In addition, the Department of Defense provided 644 million dollars for military training to Saudi Arabia and the UAE, almost entirely through the Foreign Military Sales program. The DoD uses acquisition and cross-servicing agreements to bill nations for logistical support and items ranging from flying hours, fuel, and bombs. Saudi Arabia paid the United States 157 million dollars in flying hours, and the UAE paid 104 million for flying hours since the GCC-led invention in Yemen’s civil war in 2015. The United States billed Saudi Arabia and the UAE for 319 million dollars in acquisitions and cross-servicing agreements for logistical support.

The United States sent 18.6 billion dollars in missiles, 6.2 billion in aircraft, 3.3 billion in ships, and 2.8 billion in military training to attack one of the poorest nations in the world. As the Wikileaks Yemen Files prove, the United States was one the biggest supporters of the military in Yemen. Former president Saleh of Yemen was once considered a cornerstone in the War on Terror in the early 2000s and built the army to combat AQAP for many years in Yemen. The United States is well aware that the GCC-led coalition is not fighting an advanced military in Yemen from AQAP or the Houthis. Billions of dollars have been spent destroying Yemen, killing hundreds of thousands of people, but the Houthis still control Sanaa, and AQAP is still active in Yemen. The UN Security Council approved a resolution to blockade Yemen every year since 2015 to prevent arms from flooding the conflict; however, the embargo has only succeeded in starving the Yemenis into famine.

On a February 9th phone call in 2022 with the King of Saudi Arabia, Salman bin Abdulaziz Al Saud president Biden assured him that the United States would continue to support the war in Yemen. The phone call came one year after Biden lied to the American people and announced that the US was withdrawing its support of the war in Yemen.

The Defense Security Cooperation Agency’s Defense Institute of International Legal Studies conducted training at the Saudi War College that focused on the law of armed conflict, including laws related to air-to-ground targeting, in May 2017, April 2018, June 2019, and May 2020. The DoD claims they are not responsible for civilian deaths because they provided the Saudis with training to avoid civilian casualties. Despite spending millions on preventing civilian deaths, 23,627 Saudi-led coalition air strikes since March 2015 have led to over 18,600 civilian casualties, according to the Yemen Data Project.

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

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

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

***

The Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) published a report in January which outlines the consequences that US arms deliveries to Ukraine had on its own stockpiles. The conclusions of the report will surely galvanise factions in the US political system that are against the sending of arms to Ukraine because Washington is not prepared for a large-scale conflict with China.

According to the report’s authors, events in Ukraine make it clear that an armed conflict between two Great Powers is bound to develop into a protracted war, and not only on the battlefield, but also in industry, which must supply the front with everything it needs without interruption from arming soldiers to high-precision missiles and bombers.

Seth G. Jones, director of CSIS’s International Security Program, wrote in another report:

“As the war in Ukraine illustrates, a war between major powers is likely to be a protracted, industrial-style conflict that needs a robust defence industry able to produce enough munitions and other weapon systems for a protracted war if deterrence fails.”

He warned that the US defence industry lacks adequate surge capacity for a major war as it is operating in a peacetime situation rather than the current competitive security environment.

“The United States has been slow to replenish its arsenal, and the DoD (Department of Defense) has only placed on contract a fraction of the weapons it has sent to Ukraine,” Jones said.

These problems, he argued, are particularly concerning since China is heavily investing in munitions and acquiring high-end weapons systems five to six times faster than the US.

Currently there is an immediate demand for the M777 155mm howitzer in the US. The Pentagon has supplied Ukraine with more than 160 M777 howitzers, along with more than a million rounds of ammunition. In addition, the stockpile of Javelin ATGM (mainly fire control units and launchers), Stinger MANPADS and AN/TPQ counter-reaction radars are decreasing sharply. Ukraine has received more than 8,500 Javelin ATGMs, 1,600 Stinger MANPADS and 50 AN/TPQ counter-reaction radars.

According to the think tank, rapidly increasing production is impractical. However, they argue that Washington is taking steps in the right direction and can expect to triple their 155mm ammunition production within three years. None-the-less, the report calls for the hoarding of other critical weapons.

According to the CSIS report, the US will probably lose the war for Taiwan. A war over Taiwan would mainly take place in the air and at sea. In this context, it is unlikely that the US can supply weapons to the island because the People’s Liberation Army Navy will immediately blockade it.

The Pentagon has repeatedly hosted simulated war games to visualise how conflict with China would look. Results from war drill scenarios show that the key condition for victory is the destruction or serious weakening of China’s navy. However, simulations almost never lead to unconditional success as China has a strong air defence system, many warships and fighter jets.

According to analysts, in such conditions, the JASSM-ER stealth anti-ship missile becomes important because it can hit targets up to 925km away. However, in a war, hundreds would be needed every week, if not thousands, meaning that the JASSM-ER missile stockpile would run out in less than a week. In addition, it would take the US two years to restore the supply of the JASSM-ER missiles.

The Pentagon will soon encounter a shortage of SM-6 air defence missiles, as well as Tomahawk missiles for the Navy. A problem for the US Navy is that missile contracts are not always approved by Congress. In January, US Navy Commander Michael Gilday complained to reporters that a $33 million contract for 11 LRASM missiles had been rejected at the highest level.

Shortage of anti-ship missiles is not the only problem though, but also the means of carrying them. In 2021, the Center for Defense Concepts and Technology at the Hudson Institute published a report concluding that the US could lose most of its aircraft if a conflict over Taiwan broke out.

The main problem, according to them, are the condition of refuelling planes far from home airfields. Fighter planes and bombers will not be able to hit targets at long distances. This is especially important in conflicts with countries with large territories, such as China. After the end of the Cold War, the US fleet of aerial refuelling aircrafts was nearly halved to 470. This number is clearly not enough for an all-out war with China over Taiwan.

It appears, according to the experts, that the US has very little prospect for victory in a war with China over Taiwan. These damning conclusions could galvanise factions in the US who oppose the sending of weapons to Ukraine, especially as there is a growing call to confront China instead of Russia.

*

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on CSIS Report: Ukraine-bound Munitions Deliveries Could Negatively Impact “U.S. Capabilities in War with China”?

UK Workers Launch Largest Strike in Over a Decade

February 2nd, 2023 by Julia Conley

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

The walkout comes a day after members of Parliament approved an anti-strike bill that, if made into law, would enforce “minimum service levels” for railroads and emergency services, Julia Conley reports.

Roughly half a million British workers walked out on Wednesday in the country’s largest coordinated strike in more than a decade.

About 300,000 of the striking employees are educators, and they were joined by civil servants, railroad workers, university professors, London bus drivers, museum workers and border officials, among others, with 59 percent of Britons telling YouGov in a recent poll that they supported the walkout.

The strong support comes even as an estimated 85 percent of schools across the U.K. were closed on Wednesday. Students and parents stood on picket lines alongside teachers, whose wages have not kept up with inflation and who are struggling to teach in schools where per-pupil spending for the 2024-25 school year is now expected to be 3 percent lower than it was in 2010.

“It’s partly about pay, which has been reduced by 11% over the last 10 years,” Jon Voake, a drama teacher in South Gloucestershire, told The Guardian. “But it’s also about how our workload’s going up. We’re all working with bigger groups. Children’s education is going to suffer and enough is enough.”

In the most economically deprived parts of the country, the National Education Union said, teachers’ pay has gone down by more than 20 percent since 2010 as the rate of inflation in the U.K. stands at 10.5 percent —”the highest among the G7 group of advanced economies,” according to Al Jazeera.

“We’re struggling,” a London teacher named Mehnaz told Tribune magazine last October. “Many of us are living in cold homes because we need to save wherever we can … I know colleagues who are worried about how they’ll pay their rent or their mortgage, or how they’ll be able to afford childcare when they’re at work because their children’s schools are also having to reduce hours and close earlier than they previously did.”

         National Education Union strike and rally, London, Feb. 1. (Steve Eason, Flickr, CC BY-NC 2.0)

Strike organizers said it’s entirely within the  Conservative government’s power to ensure public sector employees are paid fairly .

The Trades Union Congress (TUC) says that the average public sector worker in the U.K. now has $250 less per month than they did in 2010, accounting for inflation. A graph the organization shared on social media as the workers walked out showed that teachers’ real compensation is now far lower than the range among other countries in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.

A 5 percent pay raise offered to public sector workers last year is actually a 7 percent pay cut when accounting for soaring inflation, union leaders say.

The walkout comes a day after members of Parliament passed an anti-strike bill that would enforce “minimum service levels” in a railroad sector and emergency services, threatening workers with termination if they take part in a work stoppage.

The bill still needs to pass in the House of Lords before becoming law. The TUC has said it could take the government to court over the proposal, which TUC assistant general secretary Kate Bell told The Guardian is “unnecessary, unfair, and almost certainly illegal.”

Ambulance drivers and nurses are reportedly planning to stage a work stoppage in the coming days.

Conservative Prime Minister Rishi Sunak told public health workers on Monday, “I would love, nothing more would give me more pleasure than, to wave a magic wand and have all of you paid lots more” — but organizers and labor advocates on Wednesday said Sunak’s government simply needs to change its tax policies to mitigate the cost-of-living crisis.

    U.K. Prime Minister Rishi Sunak on right, visiting University Hospital of North Tees, Jan. 31. (No 10 Downing, Flickr, CC BY 2.0)

“We just need a fair taxation system,” John McDonnell, a Labour MP and former shadow chancellor of the exchequer, told The Guardian. He called on the Tories to tax capital gains at the same level of income to pay for raises. “The issue at the moment is that we seem to have a government that is redistributing wealth upwards,” McDonnell said.

Mark Serwotka, general secretary of the Public and Commercial Services union, told The Guardian that the Tories have claimed it would cost £29 billion ($35 billion) to give raises to public sectors, while the actual amount is about £10 billion ($12 billion).

“And £10 billion in an economy like ours can easily be found,” said Serwotka.

Mick Lynch, secretary general of the National Union of Rail, Maritime, and Transport Workers, rallied thousands of teachers outside Downing Street in London.

“We are the working class, and we are back,” said Lynch. “We are here, we are demanding change, we refuse to be bought, and we are going to win for our people on our terms.”

 

Julia Conley is a staff writer for Common Dreams.

This article is from  Common Dreams.

Biomedical Security State, British Edition

February 2nd, 2023 by Dr. Aaron Kheriaty

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, by way of contextual backdrop, let me offer a quick recap of some relevant developments, which I describe in more detail in The New Abnormal:

  • November 2021: As reported by the New York Times, the Israeli government issued emergency pandemic legislation permitting Shin Bet (their equivalent of the CIA), to access mobile phones and extract track and trace data from suspected covid patients without their knowledge or consent.
  • December 2021: Canada’s Public Health Agency confirmed that it had been extracting mobile phone data from the outset of pandemic to covertly track citizens’ movements, again without their knowledge or consent. Unlike Israel, this was not done legislatively or publicly. The agency confirmed that it planned to expand and continue this program until 2026.
  • May 2022: Vice broke story that over the past two years, “The CDC tracked Millions of Phones to See If Americans Followed COVID Lockdown Orders.” The CDC used phone location data to, among other things, monitor citizens movements at schools and churches. They confirmed plans to use the data for applications beyond covid in coming years. Researchers from Princeton demonstrated that with only four location data points, the supposedly anonymized data could easily be connected to specific persons.
  • Evidence also emerged last year that the CIA has been using unauthorized digital surveillance to spy on Americans. Two members of Senate Intelligence Committee warned that “documents reveal serious problems associated with warrantless backdoor searches of Americans.”

Not to be left out of the digital panopticon game, news from Britain broke this week with the following headline:

The article begins:

A shadowy Army unit secretly spied on British citizens who criticised the Government’s Covid lockdown policies, The Mail on Sunday can reveal.

Military operatives in the UK’s ‘information warfare’ brigade were part of a sinister operation that targeted politicians and high-profile journalists who raised doubts about the official pandemic response.

They compiled dossiers on public figures such as ex-Minister David Davis, who questioned the modelling behind alarming death toll predictions, as well as journalists such as Peter Hitchens and Toby Young. Their dissenting views were then reported back to No 10 [Downing Street, the office of the British Prime Minister].

Documents obtained by the civil liberties group Big Brother Watch, and shared exclusively with this newspaper, exposed the work of Government cells such as the Counter Disinformation Unit, based in the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, and the Rapid Response Unit in the Cabinet Office.

But the most secretive is the MoD’s 77th Brigade, which deploys ‘non-lethal engagement and legitimate non-military levers as a means to adapt behaviours of adversaries’.

As happened with so many of our federal agencies in the US, which have strayed beyond their original mission of protecting citizens from foreign threats to protecting the state from its own citizens, we see the following developments in the UK:

According to a whistleblower who worked for the brigade during the lockdowns, the unit strayed far beyond its remit of targeting foreign powers.

They said that British citizens’ social media accounts were scrutinised – a sinister activity that the Ministry of Defence, in public, repeatedly denied doing.

Papers show the outfits were tasked with countering ‘disinformation’ and ‘harmful narratives… from purported experts’, with civil servants and artificial intelligence deployed to ‘scrape’ social media for keywords such as ‘ventilators’ that would have been of interest.

The information was then used to orchestrate Government responses to criticisms of policies such as the stay-at-home order, when police were given power to issue fines and break up gatherings.

It also allowed Ministers to push social media platforms to remove posts and promote Government-approved lines.

The Army whistleblower said: ‘It is quite obvious that our activities resulted in the monitoring of the UK population… monitoring the social media posts of ordinary, scared people. These posts did not contain information that was untrue or co-ordinated – it was simply fear.’

Last night, former Cabinet Minister Mr Davis, a member of the Privy Council, said: ‘It’s outrageous that people questioning the Government’s policies were subject to covert surveillance’ – and questioned the waste of public money.

Our Missouri v. Biden case and the Twitter Files have revealed these kinds of surveillance and censorship policies to be operating in the US, as I have previously written about here.

This latest story suggests the British government has likewise been engaging in the same totalitarian policies against its own citizens.

I am reminded here of CISA, a little known U.S. government agency that’s been around for only about six years. The Cybersecurity Infrastructure Security Agency was originally set up to protect us from cyberattacks—malware, computer viruses, etc. But a year or so into their existence, CISA leadership decided that their real mission was combatting another kind of threat, which they called—in a brilliant Orwellian euphemism—domestic threats to our “Cognitive Infrastructure”.

Now, just what does this refer to? The new dangerous threats to our cognitive infrastructure are your thoughts, your ideas, the things you express for example on Twitter or Facebook or in the newspaper. With this sleight-of-hand, CISA quickly positioned itself to become the thought police at the center of the US government’s illegal censorship regime.

But back to the UK. The article describes the targeting of one of my favorite British journalists, Peter Hitchens:

Mail on Sunday journalist Mr Hitchens was monitored after sharing an article, based on leaked NHS [British National Health Service] papers, which claimed data used to publicly justify lockdown was incomplete. An internal Rapid Response Unit email said Mr Hitchens wanted to ‘further [an] anti-lockdown agenda and influence the Commons vote’.

Writing today, Mr Hitchens questions if he was ‘shadow-banned’ over his criticisms, with his views effectively censored by being downgraded in search results.

He says: ‘The most astonishing thing about the great Covid panic was how many attacks the state managed to make on basic freedoms without anyone much even caring, let alone protesting. Now is the time to demand a full and powerful investigation into the dark material Big Brother Watch has bravely uncovered.’

The whistleblower from 77 Brigade, which uses both regular and reserve troops, said: ‘I developed the impression the Government were more interested in protecting the success of their policies than uncovering any potential foreign interference, and I regret that I was a part of it. Frankly, the work I was doing should never have happened.’

The source also suggested that the Government was so focused on monitoring critics it may have missed genuine Chinese-led prolockdown campaigns.

Silkie Carlo, of Big Brother Watch, said: ‘This is an alarming case of mission creep, where public money and military power have been misused to monitor academics, journalists, campaigners and MPs who criticised the Government, particularly during the pandemic.

‘The fact that this political monitoring happened under the guise of ‘countering misinformation’ highlights how, without serious safeguards, the concept of ‘wrong information’ is open to abuse and has become a blank cheque the Government uses in an attempt to control narratives online.

‘Contrary to their stated aims, these Government truth units are secretive and harmful to our democracy. The Counter Disinformation Unit should be suspended immediately and subject to a full investigation.’

If you scroll to the bottom of the article, you’ll find that the Mail also published an accompanying commentary from the anonymous whistleblower,

This snooping was wrong, it hangs over my proud Army career like a black cloud,”

and a commentary from Peter Hitchens,

“How shadowy censors tried to remove my ‘unhelpful’ Covid views from YouTube”.

In Britain, Orwell’s country of origin, seven decades after the publication of 1984, it turns out that Big Brother is Always Watching. Perhaps this is a good moment to remind everyone that Orwell’s classic dystopian novel was meant to be a warning, not an instruction manual.

*

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Biomedical Security State, British Edition

A new wave of activity is expected for the Russian special military operation during February. The recent changes in the command of the operation appear to have been carefully planned in order to elevate the combat to a new level and several of Moscow’s strategic objectives may soon be achieved, radically changing the course of the conflict.

According to information provided by Russian military, a major offensive is being prepared for the period between February and early March. The informants say that the objectives will be:

1. Reaching the borders of the regions recently reintegrated into the Russian Federation, pacifying the new oblasts;

2. capturing Nikolaev, Odessa, as well as the entire Black Sea coast, reaching Transnistria;

3. seizing Kiev, forcing a political capitulation of the neo-Nazi regime until early March.

The territory of Belarus will become the main springboard for the upcoming strike. Mobilized Russian servicemen are being trained in training camps in Belarus, where heavy military equipment and combat aircraft are concentrated. A large bombardment force is in readiness for action. Also, Russian forces in Belarus have been collecting strategic information on the location of Ukrainian units, mainly about Kiev’s air defense, gathering intelligence data that will be used to plan the attacks.

In parallel to Belarus, Zaporozhye and Lugansk are also key zones for the Russian strategy. It is expected that massive attacks will come from these regions during the offensive, destroying enemy units in a short period of time which will allow a rapid Russian advance on the battlefield, reaching the zones listed in the above-mentioned objectives.

Sources also report that for the offensive to be successful Russian forces will focus on blocking all enemy’s supply lines. The main route of arrival of supplies to Ukraine is the border with Poland, where there is the transit of NATO’s ammunition and military equipment.

In fact, the battlefield conditions seem favorable for these objectives to be achieved. The Ukrainian forces are currently exhausted and weak. On the other hand, the mobilized Russian soldiers are fully prepared to engage in high-intensity combats. In addition, Russian artillery positions in Belarus and in the liberated territories have a privileged location, which significantly increases the chances of victory in the coming offensive.

Valery Gerasimov, Chief of the General Staff of the Russian Armed Forces, was promoted to the position of Commander of the Joint Forces of the Russian Federation in the Special Military Operation Zone. Gerasimov’s arrival to power seems to have been a move towards the final stage of the special military operation.

His predecessor, General Surovikin played an important role while in command. A veteran of Chechnya and Syria and having extensive experience in counterterrorism, Surovikin was appointed to the post at a time when Ukrainian terrorist actions were on the rise. He fulfilled the goal of neutralizing the enemy’s offensive potential with his strong actions on the Ukrainian critical infrastructure, at the same time that he saved thousands of Russian lives with his policy of avoiding trench warfare and prioritizing long-distance bombing. Now, however, the special military operation needs a new direction.

And this was the main reason for the appointment of Valery Gerasimov. As Chief of the General Staff of the Russian Armed Forces, he is undoubtedly the most prestigious Russian officer and therefore the right man to lead the operation’s most decisive moves. The objective now is no longer to break the enemy’s offensive potential, but to force Kiev’s neo-Nazi regime into capitulation through a huge offensive.

After so many Russian attempts to negotiate a peaceful resolution, with the Ukrainian government ignoring them and insisting on an irresponsible military campaign, now there seems to be no other possible end to the conflict than a Russia’s offensive strong enough to liberate the entire Ukrainian coastline and capture Kiev.

Lucas Leiroz, researcher in Social Sciences at the Rural Federal University of Rio de Janeiro,  geopolitical analyst, frequent contributor to Global Research

 

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

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

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

***

 

 

 

Today I received reports that Dutch pro cycling star Lieuwe Westra (40) and University of Arizona star swimmer, Ty Wells (23) have, in recent days, died suddenly. Judging by media reporting, the cause of their deaths is unknown. The two great athletes—both at the pinnacle of human fitness—apparently just died.

News of their deaths reminded me of a new book that I’ve been meaning to review for the last six weeks. The only reason I’ve hesitated is that this particular book strikes me as one of the most momentous ever written, so strange that it almost defies belief. The story it tells seems like something out of a dystopian science fiction novel, but in fact it falls squarely within the true crime genre.

At its heart is a mystery that now confronts all of mankind. Something out there—some horrible agent that entered the world in 2021—is killing humanity’s fittest. What could it be? What could be causing this “Epidemic of Sudden Deaths,” to quote the subtitle of Edward Dowd’s new book, CAUSE UKNOWN.

As Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. introduced the author in the book’s Forward:

Among the world’s towering financial titans is BlackRock, a company with a bigger economy than every country on Earth except the U.S. and China. They manage $10 trillion in assets. In 2002, BlackRock recruited the brilliant Wall Street careerist, Edward Dowd, and soon promoted him to serve as Managing Director. Turns out BlackRock made a very good bet on Ed Dowd: The Growth Fund he managed started at $2 billion; by the time he left BlackRock it was at $14 billion. His work with BlackRock required a keen ability to understand markets, pick stocks, analyze statistics, and identity trends.

In 2021, Dowd found himself withdrawing from Wall Street to study an entirely new kind of trend: the expanding and tragic epidemic of sudden deaths among healthy young people.

CAUSE UNKNOWN presents the results of Dowd’s investigation. Since I received my copy, I have tried very hard to play the Devil’s Advocate against it, but in the final analysis, the “tragic epidemic of sudden deaths among healthy young people” cannot be a fluke of increased detection and reporting, hyper-vigilance, or confirmation bias. What Mr. Dowd documents is terrifyingly real.

What, Dowd asks, was introduced into our world in 2021, when the epidemic began? Like all good true crime authors, he doesn’t jump to conclusions, but does a terrific job of collating and analyzing the evidence.

Judging by the Afterword by Gavin de Becker—founder of Gavin de Becker Associates—Dowd was assisted by one of the world’s most capable investigators. Mr. de Becker’s 1997 book, Gift of Fear, is widely considered the most insightful ever written on the subject of identifying and assessing mortal dangers.

I won’t spoil the ending by revealing Mr. Dowd’s thesis of what is causing the epidemic of sudden deaths among young people. Regular readers of this Substack won’t be surprised, but they will still be stunned by the book’s meticulous documentation of the global catastrophe, and saddened by its page after page of smiling children and youths who are no longer with their parents, siblings, and friends.

I especially recommend the book to all of the coroners and medical examiners of the world who—for whatever reasons—seem to remain clueless.

Cause Unknown: The Epidemic of Sudden Deaths in 2021 & 2022, (Skyhorse Publishing/Children’s Health Defense) Hardcover – December 13, 2022, by Ed Dowd (Author), Gavin de Becker (Afterword), Robert F. Kennedy Jr. (Foreword).

*

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 Cause Unknown: The Epidemic of Sudden Deaths in 2021-2022

African Americans and the United States Civil War

February 2nd, 2023 by Abayomi Azikiwe

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***
By 1860, the dominant industry within southern agriculture was cotton production which utilized the unpaid labor of Africans on lands which were stolen from the Indigenous people of North America.
 .
During that presidential election year the issue of the expansion of slavery as an economic system underlined the struggle over who would become the leader of the U.S. and serve as the command-and-chief in the coming four year war which left hundreds of thousands dead and millions displaced.
 .
The military outcome of the civil war resulted in the legislative abolition of African enslavement by Congress in 1865. Nonetheless, the question of the future role and status of the nearly four million people and another 500,000 of their kindred who were designated as free persons of color, remains unanswered until today some 160 years since the enactment of the Emancipation Proclamation on January 1, 1863.
 .
A series of Southern state-engineered referendums on secession from the U.S. were held during late 1860 and early 1861. In April of that year, the dominant political forces in South Carolina refused to allow their military units to be mobilized by the administration of President Abraham Lincoln to defend what the government considered to be the territorial integrity of the U.S. Lincoln ordered the attack on Fort Sumter and the war would begin.
 .
Developments in the war between the U.S. and the Confederate States of America (CSA) in 1861 and the first half of 1862 raised doubts as to whether the Union forces could prevail against the slave-holding class. Although the war had been framed as a conflict pitting southern slave-owning states against their northern free labor counterparts, there were many within the North who maintained sympathies for the Confederacy.
 .
In addition, there were those whites in the northern states who rejected the prospect of joining the Union military forces in a war which was perceived as a campaign to end slavery. Concurrently, when the war erupted, thousands of enslaved and free Africans fled to the Union military installations seeking to volunteer for service in Lincoln’s forces.
 .

Resistance to Enslavement and the Arming of Black Union Troops

 .
The notion of providing arms and legal protection to utilize them in a war which would determine the political status of the African people inside the country stoked fear among broad sections of the ruling class. As early as 1792, a federal law barred Africans from bearing arms for the U.S. military. This was declared even though Africans did participate on both sides during the War for Separation from Britain (1776-1783) and later in the War of 1812.
 .
Despite the racist propaganda that people of African descent were inherently inferior to Europeans, the white slavocracy and burgeoning northern industrialists remembered quite well the periodic revolts waged to put an end to human bondage. The legacies of the Louisiana Coast rebellion of 1811 which was influenced by the Haitian Revolution of 1791-1804; the Denmark Vesey insurrection plot of 1822 in South Carolina; Nat Turner’s crusade to cease arms to carry out a full blown anti-slavery war in 1831; to the attacks at Harper’s Ferry led by John Brown, Osborn Anderson and their compatriots in 1859 ,were very much in the uppermost of the minds of the slave owning class.
 .
Resistance to enslavement by Africans has been well documented in the innumerable ads taken out in mainstream newspapers seeking the recapture of people who were fleeing the plantations and other bases of exploitation. The existence of laws and executive orders by local, state and federal governmental structures which restricted the movement of Black people were numerous from the times of British colonialism through the antebellum period.
 .
The decision to enlist African men and women into the Union war efforts was done out of military necessity. The Lincoln administration had been under pressure to recruit African soldiers and operatives by leaders such as abolitionist and journalist Frederick Douglass who emphatically stated:
 .
“Once let the Black man get upon his person the brass letter, U.S. let him get an eagle on his button, and a musket on his shoulder and bullets in his pocket, there is no power on earth that can deny that he has earned the right to citizenship.”
.
 .
Frederick Douglass
 .
When General John C. Fremont in Missouri and General David Hunter in South Carolina issued proclamations that emancipated enslaved Africans in their military regions and permitted them to enlist in the Union military, their orders were overridden by superiors. However, by mid-1862, there was the decline of white volunteers amid the growing demands for personnel to staff the war machinery.
 .
Therefore, a background report written by the U.S. National Archives and Records Administration, emphasizes that:
 .
“As a result, on July 17, 1862, Congress passed the Second Confiscation and Militia Act, freeing slaves who had masters in the Confederate Army. Two days later, slavery was abolished in the territories of the United States, and on July 22 President Lincoln presented the preliminary draft of the Emancipation Proclamation to his Cabinet. After the Union Army turned back Lee’s first invasion of the North at Antietam, MD, and the Emancipation Proclamation was subsequently announced, Black recruitment was pursued in earnest. Volunteers from South Carolina, Tennessee, and Massachusetts filled the first authorized Black regiments. Recruitment was slow until Black leaders such as Frederick Douglass encouraged Black men to become soldiers to ensure eventual full citizenship. Two of Douglass’s own sons contributed to the war effort. Volunteers began to respond, and in May 1863 the Government established the Bureau of Colored Troops to manage the burgeoning numbers of Black soldiers.” (https://www.archives.gov/education/lessons/blacks-civil-war)
.
.
At the conclusion of the civil war in April 1865, some 179,000 African men had served as soldiers in the Army constituting approximately 10% of the enlisted. Another 19,000 carried out their service in the Navy. African women who could not formally enlist in the military, however, contributed immensely to the defeat of the Confederacy as intelligence operatives, scouts, medical workers and laborers. Perhaps one of the most well-known participants in the Union military forces was anti-slavery fighter Harriet Tubman from the state of Maryland.
 .
 .
Harriet Tubman
 .
Black soldiers were subjected to racial discrimination inside the Union military. Initially they were given less pay and substandard equipment and living conditions. Those African enlisted personnel would face harsher treatment when captured by Confederate military units and were subjected to torture and re-enslavement.
.
Despite these difficulties, the African soldiers and other participants in the Union war effort engaged militarily with Confederate forces in battles at Milliken’s Bend in Louisiana; in Petersburg, Virginia; and in Nashville, Tennessee. In July 1863, an assault on Fort Wagner, South Carolina, by the 54th Regiment of Massachusetts Volunteers, resulted in the deaths of two-thirds of their officers and half of the troops. By the conclusion of the war, 16 Black soldiers were awarded the Medal of Honor for their work in the war.
.
Over and above the role of Africans enlisted in the Union forces and other personnel, it was the enslaved people overall who in great numbers collectively rejected the system of human bondage. A tradition of flight, rebellion and sabotage against enslavement proved critical in the destruction of the antebellum economy.
 .
The challenge after the civil war was the reconstruction of democratic governance in a manner in which African Americans would achieve full equality and the right to self-determination. With the defeat of the slavocracy, the debate would be centered around the future rights and responsibilities of the people of African descent.

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

Russia wouldn’t have promoted this former ambassador’s critical reaction to Lula’s proposal via one of its publicly financed international media flagships if it contradicted the Kremlin’s informal views towards this matter.

Newly re-elected and now three-time Brazilian leader Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, popularly known as Lula, suggested during a recent press conference with German Chancellor Olaf Scholz that a G20-like structure be assembled for reviving the Russian-Ukrainian peace process. His most passionate supporters on social media spun this as supposed proof that his multipolar vision remains perfectly aligned with Russia’s despite evidence to the contrary, but Moscow just indirectly contradicted this.

Publicly financed TASS published the reaction of the Lugansk People’s Republic’s (LPR) former Ambassador to Russia Rodion Miroshnik, who threw cold water on Lula’s proposal. Before quoting that diplomat, whose region is now formally a part of Russia, it’s important to draw attention to the fact Moscow wouldn’t have promoted his critical reaction via one of its publicly financed international media flagships if it contradicted the Kremlin’s informal views towards this matter.

With that in mind, here’s what Miroshnik said: “Prospects for ‘Brazilian format’ talks the way Brazilian President [Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva] sees them look slim to me. The Brazilian leader can only be praised for striving to make a contribution to ending the bloodshed, but the quality of opponents in proposed talks raises questions…It is really prestigious to be a peacemaker, for the role can give you extra clout internationally, especially when there is nothing to it.”

Reading between the lines, which admittedly isn’t difficult to do since Miroshnik didn’t exactly mince his words, it’s evident that Russia believes that Lula is just trying to promote himself internationally. Anyone with even the most elementary understanding of the Ukrainian Conflict would know that a G20-like peace proposal is fated for failure since there’s no way that some of the implied parties would ever agree to anything other than Russia’s complete strategic capitulation.

Brazil’s world-class diplomats are obviously aware of this, as is Lula, especially considering the keen observer of International Relations that he is. This in turn leads to the conclusion that his intentions in proposing this doomed-to-fail G20-like structure aren’t sincere but rather completely driven by his political self-interests in promoting his return to the world stage, especially in the eyes of the US-led West’s Golden Billion that would benefit from manipulating his proposed peace process.

There’s no point in Russia wasting value diplomatic time entertaining this possibility, yet it also can’t officially dismiss it out of hand either lest it inadvertently offend its fellow BRICS partner. For that reason, Moscow arguably responded indirectly by having publicly financed TASS amplify the former LPR Ambassador to Russia’s critical reaction to Lula’s proposal, which should be interpreted as having been done with a wink and a nod from the Kremlin due to the two players involved, TASS and that diplomat.

Looking forward, Lula will probably continue pushing this proposal despite the practical impossibility of any tangible progress ever being made on it since his political interests are served by doing so exactly as Miroshnik very strongly suggested. Russia might officially pay lip service to his superficially well-intended attempt to broker peace between it and Ukraine, but its policymakers know that he’s only making a spectacle out of this in order to give himself extra clout internationally.

The possibility of splintering China apart into separate regions, outside of Beijing’s influence, has been an integral part of American foreign policy ever since the end of the 1940s, when China exited Washington’s control following the communist revolution. 
 
The 1949 communist takeover of China was termed in imperialist language as the “loss of China” in Washington. China’s revolution was lamented by American politicians as a major blow to United States power, which it undoubtedly was, after China had been a Western client nation for many years. 
 
The Harry Truman administration (1945–53), severely criticised for “losing China”, made concerted efforts to undermine America’s new rival. Between 1949 and 1951, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) increased the number of its operatives tenfold which were engaged in covert actions relating to China. (1) 
 
The CIA budget, for activities against China, reached 20 times greater than the sum of money expended on the 1953 US/British-backed overthrow of Mohammad Mosaddegh’s government in Iran. (2) 
 
Scanning maps of east Asia, US government strategists were inevitably drawn towards Tibet, in south-western China, as an area of critical importance. The Tibetan landmass, which is recognised internationally to be within China’s frontiers, is the highest in the world, and it has an average altitude of over 4,300 metres above sea level. At 1.2 million square kilometres in size, the region of Tibet is more than twice larger than France; but it doubles to 2.5 million square kilometres, by taking into account much of the surrounding Tibetan Plateau which is scarcely inhabited by humans. 
 
 
It should be noted, in modern history, that Tibet was under effective Chinese control for almost two centuries (from 1720–1912), during the Manchu-led Qing dynasty of China. 
 
After the fall of the Qing dynasty in 1912, the 13th Dalai Lama, Thubten Gyatso, announced de facto Tibetan independence in early 1913. The Dalai Lama insisted that he was assuming spiritual and political leadership of Tibet, outside of China’s auspices. In the autumn of 1950, now a year in power, the Chinese leader Mao Zedong and his entourage – viewing Tibet as consisting of China’s historical territory – dispatched an army of 40,000 men to subdue the Tibetan independent forces, and to reintegrate Tibet to China’s authority. 
 
Beijing went a long way to achieving its ambition in Tibet through military force, during the Battle of Chamdo (6–24 October 1950), which took place in eastern Tibet and resulted in a decisive Chinese victory. The Tibetan fighters were greatly outnumbered, and around 3,000 of them ended up surrendering to the Chinese troops. 
 
The 14th (and current) Dalai Lama, Tenzin Gyatso, stressed that the Chinese soldiers did not attack Tibetan civilians in Chamdo, and he said they “were very disciplined” and “distributed some money” to the locals (3). Tibet was officially reincorporated or annexed to China just 7 months later, in May 1951. 
 
Beijing’s military offensive in Tibet was immediately condemned by China’s neighbour, India, as being “deplorable” and “not in the interest of China or peace” (4). This position was strongly supported by India’s allies, America and England. Not mentioned was that the Western-backed Chinese politician, the anti-communist Chiang Kai-shek, had previously stated his desire for the restoration of Tibet to China’s control. 
 
On 20 December 1941, Chiang Kai-shek wrote in his diary that Tibet should be claimed by China once the Second World War is over, along with other regions like Xinjiang and Outer Mongolia. In 1942, Chiang Kai-shek then drew up plans for the return of Taiwan and Manchuria to China. (5) 
 
From late 1950 the US Congress, meanwhile, considered Tibet to be a region occupied by China and which was entitled to self-determination. Tom Lantos, an American politician with the Democratic Party noted, “Only when Mao Zedong and the Chinese Communist Party came to power, and Washington broke diplomatic relations with Beijing, did sympathy for the Tibetans begin showing up at the State Department”. (6) 
 
It was around this time, from the beginning of the 1950s, that the Dalai Lama started to receive funding from the CIA; although the Dalai Lama may actually have been obtaining CIA money from the late 1940s, and he later maintained contact with CIA agents operating freely in Tibet. (7) 
 
From 1956, when anti-Beijing revolts broke out in the eastern Tibetan regions of Amdo and Kham, the CIA became actively involved in assisting the rebellions (8). From 1956 to 1957, the CIA trained between 250 to 300 “Tibetan freedom fighters” within the United States itself, at Camp Hale in the state of Colorado, astride the southern part of the Rocky Mountains. At Camp Hale, which was constructed for the US military in 1942, the Tibetan rebels were trained and organized under the supervision of Bruce Walker, a CIA officer. 
 
Following completion of training at Camp Hale, the Tibetan insurgents were transported by CIA and US Air Force planes to a secret base for operations against China, located in Aspen, the Colorado mountain resort. Once the aircraft were positioned over the facility at Aspen, the Tibetans would jump out and deploy their parachutes. 
 
The CIA was also training Tibetan fighters in the region of Tibet. The scholar Melvyn Goldstein, an expert on Tibet wrote, “The U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) immediately made contact with the [Tibetan] resistance leaders, and by 1957 had begun to train and provide weapons to Tibetan guerrilla forces” (9). In May 1957, a rebel group in Tibet with its own fighting unit was created with the help of the CIA. 
 
The Americans had already placed on their payroll the Dalai Lama’s older brother, Gyalo Thondup, who like his sibling is still alive today. In 1951 Thondup travelled to Washington, and he became a key source of information for the US State Department regarding the situation in Tibet. For example, the CIA learned from Thondup in 1952 that there were between 10,000 to 15,000 Chinese troops stationed in Tibet. 
 
The CIA offered assurances to Thondup that it would assist in securing Tibet’s independence from China. In return, Thondup agreed to aid the Americans in preparing guerrilla forces in Tibet to fight against Mao Zedong’s soldiers. 
 
A CIA intelligence report, from September 1952, acknowledged there would be serious difficulties in successfully aiding the Tibetan resistance against the might of the Chinese Army (People’s Liberation Army). The CIA developed and organised Operation ST-Circus in 1959, a covert war against Chinese influence in Tibet using guerrilla warfare, and which was headed by the Dalai Lama’s brother (10). ST-Circus turned into a fiasco as the insurgency was overcome easily by Beijing’s troops, resulting in thousands of deaths. 
 
Through this secret war in Tibet, the CIA was assisted by the intelligence services of India and Nepal. The latter country was also a US ally and shares a lengthy frontier with Tibet. CIA training camps were set up in India and Nepal. There was a joint CIA-Indian command centre in the capital city of India, New Delhi. 
 
In the late 1950s and early 1960s, hundreds of Tibetans were flown to the American-controlled islands of Guam and Okinawa, where they underwent development as guerrilla fighters (11). The Tibetan insurgents were subsequently flown back to Tibet where they exited the airplanes by parachute. The CIA provided air drops to the rebels which contained mortars, grenades, rifles and machine guns. 
 
The March 1959 Tibetan uprising, that erupted in Tibet’s capital city Lhasa, was supported by the US and India. It was an escalation of the Kham and Amdo revolts, which had been encouraged by the Dwight Eisenhower administration (1953-61). 
 
Lasting for 2 weeks, the 1959 uprising was another bloody, expensive and enduring failure: Beijing’s forces smashed it with an iron fist, compelling the Dalai Lama in the second half of March 1959 to flee Lhasa to northern India, along with tens of thousands of his followers. The Americans gave cautious backing to the new Tibetan Government in exile, the Central Tibetan Administration, which was founded in April 1959. 
 
Over elapsing time, the Dalai Lama continued to be subsidised with CIA money. In one year alone, 1964, he received $180,000 in CIA funds (12). The sum of $180,000 in 1964 is presently worth about $1.7 million. The same year, 1964, the CIA provided $500,000 ($4.7 million today) to the training of Tibetan guerrillas in Nepal, while $400,000 ($3.8 million today) was spent on training other Tibetans at Camp Hale in Colorado in 1964. The CIA forked out that year $185,000 for the transportation of the Tibetans at Camp Hale, who were flown to India. (13) 
 
Documents released by the US State Department in August 1998 stated that, from the late 1950s until the mid-1970s, the Dalai Lama in fact received $180,000 every year for his assistance during that period (14). The Dalai Lama’s retinue denied that the spiritual leader ever pocketed any of the cash himself. The Dalai Lama, who is no fool and can speak several languages including Chinese and English, later admitted, “the C.I.A.’s motivation for helping was entirely political”. 
 
From the summer of 1959 a Tibetan guerrilla unit, known as the Chushi Gangdruk Volunteer Defense Force, was receiving weapons and training from the CIA. This group was operating from the Himalayan mountains of Nepal, from which its forces would advance and ambush unsuspecting Chinese troops, or commit sabotage against their supply lines. At different times, the rebels were assisted by CIA-contract mercenaries and CIA planes roaming overhead. (15) 
 
By the mid-1960s, the Chushi Gangdruk force had nearly 2,000 fighters of Khampa ethnicity, from the Kham area of eastern Tibet, and which were now being commanded by CIA officers. One of the Tibetan fighters Nawang Gayltsen recalled, “None of us knew how to fight the Chinese the modern way. But the Americans taught us. We learned camouflage, spy photography, guns and radio operation. We played ping-pong on Sundays”. (16) 
 
In the games room at Camp Hale there was a portrait of Eisenhower, which was signed by the US president at the bottom, “To my fellow Tibetan friends, from Eisenhower” (17). Nawang said he had been taught how to destroy bridges by his CIA instructors at Camp Hale. The insurgents were paid directly by the Americans to attack Chinese government facilities, infrastructure and machinery in Tibet. If the raids were successful, the CIA would increase the payment to the rebels. 
 
According to author Joe Bageant, the final CIA arms drop to the Tibetan forces occurred in May 1965 (18). By then, American government attention under president Lyndon Johnson (1963–69) was shifting increasingly to the US war in Vietnam, which the Johnson White House escalated sharply in the mid-1960s. 
 
Roger McCarthy, a CIA officer formerly in charge of the Tibetan program said, “Generally speaking, I think the Agency [CIA] looks at Tibet as having been one of the best operations that it has ever run… But if you look at the final results, it’s a very sad commentary. If we look at what we did to Tibet as about the best that we could do, then I say that we failed miserably”. 
 
The CIA continued its operations against the Chinese alongside the Tibetan guerrillas until 1974, as relations between the US and China began to thaw at that time, on the surface at least. It was also in 1974 that the CIA funding to the Dalai Lama suddenly ceased. (19)
 
***
Notes 
 
1 Luiz Alberto Moniz Bandeira, The Second Cold War: Geopolitics and the Strategic Dimensions of the USA (Springer 1st edition, 23 June 2017) p. 76 
 
2 Ibid. 
 
3 Thomas Laird, The Story of Tibet: Conversations with the Dalai Lama (Grove Press; 1st Trade Paper edition, 10 October 2007) p. 305 
 
4 Madhur Sharma, “Explained: The China-Tibet 17-Point Agreement, The Conflict’s History, And India’s Place In It”, OutlookIndia, Updated 23 May 2022 
 
5 Rana Mitter, China’s Good War: How World War II Is Shaping a New Nationalism (Belknap Press, 27 January 2023) p. 45 
 
6 Tom Lantos, “Tibet: The Washington Perspective”, Culturalsurvival.org 
 
7 Bandeira, The Second Cold War, p. 77 
 
8 Richard M Bennett, “Tibet, the ‘great game’ and the CIA”, Global Research, 25 March 2008 
 
9 Melvyn Goldstein, “The United States, Tibet, and the Cold War”, Journal of Cold War Studies, Summer 2006, Jstor, p. 4 of 20 
 
10 Bandeira, The Second Cold War, p. 75 
 
11 Paul Salopek, “The CIA’s Secret War in Tibet”, Chicago Tribune, 26 January 1997 
 
12 Bandeira, The Second Cold War, p. 76 
 
13 Ibid. 
 
14 Dennis G. Fitzgerald, Informants, Cooperating Witnesses, and Undercover Investigations, A Practical Guide to Law, Policy, and Procedure (CRC Press Incorporate, 2nd edition, 5 November 2014) p. 15 
 
15 Bennett, “Tibet, the ‘great game’ and the CIA”, Global Research 
 
16 Salopek, Chicago Tribune 
 
17 Joe Bageant, “CIA’s Secret War in Tibet”, HistoryNet, 12 June 2006 
 
18 Ibid. 
 
19 Fitzgerald, Informants, Cooperating Witnesses, and Undercover Investigations, p. 15

This is warrior policing on steroids.”—Paul Butler, law professor

That the police officers charged with the beating death of 29-year-old Tyre Nichols are Black is a distraction.

Don’t be distracted.

This latest instance of police brutality is not about racism in policing or black-on-black violence.

The entire institution is corrupt.

The old guard—made up of fine, decent, lawful police officers who took seriously their oath of office to serve and protect their fellow citizens, uphold the Constitution, and maintain the peace—has given way to a new guard hyped up on their own authority and the power of the badge who have almost absolute discretion to decide who is a threat, what constitutes resistance, and how harshly they can deal with the citizens they were appointed to “serve and protect.”

Memphis’ now-disbanded Scorpion unit provides a glimpse into the looming crisis in policing that has gone beyond mere militarization.

Unfortunately, while much has been said about the dangers of police militarization, a warrior mindset that has police viewing the rest of the citizenry as enemy combatants, and law enforcement training that teaches cops to shoot first and ask questions later, little attention has been paid to the role that “roid rage,” triggered by anabolic steroid use and abuse by police, may contribute to the mounting numbers of cases involving police brutality.

Given how prevalent steroid use is within the U.S. military (it remains a barely concealed fixture of military life) and the rate of military veterans migrating into law enforcement (one out of every five police officers is a military veteran), this could shed some light on the physical evolution of domestic police physiques.

A far cry from Mayberry’s benevolent, khaki-clad neighborhood cops, police today are stormtroopers on steroids, both literally and figuratively: raging bulls in blue.

“Steroid use,” as researcher Philip J. Sweitzer warns, “is the not-so-quiet little secret of state and city police departments.”

John Hoberman, the author of Dopers in Uniform: The Hidden World of Police on Steroids, estimates that there may be tens of thousands of officers on steroids.

Illegal without a prescription and legitimized by a burgeoning industry of doctors known to law enforcement personnel who will prescribe steroids and other growth hormones based on bogus diagnoses, these testosterone-enhancing drugs have become hush-hush tools of the trade for police seeking to increase the size and strength of their muscles and their physical endurance, as well as gain an “edge” on criminals.

Having gained traction within the bodybuilding and sports communities, steroid use has fueled the dramatic transformation of police from Sheriff Andy Taylor’s lean form to the massive menace of the Hulk. As retired cop Phil Dees explains, “Anabolic steroid use among law enforcement officers is prevalent among the subset of cops who are heavily into weight training. They usually stand out from the crowd, and anyone who cares to look can pick out the most likely suspects.”

Broad-shouldered. Slim-waisted. Veiny. Tree-trunk necks. Rippling physiques. And as big as action heroes. That’s how Men’s Health describes these “juicers in blue”: cops using a cocktail of steroid drugs to transform themselves into “a flesh-and-blood Justice League.”

“Because juicing cops are a secretive subculture within a secretive subculture,” exact numbers are hard to come by, but if the anecdotal evidence is to be believed, it’s more widespread than ever, with 25% of police using these drugs to bulk up and supercharge their aggression.

Indeed, while steroids are physically transformative, building muscle mass, they are also psychologically affective, upping resistance to physical and emotional stress during periods of prolonged or heavy conflict, to the delight of the military, which was involved in their early development and experimentation.

Cue the rise of muscular authoritarianism.

As Philip Sweitzer documents, “Cops on steroids are simply the natural evolution of a conscious decision by the federal government to promote military authoritarianism in drug enforcement, and the implementation of military technologies.”

Roid rage is yet another example of blowback from a militaristic culture.

There are few police forces at every level of government that are not implicated in steroid use and, consequently, impacted by “roid rage,” which manifests itself as extreme mood swings, irritability, nervousness, delusions, aggressive outbursts, excessive use of force, a sense of invincibility, and poor judgment.

“For officers who work daily in high stress, high adrenaline environments and carry guns, the ‘rage’ can be even more extreme,” concludes journalist Bianca Cain Johnson, eliciting “a Hulk-esque response by those using steroids to normal situations.”

When that roid rage is combined with the trappings of a militarized cop armed to the teeth and empowered to shoot first and ask questions later, as well as to probe, poke, pinch, taser, search, seize, strip and generally manhandle anyone they see fit in almost any circumstance, all with the general blessing of the courts, the danger of any encounter with a cop grows exponentially more deadly.

Given the growing numbers of excessive force incidents by police, especially against unarmed individuals, we cannot afford to ignore the role that doping by police plays in this escalating violence.

For instance, in one of the largest busts nationwide involving law enforcement, 248 New Jersey police officers and firefighters were found to have been getting fraudulent prescriptions of anabolic steroids, human growth hormones and other muscle-building drugs from a doctor. A subsequent investigation of those officers found that many had previously been sued for excessive force or civil rights violations, or had been arrested, fired or suspended for off-duty.

As David Meinert reports, “Steroid use has been anecdotally associated with several brutality cases and racially motivated violence by police officers, including the 1997 sodomizing of an Haitian immigrant in  New York.”

Not surprisingly, police have consistently managed to sidestep a steady volley of lawsuits alleging a correlation between police doping and excessive force, insulated by a thin blue wall of silence, solidarity and coverups, powerful police unions, and the misapplied doctrine of qualified immunity.

Qualified immunity is how the police state stays in power.

Indeed, as Reuters reports, qualified immunity “has become a nearly failsafe tool to let police brutality go unpunished and deny victims their constitutional rights.”

At its most basic level, what this really translates to is an utter lack of accountability, whether over police brutality or doping.

Despite concerns about roid rage by police, few agencies carry out random tests for steroid use among officers, not even when an officer employs excessive force. Objections to such testing range from concerns about availability and cost to officer privacy.

As Hoberman points out, “The police establishment has reacted to the steroid culture by equivocating: announcing zero-tolerance policies while doing the absolute minimum to detect and control steroid use.”

Thus, any serious discussion about police reform needs to address the use of steroids by police, along with a national call for mandatory testing.

For starters, as journalist David Meinert suggests, police should be subjected to random drug tests for use of steroids, testosterone and HCG (an artificial form of testosterone), and testing should be mandatory and immediate any time an officer is involved in a shooting or accused of unnecessary force.

This is no longer a debate over good cops and bad cops.

It’s a power struggle between police officers who rank their personal safety above everyone else’s and police officers who understand that their jobs are to serve and protect; between police trained to shoot to kill and police trained to resolve situations peacefully; most of all, it’s between police who believe the law is on their side and police who know that they will be held to account for their actions under the same law as everyone else.

Unfortunately, more and more police are being trained to view themselves as distinct from the citizenry, to view their authority as superior to the citizenry, and to view their lives as more precious than those of their citizen counterparts. Instead of being taught to see themselves as mediators and peacemakers whose lethal weapons are to be used as a last resort, they are being drilled into acting like gunmen with killer instincts who shoot to kill rather than merely incapacitate.

We’ve allowed the government to create an alternate reality in which freedom is secondary to security, and the rights and lives of the citizenry are less important than the authority and might of the government.

As I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People and in its fictional counterpart The Erik Blair Diaries, the longer we wait to burst the bubble on this false chimera, the greater the risks to both police officers and the rest of the citizenry.

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

The German Foreign Minister, Ms. Annalena Baerbock, recently announced in the Council of Europe, “We are fighting a War against Russia”. With ”We”, she meant all of Europe and, of course, Germany.

This young lady-novice (42), a scholar of Klaus Schwab’s Young Global Leaders (YGL) is out of her mind.

Some 80 years after a German invasion of Russia ended horrendously in a killing streak against Germany with millions of deaths on both sides, Ms. Baerbock has the distorted brain to tell the world “We are fighting a War against Russia”.

Germany, so far, largely media-tolerated the “Baerbockization” which was intended to influence European Council members to think likewise – “We are at War with Russia.” Baerbock went on pressing the point by saying – “We all, all of Europe, are in this War” – intending to speak for Europe.

How come Baerbock wasn’t fired? At least that would have sent a signal to the world, that Germany has not fallen into the craze of wanting war with Russia.

Unless self-assured by a strong power of support behind, for example Klaus Schwab, from whose school of YGL’s she is a graduate, she might not have dared to be so bold. That she was not sacked by now, is probably also due to the same nefarious unelected and undesired world power.

German Chancellor Scholz did say this to an applauding German Parliament, “Germany will always be at the forefront when it comes to supporting Ukraine…. because there really is a war in Europe – not far from here in Berlin, it is taking place against a big country like Ukraine”…”but at the same time we must prevent the war from escalating into a war between Russia and NATO,” he cationed. See this https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/germany-approves-sending-heavy-leopard-tanks-ukraine-2023-01-25/ .

Was this a tacit encouragement for Baerbock?

How much longer will the People of the World tolerate Schwab / WEF and Co., as well as the informal, unregistered associations, like G7 and G20 / B20? How much longer are they allowed to prevail and decide over the destiny of humankind?

Does the majority of the world population even realize to what kind of self-styled and unelected powers we are exposed and by whom our future is decided?

—–

Baerbock was dead serious, thinking she was doing the planet a favor by bringing forward what most people wanted. Wrongly so. She couldn’t have been more wrong. People of this world want Peace not conflict.

Those comparatively minuscule minorities who want war, conflict, population reduction, overall control of the world’s resources and of the globe’s population, are the few power-hungry inhuman psychopaths, whose illegally begotten riches, they believe, give them the right to decide over humanity and humanity’s destiny.

The vast majority of the people of the world want Peace with Russia, want an integrated harmonious world. They do not care for Klaus Schwab, the megalomaniac and his “his brothers in crime´ and of his Death Cult, his absolute madness of a self-nominated elitist, leading the world into transhumanism, into an all digitized environment – that can and will – if not stopped now – blow up one day worse than a thousand Hiroshimas.

The Third Reich will have been a benign precursor, a trial balloon, if you will, to a no-escape worldwide empire – that too will collapse – as all empires in history collapsed. But the result would be DEVASTATING, for lack of a stronger term.

See this speech by Carlos A. Gebauer, famous actor of the German RTL TV show “Das Strafgericht” (the Criminal Court). In the summer of 2022, he spoke about the “Reset” in both historic and philosophical terms (in German) at a Conference of the Atlas Initiative for Justice and Freedom, headquartered in Gelsenkirchen, Germany.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B3mk8QSZInE.

The vast majority of the world does not care for BlackRock, and Larry Fink, BR’s CEO and his ilk, attempting to control the world with tens of trillions of assets accumulated through Artificial Intelligence (AI), controlling every economic and productive sector of the worldly universe, from food, to services, to war-machines. BlackRock is the main sponsor of the Schwab-WEF-madness.
—-

Amazingly, the German media have dealt with the Baerbock idiocy quite benignly. This, compared to what the same media on the other hand promoted – the unconditional supply of German Jaguar tanks to the most corrupt government of Europe and arguably the world, Ukraine – to fight Russia.

The German media went berserk – including some of other German speaking media, like Swiss and Austrian – who have collectively sold their soul to green neofascism – urging Olaf Scholz, the German Chancellor, to finally make the decision to supply the Leopards to Kiev.

The war-soul-journalists were like kids under the Christmas tree when finally, Scholz, of course, on orders of the US of A – decided, yes – we deliver, but the tanks will get there (to Kiev or wherever in the wasteland Ukraine) earliest by May 2023. – See this https://www.globalresearch.ca/german-leopards-more-killing-collaterals-no-end-sight-historic-perspective-germany-repeated-role-in-attempting-conquering-russia/5806049.

By then Russia may have totally “neutralized” Ukraine and the unused Leopards will rot away.

The international media condemned Baerbock’s statement vehemently, including even European Council member States. They wanted to disassociate themselves from such crude language.Even the US doesn’t seem to want a direct confrontation with Russia, if you believe the not-so-trustworthy Biden Regime.

Why then has Germany succumbed to the EU / NATO pressure on the delivery of Leopards?

Because – what many may not realize – Germany is as of this day not a free, sovereign nation. Germany has no Peace Agreement with the “conquerors” of WWII, especially not with the US. Germany functions under an Armistice Agreement since the end of WWII in 1945.

A key condition of this AA is that Germany would NEVER do anything that goes against the interests of the United States – or else – see again this https://www.globalresearch.ca/german-leopards-more-killing-collaterals-no-end-sight-historic-perspective-germany-repeated-role-in-attempting-conquering-russia/5806049.
——–

We, the People of this world, want this madness to stop. Now.

After the January 16-20, 2023 WEF meeting in Davos, the World media have unequivocally shown that they have seen enough, of this unelected WEF, of this unelected self-styled emperor of the world, named Klaus Schwab, who, by the way, is coming from a Third Reich background.

We, the People of the World, want to get back to a human way of life. All the elitist oligarchs, self-styled commanders – and eugenists – of the universe, like Gates, Rockefeller, Soros et al, should stand trial à la Nuremberg 2.0.

If not, they may want to disappear, dig themselves into a deep hole, perhaps in New Zealand, which Jacinda Ardern, NZ’s ex-PM (already gone, thanks God) – has neatly prepared as a rescue paradise for the world’s most sought-after criminals.

Madame Annalena Baerbock, please go away! By doing so, you may safe just a tiny bit of your dignity!

In addition to the nonsense talk, what also came to the fore from the WEF 2023 – that it is one of the world’s most exclusive escort and prostitution services event. Apparently, that’s what the sick-rich sociopaths need – unlimited sex, at (almost) unlimited cost. And they come to the WEF’s host in Switzerland, Davos, a ski resort – to the detriment of the local population.

Under the glory and shine of the WEF’s luster, and the Swiss police- and military defense, they are not asked, and have no choice but to accept. Money rules. Law and ethics are overruled. Dystopia, again, George Orwell’s 1984 at its best.

And remember, when the duped world chose “Green”, we the People, had no idea, that again we were misled, by an environmental dystopia, a climate-change craze, gradually turning fascist.  Just look at John Kerry and Al Gore at the 2023 WEF – their words and gesticulations speak volumes – of distortion.
See this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y6ZaDxNUrAQ  and this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rfAYLSQIxTI .

That’s what Green has become today. It’s the new fascist party. Unfortunately, often in close alliance with the Socialists, which once upon a time, had the well-being of the working class in mind, created the worlds social services, decent work-conditions, unemployment insurance, social health insurance coverage, paid vacation, weekly work hours limitations – and much more.

During the past few of decades – ravaged by uncontrolled globalism, and globalization, many of them, including so-called socialist world leaders, have sold out to the fascist globalist trend. Many of the lower echelons’ SPs – Socialist Party members – were drawn into this diabolical fascist machinery without even noticing it.

Fortunately, 2023 is a year of Transition. The world is waking up. Signals to that effect keep emerging. The US Supreme Court just ruled against Global (covid) Vaccination. This is a step they wouldn’t have dared taking just a year ago.

People! Let us stay awake and alert!

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 is a non-resident Senior Fellow of the Chongyang Institute of Renmin University, Beijing.

Ukraine Is Sinking. Are Western Elites Bailing Out?

February 2nd, 2023 by Mike Whitney

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

What makes the RAND Corporation’s latest report on Ukraine so significant, is not the quality of the analysis, but the fact that the nation’s most prestigious national security think-tank has taken an opposite position on the war than the Washington political class and their globalist allies. This is a very big deal.Keep in mind, wars don’t end because the public opposes them. That is a myth. Wars end when a critical split emerges between elites that eventually leads to a change in policy. The RAND Corporation’s new report, “Avoiding a long war: US policy and the trajectory of the Russia-Ukraine conflict”, represents just such a split. It indicates that powerful elites have broken with the majority opinion because they think the current policy is hurting the United States. We believe this shift in perspective is going to gain momentum until it triggers a more-assertive demand for negotiations. In other words, the RAND report is the first step towards ending the war.

Consider, for a minute, this excerpt from the preamble of the report:

“The costs and risks of a long war in Ukraine are significant and outweigh the possible benefits of such a trajectory for the United States.”

This quote effectively sumarizes the entire document. Think about it: For the last 11 months we have been told repeatedly that the US will support Ukraine “for as long as it takes.” The above quote assures us that that’s not going to happen. The United States is not going to undermine its own interests to pursue the unachievable dream of expelling Russia from Ukraine. (Even the hawks no longer believe that is possible.) Rational members of the foreign policy establishment are going to evaluate Ukraine’s prospects for success and weigh them against the growing likelihood that the conflict could unexpectedly spiral out-of-control. That, of course, would serve no one’s interest and could ignite a direct clash between Russia and the United States. Also, US policymakers will decide whether the ballooning collateral damage is worth the expense. In other words, are the ruptured supplylines, the rising inflation, the increasing energy and food shortages, and the declining weapons stockpiles a fair trade-off for “weakening Russia”. Many would say, “No.”

In some respects, the RAND report is just the first in a long line of falling dominoes. As Ukraine’s battlefield losses mount –and it becomes more evident that Russia will control all the territory east of the Dnieper River– the flaws in Washington’s strategy will become more apparent and will be more sharply criticized. People will question the wisdom of economic sanctions that hurt our closest allies while helping Russia. They will ask why the United States is following a policy that has precipitated a strong move away from the dollar and US debt? And, they will wonder why the US deliberately sabotaged a peace deal in March when the probability of a Ukrainian victory is near zero. The Rand report seems to anticipate all these questions as well as the ‘shift in mood’ they will generate. This is why the authors are pushing for negotiations and a swift end to the conflict. This is an excerpt from an article at RT:

The RAND Corporation, a highly influential elite national security think tank funded directly by the Pentagon, has published a landmark report stating that prolonging the proxy war is actively harming the US and its allies and warning Washington that it should avoid “a protracted conflict” in Ukraine…

(The report) starts by stating that the fighting represents “the most significant interstate conflict in decades, and its evolution will have major consequences” for Washington, which includes US “interests” being actively harmed. The report makes it very clear that while Ukrainians have been doing the fighting, and their cities have been “flattened” and “economy decimated,” these “interests” are “not synonymous” with Kiev’s.” (“Rand calls for swift end to war“, RT)

While the report does not explicitly state that ‘US interests (are) being harmed’, it certainly infers that that is the case. Not surprisingly, the report doesn’t mention any of the collateral damage from Washington’s war on Russia, but, surely, that must have been foremost on the minds of the authors. After all, it is not the $100 billion or the provision of lethal weapons that is costing the US so dearly. It is the accelerating emergence of international coalitions and alternate institutions that has put the US empire on the fasttrack to ruin. We assume that the analysts at RAND see the same things that every other sentient being sees, that Washington’s misguided conflagration with Moscow is a ‘bridge-too-far’ and that the blowback is going to be immense and excruciating. Hence, the urgency to end the war quickly. Here’s a excerpt from the report that was posted in bold print halfway through the text:

“Since avoiding a long war is the highest priority after minimizing escalation risks, the United States should take steps that make an end to the conflict over the medium term more likely.”

Interestingly, while the report details the main escalation risks, (The main risks include a broader war with NATO, a spillover of the conflict into other EU countries, and a nuclear war.) it fails to explain why exactly a ‘long war’ would be so damaging to the United States. We believe that this omission is intentional and that the authors do not want to concede that the backfiring of sanctions and the forming of anti-American foreign coalitions is clearly undermining US plans to maintain its grip on global power. Among elites, such talk is verboten. Here’s how Chris Hedges summed it up in an article at Consortium News:

The plan to reshape Europe and the global balance of power by degrading Russia is turning out to resemble the failed plan to reshape the Middle East. It is fueling a global food crisis and devastating Europe with near double-digit inflation. It is exposing the impotency, once again, of the United States, and the bankruptcy of its ruling oligarchs. As a counterweight to the United States, nations such as China, Russia, India, Brazil and Iran are severing themselves from the tyranny of the dollar as the world’s reserve currency, a move that will trigger economic and social catastrophe in the United States. Washington is giving Ukraine ever more sophisticated weapons systems and billions upon billions in aid in a futile bid to save Ukraine but, more importantly, to save itself. (“Ukraine — The War That Went Wrong”, Chris Hedges, Consortium News)

Image

Hedges sums it up perfectly. Washington’s foolish intervention is clearing the way for the greatest strategic catastrophe in US history. And yet, even now, the vast majority of corporate and banking elites resolutely back the existing policy while shrugging off the obvious signs of failure. Case in point: The World Economic Forum posted a blanket statement of support for Ukraine on its website. Here it is:

The essence of our organization is its belief in respect, dialogue, and collaborative and cooperative efforts. We therefore deeply condemn the aggression by Russia against Ukraine, the attacks and atrocities.

Our full solidarity is with Ukraine’s people and all those who are suffering innocently from this totally unacceptable war.We will do whatever is possible to help and actively support humanitarian and diplomatic efforts.
We only hope that – in the longer-term – reason will prevail and that the space for bridge-building and reconciliation once more emerges.” (Klaus Schwab and Børge Brende, World Economic Forum)

No one should be surprised by this. Naturally, the globalists are going to come-down on the side of their expansionist wrecking-crew (NATO) instead of the world’s biggest proponent of traditional values, borders and national sovereignty. That goes without saying. Even so, the Rand report suggests that support for the war is no longer unanimous among elites. And, since elites ultimately set the policy, there is now an increasing probability that the policy will change. We see this ‘splintering of elite consensus’ as the most positive development in the last 11 months. The only way the United States is going to change its approach in Ukraine is if a growing number of elites come to their senses and pull us back from the brink. We are hopeful that that will happen, but we’re not sure that it will.

Image

The least persuasive section of the entire report falls under the heading of: “US and Allied Commitments to Ukraine’s Security”.

The problem is easy to understand. The authors want to settle on a plan for providing security to Ukraine in order to incentivize negotiations with Russia. Unfortunately,Russia is not going to allow Ukraine to be a part of any western-backed security alliance, in fact, that is why Russia launched its invasion in the first place, to preempt Ukraine’s membership in a hostile military alliance (NATO) linked to the United States. This is a touchy subject that will undoubtedly be an obstacle in any future negotiations. But it is a matter on which there can be no ‘wiggle room’. Ukraine –or whatever is left of Ukraine– will be required to be permanently neutral and all the far-right extremists will have to be removed from the government, the military and the security services. Moscow will not pick Ukraine’s leaders, but it will make sure that those leaders are neither Nazis nor linked to any far-right nationalist organization.

Will the USG Split into Warring Camps?
Will the USG Split into Warring Camps?

As we said earlier, we think the RAND report indicates that elites are now divided on the issue of Ukraine. We think that is a positive development that could lead to negotiations and an end to the war. However, we shouldn’t ignore the fact that even the most impartial analysis can tilt favorably in the direction of the group that provides the funding. And that could be true here, as well. Keep in mind, the RAND Corporation is a nonpartisan think tank that, according to retired USAF lieutenant colonel Karen Kwiatkowski:

“works for the defense establishment, and were money to dry up there, the thinktank would not exist in it current form. It serves US government interests entirely, and is dependent upon them.” (Lew Rockwell)

What this suggests is that the RAND report may represent the views of the Pentagon and the US Military establishment who believe the United States is racing headlong towards a direct conflagration with Russia. In other words, the report may be the first ideological broadsides against the neocons who run the State Department and the White House. We suspect this split between the War Department and ‘State’ will become more visible in the days ahead. We can only hope that the more judicious faction at the Pentagon prevails.

The Covid-skeptic world has been claiming the World Health Organization (WHO) plans to become some sort of global autocratic government, removing national sovereignty and replacing it with a totalitarian health state. The near-complete absence of interest by mainstream media would suggest, to the rational observer, that this is yet another ‘conspiracy theory’ from a disaffected fringe.

The imposition of authoritarian rules on a global scale would normally attract attention. The WHO is fairly transparent in its machinations. It should therefore be straightforward to determine whether this is all misplaced hysteria, or an attempt to implement an existential change in sovereign rights and international relations. We would just need to read the document. Firstly, it is useful to put the amendments in context.

The changing role of WHO

Who’s WHO?

The WHO was set up after the Second World War as the health arm of the United Nations, to support efforts to improve population health globally. Based on the concept that health went beyond the physical (encompassing “physical, mental and social well-being”), its constitution was premised on the concept that all people were equal and born with basic inviolable rights. The world in 1946 was emerging from the brutality of colonialism and international fascism; the results of overly centralized authority and of regarding people to be fundamentally unequal. The WHO constitution was intended to put populations in charge of health.

In recent decades the WHO has evolved as its support base of core funding allocated by countries, based on GDP, evolved to a model where most funding is directed to specified uses, and much is provided by private and corporate interests. The priorities of the WHO have evolved accordingly, moving away from community-centered care to a more vertical, commodity-based approach. This inevitably follows the interests and self-interests of these funders. More detail can be found on this evolution elsewhere; these changes are important to putting the proposed IHR amendments in context.

Of equal importance, the WHO is not alone in the international health sphere. While certain organizations such as UNICEF (originally intended to prioritize child health and welfare), private foundations and non-government organizations have long partnered with the WHO, the past two decades have seen a burgeoning of the global health industry, with multiple organizations, particularly ‘public-private partnerships’ (PPPs) growing in influence; in some respects rivals and in some respects partners of the WHO.

Notable among PPPs are the Gavi – the Vaccine Alliance (focused specifically on vaccines) and CEPI, an organization set up at the World Economic Forum meeting in 2017 specifically to manage pandemics, by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Wellcome Trust and the Norwegian Government. Gavi and CEPI, along with others such as Unitaid and the Global Fund, include corporate and private interests directly on their boards. The World Bank and G20 have also increased involvement in global health, and especially pandemic preparedness. The WHO has stated that pandemics occurred just once per generation over the past century and killed a fraction of those who died from endemic infectious diseases, but they nonetheless attract much of this corporate and financial interest.

The WHO is primarily a bureaucracy, not a body of experts. Recruitment is based on various factors, including technical competency but also country and other equity-related quotas. These quotas serve a purpose of reducing the power of specific countries to dominate the organization with their own staff, but in doing so require the recruitment of staff who may have far lower experience or expertise. Recruitment is also heavily influenced by internal WHO personnel, and the usual personal influences that come with working and needing favors within countries.

Once recruited, the payment structure strongly favors those who stay for long periods, mitigating against rotation to new expertise as roles change. A WHO staffer must work 15 years to receive their full pension, with earlier resignation resulting in removal of all or part of the WHO’s contribution to their pension. Coupled with large rental subsidies, health insurance, generous education subsidies, cost-of-living adjustments and tax-free salaries, this creates a structure within which protecting the institution (and thus one’s benefits) can far outlive initial altruistic intent.

The DG and Regional Directors (RDs – of which there are six) are elected by member states in a process subject to heavy political and diplomatic maneuvering. The current DG is Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, an Ethiopian politician with a checkered past during the Ethiopian civil war. The amendments proposed would allow Tedros to independently make all the decisions required within the IHR, consulting a committee at will but not bound by it. Indeed, he can do this now, having declared monkeypox a public health emergency of international concern (PHEIC) against his emergency committee’s advice, after just five deaths globally.

Like many WHO employees, I personally witnessed, and am aware of, examples of seeming corruption within the organization, from Regional Director elections to building renovations and importation of goods. Such practices can occur within any large human organization that has lived a generation or two beyond its founding. This is, of course, why the principle of the separation of powers commonly exists in national governance; those making rules must answer to an independent judiciary according to a system of laws to which all are subject. As this cannot apply to UN agencies, they should automatically be excluded from direct rulemaking over populations. The WHO, like other UN bodies, is essentially a law unto itself.

WHO’s new pandemic preparedness and health emergency instruments.

The WHO is currently working on two agreements that will expand its powers and role in declared health emergencies and pandemics. These also involve widening the definition of ‘health emergencies’ within which such powers may be used. The first agreement involves proposed amendments to the existing International Health Regulations (IHR), an instrument with force under international law that has been in existence in some form for decades, significantly amended in 2005 after the 2003 SARS outbreak.

The second is a new ‘treaty’ that has similar intent to the IHR amendments. Both are following a path through WHO committees, public hearings and revision meetings, to be put to the World Health Assembly (WHA – the annual meeting of all country members [‘States parties’] of the WHO), probably in 2023 and 2024 respectively.

The discussion here concentrates on the IHR amendments as they are the most advanced. Being amendments of an existing treaty mechanism, they only require approval of 50 percent of countries to come into force (subject to ratification processes specific to each member State). The new ‘treaty’ will require a two-thirds vote of the WHA to be accepted. The WHA’s one country – one vote system gives countries like Niue, with less than two thousand residents, equal voice to countries with hundreds of millions (e.g. India, China, the US), though diplomatic pressure tends to corral countries around their beneficiaries.

The IHR amendments process within the WHO is relatively transparent. There is no conspiracy to be seen. The amendments are ostensibly proposed by national bureaucracies, collated on the WHO website. The WHO has gone to unusual lengths to open hearings to public submissions. The intent of the IHR amendments to change the nature of the relationship between countries and the WHO (i.e. a supra-national body ostensibly controlled by them), and fundamentally change the relationship between people and central supranational authority – is open for all to see.

Major amendments proposed for the IHR

The amendments to the IHR are intended to fundamentally change the relationship between individuals, their country’s governments, and the WHO. They place the WHO as having rights overriding that of individuals, erasing the basic principles developed after World War Two regarding human rights and the sovereignty of States. In doing so, they signal a return to a colonialist and feudalist approach fundamentally different to that to which people in relatively democratic countries have become accustomed. The lack of major pushback by politicians and the lack of concern in the media and consequent ignorance of the general public is therefore both strange and alarming.

Aspects of the amendments involving the largest changes to the workings of society and international relations are discussed below. Following this are annotated extracts from the WHO document (REF). Provided on the WHO website, it is currently under a process of revision to address obvious grammatical errors and improve clarity.

Resetting international human rights to a former, authoritarian model

The Universal Declaration on Human Rights, agreed by the UN in the aftermath of World War Two and in the context of much of the world emerging from a colonialist yoke, is predicated on the concept that all humans are born with equal and inalienable rights, gained by the simple fact that they are born. In 1948 the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was intended to codify these, to prevent a return to inequality and totalitarian rule. The equality of all individuals is expressed in Article 7:

“All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.”

This understanding underpins the WHO constitution, and forms a basis for the modern international human rights movement and international human rights law.

The concept of States being representative of their people, and having sovereignty over territory and the laws by which their people were governed, was closely allied with this. As peoples emerged from colonialism, they would assert their authority as independent entities within boundaries that they would control. International agreements, including the existing IHR, reflected this. The WHO and other international agencies would play a supportive role and give advice, not instructions.

The proposed IHR amendments reverse these understandings. The WHO proposes that the term ‘with full respect for the dignity, human rights and fundamental freedoms of persons’ be deleted from the text, replacing them with ‘equity, coherence, inclusivity,’ vague terms the applications of which are then specifically differentiated in the text according to levels of social and economic development. The underlying equality of individuals is removed, and rights become subject to a status determined by others based on a set of criteria that they define. This entirely upends the prior understanding of the relationship of all individuals with authority, at least in non-totalitarian states.

It is a totalitarian approach to society, within which individuals may act only on the sufferance of others who wield power outside of legal sanction; specifically a feudal relationship, or one of monarch-subject without an intervening constitution. It is difficult to imagine a greater issue facing society, yet the media that is calling for reparations for past slavery is silent on a proposed international agreement consistent with its reimposition.

Giving WHO authority over member States.

This authority is seen as being above states (i.e. elected or other national governments), with the specific definition of ‘recommendations’ being changed from ‘non-binding’ (by deletion) to ‘binding’ by a specific statement that States will undertake to follow (rather than ‘consider’) recommendations of the WHO. States will accept the WHO as the ‘authority’ in international public health emergencies, elevating it above their own ministries of health. Much hinges on what a Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC) is, and who defines it. As explained below, these amendments will widen the PHEIC definition to include any health event that a particular individual in Geneva (the Director General of the WHO) personally deems to be of actual or potential concern.

Powers to be ceded by national governments to the DG include quite specific examples that may require changes within national legal systems. These include detention of individuals, restriction of travel, the forcing of health interventions (testing, inoculation) and requirement to undergo medical examinations.

Unsurprising to observers of the COVID-19 response, these proposed restrictions on individual rights under the DG’s discretion include freedom of speech. The WHO will have power to designate opinions or information as ‘mis-information or disinformation, and require country governments to intervene and stop such expression and dissemination. This will likely run up against some national constitutions (e.g. the US) but will be a boon to many dictators and one-party regimes. It is, of course, incompatible with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, but these seem no longer to be guiding principles for the WHO.

After self-declaring an emergency, the DG will have power to instruct governments to provide WHO and other countries with resources – funds and commodities. This will include direct intervention in manufacturing, increasing production of certain commodities manufactured within their borders.

Countries will cede power to the WHO over patent law and intellectual property (IP), including control of manufacturing know-how, of commodities deemed by the DG to be relevant to the potential or actual health problem that he /she has deemed of interest. This IP and manufacturing know-how may be then passed to commercial rivals at the DG’s discretion. These provisions seem to reflect a degree of stupidity, and unlike the basic removal of fundamental human rights, vested interests here may well insist on their removal from the IHR draft. Rights of people should of course be paramount, but with most media absent from the fray, it is difficult to see a level of advocacy being equal.

Providing the WHO DG with unfettered power, and ensuring it will be used.

The WHO has previously developed processes that ensure at least a semblance of consensus and an evidence-base in decision-making. Their process for developing guidelines requires, at least on paper, a range of expertise to be sought and documented, and a range of evidence weighed for reliability. The 2019 guidelines on management of pandemic influenza are an example, laying out recommendations for countries in the event of such a respiratory virus outbreak. Weighing this evidence resulted in the WHO strongly recommending against contact tracing, quarantine of healthy people and border closures, as the evidence had shown that these are expected to cause more overall harm to health in the long term than the benefit gained, if any, from slowing spread of a virus. These guidelines were ignored when an emergency was declared for COVID-19 and authority switched to an individual, the director general.

The IHR amendments further strengthen the ability of the DG to ignore any such evidence-based procedures. Working on several levels, they provide the DG, and those delegated by the DG, with exceptional and arbitrary power, and put in place measures that make the wielding of such power inevitable.

Firstly, the requirement for an actual health emergency, in which people are undergoing measurable harm or risk of harm, is removed. The wording of the amendments specifically removes the requirement of harm to trigger the DG assuming power over countries and people. The need for a demonstrable ‘public health risk’ is removed, and replaced with a ‘potential’ for public health risk.

Secondly, a surveillance mechanism set up in every country under these amendments, and discussed also in the pandemic preparedness documents of the G20 and World bank, will identify new variants of viruses which constantly arise in nature, all of which, in theory, could be presumed to pose a potential risk of outbreak until proven not to. The workforce running this surveillance network, which will be considerable and global, will have no reason for existence except to identify yet more viruses and variants. Much of their funding will originate from private and corporate interests that stand to gain financially from the vaccine-based responses they envision for infectious disease outbreaks.

Thirdly, the DG has sole authority to declare any event rated (or potentially related) to health an ‘emergency.’ (The six WHO Regional Directors (RDs) will also have this power at a Regional level). As seen with the monkeypox outbreak, the DG can already ignore the committee set up to advise on emergencies. The proposed amendments will remove the need for the DG to gain consent from the country in which a potential or perceived threat is identified. In a declared emergency, the DG can vary the FENSA rules on dealing with private (e.g. for-profit) entities, allowing him/her to share a State’s information not only with other States but with private companies.

The surveillance mechanisms being required of countries and expanded within the WHO will ensure that the DG and RDs will have a constant stream of potential public health risks crossing their desks. In each case, they will have power to declare such events a health emergency of international (or Regional) concern, issuing orders supposedly binding under international law to restrict movement, detain, inject on mass scales, yield intellectual property and know-how, and provide resources to the WHO and to other countries the DG deems to require them. Even a DG uninterested in wielding such power will face the reality that they put themselves at risk of being the one who did not ‘try to ‘stop’ the next pandemic, pressured by corporate interests with hundreds of billions of dollars at stake, and huge media sway. This is why sane societies never create such situations.

What happens next?

If these amendments are accepted, the people taking control over the lives of others will have no real legal oversight. They have diplomatic immunity (from all national jurisdictions). The salaries of many will be dependent on sponsorship from private individuals and corporations with direct financial interest in the decision they will make. These decisions by unaccountable committees will create mass markets for commodities or provide know-how to commercial rivals. The COVID-19 response illustrated the corporate profits that such decisions will enable. This is a situation obviously unacceptable in any democratic society.

While the WHA has overall oversight on WHO policy with an executive board comprised of WHA members, these operate in an orchestrated way; many delegates having little depth in the proceedings whilst bureaucrats draft and negotiate. Countries not sharing the values enshrined in the constitutions of more democratic nations have equal vote on policy. Whilst it is right that sovereign States have equal rights, the human rights and freedom of one nation’s citizens cannot be ceded to the governments of others, nor to a non-State entity placing itself above them.

Many nations have developed checks and balances over centuries, based on an understanding of fundamental values, designed specifically to avoid the sort of situation we now see arising, where one group is law unto itself can arbitrarily remove and control the freedom of others. Free media developed as a further safeguard, based around principles of freedom of expression and an equal right to be heard. These values are necessary for democracy and equality to exist, just as it is necessary to remove them in order to introduce totalitarianism and a structure based on inequality. The proposed amendments to the IHR set out explicitly to do this.

The proposed new powers sought by the WHO, and the pandemic preparedness industry being built around it, are not hidden. The only subterfuge is the farcical approach of media and politicians in many nations who seem to pretend they are not proposed, or do not, if implemented, fundamentally change the nature of the relationship between people and centralized non-State powers. The people who will become subject to these powers, and the politicians who are on track to cede them, should start paying attention. We must all decide whether we wish to cede so easily what it has taken centuries to gain, to assuage the greed of others.

Annotated summary of significant clauses in the IHR amendments.

Notes. (Within qualities from the IHR draft, italics are added for emphasis here.

DG: Director General (Of the WHO)
FENSA: (WHO) Framework for Engagement of Non-State Actors
IHR: International Health Regulations
PHEIC: Public Health Emergency of International Concern.
WHA: World Health Assembly
WHO: World Health Organization
“States Parties’ in UN parlance (i.e. self-governing countries) is simplified below to ‘State(s)’ or ‘country’.

See full document at the WHO IHR portal.

  1. Setting the scene: Establishing WHO authority over individuals and national governments in health-related decision-making.

Article 1: Definitions

‘Health technologies and knowhow’;: Includes ‘other health technologies’, [any of these that solve a health problem and improve ‘quality of life’ and includes technologies and knowhow involved in the] ‘development and manufacturing process’, and their ‘application and usage’.

Note relevance to requirement for countries to give these up to other entities on WHO demand. This must be unacceptable to most existing legal systems and corporations.

“standing recommendation’ means non-binding advice issued by WHO

“temporary recommendation” means non-binding advice issued by WHO

‘standing recommendations’ and ‘temporary recommendations:’ The removal of the ‘non-binding’ is consistent with the requirement later for States to consider the ‘recommendations’ of the DG as obligatory.

Article 2: Scope and purpose (of the IHR)

“The purpose and scope of these Regulations are to prevent, protect against, prepare, control and provide a public health response to the international spread of diseases including through health systems readiness and resilience in ways that are commensurate with and restricted to public health risk all risks with a potential to impact public health, and which …”

Wording changed from “restricted to public health risk” to “restricted to all risks with a potential to impact public health.” Public health is an extremely broad term, and potential risks can be any virus, toxin, human behavioral change, article or other information source that could affect anything in this vast field. This is an open slather that would in operation provide the WHO with a jurisdiction over anything potentially vaguely pertaining to some change in health or well-being, as perceived by the DG or delegated staff. Such broad rights to interfere and take control would not normally be allowed to a government department. In this case, there is no direct oversight from a parliament representing people, and no specific legal jurisdiction to comply with. It allows the WHO director general to insert himself and give recommendations (no longer ‘non-binding’ to almost anything pertaining to societal life (health, in the WHO’s definition, is physical, mental and social well-being).

Article 3: Principles

“The implementation of these Regulations shall be with full respect for the dignity, human rights and fundamental freedoms of personsbased on the principles of equity, inclusivity, coherence and in accordance with their common but differentiated responsibilities of the States Parties, taking into consideration their social and economic development

This signals a fundamental change in the human rights approach of the UN, including the Universal Declaration on Human Rights (UDHR) that all US countries have signed up to. The concept of broad, fundamental rights (equal in all) is removed, and replaced with vacuous wording ‘equity, inclusivity, coherence.’ Human rights (of the individual) are seen as based on economic and ‘social’ development. This implies that the wealthy and poor have different rights, and there is a hierarchy of ‘development’ that defines one’s rights. This is a return to a feudalist or colonialist view of human rights (in many respects the excuses used to justify slavery), that the post-War WHO and UDHR had sought to move away from.

“shall be guided by the goal of their universal application for the protection of all people of the world from the international spread of disease. When implementing these Regulations, Parties and WHO should exercise precaution, in particular when dealing with unknown pathogens.

Again, addition of a clause that enables the WHO to override human rights previously stated, including for speculative (unknown) threats.

Article 4: Responsible authorities

Each country is required to appoint an ‘authorized responsible authority’ for WHO to liaise with. Seemingly innocuous, but reflects the mindset change in status within these regulations, with the WHO becoming a body requiring compliance, no longer ‘suggesting’ or ‘supporting.’

  1. Establishing the international pandemic preparedness bureaucracy with WHO at the center

Article 5: Surveillance.

These amendments establish /expand a periodic review mechanism, similar to the UN human rights office. This seems in itself innocuous, but is a very large resource drain, especially for smaller countries, and requires (as in the human rights compliance case) a dedicated large international (WHO) bureaucracy and consultant base. WHO will require regular detailed reports, send assessors, and require changes. This raises questions both on (1) sovereignty in health and (2) rational and appropriate use of resources. WHO is not assessing the country’s health needs here, it is assessing one small aspect and dictating the resources spent on it, irrespective of other health burdens. This is a fundamentally poor and dangerous way to manage public health and means resources are unlikely to be spent for maximum benefit overall.

Article 6: Notification.

Countries (States Parties) to make information available to WHO at WHO request, and WHO can make this available to other parties (see later clauses) in a manner yet to be determined by the WHA. This may seem innocuous but in reality, removes State sovereignty over data (which had been significant prior to 2005 IHA amendments). It is unlikely that powerful States will comply, but smaller ones will be left with little choice (China has significantly inhibited information and will likely do so. It can be argued this is appropriate – such information can have significant economic and social implications).

Article 10: Verification

If the State Party does not accept the offer of collaboration within 48 hours , WHO may shall , when justified by the magnitude of the public health risk, immediately share with other States Parties the information available to it, whilst encouraging the State Party to accept the offer of collaboration by WHO, taking into account the views of the State Party concerned.

The WHO gains power to share information from a State or pertaining to a State with other States, without consent. This is remarkable: It is important to understand who the WHO is (essentially unaccountable beyond the WHA).

Article 11: Exchange of Information (Formerly provision of information by WHO). 

This article enables WHO to share information obtained as discussed above, to both UN and non-governmental bodies (allowed recipients changed from (formerly) relevant intergovernmental to (now) relevant international and regional organizations (i.e. now including organizations not related to national governments).

WHO can therefore share State information with ‘relevant international organizations’ – this presumably includes such as CEPI, Gavi, Unitaid – organizations that have private and corporate representation on their boards with direct financial conflicts of interest.

Further:

Parties referred to in those provisions, shall not make this information generally available to other States Parties, until such time as when: (a) the event is determined to constitute a public health emergency of international concern, a public health emergency of regional concern, or warrants an intermediate public health alert, in accordance with Article 12; or …

Widens the criteria determining when the WHO can disseminate information from sovereign States, from PHEIC to ‘health alert’ (which in practice the DG or subordinates could apply to almost anything). This could occur, as specified later in the Article, when WHO staff decide a sovereign State does not have ‘capacity’ to handle a problem, or when the WHO staff decide (with unspecified criteria) that it is necessary to share information with others to make ‘timely’ risk assessments. This allows unelected WHO staff, on salaries supported from external conflicted entities, to disseminate information from States directly relevant to those entities, based on their own assessment of risk and response, against undefined criteria.

  1. Widening ‘public health emergency’ definition to include any health or pathogen-related event at DG’s discretion, and requiring States compliance.

Article 12: Determination of a public health emergency of international concern public health emergency of regional concern, or intermediate health alert

This Article both reduces the threshold for the DG to declare an emergency (it can just be a concern of a potential outbreak) and greatly increases the power of the WHO (removes requirement for State agreement) to then act.

“If the Director-General considers, based on an assessment under these Regulations, that a potential or actual public health emergency of international concern is occurring ….. determines that the event constitutes a public health emergency of international concern, and the State Party are in agreement regarding this determination, the Director-General shall notify all the States Parties, in accordance with the procedure set forth in Article 49, seek the views of the Committee established under Article 48 (but is not required to follow them)

Removes requirement for State to agree to release of information pertaining to that State. DG can declare a PHEIC against States wishes and instructions. The WHO becomes the dominant party, not the servant of the sovereign State.

Emergency committee review is optional for DG, who can act completely alone in determining PHEIC – a decision that can have vast health, social and economic implications and is allowed above to abrogate basic human rights norms.

If, following the consultation in paragraph 2 above, the Director-General and the State Party in whose territory the event arises do not come to a consensus within 48 hours on whether the event constitutes a public health emergency of international concern, a determination shall be made in accordance with the procedure set forth in Article 49.

Removes requirement of DG to seek agreement of State before acting.

Regional Director may determine that an event constitutes a public health emergency of regional concern and provide related guidance to States Parties in the region either before or after notification of an event that may constitute a public health emergency of international concern is made to the Director-General, who shall inform all States Parties

Regional directors appear to be granted similar powers, though full implications are unclear.

In case of any engagement with non-State actors in WHO’s public health response to PHEIC situation, WHO shall follow the provisions of Framework for Engagement of Non-State Actors (FENSA). Any departure from FENSA provisions shall be consistent with paragraph 73 of FENSA.”

The WHO Framework for Engagement of Non-State Actors (FENSA) allows the DG to “exercise flexibility in the application of the procedures of FENSA” in the case of a health emergency (which here in the IHR is widened, as above, to any concern the FG has of potential harm, irrespective of State agreement.

Developed State Parties and WHO shall offer assistance to developing State Parties depending on the availability of finance, technology and know how…”.

A line fascinating mainly for its anachronistic (but telling) use of the colonialist-like terms developing and developed in this formerly egalitarian WHO context.

The State Party shall accept or reject such an offer of assistance within 48 hours and, in the case of rejection of such an offer, shall provide to WHO its rationale for the rejection, which WHO shall share with other States Parties. Regarding on-site assessments, in compliance with its national law, a State Party shall make reasonable efforts to facilitate short-term access to relevant sites; in the event of a denial, it shall provide its rationale for the denial of access

WHO set as the dominant partner. The State must comply or provide excuses for not agreeing with WHO’s dictates.

“When requested by WHO, States Parties should shall provide, to the extent possible, support to WHO-coordinated response activities,including supply of health products and technologies, especially diagnostics and other devices, personal protective equipment, therapeutics, and vaccines, for effective response to PHEIC occurring in another State Party’s jurisdiction and/or territory, capacity building for the incident management systems as well as for rapid response teams”.

‘Should’ changed to ‘Shall,’ requiring States to provide resources at the WHO’s request for a PHEIC (e.g. monkeypox of an event the DG considers may pose a potential threat.) This begins a theme of the WHO acquiring the ability to order States to provide resources, and (later) know-how and intellectual property when ordered by the DG to do so.

NEW Article 13A WHO Led International Public Health Response

This new article explicitly lays out the new international public health order, with the WHO in charge at the center, rather than national sovereignty being paramount.

States Parties recognize WHO as the guidance and coordinating authority of international public health response during public health Emergency of International Concern and undertake to follow WHO’s recommendations in their international public health response.

This requires States to follow WHO recommendations in a PHEIC – declared by an individual (DG) whose position is determined by non-democratic states and who is open to wide influence by private and corporate money. The criteria for PHEIC are deliberately vague, and at the DG’s discretion. This is an amazing reversal of roles of the WHO versus States, and clearly abrogates sovereignty.

The wild failure of Covid response, and the WHO’s abrogation of its own guidelines, should give pause for thought here. The WHO could mandate abrogation of bodily autonomy on states regarding medication or vaccination, or testing.

Upon request of WHO, States Parties with the production capacities shall undertake measures to scale up production of health products, including through diversification of production, technology transfer and capacity building especially in the developing countries.”

The WHO can require (tell) countries to scale-up production of certain products – to interfere with markets and commerce, at the WHO’s (DG’s) discretion.

NEW Article 13A WHO Led International Public Health Response

States Parties recognize WHO as the guidance and coordinating authority of international public health response during public health Emergency of International Concern and undertake to follow WHO’s recommendations in their international public health response.”

This requires States to follow WHO recommendations in a PHEIC – declared by an individual (DG) whose position is determined by non-democratic states and who is open to wide influence by private and corporate money. The criteria for PHEIC are deliberately vague, and at the DG’s discretion. This is an amazing reversal of roles of WHO versus States, and clearly abrogates sovereignty. It is requiring sovereign states to submit themselves to an external authority, whenever that authority desires it (as the WHO DG can through previous amendments above, declare a PHEIC on the basis of just perceiving the potential form an infectious disease event).

The Covid response, including the WHO’s abrogation of its own guidelines and policies, should give pause for thought here. The WHO could mandate abrogation of bodily autonomy on states regarding medication or vaccination, or testing.

Upon request of WHO, States Parties with the production capacities shall undertake measures to scale up production of health products, including through diversification of production, technology transfer and capacity building especially in the developing countries.

The WHO can require (tell) countries to scale-up production of certain products – to interfere with markets and commerce, at WHO’s (DG’s) discretion.

[WHO] shall collaborate with other international organizations, and other stakeholders consistent with the provisions of FENSA, for responding to public health emergency of international concern.

This enables the WHO to collaborate with non-State actors (private individuals, Foundations, private corporations (Pharma, its sponsors etc.). FENSA, which restricts such contacts, can be varied by the DG in a ‘health emergency’ that the DG declares.

  1. WHO requiring countries to provide resources, intellectual property and knowhow at WHO’s discretion.

New Article 13A: Access to Health Products, Technologies and Know-How for Public Health Response

States Parties shall co-operate with each other and WHO to comply with such recommendations pursuant to paragraph 1 and shall take measures to ensure timely availability and affordability of required health products such as diagnostics, therapeutics, vaccines, and other medical devices required for the effective response to a public health emergency of international concern.”

The WHO determines response within States’ borders, and requires States to provide aid to other countries. At the WHO’s behest.

States Parties shall provide, in their intellectual property laws and related laws and regulations, exemptions and limitations to the exclusive rights of intellectual property holders to facilitate the manufacture, export and import of the required health products, including their materials and components.”

States shall change their intellectual property (IP) laws, to allow sharing of IP on the DG’s determination of a PHEIC, at his/her discretion, to whom they determine. It is difficult to imagine a sane State would do this, but it is clearly required here.

“States Parties shall use or assign to potential manufacturers, especially from developing countries, on a non-exclusive basis, the rights over health product(s) or technology(ies)

The WHO can require IP to be shared with other States (and thereby IP is passed to private corporations within those States.

Upon request of a State Party, other States Parties or WHO shall rapidly cooperate and share relevant regulatory dossiers submitted by manufacturers concerning safety and efficacy, and manufacturing and quality control processes, within 30 days”

Requirement to release confidential regulatory dossiers to other States, including to WHO qualification programme, and to sovereign state regulatory agencies.

“[WHO shal]… establish a database of raw materials and their potential suppliers, e) establish a repository for cell-lines to accelerate the production and regulatory of similar biotherapeutics products and vaccines”,

WHO holding such materials is unprecedented. Under whose laws and regulatory requirements would this be done? Who is responsible for damage and harm?

States Parties shall take measures to ensure that the activities of non-state actors, especially the manufacturers and those claiming associated intellectual property rights, do not conflict with the right to the highest attainable standard of health and these Regulations and are in compliance with measures taken by the WHO and the States Parties under this provision, which includes:

a) to comply with WHO recommended measures including allocation mechanism made pursuant to paragraph 1. 

b) to donate a certain percentage of their production at the request of WHO.

c) to publish the pricing policy transparently.

d) to share the technologies, know-how for the diversification of production.

e) to deposit cell-lines or share other details required by WHO repositories or database established pursuant to paragraph 5.

f) to submit regulatory dossiers concerning safety and efficacy, and manufacturing and quality

control processes, when called for by the States Parties or WHO.”

The ‘highest attainable standard of health is beyond what any State has now. This effectively means, as worded, that the WHO can require any state to release almost any confidential product and intellectual property on any product related to the health sector.

This is an amazing list. The DG (WHO) on their own criteria can declare an event, then require a State to contribute resources and give up sole rights to intellectual property of its citizens, and share information to allow others to manufacture their citizen’s products in direct competition. The WHO also requires States to donate products to the WHO /other States on DG’s demand.

To understand the scope of the intellectual property rights to be forfeited to the DG, the definitions (Article 1) describe them as:

health technologies and know-how” includes organized set or combination of knowledge, skills, health products, procedures, databases and systems developed to solve a health problem and improve quality of life, including those relating to development or manufacture of health products or their combination, its application or usage …”.

  1. WHO claiming control of individuals and their rights within States

Article 18 Recommendations with respect to persons, baggage, cargo, containers, conveyances, goods and postal parcels.

Recommendations issued by WHO to States Parties with respect to persons may include the following advice:…..

–      review proof of medical examination and any laboratory analysis;

  • require medical examinations;
  • review proof of vaccination or other prophylaxis;
  • require vaccination or other prophylaxis;
  • place suspect persons under public health observation;
  • implement quarantine or other health measures for suspect persons;
  • implement isolation and treatment where necessary of affected persons;
  • implement tracing of contacts of suspect or affected persons;
  • refuse entry of suspect and affected persons;
  • refuse entry of unaffected persons to affected areas; and
  • implement exit screening and/or restrictions on persons from affected areas.”

This (article 18) was already in existence. New Article 13A, however, now requires States to follow WHO recommendations. The WHO will thus now be able to, based on the sole determination of an individual (DG) under influence of non-democratic states and private entities, order states to incarcerate their citizens, inject them, require identification of medical status, medically examine, isolate and restrict travel.

This is clearly insane.

“[Recommendations issued by WHO shall]…ensure mechanisms to develop and apply a traveller’s health declaration in international public health emergency of international concern (PHEIC) to provide better information about travel itinerary, possible symptoms that could be manifested or any prevention measures that have been complied with such as facilitation of contact tracing, if necessary.

The WHO can require the availability of private travel (itinerary) information, and require the provision of medical travel documents. This is requiring the disclosure of private medical information to the WHO.

Article 23 Health measures on arrival and departure

Documents containing information concerning traveller’s destination (hereinafter Passenger Locator Forms, PLFs) should preferably be produced in digital form, with paper form as a residual option. Such information should not duplicate the information the traveller already submitted in relation to the same journey, provided the competence authority can have access to it for the purpose of contact tracing.”

Text (which clearly needs further work) aimed at future requirements for vaccine passports for travel.

  1. WHO setting the scene for digital health passports

Article 35 General rule

Digital health documents must incorporate means to verify their authenticity via retrieval from an official web site, such as a QR code.

Further presaging digital IDs containing health information, that must be available to enable travel (i.e. not at individual’s discretion).

Article 36 Certificates of vaccination or other prophylaxis

“Such proofs may include test certificates and recovery certificates. These certificates may be designed and approved by the Health Assembly according to the provisions set out for digital vaccination or prophylaxis certificates, and should be deemed as substitutes for, or be complementary to, the digital or paper certificates of vaccination or prophylaxis.”

As above. Setting up the WHO/WHA to set international travel requirements (the UDHR says there is a basic right to travel). While not new here, this is expanded by the expansion of PHEIC provisions, and focused more on the DG’s determination. It is moving from national sovereignty to a transnational travel control beyond national sovereignty – not directly answerable to populations, but heavily funded and influenced by private interests.

Health measures taken pursuant to these Regulations, including the recommendations made under Article 15 and 16, shall be initiated and completed without delay by all State Parties

Requirement for all countries to comply with these recommendations (they only take 50 percent of the WHA to implement).

State Parties shall also take measures to ensure Non-State Actors operating in their respective territories comply with such measures.”

Also requires private entities and citizens within the state to comply (which likely requires changes of many national laws, and the relationship between government and people).

This requires a totalitarian approach from the State, subject to a totalitarian approach from a supra-state (but clearly not meritocratic) entity. Following these IHR revisions, the DG of WHO, at his discretion, has the capacity to order private entities and citizens in any country to comply with his/her directives.

  1. WHO being empowered to order changes within States, including restrictions on freedom of speech.

Article 43 Additional health measures

“[Measures implemented by States shall not be more restrictive than.]… would achieve attain the appropriate highest achievablelevel of health protection.”

These changes are very significant. Appropriate’ meant taking into account the costs and balancing these against potential gains. It is a sensible approach that takes the whole of society and population needs into account (good public health).

‘highest achievable level of protection’ means elevating this problem (an infectious disease or potential disease) above all other health and human/societal concerns. This is stupid, and probably reflects lack of thought and poor understanding of public health.

WHO may request that shall make recommendations to the State Party concerned reconsider to modify or rescind the application of the additional health measures …

On removing health interventions, the WHO DG now can require such actions (States have agreed to ‘recommendations’ being binding above). As elsewhere, the WHO is not the instructing party, not the suggesting party. The WHO takes sovereignty over formerly State matters. The following paragraph requires a response in 2 weeks rather than formerly 3 months.

Article 44 Collaboration and assistance

States Parties shall undertake to collaborate with and assist each other, in particular developing countries States Parties, upon request, to the extent possible, in:…”

Changes move the relationship from the WHO suggesting/requesting, to the WHO requiring.

“in countering the dissemination of false and unreliable information about public health events, preventive and anti-epidemic measures and activities in the media, social networks and other ways of disseminating such information.”

States undertake to work with the WHO to control information and limit free speech.

the formulation of proposed laws and other legal and administrative provisions for the implementation of these Regulations.”

States agree to pass laws to implement restrictions on free speech and sharing of information.

countering the dissemination of false and unreliable information about public health events, preventive and anti-epidemic measures and activities in the media, social networks and other ways of disseminating such information;…”

The WHO shall work with countries to control free speech and flow of information (based on their own criteria of what is right and wrong).

  1. Nuts and Bolts of the verification bureaucracy to ensure countries follow WHO requirements.

NEW Chapter IV (Article 53 bis-quater): The Compliance Committee 

53 bis Terms of reference and composition

“The State Parties shall establish a Compliance Committee that shall be responsible for:

(a) Considering information submitted to it by WHO and States Parties relating to compliance with obligations under these Regulations;

(b) Monitoring, advising on, and/or facilitating assistance on matters relating to compliance with a view to assisting States Parties to comply with obligations under these Regulations;

(c) Promoting compliance by addressing concerns raised by States Parties regarding implementation of, and compliance with, obligations under these Regulations; and

(d) Submitting an annual report to each Health Assembly describing:

(i) The work of the Compliance Committee during the reporting period;

(ii) The concerns regarding non-compliance during the reporting period; and (iii) Any conclusions and recommendations of the Committee.

2. The Compliance Committee shall be authorized to:

(a) Request further information on matters under its consideration;

(b) Undertake, with the consent of any State Party concerned, information gathering in the territory of that State Party; (c) Consider any relevant information submitted to it; (d) Seek the services of experts and advisers, including representatives of NGOs or members of the public, as appropriate; and (e) Make recommendations to a State Party concerned and/or WHO regarding how the State Sarty may improve compliance and any recommended technical assistance and financial support.”

This sets up the permanent review mechanism to monitor the compliance of States with the WHO’s dictates on public health. This is a huge new bureaucracy, both centrally (WHO) and with a significant resource drain on each State. It reflects the review mechanism of the UN human rights office.

  1. More on WHO requiring states to provide taxpayer money to WHO’s work, and restricting freedom of populations to question this work.

ANNEX 1

A. CORE CAPACITY REQUIREMENTS FOR DISEASE DETECTION, SURVEILLANCE

AND HEALTH EMERGENCY RESPONSE

Developed Countries States parties shall provide financial and technological assistance to the Developing Countries States Parties in order to ensure state-of-the-art facilities in developing countries States Parties, including through international financial mechanism…”

States shall provide (i.e. divert from other priorities) aid funding to help other States develop capacity. This has a clear opportunity cost in other disease/societal programs where funding must accordingly be reduced. However, this will no longer be in the budgetary control of States, but required by an external entity (WHO).

At a global level, WHO shall… Counter misinformation and disinformation”.

As above, the WHO takes the role of policing / countering free speech and exchange of information (funded by the taxes of those whose speech they are suppressing).

Useful links

The WHO documents regarding the IHR amendments
A summary of the amendments and their implications

 

A Panicked Empire Tries to Make Russia an “Offer It Can’t Refuse”

By Pepe Escobar, February 01, 2023

Realizing NATO’s war with Russia will likely end unfavorably, the US is test-driving an exit offer. But why should Moscow take indirect proposals seriously, especially on the eve of its new military advance and while it is in the winning seat?

Violence Will Not End in Israel Until the Occupation Ends

By Steven Sahiounie, February 01, 2023

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has said the top two goals of his new administration are to establish more settlements in the Occupied Territories and to normalize relations with Saudi Arabia.

The Hypocrisy of NATO Behind Ukraine and the Middle East

By Ahmad Al Khaled, February 01, 2023

Within one year of the Ukrainian conflict it has been evident that the West is quick to scrutinize Russia without taking a better look at their own actions in the past. NATO has been involved in numerous conflicts since its establishment including Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya etc.

Seventh Latin America Caribbean CELAC Summit – Between Evasion and Reality

By Stephen Sefton, February 01, 2023

The Declaration confirms the commitment of the member States to integration, unity and political, economic, social and cultural diversity as a community of sovereign nations and it also reaffirms the proclamation of Latin America and the Caribbean as a Zone of Peace.

Pentagon’s Prediction of ‘Inevitable’ Conflict with China in 2025 Shows War Is America’s Primary ‘Export Commodity’

By Drago Bosnic, February 01, 2023

For a country constantly chest-thumping about the size of its economy, the United States is remarkably over-reliant on one form of “export” – war. For decades, the American-led political West used proxy wars to hurt its geopolitical adversaries. While most of these weren’t a direct existential threat to US rivals and were relatively limited in scope, recent years brought a major shift to this strategic approach.

Lithuanian President Demands Russia’s Red Lines be Violated

By Kurt Nimmo, February 01, 2023

Nauseda demands all red lines be crossed, behavior that will ultimately end in a nuclear conflagration. He characterizes the negotiation of differences as “diplomatic pleasantries” and argues that due to the fact his country is on the border with Russia, “we can see the true danger, the true risk,” while Europeans further West cannot.

Video: Hunt on Leopards Declared on Ukrainian Front Lines

By South Front, February 01, 2023

US President Joe Biden once again claimed that the US will not supply Ukraine with F-16 fighter jets. Despite the fact that the discussion on this issue intensified after the decision to transfer tanks to Ukraine.

The Battle of Stalingrad 1942-1943: Historical Context and Importance

By Dr. Jacques R. Pauwels, February 01, 2023

A war against the Soviet Union was wanted by the industrialists, bankers, large landowners and other members of Germany’s upper class, the “elite” of the land. That was one of the reasons, and arguably the paramount reason, why they had enabled the coming to power of Hitler, a politician of whom it was widely known that he considered the destruction of the Soviet Union as the great task entrusted to him by providence.

Understanding the Pentagon’s Provocation of Russia

By Jacob G. Hornberger, February 01, 2023

President Kennedy had a unique ability that Pentagon generals did not have. He was able to analyze an international crisis by placing himself in the shoes of his adversary in an attempt to understand his adversary’s motives. Doing that enabled him to figure a way out of the crisis that did not involve war. The response of the generals and the Pentagon was always the same: invade, bomb, kill, and destroy.

The Biggest, Most Ignored Demographic in US Electoral Politics

By Ben Bartee, February 01, 2023

The two parties that, in reality, constitute a uniparty duopoly bend over backward to cater to their respective pet voting blocs (racial minorities for Democrats and Evangelicals for Republicans, for instance).  But those demographics pale in comparison to the volume of non-voters.

  • Posted in NO READ MORE LINK
  • Comments Off on Selected Articles: A Panicked Empire Tries to Make Russia an “Offer It Can’t Refuse”

Black/African American History observances this month will acknowledge people and events deserving to be remembered in the past and supported in the present in the quest for justice, and peace for all African Americans.

Observances should include how corporations and those of immense wealth have amassed political power and economic wealth by exploiting racism toward people of color, especially African Americans, in this country over several centuries.

Examples:

  • The Royal African Company and other British “crown corporations” transported slaves to the American colonies
  • The “Fugitive Slave Clause” of the U.S. Constitution (Article I, Section 2, Clause 3) mandated that escaped slaves (the property of slaveholders) when caught had to be returned to their owners.
  • The “Three-Fifths “Compromise” in the Constitution (Article I, Section 2, Clause 3)  defined slaves (which had no political rights) as 3/5ths of a person in determining a state’s population – to ensure that southern states would have more votes in the Electoral College to perpetuate slavery.
  • JP Morgan bank used slaves as collateral for loans to slave owners in the 19th century.
  • The 13th Amendment contained an “exceptions clause” – prisoners could be used as forced labor. “Convict leasing” or  “slavery by another name” involved African American forced to to work for railroads, U.S. Steel and other corporations to rebuild the south after the Civil War.
  • African-American strikebreakers were used widely in the meat packing, steel, coal mining, automobile, and railroad industries between the end of Civil War and New Deal to stoke racism between white and black workers to prevent the rise of unions.
  • Housing, automobile, and construction corporations profited by laws (including discriminatory FHA mortgage underwriting) that promoted redlining of neighborhoods to maintain high housing values, especially in suburbia.
  • The disproportionate mass imprisonment of African Americans, due to racist drug and other laws, has given rise to highly profitable and powerful private prison corporations, namely CoreCivic and Geo Group. The Prison Industries Act (promoted by ALEC, the American Legislative Exchange Council) has expanded prison labor and financially benefited many companies, among them Victoria’s Secret, Whole Foods Market, Walmart, Microsoft, Starbucks, BP, Nintendo, AT&T, Target, Dell, Eddie Bauer, and Boeing.
  • Racial predatory loans by Wall Street financial entities, which profited in the billions, fueled the 2007-9 financial crisis.
  • Toxic industries tend to be placed or to expand in African American poor communities.
  • The explosion of police violence against innocent African Americans in cities and subsequent financial settlements in amounts that communities can not afford has given rise to a new profitable financial instrument for corporate and individual investors: “police brutality bonds.”

Not to be overlooked is the corporate hijacking of the Fourteenth Amendment, intended to provide legal due process and equal protection to African Americans when it was ratified in 1868. Two decades later, the Supreme Court hijacked the decision, ruling that a corporation is a “person” with the same due process and equal protection rights intended exclusively for African Americans.

The Court invalidated approximately 200 economic regulations of businesses from 1905 until the mid-1930’s passed by legislators under the due process clause of the 14th Amendment.

Governments could no longer pass laws to protect or favor local businesses over chain stores or family farms over agribusinesses. Large corporations have perverted the Fourteenth Amendment as both a shield to protect themselves and a sword to successfully challenge public laws that they claim are “discriminatory” that were intended to protect people and communities.

Move to Amend’s We the People Amendment will end all corporate constitutional rights, including the corporate due process and equal protection “rights” of the Fourteenth Amendment. It goes beyond simply reducing corporate money in elections, as this comparison chart describes.

Much attention will be appropriately devoted this month to the history of the movements to abolish slavery and the movement for fundamental civil rights – as a stepping stone to fundamental human rights.

The institution of slavery, which for millennia was deemed as an inevitable reality of human existence, was (minus the exceptions clause) abolished in this country due to a massive, dedicated and diverse people’s movement – including people of color and others risking their lives.

It’s past time to abolish all corporate constitutional rights. A dedicated and diverse people’s movement is needed – with inspiration and learnings taken from the anti-slavery, civil rights and all movements – enshrining the rights of people over property, including corporations.

A corporation is not a person. Period.

Solidarity,

Jason, Tara, Alfonso, Pattie, Jennie, Shelly, George, Leila, Daniel, Saleem, Jessica Joni, Keyan, Michael, Margaret, Dolores & Greg

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.

***

German Leopards are sent to Kiev – so “Der Spiegel” (24.1.2023) – Chancellor Scholz has decided for more killing against all odds. Against the vast majority of the German people. Against the will of the vast majority of the people of the west. Against the vast majority of the people of the world.

Nobody wants war, only the war profiteers. And the mega-rich, megalo-psychopaths. The WEF-people, so to speak. The “controlleurs” par excellence. The elites chosen few, maybe extraterrestrials, who are privileged wanting to safe our planet, à la John Kerry – see his speech at the WEF Davos 2023:

And why do we, the People, allow the war profiteers and those megalo-psychopaths who want to control the world and its resources with the ill-begotten riches, anyway debt-based riches, money worth anything, only because we, The People, accept it – tolerate these megalos, warmongers, war maker and outright murderers?

In order to tyrannize us, the dark cult — the Death Cult, you may as well call them — has to cull us people down to an easily manageable size, do away with the useless eaters, so to speak (Harari-Schwab-speak), so the ever-diminishing non-renewable resources will last longer for their, the Death Cult’s, ever more luxury-vaganza.

That’s why they need war, have been living off wars – big wars, for more than the last century.

Those are the ones who call War Peace and Peace War.

Why?

Because for them war is peace of mind. They are never touched by war, yet war brings them ever and always more riches, ill-begotten resources. We know that. But they don’t care.

They are killers. They are oblivious to guilt and blood.

*

But by far the vast majority wants Peace – real Peace. Harmonious cohabitation among us neighbors, communes, societies, countries, continents – within the world population. Sovereignty for all individuals, groups; and interchange of goods and ideas, of culture, of science, as we please and as we feel is to our all-mutual benefit.

Economically speaking: Win-win, in harmony and peace. Sounds crazy – so farfetched, not possible?

How can it be crazy, if most of us would like it and would want to strive for it, if only we had a system that would allow it?

Well, we thought the Ancient Greeks gave us such a system: “Democracy”.

Also, a lie. Democracy, as we believe it was conceived, never really existed. Even in Greece 2500 years ago, only the “educated” were allowed to vote. And who were the educated? What was the criteria? You guessed it. They were pretty much what they are today – wealthy, prestigious and, yes, of course “educated”.

In conclusion, “Democracy” is a joke.

*

So, where does that leave us with the German Leopards?

Germany has “decided” to deliver in a first go, a Leopard battalion, of 14 Leopard II tanks.

That’s reported, among others, by the Swiss NZZ mainstream (25.1.2023 – in German).

The editors and journalists who write about it, they are so elated about delivering killing machines to the most corrupt country in Europe, they hardly can suppress their tears of joy. They are literally like children discovering their most desired and precious present under the Christmas tree. I kid you not.

That’s the state of Orwell’s 1984 dystopia we have reached. Reality has actually outdone Orwell’s brilliant foresight.

The pressure of the mainstream media may have played a role in Scholz’s decision. Or was it really Scholz’s decision – or rather a US- / NATO-coerced / suggested decision?

And why are the US / NATO – and the generally vassal-west, Europe and worldwide Anglo-saxons plus Japan, so adamant to destroy Russia? Certainly, one of the reasons is that Russia is by far the world’s largest country surface-wise, and by far the globe’s richest country in terms of natural resources.

Russia has everything – and more – the elite covets for to maintain and expand its luxurious lifestyle.

Another reason most certainly is that modern Russia under President Putin is not bending to the dictate of the west. Russia is not willing to submit to a western-dominated Globalist world, fast becoming a tyranny if not stopped in its tracks. China is not willing either to submit to a western-directed One World Order (OWO).

So, Russia and China have made a pact, under which a multipolar world would flourish, a much more natural, multi-cultural approach to a “new” world, a more peaceful and more prosperous world.

Most of Asia, and many of the hitherto so-called western countries, are also aiming at integrating into the new “realm” of peaceful coexistence, promoted by Russia and China, much to the detriment of the “old” belligerent west.

It may become an amalgam of countries, fused into socioeconomic associations, which are sick and tired of the centuries of western hegemonic exploitation. First, by the most abject exploitative and mass killing European colonies, in Africa and around the world, then – about in the 1950s and 1960s – when these colonies were set “free” to become neo-colonies – a new type of serfdom – economic usurpation emerged — and is thriving to this day.

What these still colonialized countries are aiming at is the recreation of the natural Continent of Eurasia, which was destroyed by Anglosaxony and its small brother, the French colonizers.

For those who remember the history of Eurasia, where trade was peaceful and befitting to the term “win-win”, where trading among countries, nations or simple communities was according to comparative advantages – leading to “win-win”- these people, politicians and honest thinkers will want Eurasia back.

And guess who has already thought about this idea? China’s President Xi Jinping, when he initiated already in 2013 the New Silk Road – patterned according to the original Silk Road of 2100 years ago. The New Silk Road is also called the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). It attempts to connect Eurasia in trade, infrastructure, joint business ventures, science, cultural exchanges and much more. The dynamics of BRI pursue an open-ended peaceful objective of worldwide cooperation – ironing out potential conflicts with negotiations, not with war.

Yes, the “The Times they are A-Changing” (Bob Dylan, 1964).

*

Back to Chancellor Scholz. Maybe more than the media pressure, the pressure from Washington and NATO became too much for Scholz to bear. Yet, the world is waiting for a leader who does not follow orders from “above”, from outside, from hell, but who has his own conscience and a spine of steel, not prone to bend over for fear and coercion. One who says NO to war, despite all the interests in this dystopian Orwell-1984 world. Even if it means he has to quit over his decision. Scholz doesn’t seem to fit that profile.

Can you imagine Scholz resigning over the decision of the Leopards? Hardly. Actually, yesterday and today, we have seen he didn’t resign, but rather acquiesced with the decision from “above”, meaning Washington and Brussels.

But wouldn’t his resignation or simple refusal to deliver German Leopards to Ukraine, a country that has from the beginning fought an already lost war – wouldn’t this have been a formidable shock signal to the rest of the ultra-dystopian world?

Yes, it would have been. And it’s never too late. Is there an EU leader (sic) with the guts to say NO to war, who will not enter as a war-party into a conflict that will pull Europe apart, that could even end in a nuclear holocaust, where the survivors may not be the elite?

*

Germany is enmeshed in a conflict which is, indeed, against Germany’s “Constitution”.

That’s it. Germany doesn’t have their own Constitution. Germany is still under an Armistice Agreement after WWII. One of the provisions under this one-sided “Pact” among the WWII-Allies, but led by the US, says that Germany may never take a decision which is against the interests of the United States. Or else.

As we know, in today’s civilization, where murder is just another word for dominance, the “else” can mean many things. Unpleasant, indeed. Bloody. Several more venerable German leaders had attempted to break that slave-bond. They were “whiplashed” back to order.

References to this effect, the German Armistice instead of a Constitution, used to be on internet. They are all gone, cleansed and fact-checked – censured out.

The world is not to know that Germany, the economic and intellectual leader of Europe, is a mere puppet of Washington. And that whatever crazy appearing decision she takes is just toeing the line Washington has designed for her.

And the war goes on, and on, and on. Killing, maiming and killing.

More weapons into the cesspool of Kiev, creating billions of debts – Washington / Brussels create debt-money out of thin air, no backing, no chance of ever being paid back – helping creating “artificial” hyper-inflation, energy and food shortages, ruining the western economy, or rather – preparing it for being ransacked by the western oligarchy, the Death Cult, the Deep State – and the shadow monsters, Big-huge Corporate Finance. We know who they are.

Yet, from day One, from 24 February 2022, everyone who had a brain knew this war could never be won by Ukraine. Not even with endless weapon-deliveries from the west. Not even with direct interference by NATO, not even with the US sending their troops on the grounds of Ukraine. Not even with US troops marching into Russia.

Never. They are faced with a modern, tremendously efficient Russian Army – a terrific and terrifying nuclear force.

Though President Putin has often said, Russia was not a “first-strike” nuclear force, while Biden countered, the US would be a ”preventive first-strike” nation, the US / NATO would stand no chance against a Russian nuclear counter attack.

Do they realize that? Some American clear-thinking strategist-generals probably do. But the political megalos above them, who may call the final shot – the Red-Bottom trigger – they may have no clue in their narcissistic no-brain view.

*

At the outset, since WWI and before, it was the Anglosaxon hegemon’s idea to use Germany to wipe out the Soviet Union, then Russia. First with WWI and then with WWII – and now, with what you may already call WWIII.

It is no longer a secret that the US while fighting the Third Reich along with the so-called Allied Forces (UK, France and the Soviet Union), the US quietly – or not so quietly – financed Hitler’s war against the Soviet Union – an Ally.

Dancing on two or more weddings simultaneously has always been a rotten US strategy and is practiced as of this day.

*

The Bank for International Settlements (BIS), set up in Basle, Switzerland in 1930, basically to settle Germany’s debt form WWI, was hardly ever used for German debt settlement because Germany was forgiven most of her debt for WWI and WWII. Probably, because they defended the Anglosaxon interests as best they could.

Instead, the BIS, largely a Rothschild-controlled private institution, close to the Swiss-German border, served to channel money directly from the US Fed to Hitler’s Reichsbank. Other collaborators with the Third Reich, included Rockefeller’s Standard Oil, IBM, Dow Chemicals, Hollywood (Metro-Goldwyn-Meyer), General Motors, Ford Motos – and more.

In both WWI and WWII, the Anglosaxon hegemon lost their quest and German-proxy wars to conquer Russia, alias, the Soviet Union.

Now their third attempt at conquering Russia is under way? Again, through Germany. A lost cause from the beginning.

Especially with President Putin at the helm of the Kremlin.

*

In 1991, when the Berlin Wall fell, Washington was in ectasis of joy. They invited Russians from everywhere to participate in everything, from their most reputed think-tanks to the banking system, even into Pentagon advisory posts. The “strategists” from the Washington Swamp were convinced they finally won the Cold War and Russia was theirs.

Then suddenly, some ten years later, unexpectedly came along a little-known KGB agent by the name of Vladimir Putin who was elected President of Russia, head of the Kremlin. The rest is history.

Things changed. Drastically.

Again: “Times Are A-Changing” to this day. President Putin is a nationalist who defends his country, the interests of Russia’s population and theirs, the Peoples of Russia’s resources.

Contrary to the slander of the west, President Putin has no ambitions to expand the borders of Russia. In fact, Russia throughout known history NEVER was expansionist. No need. Russia with her 17.1 million square kilometers of surface (US – 9.8 sq.km, just a bit over half of Russia’s) and all the natural resources riches in and above the ground, has no need to expand.

Think about it: Whoever could be naïve enough or dystopian-thinker enough to believe that Ukraine had even the tiniest chance of winning this war against Russia, not with billions and billions of weaponries from the west, not even in a dream world, must have been brainwashed into oblivion.

This does, however, not rule out the insane Death Cult wanting to wipe out most of the planet’s inhabitants, triggering a nuclear war or by other means.

German “Nachdenkseiten” reports that in one of the most recent Ukraine support packages from the US, indications are that they may contain nuclear-spiked ammunition. The article talks about the risks for Russia, but also for the Ukrainian civil society and even for the Ukrainian own soldiers. See this in German.

Remember, this would be their third futile attempt to use Germany for conquering Russia.

So, stay alert and be aware!

*

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 is a non-resident Senior Fellow of the Chongyang Institute of Renmin University, Beijing.


Towards a World War III Scenario: The Dangers of Nuclear War” 

by Michel Chossudovsky

Available to order from Global Research! 

ISBN Number: 978-0-9737147-5-3
Year: 2012
Pages: 102

PDF Edition:  $6.50 (sent directly to your email account!)

Michel Chossudovsky is Professor of Economics at the University of Ottawa and Director of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), which hosts the critically acclaimed website www.globalresearch.ca . He is a contributor to the Encyclopedia Britannica. His writings have been translated into more than 20 languages.

Reviews

“This book is a ‘must’ resource – a richly documented and systematic diagnosis of the supremely pathological geo-strategic planning of US wars since ‘9-11’ against non-nuclear countries to seize their oil fields and resources under cover of ‘freedom and democracy’.”
John McMurtry, Professor of Philosophy, Guelph University

“In a world where engineered, pre-emptive, or more fashionably “humanitarian” wars of aggression have become the norm, this challenging book may be our final wake-up call.”
-Denis Halliday, Former Assistant Secretary General of the United Nations

Michel Chossudovsky exposes the insanity of our privatized war machine. Iran is being targeted with nuclear weapons as part of a war agenda built on distortions and lies for the purpose of private profit. The real aims are oil, financial hegemony and global control. The price could be nuclear holocaust. When weapons become the hottest export of the world’s only superpower, and diplomats work as salesmen for the defense industry, the whole world is recklessly endangered. If we must have a military, it belongs entirely in the public sector. No one should profit from mass death and destruction.
Ellen Brown, author of ‘Web of Debt’ and president of the Public Banking Institute   

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on German Leopards: More Killing, Collaterals, No End in Sight. With a Historic Perspective on Germany’s Repeated Role in Attempting at Conquering Russia

Opposition demonstrations of more than 100,000 people have taken place in Israeli cities since the new extreme right-wing government, including undisguised fascist ministers, took office on Dec. 30.

The protests, in the name of democracy, have been organized by multiple organizations and politicians focusing particularly on the new government’s attempt to weaken the judicial system and thereby grant itself unfettered power to enact its reactionary agenda.

Another major point of contention is a bill introduced by the new minister of communications aimed at shutting down the public broadcasting system, setting up a committee to supervise commercial media, severely restricting investigative reporting and making it illegal to publish most information obtained through recordings.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu desperately sought to return to office to avoid prosecution on corruption charges against him and his family. The new government he put together is so dominated by unabashed bigots that Minister of Finance Belazel Smotrich had no compunction about recently stating in an interview, “I am a fascist homophobe.” Smotrich is also deputy speaker of the Knesset (parliament) and holds a second position in the ministry of defense giving him and his settler-based party control over much of the West Bank.

The glaring omission in the demonstrations has been any mention of those who are the primary targets of the new regime — and all preceding Israeli regimes — the Palestinian people. Even participation by Palestinians living inside the 1948 borders with the Palestinian flag has been discouraged or, in some cases, prevented. Instead, the protests have been seas of blue and white Israeli flags.

The fascist National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir threatened that anyone carrying a Palestinian flag in the Jerusalem protests would be arrested and jailed. He was saved the trouble of carrying out his threat by the protest organizers who made it clear that they didn’t want to “confuse” the message that
this is a family dispute among Israel-loyal Zionists.

Leaders of the Israeli protests say that they are fighting for democracy. But it is not possible to speak of democracy in any real sense inside an apartheid system. Under the defunct South African apartheid system only whites could vote, go to court, print newspapers, etc., but no one could credibly call apartheid South Africa a “democracy,” and no one today can credibly claim that Israel does not have an apartheid system. Apartheid is an international crime.

Fascists in office — greenlight to settler mobs

Netanyahu’s granting Smotrich’s and Ben-Gvir’s key positions in the repressive state apparatus promises stepped-up aggression against the Palestinians. But it should not be forgotten that in 2022 under the outgoing “centrist” government, 220 Palestinians were killed, including 56 children, and thousands wounded and imprisoned. Settler gangs backed by the police and army carry out non-stop attacks on Palestinian farmers, villagers and supporters. In just 10 days in October 2002, over 100 settler attacks were recorded in the West Bank and 39 Palestinians killed in that month alone.

Given the green light by the new government, settlers and the military have stepped up their. aggression. On Jan. 27, an Israeli army attack on Jenin refugee camp left 11 Palestinians dead and more than 20 wounded. The next day saw massive protests across the West Bank and Gaza and an armed attack by a Palestinian on the illegal Israeli settlement of Neve Yaacov in Jerusalem, leaving seven dead and three wounded. The same night settlers carried out 144 reported attacks in the Nablus district of the West Bank alone.

Statements of sympathy and condemnation by President Biden, Secretary of State Antony Blinken and other U.S. officials have exclusively focused on Israeli casualties. Blinken, visiting the region and clearly worried that the policies of the recently installed government could lead to a new mass upheaval destabilizing the region, issued the familiar appeals for “both sides” to reduce tensions. This seemingly even-handed appeal is nothing but a fraud.

The U.S. sends $4 billion annually in military aid to Israel while proclaiming, in Blinken’s words, an “ironclad” commitment to Israel’s “security.” No such aid or commitment is promised to the Palestinians. And though U.S. officials and other supporters never tire of promoting the idea that Israel
is “the only democracy in the Middle East,” most of the world is well aware that Israel is in fact an apartheid state.

Israel, despite its relatively small size, has one of the most powerful militaries in the world thanks to hundreds of billions in U.S. military aid over the decades. The Palestinians have no air force, navy or other elements of a modern military. When Israel bombs Gaza, the pilots don’t have to worry about air defenses — the Palestinians have none.

Last year, 29 Israeli’s were killed in conflict as compared to more than 220 Palestinians, but that is just part of story. While thousands of Palestinians were arrested by Israeli police, no Israelis were arrested by Palestinian police. No Israelis had their homes or farms destroyed as did thousands of Palestinians.

While more than 4,700 Palestinians are held illegally in Israeli prisons, exactly zero Israelis are held in Palestinian jails. Palestinians in the West Bank are subject to Israeli military code, while Jewish settlers are governed by Israeli civil law. Numerous moderate human rights organizations, including some inside. Israel itself, have presented irrefutable evidence of the apartheid system.

Drawing an equal sign between “both sides,” as Blinke n did in his Jan. 30 speech is to draw an equal sign between the colonized and the colonizer, between the oppressed and the oppressor. The aim is to perpetuate the Big Lie that dominates both the U.S. and Israeli mainstream as the justification for the crucially important military aid and diplomatic protection the U.S. ruling establishment extends to Israel.

Why? No one should believe that this is due to sympathy or friendship for Jewish people. Friendship and imperialist foreign policy are mutually exclusive categories. Israel is an integral force in the U.S. plans for global domination, situated in a particularly strategic region, the crossroads of Europe, Africa and Asia.

The mask has been ripped off

That is what is so worrying to Israel’s backers. It is impossible to paint a government dominated by right-wing religious zealots and outright fascists as a “liberal democracy.” From day one of this administration, its leaders — starting with the Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu — have made clear their intention to annex as much territory as possible. The day before taking over Netanyahu issued a statement saying that the new government’s top priority is to “advance and develop settlement in all parts of Israel — in the Galilee, the Negev Desert, the Golan Heights and Judea and Samaria [West Bank-ed].” The Negev and Galilee are areas inside the 1948 borders of the Israeli state that have large Palestinian populations.

Netanyahu’s statement, underlined by the references to Negev and Galilee, is an open admission that the new government plans to accelerate the ethnic cleansing that began with the expulsion by means of terror of more than 750,000 Palestinians in 1948 and 1949. Another 300,000 Palestinians were driven out during the 1967 war when the West Bank, Gaza, East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights were conquered.

While there was the pretext for a half-century of a “two-state solution” where the Palestinians would be granted a West Bank/Gaza/East Jerusalem state, this is hardly mentioned anymore except to placate the benefactors in Washington.

Today, the Israeli and Palestinian populations in what was the British Mandate (colony) of Palestine from 1920 to 1948 are almost the same, a little over seven million each. But that is where the similarity ends. The Israelis live in a highly modernized and highly militarized state. The Palestinians exist on broken up pieces of land under various forms of law, economy and governance, constantly under threat of military attack from the air, sea and land. Hundreds of thousands still live in refugee camps in Jordan, Lebanon, Syria and inside occupied Palestine.

Despite all the suffering inflicted on the Palestinian people over the past century and more, they have never given up their movement for self-determination and liberation. Nor will they do so today. While there is no predicting in advance how the struggle will unfold, it is clear that the situation is highly volatile now. The antiwar and all progressive movements must be on alert and continue to stand in solidarity with the Palestinian people in their just struggle.

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.

***

For at least three decades Germany enjoyed an unprecedented period of energy security, one which made it possible for the Central European country to flourish, further dominating the old continent. It didn’t take long for this economic power to translate into political influence and help Berlin expand even further, particularly in Eastern Europe.

And yet, by late February 2022, Germany’s “dream economy” came to an abrupt end thanks to its suicidal sanctions against Russia, which haven’t only proven futile, but also quite self-harming. Berlin severely underestimated the importance of access to cheap Russian energy, particularly natural gas which helped power much (if not most) of its export-oriented economic strategy.

Perhaps the best summary of just how immensely profitable it was for Germany to do business with Russia was an analysis published back in August last year, authored by Zoltan Pozsar, a renowned economic and financial expert. In his thought-provoking report, Pozsar also presented a chart showing how “$2 trillion of German value depends on $20 billion of Russian gas”. The wording was carefully chosen and it isn’t there just to be amusing. Essentially, Germany was making approximately a hundred times greater profit thanks to cheap commodities, particularly Russian natural gas, to run its export-driven economy at bargain prices.

With this now gone for years or even decades to come, Germany’s “economic miracle” has effectively become yet another footnote in history books. According to a Reuters report, published on January 30, Allianz Trade presented a study that cited contract expiries and delayed wholesale pricing effects and found that German industry is set to pay approximately 40% more for energy in 2023 than in 2021, before the energy crisis triggered by the political West’s failed economic siege of Russia.

“The large energy-price shock still lies ahead for European corporates,” Allianz Trade (better known as Euler Hermes until last year) claims.

The report states that higher corporate utility bills last year were contained as long pass-through times from wholesale markets and government interventions mitigated the immediate hit from surging prices as Russia’s energy exports to the West were disrupted due to the imposition of self-defeating sanctions by the European Union.

The European Central Bank (ECB) stepped in to fund the resulting budget deficits, which effectively means that, despite the official stance and Russophobic posturing, it was directly funding Moscow’s massive financial build-up. However, Allianz Trade estimates that as the pass-throughs are ending, meaning the price increases will soon hit EU corporate profits by 1-1.5% and lead to lower investment, in Germany’s case this would amount to €25 billion (approximately $27 billion).

And while the report claims that German corporate finances are robust and that a state-imposed natural gas price cap allegedly might help, it’s extremely likely to make things much worse. This doesn’t only include the fact that it’s exceedingly difficult to physically replace Russian natural gas with a readily available (much less affordable) alternative, but is also simply impossible for certain EU members such as Hungary, which is landlocked and couldn’t rely on port terminals for seaborne LNG shipments.

To make matters worse, such alternatives are also at least five times more expensive than Russian natural gas, which is effectively destroying the EU’s already dwindling industrial competitiveness on the global markets. Many EU officials have already expressed their frustration with the US due to this, with some high-ranking leaders in Brussels accusing Washington DC of profiteering at the expense of the increasingly troubled bloc.

Although the report insists that fears of crisis leading to deindustrialization and loss of competitiveness against the United States were overdone due to labor costs and exchange rates having a higher impact on manufacturing than energy prices, the same is not true in regard to other countries around the world. The exporters are losing market shares in areas such as agriculture, machinery, electrical equipment, metals, transport, etc. and the main beneficiaries tend to be Asian, Middle Eastern and African companies, not American ones, the report admits.

This effectively means that EU corporations will not only lose their global market share, but could also eventually start losing it in Europe itself, as the already high manufacturing costs in the EU will be even higher due to surging energy costs, which are affecting both citizens and companies.

On Saturday, the economy ministry stated that the German government’s one-time subsidy to help private households and small businesses with gas prices – the first stage of a package that will be complemented with retroactive price caps kicking in in March – has cost €4.3 billion so far. Germany has earmarked €12 billion for this purpose, but the government states that the €4.3 billion is not the final cost as many eligible companies are yet to apply. With the end of February being the deadline, they have exactly a month to do so.

*

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

Drago Bosnic is an independent geopolitical and military analyst.

Featured image is from InfoBrics

How COVID Patients Died for Profit

February 1st, 2023 by Dr. Joseph Mercola

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

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

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

***

By May 2020, it had become apparent that the standard practice of putting COVID-19 patients on mechanical ventilation with ventilators was a death sentence

Between 50% and 86% of COVID patients placed on life support ended up dying

By May 2020, doctors had also found that high-flow nasal cannulas and proning led to better outcomes than ventilators

The World Health Organization promoted the use of ventilators as a way to purportedly curtail the spread of virus-laden aerosols, thereby protecting other patients and hospital staff. In other words, suspected COVID patients were sacrificed to “protect” others

The matter becomes even more perverse when you consider the fact that many “COVID cases” were patients who merely tested positive using faulty PCR testing. Hospitals also received massive incentives to diagnose patients with COVID and put them on a vent

*

By May 2020, it had become apparent that the standard practice of putting COVID-19 patients on mechanical ventilation with ventilators was a death sentence.1 As early as April 9, 2020, Business Insider reported2 that 80% of COVID-19 patients in New York City who were placed on ventilators died, which caused a number of doctors to question their use.

The Associated Press3 also publicized similar reports from China and the U.K. A U.K. report put the figure at 66%, while a small study from Wuhan, China, put the ratio of deaths at 86%. Data presented by attorney Thomas Renz in 2021 showed that in Texas hospitals, 84.9% of patients died after more than 96 hours on a ventilator.4

The lowest figure I’ve seen is 50%.5 So, somewhere between 50% and 86% of all ventilated COVID patients died. Compare that to historical prepandemic ratios, where 30% to 40% of ventilated patients died.

High-Flow Cannulas and Proning Were Always More Effective

Meanwhile, doctors at UChicago Medicine reported6 getting “truly remarkable” results using high-flow nasal cannulas in lieu of ventilators. As noted in a press release:7

“High-flow nasal cannulas, or HFNCs, are non-invasive nasal prongs that sit below the nostrils and blow large volumes of warm, humidified oxygen into the nose and lungs.

A team from UChicago Medicine’s emergency room took 24 COVID-19 patients who were in respiratory distress and gave them HFNCs instead of putting them on ventilators. The patients all fared extremely well, and only one of them required intubation after 10 days …

‘Avoiding intubation is key,’ [UChicago Medicine’s Emergency Department’s medical director Dr. Thomas] Spiegel said. ‘Most of our colleagues around the city are not doing this, but I sure wish other ERs would take a look at this technique closely.'”

The UChicago team also endorsed proning, meaning lying in the face-down position, which automatically improves oxygenation and helps alleviate shortness of breath.

Yet despite these early indications that mechanical ventilation was as unnecessary as it was disastrous, placing COVID patients on life support is standard of care to this day, more than three years later. How could that be?

How China and the WHO Created Ventilator Hysteria

In a September 30, 2020, Substack article,8 journalist Jordan Schachtel described how China and the World Health Organization came up with and nurtured the idea that mechanical ventilation was the correct and necessary first-line response to COVID:

“In early March, when COVID-19 was ravaging western Europe and sounding alarm bells in the United States, the WHO released COVID-19 provider guidance9 documents to healthcare workers.

Citing experience ‘based on current knowledge of the situation in China,’ the WHO recommended mechanical ventilators as an early intervention for treating COVID-19 patients. The guidance recommended10 escalating quickly, if not immediately, to mechanical ventilation.

In doing so, they cited the guidance being presented by Chinese medical journals, which published papers in January and February claiming that ‘Chinese expert consensus’ called for ‘invasive mechanical ventilation’ as the ‘first choice’ for people with moderate to severe respiratory distress.

The WHO further justified this approach by claiming that the less invasive positive air pressure machines could result in the spread of aerosols, potentially infecting health care workers with the virus.”

That last paragraph is perhaps the most shocking reason for why millions of COVID patients were sacrificed. They wanted to isolate the virus inside the mechanical vent machine rather than risk aerosol transmission.

In other words, they put patients to death in order to “save” staff and other, presumably non-COVID, patients. If you missed this news back in 2020, you’re not alone. In the flurry of daily reporting, it escaped many of us. Here’s the description given in the WHO’s guidance document.

WHO’s guidance document

Strangely enough, while the U.S. quickly began clamoring for ventilators, China started relying on them less, and instead exported them in huge quantities. As noted by Schachtel, “China was making a fortune off of manufacturing and exporting ventilators (many of which did not work correctly and even killed patients11) around the world.”

COVID Patients Effectively Euthanized

That ventilation and sedation were used to protect hospital staff was also highlighted by The Wall Street Journal in a December 20, 2020, article,12 which noted:

“Last spring, with less known about the disease, doctors often pre-emptively put patients on ventilators or gave powerful sedatives largely abandoned in recent years. The aim was to save the seriously ill and protect hospital staff from COVID-19 …

Last spring, doctors put patients on ventilators partly to limit contagion at a time when it was less clear how the virus spread, when protective masks and gowns were in short supply.

Doctors could have employed other kinds of breathing support devices that don’t require risky sedation, but early reports suggested patients using them could spray dangerous amounts of virus into the air, said Theodore Iwashyna, a critical-care physician at University of Michigan and Department of Veterans Affairs hospitals in Ann Arbor, Mich.

At the time, he said, doctors and nurses feared the virus would spread through hospitals. “We were intubating sick patients very early. Not for the patients’ benefit, but in order to control the epidemic and to save other patients,” Dr. Iwashyna said ‘That felt awful.'”

As noted in a January 23, 2023, Substack article,13 in which James Lyons-Weiler revisits the ventilator issue and the shocking reason behind it, “euthanizing humans is illegal. Especially for the benefit of other patients. It should feel awful.”

The matter becomes even more perverse when you consider the fact that many “COVID cases” were patients who merely tested positive using faulty PCR testing.

They didn’t have COVID but were vented anyway, thanks to the baseless theory that you could have COVID-19 and be infectious without symptoms. Hospitals also received massive incentives to diagnose patients with COVID — whether they actually had it or not — and to put them on a vent.

Frontline Nurse Blew the Whistle on Vent Misuse

Some of you may remember Erin Olszewski, a retired Army sergeant and frontline nurse who blew the whistle on the horrific mistreatment of COVID patients at Elmhurst Hospital Center in Queens, New York, which was “the epicenter of the epicenter” of the COVID-19 pandemic in the U.S.

She described14 a number of problems at Elmhurst, including the disproportionate mortality rate among people of color, the controversial rule surrounding Do Not Resuscitate (DNR) orders, lax personal protective equipment (PPE) standards, and the failure to segregate COVID-positive and COVID-negative patients, thereby ensuring maximum spread of the disease among noninfected patients coming in with other health problems.

Olszewski also highlighted the fact that COVID-negative patients were being listed as confirmed positive and placed on mechanical ventilation, thus artificially inflating the numbers while more or less condemning the patient to death from lung injury.

Making matters worse, many of the doctors treating these patients were not trained in critical care. One of the “doctors” on the COVID floor was a dentist. Residents (medical students) were also relied on, even though they were not properly trained in how to safely ventilate, and were unfamiliar with the potent drugs used.

At the time, Olszewski blamed financial incentives for turning the hospital into a killing field. Elmhurst, a public hospital, received $29,000 extra for a COVID-19 patient receiving ventilation, over and above other treatments, she said.

If Elmhurst had infection control in mind when ventilating patients, they certainly didn’t follow through, as COVID-positive and negative patients were comingled — a strategy Olszewski suspected was intended to drive up the COVID case and mortality numbers.

Killing for Profit

Others have also highlighted the role of financial incentives. In early April 2020, Minnesota family physician and state Sen. Scott Jensen explained:15

“Medicare has determined that if you have a COVID-19 admission to the hospital you’ll get paid $13,000. If that COVID-19 patient goes on a ventilator, you get $39,000; three times as much.”

Former CDC director Robert Redfield also admitted that financial policies may indeed have resulted in artificially elevated hospitalization rates and death toll statistics. As reported August 1, 2020, by the Washington Examiner:16

“… Redfield agreed that some hospitals have a monetary incentive to overcount coronavirus deaths … ‘I think you’re correct in that we’ve seen this in other disease processes, too.

Really, in the HIV epidemic, somebody may have a heart attack but also have HIV — the hospital would prefer the [classification] for HIV because there’s greater reimbursement,’ Redfield said17 during a House panel hearing … when asked by Rep. Blaine Luetkemeyer about potential ‘perverse incentives.’ Redfield continued: ‘So, I do think there’s some reality to that …”

In addition to receiving exorbitant payments for COVID admissions and putting patients on a ventilator, hospitals are also paid extra for:18

  • COVID testing for all patients
  • COVID diagnoses
  • Use of remdesivir
  • COVID deaths

When everything is said and done, a COVID patient can be “worth” as much as $250,000, but for the maximum payment, they have to leave in a body bag. If we know anything, it’s that profit motives can make people commit atrocious acts, and that certainly appears true when it comes to COVID treatment.

In the U.S., hospitals also LOST federal funding if they failed or refused to administer remdesivir and/or ventilation, which further incentivized them to go along with what amounts to malpractice at best, and murder at worst.

Patient Rights Have Evaporated

There’s also evidence that certain hospital systems, and perhaps all of them, have waived patients’ rights, making anyone diagnosed with COVID a virtual prisoner of the hospital, with no ability to exercise informed consent. As noted by Citizens Journal in December 2021:19

“We now see government-dictated medical care at its worst in our history since the federal government mandated these ineffective and dangerous treatments for COVID-19, and then created financial incentives for hospitals and doctors to use only those ‘approved’ (and paid for) approaches.

Our formerly trusted medical community of hospitals and hospital-employed medical staff have effectively become ‘bounty hunters’ for your life.

Patients need to now take unprecedented steps to avoid going into the hospital for COVID-19. Patients need to take active steps to plan before getting sick to use early home-based treatment of COVID-19 that can help you save your life.”

There Must Be a Reckoning

There’s no telling how many COVID patients have already lost their lives to this medical malpractice, and it must stop. Patient rights must be reestablished and be irrevocable, we need to hold decision-makers to account, and lastly, we have to somehow ensure that our hospitals cannot be turned into killing fields for profit ever again. As noted by Lyons-Weiler in his January 2023 article:20

“We need harsh, hard investigations with consequences — and activists need to write bills tying the hands of protocolists to prevent them from ever again killing one patient to hypothetically save another — under threat of a murder charge.

We need legislation for ‘on-demand’ scripts for off-label medicines that patients want for potentially deadly infections — regardless of ‘FDA Approval’ (FDA does not, by definition, have to ‘approve’ off-label scripts.”

COVID Treatment Guidance

While SARS-CoV-2 has become milder with each iteration, I still believe it’s a good idea to treat suspected COVID at first signs of symptoms — especially if you’ve gotten the COVID jab. COVID hospitalization and death are now “pandemics of the vaccinated,” to reuse and rephrase one of the globalist cabal’s favorite mantras.

Perhaps it’s the common cold or a regular influenza, maybe it’s the latest COVID variant. Either way, since they’re now virtually indistinguishable, at least in the early stages of infection, your best bet is to treat symptoms as you would treat earlier forms of COVID. Treatment for long-COVID also overlaps with the protocols for SARS-CoV-2 infection. Early treatment protocols with demonstrated effectiveness include:

Based on my review of these protocols, I’ve developed the following summary of the treatment specifics I believe are the easiest and most effective.

*

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

1 Medscape April 6, 2020

2 Business Insider April 9, 2020

3 The Associated Press April 8, 2020

4, 18, 19 Citizens Journal December 20, 2021

5, 12 Wall Street Journal December 20, 2020

6, 7 Newswise April 23, 2020

8 The Dossier Substack September 30, 2020

9 WHO Clinical Management of Severe COVID-19

10 WHO Infection Prevention and Control for COVID

11 NBC News April 30, 2020

13, 20 Substack Popular Rationalism January 23, 2023

14 YouTube Perspectives on the Pandemic 2020

15 Fox News April 9, 2020

16 Washington Examiner August 1, 2020

17 Breitbart July 31, 2020

Featured image is from Mercola


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

Croatian President Added to Ukrainian Kill-list

February 1st, 2023 by Lucas Leiroz de Almeida

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

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

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

***

Apparently, being in favor of peace in Europe is reason enough for the Ukrainian neo-Nazi regime to threaten someone’s life. After criticizing the German Foreign Minister’s irresponsible pro-war remarks and emphasizing the importance of peace with Russia for European stability, Croatian President Zoran Milanovich has been added to Myrotvorets, the Ukrainian government’s public kill-list. The case shows how the Ukrainian regime deals with its own international “allies” – since Croatia is a member of NATO and the EU.

Croatian President Milanovich “disappointed” Ukrainian and Western leaders with his realistic statements. He has long asserted that Moscow is an important point for European stability and supported talks that take Russian interests into account. Recently, he criticized Annalena Baerbock’s pro-war statements, saying:

“The German foreign minister says we must be united, because I quote, we are at war with Russia. I didn’t know that, Maybe Germany is at war with Russia, but then, good luck. Maybe this time it turns out better than 70-odd years ago. If we are at war with Russia, then let’s see what we need to do. But we won’t ask Germany for its opinion”.

In the last week of January, Milanovich’s name appeared on the website of the “Myrotvorets” group, in the “list” section, which is intended to expose the data of the people the Kiev regime wants to kill. The site also informs the groups that helped it to obtain the data of the listed. The information is provided by various intelligence agencies, both Ukrainian and Western ones, including American institutions such as the CIA and FBI. In the case of Milanovich, this was provided by Ukraine’s GRU.

“Myrotvorets” (ironically, the word “peacemaker” in Ukrainian) is formally a Ukrainian NGO, but which, in practice, acts as a state department. The group collects data from people considered enemies by the government and indexes it on a large online platform. On its website which is hosted on a NATO’s server, Myrotvorets defines itself as a “Center for Research of Signs of Crimes against the National Security of Ukraine, Peace, Humanity, and the International Law”, which provides “information for law enforcement authorities and special services about pro-Russian terrorists, separatists, mercenaries, war criminals, and murderers”.

What makes the site extremely dangerous is not merely listing people who supposedly “should die”, but the fact that the Kiev regime actually uses the information given by the organization to persecute and kill those listed. Murders such as that of Daria Dugina, who was included on the site, show that Kiev is really trying to fulfill the objective of eliminating all those who are identified by Myrotvorets as “criminals”. Also, when a listed person dies, the site updates its section by putting the word “liquidated” in the victim’s name.

It is also necessary to emphasize that, in addition to politicians, diplomats, military and journalists, according to research recently made by Russian officials, more than 300 children from Donbass are included in the list. Many formal requests have already been made by Russians and foreigners for the site to be disabled, but no action has been taken so far.

In justifying Milanovich’s inclusion on the death list, Myrotvorets exposes: “2.02.2022. ‘There is no European or EU stability without Russia’, said Croatian President Zoran Milanović, adding that ‘Russia is a factor in that equation, and we should have an agreement with Russia’. Milanović accused the UK of ‘inciting’ and believes that pushing Ukraine towards the confrontation with Russia is ‘irresponsible’. Asked why he did not meet the UK’s Secretary of State for Defence, Ben Wallace, who was in Zagreb, the Croatian president, told journalists he does not meet with defense ministers”.

As we can see, the statement to justify the addition is old. In fact, this is not the first time the President appears on the list. He had already been included in early 2022, when he criticized UK’s anti-Russian provocations. But apparently his name was hidden in recent months, having now reappeared due to his criticism of Baerbock.

The site constantly updates its kill-list, deactivating and reactivating files, according to the frequency of “pro-Russian” statements made by those listed. For example, the head of Twitter Elon Musk was even included in the list after defending peace negotiations with Russia, and was subsequently hidden. In this sense, Milanovich’s defense criticism against Baerbock seems to be the reason for his “re-addition”.

Indeed, it remains to be seen what the position of the EU and NATO will be in the face of the fact that the leader of a member country of both organizations is being threatened with death by a non-member state. In theory, the West should protect Milanovich and even engage in preventive intelligence operation to stop Kiev from trying anything. But, in reality, both organizations are more likely to ignore the topic and continue to support the neo-Nazi regime, despite all its crimes.

*

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 researcher in Social Sciences at the Rural Federal University of Rio de Janeiro; geopolitical consultant. You can follow Lucas on Twitter and Telegram.

Featured image is from InfoBrics

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

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

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

***

The War Room/DailyClout Pfizer Documents Analysis Project Post-Marketing Group (Team 1) – Barbara Gehrett, MD; Joseph Gehrett, MD; Chris Flowers, MD; and Loree Britt – produced a shocking review of the paediatric data found in

[Confidential[Pfizer document [released under FOI in October 2021] entitled: 

5.3.6 Cumulative Analysis of Post-Authorization Adverse Event Reports of PF-07302048 (BNT162B2) Received Through 28-FEB-2021 (a.k.a., “5.3.6“).

It is important to note

1) that the adverse events (AEs) in the 5.3.6 document were reported to Pfizer for only a 90-day period starting on December 1, 2020, the date of the United Kingdom’s public rollout of Pfizer’s COVID-19 experimental mRNA “vaccine” product and

2) no pediatric dose of the Pfizer product was approved for use during that time frame.

What dose(s) of Pfizer’s mRNA “vaccine” was given to these children since no approved dose existed?

Important points from this report include:

  • A seven-year-old experienced a stroke.
  • One child and one infant suffered facial paralysis.
  • One infant had a kidney adverse event, either kidney injury or failure.
  • Of the 34 cases, 24 (71%) were classified as serious.
  • Predominantly female patients were affected — at least 25 of 34 (73.5%) patients.
  • Table 6 reports 34 cases of use in pediatric individuals. However, 28 additional cases were excluded because details such as height and weight were “not consistent with pediatric subjects.”
  • Ages ranged from two months to nine years, with median 4.0 years, which means half the children were under four years of age.
  • 132 adverse events were reported in the 34 children – i.e., an average of 3.88 AEs per child.

Shockingly, Pfizer concluded:

No new significant safety information was identified based on a review of these cases compared with the non-paediatric population.”

Please read the disturbing, two-page report by the Post-Marketing Group (Team 1) here.

*

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

Featured image is from The Expose


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.

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.

***

Bill Gates has warned that the next pandemic will be worse than COVID-19 and it’ll also be “man-made.” The Microsoft co-founder said that the next one will be “much more brutal” than the mild cold symptoms experienced with the coronavirus.

Gates told the Lowy Institute think tank in Sydney on Monday that the ruling class needs to set aside their “differences “and work together to control the public to prepare for the next virus. He called for greater global cooperation using the Covid-19 pandemic as an example of how countries could improve their stranglehold on humanity and the slave class.

According to The Daily Mail UK, Gates wants the world to model Australia’s totalitarian control and psyop that had people willingly bowing to masters and voluntarily giving up their inalienable rights. “Compare the economic cost of being prepared for the next one to the cost of this one, over $US10 trillion economic loss,” he said.  “With the pandemic, we were foolish not to have the tools, the practice, and global capacity to be on standby like we do with fire or earthquakes.”

Gates praised Australia’s policies in helping to keep infection rates low before vaccines were rolled out. “Some of the things that stand out are that Australia and about seven other countries did population scale diagnostics early on and had quarantine policies,” he said.

Total control over the population means that COVID doesn’t spread, apparently. “That meant you kept the level of infection low in that first year when there were no vaccines.”

“The one thing that still hangs in the balance is will we have the global capacity and at the regional and country levels that would mean that when an (infectious disease) threat comes up we act in such a way that it doesn’t go global,” Gates said. “We need to be doing every five years a comprehensive exercise at both country and regional levels of pandemic preparedness and you need a global group that’s scoring everybody.”

Gates added that he thinks China’s obvious slave system is good. “I see China’s rise as a huge win for the world … the current mentality of the US to China, and which is reciprocated, is kind of a lose-lose mentality.” That means he thinks total control, and worse slavery than we are living under now will be a “win”. But for whom? Certainly to those in slave class.

*

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

Featured image is from SHTFplan.com

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

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

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

***

President Biden’s green new world of more electric vehicles on US highways might result in increasing lithium fires — if that’s because of a crash or perhaps a ‘spontaneous’ battery fire.

The latest incident occurred on Saturday when a Model S “spontaneously” burst into flames on a California freeway.

On Saturday, the Sacramento Metropolitan Fire District tweeted footage of a Tesla Model S engulfed in flames.

“The fire was extinguished with approx 6,000 gallons of water, as the battery cells continued to combust,” the fire department said.

Several years ago, we pointed out one Tesla fire took at least 20 tons of water to extinguish. For some context, it only takes 3 tons of water to put out a gasoline car fire.

Traditional fire extinguishers, such as foam and water, are ineffective at extinguishing lithium fires. A class-D dry powder extinguisher is certified for combating battery fires, though many fire departments across the country are not prepared to fight battery fires.

Tesla states in a firefighting manual that “large amounts of water” are needed to extinguish a car battery fire. It even said these fires could last as long as 24 hours.

Someone might need to explain to Biden and his administration that the shift to EVs isn’t as ‘ESG-friendly’ as it’s perceived to be.

*

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 Metro Fire of Sacramento

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Tesla Model S “Spontaneously” Erupts in Flames on California Highway
  • 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.

***

Lawyers representing anti-arms campaigners told the High Court on Tuesday it was “absurd” that former UK Prime Minister Liz Truss resumed arms sales to Saudi Arabia amid concerns that Riyadh had committed war crimes in Yemen.  

The comments came as a judicial review brought by the Campaign Against Arms Trade (CAAT) and Mwatana for Human Rights, challenging the UK’s continued licensing of arms sales to Riyadh despite those concerns, opened in the court.

Ben Jaffey, who represents CAAT, said emails obtained by his legal team showed that civil servants working at the Export Control Joint Unit had raised concerns with the Ministry of Defence over the sale, despite Truss stating that there was no pattern of Saudi war crimes in Yemen.

He added that Truss had made her decision despite the MoD actively tracking at least 528 alleged breaches of International Humanitarian Law in Yemen by the Saudi-led coalition.

“[The emails] are quite revealing and lay bare a logical flaw in how Britain resumed arms sales to Riyadh,” said Jaffey.

“No attempt was made even to make an assessment of some of the most grave allegations [by Saudi Arabia] as an entire category of attacks [by helicopters] was excluded from the UK government’s analysis.”

Jaffey also said that the pattern of attacks perpetrated by the Saudi-led coalition showed it was “unwilling to follow their own rules of engagement” in Yemen.

According to Oxfam, the UK has licensed at least £7.9bn ($9.6bn) in arms to Saudi Arabia across 547 licences since 2015, including Tornado and Typhoon aircraft and bombs.

CAAT says the true value of arms sales could be more than £23bn (around $28bn) when additional “open licensees” are taken into account.

A previous court challenge by CAAT in 2019 forced the UK government to suspend arms sales. But after an internal review, sales resumed in 2021 on the basis that the breaches of humanitarian law were “isolated incidents”.

The UK government has recently refused to release information in response to FOIs filed by Middle East Eye about arms sales to Saudi Arabia, following the coalition’s 2016 bombing of a crowded funeral hall in Sanaa, one of the deadliest of the war.

The Department of International Trade and the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office both cited a section of the Freedom of Information Act 2000, which exempts the release of documents when more than 24 hours of staff time – valued at £600 ($742) – would be required to retrieve them.

MEE has filed a new, narrowed FOI request with DIT based on suggestions it provided when rejecting the original request. A response is expected by the end of February.

*

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: Anti-arms campaigners outside the Royal Courts of Justice as a judicial review into arms sales to Saudi Arabia begins (Source: MEE)

Understanding the Pentagon’s Provocation of Russia

February 1st, 2023 by Jacob G. Hornberger

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.

***

President Kennedy had a unique ability that Pentagon generals did not have. He was able to analyze an international crisis by placing himself in the shoes of his adversary in an attempt to understand his adversary’s motives. Doing that enabled him to figure a way out of the crisis that did not involve war. The response of the generals and the Pentagon was always the same: invade, bomb, kill, and destroy.

Today’s generals are no different from their counterparts back in the early 1960s. They are unable to step into the shoes of Russian officials and try to figure out a resolution of the crisis in Ukraine. Instead, their answer is bombs, missiles, death, destruction and, now, tanks. They are simply not mentally equipped to do what Kennedy did. 

Understanding how Kennedy resolved the Cuban Missile Crisis goes a long way toward understanding what motivated the Russians to invade Ukraine. 

In 1962, Kennedy learned that the Soviet Union (i.e., Russia) was installing nuclear missiles in Cuba. With the full support of the Pentagon, Kennedy decided that he could not let that happen. There was no way that U.S. officials were going to permit the Russians to install nuclear missiles pointed at the United States from only 90 miles away.

And yet, the Soviets had every right in the world to install nuclear missiles in Cuba, so long as it was done with the consent of the Cuban regime. After all, even though the Pentagon and the CIA considered Cuba to be a de facto U.S. colony, Cuba was, in fact, an independent and sovereign country. If it wanted Soviet nuclear missiles in Cuba, it had the right to invite the Soviets to install them there.

Nonetheless, both Kennedy and the Pentagon decided that they would not permit Russia’s nuclear missiles to remain in Cuba. Why? Because they simply did not want nuclear missiles pointed at the U.S. from only 90 miles away. They considered such missiles to a grave threat to U.S. “national security.”

Reflecting how important this principle was to Kennedy, he was even willing to go to nuclear war against Russia to prevent those Russian missiles from being stationed in Cuba. In fact, what is not widely recognized is that Kennedy actually did initiate war against the Soviets. That was when he ordered a military blockade against Soviet ships carrying nuclear weapons to Cuba. Under international law, a blockade is an act of war. Fortunately, the Soviets did not respond with retaliatory war measures.

Yet, Kennedy’s blockade was met with severe disapproval from the generals. It was considered to be too weak. One member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff compared Kennedy’s blockade to British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain’s appeasement of Hitler at Munich. With their one-track mind, the generals were pressuring Kennedy to bomb and invade Cuba. Their insistence on pressuring Kennedy to take an action that would almost certainly result in nuclear war reflected how strongly they felt about not having Russian missiles so close to America’s border.

Thus, if Kennedy were president today, he wouldn’t need to ask why the Russians felt the same way about having U.S. nuclear missiles stationed in Ukraine, which shares a border with Russia. He would understand that their sentiments would be no different from the sentiments of Kennedy and the Pentagon with respect to Russian nuclear missiles in Cuba.

But there was another factor that Kennedy considered when he stepped into the shoes of the Russians in an attempt to understand the crisis and arrive at a mutually agreeable peaceful resolution of it. Ever since Kennedy became president, both the CIA and the Pentagon were hell-bent on achieving regime change in Cuba. That’s what the CIA’s invasion at Cuba’s Bay of Pigs in 1961 was all about. After it failed, the Pentagon began incessantly pressuring Kennedy to initiate a full-scale military invasion of the island. The Pentagon even came up with a fraudulent false-flag operation named Operation Northwoods to provide Kennedy with an excuse to invade Cuba. To his everlasting credit, Kennedy rejected it.

Kennedy figured out that the reason the Cubans wanted those nuclear weapons was to deter the Pentagon and the CIA from invading Cuba again. If the deterrence failed, Cuban officials wanted the nuclear weapons as a way to fight back against a vastly more powerful army.

What mainstream journalists and commentators fail to realize is that in the long state of hostilities between the United States and Cuba, it has always been the United States  — specifically the Pentagon and the CIA — that has been the aggressor. Given such, Cuba had every right in the world to defend itself from what Martin Luther King described as the “greatest purveyor of violence in the world.”

When Kennedy came to the realization that it was the obsessive quest of the Pentagon and the CIA to invade Cuba that had provoked the Cuban Missile Crisis, he figured a way out of the crisis. He simply promised Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev that he would never permit the Pentagon and the CIA to bomb or invade Cuba again. His promise worked. The Soviets removed their nuclear missiles from Cuba and took them home.

Except for one thing. At the last minute, Khrushchev asked Kennedy to remove U.S. nuclear missiles from Turkey that were pointed at the Soviet Union. Yes, you read that right. While it was opposing Soviet missiles in Cuba that were pointed at the United States, the Pentagon had its nuclear missiles in Turkey that were pointed at Russia.

Kennedy understood Khrushchev’s point, and he agreed with it. He promised the Russian leader that he would remove the nuclear missiles in Turkey within six months.

Needless to say, most Americans were relieved and pleased with Kennedy’s resolution of the Cuban Missile Crisis. Not so, however, the Joint Chiefs of Staff. They were livid. Kennedy had effectively left Cuba permanently in communist control, something that the Pentagon considered to be a grave threat to “national security.” As I point out in my book An Encounter with Evil: The Abraham Zapruder Story, the JCS considered Kennedy’s resolution of the crisis to be the biggest defeat in U.S. history. They considered Kennedy to be a “weak sister” when it came to confronting the communists. They considered him to be a coward and, even worse, a traitor for making nice with Russia.

What would Kennedy have done with Ukraine if he had been president? He would never have allowed the Pentagon to use NATO to absorb former members of the Warsaw Pact. He would have also recognized that Russia’s reaction to U.S. nuclear missiles in Ukraine would have been the same as the U.S. reaction to Russian missiles in Cuba. He would have understood that their reaction to having U.S. nuclear missiles in Ukraine would be no different from their reaction to having those U.S. nuclear missiles in Turkey. In fact, there is no doubt that Kennedy would have recognized that NATO was a Cold War dinosaur that needed to be put down, especially given the end of the Cold War.

Where is President Biden in all this? Needless to say, Biden, unfortunately, is no John Kennedy.

*

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.

Jacob G. Hornberger is founder and president of The Future of Freedom Foundation. He was born and raised in Laredo, Texas, and received his B.A. in economics from Virginia Military Institute and his law degree from the University of Texas. He was a trial attorney for twelve years in Texas. He also was an adjunct professor at the University of Dallas, where he taught law and economics. In 1987, Mr. Hornberger left the practice of law to become director of programs at the Foundation for Economic Education. He has advanced freedom and free markets on talk-radio stations all across the country as well as on Fox News’ Neil Cavuto and Greta van Susteren shows and he appeared as a regular commentator on Judge Andrew Napolitano’s show Freedom Watch. View these interviews at LewRockwell.com and from Full Context. Send him email.

Human Rights Watch Documents Kiev’s War Crimes

February 1st, 2023 by Andrew Korybko

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

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

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

***

The US-led West’s Mainstream Media is predictably silent and appears to be deliberately ignoring this “politically inconvenient” report. Drawing attention to it would erode the public’s confidence in their perception managers who told them over the past year that all war crimes accusations against Kiev are supposedly just so-called “Russian propaganda”.

Human Rights Watch (HRW) is widely regarded in the US-led West’s Golden Billion as among the world’s most reliable authorities for documenting alleged violations of people’s human rights. It doesn’t matter that their reports are usually weaponized by that same de facto New Cold War bloc for Hybrid War ends since most of their population remains unaware of this reality. Instead, they believe everything that HRW says, which now places the Golden Billion in a narrative dilemma after that group’s latest report.

Titled “Ukraine: Banned Landmines Harm Civilians”, HRW extensively documented the widespread use of so-called “butterfly mines” around Izium during the that Russia controlled that city from April to September. This NGO also quoted an unnamed Ukrainian deminer who told them that “They are everywhere”, which is why such professionals assessed that “it could take decades to clear the area of landmines” after Kiev recklessly scattered countless numbers of them all across Northeastern Ukraine.

The US-led West’s Mainstream Media (MSM) is predictably silent and appears to be deliberately ignoring this “politically inconvenient” report. Drawing attention to it would erode the public’s confidence in their perception managers who told them over the past year that all war crimes accusations against Kiev are supposedly just so-called “Russian propaganda”. HRW’s reputation in the public psyche is so deeply ingrained that they also can’t smear them as “Russian propagandists” either.

Nevertheless, the SBU’s fascist troll network will still likely attack them as such on social media exactly as they did Amnesty International after it proved last August that Kiev was illegally militarizing residential areas and thus exploiting civilians there as de facto human shields to deter Russian strikes. Cynically speaking, it would actually be beneficial for Russia’s soft power interests if they do so since this network’s aggressive attacks inadvertently discredit their side in the eyes of the general public.

Regardless of whether or not those trolls ridiculously claim that HRW is supposedly a “Russian propaganda front” or whatever, the average Westerner who becomes aware of their latest report will likely begin to reconsider a lot of what they’ve previously been told about the Ukrainian Conflict. After all, this latest development coincides with the “official narrative” about NATO’s proxy war on Russia through that former Soviet Republic decisively shifting in recent weeks.

American and Polish officials led the way in flipping everything upside-down by nowadays warning that Kiev might likely lose after 11 months of falsely claiming that its victory was supposedly “inevitable”. On the same day that HRW’s report dropped, the New York Times informed their audience that the West’s anti-Russian sanctions are a failure after citing experts and the IMF who both agree that this targeted multipolar Great Power’s economy has recovered to its pre-special operation level.

Considering this newfound narrative context, those Westerners who come across the HRW’s latest report will thus likely wonder what’s going on after unexpectedly being barraged with claims that Kiev will likely lose, the West’s anti-Russian sanctions failed, and Ukraine is committing war crimes against its own people. It’s unrealistic to expect an average person not to react in that aforementioned way since their intuition will naturally tell them that something is very wrong.

Most of them might not put everything together and realize that the Western narrative about the Ukrainian Conflict is built on nothing but lies, but the majority might finally begin countenancing that possibility. The three narrative bases upon which Western support for Kiev is built have just been discredited since it’s no longer “inevitable” that Ukraine will win, Russia’s economy hasn’t collapsed, and the side that their de facto New Cold War bloc backs is committing war crimes against its own people.

In hindsight, the West’s perception managers should never have spun everything the way they did by falsely presenting Kiev’s victory as “inevitable”, assuring everyone that Russia’s economy had supposedly already collapsed, and framing Ukraine as an innocent lamb that can do no wrong. This combination of narratives could never be indefinitely maintained since the facts were always going to discredit it with time, hence why the decision was just made to decisively shift the “official narrative”.

This selfsame shift, however, is narratively dangerous for the Golden Billion since it’s so abrupt and literally the complete opposite of everything that the average Westerner was hitherto told. An uncertain number of their targeted audience will thus certainly realize that everything that their perception managers told them up until this point was a lie while the majority will become much more susceptible to that thought. HRW’s report will thus aid in their awakening, and more such related reports will follow.

*

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 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.

***

Qatar has been into the spotlight largely due to it having hosted the Fifa Football Cup in 2022. Western notions regarding LGBT and gender rights motivated a lot of media and activism criticism against the nation. Now, Qatar is once again a hot topic in Europe because of the so-called Qatargate. It is, in short, about European authorities having received gifts from Qatari authorities in what has been denounced as a kind of bribery. In December Eva Kaili, a European Parliament vice president was arrested over such charges, and three others are being investigated.

Much has been talked about the scandal, and Ursula von der Leyen herself, European Commission President, has even stated that it undermines trust in European institutions. Similarly, German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock has talked about European credibility being on the line. Such a statement, Caroline de Gruyter (a Foreign Policy correspondent) argues, could be premature.

One should keep in mind that, so far, there is not enough evidence linking any European institution – other than the European Parliament – to the so-called Qatargate. There are however, according to some media stories, in Germany, for example, suspicions about the problem that goes beyond European Union institutions and beyond Qatar itself, as the supposed role of Morocco is also being investigated.

In 2021, Qatar played an important role in trying to mediate between Saudi Arabia and its rival Iran. The same year, a landmark “solidarity and stability” agreement was signed between Qatar on one hand, and the UAE, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Bahrain on the other, thus re-establishing full diplomatic relations with Doha and ending a three-year-old Gulf crisis and blockade on Qatar. Ever since, its diplomatic soft power has been increasing in the region and beyond.

The small Gulf nation has one of the world’s largest sovereign funds and it seeks to use its wealth to secure geopolitical influence and protection. In doing so, the Qatari authorities in Doha are not alone: other Gulf states employ similar policies.

Washington’s Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft lobby expert Ben Freeman, the United Arab Emirates (UAE), Saudi Arabia and Qatar are not part of the 10 largest spenders at lobbying firms in Washington DC.

In 2017, de Gruyter reminds us, both the UAE and Saudi Arabia heavily boycotted Qatar. In response, the country, in the US alone, quadrupled its lobbying budget and, similarly, also has been sponsoring media companies, think thanks and so on in Europe. Doha has also invested heavily in paying 440,000 pounds’ worth of trips to UK law-makers over the last decade.

Bilateral relations between Doha and Riyadh (Saudi Arabia) have improved, but those between the former and the UAE are still far from good.

Belgian authorities have so far charged four people linked to the European Parliament over corruption accusations regarding Qatari gifts supposedly aimed at influencing decision-making. Pertaining to this investigation, Qatari authorities deny having done anything illegal – the cultural institution of wasta (involving favors and gifts) clashes with Western notions of corruption. While there must be mechanisms to avoid decision-makers being seduced by expensive gifts or “bought off”, a very strict Western understanding of corruption in such matters can potentially hamper intercultural dialogue and diplomatic understanding with such Arab nations, thus also hampering trade.

In December 2022, the European Parliament suspended all work on legislation pertaining to Qatar. The country’s representatives have been barred from accessing the Parliament’s premises. A statement from Doha’s mission to the EU said “preconceived prejudices” were behind this suspension, which affects an EU-Qatar aviation agreement and legislation related to visa liberalization, among other things. The diplomatic statement described it as “discriminatory restriction” and added that no effort had been made to engage with Qatar’s government in order to establish the facts.

The timing is not so good: the Gulf nation, which is a major liquified natural gas (LNG) exporter, was a vital piece in the European plans for coping with its energy crisis. In October 2022, Qatari energy minister Saad al-Kaabi warned that by 2023 Europe is to face a tougher crisis, with the depletion of its gas reserves – a situation which can extend itself even up to 2025.

So far, the overall imports of LNG from Qatar are just about 5 percent of the European bloc gas imports, according to European Commission data. However, Doha has two ongoing megaprojects, due to be completed by 2027, which are expected to make its LNG production capacity grow tremendously. In November 2022, Berlin signed a 15-year gas contract with US company ConocoPhillips plus QatarEnergy, which is state-owned, to ensure at least 2 million metric tons of LNG annually, starting from 2026. Italy and several other European countries are eyeing Qatar too, according to  Cinzia Bianco, a European Council on Foreign Relations (ECFR) research fellow on the Gulf.

Pragmatically speaking, energy security is usually considered to be more important than Western discourses on human rights and such a corruption scandal. This is why Belgian MEP Marc Tarabella’s  lawyer claimed his client’s change of discourse on Qatar could be explained by “realpolitik” – not corruption

In post-Nord Stream Europe, amid an economic, financial and energy crisis, Europeans today suffer the consequences of anti-Russian sanctions which have backfired and also of an American subsidy and trade war waged against their companies. In this context, Europe has sought to further enhance its trade and energy ties with countries such as Qatar and Morocco (which competes with Algeria).

Much has been talked about the need for stricter European anti-corruption pieces of legislation. The exact role and the acceptable boundaries of lobbying must also be discussed. The problem however is much deeper, and even Qatar itself and other countries cannot provide an easy alternative to Europe’s woes, as shown, for example, by this latest scandal, and by Algerian-Moroccan problems.

*

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.

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

Featured image is from InfoBrics

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Qatari-European Relations Damaged by Qatargate, Aggravating EU Energy Crisis
  • 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.

***

A higher percentage of eligible voters regularly show up to the polls in Mexico, Brazil, and Slovakia than in the world’s pre-eminent and oldest democracy.

The two parties that, in reality, constitute a uniparty duopoly bend over backward to cater to their respective pet voting blocs (racial minorities for Democrats and Evangelicals for Republicans, for instance).  But those demographics pale in comparison to the volume of non-voters.

The 2020 presidential election was a banner year for participatory democracy.  It turned out a record number of voters (most of them presumably legal, eligible ones), amounting to 62% of the electorate.  That’s the best it gets participation-wise in the US.  The 2022 midterms produced about a 47% turnout.

George Carlin, whom I revere, did a whole hilarious bit in which he blamed the slovenly public for producing terrible politicians, citing the ignorant American population as the reason electoral politics is pointless.

Some percentage of the non-voting population is certainly apathetic or disinterested in politics.  And they deserve a share of the blame for the sorry state of affairs, for sure.

Yes, some contingent of the population will always be checked out of participatory politics because they simply can’t be bothered to engage in civic pursuits.  But a minimum of 38% — on the best of years — of the entire eligible voting public each election cycle?  Are they all useless, ignorant slobs who don’t appreciate the precious, hard earned right to self-government?

Or is there something more intrinsic to the U.S. political system that dissuades them?

The majority of non-voters are independents who do not identify with either party.  Most have no higher than a high school education and also make less than $40K/year.  In other words, they’re people don’t belong to the permanent D.C. political class and don’t see their interests represented there.

Less than 30% of Americans approve of the American two-party system.  Lots of non-voters, like one interviewed by NPR, don’t feel like voting matters at all: “I feel like my voice doesn’t matter[.]  People who suck still are in office, so it doesn’t make a difference.”

Can the political system be reformed to counteract this widespread perception that participation is pointless?  Here are potential remedies to the real or imagined disincentives for non-voters to participate in the Great American Experiment:

  • Break the two-party duopoly.  The American Conservative published a thorough article on how to accomplish this.
  • Term limits.  The McCarthy refuseniks actually pushed for a vote on this issue as a precondition to elect the new House speaker.
  • Spotlight the corruption.  Require politicians to wear an insignia on their $1,000 suits for every corporation that has funneled money into their campaign, directly or indirectly, like NASCAR drivers.  Voters should know whether they’re supporting a human being or a mindless corporate robot.
  • Transparency. Declassify all the documents currently hidden from the public that do not have a legitimate national security justification to remain classified, as determined by some truly independent panel empowered to make such judgment calls.  By the government’s own admission, up to 90% of these documents would not adversely affect national security if they were released. Their status as classified does not serve “national security”; it keeps the Deep State’s dirty secrets hidden from those of us who pay for their dirty deeds to be performed in our name.  JFK expressed the essence of this wild notion, and he was rewarded with a bullet in the head.

Of course, reform might a pipe dream.  The swamp is so deep at this point that the only true remedy may be to drain it all and start over.

*

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 American Thinker.

Ben Bartee is an independent Bangkok-based American journalist with opposable thumbs.  Follow his stuff via Armageddon Prose and/or Substack, Patreon, Gab, and Twitter.  Bitcoin public address:bc1qvq4hgnx3eu09e0m2kk5uanxnm8ljfmpefwhawv.

He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image: Tom Arthur via Wikimedia Commons, CC BY 2.0

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

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

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

***

Slowly, against their will, and against their natural inclination to watch football and eat pizza, Americans are awaking to the reality of a totalitarian system with its tentacles wrapped around every aspect of their existence. Sadly, the true nature of this tyranny still eludes the understanding of most citizens, in part because the process by which America was transformed utterly has been slow, in part because the commercial media points us away from the true causes of this slippage and pins all blame on easily identifiable bad guys.

Those seeped in the progressive political tradition sensed a radical loss of justice and transparency under the George W. Bush administration, a trend that only accelerated under the Trump administration—with a perceived reprieve under Obama and the possibility of a positive turn under Biden.

Those marinated in the juices of conservative politics observed an end of freedom and the spread of socialist, or “leftist,” ideology that oppresses the citizen under Clinton and Obama.

Both interpretive communities refer to the same social and political trends, to the war on freedom that renders us up as sacrificial lambs to the cruel gods of global capital. The rhetoric employed by the two groups is so radically different, however, and the histories of the United States that they embrace are so divergent, that they are lost in intense ideological conflicts even as they describe the same creeping totalitarianism.

That conflict is no accident. That ideological battle over the insignificant is just what the doctor ordered for the interests of high finance. Or as J. P. Morgan put it,

“By dividing the people, we can get them to expend their energies in fighting over questions of no importance to us except as teachers of the common herd.”

The super-rich already had their consultants come up with detailed studies on how to divide up citizens by religion, by ethnic identity, by cultural signifiers, and by class so that they are incapable of unity even in the face of the complete takeover of the economy, the media, education and the political process.

Progressives refer to the supporters of Trump in rural areas as “stupid” and fundamentalist Christians refer to the followers of the Democratic Party as “evil.”

This profound misunderstanding is probably reinforced by numerous classified operations in which individuals promoting divisive left-wing, or right-wing, positions are encouraged, and paid, to do so as render those who should have common cause as foes.

There is another reason why we have such a difficult time understanding the transformation of our society. The nature of this totalitarianism runs against the assumptions we were taught by movies, novels, and news reports. Our minds are cluttered with archetypes for dictatorship and evil that are at odds with the reality.

The greatest crime of Hollywood was convincing us that evil takes the form of a monster with fangs and claws, of an evil leader with a sinister smile. Corrupt journalists extend this fiction to the public sphere, explaining how evil is embodied in foreign leaders like Kim Jong-un, Xi Jinping, or Vladimir Putin, or in domestic ill-doers like Hillary Clinton (for the right) or Donald Trump (for the left).

As a result, we are unable to detect, or to understand, the takeover of our society that has taken place.

That is to say that we are confronted by “inverted totalitarianism,” to borrow the term of the philosopher Sheldon Wolin, a cultural and political state in which all aspects of our daily lives are controlled by multinational corporations without our knowing and we lose all freedom.

As a result, our actions are profoundly limited; we are constantly beaten down by an iron fist covered in the soft glove of interest charges, student loans, and constant surveillance.

The totalitarianism that we face is “inverted” in the sense that we expect some dictator standing on top and playing the bad buy, oppressing us out of personal greed, vanity or cruelty. But the true source of our misery is rather the manner in which multinational corporations use supercomputers to calculate profits and then extract as much money as possible from us by making it impossible for us to grow our own food, to heal our own illnesses, to teach ourselves, or to entertain ourselves. Instead, we must buy products, online, or in supermarkets, in transactions from which multinational corporations and banks will invariably take a major cut. The only learning that is recognized and accredited is expensive and is controlled by corporations.

We are offered only false choices between Pepsi or Coke, between Taco Bell or Wendy’s, between action films or romantic comedies, and between the Democratic or Republican Parties.

The process by which citizens lost their self-reliance, their self-sufficiency in food production and in energy production, and the basic skills of sewing, knitting and carpentry, growing dependent on products supplied by corporations, began 100 years ago. We can trace the current crisis back to the campaigns of John D. Rockefeller to force citizens to be dependent on petroleum through the promotion of automobiles and trade, the slashing of budgets for public transportation and the massive funding for highways, the push for the mechanization of farming and the popularization of plastics.

Rockefeller also paid off experts so as to marginalize homeopathic medicine and traditional treatments and create dependency on overpriced hospitals that are tied to corporations, while rendering universities and research institutes dependent on the benevolence of the rich, thus making systematic critiques of the sources of wealth a taboo topic.

To be more specific, the invisible inverted totalitarianism that has taken control of our daily experiences can be traced back to the launch of Windows as an operating system in 1985. Microsoft Word, under the rule of Bill Gates (an ardent student of John D. Rockefeller), set out to control the means by which citizens utilize their computers and later, to control how they interacted with each other over the internet.

Sure, presidential elections were held every four years, and the public was given a chance express itself. Secret secret police did not cart off those who criticized the government—in fact criticism of government was encouraged as way to distract from the impact of bank deregulation.

Most citizens were hardly aware that having one corporation control the system software for all computers that they supposedly “owed” meant that they had lost their freedom.

Yet the shift was profound. Whereas the individual previously could decide for himself where to place files in his office, how to organize documents and layout his papers around his typewriter, the manner in which information is organized within Windows is extremely limited, determined in advance by unaccountable forces and the format and layout cannot be modified by the user.

Needless to say, this first step down the road to tyranny, this fatal loss of basic autonomy, was carefully covered up in the rhetoric of convenience and efficiency, exciting innovation and technological advancement, so that few recognized the loss.

Myths about the importance of convenience, of connectivity and of globalization were swallowed by the entire population. Critical topics like the scientific method, the control of the means of production and the decision-making process in government, and in other institutions, were forgotten.

The next step in this hidden tyranny over our daily lives came in the form of search engines like Google, social networks like Facebook, and other massive, interconnected, corporations that mediated the interactions of the individual with the community, often taking over critical functions that previously belonged to the community or to non-profit institutions like schools or research centers.

Under the guise of greater convenience for the individual, businessmen with unlimited funding from investment banks were able to buy up rivals, block out alternatives that offered search engines as cooperatives, and thereby created search engines that pose as transparent institutions but derive money through the sophisticated manipulation of human interactions using algorithms.

Because Google and Facebook had such resources that they could lose money for years, the manner in which they whittled away at the autonomy of the citizen was almost undetectable. Equally important was the strategy of using short-term stimulation of the brain by postings, instant messages and gaudy news reports, to remap the connections between synapses so as to render most incapable of complex, three-dimensional, thinking. That service, the creation of a dumbed down, passive, population, was true product that internet giants offer to their real clients.

Google controls what information we access to, in what order we have access to it, and it lays out a hierarchy of significance in search results that has some basis in fact, but is primarily a political act for sale to the highest bidder.

Results of Google searches are altered, on a case-by-case basis, in response to the needs of corporations to promote their views to extremely specific audiences.

Although we are trained to think of Google as a public service, its falsehoods, increasingly given authority by the parallel Wikipedia entries created by public relations firms, are not subject to external review. Google users are never permitted to participate in the process of the formulation of policy, or in the review of content. That is to say, the United States calls itself a democracy, but the primary tool that citizens rely on for information is run as a dictatorship.

Another popular cloak for the slip into tyranny is the framing of “opinion” as content in the news. Scientific fact ceased to be central in reporting from 1990s. In its stead, opinion polls of groups selected by polling companies are held up as a confirmation of what is true.

Public opinion polls are the propaganda equivalent of stock buybacks. The billionaires, having radically deregulated the economy and dumbed down the population, merely force-feed their opinions to the public through the media that they control and then claim that the policies they want are demanded by the public.

Facebook gives the appearance that the citizen can express himself freely, and can make friends with anyone. Yet, since Facebook Inc. controls whom a citizen can easily find through its network, and who sees what, and it does not permit users to use their own software, or design their own page, or own the networks they create on Facebook, or to have any say in how Facebook is administered, the freedom is fiction.

Legal concepts like the contract have been twisted beyond recognition in the totalitarian cyberspace that surrounds us.

A contract is a negotiated agreement between two parties. On-line, however, whether it is the decision to accept cookies, or to comply with the rules for a commercial application, the user has no right to make demands of the corporation. He or she is given the false choice of either agreeing with all conditions offered, or not having access to the service. The contract is an empty ritual.

We are accustomed to permitting Facebook, Twitter, SnapChat or Instagram to determine what becomes of information that we share, and we are unaware of the billions in profits those corporations make by selling off the information, the content, and the creative ideas that we supply without giving us any compensation. In a sense, these social networks are a form of virtual slavery.

Click here to watch the video

COVID-19 Totalitarianism

Because the thinking of citizens has been degraded for decades, and citizens rely on corporate-sponsored sources for basic information, it became possible, for the first time, to create a virtual pandemic, planned by the super-rich, promoted by the news sources that they own, authorized by experts at the institutes and universities that they fund, and legitimated by government agencies (and international institutions like the World Health Organization) that have been radically privatized.

Previously, a significant number of citizens were capable of assessing the accuracy of information on their own. Research institutes like Harvard University still had an ethical commitment to the scientific method and to academic integrity.

All that is over now. The façades of the NIH and Harvard remain the same, maybe they are even better maintained, but the intellectual innards have rotted away. Distinguished professors are easily assembled to give testimony to ridiculous theories about COVID19.

The dangers of the COVID19 vaccines are not the primary threat. The danger lies rather in the shift of the decision-making process for policy away from science, and away from a transparent policy debate. COVID19 serves a successful precedent for invisible forces at private equity funds to decide medical policy in secret and then feed it to us through authority figures.

Those invisible forces now feel they are free to require of us, without any accountability to science, that we have any substance that they offer injected into our bodies as a condition for the right to attend school, to find employment or to receive medical treatment.

The process was made possible by the interaction of social networks, search engines, commercial media, and other critical components of daily experience that determine opinions concerning reliable and authoritative voices. That process is run as an invisible dictatorship that controls a distracted, confused and unfocused population, drowning in connectivity.

Nothing will get better until citizens recognize the cause of this nightmare was not the legacy of the Bushes, the Clintons, the Obamas or the Trumps, although they all played their role, but rather the end of the self-reliant and informed citizen with access to the writings of experts with a deep commitment to the scientific method and to ethical principles.

*

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

This article was originally published on Fear No Evil.

Emanuel Pastreich served as the president of the Asia Institute, a think tank with offices in Washington DC, Seoul, Tokyo and Hanoi. Pastreich also serves as director general of the Institute for Future Urban Environments. Pastreich declared his candidacy for president of the United States as an independent in February, 2020.

He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from Medical Tyranny


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 How Tyranny Overran the United States While You Were Watching YouTube

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.

***

Realizing NATO’s war with Russia will likely end unfavorably, the US is test-driving an exit offer. But why should Moscow take indirect proposals seriously, especially on the eve of its new military advance and while it is in the winning seat?

Those behind the Throne are never more dangerous than when they have their backs against the wall.

Their power is slipping away, fast: Militarily, via NATO’s progressive humiliation in Ukraine; Financially, sooner rather than later, most of the Global South will want nothing to do with the currency of a bankrupt rogue giant; Politically, the global majority is taking decisive steps to stop obeying a rapacious, discredited, de facto minority.

So now those behind the Throne are plotting to at least try to stall the incoming disaster on the military front.

As confirmed by a high-level US establishment source, a new directive on NATO vs. Russia in Ukraine was relayed to US Secretary of State Antony Blinken. Blinken, in terms of actual power, is nothing but a messenger boy for the Straussian neocons and neoliberals who actually run US foreign policy.

The secretary of state was instructed to relay the new directive – a sort of message to the Kremlin – via mainstream print media, which was promptly published by the Washington Post.

In the elite US mainstream media division of labor, the New York Times is very close to the State Department, and the Washington Post to the CIA. In this case though the directive was too important, and needed to be relayed by the paper of record in the imperial capital. It was published as an Op-Ed (behind paywall).

The novelty here is that for the first time since the start of Russia’s February 2022 Special Military Operation (SMO) in Ukraine, the Americans are actually proposing a variation of the “offer you can’t refuse” classic, including some concessions which may satisfy Russia’s security imperatives.

Crucially, the US offer totally bypasses Kiev, once again certifying that this is a war against Russia conducted by Empire and its NATO minions – with the Ukrainians as mere expandable proxies.

‘Please don’t go on the offensive’

The Washington Post’s old school Moscow-based correspondent John Helmer has provided an important service, offering the full text of Blinken’s offer, of course extensively edited to include fantasist notions such as “US weapons help pulverize Putin’s invasion force” and a cringe-worthy explanation: “In other words, Russia should not be ready to rest, regroup and attack.”

The message from Washington may, at first glance, give the impression that the US would admit Russian control over Crimea, Donbass, Zaporozhye, and Kherson – “the land bridge that connects Crimea and Russia” – as a fait accompli.

Ukraine would have a demilitarized status, and the deployment of HIMARS missiles and Leopard and Abrams tanks would be confined to western Ukraine, kept as a “deterrent against further Russian attacks.”

What may have been offered, in quite hazy terms, is in fact a partition of Ukraine, demilitarized zone included, in exchange for the Russian General Staff cancelling its yet-unknown 2023 offensive, which may be as devastating as cutting off Kiev’s access to the Black Sea and/or cutting off the supply of NATO weapons across the Polish border.

The US offer defines itself as the path towards a “just and durable peace that upholds Ukraine’s territorial integrity.” Well, not really. It just won’t be a rump Ukraine, and Kiev might even retain those western lands that Poland is dying to gobble up.

The possibility of a direct Washington-Moscow deal on “an eventual postwar military balance” is also evoked, including no Ukraine membership of NATO. As for Ukraine itself, the Americans seem to believe it will be a “strong, non-corrupt economy with membership in the European Union.”

Whatever remains of value in Ukraine has already been swallowed not only by its monumentally corrupt oligarchy, but most of all, investors and speculators of the BlackRock variety. Assorted corporate vultures simply cannot afford to lose Ukraine’s grain export ports, as well as the trade deal terms agreed with the EU before the war. And they’re terrified that the Russian offensive may capture Odessa, the major seaport and transportation hub on the Black Sea – which would leave Ukraine landlocked.

There’s no evidence whatsoever that Russian President Vladimir Putin, and the entire Russian Security Council – including its Secretary Nikolai Patrushev and Deputy Chairman Dmitry Medvedev – have reason to believe anything coming from the US establishment, especially via mere minions such as Blinken and the Washington Post. After all the stavka – a moniker for the high command of the Russian armed forces – regard the Americans as “non-agreement capable,” even when an offer is in writing.

This walks and talks like a desperate US gambit to stall and present some carrots to Moscow in the hope of delaying or even cancelling the planned offensive of the next few months.

Even old school, dissident Washington operatives – not beholden to the Straussian neocon galaxy – bet that the gambit will be a nothing burger: in classic “strategic ambiguity” mode, the Russians will continue on their stated drive of demilitarization, denazification and de-electrification, and will “stop” anytime and anywhere they see fit east of the Dnieper. Or beyond.

What the Deep State really wants

Washington’s ambitions in this essentially NATO vs. Russia war go well beyond Ukraine. And we’re not even talking about preventing a Russia-China-Germany Eurasian union or a peer competitor nightmare; let’s stick with prosaic issues on the Ukrainian battleground.

The key “recommendations” – military, economic, political, diplomatic – were detailed in an Atlantic Council strategy paper late last year.

And in another one, under “War scenario 1: The war continues in its current tempo,” we find the Straussian neocon policy fully spelled out.

It’s all here: from “marshaling support and military-assistance transfers to Kyiv sufficient to enable it to win” to “increase the lethality of military assistance transferred to include fighter aircraft that would enable Ukraine to control its airspace and attack Russian forces therein; and missile technology with range sufficient to reach into Russian territory.”

From training the Ukrainian military “to use Western weapons, electronic warfare, and offensive and defensive cyber capabilities, and to seamlessly integrate new recruits in the service” to buttressing “defenses on the front lines, near the Donbass region,” including “combat training focusing on irregular warfare.”

Added to “imposing secondary sanctions on all entities doing business with the Kremlin,” we reach of course the Mother of All Plunders: “Confiscate the $300 billion that the Russian state holds in overseas accounts in the United States and EU and use seized monies to fund reconstruction.”

The reorganization of the SMO, with Putin, Chief of the General Staff Valery Gerasimov, and General Armageddon in their new, enhanced roles is derailing all these elaborate plans.

The Straussians are now in deep panic. Even Blinken’s number two, Russophobic warmonger Victoria “F**k the EU” Nuland, has admitted to the US Senate there will be no Abrams tanks on the battlefield before Spring (realistically, only in 2024). She also promised to “ease sanctions” if Moscow “returns to negotiations.” Those negotiations were scotched by the Americans themselves in Istanbul in the Spring of 2022.

Nuland also called the Russians to “withdraw their troops.” Well, that at least offers some comic relief compared with the panic oozing from Blinken’s “offer you can’t refuse.” Stay tuned for Russia’s non-response response.

*

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 Cradle.

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 from The Cradle

What Was That Biden Said About “Ending the War”?

February 1st, 2023 by Barbara Nimri Aziz

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.

***

 

 

Commentators are busy speculating how the American president’s promise – endorsed by the country as enthusiastically as Zelensky himself– of M1 Abram tanks to Ukraine will affect the war that grinds on in Ukraine. Many assume that gifts of fighter jets will follow shortly. 

What disturbs me is the semantics of Biden’s announcement of the gift, rationalized and neatly summed up by, “We all want an end to this war.”

I wonder if Joe Biden is aware that his statement comes in the very week that marks 50 years since the inglorious end of the U.S. war in Vietnam, (noted more widely in the foreign press than in the U.S.) How many times and for how many years did Americans and perhaps their Vietnamese quislings hear that kind of heroic talk about victory there? Similar assurances from military leaders and politicians were offered in subsequent wars. Remember Afghanistan where American military forces likewise abandoned the noble cause, although that took two decades to prove unworkable, and humiliating as well.

How can one answer Biden’s noble declaration—”We want to end this war”? So clean, so unambiguous, he talks to us as if we are children; “Yes, my little ones; daddy will take care of everything. I’ll finish off that coyote in no time and you’ll all be safe.”

And who are Biden’s “We”? Do they include you and me? All Europe? Pentagon strategists? Profiteering weapons suppliers and busy intelligence agencies?

Does his “We” include the crowds of pundits—we have an abundance of conflict specialists newly available after their Iraq and Afghanistan tenures? Is Biden speaking for America’s faithful war-partner Britain and its reluctant ally Germany? If any skeptical Europeans remain hesitant about increased military buildups, it could be directed at them. Who doesn’t want to end this war? I expect Russia too would agree to this.

Biden’s language is cunningly comforting, reassuring. It could even be read as an appeal for peace; couldn’t it? “….end this war.”

For me, and likely some others as well, that invocation is actually discomforting. It’s too close to the pleading slogans of anti-war protestors of past generations. Some may recall that cry back in early 2003 when the wholesale bombing of Iraq was imminent. “Hm. Really? A bit late”, sighed my Iraqi companions that bleek day when we sat on a grassy Mosel knoll and heard news from across the world that millions of dissident marchers spoke against an invasion of their land. (Didn’t those anti war liberals know that a 13-year-long embargo war had already battered and impoverished the nation?) Once the bombing of Iraq was well under way and the drama of the American land assault filled the news reports, occasionally one might hear a feeble “end the war’ on the margins of American life.

No one is guessing how long the NATO/Ukraine-Russia battles will last. Speculation is that this war can only intensify. What few voices who suggest that some negotiations should begin are being stilled. No one is objecting to the billions of dollars Washington has already committed to this madness. You saw what happened three months ago when a feeble suggestion by the Democratic Progressive Caucus to initiate negotiations between Ukraine and Russia was presented to the White House. They slunk away in embarrassment.

Meanwhile Mr. Biden assures a lot of people that “We all want an end to this war.” They can count on America.

*

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.

Barbara Nimri Aziz whose anthropological research has focused on the peoples of the Himalayas is the author of the newly published “Yogmaya and Durga Devi: Rebel Women of Nepal”, available on Amazon

She is a regular contributor to Global Research.

All images in this article are from the author


“Yogmaya and Durga Devi: Rebel Women of Nepal”

By Barbara Nimri Aziz

A century ago Yogmaya and Durga Devi, two women champions of justice, emerged from a remote corner of rural Nepal to offer solutions to their nation’s social and political ills. Then they were forgotten.

Years after their demise, in 1980 veteran anthropologist Barbara Nimri Aziz first uncovered their suppressed histories in her comprehensive and accessible biographies. Revelations from her decade of research led to the resurrection of these women and their entry into contemporary Nepali consciousness.

This book captures the daring political campaigns of these rebel women; at the same time it asks us to acknowledge their impact on contemporary feminist thinking. Like many revolutionaries who were vilified in their lifetimes, we learn about the true nature of these leaders’ intelligence, sacrifices, and vision during an era of social and economic oppression in this part of Asia.

After Nepal moved from absolute monarchy to a fledgling democracy and history re-evaluated these pioneers, Dr. Aziz explores their legacies in this book.

Psychologically provocative and astonishingly moving, “Yogmaya and Durga Devi” is a seminal contribution to women’s history.

Click here to order.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on What Was That Biden Said About “Ending the War”?

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

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

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

***

 

 

 

 

 

About a year ago I chanced to speak with a teenager, the daughter of a friend, at a gathering of the ‘resistance’. Like her mother she is a musician, and she attends a private girls’ high school here in Wellington. I asked about school and, in particular, about the novels she was reading in her English class during her senior year. I was surprised to hear that no novels were currently assigned … so I inquired further. “We get excerpts,” she informed me, “but over the course of last year we read one entire book.”

So during her junior and senior years at a prestigious girls’ school in an ostensibly first-world Western educational system, the curriculum was nearly devoid of literature.

I shuddered to ask about her history classes, but I did take the liberty of promising her a copy of Orwell’s 1984. To my delight but not my surprise, because she is a curious person avid to learn, she devoured the extracurricular novel within two weeks. Perhaps too, because she was unjabbed and was one of the very few who refused to wear a mask at her school, surrounded as she was by a sea of unthinking submissive fellow students, she was all the more motivated.

I recall that this earnest young kid was denied the opportunity to participate in a summertime music camp because of her jab status thanks to then Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern’s imposed apartheid system. The music faculty who ran the summer school didn’t have the guts or the wisdom to allow a healthy young talented player, who had been an eager participant in the past, to join their ‘vaccinated’ ensemble.

I myself, having donated Orwell, decided to revisit a work I hadn’t read in years, and I was struck by how poignant and delicate the great author’s love scenes were rendered. Most of the final third of the book, devoted as it was to a meticulous delineation of psychological and physical torture, seemed didactic and less appealing, though agonizingly true.

I wondered how a young mind would engage with, interpret and understand such a challenging book, a book that ended with the lover-protagonists’ immensely sad betrayal of each other, having been broken.

I wondered how a young mind would understand the oppressive force of a State that turned the meanings of words into their opposites and altered history to suit its prevailing political needs.

I wondered whether this teenager understood the concepts of free expression and open debate, mired as she was in a corona culture of cancellation, suppression, ignorance and ostracism.

I wondered what and how she was being taught.

Teaching itself, like most forms of human interaction, may be coercive. Everywhere we are surrounded by attempts to persuade, cajole, entice, allure or, as we have seen so clearly these past three years, simply force us to a particular end. Advertisers use the lighter arts of seduction to bring our monies to their products; governments, when their own light touches fall short of their goals, resort to mandates. Free choice, like free thinking, is under constant assault. Is teaching yet another one of these assaults? Can one teach without resorting to shaping, molding, coercion?

The Socratic method is generally understood as a method of questioning, of inquiry in the pursuit of truths. The Socrates depicted by Plato claimed to know virtually nothing but inquired indefatigably of his auditors. It is best shown in the dialogue Theaetetus – shown in its ideal form, as far as I’m concerned, since I have had the general impression from many of the other dialogues that the modest unknowing Socrates quite purposefully led his students to his own preordained convictions about philosophical matters. In the Theaetetus, however, our Socrates – or, at least, Plato’s Socrates – defines his role as that of a midwife. It is a striking and magnificent analogy, for the teacher – Socrates, who happens incidentally to be the son of a midwife – is one who merely helps to bring forth that which is immanent within his student. He facilitates the birth of knowledge residing within. As he says:

“I am so far like the midwife that I cannot myself give birth to wisdom … though I question others, I can myself bring nothing to light because there is no wisdom in me … Those who frequent my company … have never learnt anything from me; the many admirable truths they bring to birth have been discovered by themselves from within. But the delivery is heaven’s work and mine” (Cornford, p. 26)[1].

Centuries later, the much-misunderstood and often maligned Sigmund Freud introduced the technique of free association after having been frustrated with attempts at hypnosis – a form of suggestion – for the treatment of neurosis. Free association was one of Freud’s most magnificent achievements, and one of the pillars upon which psychoanalysis is founded. One can hardly overestimate the uniqueness of a setting in which a person is encouraged simply to say anythingand everything that comes to mind, without self-censorship, interference or judgment, no matter how bizarre, perverse, repulsive or frightening. Freud in essence developed a method of midwifery akin to Socrates – facilitating the birth of hidden knowledge within.

Without diverging into the complexities and intricacies of free association within the treatment paradigm of psychoanalysis, necessitating as it does the patient’s unquestioning trust in the analyst, which is hardly ever complete, and involving the inevitable self-suppressions of shameful, dubious or delicate material, the introduction of this technique, its astonishing potential, and the inherent assumptions of liberty and autonomy within its very fabric are scarcely imaginable.

Free association represents a culmination of the Socratic method and a blazing example of the antithesis to force and censure. Freud himself devoted a half-hour daily to self-analysis via free association throughout his life, an example, wryly enough, far more honored in the breach by his psychoanalytic followers than in the observance.

Socrates and Freud were creatures of their times and mores and culture. Yet the method they devised provided the very tool to transcend the cultural, moral and political restrictions of their respective societies. This is a point I cannot emphasize enough, and the same may be said for the American Founders who, trammeled as they were by their own societal prejudices, nonetheless produced a document whose basic principles provided the means to overcome such limitations.

Virtually everything about these past three years of blight under the shadow of the Corona War has ventured to stifle and eliminate liberty. The ‘science’ was invoked to silence debate: it became something that would tolerate no doubt, discussion or criticism — no real science, in fact. People who attempted to offer differing opinions were eliminated from social media. Doctors who asked for evidence behind oppressive restrictions and public health dictates were persecuted. Those who dared to champion bodily autonomy by refusing the jab were set apart.

In fact, it has all grown stale and boring, as befits the gray suffocating miasma of enslaving control.

I’m sick of it.

If we have learned nothing else from these past three dystopian years, it is that our once-trusted authorities — in government, media, ‘science’, business and even sport — have shown themselves to be wholly corrupt and cowardly. Their suppression of debate, their outright refusal to participate in open exchanges, to allow questioning and inquiry, and the relentless insistence on their ‘one way’ — this would all be laughable were it not so poisonous.

But what of today’s youth? They seem to have little awareness of history, and even less understanding of the immensity of the struggles to realize our unalienable right to freedom of expression – not from any fault of their own, but from the fault of the institutions that are betraying them.

My friend’s daughter, who had the courage to withstand the pressure of peers and school and the curiosity to search for books – whole books, not smatterings – is an exception. I have had the pleasure of meeting several other brave and exceptional youths who have withstood an immensity of pressure to mask up, conform, relinquish bodily autonomy, who have endured ostracism and ridicule, but who have maintained their dignity and independence.

These wonderful exceptions give me great hope that we can indeed establish a future graced by vitality, autonomy and choice, one that nourishes the single most genuine and unassailable contribution of the West towards human progress: liberty.

And perhaps in this beckoning future I may gently inquire of these young forming souls what they think of Socrates, Freud, and the fate of Julia and Winston in 1984

*

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

He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Note

1 “Plato’s Theory of Knowledge: the Theaetetus and the Sophist of Plato,” translated and with a running commentary by Francis Macdonald Cornford, London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, Ltd. 1915.

Featured image is from Amazon

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on A Brave Young Teen Reads Orwell: Reflections on the Nature of Non-Coercive Inquiry
  • Tags: ,

Violence Will Not End in Israel Until the Occupation Ends

February 1st, 2023 by Steven Sahiounie

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

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

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

***

On January 27, the International Holocaust Remembrance Day, a gunman shot ultra-Orthodox Jewish worshippers as they came out of the Ateret Avraham synagogue in the Neve Yaakov Jewish settlement in East Jerusalem.

The gunman was 21-year-old Khairi Alkam a resident of East Jerusalem. He was later shot dead by Israeli police. The dead were five men, aged 20 to 60, and two women, aged 60 and 70. Three others were wounded.

The Neve Yaakov Jewish settlement’s population is about 23,300. The Jews there have citizenship, civil rights, and human rights. They can travel and return home at any time. Their children can study abroad and return home to Israel for jobs. This settlement, like countless others in the Occupied Territories, is illegal under international law.  A synagogue is out of place in East Jerusalem, as West Jerusalem is where the Jews live.  East Jerusalem is for the Palestinians.

The Palestinians living in East Jerusalem have no citizenship, they cannot leave, they cannot go abroad for education and return, and their residency permit can be revoked at any time. They are prevented from building a new home or making necessary repairs to their existing home or business.  They have no civil rights, or human rights. Many of their homes and business have been demolished or confiscated for decades.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has said the top two goals of his new administration are to establish more settlements in the Occupied Territories and to normalize relations with Saudi Arabia.

Netanyahu announced new measures to strengthen Jewish settlements, preparations to demolish the attacker’s family home, plans to get more guns into the hands of the Israeli citizens and taking away social security and health benefits from the family of any Palestinian attacker.

National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir, a far-right extremist, who has been called a terrorist in the past, has called for an increase in settlements. He called for demolishing dozens of Palestinian homes in East Jerusalem, granting more gun licenses to Jews, and applying the death penalty to Palestinians convicted of killing Israelis.

Three extra battalions have been deployed in the Occupied West Bank to strengthen defenses on the numerous Jewish settlements there.

Tensions have escalated since Israel ramped up raids in the West Bank last spring, with nearly 190 Palestinians killed in the West Bank and East Jerusalem in 2022, making it the deadliest year in those Occupied Territories since 2004.  About 30 Palestinians have been killed since the beginning of 2023.

Over 30 people were killed in Palestinian attacks against Israelis last year, according to Israeli figures.

Three Palestinians were hospitalized after being shot by a Jewish settler near Nablus in the north of the West Bank, in a separate incident on Friday.

Why is a synagogue in East Jerusalem?

Neve Yaakov is a religious Jewish settlement that Israel considers to be a neighborhood of its capital. Israel claims all of Jerusalem as its undivided capital, while the Palestinians seek East Jerusalem, captured by Israel in the 1967 Mideast war, as the capital of their future state. In a long-standing custom, recognized by the international community, the East section of Jerusalem is for Palestinians, and the West section is for the Jews. However, over recent years, the Israeli government has allowed Jewish zealots to confiscate homes and businesses and encroach illegally into East Jerusalem.  The Palestinians are suffering from ethnic cleansing on a massive scale condoned by the Jewish government.

Why are settlers in East Jerusalem?

According to B’Tselem, The Israeli Information Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories, two parallel regimes are operating in Israel. In the West is a democracy, and in the East is a military occupation.

“The entire area that Israel controls is ruled by a single apartheid regime, governing the lives of all people living in it and operating according to one organizing principle: establishing and perpetuating the control of one group of people – Jews – over another – Palestinians – through laws, practices and state violence.”

B’Tselem advocates for a future where the Israeli occupation and apartheid will end.

In June, plans to build nearly 500 homes in a new Jewish settlement in East Jerusalem were announced. Critics say this further undermines any hope for a two-state solution. Israel captured the West Bank and East Jerusalem in the 1967 Mideast war and has built illegal settlements across both territories that are now home to some 700,000 Jewish settlers.

Are the settlements legal?

The international community considers the establishment of Jewish settlements in the Israeli-Occupied Territories illegal.

They violate Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, and they are in breach of international declarations.  The United Nations Security Council, the United Nations General Assembly, the International Committee of the Red Cross, the International Court of Justice, and the High Contracting Parties to the Convention have all affirmed that the Fourth Geneva Convention applies to the Israeli-Occupied Territories.

Numerous UN resolutions and prevailing international opinion hold that Israeli settlements in the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and the Golan Heights are a violation of international law, including UN Security Council resolutions in 1979, 1980, and 2016. UN Security Council Resolution 446 refers to the Fourth Geneva Convention as the applicable international legal instrument and calls upon Israel to desist from transferring its population into the territories or changing its demographic makeup.

United Nations Security Council Resolution 2334, which passed 14-0 with the United States abstaining, declared that Israel’s settlement activity in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, including East Jerusalem, “has no legal validity and constitutes a flagrant violation under international law”, and demanded that Israel “immediately and completely cease all settlement activities”.

The legal status of Jerusalem

The 1967 war resulted in the occupation by Israel of East Jerusalem and the Palestinian Territories.  Israel annexed East Jerusalem in 1980; however, this is not recognized by the international community, a community that rejects the acquisition of territory by war and considers any changes on the ground illegal and invalid.

36 structures belonging to Palestinians were demolished throughout December 2022 in East Jerusalem and adjacent areas lying within the al-Quds District of the Palestinian Authority, on orders from the Jewish government. Parts of another structure were demolished on January 4, 2023. 26 non-residential buildings were demolished by the authorities and an agricultural terrace and three fences surrounding plots of land were also demolished.

Saturday shooting in East Jerusalem

A 13-year-old Palestinian boy shot and wounded two Israelis on Saturday in the neighborhood of Silwan in East Jerusalem, less than 24 hours after the deadly attack outside the synagogue. The wounded were taken to hospital and the boy was arrested after he was injured. Security footage showed the victims to be observant Jews by their religious dress.

Both Palestinian attackers behind the shootings on Friday and Saturday came from East Jerusalem.

Silwan is home to more than 60,000 Palestinians and is located strategically to the south of Al-Aqsa Mosque. The area has been the target of Israeli settler expansion for years, with hundreds of Palestinian families facing the threat of expulsion, either through lawsuits by powerful settler groups or administrative eviction orders by the Israeli-run Jerusalem municipality.

Netanyahu will do everything to stay out of prison

Former Prime Minister, Yair Lapid, said Netanyahu would do everything to avoid going to prison. Taking on allies who are ultra-right extremists is what he was forced to do to form a government after the November election.  Everyone agrees that this is the most far-right and religious government in Israel’s history. Netanyahu has been facing charges of fraud, bribery, and breach of trust since 2020. His hands are tied: he must bow down to the radical demands and threats issued by his extremist partners. Should he stand up to them and refuse, they have the power to withdraw their support of him, and his government will fall, and he will go to prison.

Ben-Gvir became Israel’s security minister after a far-right bloc of parties led by Netanyahu won elections in November.  The leader of the far-right Otzma Yehudit political party has a history of racist and inflammatory remarks against Palestinians and Arabs, praising previous attacks on Palestinians as “heroic.” He has advocated for the deportation of all Palestinians.

What happened in Jenin and Gaza?

Thursday’s attack on Jenin, the deadliest single incursion in the West Bank since 2002, followed a particularly bloody month that saw at least 30 Palestinians killed by Israelis in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. Israeli commandos killed nine Palestinians in the Jenin refugee camp.

Gaza fired rockets at Israel on Thursday night in response to the Jenin attack. Israel then targeted Gaza with airstrikes. Gaza has been blockaded by Israel since 2007.

The Palestinian Authority said on Thursday night that it was canceling security cooperation with Israel in response to the raid on Jenin, prompting US officials to urge them to reverse the decision.

Friday, Scuffles between Israeli forces and Palestinian mourners erupted after the funeral for a 22-year-old Palestinian north of Jerusalem in the Occupied West Bank.

Is resistance legal?

International law recognizes the legitimate right of a people to fight for its freedom, and for “liberation from colonial control, apartheid, and foreign occupation by all the means at its disposal, including armed struggle”, as confirmed, for example, by a resolution of the UN General Assembly in 1990.

The use of force to achieve liberation is legitimate. How force is used is governed by the laws of war, the main purpose of which is to protect uninvolved civilians on both sides.

The fighters in Jenin were not terrorists; they were in an act of armed resistance against an occupying power, on occupied land, and they were not targeting civilians.

UN calls Israel an Apartheid state

In March 2022, the UN Special Rapporteur for the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territory, Michael Lynk, issued a report in which he identified Israel as an Apartheid state.

“There is today in the Palestinian territory occupied by Israel since 1967 a deeply discriminatory dual legal and political system, that privileges the 700,000 Israeli Jewish settlers living in the 300 illegal Israeli settlements in East Jerusalem and the West Bank,” said Lynk.

Israel, he said, conforms to the definition as a “political regime which so intentionally and prioritizes fundamental political, legal and social rights to one group over another, within the same geographic unit based on one’s racial-national-ethnic identity”.

The US defends Israel and allows them impunity

The US strongly condemned the attack in East Jerusalem, and was “shocked and saddened by the loss of life.”

President Joe Biden spoke with Netanyahu to offer US support to the government and people of Israel, calling the shootings “an attack against the civilized world.” “The President stressed the iron-clad US commitment to Israel’s security,” according to a Biden spokesperson.

US Secretary of State Antony Blinken has arrived in Egypt and will visit Israel and the West Bank.

Blinken’s trip was planned before the recent violence.  The Biden administration and the US State Department have no peace plans for Palestinians. Blinken will support Netanyahu and his extremist allies, but will not offer any lasting solution to either side. The US and other Western countries have pressed Israel to rein in settlements, but without any success.

The Palestinian leadership in the West Bank upheld its decision to halt security coordination with Israel to protest the deadly raid in Jenin. After a meeting headed by President Mahmoud Abbas in Ramallah, the Palestinian Authority called on the international community and the US administration to demand Israel stop its raids and operations in the West Bank.

Blinken should make a stop at the offices of B’Tselem.  They could give him a road map.

*

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

This article was originally published on Mideast Discourse.

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

Featured image is from MD

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Violence Will Not End in Israel Until the Occupation Ends

The Hypocrisy of NATO Behind Ukraine and the Middle East

February 1st, 2023 by Ahmad Al Khaled

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.

***

Within one year of the Ukrainian conflict it has been evident that the West is quick to scrutinize Russia without taking a better look at their own actions in the past. NATO has been involved in numerous conflicts since its establishment including Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya etc. Numerous violations have surfaced to the public however these atrocious acts have not received even remotely close criticism.

Since September 2022 Armed Forced of Russian Federation has carried out series of strikes in energy sector of Ukraine and received a whole lot of outraged comments from various global leaders and heads of international organizations. However in 2001 US Army allied with NATO members made a devastating rocket attack on critical energy, telecommunications, and government facilities of Baghdad leaving the whole capital without electricity, heating, water and reception. At the time Western community saw these actions as necessary means to end the regime of Saddam Hussein, considering he allegedly has weapons of mass destruction. In the end Iraq wasn’t anywhere near these weapons but nobody paid for blood and destruction of the Iraqi people.

It’s not the only occasion US Armed Forces has been caught inflicting damage to human life. The creator of WikiLeaks Julian Assange was the first person to effectively question US methods used in wrongly waged wars in the Middle East. On his website he published a leaked video of American soldiers opening fire from helicopters at the group of unarmed, innocent civilians. All of the targets were shot down to the ground leaving a bloody mess in a result of an unprovoked attack. Obviously no charges or accusation have been made against NATO or Ukraine.

North Africa has suffered the same unfair approach of the West. Once upon a time rich and prosperous Libya is now struggling to gain stability and form a unified government in order to break away from chaos and destruction. NATO’s action at the beginning of Libyan’s revolution was clearly illegal. The Western states had no right bombing the military academy. Besides malicious attacks NATO has failed to provide aid to the people of the North African country. Alliance failed to establish a new government. After all it even failed to provide refugees with a home in Europe, which they have destroyed. However during the Ukrainian conflict NATO was more than generous to provide homes, aid and financial help to the Ukrainian government and people.

One of the most infamous failures of NATO happened just last year, when the US forces withdrew from Afghanistan. The alliance has spent $978 billion over the period of 19 years without any evident success. During the same period over 2 million people have died, most of them were civilians. Countless homes and life have been ruined however NATO countries didn’t face any scrutiny for their actions. Moreover NATO didn’t provide refuge for most of these people or any sufficient help and at the same time over 6 million people have left Ukraine to live in Europe with over $100 billion provided in aid. Why does Ukraine deserve such help and the Middle Eastern states deserve destroyed homes and their resources stolen by World’s powerhouses.

*

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.

Ahmad al-Khaled is a Syrian journalist with four years of experience in covering the Syrian conflict and ME politics in general. His articles are published in leading regional and global media (Youm7, Ahl Masr, Rai Al Youm, Al Masdar, Ahval, Jerusalem Post, etc.)

Featured image: NATO heads of state at the alliance’s summit in Brussels (Source: Liberation News)

Canada’s Bill C-26: Yet Another Government Power Grab

February 1st, 2023 by Mark E. Jeftovic

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.

***

Another doozy from the Canadian government.

Following along several other bills winding their way along the Road to Serfdom…

  • Bill C-11 regulates the internet under the CRTC and paves the way toward institutionalized content moderation, the requirement for licenses to publish online, and regulation of user generated content (in Senate)
  • Bill C-36 the Online Harms Bill sought to designate political dissent as “hate speech” and invoked penalties for criticizing politicians (not sure where this one is at the moment).
  • Bill C-18 throws a funding lifeline to Canada’s flailing agitprop industry (a.k.a the mainsteam media), in that it will require tech platforms to pay licensing fees for content the media outlets post there (passed third reading in November). This bill will reward big media conglomerates like Bell, while freezing out small and independent organizations.

Here comes another one, Bill C-36: An Act respecting cyber security, amending the Telecommunications Act and making consequential amendments to other Acts, which passed first reading last June.

It’s been largely flying under everybody’s radar so far. The Canadian Civil Liberties Association has been actively raising awareness and Michael Geist had Brenda McPhail, their Director of the Privacy, Technology and Surveillance Program on his podcast last October.

We mentioned C-26 in AxisOfEasy #273 citing Gowling WLG’s coverage of it by Brent Arnold (Brent Arnold sits on the Internet Society Canada Chapter board, as do I, but I am writing this post from my role as easyDNS CEO, and not ISCC.)

The Government Hereby Grants Itself The Following Powers:

The new bill is ostensibly a cyber-security and critical infrastructure bill, but it is riddled with nebulous, open-ended terms, Kafka-esque secrecy provisions, onerous penalties and conspicuously absent of any semblance due process:

It effectively subjects Canada’s telecom and internet sectors to the whim of unelected bureaucrats and political functionaries.

Am I being bombastic? You tell me: given that the legislation that grants them the power to order a telecommunications service provider “to do or stop doing anything“. 

“Part 1 amends the Telecommunications Act to add the promotion of the security of the Canadian telecommunications system as an objective of the Canadian telecommunications policy and to authorize the Governor in Council and the Minister of Industry to direct telecommunications service providers to do anything, or refrain from doing anything, that is necessary to secure the Canadian telecommunications system. It also establishes an administrative monetary penalty scheme to promote compliance with orders and regulations made by the Governor in Council and the Minister of Industry to secure the Canadian telecommunications system as well as rules for judicial review of those orders and regulations.”

I guess it all comes down to what you mean by “anything”.

Speaking of anything, the government can deem “any” service or system a vital service or system – which then makes that entity subject to requirements, that…

(a) authorizes the Governor in Council to designate any service or system as a vital service or vital system;

(b) authorizes the Governor in Council to establish classes of operators in respect of a vital service or vital system;

(c) requires designated operators to, among other things, establish and implement cyber security programs, mitigate supply-chain and third-party risks, report cyber security incidents and comply with cyber security directions;

(d) provides for the exchange of information between relevant parties; and

(e) authorizes the enforcement of the obligations under the Act and imposes consequences for non-compliance.

Each one of these bullet points opens a can of worms unto itself,  combined they have the potential to effectively nationalize Canada’s information infrastructure.

The penalties for non-compliance are onerous: $1 million per day for individuals and $15 million /day for any other entity.

But wait, there’s more:

Under C-26, orders are filed in secret, telecommunications service providers (TSPs) can be ordered to cut off any user (including another TSP) while being barred from even informing the entity that it’s happening, let alone why.

The contents of said orders are secret and not even divulged to the target. I recommend listening to the Michael Geist / Brenda McPhail podcast above to understand the threat to Canadians’ privacy.

Me, sitting here with my easyDNS hat on, running an internet service provider, I’m dialled in on the due process aspects.

More accurately, the complete absence of due process. We’ve got twenty-five years experience of being told by various governments and their agencies to forgo due process and do things that would otherwise disrupt businesses, individual rights and even the network itself if we listened to them.

Being told to do or stop doinganything” seems overly broad.

It gets worse:

Similar to previous legislation, there are provisions for warrantless entry into places of business, or private homes, to search, copy or remove anything they deem relevant – including documents or telecommunications equipment.

C-26 also permits the government to share data with foreign entities. Again, this is all done without any of the privacy safeguards most citizens think they have as a constitutional right, because this bill, and this government, mostly ignores that those rights exist.

Non-Hypothetical Example

Last year, around this time, the same government that is introducing this bill arbitrarily enacted bank account seizures, not only against protestors, but also targeting crowdfunded contributions to their fundraisers.

This was done under the aegis of the Emergencies Act, however the seizures started before the EA was even ratified in Parliament, and the list of fundraising contributors was largely sourced from a third-party spreadsheet that was hacked from a foreign crowdfunding platform.

Nevermind that the entire thing went away within a week – rationalized as “mission accomplished” (the reality was the measure sparked a run on banks and nearly blew up the Canadian financial system)

Not much mention of this in the MSM, oddly…

The 2022 invocation of the Emergencies Act  made it clear that our government is perfectly willing to act unilaterally, without due process, in contravention of basic human rights to unbank people at whim.

Bill C-26 will give them a veneer of Soviet-era legislation to unperson you in the online realm.

What Can You Do?

While I said I’m not speaking with my ISCC hat on today, the Internet Society Canada Chapter is one of the civil society bodies that does its level best to bring informed, rational commentary and input to the policy making process. Membership includes a couple ex-CRTC commissioners and even a recent appointee to the Order of Canada.

Consider signing up as a member today and help us bring a clue to the process, or alternatively, get behind the Canadian Civil Liberties Association.

You can also make your views known to your MP. They don’t care if they get your vote or not, so don’t even bother telling them you won’t vote for them. You have speak their language, e.g

“I know you don’t care about my vote – but I feel strongly enough about this issue to make the maximum allowable personal contribution to your opponent, and fund raise for them wherever I can”.

In my case they at least started replying to my emails after that.

*

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: Technocracy – a 1933 cartoon by Winsor McCay.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Canada’s Bill C-26: Yet Another Government Power Grab

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.

***

 

 

 

Perhaps it was inevitable that the main achievement of the seventh summit of the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States in Argentina is to have been able to happen at all, thus keeping alive the vision of a Greater Nation for all the peoples of the region. Compared to the tremendous dynamism and forthrightness of CELAC’s founders, the summit’s Final Statement exhibits a bland, mediocre agenda of evasion and hollow aspirations. On a positive note, the Declaration confirms the commitment of the member States to integration, unity and political, economic, social and cultural diversity as a community of sovereign nations and it also reaffirms the proclamation of Latin America and the Caribbean as a Zone of Peace.

But the experiences of the last ten years show that in many respects the region’s reality runs contrary to most of the statements in the Declaration’s 111 points of the Declaration. Examples of this are the extensive presence of US military bases throughout the continent, the constant interventions of Western powers and interests in the region, the harassment and contempt towards indigenous and Afro-descendant peoples, the application of “lawfare” against prominent political figures in several countries and the routine political manipulation of human rights institutions. More than anything, it has been electoral fortunes that have allowed the region to overcome initiatives aimed at sabotaging Latin American and Caribbean unity, such as the nefarious Lima Group.

Still, the underlying interventionist threat persists and the CELAC summit gave space to lamentable elements of what remains of the cruel interventions to damage Venezuela. The presidents of Chile, Paraguay and Uruguay attacked the government of Venezuela with the usual false accusations of lack of democracy and it is worth recalling that the Lima Group was supported or endorsed at one time or another by the following countries: Argentina, Barbados, Bolivia under the coup regime, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Grenada, Guatemala, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Jamaica, Mexico, Panama, Paraguay, Peru and Saint Lucia. Self-evidently, the power of manipulation and coercion in the region of the United States, and its allies among the NATO countries, persists and they simply wait for favorable conditions to be able to use it.

In the end, President Nicolás Maduro Moros decided not to participate in the summit because the Argentine authorities could not guarantee his protection against possible legal provocations based on the illegal coercive measures of the US government against Venezuela. The Final Declaration of the summit calls for the lifting of the illegal blockade of Cuba but not of the illegal unilateral measures against Venezuela, which now even the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights has had to condemn as an abuse of the human rights of the Venezuelan people. Nor does the Final Declaration mention the theft in broad daylight of the patrimony of the Venezuelan people, the company CITGO, the gold stored in London and billions of dollars in the European financial system, by the United States and the governments of the European Union.

The ambivalence inherent in the Final Declaration is also reflected in its support for decolonization and human rights without calling for the closure and withdrawal of the US military base at Guantanamo or condemning the permanent abuse of human rights the base represents as a center for illegal detention and torture. That omission indicates the level of the capture by the United States and its Western allies of the consciences of many leaders in the region. This was also seen unexpectedly in an outburst by President Lula da Silva at the margins of the summit. Lula made an absurd comparison between the illegal US aggression against Venezuela and the legitimate military operation of the Russian Federation in defense of Russian-speaking populations attacked by the government of Ukraine in alliance with NATO countries for eight years and counting.

Lula’s grossly foolish remark could be simply an attempt on his part to signal his ideological virtue to the elites controlling the US Democratic Party and its allies in the Brazilian elite who supported Lula in the presidential elections last October. On the other hand, the just recently announced decision of leaders such as Lula, Gustavo Petro and Alberto Fernández not to send weapons in support of Ukraine does honor the declaration of the region as a zone of Peace. Although it undoubtedly also has to do with the aspirations of Brazil and, especially, Argentina in relation to a future expansion of the BRICS group of countries.

In this global context, the eagerness of the ruling classes of the most powerful countries in Latin America to appease the US and European elites conflicts with the imperative of taking advantage of the economic benefits offered by the People’s Republic of China and the development of a multipolar world. In fact, President Xi Jinping greeted the summit via an online link and stressed that China is working to push relations between China and Latin America and the Caribbean towards a new era based on respect, equality, mutual benefit, innovation, openness and well-being for all peoples.

While China demonstrates good faith with its extensive investment, cooperation and trade with the region, the regional policy of the United States has not changed since President Monroe’s declaration of December 2nd 1823. The recent frank comments of the head of the US Southern Command, General Laura Richardson, confirm that the United States continues to regard Latin America and the Caribbean as a subaltern zone, a source and supplier of fabulous natural resources. In addition, General Richardson said in her remarks to the Atlantic Council, a NATO-funded think tank, that Latin America and the Caribbean “has a lot to do with our national security and we have to start our play”, as if the peoples of the region will not remember the brutal history of intervention and destabilization by the United States over two centuries.

In relation to the tension between the encouraging message of President Xi Jinping and the permanent interventionist position of the United States, the presidents of Brazil and Argentina announced the day before the summit in Buenos Aires a project for a common currency between the two countries. They claim the initiative will boost regional trade and reduce dependence on the US dollar, perhaps in the style of the European Currency Unit (ECU), introduced in 1979 as an accounting unit for cross-border financial transactions. The ECU was associated with the European Exchange Rate Mechanism that sought to stabilize sharp variations between the different currencies of European countries. In 1999 the ECU was replaced by the single European currency, the Euro.

One has only to look at the economic history of Europe of the last 20 years to understand the futility of the idea that such a common currency will reduce regional dependence on the US dollar. Quite simply, all the corresponding independent financial architecture is lacking, for example a robust payments system, independent insurance institutions and other key financial services, a regional system of rating agencies or a banking system capable of resisting aggressive speculation in international financial and commodity markets. The idea looks like another example of the superficiality and ideological dependence on the West of the region’s social democratic political classes. They seem to hope they can evade facing the implications of the fundamental truth they themselves recognize in relation to environmental issues and other issues, for example, volatile commodity prices or foreign debt, that Western capitalism harms the peoples of the region and the whole world.

The capitalist model of the mythical invisible hand of the free market and its neoliberal fictional corollaries is collapsing. Even so, most governments of the CELAC countries seem to want to apply that same economic model to promote their countries’development. This reality makes especially unconvincing point six of the Final Declaration, which affirms “the importance of prioritizing sustainable economic recovery with a cooperative, inclusive, equitable and solidarity-based approach.” But that economic model already exists in a well advanced form, thanks to the same revolutionary countries of the Bolivarian Alliance of our Americas (ALBA) that so many of the region’s governments attack and disparage without justification. This is the fundamental contradiction of CELAC and the biggest challenge facing Ralph Gonsalves, who now holds the pro tempore presidency of CELAC on behalf of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, a member country of ALBA.

As President Comandante Daniel and our Vice President Compañera Rosario said in Nicaragua’s message to the summit:

“The world urgently needs justice and peace… Respectful and Supportive Cooperation. The world needs understanding, empathy and affection. The Better World that we all want to create, urgently needs Respect, Peace, Solidarity and the Ability to Live Together, sharing the Scientific and Technological Development that has cost us all so much…We sing and move in Life and Hope, striving, We Go Forward… Always Further On!”

*

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 Tortilla con Sal, translated from Spanish.

Stephen Sefton, renowned author and political analyst based in northern Nicaragua, is actively involved in community development work focussing on education and health care. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG).

Featured image is from TCS

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Seventh Latin America Caribbean CELAC Summit – Between Evasion and Reality
  • 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.

***

For a country constantly chest-thumping about the size of its economy, the United States is remarkably over-reliant on one form of “export” – war. For decades, the American-led political West used proxy wars to hurt its geopolitical adversaries. While most of these weren’t a direct existential threat to US rivals and were relatively limited in scope, recent years brought a major shift to this strategic approach.

Washington DC has become more bellicose than at any point in its history, aggressively attacking the very heartlands of its opponents. In the case of Russia and China, the only reason America isn’t directly attacking either of the superpowers is their ability to immediately “return the favor“. And yet, the US keeps fanning up conflicts that are pushing the world ever closer toward another global conflict.

Ukraine and Taiwan are the two most prominent examples of America’s strategy of “accelerated escalation”, obviously designed to cause “irrational decision-making” in both Moscow and Beijing, according to the Pentagon-funded RAND Corporation. With Ukraine reaching a boiling point and Russia forced to intervene, Washington DC is determined to do the same with China in Taiwan. In recent years, top American officials, including several military commanders, have been warning about the “inevitability of war with China”.

However, the latest statement is quite concerning, issued in the form of a memo by an active four-star general and circulated with an official order. This is particularly dangerous, especially when taking into account the fact that the general took the step of conveying it through the official chain of command. According to NBC News, General Mike Minihan sent it to his subordinate officers:

“A four-star Air Force general sent a memo on Friday to the officers he commands that predicts the U.S. will be at war with China in two years and tells them to get ready to prep by firing ‘a clip’ at a target, and ‘aim for the head’. In the memo sent Friday and obtained by NBC News, Gen. Mike Minihan, head of Air Mobility Command, said, ‘I hope I am wrong. My gut tells me will fight in 2025.'”

According to various sources, the US Air Force general commands approximately 50,000 US servicemen and nearly 500 planes, making his comments all the more concerning. This is particularly true when taking into account that USAF is in direct control of two arms of America’s thermonuclear triad – its land-based ICBMs (intercontinental ballistic missiles) and nuclear-armed strategic bombers.

Perhaps the most alarming part of the grisly prediction is that it instructed commanders under him to “consider their personal affairs and whether a visit should be scheduled with their servicing base legal office to ensure they are legally ready and prepared.” Minihan claims this is because China is allegedly “determined to make a move” against its breakaway island province of Taiwan within the next two years and that this would trigger a direct US military response.

He further called for “a fortified, ready, integrated, and agile Joint Force Maneuver Team ready to fight and win inside the first island chain.” Minihan also issued an order that all steps in preparation for war with China were to be reported to him directly by February 28. As to why he thinks this is “inevitable” by 2025, NBC claims he stated the following:

“Minihan said in the memo that because both Taiwan and the U.S. will have presidential elections in 2024, the U.S. will be ‘distracted,’ and Chinese President Xi Jinping will have an opportunity to move on Taiwan.”

The wording is quite concerning, especially when coming from a high-level military commander. General Minihan directed all Air Mobility Command personnel to “fire a clip into a 7-meter target with the full understanding that unrepentant lethality matters most. Aim for the head.” Using such phrases when talking about the “coming war” with a nuclear-armed China is unwise, to say the least, not to mention the complete disregard for the most basic diplomatic etiquette. Additionally, China’s conventional capabilities are very different in comparison to just a decade ago. Beijing has invested heavily in technological advances that rival or even surpass America’s, particularly hypersonic weapons, in which Washington DC significantly lags behind.

Still, China has spent decades trying to resolve the Taiwan issue peacefully, especially through close economic ties with the island, but the US has been undermining these efforts, particularly in recent years. Beijing’s attempts to achieve nonviolent political reunification with Taiwan have been severely compromised by American arms deliveries, with Taipei spending dozens of billions on weapons, most of which haven’t even been delivered due to the current US focus on Ukraine. China has been warning Washington DC against fomenting the independence ambitions of its breakaway island province. However, the US hasn’t only ignored this, but it seems it’s already planning yet another war with another superpower.

*

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

Drago Bosnic is an independent geopolitical and military analyst.

Featured image is from InfoBrics