Is this how the Bundestag operates? How is it that ministers can declare war without the informed consent of the German people? Is English now the preferred language of the German government?
Or does Baerbock intend her message for a larger audience than Germany’s bureaucrats? Imagine a USG political careerist standing on the floor of the Senate or House speaking to his colleagues in German or Khoe–Kwadi.
The official representative of the Russian Foreign Ministry, Maria Zakharova, said that the supply of German tanks to Ukraine is a pre-planned war against Russia🤷♂️ pic.twitter.com/JDigPtSVKN
“If we add this to Merkel’s revelations that they were strengthening Ukraine and did not count on the Minsk agreements, then we are talking about a war against Russia that was planned in advance. Don’t say later that we didn’t warn you,” respondedMaria Zakharova, spokesperson for the Russian Foreign Ministry.
The German people really need to get rid of these neocon-ish politicians, same as America needs to not only divest the government of these psychopaths but round them up and put them on trial for war crimes and crimes against humanity.
*
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.
Усі статті Global Research можна прочитати 51 мовою, натиснувши кнопку “Перекласти сайт” під іменем автора.
Щоб отримати щоденну розсилку Global Research (вибрані статті), натисніть тут.
Слідкуйте за нами в Instagram та Twitter, а також підписуйтесь на наш Telegram-канал. Не соромтеся робити репости та поширювати статті Global Research.
***
Уколико је текст „Основног споразума“ о Косову и Метохији који дуже време кружи у медијима на албанском а од 20. јануара и на друштвеним мрежама, на српском, бар близак аутентичном, може се рећи да то није споразум, осим што се тако зове и има чланове, већ ултиматум да Србија у пракси (de facto) призна насилну сецесију своје Покрајине. Текст приписан лидерима две највеће демократије у Европи Макрону, председнику Француске Шолцу, канцелару Немачке, као ауторима, представља још једно грубо кршење резолуције СБ УН 1244, основних принципа демократских међународних односа, Повеље УН, Париске повеље и Завршног документа ОЕБС. Текст инспирисан силом и величином, понижава Србију и српски народ налажући да Србија испоштује равноправност, суверенитет, територијалн интегритет и државне симболе тзв. Косова и свих других држава, осим свој сопствени суверенитет, територијални интегритет и своје међународно признате границе потврђене од стране УН, ОЕБС, других МО, као и од специјалне Бадинтерове комисије.
Шолц-Макроново папир захтева да се Србија не противи чланству тзв. Косова у свим међународним организацијама, укључујући УН. Од Србије се очекује да сарађује у разграђивању сопствене целовитости, сопственог уставног поретка и међународног угледа како „случај Косова“ нико не би могао да користи као преседан за једностране сецесије. У прихватању ултиматума од стране Србије аутори виде пут да пет чланица ЕУ и 4 чланице НАТО (Шпанија, Румунија, Словачка, Грчка и Кипар) признају тзв. Косово и да тако залече унутрашње нејединство у ЕУ и НАТО. Циљ је, такође, да се на Србију као жртву агресије НАТО 1999. превали сва одговорност за жртве, разарања и последице коришћења оружја са осиромашеним уранијумом. Коначно, да се Србија уврсти у тзв. „савез демократија“ успостављен да буде фронт против Русије и Кине.
Тзв. предлог Шолца и Макрона претворен у иницијативу ЕУ коју подржавају САД и најновије активности «петорке» у Београду представљају узурпацију и прејудицирање права и одлука СБ УН као јединог органа за питања мира и безбедности, ниподаштавање резолуције СБ УН 1244 као општеобавезујућег правног акта највише снаге, увлачење Србије као мирољубиве, војно неутралне и независне земље, у глобалну коннфронтацију. Ово безобзирно, једнострано и самовољно понашање, осим што је антисрпско, бременито је несагледивим последицама.
Косово и Метохија није у замрзнути конфликт како се то тврди на Западу и понавља у Београду, нити се решава ултиматумом Србији. Прихватањем ултиматума не спашавају се ни мир ни безбедност Срба у Покрајини. Тако се само гомила конфликтни потенцијал, подстичу други сепаратизми, понижава Србија и српски народ. Прави узрок и срж проблема око Косова и Метохије је у геополитици доминације и експанзије водећих сила Запада на Исток. НАТО свим силама настоји да тзв. Косово и целу Србију, претвори у одскочну даску за експанзију на Исток, да Србију окрене против Русије. Тај проблем се не може решити прихватањем ултиматума већ инсистирањем на поштовању Устава, међународно признатих граница Србије и резолуције СБ УН 1244. И када би прихватила ултиматум Срби на Косову и Метохији ће и даље бити небезбедни, одузету имовину им нико неће вратити, 250.000 протераних Срба и других неалбанаца и даље неће моћи да остваре право на слободно и безбедно враћање, српска државна и друштвена имовина остале би и даље узурпиране. Србија треба да буде свесна да би прихватање ултиматума само допринео убрзању опасних трендова конфронтације и ескалације, како у регионалним тако и у европским размерама.
Евентуална сагласност Србије за чланство тзв. Косова у УН и друге МО значило би признавање његовог међународно-правног субјективитета са свим последицама од ескалације до стварања Велике Албанијe на рачун државних територија Србије и више других балканских држава. Има ли у Србији још икога ко би поверовао у нове гаранције и обећања Запада? Зар нас није и Ангела Меркел колико јуче упозорила да се клонимо њихових гаранција! Или је наша лаковерност прешла у фазу без граница!
Обећања самоуправе за Србе, заједнице српских општина («по уставу Косова», Шоле), «формализовање статуса СПЦ» ни најмање не мењају карактер Шолц-Макроновог (ЕУ) ултиматума, зато што је суштина у захтеву да Србија фактички, а потом и формално-правно, призна независност тзв. Косова, његово чланство у УН и друге МО. Све друго је део, мање или више убедљиве, дипломатске козметике и тактике «чувања образа» жртве.
Историја опомиње да се мир, стабилност и бољи живот не чувају прихватањем ултиматума на штету суверенитета и територијалног интегритета. И тзв. Минхенски споразум из 1938. о одузимању Судетске покрајине од Чехословачке, ултиматум рађен иза леђа Русије, ондашњи лидери Немачке, Француске, Италије и Велике Британије јавно су представљали као спашавање мира у Европи. Веома је опасно што садашњи лидери наведених земаља Запада нису свесни лекција такве историје.
Однос према Уставу, резолуцији СБ 1244, међународно признатим границама Србије и међународном праву нису ствар ултиматума или једнократне погодбе већ односа према опстанку Србије као старе европске државе и српске нације као фактора мира, стабилности и напретка на Балкану, у Европи и свету. Такав статус и углед Србије потврђује и већина земаља света, око 2/3 становника планете, који нису, нити желе да признају илегалну творевину као државу, укључујући и не мали број земаља које су, на молбу Србије, повукле своја ранија признања не плашећи се ултимативних притисака Запада да то не чине.
*
До уваги читачів: Будь ласка, натисніть кнопки “Поділитися” вище. Слідкуйте за нами в Instagram та Twitter, а також підписуйтесь на наш Telegram-канал. Не соромтеся робити репости та поширювати статті 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.
***
I am revisiting Dr Erich Fromm’s seminal work ‘Fear of Freedom’ (also published as ‘Escape from Freedom’) as the basis of this article. To understand the causative agent behind major trends in society, one must uncover the chief psychological forces at work at any one time.
By grasping the relevance of the seeming hypocrisy ‘fear of freedom’, it becomes possible to understand the composition of the psychosis currently running rampant through the central arteries of society.
What we are dealing with is the willingness of a large proportion of society to give-in to the will of a perceived authority figure or figures. To do so without ever questioning the logic or rational of what that authority is doing or demanding.
Probably the best known example in recent history of this, is the behaviour of the masses of German society at the time of the rise of Adolf Hitler.
In ‘Fear of Freedom’ Fromm devotes a considerable number of pages to an analysis of the human motivation – or lack of it – that enabled Hitler to hypnotise his people into into obeying his often completely irrational and incoherent demands. To accepting conditions that, with the application of just a small amount of emotional and rational thought, would automatically be rejected by ordinary sentient individuals.
As Covid ‘lock-downs’ and Klaus Schwab’s demand for a ‘Great Reset’ are revealing, the same sequence of top-down irrational authoritarianism is repeating this phenomenon with seemingly very similar affect.
There are certain conditions that must prevail in order for it to be possible for very large numbers of people to capitulate to the commands of an authoritarian figurehead.
The chief ones are: a generally low sense of self esteem; an insecure prevailing financial situation and a fear of stepping out of line with the pattern of behaviour of fellow humans.
It is this last factor which can be the most potent element of self betrayal.
Freedom is not won by avoiding commitment or confrontation. On the contrary, freedom is achieved by taking responsibilityand facing the foe. The former interpretation has been made popular by an age in which technology and machines in general have assumed greater importance than human relations. Where basic human responsibility has been off-loaded onto a computer.
A great deal of superfluous ‘luxuries’ of our consumer fixated society are the result of a fascination with ‘the gadgets of leisure’. The emphasis on ‘convenience materialism’ eventually eclipsing the social need for cooperation and interactive mutual support.
The US founder of modern advertising Edward Bernays, played a significant role in launching this trend by developing a method which he called ‘engineering consent’; deceiving customers about their supposed need for products empty of genuine value or merit and often destructive of human and environmental health. Bernays’s notion of ‘engineering consent’ was also applied politically, to leverage support for one or other political party.
But the ability to deceive can only work if the recipient has surrendered his/her commitment to fundamental life values that underpin a humane, fulfilling and creative existence.
In a sense they work in tandem. In Fear of Freedom, Fromm reveals that the desire to control and the desire to be controlled are not opposites, but symptoms of the same basic sickness. The sadist and the masochist are both expressions of extreme alienation and deep fear. The fear of facing the responsibility of freedom. Which means seeking the truth and taking control of one’s destiny.
The sadist in someone arises when that person adopts a fixed position or inherited ideal as a secure totem upon which to dedicate their adult life. This action serves to crush the manifestation of the natural, innate creative and humanitarian energies, that left to their own devices lead the individual towards the realisation of his/her true potential.
Of course, following this creative urge initially brings with it a sense of insecurity. One is ploughing one’s own path – not following someone else’s. It requires courage.
But to reject this ‘road to freedom’ out of fear of the unknown, is to block the spontaneous social, mental and spiritual development of the growing individual. To create a barrier against the directions passed to us by our souls. And that causes a deeply distorted version of ‘the true path’ to become manifest in its place.
The Perversion of the British Political Elite
For example, at the British private Preparatory Boarding School I attended from the age of eight to twelve, the head master was a sadist. He saw his role as turning-out boys as ready leaders of a (dying) British Empire.
To achieve this aim, the subtle emotional state inherent in all children, had to be knocked-out and overlaid by a conformism to the fixed concept of ‘manhood’; a requirement to fulfil the demands of becoming ‘a leader of the Empire’.
Chief among the characteristics of such a leader is the ability and readiness to kill for a cause. The cause, in this case, being to uphold the ‘unquestioned superiority’ of British colonial rule. With this conviction being uppermost in the mind, the killing is to be performed coldly, without emotion.
The headmaster of my primary school kept four canes in a glass fronted cupboard in his study. Each having a slightly different ‘whackability’. Any boy falling foul of his wrath was subjected to ‘six of the best’ from one or other of these canes.
A boy’s bruised and bleeding backside was then patched-up by the matron who looked after children’s health. But for the mental trauma there was no matron and no sympathiser.
The headmaster was an imposing athletic figure and when he whacked, it was with full venom and sadistic satisfaction. The general ethos of the school was carried-out in the name of ‘toughening-up’ little boys still emotionally attached to their mothers.
Perverts featured prominently among the staff. The Latin master would regularly run his hands up one’s shorts while correcting home work. And the physical training teacher, a Sargent Major, was an equally lecherous individual whose military training was put to full effect in keeping his gymnastic pupils in order.
Please understand that this school (which is no longer) was the training ground for the political elite; a sister school of the infamous Eton College, the breeding ground for eligible future politicians and Prime Ministers, followed by the blue chip universities of Oxford and Cambridge.
When one considers the deep sickness on display amongst the upper echelon of political (and non political) ‘leaders’ in the UK today, one can see at what an early age it was already being fostered. Pedophilia, child molesting and even child sacrificing, are not perversions that come from nowhere.
The roots of many top-down diseased minds are buried in traumas that started when they were children – and are now being played-out via reversed roles – a pattern that many psychological treatise on psychotic individuals have revealed.
It’s a fine line that separates the psychotic and the Satanic; and it is perhaps no surprise to find that there are two Masonic Lodges situated within the Houses of Parliament at Westminster.
At the heart of the exclusive upper echelons of the British establishment is a largely unspoken commitment to maintaining a self engendered sense of being ‘of the gods’. Thus gifted the right to impose rules on those ‘below’ which will ensure recipients remain in a broadly socio-economic condition of serfdom, and that the perpetrators of that serfdom will be fed according to their addictive need. The need for a ‘sense of power’ to compensate for an inner emotional void and state of abject spiritual poverty.
As Fromm explains in his analysis of the behaviour of Adolf Hitler, the Nazi leader despised those who submitted to his will, but respected those who stood-up to him.
This is the coward’s formula which incorporates a form of self loathing concerning one’s own inner weakness. The lack of any pathway towards the realisation of a deeper ‘I’.
This quirky and contradictory power-v-serfdom trait is evident in the way the City of London maintains its demonic grip over global financial affairs.
It has been reported to me that during a ritualistic annual pilgrimage to ‘The Temple’ at Lincoln’s Inn at the heart of the City of London, the British Monarch walks, head lowered, three paces behind the Lord Mayor while passing through ‘The Gates of the Temple’.
The quasi-religious symbolism is clear: money is power and power is everything. Even a Monarch will acknowledge his/her indebtedness to those who control vast empires of wealth. But that same monarch will feel a general sense of disdain for the tens of thousands whose hard labour and poor wages underpinned the pompous halls of wealth occupied by their masters.
In conclusion, from my own experience (as a survivor) of the sadistic power used to prevent young people from following their natural inclinations to creative expression and warm co-habitation, it is evident that ‘fear’ is at the very root of the depraved and schizophrenic behaviour patterns so evident in most so called ‘leaders’ of today.
Look no further than the fear imposed Covid bandwagon, with it’s fear fuelled lock-downs and fear fashioned threats against digressers. Symptomatic of a psychosis running deep within the veins of the small club whose grip on this world is essentially the same grip as the headmaster of my Preparatory School school sought to exert on his unfortunate pupils.
The leaders of The World Economic Forum, The World health Organisation, The United Nations, The Bank of International Settlements, The International Monetary Fund, The World Bank, Black Rock, Bayer-Monsanto/Cargill, to name just a few tyrannical oppressors of the people, are the modern day imposers of the empires that the British were once so proud to force upon the indigenous cultures of other lands.
They, with the help of government and on the orders of a secret cabal, reach into the cupboard for the same canes in order to whack any dissenters, as did the headmaster of my Preparatory School in order to bring into line any rebellious pupils. It’s a revolving door and those entering and leaving are closely connected with each other.
They are a form of dark brotherhood – witness the Skull and Bones Club of Yale University – sworn to protect and maintain the lie, the opposite of which they dare not face. The lie that the only way to avoid responding to the innate urge of the soul to set sail on the path of truth, is to accept one’s destiny as a clone like devotee of the soulless and vindictive gods of materialism.
As part of the turmoil of conflicting forces manifesting today, the silver lining is that a great shake-down of all old conscious and subconscious addictions to hierarchical and slavish patterns of existence is starting to manifest.
A whole new paradigm of spirit based love and respect for all elements of creation is beginning to emerge. Is moving ever further into a territory once seen as a secure fortress against the manifestation of truth.
As Erich Fromm so clearly recognised ‘Fear of Freedom’ and the trauma it imposes on the self and on others, is not a permanent state. Embracing real freedom is an act of love. A courageous act of recognition of our oneness with all humanity. A commitment to take responsibility for the world we were born into as well as for the flourishing of our own special creative contribution to the evolution of that world.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
Julian Rose is an early pioneer of UK organic farming, writer, international activist, entrepreneur and holistic teacher. He is Co-founder of the Hardwick Alliance for Real Ecology HARE https://hardwickalliance.org/. Julian’s latest book ‘Overcoming the Robotic Mind – Why Humanity Must Come Through’ is strongly recommended reading for this time: see www.julianrose.info
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 Peruvian Prosecutor’s Office has placed she who claims the country’s presidency, Dina Bolurate under investigation for crimes including genocide, resulting from her government’s treatment of protesters who prefer the elected President Pedro Castillo. Now much of her government is under investigation for genocide (“genocide, qualified homicide and serious injuries”): Alberto Otarola (the prime minister who just resigned), minister of defense Jorge Chavez, minister of the interior Victor Rojas, a previous prime minister Pedro Angulo and previous Minister of the Interior Cesar Cervantes. (1)
How did this happen? An intractable well entrenched right wing Congress impeded the people’s elected President’s agenda, brought charges against him and his appointees for corruption and tried three times to impeach him. To forestall an impeachment attempt Pedro Castillo dissolved the Congress, as allowed by Peruvian law. Publicly unverified reports may establish a meeting between the U.S. Ambassador (a former CIA agent) and Peru’s Minister of Defense (2) who threw his support instead to the right-wing Congress: Castillo was displaced on Dec. 7, 2022. Immediately the U.S., Canada, European Union, supported as Peru’s president, Dina Bolurate, Castillo’s vice-president. Bolivia, Argentina, Mexico, Venezuela, Columbia among others supported President Pedro Castillo.
As of January 15th Security forces murdered about 50 protesters, including the victims of the Ayacucho massacre (Dec. 15, 2022) and Juliaca massacre (Jan. 9, 2023), in military actions by police and armed forces against Indigenous peoples, mestizos, workers who seem to be without weapons.
Displaced president Castillo is in prison, accused of attempting to overthrow the democratic process with a coup. Castillo, Indigenous, was a teacher, a union leader, a Marxist, elected in 2021 by a small majority in a race against Keiko Fujimori who wouldn’t concede defeat.
Keiko Fujimori’s forces included an entrenched Fujimori political machine and the extreme right wing. She enjoyed the support of the current U.S. Ambassador and U.S. literati favorite, the nobelist Vargas Llosa. Keiko Fujimori assured supporters her primary mission if elected was to free her father, former president Alberto Fujimori, serving extended prison sentences for human rights crimes such as murder, kidnapping etc., and embezzlement, bribery, corruption. In 2017 the elder Fujimori was pardoned by then President of Peru Pedro Pablo Kuczynski, in exchange for support in Peru’s Congress to further Kuczynski’s political agenda. The pardon was overturned by Peru’s Supreme Court in 2018 and Fujimori re-imprisoned.
Allegations of genocide accompanied Fujimori the father’s near extermination of the largely Indigenous/mestizo Shining Path (Sendero Luminoso), as well as his programs of sterilizing Indian women and men without their informed consent. Fujimori’s victories were assured by application of ruthless military force. Victims of his domestic policies were most often mestizo or Indigenous peoples but most of the military was equally mestizo and Indigenous so the huge numbers of fatalities of Shining Path adherents couldn’t be ethnically or racially differentiated from military casualties, unless one supposed a genocide of the Indigenous related population by setting one part against the other.
Through crimes of atrocity Fujimori the father gathered extremist support which remained an element of control through fear by Peru’s privileged elite. It was not surprising that as soon as Castillo took office he and his appointees came under attack from the elite’s attorneys, usually with charges of corruption. His platform for election included promises to redistribute Peru’s mining resources.
The Parliament which serves right wing corporate interests began a series of impeachment attempts. After Fujimori’s total war on the Shining Path anyone resisting fascism became a “terrorist.” The workers / protesters recently murdered by Security forces were described on police records as “terrorists.” (3)
In a sense this story is the familiar destabilization and takeover of a non-NATO country by the CIA. Like corporate programs, CIA policies seem not to be limited by one administration or another or time-reliant on individual leadership, but endure in waiting until applicable.
However since inception of such takeovers the world has changed.
In Venezuela of 2002, President Hugo Chávez was displaced by a parliamentary coup of the Euro-privileged – those who serve corporate interest, yet was re-instated by the people because of his strong identification with the people’s interests, mestizo, Euro, Indigenous, Black – workers. His chosen successor Nicolás Maduro has remained in power as the elected President despite the unsuccessful attempt by the U.S., Canada, the U.K etc. to replace him with their puppet, Juan Guaidó, in a putsch which attempted the theft of a portion of Venezuela’s gold reserves.
In Guatemala the former dictator – U.S. and Israel supported Efraín Ríos Montt was convicted of genocide in 2013 for his mangement of the dirty war against the Indigenous people / workers, a judicial decision vacated by the elite’s corruption of the judicial system and challenged until his death.
In 2019 the President of Bolivia, Evo Morales (Indigenous) was replaced by the well-honed manipulative politics of Jeanine Ãñez a Senator backed by the U.S. and the country’s elite. Currently she serves 10 years in prison convicted of crimes against the state for her part in the coup.
In Brazil, 2022, a Trumpian coup by supporters of former fascist President Jair Bolsonaru was squashed by the legitimate government of socialist President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva.
Leftists, socialist leaders, Indigenous allied leaders, are challenged by capitalist usually racist interests. Generally the poor, the workers, the majority are largely Indigenous or of mixed blood, so the European oriented elite’s control risks falling under the caveats of the Convention on Genocide.
Concerning Canada, in 2022 Pope Francis publicly understood Canadian historical treatment of First Peoples as a genocide. And the House of Commons found the Residential Schools Program to have been a genocide – the government’s initial attempts to classify its treatment of the children as victims of “cultural genocide” gives way to a people’s recognition of “genocide.” The issue of “genocide” as applied to contemporary treatment of some First People’s tribes, has not reached the courts. In Canada application of the Convention is ultimately at the discretion of the Minister of Justice.
By 2023 we live in a world where European colonialism was called to account in the 1960’s with the liberation struggles of Africa. North America’s disappearance of for instance 6 million Indians in lands which became the USA is increasingly recognized as a genocide rather than a conquest or settlement of uninhabited regions. A different mindset evolves in our understanding of history and of genocide.. Covert programs of taking over nations of basically Indigenous peoples by replacing their leaders with puppets of the Euro-elite becomes genocidal.
Points to consider:
One of the first acts proposed under Peru’s right wing Congress after it ousted President Castillo was to strip the Amazon’s uncontacted tribes of land areas reserved for them, to deny them protection and safety on lands sought by resource extractors. (4) The legislation gives evidence of a clear intent to destroy a racial. ethnic group.
The allegations of genocide which became an issue during Fujimori’s attempts to extinguish the flame of Sendero Luminoso – the Shining Path, and the clarity of his efforts to sacrifice the Indigenous related population by advancing U.S. and U.N. sourced birth control programs on native peoples without their informed consent, become more easy to prove. Attempts to charge Fujimori the father with genocide for these crimes appeared and disappeared for twenty-five years and remain unadjudicated, signifying extreme opposition to application of the Convention itself in Peru, to politicians on the far-right or in mafia-like political families. On January 11, 2021, the most recent attempt to hold a hearing on the forced sterilization of several hundred thousand Peruvian women and directly accusing Fujimorri the elder, his health ministers and various doctors, was closed after an hour due to the court’s inability to translate all twelve of the dialects spoken by native Quechua witnesses. (5)
On January 17th 2023 people from all through Peru attempted to march together in Lima to express the will of the Four Nations (not the British four nations but those derived from the ancient nations of the Inca empire): remove Dina Bolurate from 0ffice and free Pedro Castillo from prison. (6). To begin with…. There is momentum throughout Peru to counter the coup by Peru’s Congress and reinstate Pedro Castillo as the people’s elected President.
The crime of Genocide has no statute of limitations. Aspects of the crime are cumulative. The successes of genocide’s perpetrators become evidence of guilt which the judicial systems of the Americas are likely to confront as they gain control of their own resources. This is likely to be accompanied by the increasing political power of Indigenous peoples and their rights to resource land. It’s to the interest of Peru’s privileged to assure just representation to the Peruvian people.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
This article was originally published on the author’s blog site, nightslantern.ca.
Notes
1. “Genocide investigation opened against Peru president after protest deaths,” Agence France-Presse, Jan 11, 2023, The Guardian.
2. “CIA Coup in Peru Explodes into Violence,” Kurt Nimmo & Ben Norton, Jan. 13, 2023, Global Reseach.
3. “Peru’s President Dina Boluarte appoints new intelligence chief,” Diego Lopez Marina, Jan. 10, 2023, Perú reports.
4. «Peru lawmakers propose bill to strip Indigenous people of protections,« Dec. 23, 2022, The Guardian.
5. “Peru’s government forcibly sterilized Indigenous women from 1996 to 2001, the women say. Why?” Ñusta Carranza Ko, Feb.19, 2021 The Washington Post.
6. “Thousands of Farmers Continue Advancing Towards Lima,” Jan. 17, 2023, Telesur.
Featured image is by Julie Maas from nightslantern.ca
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.
***
Liu He studied economics at Renmin University in China and got a Master’s from Harvard. Since 2018, he’s one of China’s Vice Premiers – along with Han Zheng, Sun Chunlan, and Hu Chunhua. He’s a Director of the Central Financial and Economic Affairs Commission and heads the China Financial Stability and Development Committee. Anyone around the world who wants to know what will drive China’s economy in the Year of the Rabbit must pay attention to Liu He.
Davos 2023 has come and gone: an extended exercise in Demented Dystopia with peaks of paroxysm. At least a measure of reality was offered by Liu He’s address. A limited but competent analysis of what he said is infinitely more useful than torrents of barely disguised Sinophobic “research” vomited by U.S. Think Tankland.
Liu He pointed to some key numbers for the Chinese economy in 2022. Overall 3% growth may not be groundbreaking; but what matters is value-added for high-tech manufacturing and equipment manufacturing going up by 7.4% and 5.6% respectively. What this means is that Chinese industrial capacity continues to move up the value chain.
Trade, predictably, reigns supreme: the total value of imports and exports reached the equivalent of $6,215 trillion in 2022; that’s an increase of 7.7% over 2021.
Liu He also made it clear that improving the wealth of Chinese citizens remains a key priority, as enounced in the 2022 Party Congress: the number of middle class Chinese, by 2035, should jump from the current 400 million to an astonishing 900 million.
Liu He pointedly explained that everything about Chinese reforms revolves around the notion of establishing “a socialist market economy”. This translates as “let the market play a decisive role in resources allocation, let the government play a better role.” That has absolutely nothing to do with Beijing privileging a planned economy. As Liu He detailed, “we will deepen SOE [State-Owned Enterprises] reform, support the private sector, and promote fair competition, anti-monopoly and entrepreneurship.”
China is reaching the next level, economically: that translates as building, as fast as possible, an innovation-driven commercial base. Specific targets include finance, tech, and greater productivity in industry, as in applying more robotics.
On the fin-tech front, a resurgent Hong Kong is bound to play an extremely important role starting by 2024 – most of it in consequence of several Wealth Management Connect mechanisms.
Enter, or re-enter the key role of the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area – one the key development nodes of 21st century China.
What is known as the Greater Bay Area’s Wealth Management Connect is a set up that allows wealthy investors from the nine mainland cities that compose the area to invest in yuan-denominated financial products issued by banks in Hong Kong and Macao – and vice-versa. What this means in practice is opening up mainland China’s financial markets even further.
So expect a new Hong Kong boom by 2025. All those dejected by the collective West’s morass, start making plans.
Dual circulation hits Eurasia
As expected, Liu He also referred to the key Beijing strategy for this decade: “A new development paradigm with domestic circulation as the mainstay and domestic and international circulations reinforcing each other.”
The dual-circulation strategy reflects the Beijing leadership’s emphasis on simultaneously boosting China’s self-reliance and its vast export market footprint. Virtually every government policy is about dual circulation. When Liu He talks about “spurring of China’s domestic demand” he’s sending a direct message to global exporters – Eastern and Western – focusing on this ever-growing, gigantic mass of Chinese middle class consumers.
On the geopolitical and geoeconomic Big Picture, Liu He was diplomatically circumspect. He just let it filter that “we believe that an equitable international economic order must be preserved by all.”
Translation: the New Silk Roads, or BRI, as well as the integration efforts of BRICS+, the SCO and the EAEU will be on the forefront of Chinese policy.
And that brings us to what should become one of the key stories of the Year of the Rabbit: the renewed drive along the New Silk Roads.
Few better than the Chinese, historically, understand that from Samarkand to Venice, from Bukhara to Guangzhou, from Palmyra to Alexandria, from the Karakoram to the Hindu Kush, from deserts that used to engulf caravans to gardens of secluded harems, a formidable pull of economic, political, cultural and religious factors not only linked the extremities of Eurasia – from the Mediterranean to China – but determine and will continue to determine its centuries-old history.
The Ancient Silk Roads were not only about silk but also spices, porcelain, precious tones, fur, gold, tea, glass, slaves, concubines, war, knowledge, plagues – and that’s how they turned into the symbol of Eurasia-wide “people to people exchanges”, as Xi Jinping and the Beijing leadership extol it today.
These processes involve archeology, economics, history, musicology, compared mythology; so, keeping up with the past, the New Silk Roads also mean all manner of exchanges between East and West. The perpetual history of non-stop trade, in this case, is only the material base, a pretext.
Before silk there was lapis lazuli, copper, incense. Even if China may have only opened itself to the outside world on the 2nd century B.C. – because of silk – Chinese tradition, in the oldest Chinese novel, The Chronicle of the Son of Heaven Mu, tells the tale of Emperor Mu visiting the Queen of Sheba already in the 10th century B.C.
The exchanges between Europe and China may have started only in the 1st century B.C. The men who actually traversed the Eurasian immensities were actually few. It’s only in the year 98 that the Chinese ambassadorship of Gan Ying departs for Da Qin – that is, Rome. He never arrived.
In the year 166, the Antoninus Pius ambassadorship, allegedly sent by the Emperor himself, finally hits China; but in fact that’s just an adventurous merchant. For 13 centuries there was a huge exploratory void.
Despite the prodigious advances of Islam and the omnipresence of Muslim merchants since the 7th century, it’s only in the 13th century – at the time of the last Crusades and the Mongol conquest – that Europeans picked up again the road towards the East. And then, on the 15thcentury, the Ming emperors succeeding the Mongols totally closed China to the outside world.
It’s only due to a certain extent to the Jesuits in the 16th century that a meeting finally happened – 17 centuries too late: Europe finally started to acquire some knowledge of China, even as it dreamed about it over and over again, since chic Roman patricians were enveloped in transparent silk robes.
It’s only around 1600 that Europeans seem to have become aware that Northern China and Southern China are on the same continent. So we may conclude that China really became known in the West only after the “discovery” of the Americas.
Two worlds ignored each other for so long – and still, all along the watchtowers in the middle of the steppes, trade kept moving from one side of Eurasia to another.
Now it’s time for another historical push – even as a discombobulated Europe is kept hostage by a cabal of imperial Straussian neo-cons and neoliberal-cons. Duisburg, in the Rhur valley, the world’s largest inland port, after all remains the key Iron Silk Road hub across BRI, linked by endless railways to Chongqing in China. Wake up, Young German: your future is in the East.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
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.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
This article was first published in May 2023.
***
Outstanding video production by Matt Orfalea.
From the outset in January 2020 we have been accused by the mainstream media of “spreading disinformation”.
“Least we forget how intensely we were lied to by the government, medical, and media establishments, watch this 11-minute collection of celebrities, medical officials, media, and politicians blaming the “COVID Threat” on the unvaccinated. (Dr. Paul Craig Roberts)
***
“Let us be under no illusions, the Covid Jab is not only “experimental”, it’s a Big Pharma “killer vaccine”. The mainstream media has indulged in systematic propaganda with a view to sustaining The Big Lie.
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
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 hardly news that the Kiev regime is one of the most corrupt in the world. This issue was raised by many in the political West after NATO and EU governments decided to prop up the Neo-Nazi junta regardless of the cost or consequences. Experts, politicians, journalists and others repeatedly warned that the funds, weapons and other assets sent to Kiev should be subjected to extensive scrutiny. And yet, these audits weren’t only flatly rejected in most cases, but those requesting them were even accused of being “Russian shills” or “Putin apologists”, supposedly supporting Russia’s “unprovoked aggression” in Ukraine. The deeply corrupt oligarchs running the country couldn’t have possibly hoped for a better chance to essentially steal tens of billions of dollars of Western “aid”.
However, the scale of the theft has become so massive that not even the Kiev regime could turn a blind eye, forcing it to simultaneously fire over a dozen high-ranking officials. The media are already calling it the biggest mass resignation and corruption scandal in recent history, including allegations such as bribery, embezzlement and mismanagement of “aid” funds for purchasing food, etc. The now-former officials were also caught buying sports cars, throwing lavish parties and going on expensive vacations while regular Ukrainian citizens suffer the consequences of the Neo-Nazi junta’s suicidal subservience to Euro-Atlantic “values”. The scandal involves a top adviser to Volodymyr Zelensky and four deputy ministers, including two defense officials. In addition, governors of at least five oblasts (regions) were fired, including those in Zaporozhye and Kherson.
Deputy Minister for Development of Communities and Territories Ivan Lukeryu
Deputy Minister for Development of Communities and Territories Vyacheslav Negoda
Deputy Minister for Social Policy Vitaliy Muzychenk
The list also includes the governors of Dnepropetrovsk, Zaporozhye, Kiev, Sumy and Kherson oblasts, while the defense ministry confirmed its deputy minister Vyacheslav Shapovalov was fired. He was in charge of logistics for the Kiev regime forces and was accused of signing food contracts at inflated prices. Shapovalov used public funds (most of which are now provided by the political West) to purchase military rations, enabling extra profits for contractors and himself. The Kiev regime is still trying to downplay the scandal, calling it a “technical error”, but even some mainstream media are unconvinced. On January 24, Politico published the details of Shapovalov’s scheme:
“An exposé from the Ukrainian news website ZN.UA revealed last week that the defense ministry purchased overpriced food supplies for its troops. For instance, the ministry bought eggs at 17 hryvnias per piece, while the average price of an egg in Kyiv is around 7 hryvnias. According to ZN.UA, a contract for food procurement for soldiers in 2023 amounted to 13.16 billion hryvnias (€328 million).”
And yet, the now-former deputy minister insists his resignation is purely altruistic and that he’s stepping down so as “not to pose a threat to the stable supply of the Armed Forces of Ukraine as a result of a campaign of accusations related to the purchase of food services.”
As the scandal grows in scope, some mainstream media are resorting to damage control and are trying to downplay the crimes. The deputy head of the presidential administration Kyrylo Tymoshenko, accused of using public funds for his lavish lifestyle, is now being whitewashed by Western state-run media, such as the BBC, which is claiming that “Tymoshenko was implicated in several scandals during his tenure, including in October last year when he was accused of using a car donated to Ukraine for humanitarian purposes.” However, in early December, local media presented evidence that Tymoshenko drove expensive sports cars to and from mansions which cost up to $25,000 per month in maintenance only.
Other Western state-run media are also trying to downplay the scandal and are even blaming Russia. The AFP claims that “Ukraine has long suffered endemic corruption, including among the political elite, but efforts to stamp out graft have been overshadowed by Moscow’s full-scale war that began in February,” adding that “Kyiv’s Western allies, who have allocated billions of dollars in financial and military support, have been pushing for anti-corruption reforms for years, sometimes as a precondition for aid.”
The scandal also includes luxury vacations abroad, with Deputy Prosecutor General Symonenko caught vacationing in Spain this winter while the vast majority of Ukrainians can’t afford basic necessities. Due to public outcry, the Kiev regime has even banned top officials to go abroad for vacations. In addition, mere days before the latest scandal, Deputy Minister of Infrastructure and Communities Development Vasyl Lozynskiy was accused of receiving bribes to force the purchase of generators at greatly hiked-up prices. And to top it all, Defense Minister Oleksii Reznikov himself might be directly involved in the scandal.
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.
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.
***
Watch this interview between Scott Ritter and Col. Douglas MacGregor on the trajectory of the Ukraine war and the solution for Ukrainian self-determination.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
***
Attendees at the exclusive January 2023 World Economic Forum (WEF) meeting in Davos, Switzerland, included FBI director Chris Wray, MI6 chief Richard Moore, Secretary-General of NATO Jens Stoltenberg, the CEOs of Amazon, BlackRock and Pfizer (just to name a few), Gates Foundation executives and Cybernetics School director Genevieve Bell
The publisher of The New York Times and CNN anchor Fareed Zakaria were also in attendance, as were Ukrainian President Zelensky and a long list of other presidents, prime ministers, ministers, senators, House representatives, commissioners, governors, mayors, bankers, royalty, officials from the UN and Red Cross, as well as military, customs and space agency officials
The people gathering at this meeting, which is by invitation only, are among the ones deciding how the rest of us are going to live our lives, what rights we’ll have regardless of local constitutions, and how the world is to be run
The WEF works closely with the World Health Organization and the United Nations to make sure the UN’s sustainable development goals are met. The sustainable development goals are the foundation upon which the WEF’s Great Reset agenda is built
The WEF is also helping the WHO seize power through its pandemic treaty. If enacted, member states will surrender their sovereignty to the WHO, making it a de facto one world governing body
*
As reviewed by comedian Jimmy Dore of “The Jimmy Dore Show” in the video above, the World Health Organization began drafting a global pandemic treaty in mid-2022, which would grant it the sole power to make decisions relating to global biosecurity, including but not limited to the implementation of a global vaccine passport/digital identity, mandatory vaccinations, travel restrictions and standardized medical care.
As noted by Dore, “Then they can just shut your bank account down when you do something they don’t like, like protesting.” Indeed, in 2022, the Canadian government seized the bank accounts of people who had donated money to the trucker convoy, and this was basically a preview of the kind of power the WHO would have.
Treaty Members Will Surrender Their Sovereignty
Even if centralizing biosecurity were a good idea, which it’s not, the WHO would not be at the top of the list of organizations to be charged with this task. In his monologue, Dore quotes my May 2022 article, “What You Need to Know About the WHO Pandemic Treaty,” which was republished by The Defender:1
“As just one example, the WHO didn’t publicly admit SARS-CoV-2 was airborne until the end of December 2021, yet scientists knew the virus was airborne within weeks of the pandemic being declared. The WHO also ignored early advice about airborne transmission.
So, it seems clear that the effort to now hand over more power to the WHO is about something other than them being the most qualified to make health decisions that benefit and protect everyone. With this treaty in place, all member nations will be subject to the WHO’s dictates … even if the people have rejected such plans using local democratic processes.”
In short, every country that signs onto the WHO’s pandemic treaty will voluntarily give up its sovereignty and the bodily autonomy of all its citizens. Making matters worse, we aren’t even told exactly who the people are who will make this decision, so we, the people, don’t know who to contact to make our voices heard.
How the Globalist Cabal Infiltrated Governments Worldwide
This is all happening outside the democratic process, and that’s intentional. The globalist cabal realized they could not convince billions of people into giving up their rights and freedoms. Instead, they focused on installing their own people in key positions around the world, so they could then make decisions that benefited the cult.
A key player in this global takeover plan is the World Economic Forum (WEF), founded in 1971. A great number of the installed globalists are graduates of the WEF’s Forum of Young Global Leaders,2 (formerly the Global Leaders for Tomorrow school3), where they’re indoctrinated in technocratic ideals such as transhumanism which, whether they realize it or not, is nothing but eugenics rebranded.
Transhumanism, like eugenics, is about creating a superior race; in this case, a race augmented by and through technology rather than selective breeding. As of the end of 2022, the Young Global Leaders community had more than 1,400 members from 120 nations, and in addition to political leaders, alumni also include “civic and business innovators, entrepreneurs, technology pioneers, educators, activists, artists [and] journalists.”
The Young Global Leaders forum is not the only incubator of technocrats, but it’s one of the most well-recognized. WEF founder Klaus Schwab has openly bragged about the number of Young Global Leaders alumni that have successfully infiltrated governments around the world, including Canada, where more than 80% of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s cabinet are former WEF students.
Trudeau himself is also a Young Global Leader graduate. In a 2017 interview (video below), Schwab stated:4
“This notion to integrate young leaders is part of the World Economic Forum since many years … What we are really proud of now is young generation leaders like Prime Minister Trudeau … We penetrate the cabinets. I was at a reception for Prime Minister Trudeau and I know that half of his cabinet, or even more than half of his cabinet, are actually Young Global Leaders.”
The WEF’s Takeover of the UN
The Young Global Leaders school was founded in 1992, the same year Agenda 21 was introduced. This makes sense, as they’re part of the same plan. Agenda 21 is the actual action agenda for the United Nations’ sustainable development plans, while the WEF trains propagandists and implementers.
While the UN and WEF have clearly worked hand in hand since 1992, in June 2019, they signed a strategic partnership agreement to accelerate the implementation of the UN’s 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development by further strengthening collaboration and coordination between the two organizations.5
Hundreds of Organizations Condemn WEF-UN Partnership
In a September 2019 open letter6 to UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, more than 400 civil society organizations and 40 international networks condemned the partnership, calling it a “corporate capture of global governance,” and called on Guterres to end it.
“We are very concerned that this WEF-UN partnership agreement will de-legitimize the United Nations and provide transnational corporations preferential and deferential access to the UN System,” the letter states.
“The UN system is already under a big threat from the US Government and those who question a democratic multilateral world. However, this corporatization of the UN poses a much deeper long-term threat, as it will reduce public support for the UN system in the South and the North.
It is our strong belief that this agreement is fundamentally at odds with the UN Charter and with intergovernmental decisions on sustainable development, the climate emergency, and the eradication of poverty and hunger.
This public-private partnership will permanently associate the UN with transnational corporations, some of whose core essential activities have caused or worsened the social and environmental crises that the planet faces. This is a form of corporate capture.
We know that agribusiness destroys biodiversity and sustainable and just food systems, oil and gas corporations endanger the world’s climate, Big Pharma weakens access to essential medications, extractive corporations leave lasting damage to countries’ ecologies and peoples, and arms manufacturers profit from local and regional wars as well as repression of social movements.
All these sectors are significant actors within the World Economic Forum. The provisions of the strategic partnership effectively provide that corporate leaders will become ‘whisper advisors’ to the heads of UN system departments, using their private access to advocate market-based profit-making ‘solutions’ to global problems while undermining real solutions embedded in public interest and transparent democratic procedures …
The UN’s acceptance of this partnership agreement moves the world toward WEF’s aspirations for multistakeholderism becoming the effective replacement of multilateralism.
WEF in their 2010 The Global Redesign Initiative argued that the first step toward their global governance vision is ‘to redefine the international system as constituting a wider, multifaceted system of global cooperation in which intergovernmental legal frameworks and institutions are embedded as a core, but not the sole and sometimes not the most crucial, component.
The goal was to weaken the role of states in global decision-making and to elevate the role of a new set of ‘stakeholders’, turning our multilateral system into a multistakeholder system, in which companies are part of the governing mechanisms.
This would bring transnational corporations, selected civil society representatives, states and other non-state actors together to make global decisions, discarding or ignoring critical concerns around conflicts of interest, accountability and democracy.”
The WEF Actively and Intentionally Undermines Democracy
In mid-January 2023, WEF members, Young Leaders alumni and other VIPs gathered in Davos, Switzerland, for their annual get-together. As reported by UnHerd columnist Thomas Fazi:7
“Alongside heads of state from all over the world, the CEOs of Amazon, BlackRock, JPMorgan Chase, Pfizer and Moderna will gather, as will the President of the European Commission, the IMF’s Managing Director, the secretary general of Nato, the chiefs of the FBI and MI6, the publisher of The New York Times, and, of course, the event’s infamous host — founder and chairman of the WEF, Klaus Schwab …
Founded in 1971 … the WEF is ‘committed to improving the state of the world through public-private cooperation,’ also known as multistakeholder governance.
The idea is that global decision-making should not be left to governments and nation-states — as in the post-war multilateralist framework enshrined in the United Nations — but should involve a whole range of non-government stakeholders: civil society bodies, academic experts, media personalities and, most important, multinational corporations …
While this may sound fairly benign, it neatly encapsulates the basic philosophy of globalism: insulating policy from democracy by transferring the decision-making process from the national and international level, where citizens theoretically are able to exercise some degree of influence over policy, to the supranational level, by placing a self-selected group of unelected, unaccountable ‘stakeholders’ — mainly corporations — in charge of global decisions concerning everything from energy and food production to the media and public health …
[There] is little doubt as to which interests Schwab’s brainchild is actually promoting and empowering: the WEF is itself mostly funded by around 1,000 member companies … which include some of the world’s biggest corporations in oil (Saudi Aramco, Shell, Chevron, BP), food (Unilever, The Coca-Cola Company, Nestlé), technology (Facebook, Google, Amazon, Microsoft, Apple) and pharmaceuticals (AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Moderna).
The composition of the WEF’s board is also very revealing, including Laurence D. Fink, CEO of Blackrock, David M. Rubenstein, co-chairman of the Carlyle Group, and Mark Schneider, CEO of Nestlé.
There’s no need to resort to conspiracy theories to posit that the WEF’s agenda is much more likely to be tailored to suit the interests of its funders and board members — the world’s ultra-wealthy and corporate elites — rather than to ‘improving the state of the world,’ as the organization claims.”
The Goal of the 0.0001% Is to Rule Over the Rest of Us
Considering how proud Schwab is of his WEF members, one wonders why the attendance list to his annual Davos meeting is confidential. Whatever the reason for that might be, The Dossier recently acquired a copy of that list.8
Attendees at the exclusive January 2023 meeting included FBI director Chris Wray, MI6 chief Richard Moore, Secretary-General of NATO Jens Stoltenberg, the CEOs of Amazon, BlackRock and Pfizer (just to name a few), Gates Foundation executives and Cybernetics School director Genevieve Bell.
The publisher of The New York Times and CNN anchor Fareed Zakaria were also in attendance, as were Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and a long list of other presidents, prime ministers, ministers, senators, House representatives, commissioners, governors, mayors, bankers, royalty, officials from the UN and Red Cross, as well as military, customs and space agency officials.
The people gathering at this meeting, which is by invitation only, are among the ones deciding how the rest of us are going to live our lives, what rights we’ll have, regardless of local constitutions, and how the world is to be run. The rest of us have no say in the matter.
As noted by UnHerd:10
“… there is no denying that the WEF wields immense power, which has cemented the rule of the transnational capitalist class to a degree never before seen in history.
But it is important to recognize that its power is simply a manifestation of the power of the ‘superclass’ it represents — a tiny group amounting, according to researchers,11 to no more than 6,000 or 7,000 people, or 0.0001% of the world’s population, and yet more powerful than any social class the world has ever known …
It was only a matter of time before these aspiring cosmocrats developed a tool through which to fully exercise their dominion over the lower classes — and the WEF proved to be the perfect vehicle to do so.”
The Globalist Cult
One insider has described the WEF’s Davos gathering as “a Ponzi scheme” and “a cult,” according to investigative journalist Michael Shellenberger, who wrote about the WEF in a January 15, 2023, Substack post.12 Apparently, the WEF is getting concerned about the fact that more and more people are starting to realize what they’re actually up to.
“The World Economic Forum … is fighting back against conspiracy theorists who say it and its founder Klaus Schwab are seeking global domination through a ‘great reset’ aimed at stripping the masses of their private property, de-industrializing the economy, and making everybody eat bugs.
”Own nothing, be happy’ — you might have heard the phrase,’ wrote World Economic Forum (WEF) Managing Director Adrian Monck last August. ‘It started life as a screenshot, culled from the Internet by an anonymous anti-semitic account on the image board 4chan …
But what Monck claimed was inaccurate. The phrase, ‘Own nothing, be happy,’ hadn’t originated on 4chan; it originated on WEF’s website.”
Indeed, for some reason, these globalists are continuously describing their plans in reports, white papers, on websites, in videos (such as the one above) and at meetings. Yet when people put the puzzle pieces together, they cry “conspiracy theory.” The WEF’s plan may rightly be called a conspiracy, but none of it is theoretical because they’ve described it in black and white. Schwab even published a book about The Great Reset that anyone can peruse.
In the final analysis, what they’re really objecting to and are trying to draw attention away from is the fact that people don’t like their plan and are calling it for what it is — a global coup d’état, a power grab by cultists who are unsuited to rule because their ideology13 is based on eugenics, depopulation and undemocratic top-down authoritarianism. Even in the face of collapsing birth rates, the WEF still insists overpopulation is a dire threat.14
Summary
So, to recap:
Billionaires Plotting How to Depopulate
As mentioned, one of the reasons I believe the 0.0001% are unfit to rule the world is because of their anti-human ideology. Billionaires have held many secret meetings over the years to figure out the best way to depopulate.
In a January 8, 2023, Substack article,17 the Naked Emperor describes the “Good Club,” which first met in 2009. The meeting, which was funded and attended by Bill Gates, included George Soros, Warren Buffett, David Rockefeller, Ted Turner, Eli and Edythe Broad, Michael Bloomberg, Oprah Winfrey, Peter Peterson, Julian Robertson Jr., John and Tashia Morgridge, and Patty Stonesifer.
The meeting was held at the home of Sir Paul Nurse, then-president of the Rockefeller University. Nurse is now the director of the Francis Crick Institute, which was founded by a eugenicist. Crick’s intention behind the Institute was to rehabilitate eugenics and “make it respectable again.”
As recently as 1970, Crick stated that “evidence for the equality of different races did not really exist.” That same year he also wrote that sterilization through bribery was the only answer to rid the world of people with poor genes. Depopulation and eugenics were also on the agenda for the 2009 “Good Club” meeting. Each participant was given 15 minutes to present their case, and while several issues were brought up, all agreed that depopulation was a priority.
They also agreed that whatever strategy was employed it needed to be independent of government, as government agencies were deemed unable to head off the looming disaster of overpopulation.
As noted by the Naked Emperor, “if all they were doing was planning on how to save the world, they would be transparent and encourage everyone to help them on their mission.” But that’s not what they’re doing.
Is that because their ideas might be considered abominable by the average person? Sure, it’s easy to decree that people of a certain class don’t deserve to live — if you’re not in that class!
Ask parents of autistic children if they would be willing to euthanize their kids, for example, and I’m sure you’d get an earful. Or ask people over 65 to submit to automatic euthanasia and see how many takers you get. People work their entire lives just to enjoy the leisure of that last decade or two.
The Rise of Anthropocene Anti-Humanism
The idea of billionaires plotting to get rid of other people, but not themselves or their own families, is repugnant to most. But it might be even worse than that. Remarkably, as reported by the Naked Emperor, we’re now seeing the emergence of a cult that embraces the total annihilation of ALL mankind.
“The revolt against humanity is still new enough to appear outlandish, but it has already spread beyond the fringes of the intellectual world,” he writes.18
“This is called Anthropocene anti-humanism, ‘inspired by revulsion at humanity’s destruction of the natural environment.’ For all we know, these billionaires could be part of this cult and influencing policies based on these views.
In the 21st century, Anthropocene anti-humanism offers a much more radical response to a much deeper ecological crisis. It says that our self-destruction is now inevitable, and that we should welcome it as a sentence we have justly passed on ourselves.
Some anti-humanist thinkers look forward to the extinction of our species, while others predict that even if some people survive the coming environmental apocalypse, civilization as a whole is doomed. Like all truly radical movements, Anthropocene anti-humanism begins not with a political program but with a philosophical idea …”
Is Anti-Humanism or Transhumanism Driving the Globalists?
Do the 0.0001% ascribe to anthropocene anti-humanism, or are they transhumanists at heart? As explained by the Naked Emperor:
“Transhumanism, by contrast, glorifies some of the very things that anti-humanism decries — scientific and technological progress, the supremacy of reason. But it believes that the only way forward for humanity is to create new forms of intelligent life that will no longer be Homo sapiens.
Some transhumanists believe that genetic engineering and nanotechnology will allow us to alter our brains and bodies so profoundly that we will escape human limitations such as mortality and confinement to a physical body.
Others await … the invention of artificial intelligence infinitely superior to our own. These beings will demote humanity to the rank we assign to animals — unless they decide that their goals are better served by wiping us out completely.”
Judging by the planned direction the WEF is taking us, I’m convinced transhumanist philosophy underpins its political agendas. Schwab also has not been shy about the WEF’s transhumanist ideals.
He even coined the term “Fourth Industrial Revolution” to describe the planned merger of man with machine. Such a merger, in turn, allows for the direct control of each individual from the outside. Just like you can remote control a computer, so would you be able to remote control an individual whose brain was connected to the cloud.
In 1975, Sen. Frank Church (video above) warned that the technological advancements of that time already posed a direct threat to the citizens of the United States, and that were a dictator to infiltrate or take control of the country, there would be no escape from the tyranny.
Fast-forward to today, and his words are more than a little prescient. As noted by Robert F. Kennedy Jr., “We now live in this abyss!”19 The question is, how do we get out of this abyss, which was intentionally created for us by the 0.0001%?
I believe the only way out is by rejecting surveillance technologies such as Google and Google-based devices while simultaneously building parallel economies, industries and communities that operate outside of their control system. None of that is easy, but we have no other choice. If you accept their system, you accept enslavement.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
***
Newly re-elected three-time Brazilian leader Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, who’s popularly known as Lula, just shattered the foreign policy expectations of his multipolar base by becoming the first BRICS leader to publicly condemn Russia’s special operation. Unlike his predecessor Jair Bolsonaro who refused to do so and thus received a lot of flak in the US-led Western Mainstream Media (MSM) for his pragmatism, Lula crossed the line and even compared Russia’s involvement in Ukraine to the US’ in Venezuela.
In remarks that he made while in Buenos Aires on Monday, one of the literal founders of BRICS shockingly declared that “In the same way that I am against territorial occupation, as Russia did to Ukraine, I am against too much interference in the Venezuelan process.” Quite clearly, he was implying that Russia’s military efforts to restore the integrity of its national security red lines in Ukraine after NATO crossed them there are morally equivalent to the US’ unprovoked aggression against Venezuela.
Lula is of course entitled to his opinion and has the legal right as the head of the Brazilian state to publicly express his views about what’s indisputably at this point become a proxy war between the US-led West’s GoldenBillion and the jointly BRICS– & SCO-led Global South of which Russia is a part. That said, so too do observers also have the right to critique his unexpectedly sharp attack against Moscow’s special operation, especially since it betrays the expectations of his multipolar base at home and abroad.
Brazil should seek to pragmatically balance between both de facto New Cold War blocs following the path pioneered by fellow BRICS member India over the past year instead of its leader inserting himself into the debate like Lula just did to make a hyper-partisan statement that’ll obviously offend his Russian counterpart. There’s little doubt that Lula is domestically aligned with the US’ ruling Democrats’ liberal-globalist ideology, but he still at least publicly claims to share Russia’s multipolarinternationalone too.
He could have expressed a much more balanced approach towards this conflict if he wanted to exactly as his counterparts in fellow BRICS members China, India, and South Africa have done over the past year. Instead, the same man who’s famous for his masterful use of words chose to compare Russia’s special operation in Ukraine to the US’ HybridWar on Venezuela, which makes one wonder whether this was a rare faux pas from that famous public speaker or a deliberately unfriendly statement.
Whatever his true intentions might have been, there’s no denying that his remark sends mixed signals, especially since it came on the same day that he declared Brazil’s interest in creating a common currency for BRICS. He’ll soon be headed for the US early next month though to rub shoulders with his country’s “frenemy” with whom it’s locked in a relationship of complex economic and military interdependence and which was responsible for his jailing a few years back.
It’s indeed possible that Brazil can pragmatically balance between the US-led West’s Golden Billion and the jointly BRICS- and SCO-led Global South of which it’s a part just like India has successfully done, but for that to happen, then Lula’s rhetoric should replicate Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s wherein he declines to publicly condemn Russia’s special operation, let alone compare it to naked US imperialism. Hopefully this was just a rare faux pas by Lula and not a signal of what’s to come with his foreign policy.
*
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.
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.
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.
***
Background
This research investigated the impact of global fashion retailers and brands unfair practices on Bangladeshi suppliers during the Covid-19 pandemic. Research in 2020-21 on the impact of Covid-19 on garment workers in Bangladesh found that workers, particularly women workers, suffered economic and social vulnerabilities (Islam et al., 2022)[4]. While workers’ vulnerabilities during the Covid pandemic were arguably fuelled by unethical/unfair global clothing and fashion retailers (buyers) practices, these practices have not been adequately investigated. Early reports on the impact of the pandemic on the garment industry indicated that retailers had cancelled orders, were refusing to pay for work in process and demanded lower prices when placing new orders[5]. For example, The Worker’s Rights Consortium’s tracker shows that out of 46 brands included in the tracker, 21 were reported not to have committed to paying for orders completed or in production in March 2020 (Worker Rights Consortium and Center for Global Workers’ Rights at Pennsylvania State University, 2021)[6]. Such reports and the continued Covid pandemic (from March 2020 until late 2021) emphasise the importance of further research to document and analyse how the practices of global retailers impact the industry actors, manufacturers (suppliers) and the workers employed. There is a lack of research into the impact of the buying practices[7] of global clothing retailers on suppliers during Covid-19 and how these directly impacted suppliers’ employment practices, such as workers’ turnover, loss of jobs and minimum legal wages. Our study addressed such research gaps. In particular, we aimed to investigate unfair trading practices[8] by the global retailers with suppliers in Bangladesh, including (but not limited to) sudden cancellation of orders, price reduction, refusal to pay for goods dispatched/in production and delaying payment of invoices during Covid-19.
The main driver of Bangladesh’s growth and development has been the clothing industry which has enjoyed preferential access to the major Global Northern markets, especially in Western Europe and North America. When Bangladesh started exporting ready-made garments in the late 1970s, the clothing sector accounted for less than 4% of total exports, and by 2018-19 this had increased to 84%. It is Bangladesh’s most important manufacturing sector accounting for about 20% of gross domestic product (GDP). It employs around four million workers, who make up about 43% of workers in the formal sector9 and about 50% of whom are migrants from rural areas. More than 12 million people are dependent on the sector for their livelihood. The industry also provides large-scale employment for women who traditionally have not worked in the formal sector.
However, Bangladesh is caught up in a race to the bottom with exploitation in the sector linked to an increasingly competitive international market, with retailers in the Global North using their market power to push their suppliers for discounts even before Covid-19. When Covid-19 started spreading in the Global North in early 2020, there was a perceived risk by brands and retailers of a decline in demand for ready-made clothes, caused in part by government-mandated lockdowns of bricks-and-mortar stores and people working from home. By March 24, 2020, the clothing industry in Bangladesh faced deferrals and cancellations of nearly $2 bn (£1.6bn) in export orders, mainly destined for Europe and North America[10]. By June, this was reported to have increased to as much as $3.7bn (£3.0bn)[11].
Research Method
The field survey of 1,000 factories producing clothes for global fashion brands and retailers was carried out
in December 2021. Face-to-face interviews were carried out by trained interviewers in Bengali with factory owners or senior managers in the workplace using a structured questionnaire. The stratified probability sample was selected from the Mapped in Bangladesh (MiB) database, a comprehensive list of export-facing ready-made garment factories in Bangladesh[12]. The method used for sampling means that the findings can be generalised to all export-facing garment factories in Bangladesh. All the respondents gave informed consent to taking part in the research. The data were analysed using SPSS. This report uses descriptive statistics to provide an understanding of the impact of Covid-19 on factories as reported by the factories.
Research Findings
In this section, we discuss the findings from our survey. We examine the challenges the factories reported facing due to the trading practices of brands and retailers purchasing goods during the Covid-19 pandemic and the impact of these on factory workers.
In the sample of 1,000 factories, 19.6% were small (1-120 employees), 57.9% were medium (121-1,000 employees) and 22.5% (above 1,000 employees) were large. Most factories produced knitwear, namely 59.1%, while 30.2% produced woven and 10.7% produced both. In March 2020, the 1,000 factories in the sample employed 789,302 workers; this declined to 589,302 when the factories reopened after the April 2020 lockdown. It had increased to 719,966 by December 2021. A total of 60% cent of the workers employed in the factories at all three times were women.
Based on our survey data, in March 2020, our sample factories supplied apparel globally to around 1,100 brands/retailers, with their head offices in more than 40 countries[13]. The most frequently mentioned locations of head offices of the brands/retailers our sample factories exported to were in North America and Western and Central Europe. The USA was mentioned by 66.5% of factories, the EU by 45.8%, the UK by 33.1%, Canada by 29.5%, and Australia by 15%.
The mean and median number of brands/retailers factories supplied was three. The number of brands/ retailers that factories supplied correlated with size[14], with small factories supplying one brand/retailer on average, medium factories to two, and large factories to three. Factories selling to only one brand/retailer were especially vulnerable to the market power of the brands/retailers, and thus also their unfair practices where applicable.
Key challenges suppliers faced during the Covid-19 pandemic
Using a structured survey questionnaire, we asked 1,000 factory owners/suppliers/senior managers about various challenges they faced during the pandemic. Some of the challenges suppliers faced were directly related to the buyers’ unfair practices, such as cancellation of orders and price reductions. The factory representatives reported that 50% of factories experienced one or more unfair practice by retailers (Table 1). More than 30% of factories said they faced cancellation of orders, 20% claimed they were paid less than the contractually agreed price, and 11% of factories reported that buyers had refused to pay for goods dispatched/in production. Twenty five per cent of factories reported that payments were delayed for more than three months following the delivery of goods. The factories began to reopen following the government-mandated lockdown in April 2020, but they continued to face challenges. Nearly one in five found it challenging to pay the legally mandated minimum wage for workers in the garment industry. Small factories found it significantly more challenging to pay the minimum wage, a third, compared to 16% of medium and 12% of large factories (χ2 p<0.001). In addition, 38% of factories reported a reduction in demand, and nearly a quarter said they had to reduce their price to secure buyers. In December 2021, 76% of factories reported they were selling at the same price as in March 2020, and 8% were producing at less than the cost of production. The factories had apparently not been able to pass on additional production costs to buyers, including increases in the cost of raw materials and Covid-19 mitigation measures. Interestingly there were no significant differences by factory size except for affording to pay the minimum wage.
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
***
A recent update to the Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA) electrocardiogram (EKG) test limits for pilots has some aviation and medical experts questioning if the FAA’s move is concerned that COVID-19 vaccine injuries may be contributing to an ongoing shortage of pilots.
The USFF and some vaccine safety advocates suggested the FAA revised the limits because airlines’ vaccine mandates, which some argued violated FAA regulations, resulted in a significant number of pilots sustaining adverse events.
According to Just the News, federal agencies “are withholding the data behind recent decisions that relate or may relate to COVID-19 vaccines and severe adverse events.”
The FAA “raised the maximum so-called PR interval for first-degree atrioventricular [AV] block to 300 milliseconds, with no regard to age, on the list of ‘normal variants’ that don’t require deferment in the absence of ‘symptoms or AME concerns.’”
This means the FAA now considers more health conditions to be acceptable.
Josh Yoder, a commercial pilot and co-founder of USFF, told The Epoch Times he believes the FAA’s changes are “a ticking time bomb on a level like we’ve never seen,” and that they increase the odds that a pilot’s heart condition will go undetected, which increases the risk of an aviation disaster.
Kirsch called the changes “extraordinary,” adding, “They did it hoping nobody would notice.” He said the change is “a tacit admission from the U.S. government that the COVID vaccine has damaged the hearts of our pilots. Not just a few pilots. A lot of pilots and a lot of damage.”
The FAA disputed the claims — as did media “fact checkers.”
There is “no evidence of aircraft accidents or incapacitations caused by pilots suffering medical complications associated with COVID-19 vaccines,” the FAA told The Epoch Times.
But Kirsch and others said this is because the FAA never investigated those incidents.
The FAA also said, “When making changes to medical requirements and guidance, the FAA follows standard processes based on data and science.”
Yet the agency did not release the data used to make the revision, despite media requests, including from Tucker Carlson, host of Fox News “Tucker Carlson Tonight.”
In a statement to Just the News, the FAA claimed it followed “standard processes based on data and science” that allowed it to “safely raise the tolerance used to screen for a certain heart condition.”
Federal Air Surgeon Dr. Susan Northrup said the FAA has “seen no evidence” of vaccine injuries that led to “aircraft accidents or pilot incapacitations.”
The Associated Press, in a “fact check” said the FAA’s revision wasn’t prompted by adverse events among pilots following COVID-19 vaccination. The AP, citing the FAA, said, “This change was made in response to new scientific evidence” from the FAA’s “cardiology consultants.”
Cardiologists weigh in
In a Jan. 5 essay, cardiologist Thomas Levy, M.D., J.D., called the FAA’s new guideline “arguably a shocking one, as many pilots are in the same age range when heart attacks occur without any early symptoms but with a normal ECG — the ECG being the only mandatory heart-related test.”
“A fatal heart attack from very advanced coronary artery disease could occur 10 minutes after the normal ECG was recorded,” Levy added.
While a PR interval longer than 200 ms doesn’t prove, on its own, that there is a heart problem, it “shouldn’t be ignored,” Levy told The Epoch Times, and warrants additional testing, as the heart may “no longer [be] completely healthy, and the conduction rate is slowing down.”
A PR interval even slightly exceeding 200 ms “is clearly associated with arrhythmias in the future, pacemakers, and early death,” Levy said, adding that this is especially concerning in light of the increased prevalence of myocarditis in recent years, noting that the condition can contribute to a longer PR interval.
A sudden burst of adrenalin, such as one caused by a stressful in-flight situation, can bring this problem to light, said Levy, adding that myocarditis can strike suddenly and without prior warning signs.
Military flight surgeon Dr. Theresa Long, during an appearance on “Tucker Carlson Tonight,” said the new interval “does not improve safety.” She noted that unlike military pilots, who get EKGs annually regardless of age, commercial pilots receive one at age 35 and then annually starting at age 40.
Long told The Epoch Times cardiologists have always told her, “It would be negligent … to see a PR interval of 290 and do nothing.” Long said she was puzzled and concerned by the FAA’s new limit and that it was not typical for the agency to make such a change without citing specific evidence or studies.
Former FAA safety inspector Stephen Carbone called the new guidelines “nothing short of safety sacrilege” and an “assault on aviation safety,” adding, “I can’t highlight enough how dangerous this is and how irresponsible.”
Dr. Peter Chambers, a retired U.S. military special operations flight surgeon, said the new guidelines remove “the ‘safety zone’ that allows us to catch the problem early,” adding, “You’re not even allowed to ask the questions” about adverse health effects experienced by vaccinated pilots.
What’s behind pilot shortage?
Epidemiologist Dr. Andrew Bostom said the most likely explanation for the FAA’s change “is very benign and practical: the airlines are losing pilots by attrition.” Bostom didn’t attribute the attrition to pilot vaccine injuries, but others are making this connection.
“I’ll take an educated guess as to why [the FAA] did that. I believe it is because they knew if they kept the original range, too many pilots would have to be grounded. That would be extremely problematic; commercial aviation in the U.S. would be severely disrupted.
“In other words, the COVID vaccine has seriously injured a lot of pilots and the FAA knows it and said nothing because that would tip off the country that the vaccines are unsafe. And you aren’t allowed to do that.”
Kirsch noted that the timing of the October 2022 change — two years after the onset of the pandemic — rules out COVID-19.
“October 2022 is late for COVID,” Kirsch said. “If it was due to COVID, it would have happened well before now. They can make changes every month.”
According to a July 2022 report by Oliver Wyman Insights, “an impending pilot shortage was on the horizon” in early 2021, and it is now materializing, due to an aging workforce and mandatory retirement age of 65, and “a wave of early retirements at the height of the pandemic,” though the report didn’t specify the reason for that.
Vaccine-injured former pilot Bob Snow confirmed for The Defender the growing shortage of pilots in the U.S., noting that “former military aviators are a traditional source of pilots for the airlines, but the military no longer produces pilots in large numbers, so there is now a shortfall.”
“The airline industry does not seem as attractive to the younger generation as with prior generations,” Snow added.
FAA not investigating pilot vaccine injuries
The FAA never imposed a vaccine mandate on pilots, but the agency did issue “guidance” for pilots to get vaccinated. Many airlines and employers did impose mandates.
FAA regulations prohibit pilots from taking non-FDA-approved medical products, such as those issued under an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA), but the FAA overlooked this rule when advising pilots to receive the COVID-19 vaccines — which were issued under an EUA.
The Defender has previously reported on adverse events sustained by multiple commercial, military and private pilots and by air traffic controllers, following their COVID-19 vaccination. Some pilots lost their jobs, some even lost their lives.
Snow, for instance, suffered a heart attack six minutes after landing his commercial flight and is currently unable to fly, while Cody Flint narrowly averted a crash of his own.
When Kirsch emailed Northrup last week, soon after the change in the FAA’s guidelines were known, and he later spoke with Northrup by phone. According to Kirsch, Northrup revealed that neither she, nor anyone else at the FAA, investigated incidents like Snow’s.
Kirsch wrote:
“At first I thought she was lying, but it turns out she was telling the truth. She’s seen no evidence because even though she admitted on the call that she knew about Bob Snow, nobody at the FAA ever bothered to call him. Ever!!! So they’ve never seen the evidence because they deliberately refused to look at the evidence!!”
Kirsch asked Northrup to provide the data the FAA used to justify the guidelines change, to investigate pilot vaccine injuries and to host a public roundtable to “discuss the ‘safe and effective’ narrative” regarding COVID-19 vaccines and pilot safety.
He also asked Northrup to respond to the Aug.1, 2022, revelation by author Alex Berenson, a former journalist with The New York Times, that the pilots’ union at a major U.S. air carrier internally reported a 300% rise in long-term disability claims among its mostly vaccinated members.
“If she doesn’t hold a roundtable,” wrote Kirsch in one blog post, “it will be further confirmation that the FAA is afraid to investigate the safety issues.”
Kirsch also publicly called on Northrup to resign, adding that “if she doesn’t, the FAA should fire her” as “she has put the lives of pilots, FAA employees, and the public at risk by her abject failure to investigate safety concerns associated with the COVID vaccines.”
Kirsch added:
“I know of people inside the FAA and pilots who have been killed or permanently disabled because they followed the FAA’s directive to be vaccinated. Susan has not called any of these people to investigate. Nobody from the FAA has. That is a dereliction of duty.”
Kirsch noted that Northrup’s husband, John Hyle, is a pilot who “refused to take the COVID vaccine due to safety concerns.”
Others expressed similar concerns about the FAA’s actions — or inaction. At the Jan. 21 Restore Freedom Rally in Orlando, Florida, Yoder said, “The FAA is not upset that they’re killing pilots. They’re upset that we caught them.”
"The Airlines should have demanded of the FAA that they do proper studies on these substances before they were injected into pilots. This would have stopped the entire program if the Airlines had pushed back. The FAA did zero safety studies."@JoshYoder
Kirsch is planning a roundtable in collaboration with USFF, The Highwire and Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.). Kirsch described it as “a public hearing where we will put all the pilot and FAA employee injuries in full public view, including what actions the FAA took to investigate each injury.”
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D., based in Athens, Greece, is a senior reporter for The Defender and part of the rotation of hosts for CHD.TV’s “Good Morning CHD.”
Featured image is from CHD
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
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.
***
Anti-monopoly advocates on Tuesday praised the Biden administration and eight states for launching a federal antitrust lawsuit that could break up Google, which is accused of illegally dominating the digital advertising market.
“Competition in the ad tech space is broken, for reasons that were neither accidental nor inevitable,” states the complaint filed by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), California, Colorado, Connecticut, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Tennessee, and Virginia in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia.
“One industry behemoth, Google, has corrupted legitimate competition in the ad tech industry by engaging in a systematic campaign to seize control of the wide swath of high-tech tools used by publishers, advertisers, and brokers, to facilitate digital advertising,” the complaint continues.
“Having inserted itself into all aspects of the digital advertising marketplace, Google has used anti-competitive, exclusionary, and unlawful means to eliminate or severely diminish any threat to its dominance over digital advertising technologies,” the document adds, urging the court to force the Alphabet-owned company to sell off its ad tech products.
Echoing the complaint, Demand Progress executive director David Segal pointed out that “Google’s monopoly in the advertising technology market functionally forces publishers and advertisers to use its services.”
“We’re glad to see the Department of Justice demand a breakup of this tech giant, directly taking on its unfair, anti-competitive practices,” he said. “This move is critical to protect our democracy, increase innovation, and strengthen small businesses.”
🚨NEW: @JusticeATR is holding @Google accountable for illegally monopolizing the market for online ads.
We applaud the DOJ for pushing a pro-competition agenda that actually enforces laws on the books and protects the general public from Big Tech.https://t.co/2syPzCm3wp
American Economic Liberties Project director of research Matt Stoller also welcomed the suit, declaring that “we’re thrilled to see the Department of Justice finally demand a breakup of Google’s advertising monopoly.”
“As the Justice Department’s suit meticulously documents, Google is a buyer, broker, and digital advertising exchange with pervasive conflicts of interest,” Stoller said. “Google regularly abuses this power, manipulating markets, muscling out any form of competition, and inspiring fear across the commercial landscape.”
“The DOJ’s suit, which comes alongside a similar suit from a coalition of state attorneys general and efforts in Congress to bring fairness to digital ad markets, shows clearly that Google’s days of unbridled dominance are numbered,” he asserted.
Bloomberg noted Tuesday that “state attorneys general have filed three separate suits against Google, alleging it dominates the markets for online search, advertising technology, and apps on the Android mobile platform in violation of antitrust laws.”
This is the DOJ’s first case against the tech giant under President Joe Biden but follows another filed just months before he took office. In response to the new filing, a Google spokesperson said that “today’s lawsuit from the DOJ attempts to pick winners and losers in the highly competitive advertising technology sector. It largely duplicates an unfounded lawsuit by the Texas attorney general, much of which was recently dismissed by a federal court. DOJ is doubling down on a flawed argument that would slow innovation, raise advertising fees, and make it harder for thousands of small businesses and publishers to grow.”
JUST IN: AG Merrick Garland announced the Justice Department, along with 8 states, filed a civil antitrust lawsuit against Google.
‘Google has used anticompetitive, exclusionary, & unlawful conduct to eliminate or severely diminish any threat to its [digital ad] dominance.' pic.twitter.com/ji2Drydhym
Meanwhile, Open Markets Institute executive director Barry Lynn argued that “today’s lawsuit by the Department of Justice against Google for the monopolization of advertising will be remembered as one of the most important antitrust cases in American history. No previous corporation has ever posed such a direct threat to U.S. democracy, or to individual freedom of expression, action, and thought.”
Along with heaping praise on the DOJ’s Antitrust Division, Lynn highlighted the impacts of Google’s dominance:
The breadth and scope of Google’s threat to the American way of life is astounding. Never before has a single private institution concentrated so much power and control over so many corners of our nation’s political economy. But the most dangerous threat of all is Google’s theft of advertising dollars through large-scale and pervasive surveillance that, since before the Revolution, have ensured the independence and economic health of America’s free press. The cost has been enormous. Tens of thousands of journalism jobs destroyed. Thousands of newspapers and other news outlets bankrupted. Every publisher, no matter how big, made fearful of speaking out.
Stacy Mitchell, co-director of the Institute for Local Self-Reliance, stressed that “by picking the pocket of small businesses, small newspapers, and other publishers, Google actively extracts resources from communities that need them most and threatens a free, local press that lies at the heart of our democracy,”
“After decades in which enforcers looked the other way as the tech giants amassed market power, this lawsuit is yet another sign that our antitrust enforcers are again embracing their responsibility to safeguard American liberty and democracy by breaking up monopolies like Google,” she said. “We applaud the Justice Department’s action today.”
U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland, who joined other DOJ leaders for a Tuesday press conference about the case, pledged that “no matter the industry and no matter the company, the Justice Department will vigorously enforce our antitrust laws to protect consumers, safeguard competition, and ensure economic fairness and opportunity for all.”
From Common Dreams: Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
Jessica Corbett is a staff writer for Common Dreams.
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 December 21, the president of Ukraine, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, spoke to Congress in an effort to get more financial and military support from the American government. Zelenskyy spoke of peace, freedom, and interconnection as the main goals of the Ukrainian fight but that Ukraine needed American resolve. Zelenskyy stated:
From the United States to China, from Europe to Latin America and from Africa to Australia, the world is too interconnected and interdependent to allow someone to stay aside and at the same time to feel safe when such a battle continues. Our two nations are allies in this battle, and next year will be a turning point . . . when Ukrainian courage and American resolve must guarantee the future of our common freedom.
After his speech, Congress passed a $1.7 trillion spending plan with $45 billion going to Ukraine. This money is supposed to be used for the Ukrainian war effort, but President Biden insists that he has no intention of sending US combat troops to Ukraine; he was not the first leader to make such a promise.
Parallels in History
Just as in World War I, World War II, and Vietnam, it is never just military support. President Wilson, President Roosevelt, and President Johnson all promised that they would not send Americans into a war. President Wilson created a campaign slogan of “he kept us out of war.” FDR created the lend-lease program to arm the British and later the Soviets, all the while keeping “neutrality.” Presidents Kennedy and Johnson sent military aid and advisors to support the South Vietnamese government until the United States sent combat troops after the Gulf of Tonkin incident. Despite the promises of these politicians, war was the result.
Although we don’t know the plans of Western government officials, we can analyze their previous plans and policies: broken promises, broken treaties, sanctions, and coups that built up the mistrust between East and West and caused the harmful consequences we see today.
Western Expansion in the East
On February 24, 2022, just hours after the initial invasion, President Putin went on TV and gave his reasons for the invasion, stating:
I am referring to the eastward expansion of NATO, which is moving its military infrastructure ever closer to the Russian border. It is a fact that over the past thirty years we have been patiently trying to come to an agreement with the leading NATO countries . . . In response . . . we invariably faced either cynical deception and lies or attempts at pressure and blackmail.
NATO expansion has always been a concern for the Russian Federation since its start in 1991, when American, British, French, and German diplomats promised not to expand NATO. But this was a broken promise, as Alan Sabrosky, former head of strategic studies for the US Army War College, put it:
Well, it was the sort of thing where we could do it. There was a drunken lout named Yeltsin as president of Russia, and there was very little we couldn’t do. We plundered Russia economically and plundered it politically. Yeltsin was completely incapable of responding in an effective way to any expansion of NATO beyond its borders. We could do it, and so we did.
Bill Clinton would bring countries such as Poland and Hungary into NATO, breaking earlier promises, but would deny a Russian request for NATO membership in 2000. President George W. Bush extended membership to the Baltic countries and Slovakia in 2004, and he worked toward adding Georgia and Ukraine into the fold in 2008. But this was not the start of the war in Ukraine; that war would begin in 2014 with the NATO-backed overthrow of the Ukrainian government.
Known as the Maidan Revolution, this NATO-backed coup overthrew the Ukrainian president Viktor Yanukovych. We know this was backed by NATO because of a recorded phone call from the Estonian foreign minister Urmas Paet to the EU head of foreign policy, Catherine Ashton. In the call, Minister Paet talks of suspicious members of the new government coalition ordering the sniper murders in Independence Square that killed protesters and police alike. In fact, Maidan activist Ivan Bubenchik confessed that during the massacre, he had shot Ukrainian police officers. After this coup, Russia annexed Crimea, and secessionist rebels seized Donbass from Ukraine, which sparked a civil war that rages on to this day.
These suspicious members were from neo-Nazi parties like Azov and Svoboda, the same groups that led violent clashes with the police. In a phone call whose transcript was leaked in 2014, assistant secretary of state Victoria Nuland and US ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt discussed whom they favored in the new opposition government and agreed that Vice President Biden should give them an “atta-boy.” The transcript states:
Pyatt: So let me work on Klitschko and if you can just keep . . . we want to try to get somebody with an international personality to come out here and help to midwife this thing. The other issue is some kind of outreach to Yanukovych but we will probably regroup on that tomorrow as we see how things start to fall into place.
Nuland: So, on that piece Geoff, when I wrote the note [US vice-president’s national security adviser Jake] Sullivan’s come back to me VFR [direct to me], saying you need [US vice president Joe] Biden and I said probably tomorrow for an atta-boy and to get the deets [details] to stick. So, Biden’s willing.
In the call, Nuland and Pyatt also talked about working with Oleh Tyahnybok and his neo-Nazi Svoboda party; members of this party as well as members of the Azov Battalion once again spearheaded the attacks on police. In the call, Nuland said that Tyahnybok would “be a problem” but that members of the Svoboda party like Oleksandr Sych would get positions in the new government’s cabinet.
Conclusion
One of the best analogies that came out of this war was from Scott Horton from antiwar.com: if the Russian government overthrew the Canadian government and the now anti-American government threatened to kick US naval bases out of Alaska and started a war with secessionists in Vancouver, British Columbia, we would be plotting regime change within hours.
This war is a direct result of war hawk American policy, which installed an anti-Russian government in Ukraine; expanded a military alliance on Russia’s doorstep; gave billions of dollars’ worth of weapons to fight Russian-backed secessionists in Donbass, ending missile treaties and installing silos in Poland and Romania; and waged an economic war on the Russian population through sanctions. We now see the consequences of the US government’s actions.
*
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.
John Kennedy is a recent graduate of Hartford Magnet Trinity College Academy. Economists such as Murray Rothbard, Hans-Hermann Hoppe, and Ludwig von Mises have captured his interest in Austrian economics and inspired him to start writing.
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.
***
When the United States involves itself militarily in a conflict, it often finds it hard to get itself out, let alone avoid deep entanglements that blow well past lines it had drawn at the start of the intervention.
It happened in Vietnam, when U.S. military advisers helping the South Vietnamese fight Viet Cong eventually became U.S. soldiers fighting an American war. It happened in Afghanistan, when an initial invasion to capture al-Qaida and overthrow the Taliban morphed into a nearly two-decade-long nation-building project. And it could be happening right now in Ukraine.
Little by little, NATO and the United States are creeping closer to the catastrophic scenario President Joe Bidensaid “we must strive to prevent” — direct conflict between the United States and Russia. Despite stressing at the start of the war that “our forces are not and will not be engaged in the conflict,” current and former intelligence officials told the Intercept back in October that “there is a much larger presence of both CIA and US special operations personnel” in Ukraine than there was when Russia invaded, conducting “clandestine American operations” in the country that “are now far more extensive.”
Among those clandestine operations, investigative journalist and former Green Beret Jack Murphyreported on Dec. 24 to little mainstream attention, is the CIA’s work with an unnamed NATO ally’s spy agency to carry out sabotage operations within Russia, reportedly the cause of the unexplained explosions that have rocked Russian infrastructure throughout the war. This is the kind of activity that skirts dangerously close to direct NATO-Russia confrontation.
To put it into perspective, consider the way that swaths of the U.S. political establishmentviewed the mere act of Russian meddling in the 2016 election an “act of war” — outrageous, but orders of magnitude less serious than helping to carry out infrastructure attacks on another country’s soil.
Meanwhile, the United States and its NATO allies have serially blown past their own self-imposed lines over arms transfers. At the start of the war, the New York Times cautioned that the overt supply of even small arms and light weaponry “risks encouraging a wider war and possible retaliation” from Moscow, while U.S. officials ruled out more advanced weaponry as too escalatory. It took less than two months for the Biden administration to start sending these more risky tranches of high-powered arms.
By the end of May, it was sending advanced rocket systems that just weeks earlier it had considered too escalatory, on the strict condition that Ukraine didn’t use them to strike inside Russian territory, something they feared could spark escalation drawing in NATO — until that line too, was eventually breached. The Pentagon admitted this past December it had given Ukraine the go-ahead to attack targets in Russia after all, in response to Moscow’s destruction of Ukrainian infrastructure.
“The fear of escalation has changed since the beginning,” one defense official explained to the Times of London, with the Pentagon less worried ever since Russian president Vladimir Putinpulled back on his nuclear threats in October.
As the Ukraine war effort has stalled and Russian forces have made small advances, NATO arms transfers have now escalated well beyond what governments had worried just months ago could draw the alliance into direct war with Russia, with the U.S. and European governments now sending armored vehicles and reportedly preparing to send tanks. Ukrainian Defense Minister Oleksii Reznikov had predicted as much in October last year.
“When I was in D.C. in November, before the invasion, and asked for Stingers, they told me it was impossible,” he had told the New Yorker then. “Now it’s possible. When I asked for 155-millimeter guns, the answer was no. HIMARS, no. HARM, no. Now all of that is a yes. Therefore, I’m certain that tomorrow there will be tanks and ATACMS and F-16s.”
It remains to be seen how long before U.S. opposition to such military aid goes the way of its earlier opposition to the heavy weaponry it’s already sent, or how long the administration will continue to hold out on sending long-range drones, which a bipartisan group of senators is currently pushing for and which Russian officials have explicitly warned would make Washington “a direct party to the conflict.”
As the nature of arms transfers has expanded, so have war aims. The alliance’s initial goals were to help Ukraine defend its independence and sovereignty by repelling a Russian invasion bent on regime change. Two months later, U.S. officials were publicly talking about “victory” and inflicting a “strategic defeat” on Russia that would leave it “weakened.” Biden has repeatedlyvowed to support Ukraine “as long as it takes,” even as Zelensky and other officials have maderepeatedlyclear their goals are now to retake Crimea, something that could spark nuclear escalation.
Talk of diplomacy is again nearly absent from U.S. commentary on the war, far outnumbered by calls for drasticescalation of NATO involvement to achieve Ukrainian victory, often on the basis that any other result would deal an existential blow to the West and the entire liberal global order.
“If Russia wins the war in Ukraine, we will see decades of this kind of behavior ahead of us,” Finland’s progressive Prime Minister Sanna Marin recently said at Davos, as she pledged to back the Ukrainian war effort for 15 years if necessary. “We have to make sure that in the end, Ukrainians will win. I don’t think that there’s any other choice.”
And it seems as of last week, the Biden administration is poised to cross yet another major line, with the New York Times reporting that U.S. officials are strongly considering giving Ukraine the green light to attack Crimea, even while acknowledging the risk of nuclear retaliation that such a move would carry. Fears of such an escalation “have dimmed,” U.S. officials told the paper.
By escalating their support for Ukraine’s military, the U.S. and NATO have created an incentive structure for Moscow to take a drastic, aggressive step to show the seriousness of its own red lines. This would be dangerous at the best of times, but particularly so when Russian officials are making clear they increasinglyview the war as one against NATO as a whole, not merely Ukraine, while threatening nuclear response to the alliance’s escalation in weapons deliveries.
NATO governments are increasingly painting the conflict to their publics not as a limited effort to help one country repel an invasion from a larger neighbor, but rather as an existential battle for the survival of the West, mirrored in the Russian leadership’s own evolving view of the war as a battle for survival against hostile Western powers. Notably, this has happened despite the Biden administration’s public endorsement of diplomacy late last year.
If the intention is to keep this war a limited, regional one between two neighboring states with NATO playing only a peripheral, supportive role, all of these trend lines point in the exact opposite direction. Unless officials make a concerted effort to de-escalate and pursue a diplomatic track — and prominent voices in media and politics create the political space for them to do it — Biden’s vow to avoid World War Three will mean as much as President Johnson’s 1964 promise not to “send American boys nine or ten thousand miles away from home to do what Asian boys ought to be doing for themselves.”
*
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: Photo by Master Sgt. Sean M. Worrell, U.S. Air Force via ABACAPRESS.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.
***
Former USSecretary of State Mike Pompeo has compared Qassem Soleimanito a Rembrandt painting and said the “only” civilians endangered by the US drone strike on the Iranian general were those also travelling on his commercial aircraft.
Soleimani, head of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard’s elite Quds Force and longtime US foe, was killed by a Reaper drone as he left Baghdad airport in the early hours of 3 January 2020.
In his memoir Never Give an Inch: Fighting for the America I Love, released on Tuesday, Pompeo says the Trump administration expected Soleimani to be quickly replaced with the next best option, but claims no one could match the general’s “combination of authority, brains, brutality, and public appeal inside Iran”.
“Trying to replace him would be like trying to replace an original Rembrandt. Good luck with that, as there is simply no good substitute,” he writes.
Pompeo, who was head of the CIA before becoming Donald Trump’s secretary of state in 2018, is dismissive of the risk to civilian lives the operation posed. He describes raising the complications surrounding a strike on an international airport “almost as an afterthought”.
“I was comfortable with the risk, as we had a plan for controlling the airspace for the most important five minutes,” Pompeo recalls.
“The only civilians potentially in harm’s way would be those on Soleimani’s commercial aircraft.”
Middle East Eye reported at the time that Soleimani arrived at Baghdad airport on a Cham Wings flight from Damascus after visiting Beirut. His baggage and travel documents were handled by national security officials.
Soleimani was hit by a Hellfire missile as his convoy left the airport. The strike killed the general and nine others, including Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, the godfather of Iraq’s Iranian-backed paramilitaries.
“Hellfire missiles came screaming down. American power, American technology, and American justice slammed into his vehicle,” Pompeo writes.
An Iraqi paramilitary leader told MEE at the time that two cars passed Soleimani’s convoy before the strike, briefly jeopardising the operation.
Pompeo describes sending messages to Iran and “the ayatollah”, presumably meaning Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei. One said: “This was not an attempt to decapitate the regime.”
He also says the United States’ allies in the Middle East were aware of the impending strike.
“The Israelis also were ready, knowing that Iran could choose to retaliate against them. In the same way, we had worked with our Gulf Arab partners, giving them a heads-up without revealing our specific plans,” he says.
Pompeo, who is expected to declare his intention to be a Republican candidate in the 2024 US presidential election, says he expects retaliation from Iran to this day.
“We know Iran has the capabilities to operate inside the United States, so a year and a half after leaving public service, I still retain a security detail,” he writes.
“Trip to the grocery store? Diplomatic security will shadow me while I evaluate which eggplant looks the ripest. Susan’s going to get her hair done? Let’s hope Hezbollah sleeper agents aren’t casing the salon. Son’s getting marred? Agents will need to send an advance team to the church.”
“I will probably never drive my own car again or enjoy the level of privacy that I once had,” he adds.
Soleimani’s killing, which was preceded by escalating violence between the United States and Iran and its allies, prompted Tehran to fire a barrage of missiles at US targets in Iraq in retaliation, wounding several American soldiers.
Expecting a US attack following the missile strike, Iranian forces mistakenly shot down a Ukrainian passenger jet, killing all 176 passengers and crew.
*
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: The Baghdad murders of anti-ISIS commanders Qassem Soleimani and Abu Mahdi al Muhandes triggered an unprecedented Iranian ballistic missile attack on US military bases in Iraq. (Photo Credit: The Cradle)
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.
***
Leaked documents reviewed by The Cradle reveal that Britain secretly trained Jordanian security services in techniques used by the notorious UK security and cyber agency GCHQ, which provides signals intelligence to the British government and its armed forces.
Over three intensive, week-long, Foreign Office-funded training sessions conducted between June 2019 and March 2020, members of the Public Security Directorate’s shadowy Special Branch, handpicked by the British Embassy in Amman, were taught the finer points of “digital media exploitation.”
In theory, the purpose of the exercise was to assist “evidence gathering agencies in Jordan to effectively extract data from digital devices” to enhance their investigative capabilities, and improve the standard of prosecutions, particularly in the field of terrorism.
This would in turn enable enhanced sharing of evidence between Amman and London, “and lead to increased operational cooperation.”
Tried and tested tactics
As readers of The Cradle will well-know by this point, the officially stated noble objectives of Whitehall’s assorted security support and reform programs in West Asia may not align with the underlying reality of these efforts.
For example, this outlet has previously revealed how British operatives and technology are placed in Lebanon’s intelligence services under the guise of teaching them how to use digital forensic tools. This allows London to closely monitor their activities – and Lebanese citizens.
Those programs are delivered by British government contractor Torchlight, a company staffed by UK military and intelligence veterans with high-level security clearances. The same company was also behind the training provided to Jordan’s Special Branch.
According to its submissions to the Foreign Office, based on a “comprehensive on-site visit” in 2018, the Directorate’s operatives were already “satisfactorily equipped in terms of hardware and software” to conduct “digital media exploitation.”
Spying on citizens
However, Torchlight felt that they were not “adequately trained to fully exploit the potential of the equipment they possess.” Given the resources available to the Directorate, this “potential” could be highly concerning.
For example, Torchlight has noted that Special Branch uses Cellebrite’s suite of digital intelligence products. Cellebrite, an Israeli company with clients including multiple repressive governments, produces technology capable of breaking into encrypted devices and extracting and analyzing all data within it.
While the firm has helped solve murky murder cases, overwhelmingly it is deployed to monitor the activities of human rights activists, journalists and dissidents.
The professional backgrounds of Torchlight staffers involved in the Jordanian training project raise additional concerns. It was led by the company’s Head of Digital Intelligence, Andy Tremlett, a cyber and electronic warfare specialist who spent over a decade in senior positions at GCHQ.
Along the way, he was “charged with the provision of support to the most specialized and discreet areas” of British Special Forces operations, and responsible for expanding the agency’s “overseas footprint” and “potential delivery platform.” These positions granted him “vast experience in how to use and exploit digital material,” and integrating different forms of intelligence in broader espionage operations.
‘Destroy, deny, degrade and disrupt’
Further details of Tremlett’s ability to “exploit” the private data of targets aren’t offered, although he is said to have “spent a significant portion of his career within the Joint Threat Research Intelligence Group (JTRIG).” The existence of this unit was exposed by US National Security Agency whistleblower Edward Snowden in 2014, and the details of its operations are truly shocking.
JTRIG’s explicit mission is to employ a variety of dirty tricks to “destroy, deny, degrade and disrupt” enemies and “discrediting” them, by planting “negative information” about them online, and manipulating discussions on internet forums and social networks.
A leaked presentation on JTRIG’s covert activities shows this harassment extends to changing an individual’s social media profile pictures to take their paranoia “to a whole new level” or simply deleting their online presence, writing anonymous blog posts “purporting to be [by] one of their victims” to damage their reputations, emailing and texting their work colleagues, neighbors and friends, and arranging “honey trap” stings.
“A great option. Very successful when it works,” the presentation states in regard to the latter strategy. “Get someone to go somewhere on the internet, or a physical location to be met by a ‘friendly face.’ JTRIG has the ability to ‘shape’ the environment on occasions.”
Writing incriminating blog posts was said to have “worked on a number of different ops,” with “Iran work” cited as a particularly effective example, although this is not expanded upon. Elsewhere, it is disclosed that JTRIG “significantly” disrupted the Taliban’s communications network by bombarding them with phone calls, texts and faxes “every 10 seconds or so.”
Evidently, it was not digital forensics with which Torchlight’s training modules were primarily concerned. In fact, JTRIG operations related to “digital media exploitation” were, per the leaked presentation, primarily concerned with placing information on “compromised” electronic devices, including “damning information, where appropriate.”
Protecting the British-installed monarchy
In Jordan, criticism of King Abdullah II – a member of the Hashemite dynasty installed on thrones across West Asia by the British following World War I, and himself a British Army veteran – and government officials and institutions is a very serious crime.
Journalists are routinely subject to harassment, arrest and prosecution by authorities for even mildly critical reporting or social media posts. And protests over rising hardship among the general population are becoming more frequent.
The prospect of Amman’s secret police being proficient in JTRIG’s malicious methods is therefore disturbing by definition. The ease with which they could be abused to ruin the lives of objectors, and/or jail them on bogus charges, is clear.
Britain’s willingness to export these techniques to Jordan is not surprising. The strict and widely criticizedCybercrime Law, which restricts freedom of expression online and citizens’ right to privacy, makes the country a perfect staging ground for London’s nefarious activities elsewhere in West Asia, and helps keep their presence and intentions secret.
For example, from the early days of the Syrian crisis, Britain operated a site located 45 minutes from Amman where fighters in the proxy war were trained. Leaked files related to the project predicted that some of these individuals would go on to join Al-Nusra and ISIS and that equipment would be stolen and used by them.
Despite this, the Foreign Office was unconcerned about these prospects, likely because there was little risk that they, or the training program more generally, would ever be publicly exposed.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
***
In an effort to combat rampant corruption in Iraq, the US has implemented several strict measures, including sanctions on Iraqi banks and the rationing of dollars. Rather than dissuade smuggling and fraud, the measures are only exacerbating Iraq’s economic crisis.
With every fluctuation in the exchange rate of the Iraqi dinar against the dollar, the political and social situation in the country becomes increasingly complex. The same country that managed to beat back ISIS and color revolutions, today is witnessing turmoil caused by the US.
The US Federal Reserve has imposed strict measures on Iraqi banks under the pretexts of preventing smuggling and money laundering. This prompted the US Treasury Department to ration the dollar payments to Baghdad from Iraq’s own oil revenues, causing the Iraqi national currency to decline from 1,460 (the official rate) to 1,640 dinars overnight.
Implementing US policies
The financial situation is further complicated by the ambiguity of the Iraqi government and the Central Bank over these US measures, which came into effect in late 2022.
Iraq’s Central Bank Governor Mustafa al-Jubouri appears to be convinced uncertain policy that saved him two years ago – when former Prime Minister Mustafa al-Kadhimi’s government raised the official exchange rate for the dollar from 1,182 dinars to 1,460 dinars – will save him again.
Jubouri is handling the current crisis in a cold and calculated manner, constantly reminding Iraqis of the increase in the Central Bank’s dollar reserves – now said to exceed $100 billion – as though it was his personal achievement, and the reason he was named governor years ago.
However, there are some vitally important details that Jubouri chooses to ignore. The Central Bank governor, for instance, has stated that Iraq is implementing the recommendations of the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) – despite the fact that Iraq is not a member of this group.
Jubouri deliberately confuses the aforementioned US group with Iraq’s membership in the Gulf Financial Action Task Force (MENAFATF), which is “of a voluntary and cooperative nature, established by agreement between the governments of its members, and it is independent of any other international body or organization.”
Since 2018, FATF has removed Iraq from the special monitoring process known as the “Continuous Global Compliance Process to Combat Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing,” after Baghdad’s approval of the Anti-Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing Law.
Despite not being a member of FATF, Iraq has implemented its recommendations to establish an electronic platform for selling dollars linked to the global SWIFT system, the Belgian-based banking messaging system that ties countries to the distinctly western financial system.
According to experts, this platform will be, in the long term, an alternative to the legally stipulated window for selling currency, and is almost completely outside the control of the Iraqi government.
Sanctioning Iraqi banks
The recent crisis began with the imposition of sanctions by the US Treasury Department on three Iraqi banks owned by businessman Ali Muhammad Ghulam al-Ansari, followed by sanctions on 16 further Iraqi banks. Another 23 banks remained operating as clients of the currency window in the Central Bank.
This sudden measure caused a decrease in the central bank’s sales of dollars by about 40 percent, which led to a decline in supply and a surge in demand, resulting in an increase in the price of the dollar to more than 1,550 dinars.
But this is not the whole story. Sources within Iraq’s Central Bank have confirmed to The Cradle that Baghdad had been informed of the US Treasury’s procedures two years ago, but the Kadhimi government and Jubouri chose to ignore them, with the US turning a blind eye due to the special relationship that linked the previous government with Washington.
These sources have also revealed that last July, the US Treasury Department invited the Association of Private Banks, headed by Wadih al-Handal (close to the UAE) and his deputy Tamkeen al-Hasnawi (close to the Sadrist movement) to a training workshop on electronic platform procedures that was held in Istanbul.
Notably, the ministry excluded from the invitation those banks that “happened” to be recently sanctioned.
Crippling the economy
A senior Iraqi official revealed to The Cradle that a series of meetings were held in the fourth quarter of 2022 in Amman, Jordan between the Central Bank of Iraq and the US Treasury, during which the latter submitted documents showing clear operations of smuggling of dollars outside of Iraq.
Among the documents submitted by the Americans was evidence of “importing one million refrigerators, at a price of $4,000 each” through Sulaymaniyah – an exaggerated price, given that the Iraqi market does not demand a huge quantity of this durable commodity. The US Treasury alleges that the document was forged and that its intent was instead to obtain a large amount of US dollars illicitly.
A member of the Iraqi parliament’s Finance Committee, who declined to be named, explained to The Cradle that the US Treasury had previously followed a particular schedule in providing Baghdad with dollars – sending $2.5 billion every three months that were transported by five planes.
Since 2018, these funds have begun to feature traceable serial numbers. During the Amman meetings, the US Treasury informed Iraq’s Central Bank that quantities of these dollars were being monitored in a number of regional countries, after their exit from Iraq through the UAE.
Consequently, Washington moved to reduce its dollar transfers by almost half, and to slow down most financial transfer procedures from Iraq – now taking about 15 days to complete – which have paralyzed the Iraqi market and surprised the Baghdad government.
Note that the dollars being transferred to Iraq consist of Iraqi funds deposited in US banks.
A source close to the Central Bank governor, who declined to be named, told The Cradle Arabi that these measures are aimed at preventing the smuggling of dollars to Iran, Syria, and Lebanon.
He reveals that the Central Bank verbally instructed Iraqi commercial banks not to sell dollars to travelers to the three countries. The source adds that the latest development – per US instructions – is to prevent the transfer of dollars from Iraq to Lebanon, even through tourists.
It is important to note that, for years, Iraq has required banks to sell up to $ 5,000 in cash to travelers, providing they produce an entry visa and airline ticket to their destination country.
Why does the US control Iraq’s dollars?
Iraqi financial sources point to the main dilemma: Since 2003, all Iraqi oil revenues have been paid into an account with the US Federal Reserve. Although Iraqis formed a sovereign government after the US invasion and occupation of their state, Iraq is still restricted from opening accounts for its oil earnings outside the United States.
This dilemma is causing an additional problem for Iraq. Its Central Bank funds are deposited in multiple accounts – amounting to about $ 99 billion (November 2022 figures), deposited in central banks in a number of countries ($ 13.8 billion), in securities ($ 52.8 billion), in international banks ($ 8.15 billion), in addition to about $ 7.3 billion in physical gold in Iraq and abroad.
Washington, given its dominance of the global financial system, has the ability to control all funds of Iraq’s Central Bank through threats or sanctions, even though these funds are not deposited exclusively in US banks.
But Iraq’s oil funds, which due to the 2022 global oil price hike also amount to more than $ 90 billion, remain – contrary to any economic, financial, or even accounting principle – in one account in the United States of America.
These funds belong to the Iraqi state and are controlled by the country’s Ministry of Finance, not by the Central Bank. This reality gives Washington greater control over the movement of foreign exchange in Iraq, without even being at the political table in Baghdad.
An Iraqi economic analyst says that successive governments are still subject to the decision of the “first American ruler of Iraq after the occupation,” Paul Bremer, and no one has thought of diversifying the risks by depositing oil money in various banks around the world instead of keeping it in a single US account.
With Washington’s unchallenged ability to control the dollar in Iraq – and thus the value of the Iraqi dinar – even prominent Saudi daily Asharq Al-Awsat published an article in December blaming US political diktats for the recent deterioration of the Iraqi dinar.
“The crisis began even before the implementation of the new financial system in the [Iraq’s] central bank, when the Americans told Sudani’s government that the rise of the influence of the political wing close to Tehran in state institutions should not reach political financial institutions, along with sensitive security agencies such as the intelligence services.”
No one in Iraq and abroad denied what was published in the Saudi paper. It is hard to conclude that the recent deterioration of Iraqi dinar is due to any other factor than this American political decision.
Yet, even today, not a single Iraqi official has emerged to call for linking the dinar to a basket of currencies – something that would protect Iraq from the dollar weapon. Nor has a single Iraqi official challenged the danger of Iraqi oil revenues being paid into a solitary account in the United States, based on a decision issued when US troops occupied Iraq.
The case of Iraq provides concrete evidence that dollar dependence is detrimental to a country’s economy and monetary policies – particularly one that is heavily reliant on energy exports. For Iraq, which has a history of political instability and economic challenges, the arguments for diversifying its trade and adopting alternative currencies are more compelling than ever.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
***
The Zelenskyy regime is desperate. It is reportedly losing more than 300 soldiers a day in eastern Ukraine. The latest effort by the doomed regime to throw men and foreign war materiel at a slow and overpowering Russian advance in Donbas will completely fall apart.
The regime is now busy abducting potential bullet stoppers in the Zakarpattia Oblast (Ruthenia), situated in the Carpathian Mountains of southwestern Ukraine, between Slovakia, Hungary, and Romania.
“Due to heavy losses, which exceed all previous ones, radical methods are used to replenish the numbers [of troops]. According to local sources, the Ukrainian authorities plan to call up 10,000 people from Transcarpathia by spring,” Hungarian journalists told EuroWeekly.
The Zelenskyy regime has apparently taken a page from the British Royal Navy during the Age of Sail. The British employed press gangs to crew ships during war and peacetime. Refusal to be impressed resulted in a one-way trip to the gallows.
“Almost every settlement in Transcarpathia has been for several days now undergoing forced conscription into the army. In the area of the city of Berehove, in Nagysholes, on Sunday the market was surrounded. 70 people were taken away from there,” the post continues.
According to the Budapest news outlet’s observations, this forced conscription into the Ukrainian army “can almost be called a kidnapping of people. In addition, the persecution and deprivation of property of the remaining Hungarians have reached an unprecedented cruel level in Transcarpathia.”
“Recently, peasant mothers hailing from largely Hungarian populated villages within Transcarpthia staged protests in support of their sons who had been conscripted into the Ukrainian army,” Denis Pilas, a Transcarpathian activist, told HuffPost after the Maidan coup in 2014. “In the midst of war with Russian separatists in the east, many young men didn’t want to be shipped out… The Hungarians watch Hungarian TV and read Hungarian newspapers. They are only loosely integrated into society and in general they haven’t been very pro-Ukrainian.”
The forced conscription of ethnic Hungarians in Transcarpathia has a political aspect. Viktor Orbán, the PM of Hungary, is a critic of the war in Ukraine.
Hungary's 🇭🇺 PM Viktor Orban concerned over the deaths of Hungarians killed in Ukraine. Ukrainian military has been disproportionately conscripting ethnic Hungarians from the Transcarpathian Oblast, Ukraine. pic.twitter.com/mq5TFKB04F
In response, the ultranationalists in Ukraine have added Orbán to the Mirotvorets death list. They are now prepared to take revenge on the average Transcarpathian of Hungarian ethnicity by kidnapping and throwing him into the Russian meat grinder.
“There is a sort of purposeful policy, which besides narrowing the rights of all minorities, tries to portray the Hungarian minority as the enemy in Ukrainian public opinion,” Laszlo Brenzovics, the only ethnic Hungarian in the Ukrainian parliament, told the Associated Press in 2018.
The ultranationalists of Ukraine believe all ethnic minorities—Romanians, Belorussians, Crimean Tatars, Bulgarians, Hungarians, Poles, Jews, and Armenians—are untermenschen that must be ethnically cleansed.
“The current situation is clearly among the worst ones,” Tárnok Balázs wrote in 2021, prior to Russia’s SMO.
“Ukraine, by violating the rights of all minorities, is alienating its closest NATO allies in the region, just as it needs them the most. Ukraine is fighting the wrong war – instead of negotiating a closer partnership with NATO, Kyiv is implementing discriminatory policies against its own loyal ethnic minority citizens, and thus, achieving the result that Russia wants: keeping tensions high, staging provocations and dividing Ukrainians along ethnic lines.”
That may have been the case before Russia’s SMO. However, Ukraine’s mistreatment of minorities is now ignored by the USG and its corporate war propaganda media.
The USG, the UK, and the Europeans are not worried about nazi-ultranats persecuting and ethnically cleansing minorities. The USG is obsessively concerned with making sure its crumbling empire and its devalued fiat dollar remains king in a unipolar world. Everything else, including the welfare of the American people, comes in a distant second.
If resisting Russia requires the crime of kidnapping Hungarians by nazi-ultranats in Transcarpathia and shipping them to die in a Russian military “boiler” (a cauldron, or encirclement), that is the price the USG believes innocents must pay for its futile and criminal effort to remain top dog perched on a mountain of rotting corpses.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
***
In an article published here in November 2018, I referred to the statement of the UK representative of a UN organisation named the International, Impartial, Independent Mechanism to Assist in the Investigation and Prosecution of Persons Responsible for the Most Serious Crimes under International Law Committed in the Syrian Arab Republic since March 2011.
I will repeat that statement because it is relevant to the current situation in Syria. That person stated,
“We must demonstrate that those who have committed the most serious crimes of international concern can have no place to hide. There must be no impunity for the horrendous acts taking place on a daily basis in Syria. There must be justice for the victims.”
The UK representative said this without any sense of irony, without any sense of shame, for, of course, it is the United Kingdom, the United States of America, Canada and their gang who have committed war crimes, and crimes against humanity beyond number in Syria since they instigated the uprisings against the government of Syria, beginning in 2011, supported their allied terrorists groups to attack Syrian armed forces and civilians, and imposed their illegal sanctions on the people of Syria.
The history of the war against Syria by the US and UK, Israel and their allies is well-known, the cruel sanctions, the aerial bombings, the missile attacks, the assassinations, the torture, the illegal occupation of the Golan Heights by Israel with US support, and, finally, the US invasion of Syria that began in 2015 with US special forces raids into its territory on a number of occasions that year and 2016 and the formal entry of US forces on March 8, 2017. Their invasion has continued to this day.
During the summer of 2017 US forces laid waste the city of Raqqa, Their carpet bombing of the city, their heavy artillery strikes and use of white phosphorous shells, banned under international law, killed hundreds of civilians, and today Raqqa lies in ruins. Their terrorist allies laid waste Aleppo, Damascus and numerous other cities and towns and villages with a savagery as common to US trained groups, as it is to the US forces themselves.
The Americans gave all sorts of pretexts for this invasion, none of which were true and none of which gave them any legal basis for their aggression, for that is what their actions were; direct and brutal aggression against a sovereign nation in violation of the Nuremberg Principles established in 1946, in violation of the Kellog-Briand Pact of 1928, in which all these nations agreed not to attack any other nation, and in violation of the UN Charter, all of which the aggressor nations were subject to as part of international law and their own domestic law.
The invasion ordered by President Obama, making him a war criminal, expanded in scope until President Trump ordered American forces to be pulled out in 2019. But US forces still remain in occupation of the northeastern parts of Syria. Their exact number is not known but it is at least one thousand and probably higher than that as they continue to build bases controlling the important oil fields that provide much of Syria’s energy needs and cash for exports as well as areas of wheat production vital to the survival of the Syrian state and its people. The Americans continue to provide their usual pretexts for this, such as “fighting terrorism” “containing Russian influence in the Middle East, or supporting the Kurdish forces opposing both Syria and Turkey.
On January 10, 2023, in the magazine Defense One, William Roebuck, an American with the long title of Former Deputy Envoy for the Global Coalition against ISIS, repeated all these pretexts as justification for the American invasion but added, in calling for the invasion to continue,
“Our presence also blocks Russian consolidation of its military mission in Syria, undercutting one of the key sources of Moscow’s surprisingly resilient prestige in the region and hence lending support to our Ukraine policy efforts,”
thereby linking the US invasion and occupation of Syria to the US-NATO aggression against Russia in Ukraine.
Of course Mr. Roebuck could not cite any legal reasons or justifications as to why the US should be able to continue its occupation, because there are none, but as is common with all American and NATO governments and their officials, they could not care less about the law or morality.
The Syrian government states the situation clearly.
Om January 12, the Syrian Minister of Agriculture and Agrarian Reform, Muhammad Hassan Qatana, affirmed that the exceptional circumstances that Syria is passing through because of the terrorist war, instigated by the United States, and unilateral coercive measures have badly affected achievements of many years of sustainable development and caused large losses.
On January 13, Syrian Petroleum and Mineral Resources Minister, Bassam Tu’ma, said that the US occupation of parts of the Syrian territory, including oil resources, and the illegal sanctions imposed by Washington on Syria, cause great suffering on the Syrian People.
These statements follow the August 22, 2022, report in Tass that,
“According to the Syrian Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Resources, U.S.-led entities illegally export up to 66,000 barrels of oil daily, representing 80% of the daily production of hydrocarbons. The scale of Washington’s oil theft has reached a peak. Because of this the humanitarian situation in the country remains difficult, millions of Syrians face energy, food and water shortages and are in need of basic necessities.”
“Russia and Syria strongly condemn the plundering of the natural resources. The US-backed Kurdish Syrian Democratic Forces currently control most of Syria’s eastern and northeastern Al-Hasakah, Deir ez-Zor and Raqqa provinces. The US military command has established nine military bases there since 2015. Damascus views the US military presence in Syria as an illegal occupation.”
On December 14, 2022, the Syrian government in a statement to the Security Council stated,
“Syria condemns the actions of the US occupation forces and demands an end to the illegal US military presence on its territory.
“Syria draws the attention of the international community to the systematic plundering of the natural resources of the Syrian people by the United States and associated paramilitary units,” the statement said.
“Damascus,” it said, “demands the return to the Syrian state of the captured oil and gas fields and the payment of compensation for the stolen resources.” The ministry’s statement provides data on the losses that Syria has suffered in recent years from the theft of its oil, gas and other minerals, as well as wheat. They are estimated by Syria at $19.8 billion. In addition, the bombing by the Air Force of the Western coalition caused the country damage worth $2.9 billion.”
The Syrian Foreign Ministry said
“further silence of the UN Security Council on the aggressive policy of the United States and the violation of the principles of international law is unacceptable.”
“It’s impossible to ignore the suffering of Syrians as a result of the sanctions imposed by the United States and the European Union, which have disastrous consequences for the daily lives of citizens and don’t allow them to receive the necessary services, fuel, household gas, electricity, especially in winter,” the statement said and concluded with,
“the blockade and coercive measures of the West against Syria are tantamount to war crimes, they increase the suffering of the people and slow down the process of post-war reconstruction.”
War crimes they are, yet, as the Syrians noted, nothing is said in the collective west in defence of Syria. Nothing is said about the crimes of the Americans and their allies, either by their governments, or their media. How can we expect them to since they are all complicit in these crimes?
Since the Americans will not leave unless forced to, it will take operations by the Syrian Army to drive out the invader, but that is complicated by the continuing incursions and occupation of parts of northern Syria by the Turks intent on ridding themselves of the Kurdish threat. Hopefully the on-going talks between Turkey and Syria with the participation of Russia will lead to a resolution of that issue so that Syria can, with the help of its allies, finally take action against the invading US forces.
All the while the US and its NATO allies along with their puppets in Kiev rant on about “Russian war crimes” in Ukraine and call for international tribunals.
Yet it is they who should face trial and punishment for the war crimes committed by them over the years, including the nuclear attacks on Japan in 1945 for which the Americans have never been brought to account, a crime which, as President Biden said on January 13, in a surreal meeting with the Japanese Prime Minister, referring to the the use of nuclear weapons, is “a crime against all humanity.”
The world will not forget Hiroshima and Nagasaki, even if the Japanese government pretends to, nor the American and allied crimes and the millions of dead in Korea, Vietnam, Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen, Somalia, and all the other crimes, too many to list here, that they have committed around the world to support their interests.
Who will try them? Who will bring them to justice? Only the future can provide the concrete answer, but the reckoning is coming, of that we can be sure.
*
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.
Christopher Black is an international criminal lawyer based in Toronto. He is known for a number of high-profile war crimes cases and recently published his novel Beneath the Clouds. He writes essays on international law, politics and world events. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.
Featured image is from NEO
Order Mark Taliano’s Book “Voices from Syria” directly from 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.
***
“The Doomsday Clock is sounding an alarm for the whole of humanity,” said the Elders chair. “We are on the brink of a precipice. But our leaders are not acting at sufficient speed or scale to secure a peaceful and liveable planet.”
“We are living in a time of unprecedented danger, and the Doomsday Clock time reflects that reality.”
That’s what Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists president and CEO Rachel Bronsonsaid in a statement Tuesday about the historic symbol being set at 90 seconds to midnight, or global catastrophe, after three years at 100 seconds to midnight.
As the bulletin’s annual statement explains, the clock—created in 1947—has reached its current position due to “an exceedingly dangerous nuclear situation,” largely from Russia’s war on Ukraine; inadequate global action to tackle the climate emergency; a “daunting array” of biological threats, exemplified by the Covid-19 pandemic; and “disruptive” technologies enabling the spread of disinformation.
“90 seconds to midnight is the closest the clock has ever been set to midnight, and it’s a decision our experts do not take lightly,” Bronson noted. “The U.S. government, its NATO allies, and Ukraine have a multitude of channels for dialogue; we urge leaders to explore all of them to their fullest ability to turn back the clock.”
Watch the full announcement:
While the nearly yearlong Russian invasion—with fighting over a nuclear power plant and thinly veiled threats of using weapons of mass destruction—is a primary reason humanity is now closer than ever to apocalypse, experts from across the globe emphasized that it’s far from the only threat.
The Elders chair Mary Robinson, a former president of Ireland and U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights, stressed that “the Doomsday Clock is sounding an alarm for the whole of humanity. We are on the brink of a precipice. But our leaders are not acting at sufficient speed or scale to secure a peaceful and liveable planet.”
“From cutting carbon emissions to strengthening arms control treaties and investing in pandemic preparedness, we know what needs to be done,” she said. “The science is clear, but the political will is lacking. This must change in 2023 if we are to avert catastrophe. We are facing multiple, existential crises. Leaders need a crisis mindset.”
From Common Dreams: Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
Jessica Corbett is a staff writer for Common Dreams.
Featured image: The Doomsday Clock was set at 90 seconds to midnight on January 24, 2023. (Photo: Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists)
Alle Artikel von Global Research können in 51 Sprachen gelesen werden, indem Sie die Schaltfläche Website übersetzen unterhalb des Namens des Autors aktivieren.
Um den täglichen Newsletter von Global Research (ausgewählte Artikel) zu erhalten, klicken Sie hier.
Folgen Sie uns auf Instagram und Twitter und abonnieren Sie unseren Telegram-Kanal. Sie können die Artikel von Global Research gerne weiterveröffentlichen und mit anderen teilen.
***
Einführung
Am 24 Januar ist: „Internationaler Tag der Erziehung / Internationaler UN-Tag der Bildung / Welttag Bildung“. An diesem Aktionstag, der erstmals 2019 begangen wurde, soll die Rolle der Bildung für Frieden und Entwicklung sowie als öffentliches Gut gewürdigt werden.
Als Pädagoge und Psychologe möchte ich zu diesem Tag den Brief des Nobelpreisträgers Albert Camus an seiner Lehrer Monsieur Germain vom 19. November 1957 und einen Auszug aus der Antwort seines Lehrers am 30. April 1959 zitieren. Beide Briefe wurden im Anhang von Albert Camus‘ Roman „Der erste Mensch“ veröffentlicht (1).
Camus‘ Brief an seinen Lehrer
19 November 1957
Lieber Monsieur Germain,
Ich habe den Lärm sich etwas legen lassen, der in diesen Tagen um mich war, ehe ich mich ganz herzlich an Sie wende. Man hat mir eine viel zu große Ehre erwiesen, die ich weder erstrebt noch erbeten habe. Doch als ich die Nachricht erhielt, galt mein erster Gedanke, nach meiner Mutter, Ihnen. Ohne Sie, ohne Ihre liebevolle Hand, die Sie dem armen kleinen Kind, das ich war, gereicht haben, ohne Ihre Unterweisung und Ihr Beispiel wäre nichts von alldem geschehen. Ich mache um diese Art Ehrung nicht viel Aufhebens. Aber diese ist zumindest eine Gelegenheit, Ihnen zu sagen, was Sie für mich waren und noch immer sind, und um Ihnen zu versichern, dass Ihre Mühen, die Arbeit und die Großherzigkeit, die Sie eingesetzt haben, immer lebendig sind bei einem Ihrer kleinen Zöglinge, der trotz seines Alters nicht aufgehört hat, Ihr dankbarer Schüler zu sein. Ich umarme Sie von ganzem Herzen.
Albert Camus
Antwort des Lehrers (Auszug)
Algier, am 30. April 1959
Mein lieber Kleiner,
(…).
Ich finde keinen Ausdruck für die Freude, die Du mir mit Deiner reizenden Geste und der Art, dich zu bedanken, gemacht hast. Wenn es möglich wäre, würde ich den großen Jungen, der du geworden, und der für mich immer „mein kleiner Camus“ bleiben wird, fest an mich drücken.
(…).
Der Pädagoge, der seinen Beruf gewissenhaft ausüben will, läßt keine Gelegenheit aus, die Schüler, seine Kinder kennenzulernen, und sie bietet sich ständig. Eine Antwort, eine Geste, eine Haltung sind äußerst aufschlußreich. Ich glaube also den netten kleinen Kerl, der Du warst, gut zu kennen, und das Kind enthält im Keim oft den Mann, der es werden wird. Deine Freude an der Schule war überall spürbar. Dein Gesicht verriet Optimismus. Und wenn ich Dich beobachtete, habe ich nie etwas von der wirklichen Situation Deiner Familie geahnt.
(…).
*
Hinweis an die Leser: Bitte klicken Sie auf die obigen Schaltflächen zum Teilen. Folgen Sie uns auf Instagram und Twitter und abonnieren Sie unseren Telegram-Kanal. Fühlen Sie sich frei, Artikel von Global Research erneut zu veröffentlichen und zu teilen.
Dr. Rudolf Lothar Hänsel ist Schul-Rektor, Erziehungswissenschaftler (Dr. paed.) und Psychologe (Dipl.-Psych.). Nach seinen Universitätsstudien wurde er wissenschaftlicher Lehrer (Professor) in der Erwachsenenbildung: unter anderem Leiter eines freien Schul-Modell-Versuchs und Fortbildner bayerischer Beratungslehrkräfte und Schulpsychologen. Als Pensionär arbeitete er als Psychotherapeut in eigener Praxis. Bei einer Öffentlichen Anhörung zur Jugendkriminalität im Europa-Parlament war er Berichterstatter für Deutschland. In seinen Büchern und Fachartikeln fordert er eine bewusste ethisch-moralische Werteerziehung sowie eine Erziehung zu Gemeinsinn und Frieden. Für seine Verdienste um Serbien bekam er 2021 von den Universitäten Belgrad und Novi Sad den Republik-Preis „Kapitän Misa Anastasijevic“ verliehen.
Noten
1. Camus, Albert (1995). Der erste Mensch. Reinbek bei Hamburg, S. 376ff.
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.
***
Introduction
On 24 January is: “International Day of Education / UN International Day of Education / World Day of Education”. This day of action, first observed in 2019, aims to recognise the role of education in peace and development and as a public good.
As an educator and psychologist, I would like to quote on this day the letter of the Nobel Prize winner Albert Camus to his teacher Monsieur Germain on 19 November 1957 and an extract from his teacher’s reply on 30 April 1959. Both letters were published in the appendix of Albert Camus’ novel “The First Man” (1).
Camus’ letter to his teacher
19 November 1957
Dear Monsieur Germain,
I have allowed the noise that has been around me these days to subside somewhat before addressing you most sincerely. I have been paid far too great an honour which I neither sought nor asked for. But when I received the news, my first thought, after my mother, was of you. Without you, without your loving hand extended to the poor little child that I was, without your instruction and example, none of this would have happened. I don’t make much fuss about this kind of tribute. But this is at least an opportunity to tell you what you were and still are to me, and to assure you that your efforts, the work and the generosity you put in are always alive in one of your little pupils who, despite his age, has not ceased to be your grateful disciple. I embrace you with all my heart.
Albert Camus
Teacher’s reply (extract)
Algiers, 30 April 1959
My dear little one,
(…).
I cannot find an expression for the joy you gave me with your lovely gesture and the way you thanked me. If it were possible, I would hug tightly the big boy you have become and who will always remain for me “my little Camus”.
(…).
The teacher who wants to do his job conscientiously never misses an opportunity to get to know his pupils, his children, and it is constantly offered. A response, a gesture, an attitude are extremely revealing. So I think I know well the nice little fellow you were, and the child often contains in its germ the man it will become. Your joy at school was palpable everywhere. Your face betrayed optimism. And when I watched you, I never suspected anything about the real situation of your family.
(…).
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
Dr. Rudolf Lothar Hänsel is a school rector, educationalist (Dr. paed.) and psychologist (Dipl.-Psych.). After his university studies, he became an academic teacher (professor) in adult education: among other things, he was head of an independent school model trial and in-service trainer of Bavarian guidance counsellors and school psychologists. As a retiree, he worked as a psychotherapist in private practice. He was rapporteur for Germany at a public hearing on juvenile delinquency in the European Parliament. In his books and articles, he calls for a conscious ethical-moral education and an education for public spirit and peace. For his services to Serbia, he was awarded the Republic Prize “Captain Misa Anastasijevic” by the Universities of Belgrade and Novi Sad in 2021.
Note
(1) Camus, Albert (1995). The first man. Reinbek bei Hamburg, p. 376ff.
New research by top US government scientists has found that people exposed to the widely used weed killing chemical glyphosate have biomarkers in their urine linked to the development of cancer and other diseases.
House Republicans are demanding that President Biden and Senate Democrats agree to include spending cuts with the debt ceiling increase. However, President Biden and the congressional Democrats are refusing to negotiate with Republicans. Rather, they and their allies in the mainstream media are lambasting Republicans for their “irresponsibility” in seeking to include spending cuts with an increase in the debt ceiling.
On February 19, Washington, DC, will witness a protest against the war in Ukraine that marks a sharp departure from past demonstrations. The lead demand is simple and direct, “Not One More Penny for war in Ukraine.” It is a demand that emphasizes what we in the US can do to end the war, not what others can do. After all, the only government we have the power to influence is our own.
When the US-NATO attack on Syria for regime change began in 2011, many Syrians began to leave the country for safer areas. After the Muslim Brotherhood candidate Mohammed Mursi won in a US manipulated election, many Syrians who were followers of the Muslim Brotherhood, packed up and left for Egypt.
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.
China has entered new partnerships with the BRICS+, as well as a new strong alliance between China, Russia and Iran, as Iran has become a full-fledged member of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization – SCO. China has already 2 years ago “discounted” trade and investments with the west, notably with the US and Europe, and instead concentrated on the ASEAN countries.
In January 2023, all masks were thrown off. The Euro-Atlantic elites, motivated after their meetings in Davos, realized that there was no more need to cover their true intentions with hypocritical appeals to “save the young Ukrainian democracy for the sake of world peace.”
The United States of America is a term that contains in it all the hope and all the contradictions of our country, and of the Americas. That hope dates far back in the past, to the inspiring words of the Declaration of Independence that articulated a form of governance that was, at least in terms of its potential, unprecedented.
In the last several months, the Russian military has been conducting intensive training for approximately 300,000 newly mobilized soldiers, in addition to other preparations that would enable it to deliver a final knockout punch and end hostilities in Ukraine.
In modern times, the Age of Enlightenment, people developed new ideas. But the socialist idea, the anti-militarist idea of peace, freedom, equality, justice and solidarity was shipwrecked. It was the hope of the proletarians of the whole world. We have all neglected these beautiful thoughts and thus destroyed them. There is no politics, no explanation of human concerns without knowledge of psychology.
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 people in charge have found a term that should at least suggest some meaning: thermal recycling. Four federal states state that they have thermally recycled a total of 17.25 million expired corona masks. Translated this means: They were burned.
This is the result of a WELT survey of all countries. 6.1 million masks were destroyed in Baden-Württemberg, 5.5 million in Saxony, five million in North Rhine-Westphalia and 656,000 in Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania. Eleven federal states announced that they had not yet disposed of any corona masks, but that they were partially planning to do so. Thuringia could not provide any information about the type of recycling.
The Federal Ministry of Health (BMG) in Berlin has also “energetically recycled” masks in the past few months. The number is so far “less than a million pieces,” said a spokesman on request. The destroyed masks were bought at the height of the pandemic. They have passed their sell-by date without a buyer having been found for them beforehand. At federal and state level, the majority were surgical, FFP2 and similar masks.
In October last year it was announced that the federal government wants to dispose of up to 800 million expired masks. According to WELT information, this was taken over by the disposal company Remondis in the Euskirchen warehouse in North Rhine-Westphalia. According to documents, November 11, 2022 to November 30, 2023 was agreed as the period. “Energy recovery” is also to take place at the storage locations in Augsburg, Dresden and Crailsheim in the district of Schwäbisch-Hall.
The federal and state governments are sitting on a mountain of masks worth billions. According to the Federal Ministry of Health from September, there are a total of 3.7 billion masks in the federal inventory, around 20 percent of which are the subject of legal disputes and cannot be handed over. According to a spokesman on Tuesday, 1.4 billion certified surgical masks and 260 million FFP2 masks can currently be delivered. Most of these will last until the end of next year.
“I’m often the only mask wearer in the room”
As a sign that the pandemic is not over, Health Minister Lauterbach also wears a mask at the World Economic Forum. He wants to set an example. So far it hasn’t made school: “I’m often the only mask wearer in the room,” he says in the WELT interview with Jan Philipp Burgard.
In addition, the federal states have a total of 180 million corona masks, as the responsible health and interior ministries announced on request. Bavaria (68.5 million), Lower Saxony (24.6 million) and Hesse (22.6 million) stock the most masks. In twelve federal states, a total of 54.3 million of the masks will expire this year or next. These are mostly medical surgical masks.
You can only burn what you bought yourself
Several ministries want to have more masks destroyed in the future. The problem: So far you can only burn those that you have bought yourself. For masks that were procured by the federal government and then distributed to the federal states, they need the approval of the federal government.
“The Hessian Ministry of the Interior and Sport, together with many ministries from other states, is turning to the federal government with an urgent request to either take back the unusable protective masks from federal deliveries or to agree to their destruction by the states, as ongoing storage costs are incurred,” says a spokesman. Unfortunately, approval has not yet been obtained. “The Federal Ministry of Health refers to open customs issues that have not yet been clarified by the Federal Government.”
The Ministry of the Interior in Saxony also reports that it is waiting for the masks procured by the federal government “until legal questions have been finally clarified”. The Saarland announced that it planned to destroy 1.8 million masks from the federal inventory. A spokesman for the Health Senate in Hamburg says: “The preparations have been made.” When asked when approval can be given, a spokesman for the Federal Ministry of Health answered evasively: “The BMG is in regular contact with both the federal states and the General Customs Directorate.”
Karsten Klein, chairman of the FDP parliamentary group in the budget committee of the Bundestag, criticizes the previous government’s overprocurement: “The traffic light coalition inherited a huge and very expensive mask mountain from Jens Spahn. As important as the federal government’s support for the procurement of masks was at times in 2020, under Spahn it resulted in a real buying spree that completely lost sight of the need,” said Klein about the former Federal Minister of Health from the CDU.
In future crises, procurement must be based on reliable demand forecasts and there must be better coordination between the federal and state governments. “There must be no immense over-procurement and thus a waste of taxpayers’ money.” The Federal Ministry of Health must now “at all costs” look for ways to give away masks before their shelf life expires. Depending on the mask type and manufacturer, this is usually between two and five years.
Kathrin Vogler, health policy spokeswoman for the Left Group in the Bundestag, also criticizes the destruction: “Instead of distributing leftover masks to people free of charge at train and bus stations or in doctor’s offices, the federal states and the Ministry of Health are now destroying millions of masks.” This shows that those responsible have not even begun to understand the social dimension of infection control. “Prevention measures such as masks and tests must be available to everyone with low thresholds and as free of charge as possible.”
Almost six billion euros in procurement costs in the federal government alone
At the beginning of November, the Budget Committee of the Bundestag called on the government to ensure that the personal protective equipment in the federal inventory “is definitely recycled as needed before the expiry date expires” and that options for free and fee-based disposal are also examined in order to ensure disposal “to be avoided due to exceeding the expiry date”.
In addition, masks are stored in addition to the federal inventory as part of the “National Health Protection Reserve”. The establishment of the reserve was decided by the then federal government in mid-2020 in order to prevent future shortages. According to the Ministry of Health, there are currently 245 million masks in reserve, some of which will expire at the end of 2023.
But doubts about the usefulness of the reserve are increasing. In November, the budget committee asked the government to implement a proposal from the Federal Court of Auditors and to examine “whether physical storage for the federal healthcare system is necessary and economical at all” and at which authority this should best be located – as well as what alternatives to one Stockpiling at the federal government may exist.
Overall, mask procurement is a very expensive affair for the taxpayer. The costs at federal level alone have totaled 5.8 billion euros since the beginning of the pandemic. For this purpose, 4.2 billion surgical masks and 1.7 billion FFP2 masks were procured.
In the past, the Federal Court of Auditors has repeatedly criticized that under the leadership of ex-Health Minister Spahn, there was a “massive over-procurement” of masks that would have been “avoidable”.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
***
A group of 160 mostly American lawyers recently urged President Joe Biden to remove Cuba from the U.S. State Sponsors of Terrorism list, a designation acknowledged as meritless and politically motivated by critics and proponents of the policy alike.
Noting that numerous former Latin American and Caribbean heads of state, as well as “hundreds of civil society organizations and thousands of citizens” have asked the Biden administration to lift Cuba’s State Sponsors of Terrorism (SSOT) status, the attorneys called on the president “to immediately initiate a review and notification process to remove Cuba from the SSOT list.”
“There is no legal or moral justification for Cuba to remain on the State Sponsors of Terrorism list,” the attorneys argued in an Alliance for Cuba Engagement and Respect (ACERE) letter. “Given the tremendous economic, social, humanitarian, and commercial effect placement on the SSOT list has had for the Cuba people, maintaining it for such pretextual reasons continues to be a stain on U.S. foreign policy.”
There is no legal or moral justification to list Cuba as a state sponsor of terror. This important letter signed by 160 lawyers makes that clear. We’re proud to have helped gather signatures! #LetCubaLivehttps://t.co/62wLuIn5BH
In 2015, then-President Barack Obamaremoved Cuba from the SSOT during a promising but ultimately short-lived rapprochement between the two countries that abruptly ended when former President Donald Trump took office in 2017. The lawyers’ letter is a point-by-point refutation of the criteria cited by then-U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo when the outgoing Trump administration re-listed Cuba as an SSOT in January 2021.
These include Cuba’s refusal to extradite members of the National Liberation Army, a leftist rebel group from Colombia, who traveled to Havana for peace negotiations with the Colombian government. Such an extradition, the lawyers noted, would have violated Cuba’s obligation to ensure the safety and well-being of all participants in the peace talks.
Pompeo also cited the fact that Cuba harbors U.S. fugitives wanted for acts of political violence committed nearly half a century ago, even though no other country has been placed on the SSOT list for such a reason. Aside from ignoring all the Cuban exile terrorists who enjoy not only citizenship but sometimes even heroic status in the United States, the lawyers note that “international law clearly prohibits extradition for acts of political violence.”
As the letter states:
To the extent that the 1904 extradition treaty between Cuba and the United States remains in effect and continues to be honored by both parties, it contains a standard political offense exemption. This exception is premised upon a concept familiar to the United States, which is that “individuals have a right to resort to political activism to foster political change.” Indeed, this is precisely the sort of “activism” that the United States designates millions of dollars to each year for regime change in Cuba.
“Policy—and electoral—concerns appear to have always kept Cuba on the SSOT list, rather than actually meeting the legal requirements to be on there,” the lawyers’ letter contends, citing a former Clinton administration Cuba expert who admitted that “frankly, I don’t know anyone inside or outside of government who believes in private that Cuba belongs on the terrorist list.”
“People who defend it know it is a political calculation,” the expert added. “It keeps a certain part of the voting public in Florida happy, and it doesn’t cost anything.”
Much of that “certain part of the voting public in Florida” consists of Cuban-Americans, who—especially among the older generations—vehemently support isolating Cuba as long as it remains socialist.
“Frankly, I don’t know anyone inside or outside of government who believes in private that Cuba belongs on the terrorist list.”
Earlier this month, Rep. María Elvira Salazar (R-Fla.)—the daughter of Cuban exiles who believes that even the sort of democratic socialism found in many of the world’s freest and most developed nations brings “misery, oppression, and exile”—introduced the FORCE Act. The proposed legislation would bar Biden from removing Cuba from the SSOT list “until the regime grants basic human rights protections.”
Cuba was first placed on the SSOT list by the Reagan administration in 1982. By that time, the island nation and its socialist government had endured a decadeslong campaign of U.S.-backed exile terrorism, attempted subversion, failed assassination attempts, economic warfare, and covert operations large and small in a fruitless policy of toppling longtime leader Fidel Castro. Cuba says U.S.-backed terrorism has killed or wounded more than 5,000 Cubans and cost its economy billions of dollars.
There is no comparable—or any—history of Cuban terrorism against the United States.
In stark contrast, the Reagan administration removed Iraq, then ruled by the dictator Saddam Hussein, from the SSOT list just days before Cuba was added. This was so that the U.S. could supply Hussein’s forces with weaponry used to kill both Iranians and Iraq’s own restive Kurdish and Shi’a people. Top officials in the Reagan and George W. Bush administrations knew that Iraqi forces were using chemical weapons—some of whose components came from the United States and its allies—against both Iranians and against Iraqi Kurds in the genocidal Anfal campaign, but gave Hussein diplomatic cover until he ordered an invasion of Kuwait in August 1990.
The resolution by the Berkeley City Council (CA) marks 1 of the 65 different docs passed across the US, demanding the withdrawal of #Cuba from the SSOT list & the lifting of the blockade.
We thank the ppl of the US, which each day expresses its solidarity through these efforts. pic.twitter.com/NUdwNCbvj7
More than 100 progressive groups and over 10,000 people have signed petitions and open letters urging Biden to lift Cuba’s SSOT designation.
Last October, leftist Colombia President Gustavo Petroasked U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken to end the “injustice” of Cuba being listed as a sponsor of terrorism.
From Common Dreams: Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
Brett Wilkins is a staff writer for Common Dreams.
Featured image: CodePink led a November 2, 2022 rally against the U.S. economic blockade of Cuba outside the White House in Washington, D.C. (Photo: CodePink)
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.
***
Bees are likely to be at high risk from exposure to glyphosate, the most widely used weedkiller in the world, via contaminated wildflower nectar and pollen after pre-harvest spraying (desiccation), according to new research from Trinity College Dublin and Dublin City University scientists in Ireland.
Glyphosate is the most frequently used weedkiller within the European Union and is also very common in other parts of the world. The residues the Irish scientists found in nectar in this study exceeded the European maximum permitted levels of glyphosate in honey and honey bee products, which suggests they could be harmful to honeybees and those eating the honey.
Residues of glyphosate have previously been found in nectar and pollen collected by bees foraging on plants that have been selectively targeted with weedkiller, but this is the first time it has been reported in unsprayed wildflowers growing near sprayed fields. Glyphosate is intended to only kill plants but it has been shown to harm the digestive systems of honeybees and bumblebees, which makes them more vulnerable to infections, and it may have other negative consequences.
This is the first time glyphosate has been reported in unsprayed wildflowers under conventional farming conditions and while more research is needed to find how much higher glyphosate concentrations would be in directly sprayed plants, the researchers stated that wild bees and honeybees will visit the contaminated wildflowers to collect pollen and nectar. They will thus be exposed to glyphosate and that could impact their health and the critical pollination service they provide.
In three of the studied locations, glyphosate residues were found in pollen and nectar of the blackberry flowers within a week after spraying took place. When the weedkiller was used as a pre- or post-emergence spray on oilseed rape crops (two months before sampling), no residues were detected. Knowing that bees may be exposed to glyphosate residues in the environment makes it important that more research takes place to assess the glyphosate impact on multiple bee species.
The Trinity College Dublin scientists stated that they recommend the immediate investigation of glyphosate as a desiccant before harvesting crops to better understand how this impacts non-target flowering plants growing near crop fields to enable a greater evidence base for evaluation of the renewal of market authorization for glyphosate in the European Union.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
***
New research by top US government scientists has found that people exposed to the widely used weed killing chemical glyphosate have biomarkers in their urine linked to the development of cancer and other diseases.
The study, published last week in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute, measured glyphosate levels in the urine of farmers and other study participants and determined that the presence of high levels of the pesticide were associated with signs of a reaction in the body called oxidative stress, a condition that causes damage to DNA. Oxidative stress is considered by health experts as a key characteristic of carcinogens.
The authors of the paper – 10 scientists with the National Institutes of Health and two from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) – concluded that their study “contributes to the weight of evidence supporting an association between glyphosate exposure and oxidative stress in humans.” They also noted that “accumulating evidence supports the role of oxidative stress in the pathogenesis of hematologic cancers,” such as lymphoma, myeloma and leukemia.
“Oxidative stress is not something you want to have,” said Linda Birnbaum, a toxicologist and former director of the National Institute for Environmental Health Sciences. “This study increases our understanding that glyphosate has the potential to cause cancer.”
The study findings come after the CDC reported last year that more than 80% of urine samples drawn from children and adults contained glyphosate. The CDC reported that out of 2,310 urine samples taken from a group of Americans intended to be representative of the US population, 1,885 were laced with detectable traces of glyphosate.
Glyphosate is the most heavily applied herbicide in history, both in the US and globally. One of the best-known glyphosate-based products is Monsanto’s Roundup weedkiller. Roundup has been used by farmers as well as consumers for more than 40 years. Officials with Monsanto and its German owner Bayer AG have always assured the public and regulators that exposure to the weed killer does not pose a threat to human health.
Bayer said the new NIH study has many “significant methodological limitations that affects its reliability,” and said the results conflict with other government research.
“The increased oxidative stress found in the study could have been caused by any number of non-glyphosate related factors or a combination of them, and the study does not support the conclusion that glyphosate is the cause,” Bayer said in a statement.
People are exposed to glyphosate by using products made with the chemical and also by eating food and drinking water contaminated with the pesticide. Scientists have found glyphosate residues in an array of popular foods and in waterways across the US.
Notably, in the new paper, the NIH and CDC scientists said that while their study focused on farmers who were exposed to glyphosate when they sprayed it on fields, they saw similar results in “non-farmers.”
The findings suggest “these effects may apply more broadly to the general population who are primarily exposed through ingestion of contaminated food and water or residential applications,” the study authors wrote.
The study is so significant that it warrants regulatory attention, said some independent scientists.
“This is a top level team of investigators and a highly credible study to which regulators need to pay attention,” said Phil Landrigan, a pediatrician and epidemiologist who worked for years at the CDC and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and now directs the Program for Global Public Health and the Common Good at Boston College.
Michael Antoniou, a scientist with the department of medical and molecular genetics at King’s College in London who has been researching glyphosate for years, said the results were “worrying,” with “major health implications.”
Critical timing
The new government-funded study comes at a time when both the EPA and European regulators are completing updated assessments of glyphosate safety, and as health advocates are pushing for limits on use of the chemical or requirements that products such as Roundup be labeled with a cancer warning.
A European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) spokesperson said the agency was aware of the study and would consider whether or not the findings add “new evidence” as the agency completes its new glyphosate assessment. EFSA’s conclusions are due in July.
The EPA also said it was looking over the new study and would “carefully review” the findings as it finalizes its assessment.
“EPA takes very seriously our duty to protect human health and the environment,” the agency said in a statement.
The study also comes as Monsanto and Bayer remain mired in litigation brought by tens of thousands of cancer patients who claim exposure to Roundup caused them to develop non-Hodgkin lymphoma. The company has already agreed to pay out more than $11 billion to settle the bulk of the claims – without admitting any liability – but many cases have not settled and civil trials are continuing.
Bayer is also facing a surge in investor unrest and calls for a break-up and the ouster of top leaders after the company lost 40% of its market value following its 2018 acquisition of Monsanto.
Bayer maintains that glyphosate does not cause cancer and that products made with it can be used safety. The company states on its website that EPA and other regulatory reviews provide an “extensive body of research” that back the company’s safety pledge.
Though some countries have moved to ban glyphosate products, regulatory agencies in many countries say there is a lack of evidence connecting glyphosate herbicides to cancer, and that it is one of the safest and most effective herbicides available.
Last year, a risk assessment committee of the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) concluded after reviewing multiple studies that there was no justification for classifying glyphosate as a carcinogen.
Many large US farm groups, including the American Farm Bureau Federation, American Soybean Association, National Corn Growers Association, National Association of Wheat Growers, National Cotton Council, and American Sugarbeet Growers Association, also say that glyphosate doesn’t cause cancer.
The EPA has said for years that it considers glyphosate as “not likely” to be carcinogenic, and in a 2020 updated review, the agency reiterated it saw no “human health risks of concern.” But the agency was forced to withdrawthat safety determination last year after a federal appellate court invalidated the EPA’s assessment.
The court ruling said that the EPA did not properly follow scientific guidelines when it determined glyphosate was not carcinogenic, ignoring expert advice from scientific advisers and using “inconsistent reasoning.”
The EPA now is revisiting its glyphosate evaluation and expects to issue a decision for glyphosate in 2026.
Cancer not only concern
Debate over the safety of glyphosate has persisted for years and intensified after the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), a unit of the World Health Organization, declared it “probably carcinogenic to humans” in 2015.
The new findings are not the first to look at glyphosate and oxidative stress. Animal studies and cellular studies have also found an association. But there are only a handful of such studies in humans.
The NIH study is the “largest investigation to date of the relationship between glyphosate exposure and oxidative stress markers,” said Jonathan Hofmann, an author of the study from the NIH’s National Cancer Institute.
Scientists say it is important to examine substances that may cause oxidative stress because a large body of scientific evidence suggests that long-term oxidative stress contributes to the development not only of cancer but also a range of chronic conditions, such as diabetes, heart disease, and reproductive problems, including male infertility.
One prior human study related to glyphosate and oxidative stress was published last year by a team of scientists specializing in public and environmental health at several US universities.
Those researchers analyzed 347 urine samples collected from pregnant women, finding that higher levels of oxidative stress biomarkers were seen in the samples containing concentrations of aminomethyl phosphonic acid (AMPA), a substance created when glyphosate breaks down in soil and water.
The authors of that paper noted that glyphosate and AMPA have been shown to disrupt hormone function and warned that more research was needed due to glyphosate’s “persistence within the environment, and potential for adverse effects during pregnancy.”
The new NIH study is considered part of the Agricultural Health Study (AHS), a long-term examination of the health impacts of pesticide use on farmers funded by the National Cancer Institute and the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences in collaboration with the EPA.
Other AHS studies have provided sometimes conflicting findings on the question of whether or not glyphosate can cause cancer, but the scientists authoring the latest research said their study was distinctive for several reasons, including using urinary glyphosate exposure measurements and pesticide exposure histories for study subjects and including people who are not farmers.
The researchers said that though the associations between glyphosate and biomarkers of oxidative stress “mainly appear to reflect effects of recent occupational exposure, there was also some evidence of associations with longer-term exposure.”
Investigators at the NIH are exploring potential opportunities to follow up on these findings and address needs for future research, Hofmann said.
Lorette Picciano, executive director of the Rural Coalition alliance of farm workers, said she hopes the EPA will pay attention to the study.
“People are dying of these cancers,” she said. “This study is very important.”
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
***
Major US banks, including Wells Fargo, Bank of America, JPMorgan, and others, will push into the digital wallet space in the second half of this year to take on Apple Pay and PayPal.
Early Warning Services LLC (EWS), the bank-owned company that operates the money-transfer service Zelle, will be managing the new digital wallet, according to WSJ. The wallet has yet to be named but will be separate from Zelle and allow shoppers to pay at merchants’ online checkouts with linked debit and credit cards.
EWS plans to offer the new digital wallet later this year and can handle up to 150 million debit and credit cards during the initial launch. Consumers in good standing with banks will be eligible for the new service.
The purpose of the digital wallet is to take on third-party wallet operators such as Apple and PayPal, according to people familiar with the matter. They said banks are concerned about losing businesses if a digital wallet is not released soon. Even though Goldman Sachs’ consumer unit that manages the Apple Card is a money-losing business, there is a plan to launch a high-yield savings account and buy now, pay later program.
The move towards electronic and contactless payments has been gradual but could soon be thrown into hyperdrive if enough consumers adopt EWS’ new wallet. It was during the Coronavirus pandemic when the government, Federal Reserve, and corporations urged people to avoid unnecessary physical transactions that increased the push toward a cashless society.
The dystopic view is that a cashless society could mean governments and corporations will have even more control over our wallets — and that’s frightening.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
***
This week the US government reached its 31.4 trillion dollars borrowing limit, better known as the “debt ceiling.” This led to a showdown among House Republicans, President Biden, and congressional Democrats.
House Republicans are demanding that President Biden and Senate Democrats agree to include spending cuts with the debt ceiling increase. However, President Biden and the congressional Democrats are refusing to negotiate with Republicans. Rather, they and their allies in the mainstream media are lambasting Republicans for their “irresponsibility” in seeking to include spending cuts with an increase in the debt ceiling.
America’s national debt is approximately 122 percent of the gross domestic product (GDP), meaning the government owes more than the population produces. Interest payments on the national debt follow in size behind other federal budget big spending areas of Social Security, Medicare, and “defense.” While interest payments are made, the national debt continues to grow each year.
Government spending steals resources from the private sector. Thus, there is less capital available for private businesses to grow and create new jobs. Government spending also contributes to price inflation and the declining value of the dollar as the Federal Reserve monetizes the debt. One reason the Fed cannot allow interest rates to rise anywhere near where they would be in a free market is that it would cause the federal government’s interest payments to rise to unsustainable levels. Considering these facts, it should be clear that the irresponsible ones are those who think the government should increase its credit limit without cutting spending.
This is not to say that establishment Republicans like House Speaker Kevin McCarthy are heroes of fiscal restraint. Rather, McCarthy, like most Republicans, objected neither to increased spending nor to debt ceiling suspensions when Donald Trump was president. Further, any Republican spending plan will likely continue increasing spending on the military-industrial complex while refusing to address the looming cost problems with Social Security and Medicare.
While some Republicans are willing to discuss reforms to Social Security and Medicare, most are still too afraid of the “senior lobby” to support any changes in the programs — even if such changes will not harm current beneficiaries. Consequently, it is unlikely Congress will pass meaningful entitlement reform — at least until it is forced to do so because the Medicare and Social Security Trust Funds run out of money. Insolvency is projected for the Medicare Trust Fund in five years and for the Social Security Trust Fund in 12 years. Of course, Congress may be able to avoid making tough choices since the Federal Reserve will likely cut government benefits, along with workers’ wages and the value of savings, via the inflation tax.
Following early reports that the House Republican leadership was open to supporting cuts in military spending, there arose a predictable cry from Republican hawks that any reduction in spending would leave the US and its allies vulnerable to our enemies. The limited cuts considered, though, would still keep America with a military budget exceeding the combined military budgets of the next nine biggest spending countries. After some pressure from the military-industrial complex’s loyalists and propagandists, most Republicans retreated from supporting defense cuts.
A problem with many fiscal conservatives is they accept the premise of the welfare-warfare statists. Thus, they are unable to make consistent principled arguments supporting spending cuts and opposing spending increases. The key to restoring a free society is for a critical mass of individuals to reject statism.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
***
A deputy defense minister and the deputy head of Ukraine’s presidential office both offered their resignations on Tuesday amid allegations of corruption.
The high-level departures came soon after Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy announced changes to personnel at the highest level after the highest-profile allegations of graft since Russia launched its invasion.
Who’s resigned, and why?
The defense ministry carried a statement saying Vyacheslav Shapovalov‘s resignation was “a worthy deed” that would help retain trust in the ministry. Local media have reported that his departure was linked to a scandal involving the purchase of provisions for the Ukrainian military. Food contracts were allegedly signed at inflated prices.
Separately, the deputy head of Ukraine’s presidential office, Kyrylo Tymoshenko, said he had asked the president to relieve him of his duties. Tymoshenko was among officials linked last September to the embezzlement of aid earmarked for Ukraine’s southern Zaporizhzhia region worth more than $7 million.
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: Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky delivers an address in Kiev, Ukraine, April 15, 2022. (Credit: Ukrainian Presidency)
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. foreign policy is a place where logic goes to die.
Antony Blinken, the U.S. Secretary of State, said yesterday that the quickest way to end the Russia-Ukraine War is “to give Ukraine a strong hand on the battlefield,” by which he meant more and more weaponry, including Bradley Infantry Fighting Vehicles and Patriot missile systems together with Challenger II tanks from Great Britain. Not surprisingly, then, the White House also hinted at yet another aid package for Ukraine, which may be announced “as soon as the end of this week.”
Logic suggests the quickest way to end a war is to stop fighting. Announce a cease fire, negotiate, and find acceptable terms for an armistice or peace treaty. Stop the killing—stop the war.
Of course, the U.S. State Department is really a tiny branch of the Pentagon. It’s been that way for decades. The Pentagon budget, $858 billion for this year, is 14 times greater than the State Department’s at $60 billion. It often seems that a primary mission of the State Department is to market and sell U.S. weaponry overseas. Small wonder that Blinken sees more deadly weaponry in Ukraine as the answer to ending a catastrophic war.
In a way, Blinken’s blinkered thinking is typically American. What’s the quickest way to end a war on crime? A drug war? Or almost any other problem in America? Obviously, more guns, more security cameras, more metal detectors, more body armor, and so on. Think about our “solutions” to gun violence in schools, which include armored backpacks for eight-year-olds and semi-automatic pistols for teachers. Too many Americans look to guns as a “solution” to life’s problems; count Blinken among the gun-lovers, at least when it’s in the form of U.S. arms exports.
While it’s true U.S. arms exports and aid may keep Ukraine from losing quickly, it’s highly unlikely these same weapons will help Ukraine to win quickly and decisively. Russia can and likely will match any escalation to this war, and at a cheaper price than the U.S. taxpayer is currently paying (now over $100 billion and rising).
Blinken’s bloodless language about war is also revealing. It’s all about giving Ukraine “a strong hand on the battlefield,” as if Ukraine and Russia are playing a polite game of poker. More weapons to Ukraine means more bloody death and destruction; attrition or even escalation is far more likely than a quick end in Ukraine’s favor.
Blinken probably knows this, but a large part of his intellectual training was spent at Harvard and Columbia Law, just as Jake Sullivan, his younger counterpart at the National Security Council, trained at Yale and Yale Law. These men aren’t stupid, they’re just narrowly trained and partisan functionaries willing to spout whatever the empire needs them to say in the cause of imperial hegemony.
And so U.S. lawyers continue to send guns and money to Ukraine, especially guns, while saying this is the best and quickest way for Ukraine to beat Putin and end the war with Russia. Logic, however, suggests more fighting and dying and a lack of decision for either side.
Best not confuse a “strong hand” with a dead man’s one.
*
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: Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken meets with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, in Kyiv, Ukraine, on May 6, 2021. [State Department photo by Ron Przysucha]
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 February 19, Washington, DC, will witness a protest against the war in Ukraine that marks a sharp departure from past demonstrations. The lead demand is simple and direct, “Not One More Penny for war in Ukraine.” It is a demand that emphasizes what we in the US can do to end the war, not what others can do. After all, the only government we have the power to influence is our own.
Above and beyond that demand, the potential power of this unique and promising movement arises from the nature of the sponsoring organizations – The Peoples Party, a progressive new Party, and the Libertarian Party. It is in fact what much of the press would term a “right-left” Coalition, spanning a spectrum broad enough to actually bring the proxy war in Ukraine to an end. Fittingly, the organizers are calling the protest “Rage Against the War Machine.” With the war in Ukraine putting us the precipice of nuclear Armageddon, “rage” might be considered a mild reaction.
A New Right-Left Coalition to Oppose the War.
The Peoples Party is probably the lesser known of the two sponsoring organizations because it’s newer. Its founder and National Chair is Nick Brana, a lead organizer of the protest. Brana was the National Coordinator of the Bernie Sanders 2016 campaign but has turned his back on the Democrats in disgust over the failure of progressive Democratic pols to fight for the promises they made. Among the speakers at the Party’s founding convention in 2020 were Cornel West, Chris Hedges, Jimmy Dore, and Nina Turner (co-chair of the Sanders 2020 campaign).
The Libertarian Party is better known. It has been around longer and, though small, is the third-largest political party in the US by voter registration. The present National Chair, Angela McCardle, is the other lead organizer of the DC protest. In American political life, probably, the best-known representative of libertarian values, most notably a principled anti-interventionist stance in foreign policy, is Ron Paul.
A call for ending US support for the proxy war in Ukraine is realistic; a substantial and growing segment of the American people support this demand.
The lead demand “Not one more penny for war in Ukraine” is finding ever more support among Americans. A survey in November by the Chicago Council on Global Affairs showed that 35% of Americans oppose sending more arms to Ukraine and 34% oppose sending more economic aid. (When it comes to sending US troops, 68% are opposed!) These numbers in grew from the previous survey in July, revealing a growing anti-interventionist sentiment. While this is not a majority, over one-third of the populace is a base substantial enough to build an antiwar majority. Only 16% more needs to be won over to reach a majority. The number one demand of the February demonstration is not utopian -it is realistic!
The Demands of the Demonstration.
It is worthwhile to look at all ten of the demands of the February protest which are found here. But the first four deserve special attention because they spell out the spirit and leading ideas of the movement. Here they are as worded on the website for the protest:
Not One More Penny for War in Ukraine. The Democrats and Republicans have armed Ukraine with tens of billions of dollars in weapons and military aid. The war has killed tens of thousands, displaced millions, and is pushing us toward a nuclear WW3. Stop funding the war.
Negotiate Peace. The US government instigated the war in Ukraine with a coup of its democratically elected government in 2014, and then sabotaged a peace deal between Russia and Ukraine in March. Pursue an immediate ceasefire and diplomacy to end the war.
Stop the War Inflation. The war is accelerating inflation and increasing food, gas and energy prices. The US blew up Russian gas pipelines to Europe, starving them of energy and deindustrializing their countries. End the war and stop increasing prices.
Disband NATO. NATO expansion to Russia’s border provoked the war in Ukraine. NATO is a warmongering relic of the Cold War. Disband it like the Warsaw Pact.
The other six demands are Global Nuclear De-Escalation; Slashing the Pentagon Budget;
Abolish the CIA and Military-Industrial Deep State; Abolish War and Empire; Restore Civil Liberties; and Free Julian Assange.
Make plans now to get to Washington on February 19. Lend your presence to this potent new coalition of forces. The demonstration will gather at the Lincoln Memorial and then march to the White House. Watch for more details, and sign up for updates here in the coming weeks.
Let’s do this. Time is running out as the threat of nuclear war grows with each day and each new escalation in Ukraine. A broad coalition can end it. Enough of the forever wars!
*
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.
John V. Walsh, @JohnWal97469920, until recently a Professor of Physiology and Neuroscience at the University of Massachusetts Chan Medical School, has written on issues of peace and health care for the San Francisco Chronicle, EastBayTimes/San Jose Mercury News, Asia Times, LA Progressive, Antiwar.com, CounterPunch, Consortium News, Scheerpost and others.
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.
***
There seems to be no limits to the criminal practices of the Ukrainian neo-Nazi regime. As well known, in addition to deliberately killing civilians in Donbass, Kiev also uses ordinary non-combatant people as human shields. Although the Russian side frequently denounces this reality and is accused of “disinformation” by the West, now even some Western media outlets are starting to admit some of the Kiev’s crimes.
According to the British TV channel Sky News, the Ukrainian forces would be allocating combat equipment in residential areas in the city of Artemovsk (renamed as “Bakhmut” by Kiev after the Maidan Coup) located in the Ukrainian-occupied part of the Donetsk People’s Republic (DPR). Footage of the Ukrainian operations in the region was obtained by Sky News’ correspondent Alex Rossi during an on-the-ground investigation.
According to Rossi, several Ukrainian Soviet-era tanks were positioned among the city’s residential buildings. Armored vehicles and other war equipment have also been placed there. The city’s population has been significantly reduced as a result of the migration and displacement to escape hostilities, which is why Rossi says the streets are deserted. However, the civilians who remained there are currently suffering seriously as they are being held hostage by the Ukrainians and forced to obey their orders, with no possibility of escape.
“Lines of Soviet-era tanks and armored vehicles are concealed amongst the buildings (…) Inside the city, we saw Ukrainian forces laying traps and bringing in reinforcements (…) People have left the city. It’s very scary just being here. The fighting is very, very close”, he said during a recent report to Sky News.
Indeed, Kiev’s practice of using civilians as human shields appears to have become commonplace. Since the beginning of the Russian special military operation, the Ukrainian side has sought “protection” in populated areas, with soldiers hiding in residential buildings. The aim is to discourage the Russians from continuing attacks or, if the attacks occur, to use them as rhetoric to move the global public opinion against Moscow. On the Russian side, however, saving civilian lives is a significant principle. The very main purpose of the special operation is precisely to end the killing of civilians, which had been taking place on a large scale since 2014.
Therefore, Moscow’s forces act strategically, with military advances carefully planned in order to avoid civilian casualties. On the one hand, artillery hits infrastructure and military barracks; on the other, the soldiers on the ground engage in a slow-moving combat, taking the necessary precautions not to cause civilian casualties. Consequently, in regions where there is a human shield, as is precisely the case of Artemovsk / Bakhmut, the battles are particularly intense and prolonged. If it were Russian intention to quickly take control of these regions, it could use heavy artillery and air bombings against Ukrainian forces placed in civilian areas, but this type of attitude is not part of the Russian military doctrine.
The most important thing to do now is to spread the information as much as possible, making public in Western countries aware that Kiev is deliberately inflicting suffering on civilians. The fact that a western media agency has recognized the existence of human shield is important, but there is still more to be done. It is necessary to give more voice to the on-the-ground reporters, who always denounce the Ukrainian reality and most of the time are attended only by the Russian media, while in the West they are seen as “misinformation agents”.
International organizations also play an important role in this regard. For example, Amnesty International has since August 2022 released reports on how Ukrainian forces put civilians at risk. Even so, no action is taken within the scope of the UN, where there seems to be a hegemony of the Western narrative that Kiev is the “invaded” nation, “needing” to use all the necessary means to protect itself from the “invading country”.
“We have documented a pattern of Ukrainian forces putting civilians at risk and violating the laws of war when they operate in populated areas (…) In the cases it documented, Amnesty is not aware that the Ukrainian military asked or assisted civilians to evacuate nearby buildings – a failure to take feasible precautions to protect civilians”, an Amnesty International’s spokesperson stated in August.
The lack of international response to the evidence that Kiev kills civilians only reinforces that NATO’s countries act hypocritically about the current conflict. As far as the military scenario is concerned, however, Ukrainian human shields have already proven to be ineffective, since the Russians do not retreat in the face of this type of obstacle, but engage in slow combats, both avoiding casualties and gaining ground at the same time. With Kiev’s disregard for the lives of Donbass’ citizens and international inertia in trying to resolve the problem, Russian military victory seems to be the only hope of saving the lives of these civilians.
*
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.
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.
***
Germany contends with increasing pressure and scrutiny from its so-called European Union and NATO allies to deliver Leopard tanks to Ukraine. However, a fake narrative is also being constructed that Berlin is an international pariah, so-much-so, that it could even face international isolation for not sending the tanks.
“Germany will be in international isolation if it does not allow Leopard tanks to be sent to Ukraine,” Polish Vice Chancellor Arkadiusz Mularczyk said to Polskie Radio. “It must be understood that Germany, by not accepting the shipment of tanks to Ukraine, will find itself in international isolation. If it continues with this position, its position will be very weak.”
This is of course a ridiculous notion since it is actually Poland, and the wider European Union, who are in the global minority of sending weapons to Ukraine and imposing sanctions on Russia.
The expression of willingness by German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock on January 22 to approve the shipment of Leopard tanks to Ukraine from other countries is the result of major pressure, including from Poland and the Baltic republics, but especially from the UK and the US.
Polish Deputy Foreign Minister Marcin Przydacz stressed Warsaw’s call for German Chancellor Olaf Scholz to take a position on the supply of Leopard tanks to Ukraine.
“In the legal-formal sense the position of the foreign minister should be sufficient, but taking into account how the discussion inside Germany looks, we would probably have more confidence that the declaration of consent would be considered positive, if this position were also presented by Chancellor Scholz,” Przydacz told Polskie Radio.
Earlier, Polish Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki, in an interview to Polsat, stated that Warsaw is ready to send German Leopard tanks to Ukraine without permission from Berlin. He stressed that Poland is ready to form a coalition for the supply of tanks to Ukraine without the participation of Germany if the latter does not approve the shipment of its tanks to Kiev.
On January 21, German Defence Minister Boris Pistorius declared that NATO countries and their allies failed to reach a consensus on the supply of German tanks to Kiev but that Berlin will study its possibility.
Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov previously warned that any arms shipment to Kiev will become a legitimate target for the Russian military. At the same time, Kremlin spokesman Dmitri Peskov commented that the attempts to saturate Ukraine with weapons will negatively impact the situation and negotiations.
Senior NATO officials met on January 20 at a German military base to discuss — unsuccessfully — a possible new shipment of heavy weapons to Kiev, an issue that has become increasingly acrimonious as time progresses.
For his part, US Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin called on his allies to deepen their support for Ukraine, stressing that “this is not a moment to slow down.”
“It’s time to dig deeper. The Ukrainian people are watching us. The Kremlin is watching us. And history is watching us. So we won’t let up. And we won’t waver in our determination to help Ukraine defend itself from Russia’s imperial aggression,” he added.
However, it is recalled that Washington’s request comes at a time when Germany is refusing to send Leopard tanks to Kiev. Berlin, for its part, has said it will not send tanks unless the US also sends its M1 Abrams tanks to Ukraine.
Germany is facing an immense economic and energy crisis and does not want problems with Russia to deepen. If Germany sends tanks to Ukraine, the country would be even more involved, a prospect it does not want since Russia is a fellow European country that it must deal with, unlike the US which has an entire ocean of separation.
Although Germany has the power to veto any decision to export its Leopard tanks, it has sought a conditional agreement with the US, Reuters reported. According to CNN, the controversy between the two countries occurs in the midst of a much broader debate about whether or not it is a good idea to equip Ukraine with more sophisticated and powerful weapons.
The positions of both countries have generated all kinds of reactions. For example, we recall that Morawiecki asserted that Poland could deliver its Leopard tanks to Ukraine without waiting for German permission.
“We have agreed with our Ukrainian friends and also with our Western European partners that we will hand over these tanks together. The permit is already a secondary issue, we will get it quickly or else we will act as we see fit,” he said to Polsat.
The Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman, Maria Zakharova, indicated that the intentions of several Western countries to send Ukraine more weapons are with the aim of “raising the stakes” and will only escalate the conflict.
In this sense, the reluctance to increase weapon deliveries to Ukraine could be interpreted as a sign that Germany wants to re-establish some of the dialogue it lost with Moscow after the departure of Angela Merkel. This is obviously something that Washington categorically does not want to occur. Although the US can count on other European Union countries to arm Ukraine, particularly Poland, no country besides France has the political, industrial, and military power of Germany.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
Ahmed Adel is a Cairo-based geopolitics and political economy researcher.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
***
Russian forces have gained the tactical initiative on almost all front lines in Ukraine. Amid the breaking victory of Wagner fighters in Soledar and their ongoing advance in Bakhmut, units of the Russian Army launched an offensive in the Zaporozhie region, taking new advantageous positions.
On the northern Luhansk front lines, fierce battle is ongoing for control of Novoselovskoye, most of which remains under Ukrainian control. In its turn, the Ukrainian military is amassing forces in an attempt to attack the neighboring village of Kuzemovka, which remains under Russian control.
In order to push Ukrainian units out from the Svatovo-Kremennaya road, Russian forces launch offensive operations from their positions in Zhitlovka towards the village of Terny.
In the area of Belogorovka and Spornoe infantry of the LPR shackles the Ukrainian units with some advances in forest plantations. Russian military operations in the area threaten the Ukrainian defense in Seversk and prevent the Ukrainian military from attacks on advancing Russian units in the neighboring Soledar region.
One of the most active sections of the front remains Soledar. After the city and the village of Sol came under Russian control, the assault detachments of Wagner continued their offensive to the north. In recent days, Ukrainian units were knocked out of Krasnopolevka, which is located on the highway leading to Seversk. The further Russian assault on Razdolovka and Vesele continues.
Between Soledar and Bakhmut, fighting is ongoing near Blagodatny, Krasnaya Gora and the Stupka district. In Bakhmut, street battles continue in the areas of the Meat Processing plant, Zabakhmutka and Dams.
South of Bakhmut, after the liberation of Kleshcheyevka, Wagner assault units have already taken a number of Ukrainian strongholds on the way to Ivanovskoe.
On January 22, Wagner forces shot down Ukrainian Mi-8 helicopter over the village of Khromovo. As a result, the aircraft crashed at the Bakhmut railway station.
On the Donetsk front lines, Russian troops continue offensive operations near the village of Pobeda. In Maryinka, Ukrainian forces are attempting to counterattack. Russian artillery is heavily shelling their positions in the western part of the city.
In the Zaporozhye region, the Russian army went on the offensive along almost the entire front line. The village of Lobkoye has come under Russian control, and the mop up operations are ongoing in the settlements along the road leading to Orekhov. According to preliminary data, Russian forces entered Kamenskoye, fighting broke out on the streets.
In the Orekhov region, the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation are securing their positions in previously liberated settlements and are actively scouting for enemy positions. The Ukrainian military, in turn, is transferring additional forces to the area, trying to hold positions on the outskirts of the city.
*
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.
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 joint exercises between the Belarusian and Russian Air Forces, which are currently being held in Belarus, are of a defensive nature and are a response to the collective threat the two countries face from NATO and neighbouring Ukraine. These exercises are being held at a time when the West is pushing Kiev to open a new front against Belarus, which is of particular importance because Poland is massing troops on its eastern border.
Western countries have significantly increased their provocations by conducting military exercises, concentrating its troops, and amassing heavy weapons near the Russian-Belarusian borders. Just as Russia was drawn into conflict with Ukraine because of the country’s unrelenting willingness to carryout Washington’s demands, even if its contrary to its own interests, the West hopes that Belarus can be drawn into the war in a much deeper way.
The joint air force exercises began on January 16 and will last until February 1. The main goal of the exercises is to increase operational compatibility in joint combat tasks, something of critical importance given the war waging in neighbouring Ukraine, and in which Kiev is being financed by the tens of billions of dollars. None-the-less, it must be noted that the deeper integration of the Russian and Belarusian militaries began long before Moscow launched its special military operation in Ukraine.
These military exercises also raise speculation on whether Belarus will enter the Ukrainian conflict. Belarus does not want to be drawn into the conflict if it can be avoided, but President Alexander Lukashenko will certainly not shy away either if it is necessary.
Kiev finds itself in a conundrum. On the one hand, Kiev hopes that a Belarusian military operation would force a direct Western intervention in the war. However, if Ukraine is to provoke Belarus, it also runs the risk of the Belarusian military pouring into Kiev, Zhitomir and Chernigov oblasts, thus forcing Ukrainian troops and resources from other fronts, and with no guarantee of a western intervention. The West is content with seeing Ukraine destroy itself in the attempt of weakening Russia, and hopes that Belarus can also be drawn into this mess.
It is recalled that Ukrainian Deputy Interior Minister Yevhen Yenin already told the BBC in December that Ukraine would be bolstering its border with Belarus by allocating further armed forces and ammunition, something which could be used more effectively on its battlefronts with Russia.
If Ukraine is to provoke Belarus into conflict in the hope that it will lead to Western intervention, and the West does not directly intervene, it would be a major disaster. It is this risk-reward factor that Kiev is still debating. Kiev already frequently complains about the West’s lacklustre support and it is highly unlikely that the West will begin directly intervening in Ukraine because Belarus also entered the conflict and in this case the main repercussion for Minsk will be more sanction packages.
At the same time, considering the deterioration of the situation on the western borders of Russia and Belarus in October last year, Lukashenko approved the deployment of a joint regional military group. With the aim of strengthening border defences, the total contingent of the Russian military in the joint group is about 9,000 soldiers. According to earlier announcements, the group will include about 170 tanks, about 200 armoured fighting vehicles, and 100 artillery pieces and mortars.
Lukashenko previously warned that the West is pushing Ukraine to open a front against Belarus. It cannot be discounted that NATO and some European countries are considering options for aggression against Belarus.
Apart from bordering Russia, Belarus (with an etymology meaning “White Rus”) is sandwiched between the Russophobic countries – Ukraine, Poland, Lithuania, and Latvia. Poland is amassing an army on the eastern border with Belarus, while NATO troops are stationed in the Baltic countries. The latest tanks and planes have arrived in the Baltics, suggesting that there are enough weapons to open another front against Belarus.
It is for this reason that joint air force exercises between Belarus and Russia is critical, especially as the Russian Air Force has a high-level of combat readiness and recent experience (when considering the war in Ukraine, Syria since 2015 and Georgia in 2008), something that the pilots of Ukraine, Poland and the Baltics do not have. For this reason, transferring this combat experience to the Belarusians through joint exercises will also improve the defence and security of Russia.
For now, it is unclear whether Kiev will push ahead in forcing Belarus into conflict. It is highly likely that Washington wants Belarus to be dragged into the war but at the same time it seems to be reluctant to directly intervene if Lukashenko gives the order to attack Ukraine.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has been a useful puppet for the US thus far, however, even he must surely know that forcing Belarus to intervene in the war will only create more problems for the struggling Ukrainian military. At the same time, the Kiev regime since 2014 has been in the habit of serving foreign interests rather than their own, and for this reason, as Ukraine is unpredictable, Belarus must also have high combat readiness in case the Ukrainians do instigate provocations.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
Ahmed Adel is a Cairo-based geopolitics and political economy researcher.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate 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.
***
“I was the CIA Director. We lied. We cheated. We stole. [Laughter, applause] We had entire training courses. [Applause]. It reminds you of the glory of the American experiment.”1– Mike Pompeo, 15 April 2019
“The Democrats and their FBI Gestapo have brought Nazism to America. There is a revolution underway that is creating a situation for you that is far worse than life in the Third Reich.”2 – Dr Paul Craig Roberts, 6 January 2023
The CIA (Central Intelligence Agency) and the FBI (Federal Bureau of Investigation) are the two most notorious of several acronym-named institutions which are nowhere mentioned in the Constitution of the United States of America.
The CIA was established by President Truman under the National Security Act of 1947 to assist in countering the then Soviet threat. Its main purpose was to collect, evaluate and disseminate vital information on economic, military, scientific and other developments abroad in order to safeguard national security, but it developed by stealth into what Ron Unz calls “the gangster enforcement arm of the oligarchy that rules America and its mainstream media”,3 eventually assuming a role parallel to “the secret American Army” akin to the Gestapo (GeheimeStaatspolizei), Hitler’s Secret State Police.
Today the CIA is busily eviscerating the US Constitution and has criminalised peaceful public dissent and free speech.4 The Natural News website provides evidence that on the international front the CIA is running Ukraine’s war against Russia,5 that it is using the pro-vaccine corporate media as a criminal conspiracy to promote the Covid-19 scam,6 that it conducted secret torture operations and assassinations,7 and that it uses Google as its “information dominance” front.8
The FBI was also subjected to a transformation similar to the CIA’s.
Originally known as simply the ‘Bureau of Investigation’, the FBI was created on 26 July 1908 by the then Attorney General Charles J Bonaparte, grandson of Napoleon’s brother, despite objections by some members of Congress.
It was intended to be the investigative arm of the US Department of Justice and was a fact-finding agency responsible for all Federal criminal statutes except those delegated to other Federal agencies.
It since morphed in stages into America’s domestic “Surveillance State”, which it led, together with the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) and the CIA, to “run roughshod over tech companies”, placing staff agents at Twitter and other key tech companies in order to influence censorship policy”.9 Like the CIA, the FBI is thus rightly accused of “Gestapo tactics”.10 As early as 12 May 1945 President Harry Truman already wrote of it: “We want no Gestapo or Secret Police. FBI is tending in that direction. […] The Courts should be strictly judicial and not dabble in policy – except interpretation of the Constitution.”11 Today the majority of Americans consider the use of the FBI as “Biden’s personal Gestapo”.12 The Russia Today website calls the FBI a “jackbooted Gestapo”, “criminal” and “rotted at its core”.13 The Natural News website put it bluntly: “The FBI overthrew America.”14
WikiLeaks has exposed the CIA
On 14 March 2017 WikiLeaks released thousands more documents and files revealing the “entire hacking capacity of the CIA”. Even the first one percent of the batch, known as “Vault 7”, contains over 8,000 pages and already reveals that the CIA, which fabricated stories of Russian hacking of US and EU elections with zero proof, was itself hypocritically spying on the entire world, including American politicians, businesses and individuals. It describes the CIA as “a hotbed of corruption and espionage”.
The Vault 7 documents also disclose that the CIA purchases software exploits from other intelligence agencies, including Britain’s MI5. For years the West and its subservient mainstream media, backed by the CIA, the White House, the State Department, and the sixteen other US intelligence agencies, have been doing their utmost to demonize Russian President Vladimir Putin with hysterical and emotional accusations based on absolute fiction. WikiLeaks exposed the CIA for hypocrisy in doing precisely what the CIA itself has been accusing others of doing.
Vault 7 describes the CIA as not only “illegal”, but also “incompetent”. The CIA is legally prohibited from conducting electronic surveillance on Americans. Its activities are supposed to be subject to rigorous oversight to ensure that they comply fully with US law and the Constitution. Nevertheless, it has consistently breached its legal brief and violated the separation of powers principle embodied in the US Constitution. Itsincompetence surfaced when it actually lostits arsenal of hacking tools, resulting in a call for an immediate Congressional investigation into itshacking activities, which for obvious reasons apparently never took place.
On 4 May 2012 former CIA Director William Casey also admitted its involvement in a campaign of deliberate lies: “We’ll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false.”15
That is largely the situation today.Recent revelations also prove that the CIA was involved in the assassination of President Kennedy and illegally tapped the Trump election campaign in 2016.16
FBI ‘weaponised against the people’
A Global Research website article by Joseph Mercola, published on 17 January 2023, states:
“We now have proof that the FBI has been acting as the key instigator and implementer of the Government’s illegal censorship of Americans. The FBI has also actively interfered in multiple elections – all while inventing the narrative that foreign nations were interfering. Twitter has worked hand in hand with the US Department of Defence to aid US intelligence agencies in their efforts to influence foreign governments using fake news, computerized deep-fake videos and bots.”17
Judging by the documentation obtained through a recent lawsuit against the White House and the Twitter files released by Elon Musk it has become clear, says Musk, that:
“every facet of the US Government, including its intelligence agencies, are [sic, for ‘is’] involved in illegal and unconstitutional censorship”.18
Noting that Twitter was:
“paid to censor Americans and promote US [Government] propaganda, and that Members of Congress have done likewise”,
Musk reminds us that (as in the case of the CIA which I mentioned above) the First Amendment bars Government from engaging in viewpoint-based censorship, and he quotes US Senator Josh Hawley’s grave warning that these kinds of activities are
“the biggest threat to our Constitutional democracy today”.
*
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.
7 https://naturalnews.com/049673_torture_CIA_American_Psychological_Association.html; see also the New York Times report: https://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/01/us/report-says-american-psychological-association-collaborated-on-torture-justification.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=first-column-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=1
10 Read the superb in-depth analysis of FBI activity in the Global Research website’s article “The FBI’s Gestapo tactics: Hallmarks of an authoritarian regime”: https://www.globalresearch.ca/fbi-gestapo-tactics-hallmarks-authoritarian-regime/5790936
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.
***
When the US-NATO attack on Syria for regime change began in 2011, many Syrians began to leave the country for safer areas. After the Muslim Brotherhood candidate Mohammed Mursi won in a US manipulated election, many Syrians who were followers of the Muslim Brotherhood, packed up and left for Egypt.
Many were economic migrants following a political ideology embraced by the Syrian opposition, and aligned with the Mursi government in Cairo. They were Syrians in business who had enough finances to open a business, or perhaps a factory in Egypt. The government was offering residential visas which attracted Syrians with substantial resources to improve the Egyptian economy. It looked like a good move at first.
Ahmad al-Homsi was a coffee merchant in the south of Homs, one of the most damaged cities in Syria. He took his entire family to Egypt and invested $15 million in establishing a coffee bean roaster, grinding, packaging, and distribution business. He said he would now be willing to sell everything for $5 million as the Egyptian economy hits bottom.
The first Egyptian revolution was manipulated to place the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) in power, but within the first year the people went back to the streets and the second revolution threw out the American puppet, and the new leader was a military man, Abdel Fattah Al Sisi.
Sisi led in a strong authoritarian style, not surprising from a military man. While he succeeded in keeping the MB contained, he fell short on the economy, which is now in a state of near collapse.
The Egyptian central bank had propped up the currency value, instead of allowing the market to set the value. This started a cycle of devalued currency, high inflation, frustrated business owners, and consumers unable to purchase at the newly high prices. The Egyptian government had favored companies owned by the military, and gave them preference over private businesses. The IMF has requested that to change and instead favor private business.
The global COVID pandemic hurt everyone, and some of what happened to Egypt’s economy is a direct result of global factors which could not be avoided. Tourism is one of the biggest sectors of the Egyptian economy, and the pandemic saw planes being parked, and pilots and travelers sitting idle.
However, the former central bank’s governor Tarek Amer is to blame for policies which caused this crisis.
In 2016, Egypt carried out a currency devaluation to stabilize the Egyptian pound, which lost about half its value to the US dollar in the float/devaluation of 2016, which spiked inflation over 30 percent.
Consumers began cutting back on food, and coffee as the Homsi business witnessed, as Egyptians struggled to feed their families. Private businesses began to close down from lack of sales.
Many Syrians in Egypt were running restaurants, and that needs customers with extra cash for a meal out. Customers dwindled as the inflation ate up their cash.
The central bank propped up the Egyptian pound’s value artificially using its dollars starting in June 2020 up until March 2022. The bank created a false illusion of a stable currency, which allowed the bank to borrow billions from foreign investors, many in the Gulf.
By the end of 2021, Egypt faced over $138 billion in external debt, with $22 billion due to be paid during 2022, because of the faulty central bank strategy.
In February 2022, as the war on Ukraine began, the US dollar-denominated non-resident investors triggered a capital flight of $25 billion dollars out of Egypt.
On March 21, the central bank removed its currency peg, and the Egyptian pound fell to an exchange rate of 18.5 pounds from 15.6 pounds in just a few days. Importers like the Homsi coffee business became panicked. Private businesses were forced to buy dollars on the black market to pay for imported cargo.
Within the week, Egypt requested another $15 billion IMF loan, marking its third in seven years.
On August 6, Tarek Amer published a letter in a state-run newspaper and blamed everything on private importers for wiping out the supply of hard currency. He had favored restricting imports, which would have closed businesses and prevented access to essential items from abroad, like coffee. Just two days later Amer resigned.
The IMF approved a new $3 billion loan to Egypt, instead of the $15 billion requested, which points to the IMF’s distrust in the Sisi led economy.
Amer had run a Pozi scheme that was profitable for foreign investors living abroad, like the Gulf, but disastrous for the Egyptians and Syrian residents.
On January 11, 30 Egyptian pounds were needed to buy $1, for a record breaking exchange rate.
The Syrians didn’t come to Egypt for the sun or the pyramids. They came to find a safe place to do business and earn money. Now, many face bankruptcies because of the failed policies of the Egyptian central bank. Some may decide to return home after losing their life savings in Egypt. Immigrants are often blamed for economic woes, as the locals will blame them for taking the too few jobs available. Now, Syrians in Egypt face financial hardship and even violence as the suffering Egyptians lose patience.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
***
Bush’s delayed actions point to failure of government response.
9/11 families are at the forefront in pressing for a new congressional investigation which could help unravel many mysteries about deadly terrorist attacks.
*
Newly released documents from the National Archives detail howPresident George W. Bush authorized the shootdown of hijacked airplanes at 10:00 a.m. EDT on 9/11 after Bush had learned that two had already crashed into the World Trade Center towers.
But these orders were too late to save the people who died in the Twin Towers or 183 people who died when the western side of the Pentagon was struck by American Airlines Flight 77 at 9:37 a.m. (the fourth hijacked plane, Flight 93, crashed southeast of Pittsburgh in Somerset County, Pennsylvania, at 10:03 a.m. after passengers reportedly took over the plane).
The sixty-four thousand dollar question is why Bush did not order the shootdown of the planes earlier—when it could have saved people’s lives.
Bush had been alerted just minutes after a hijacked plane crashed into the World Trade Center at 8:46 a.m., while he was on a visit to schoolchildren in Sarasota, Florida.
After an aide whispered news of the second attack on the Twin Towers, President Bush continued reading a children’s book, The Pet Goat, and then at 9:30 a.m. addressed Americans at a press conference in which he said that “terrorism against our nation will not stand,” before being whisked away and stopped at about seven locations that were reported, including Barksdale Air Force Base.
Bush’s orders authorizing the shooting down of hijacked aircraft were revealed in a meeting that he held on April 29, 2004, with members of the 9/11 Commission, which was established to investigate the 9/11 attacks.[1]
In the meeting, President Bush claimed that he wanted to convey an aura of calm in the face of the attacks and so continued with the reading to the schoolchildren in Florida.
Bush said that it was when he got aboard Air Force One and began speaking to Dick Cheney that he gave Cheney authorization to shoot down any hijacked aircraft.
Bush said that he told Cheney that, as a veteran of the Texas National Guard (during the Vietnam War), he had been trained to shoot down planes and understood how this worked—one plane woud identify the target and another would lock onto it.
But why hadn’t Bush ordered the hijacked planes to be shot down an hour earlier, when he was first informed about the World Trade Center attacks and lives could have been spared?
Fire from crashing of American Airlines Flight 77 into the Pentagon at 9:37 a.m. on September 11, 2001. [Source: history.com]
Failings of 9/11 Commission
Coinciding with the 20th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, Ray McGinnis published an important book, Unanswered Questions: What the September Eleventh Families Asked and the 9/11 Commission Ignored (Vancouver, Canada: NorthernStar Publications, 2021), which spotlights the efforts of 9/11 families to uncover the truth about the 9/11 attacks and to demand a new government inquiry.
A Canadian who wrote a previous book on the psalms, McGinnis emphasizes the failure of the 9/11 commission, which was staffed by Bush administration insiders and yes men, and spent only $14 million investigating the 9/11 attacks when $80 million had been spent in the 1990s investigating Bill and Hillary Clinton’s involvement in assorted scandals.
A group of 9/11 families gave the commission a D-grade, stating that it “did not carry out the necessary hard-hitting questioning, cross-examination and crucial follow-up questioning all of which are critical in unearthing the truth.”
The credibility of the Commission was undercut by the fact that it published the names and photos of hijackers, eight who according to media reports were found to be alive after September 11—and so not all of these could actually have been the hijackers.[2]
40 percent of the accused hijackers were found to be alive and living in the Middle East after 9/11. [Source: history.com]
Chairman Thomas Kean, the former governor of New Jersey, and Vice Chairman Lee Hamilton, a former congressman from Indiana (1965-1999), admitted that the commission had been “set up to fail.”
Fitting the precedent of the Warren Commission investigating the JFK assassination, and Roberts Commission investigating Pearl Harbor, Max Cleland said that the 9/11 Commission [which Cleland served on] had been “compromised.”
Lee Hamilton tellingly was a firm believer in “executive privilege” who was not considered much of an investigator in Congress. He admitted that he did not “go for the jugular” and had been “gullible” in accepting official government claims during the Iran-Contra investigation.
When others wanted to issue subpoenas to North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) officers, Hamilton characteristically voted no, stating: “I’ve known Don Rumsfeld [Defense Secretary] for twenty, thirty years. When he said ‘I’m going to get that information for you,’ I took him at his word.”[3]
Philip Zelikow, the executive director of the 9/11 Commission had been on President Bush’s foreign intelligence advisory board and on the Council of Foreign Relations, and was a key contributor to a policy paper advocating preemptive war, which laid the intellectual groundwork for the invasion of Iraq in 2003.[4]
Zelikow’s bias was apparent when the 9/11 Commission solicited the testimony of Dr. Laurie Mylroie, author of the book, Study of Revenge: Saddam Hussein’s Unfinished War Against America, who claimed that Iraq had attacked the U.S. on 9/11.
Lorie Van Auken, whose husband was killed on 9/11, told New York Times reporter Philip Shenon that “it took a lot of nerve putting someone like that on the panel. Laurie Mylroie? This is supposed to be an investigation for September 11. This is not supposed to be a sales pitch for the Iraq War!” Van Auken continued: “He knew exactly what he was doing. He was selling the war.”
Unaddressed Questions
McGinnis summarizes some of the main question marks about 9/11 that families of the survivors had which the 9/11 Commission never addressed:
These questions include:
How did the FBI amass complete biographies of the alleged terrorists and their accomplices in such a short time after the attacks? Did the intelligence agencies have open files on these men? Were they already under investigation and, if so, could the attacks have been prevented?
How come Osama bin Laden appeared to be healthy and with a brown beard in a November 9, 2001, “confession” video, when he appeared to be frail, gaunt and pale with a white beard in other videos purportedly taken on November 3 and November 16?
How come the doors to the roofs of the World Trade Center North and South Towers were locked, preventing people in the buildings from being rescued by helicopter—as they had been after the 1993 World Trade Center bombing?
Why did George Tabeek of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey give orders for an announcement after the first tower was struck that people should return to their offices in World Trade Center building 2, which cost many people their lives?[5]
Why did the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), American Airlines and NORAD each report different times for orders to send out fighter jets to intercept the hijacked planes and why were the planes never intercepted?
Why was Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld not informed about the 9/11 attacks when they occurred? And why was the Pentagon undefended when it oversaw a trillion dollar budget for national defense?
How was it possible that the passports of alleged hijackers Mohamed Atta and Satam al-Suqami were found at street level in the rubble of the World Trade Center, unsinged?
Why did FBI headquarters block agent Coleen Rowley in Minneapolis, agent Robert Wright in Chicago, and the FBI offices in New York City from properly reporting evidence of terrorist plotting?
Why did the FBI, who had Mohamed Atta under surveillance, do nothing to prevent him from re-entering the U.S. three times in 2001, despite his expired visa?
Why were members of the bin Laden family flown from the U.S. to Saudi Arabia right after the 9/11 attacks when all commercial and private flights were officially grounded?
Why did the CIA withhold information from the FBI about two of the alleged hijackers, Nawaf al-Hazmi and Khalid al-Mihdhar?
Where Were the Eyes and Ears of North American Skies?
One of the biggest unanswered questions that the 9/11 Commission failed to address was why NORAD jets were unable to intercept the hijacked planes if they were airborne within eight minutes of notification?
Founded in 1957 as a joint command military organization between the U.S. and Canada, NORAD was the “multimillion dollar, 24-hour eyes and ears of North American skies.”
Holding an impeccable record in aviation safety, it had successfully intercepted 129 off-course flights in 2000 over U.S. air space, and carried out anti-hijack training exercises every six days.
After a 1956 mid-air crash over the Grand Canyon, the FAA had made it mandatory for all planes to have approved flight paths tracked by radar and to have their cruising altitude approved before take-off.
An Air Traffic Control Center binder from August 1998 counseled controllers that, when a plane strayed from its approved flight path or altitude assignment, it will “likely find two [jet fighters] on their tail within 10 minutes or so.”[6]
On 9/11 these jet fighters could have been able to perform aerial maneuvers around the hijacked flights to force them off course. However, inexplicably, neither the FAA and NORAD followed its normal protocol on 9/11, and its top commanders went AWOL during the attacks.
NORAD Commander Ralph Eberhart was himself unreachable for 45 minutes between 9:30 a.m. and 10:15 a.m. while driving his car. Eberhart claimed in an interview on March 1, 2004, that he chose to be absent from the command post for 45 minutes while the attacks were unfolding because things had “quieted down,” which is ridiculous.[7]
The 9/11 Commission Report conceded that the response by NORAD was “one failure after another,” though it failed to investigate these failures in any depth or to uncover their root cause.
Lorie Van Auken, a member of the 9/11 Family Steering Committee, said that she was stunned that the 9/11 Commission Report omitted the fact that there were two fighter jets from the Atlantic City International Airport in Pomona, New Jersey, carrying out mock bombing sorties only eight minutes away from ground zero that were never called.
Paul Thompson, author of The Terror Timeline, commented that the 9/11 Commission considered a criminal investigation of NORAD and Pentagon officials who gave the inquiry seven different, and contradictory, stories regarding the military response to the hijackings.
Strangely, while two of the flight attendants from the hijacked planes contacted the airline to alert them that a hijacking was in progress and it was protocol to notify NORAD of any hijacking in progress, under NORAD’s timeline no one was in touch with them until much later.
The FAA also only received word of the hijackings at 9:34 a.m., over an hour after air traffic controllers at Boston Center began notifying the FAA that a hijacking had taken place.
Significance of War Games Exercises
Further suspicious was the unprecedented number of war games exercises that just happened to be held on September 11, which appears to have contributed to the confusion and slower response times by the FAA and NORAD—though this was never explored by the 9/11 Commission.
The scenario for one of the war games, Amalgam Virgo One, involved a suicide pilot attacking a military building, while Fertile Rice featured Osama bin Laden directing a drone filled with explosives to target Washington, D.C.
Two other games, Vigilant Guardian and Global Guardian, had a photo of bin Laden on the cover of their documents and featured a script where terrorists hijacked a plane in order to attack Manhattan.[8]
When questioned by the 9/11 Commission, NORAD Commander General Ralph Eberhart falsely claimed that the war games “cost us 30 seconds,” when it was likely far more.
How Did the World Trade Center Buildings Collapse?
9/11 families and members of the 9/11 Truth Movement have raised further questions as to why the steel from the World Trade Center was removed so quickly and sold to scrap dealers without being examined.
NYPD firefighters had entered the smoldering World Trade Center towers on 9/11 based on their collective experience that steel-framed buildings did not collapse when they were on fire.
The 9/11 Commission confirmed that none of the fire chiefs present believed that a total collapse of either tower was possible.
The 9/11 Commission, however, did not follow up on the matter or raise questions as to what caused the building’s steel beams to drip molten metal down their sides, which was observed.
It also ignored the conclusion of a study carried out by the National Institute of Standards and Technology, which determined that collision with a large jet airliner (Boeing 707) would result in only local damage and could “not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building.”
An editorial in Fire and Engineering revealed that “numbers of members of the New York Fire Department who were first responders on 9/11 reported explosions from within both of the Twin Towers before and after the planes hit the top of the towers.”[9]
Three television networks, four cable news channels, and four local TV channels in New York City reported explosions at the World Trade Center, with Cynthia McFadden referring to Ground Zero as the “blast site” on ABC.[10]
Survivors said that, when they went down to the lobby of Building 2, they saw a woman with her face blown off, and that the lobby had been destroyed—as if by a bomb.
The first casualty to arrive at Bellevue Hospital in New York, Marlene Cruz stated that she was in an elevator that blew up from an explosion. Cruz had worked at the World Trade Center when it was bombed in 1993 and thought to herself: “Here we go again, another bomb.”[11]
The grainy footage, taken before the South Tower collapsed, appears to show an explosion. [Source: mirror.co.uk]
FDNY firefighter John Coyle, who was in the South Tower when it collapsed, told the New York Times that, when he called his father to tell him he was alive, his father asked him whether he was there when the planes hit, to which Coyle replied: “No I was there when it exploded, the building exploded.” When his father interjected: “You mean when it fell down,” Coyle said: “No, when it exploded.”[12]
Why Did World Trade Center Building 7 Collapse?
A related mystery is why World Trade Center Building 7 collapsed when it was not hit by any hijacked planes. The official explanation was that a diesel fuel oil tank caused a fire that led the building to collapse, though numerous survivors heard explosions go off that sounded like bombs or incendiaries.[13]
On March 25, 2020, the University of Alaska Fairbanks issued a four-year computer modeling study on the collapse of World Trade Center Building 7 which concluded that “fire did not cause the collapse of WTC 7 on 9/11.” The collapse, rather, was caused by “near simultaneous failure of every column in the building,” which could be achieved only by a controlled demolition.
World Trade Center Building 7 stands amid the rubble of the recently collapsed Twin Towers. [Source: popularmechanics.com]
“He Could Not Fly at All”
Another important question is how alleged hijacker Hani Hanjour performed such a complex maneuver in reportedly steering Flight 77 into the Pentagon.
The New York Times reported, in an article entitled “A Trainee Noted for Incompetence,” that Hanjour had failed a number of piloting courses in Phoenix, Arizona, at the Pan Am International Flight Academy and JetTech Flight School.
A JetTech employee said: “I am still to this day amazed that he could have flown into the Pentagon. He could not fly at all.”
Rumsfeld, Cheney and Bush’s Lies
The 9/11 Commission never probed the strange behavior of President George W. Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld on 9/11 and the lies that they told.
1) George W. Bush: President Bush was informed by the Director of the White House Situation Room, Rear Admiral Deborah Loewer, that a plane had crashed into the World Trade Center North Tower at 8:50 a.m. EDT, though he strangely decided to continue with his visit to a second grade classroom in Sarasota. When he was told that the second plane had crashed, Bush, against protocol, kept reading The Pet Goat to the second graders, while Press Secretary Ari Fleischer held up a paper with the words: “DON’T SAY ANYTHING YET.”
On December 4, 2001, Bush claimed that, while he was waiting to enter the classroom in Sarasota, he saw an airplane hit the tower—on TV. However, TheWashington Timesreported that President Bush did not have access to a television until fifteen minutes later, while the Boston Herald noted that video of the first plane hitting the World Trade Center did not surface until the next day.
2) Dick Cheney: According to numerous reports, Cheney was taken to the Presidential Emergency Operations Center beneath the White House the moment the South Tower was struck at 9:03 a.m. However, the 9/11 Commission reported that Cheney did not arrive at the bunker until 9:58 a.m.—though Cheney was seen by a Secret Service agent at 9:30 a.m. Cheney told the 9/11 Commission that he was carried away from his office by the Secret Service at 9:35 a.m. However, Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta arrived at the Presidential Emergency Operations Center at 9:20 a.m. and observed that Cheney was clearly in command.
Mineta said he saw an unidentified young officer come in and report to Cheney that a plane was approaching the Pentagon, and then he asked: “Do the orders still stand,” and Cheney said “yes.” Mineta told Lee Hamilton he thought the order was a shootdown order; however, the order may have actually been not to shoot down American Airlines Flight 77.[14]
3) Donald Rumsfeld: Rumsfeld was working in the east side of the Pentagon on the morning of September 11. He claimed that he was not told that a plane was headed for the Pentagon even 15 minutes before and that he was unaware at the time that jets had crashed into the World Trade Center. After Rumsfeld felt the building shake, he claimed to have gone outside and started helping the injured into stretchers. After aiding the victims he said he then went into the war room.
Rumsfeld’s story is contradicted by testimony of Victoria Clarke, the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs, who says that she told Rumsfeld after 8:46 a.m. that the first tower had been hit 51 minutes before American Airlines Flight 77 struck the Pentagon.
Rumsfeld’s claim about going outside to help the victims is also implausible because each side of the Pentagon is the length of three football fields and Rumsfeld’s office was a brisk ten-minute walk to the Pentagon lawn. Rumsfeld could thus only have been at the crash site for an extremely brief period; he did not have half an hour to spend before returning to his office at the time he claimed—10:00 a.m. (American Airlines Flight 77 was reported to have hit the Pentagon at 9:37 a.m.).
Missing $2.3 Trillion
The day before 9/11, Rumsfeld admitted that $2.3 trillion of Pentagon money was missing. Auditors had audited the 1999 fiscal year of the Department of Defense and found that $2.3 trillion was missing paperwork. There was a further $1.8 trillion that the auditors were unable to review due to lack of time and proper staffing due to budgetary cuts to the audit department.
On September 11, American Airlines Flight 77 blew concentric holes through six walls and slammed into the newly renovated U.S. Army financial management and audit area, resulting in the deaths of 34 of its 65 employees.
Most of those killed were civilian accountants, bookkeepers and budget analysts. This raises the question as to whether the attack on September 11 was used as an opportunity to target the auditors investigating the missing $2.3 trillion.
Did an Airplane Actually Hit the Pentagon?
An eyewitness to the crash, reporter Jamie McIntyre, stated that there was no evidence of an airplane having actually crashed anywhere near the Pentagon. There were no large tail sections, wing sections, fuselage, nothing like that anywhere around which would indicate that the entire plane crashed into the side of the Pentagon and then caused the side to collapse. The only debris appeared to be small pieces of an airplane, with the biggest piece being only three feet long.[15]
Speculative Bets in Money Markets
After the 9/11 attacks, there were people who made speculative bets in money markets that the price of airline stock—the same ones that were hijacked on 9/11—would fall.
The San Francisco Chronicle reported on September 29, 2001 “there is evidence that a number of the transactions in financial markets indicated specific (criminal) foreknowledge of the September 11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.”[16]
The firm that managed the suspicious transactions was Bankers Trust, a major U.S. investment bank with ties to CIA Executive Director Alvin “Buzzy” Krongard. He used to be Vice Chairman of the Board of Bankers Trust and had been involved in specialized banking operations identified by the U.S. Senate and other investigators as having been closely connected with the laundering of drug money.
The CIA routinely monitored evidence of irregular trading activity through its PROMIS software system that would have alerted it to the likelihood of a terrorist attack.
On the eve of 9/11, there had been insider trading and suspicious sales of shares in airlines, insurance companies and gold and oil markets that suggest they were conducted with insider knowledge. Some of these were traced to the Marsh & McLennan data center on the 95th floor of the North Tower, which was hit on 9/11.
Marsh & McLennan’s chief of risk management was Paul Bremer, who was subsequently appointed by President Bush as the administrator of the Coalition Provisional Authority of Iraq.
When the North Tower was hit, a conference call was proceeding where Marsh & McLennan employees were raising concerns about mysterious transactions in the data center. But they all died when the building collapsed—though Bremer survived as he was flying back to New York.[17]
Some of the unusual stock trades involved Morgan Stanley and Merrill Lynch—two of the biggest occupants of the World Trade Center—in investments that originated in Germany’s Deutsche Bank, which had acquired Bankers Trust.[18]
The FBI also identified suspicious trades between September 6 and September 10, 2001, involving Stratesec Incorporated, which provided security to airports.
These traced back to Wirt Walker III, a board member of the Carlyle Group, a leading military contractor and relative of George W. Bush and business partner of one of Bush’s brothers, Marvin.
This discovery should have prompted further investigation by the 9/11 Commission, which failed to do so.[19]
Among the Truthers
During an address to the United Nations on November 10, 2001, President George W. Bush warned that he would not tolerate “outrageous conspiracy theories” about 9/11.
However, it is apparent that Bush is the one who was promoting an outrageous conspiracy theory that was contradicted by massive evidence that has come to light.
In his book, Among the Truthers: A Journey Through America’s Growing Conspiracist Underground, Canadian journalist Jonathan Kay told his readers that “people who believe in alternative views about what happened on 9/11 are among a large group of people who are afraid of vaccines and fluoride, deny the Holocaust, doubt the NASA moon landing ever took place, and don’t believe President Obama was born in America.”
Kay added that “damaged survivors are particularly effective as recruiters for conspiracist movements because the spectacle of their grief short circuits our intellectual faculties.”
But it is Kay who lacks the intellectual curiosity and faculty to process the copious evidence that contradicts the official narrative about 9/11. And it is Kay who is the one who is psychologically damaged—as he disparages a noble group of people who have worked tirelessly to expose what may be the greatest criminal conspiracy in U.S. history.
Why, after so many years, are there still so many unanswered questions about 9/11?
The answer is as obvious as it is frightening. The only barrier to full knowledge about what really happened on 9/11 has always been—our government. By which I mean every administration and every elected official—Republican or Democrat—working in collusion with the powerful network of corporate interests and private billionaires who elect them.
The popular belief is that Democrats and Republicans are always at each other’s throats, incapable of bipartisanship or cooperation, but that is a myth. On the “big” issues—like approving huge military budgets, overthrowing legally elected governments of other countries, funding imperialist wars, giving banks and corporations huge windfalls at taxpayer expense, militarizing the police, and erecting an increasingly intrusive and oppressive surveillance state—they endorse identical self-serving policies.
Nowhere has this been clearer than in the sham investigations and cover-ups, endorsed by both Republicans and Democrats, into some of the great crimes of our era, such as:
the assassinations of John F Kennedy, Martin Luther King Jr, Robert F Kennedy and Malcolm X;
Israel’s 1967 “false flag” sneak attack on the U.S.S. Liberty that killed 34 American sailors;
the fabricated “Tonkin Gulf incident” of 1964 that embroiled America in the Vietnam War;
the bizarre official verdict that investigative reporter Gary Webb, who was exposing illegal CIA drug-running, had “committed suicide” [with two bullets to the head!];
the verdict that Seth Rich was murdered in a “robbery gone wrong” [right after he was accused of having leaked DNC emails that exposed the Democratic party’s illicit undermining of Bernie Sanders’s election campaign];
the death of MK-Ultra researcher Frank Olsen who “fell out of a window” after the CIA feared he might expose its illicit LSD and mind-control experiments on unwitting American soldiers and germ warfare operations in the Korean War.
The list is as long as it is shameful. Our (bipartisan) government has created countless investigative commissions that are set up to fail—because critical documents are withheld from them; because crucial eye witnesses are never interviewed, or mysteriously die; because legitimate citizen inquiries are stonewalled or derailed by insurmountable procedural roadblocks. And when the above fail, there always remain “No comment” or outright lying by government officials.
The status of 9/11 investigations has followed the same pattern. Clearly the need to classify or otherwise hide information is intended to obscure government sanctioned connections to these crimes and to protect high-ranking persons and organizations—in or out of government—from being brought to account. What other possible reason can there be?
Surely it is time—in fact, long past time—to conduct thorough and uncompromising investigations into all of the crimes named above, including that of 9/11, which was not only tragic in itself, but has also served as a pretext to launch tragic military conflicts around the globe, and justify the ominous aggrandizement of executive power that has so devastatingly eroded democratic norms and smothered civil liberties.
*
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 author wishes to thank Steve Brown and Bill Montross.
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
Bush attended the meeting along with Vice President Dick Cheney, 9/11 Commission Executive Director Philip Zelikow, Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez, and two other Bush administration officials (Tom Monheim and Bryan Cunningham).
Ray McGinnis, Unanswered Questions: What the September Eleventh Families Asked and the 9/11 Commission Ignored (Vancouver, B.C.: Northern Star Publications, 2021), 284, 285. Information that the 9/11 commission obtained about the hijackers came from statements made by Guantanamo Bay detainees under torture, and should thus be suspect.
McGinnis, Unanswered Questions, 44.
Zelikow had written a book with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice on German reunification and another on the Cuban Missile Crisis, which was called out in The Atlantic magazine for its shoddy scholarship.
McGinnis, Unanswered Questions, 157. The announcement was made by Philip T. Hayes, WTC Fire Safety Director for the South Tower (and retired New York City firefighter) based on instructions from Tabeek. Hayes strangely appealed to people’s sense of patriotism, saying “this tower has been secured. You are in America. Return to your offices.”
In testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee in March 2002, NORAD Commander Ralph Eberhart explained that, once FAA suspects something is wrong with a flight over domestic airspace, “it takes about one minute” for them to notify NORAD, which could in turn scramble jets within 2.5 minutes up to an altitude of 29,000 feet “to anywhere in the U.S.”
In 2002, Eberhart was promoted to head the U.S. Northern Command.
McGinnis, Unanswered Questions, 113, 114.
Firefighters’ radio communications indicated that they were tracking numerous explosions in the Twin Towers and issued warnings about explosive devices. On July 31, 2019, ZeroHedge ran a story with the headline “NY Fire Commissioners Demand New 9/11 Probe, Citing ‘Overwhelming Evidence of Pre-Planted Explosives.’” The blog stated that the “overwhelming evidence presented in said petition demonstrates beyond any doubt that pre-planted explosives and/or incendiaries—not just airplanes and the ensuing fires—caused the destruction of the three World Trade Center buildings, killing the vast majority of the victims who perished that day.”
NBC’s Anne Thompson reported that she had tried to leave the World Trade Center building but, “as I got outside, I heard a second explosion, and another rumble and more smoke and more dust. I ran inside the building. The chandelier shook and again black smoke filled the air. Within another five minutes, we were covered with more soot and dust. And then a fire marshal came in and said “we had to leave,” because if there was a third explosion this building might not last.” On CNBC, Wall Street Journal reporter John Bussey told network anchors: “I looked up at the south building, the second World Trade Center to be hit, and explosions were coming down the building. It looked as if the charges had been set on each floor and they were in succession going off. When I saw the floor-by-floor explosions happening, I dove out of the office where I was because the windows looked directly over the World Trade Center.” Mika Brzezinski, then of CBS, also reported on explosions at 10:05 a.m. which brought down the towers. Marcia Kramer told viewers of WCBS that CNN was “reporting a third explosion at the WTC, probably an explosion from the ground, that caused WTC 1 to collapse on top of itself. Again, there was a third explosion. It is unclear what caused it, whether it was a bomb or whether the first plane that crashed into the tower had somehow been booby trapped with a bomb that was timed to explode later after the crash had occurred.” Stephen Evans of BBC also reported on a series of explosions.
Bob McIlvaine insisted his son Bobby died from an explosion. A doctor who examined his son’s body said that Bobby had lacerations all over his chest from flying glass and that he did not have burns on him, only slight postmortem burns, meaning that a detonation killed him, and then the heat coming afterwards put some burns on him. It is believed that Bobby was killed by the force of the explosion while walking into the World Trade Center lobby and that he was taken to the morgue before the towers came down. Bob was told that he had been killed on the 106th floor, which was not consistent with the autopsy report. Doctors who were on the scene told McIlvaine that they found people who were “blown into hundreds of pieces.” He exclaimed: “How can that happen with fire and a building falling straight down. These buildings came down from explosions.”
McGinnis, Unanswered Questions, 242. Captain Karin DeShore said she saw a series of orange and red flashes coming from the North Tower. She said that concussive blasts followed immediately after these flashes. She recalled, “Initially, it was just one flash. Then this flash kept popping all the way around the building and that building started to explode…These popping sounds and the explosions were getting bigger, going both up and down and then all around the building.” DeShore said further that the explosion had “sucked all the oxygen out of the air. You couldn’t breathe and the feeling of suffocation…These popping sounds and the explosions were getting bigger and louder…here was another explosion…and this wave of force.”
For some unknown reason, the building’s alarm system was put into test mode and deactivated at 6:47 a.m. on September 11.
Mineta’s testimony to the 9/11 Commission was omitted from its report. The other suspicious aspect is that Cheney showed extraordinary self-containment in the face of shocking live coverage. A witness with security clearance in the bunker with Cheney told the Washington Post, there was a groan in the room when the South Tower collapsed at 9:59 a.m.—with the exception of Cheney who made no sound. Said the witness, “I remember turning my head and looking at the vice president, and his expression never changed,” suggesting foreknowledge. Another witness wrote “While others assessed casualties and the work of ‘first responders,’ Cheney began planning for a conflict that would call upon lawyers as often as soldiers and spies.
McGinnis, Unanswered Questions, 179. McIntyre later contradicted his original statement by telling CNN viewers that he saw parts of the damaged plane inside the Pentagon.
McGinnis, Unanswered Questions, 126.
On September 11, a fire raged in World Trade Center Building 7 (WTC7), floors 11 to 13, which housed Securities and Exchange Commission records relating to multi-billion dollar investigations. The Los Angeles Times reported that an estimated 3,000 to 4,000 cases were destroyed, including SEC’s major inquiry into the manner in which investment banks divided up hot shares of initial public offerings during the high tech boom. The destruction of these files resulted in huge savings for the CEOs and corporations being investigated.
A German computer firm, Convar, was able to retrieve data from the computer disk drives in the rubble at Ground Zero, which suggested that some people had advance knowledge of the approximate time of the plane crashes in order to move out amounts exceeding $100 million. Convar’s data retrieval expert Richard Wagner said that “they thought the records of their transactions could not be traced after the main frames were destroyed.” McGinnis, Unanswered Questions; Erik Kirschbaum, “German Firm Probes last-minute World Trade Center Transactions,” Reuters, December 19, 2001.
Further investigation was also warranted of Larry Silverstein of Silverstein Properties who owned World Trade Center Building 7 and was awarded $4.55 billion in insurance claims while avoiding the cost of having to remove asbestos from the building.
Comments Off on Newly Declassified Documents Reveal that President George W. Bush Authorized Shootdown of Hijacked Airplanes on 9/11—But Only After Three Planes Had Already Crashed
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 January 2023, all masks were thrown off. The Euro-Atlantic elites, motivated after their meetings in Davos, realized that there was no more need to cover their true intentions with hypocritical appeals to “save the young Ukrainian democracy for the sake of world peace.”
More and more representatives of the so-called “golden billion” from the West recognize the real goals of the bellicose policy that they have been waging against Russia for decades, namely, the destruction of the integrity of the Russian Federation as a state and the deprivation of the Russian people of statehood in order to gain control over huge resources that “for some historical injustice belong to the Russian barbarians.”
The fate of the state of Ukraine and the lives of its population are of little interest to them, because in case of victory, its fertile territory will become a pleasant bonus.
Euro-Atlantic elites have unleashed and are waging an aggressive war against the Russian Federation in their personal interests. Moreover, the ongoing development of the military conflict, the lack of political will of the West to resolve it and the strengthening of bellicose rhetoric with the recognition of the true goals of the war indicate that these elites are ready to escalate the conflict up to the third world war, and even the nuclear threat will not stop them.
On January 20, at a ceremony in Madrid, Josep Borrel recalled Russia’s great victories over Hitler and Napoleon, from which he concluded that it was necessary to continue to increase military pressure on it. With his statement, the Head of EU diplomacy put the modern collective west on a par with ”the collective West created by Hitler” and the ”collective West of Napoleon”, who were both defeated by Russia.
“Russia is a big country, it is used to fighting to the end, it is used to almost losing, and then restoring everything. They did it to Napoleon, they did it to Hitler. It would be absurd to think that Russia has lost the war or that its military is incompetent. Therefore, it is necessary to continue arming Ukraine.”
Borrel’s statements did not become a sensation. He was not the first to express such threats to Russia. However, the recent statement has become one of the most outspoken claims. He voiced the real goal of the military company of the West which is the destruction of Russia and the seizure of its territories, as Hitler and Napoleon had previously attempted to do.
Amid the revelations of Western leaders, the words of Canada’s Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance Chrystia Freeland sounded particularly interesting at the forum in Davos. She also supported the position of Mr. Borrel, specifying that Russia’s defeat “would be a huge boost to the global economy.” Freeland, whose grandfather was a member of Andrei Melnik’s OUN-UPA nationalist group, hit the limelight several times over the past few years by speaking in support of Ukraine’s Nazis and by making Russophobic statements.
Ukraine winning its war against Russia this year “would be a huge boost to the global economy,” says Trudeau’s Deputy PM and WEF board member, Chrystia Freeland.
This is the 21st century war for resources, full-scaled and simple. – Spokeswoman for the Russian Foreign Ministry commented on her claims.
Amid the bellicose rhetoric of the West and the ongoing defeat of the Ukrainian Army on the battlefield, the beginning of the year 2023 was also marked by the strengthening of military support for the puppet Kiev regime.
While Europe is looking for tanks for Ukrainian soldiers in warehouses, Washington has already announced a new $2.5 billion military aid package. LINK
NATO and Washington no longer hide that they not only maintain the Ukrainian army, but also provide the necessary intelligence information, command Ukrainian troops on the battlefield and have taken control of the military decision-making process. Leading US media are often reporting that “the US recommended the Ukrainian military to withdraw from Bakhmut” or that “the US is helping to plan counter-offensive operations in Ukraine.” According to reports, the United States will help Ukraine plan counter-offensives to take back the “occupied territories, including Crimea.”
“Russia did not seek to escalate the conflict, but Western countries, driven by the United States, crossed red lines and began to pose a threat to our national interests. Now the United States is talking about supporting Ukrainian aggression against Crimea and new Russian territories. But the Kiev regime must realize that the support of Western countries will backfire it and Ukraine. The more Western countries interfere in the affairs of Ukraine, the further the border of our special operation will move in order to create a buffer zone and protect our country from the enemy neighbors.” Deputy of the State Duma of the Russian Federation from the Crimean region Mikhail Sheremet commented on the issue.
The actions of the United States and its European allies are leading the world to a global catastrophe. If Washington and NATO countries supply weapons that will be used to attack peaceful cities and attempt to seize Russian territories, this will lead to retaliatory measures by the Russian military using more powerful weapons.
By their decisions, Washington and Brussels are leading the world to war which will be completely different from the hostilities that are ongoing today, when strikes are carried out exclusively on military and strategic infrastructure facilities used by the Kiev regime.
The arguments that there is no nuclear threat as the nuclear powers have not previously used weapons of mass destruction in local conflicts are untenable because these states have never faced a threat to the security of their citizens and the territorial integrity, which NATO threatens Russia with today.
The sharp tightening of the West’s rhetoric, up to outright threats of war and destruction of the Russian state, was clearly heard in Moscow.
The Russian political leadership, who until recently tried to maintain a dialogue with “Western partners” based on the principles of real politic or at least basic international law, seem to have changed their position.
After a year of hostilities in Ukraine, it became clear that the current conflict was orchestrated by the collective West not even in the last 8 years but decades ago, when already in 2004 it became obvious that Russia was trying to break out of the neocolonial shackles of the post-Soviet period. As a result, Moscow has finally accepted the rules of the game imposed by the West and makes it clear that for its part, it no longer sees ways to peacefully resolve accumulated contradictions with NATO countries and is ready to enter into a full-scale war.
The recent press conference of Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, which summed up the results of Russian diplomacy in 2022, was a clear example. The Russian Minister described the current situation extremely harshly LINK:
What is happening in Ukraine now is the result of preparations by the US and its satellites for the start of a global hybrid war against the Russian Federation. Nobody is hiding this fact. This is clear from statements by unbiased Western politologists, scientists and politicians. In his recent article, Ian Bremmer, political science professor at Columbia University, wrote: “We are not in a cold war with Russia. We are in a hot war with Russia. Now it’s a proxy war. And NATO is not fighting it directly. We are fighting it through Ukraine.” This admission is frank and this conclusion is on the surface. It is strange that some people try to refute it. Recently, President of Croatia Zoran Milanovic said that this is a NATO war. An open and honest statement. Several weeks ago, Henry Kissinger (before he urged NATO to accept Ukraine in his recent article) wrote in clear terms that the events in Ukraine were a clash, a rivalry of two nuclear powers for control over that territory. It is clear enough what he meant.
Our Western partners are cunning while vehemently trying to prove that they are not fighting Russia but are only helping Ukraine respond to an “aggression” and restore its territorial integrity. The scale of their support makes it clear that the West has staked a great deal on its war against Russia; this is obvious.
The events surrounding Ukraine have brought to light the implicit push by the United States to drop attempts to reinforce its global position with legitimate means and to adopt illegitimate methods to ensure its dominance. Anything goes. Once revered mechanisms and institutions that were created by the US-led West have been discarded (and not because of what we are seeing in Ukraine). Free market, fair competition, free enterprise, the inviolability of property, and the presumption of innocence, in a word, everything the Western globalisation model relied on collapsed overnight. Sanctions have been imposed on Russia and other objectionable countries that do not comply with these tenets and mechanisms. Clearly, sanctions can be imposed any time on any country, which, in one way or another, refuses to mindlessly follow American orders.
The European Union has been completely subsumed by this US dictatorship (there’s no point in discussing this at length) …
Like Napoleon, who mobilised nearly all of Europe against the Russian Empire, and Hitler, who occupied the majority of European countries and hurled them at the Soviet Union, the United States has created a coalition of nearly all European member states of NATO and the EU and is using Ukraine to wage a proxy war against Russia with the old aim of finally solving the “Russian question,” like Hitler, who sought a final solution to the “Jewish question.” …
Recently, there were reports about some changes in the Russian political and military leadership. In particular, some officials in top positions in key political bodies such as the Presidential Administration, the Security Council, special services, etc were changed. Inspections have been initiated to clarify the compliance of several high-ranking officials to their positions, their ties with foreign countries and the any possible corruption actions are being checked.
Changes have also taken place in the Russian Ministry of Defense. Army General Valery Gerasimov was appointed commander of the Russian group of troops in the zone of a special military operation (SVO) in Ukraine. He fought Chechen militants at the head of the army, organized an operation in Syria, and has been heading the General Staff of the Russian Armed Forces since November 2012. The changes in the Russian military command may indicate the new stage of hostilities in Ukraine. Also, new generals were appointed to a number of other key positions in the Ministry of Defense.
In January, the Russian military began to defiantly strengthen the air defense system in the capital. In recent days, footage of new air defense systems deployed near the decision-making centers, like the Moscow Kremlin and the building of the Ministry of Defense, were widely shared online.
All this reflects a change in the Kremlin’s vision of the ongoing processes and its readiness to address the challenge from the West.
Perseverance of the Euro-Atlantic elites was finally appreciated by Russia and received a worthy response. Unfortunately, the position of the West means that the world can no longer hope for an early end to the war in Europe. Moreover, the conflict is likely to escalate.
*
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.
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 United States of America is a term that contains in it all the hope and all the contradictions of our country, and of the Americas. That hope dates far back in the past, to the inspiring words of the Declaration of Independence that articulated a form of governance that was, at least in terms of its potential, unprecedented.
The enslavement of Africans and the attacks on the native nations belied those powerful words “that all men are created equal.” But the power of those words transcended the limitations of the men who wrote them and echoed around the world.
America’s contradictions, which we have buried out of shame, continue to hold us back from realizing our potential to be great in word and deed.
If we were at last “united” as “states” we could achieve our destiny and find strength in unity. But that would require us to recognize not only the shadows that have accompanied the bright light of hope, but also the tremendous wisdom left to us by the original peoples of the Americas, men and women who wove intricate tapestries of life and spirit that were completely invisible to the dull men who drafted maps far away, who sold off mountains, rivers and forests as a dry and exchangeable thing called “real estate.”
The sad legacy of those past sins is that politics and economics in the United States have been reduced to a game of division.
People are divided using symbols and motifs that appeal to unconscious associations;
nations are divided using misperceptions and false generalizations;
land is divided using alien concepts like real estate, national borders and property rights.
Security for one’s family and for one’s home has been distorted into a right to destroy nature and community in the pursuit of profit.
The “United States of America” ends today in a militarized wall, a DMZ of the South that defines in a precise manner, to the inch, where one nation state ends and where another nation state begins. But for all the precision of this division, it has no basis in human experience, in the natural world and it certainly means nothing to the sun and the moon that have offered their light to the diverse nations of the Americas for hundreds of thousands of years.
When the sun and the moon look down from above they see a long stretch of land between the two poles that narrows to a delicate isthmus in the middle, forming an exquisite whole, balancing the mountains that rise up above the ground with those that lie beneath the ocean.
Unbroken bands of culture and natural chains of plants and animals link together the Americas from South to North. From the concentric stone circles that form Moray, the agricultural laboratory developed by the Incas to assure a sustainable future for all, and the soaring temples of Tenochtitlan, erected by the Aztecs to reflect the unity of Heaven and Earth, to the delicate communities of the Karitiana people deep in the pristine jungles, and the Mesa Verde city carved into the face of a cliff by the elders of the Pueblo Nation, the human achievements of the Americas are diverse and exquisite.
From the soaring peaks of the Aconcagua Mountains, and the surface of Lake Titicaca that reflects the skies so perfectly, to the waves of sand constantly reshaped in fantastic patterns by the winds of the Mohave Desert, the surface of the Americas forms an inspiring mosaic.
Those climates and habitats are inhabited by the golden lion tamarin that swings gracefully through the lush Amazon trees, by the magnificent Magellanic penguin standing watch confidently on the shores of Patagonia, by the indefatigable armadillo that has roamed over the grasses between Big Bend Ranch and Canon de Santa Elena ―from long before humans gave those formations names.
Moreover, the working people in the cities of the Americas, whether they speak Spanish or English, or other tongues, have so much more in common with each other than they could possibly know. There is a great unity of experience, whether it is the pleasures of being with our children in the mornings, or the frustrations of work, or the sorrows of communities torn apart by hidden forces.
Yet, there are hidden powers and subterranean currents that are not blocked by borders. No, those powers make the borders, enforce the borders, so as to keep the little people, the honest people, North and South, penned up like cattle, so as to deny them the freedom of the eagle or of the taruca.
There is the flow of money and currency, a flow of agricultural goods, finished products and components, a flow of information and data controlled by the powerful, and used for their own selfish ends. That flow is unimpeded by borders.
The powerful drink deeply from that flow of money. They want us to be separated from each other, and they will do anything to encourage us to think that it is the hard-working families from the South, struggling to feed themselves, and not the multinational corporations that are responsible for the pain we feel.
Powerful politicians, Democrat and Republican, promote borders, enforce borders, and militarize borders. They have built a horrific DMZ between the United States and Mexico. They make fortunes for their friends pouring concrete where there were once cactuses and wildflowers.
Who are those borders for?
Those borders pin us up inside and make us prisoners. They are also building walls in our neighborhoods, walls around their mansions and their exclusive communities, and walls around private prisons and camps where they detain us and abuse us.
Sadly, many in the United States think that what is being done to Hispanics has nothing to do with them. They could not be more wrong.
What has been done to immigrants in the camps over the past few years is but a trial run for what will be done to all working Americans. The time has come for all Americans to realize that they have much more in common with the immigrant family locked up in a camp than they do with the billionaires.
The peoples of the South do not travel to the North because they like the cold weather, or because they like the wretched taste of processed foods like hamburgers. They would rather live in their villages, farm their fields ― the fields where their ancestors farmed for decades before they too lay beneath them.
They are forced to move, compelled to leave behind family, friends and familiar landscapes because of the hidden flow of money over borders that powers the takeover of farms by corporations for wasteful and destructive production. Corporations force farmers to use one-use seeds and pesticides and herbicides that poison our sacred land. They drive the butchery of the majestic jungles and encourage the drilling for natural resources underground at any human cost.
That oil and metal should stay underground where it is. Those soaring trees must be left alone.
We are subject to a psychotic pursuit of profit powered by forces far from the jungles and rivers of the Americas. Investment banks in London, in Hong Kong or in Dallas that seek quick profits for their wealthy clients are driving this suicide march. They care nothing about nature or about people.
Americans do not know about the horrors unfolding in the South because such truths are kept secret from them by a corrupt and decadent media, a media that is a tool for control, a weapon of deception.
Americans see those forced to immigrate, forced to work for almost nothing to survive and they feel threatened. They would feel solidarity with those people if they could see how much they have in common.
Instead, they are told by the dark powers that these people are the enemy. The newspapers, the public opinion leaders and church ministers repeat those lies.
Those newspapers and those churches have been bought off by the billionaires.
It was those billionaires who manufactured this disaster.
We can certainly understand why some Americans respond emotionally to what seems like an invasion of foreigners. Their emotions are not unlike the emotions felt by those in the Amazon when they see tractors destroy their jungles in search of oil, minerals and timber.
The shooting at the Walmart in El Paso, Texas, on August 3, 2019, represented a terrible evil that is invisible even as it stalks the streets in daylight.
August 3 is not just any day. It was on August 3 of 1492 that Christopher Columbus set off from Spain to “discover” this land and set up, unknowingly, a process that would unleash tremendous evil. It was on August 3 of 1914 that Germany invaded Belgium and started the First World War. It was on August 3 of 1934 when Adolf Hitler declared himself as “Fuhrer” (leader) and ended the rule of law in Germany.
The El Paso attack left 23 dead and 23 injured. It was an obvious bid to turn fear and loathing into outright war.
Who knows what happened in El Paso? We know that people died there and that a terrible evil was unleashed that slouches now toward a murky horizon.
The Bible teaches us that evil is colorless, that evil is invisible, and that evil is seductive. This evil is not the obvious evil encountered by superheroes.
No. It is a far more pernicious, more subtle and more enticing evil ― an evil that demands that we be prepared for an epic battle over the soul of humanity.
We do not need a “United States” of finance, of manufacturing and of distribution. We need a “United States” of teachers, of doctors, of social workers, of students, and of farmers.
We need a “United States” of mothers and fathers. When we have that, then we will discover how much we have in common. Our universal concerns cross over borders, languages and habits of the mind.
We must go back to the original sin, to the manner in which the Conquistadores took over the Americas, doing such terrible damage, and bringing with them a new culture that remains with us today, a culture that offers us great depths, but also savage cruelty camouflaged as piety. The sins of this day are but the latest variation on that original sin.
Remember that it was Jesus on the cross that gave authority to the Conquistadores. It makes no sense, but it is the truth. Jesus, who lived among the poor, among the homeless, the beggars, Jesus who refused to possess anything, Jesus who died on the cross for his spiritual resistance to the decadent power of the Roman Empire, that Jesus was invoked as a cause for the destruction of the cultures of the Mayans, of the Incas, of the Aztecs and of many, many other peoples.
And now, we witness a similar erasure of cultures and of peoples across the Americas.
At the heart of this transformation we find the concept of ownership, specially the ownership of land.
Consider the famous case of the island of Manhattan.
The story we learned as children in school is that Peter Minuit of the Dutch West India Company met Lenape Nation representatives in May 1626 and that he purchased for his company the island of Manhattan for 60 guilders.
We assumed that the Lenape People were simply naive, that they did not understand the value of Manhattan. They were too ignorant, or too foolish, to see how these rocks and forests would become a great center for global finance that would rise up in the form of skyscrapers where once there were trees.
Now we know that the truth was the complete opposite. The Lenape people were wise and the Dutch West India Company was foolish.
The Lenape Nation did not see the exchange of currency (coins, or beads or trinkets) as anything more than an agreement for cooperation. The very idea that the soil, the rivers, the forests and the wildlife that filled that sacred island of Manhattan could belong to any one person, let alone to a soulless corporation, made no sense to them.
The concept of real estate and of assets embraced by the Dutch West India Company was an irrational, and in a sense a psychotic, misperception of the relationship between people and nature. Perhaps a five-year-old child may have such a self-centered concept of the world, but for adults to be so indulgent suggests it was a spiritual sickness.
The conflict that followed was, at its core, not a conflict between peoples, between interests, or between nations, but rather a conflict between means of perception, between basic values.
A terrible blindness seized the souls of those who trampled on the cultures of the Incas, the Mayans, the Aztecs, and those of their brothers and sisters. Many of those involved in this original sin were not aware of what they were doing.
And now, the environmental and cultural crisis is so great that we are forced to recognize that a sustainable society must be integrated with nature and that there will be no future otherwise. That is what Lenape people and the Mayan people knew all along. The myth of development and growth that we believed in for so long was a falsehood.
The scars created in the violence of the past are like the bluffs along a river. They are aged, but the fractures are still clear.
The harm resulting from the violence of today in the detention camps, and in the prisons, in places where children are locked up alone and families are torn apart, that harm remains a gaping wound.
The scars and the wounds are a part of who we are.
In some cases, the scars make us stronger; in other cases, they hold us back. We can be sure, however, that any progress forward must also involve a return to that painful past.
In some cases, money can help. In some cases compensation can ease the pain of the past.
But if compensation to the native peoples of the Americas and of Africa is only seen in terms of money, the results will be limited. If we assume that everything can be solved by money, that assumption will reinforce the horrid centrality of money in our society, in how we perceive land and water, plants and animals, people and cultures.
Memory and history are critical. They are more critical than money because if people remember what existed before, then they will value the past.
If there is no memory, there will be no political will. No political will means no money.
First, before we talk about anything else, we must tell the painful tale of how native cultures were destroyed, recognizing that we are talking about that potential for evil that rests within all of us. There is no border between North and South America when it comes to those past sins, or to current sins.
One possible first step is to establish two new Holocaust museums in Washington, D.C.
A Holocaust museum stands on the Mall in Washington, D.C., that faithfully records the horrific killing of Jews in Europe in the 1940s. It is a source of information of tremendous value to us as we strive to understand the nature of evil. I recommend that you take your children to the Holocaust museum.
Yet, we must remember that the Holocaust documented at that museum happened in Europe, and not in the Americas.
There were, however, two terrible holocausts that took place in North and South America, two holocausts that cry out from the grave for a fit and proper memorial on the Mall. My administration will fight tooth and nail to build both Holocaust museums.
The first Holocaust museum will be dedicated to memory of the hundreds of millions of native peoples in the Americas who were slaughtered, or left to die of starvation, or of disease, in the brutal process of colonization and development that took place over four long and cruel centuries.
We need a Holocaust museum that documents the history of the peoples of the Americas, and records their cultures and their arts. We need this museum so that all of our children learn about that tragedy, about what humans are capable of doing in their blindness.
We need another Holocaust museum on the Mall. We need a Holocaust museum that documents the sufferings and the losses of the hundreds of millions captured in Africa and shipped to the Americas for slave labor over 400 years. Millions of men, women and children died on the slave ships, millions more were worked to death, or grew old and died miserably in slavery. Their cultures, their families and their very souls were trampled into the mud. All schoolchildren should visit this Holocaust museum as well and learn what was lost, what was affirmed, and what hope remains for the United States if we look back on our past with honesty.
Because these two memorials will make no distinction between North and South America, they will draw the attention of Americans to the common sufferings and the common tragedies of the Americas. The term “American” itself will expand to include both North and South and the artificial divisions created will start to fade away.
Part of that healing process must involve the introduction of the best of the cultures, the medicines, the spiritual practices, the clothing and designs, the architecture and the history of our native peoples into all aspects of contemporary American society. Our fashions should draw on the patterns of the Navahos and the Incas, our hospitals should use the herbs employed by the Hopi and the Cari, and the legends of all the original nations should be integrated into our contemporary dramas, movies and songs.
Only then will their true value be made manifest. Only then will their living spirit, after being buried for centuries, be brought back to life, be rekindled for a new age.
When I imagine the relationship of the United States with our southern neighbors, with our southern partners, with our southern brothers, I keep coming back to the inspiring work of Henry Wallace, the remarkable politician who implemented President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s “Good Neighbor Policy” toward Latin America. Vice President Wallace fought for an equal relationship with all nations in the Americas, a balanced dialogue on education, on agriculture, on science and on society that created an inspiring consensus on what was possible. His tour of Latin America in 1943 created excitement about true unity, and ardent opposition to Fascism, that has not been matched since.
It did not stop there for Wallace. He was passionate about the spiritualism of the native Americans and he believed wholeheartedly in the depth to be found in the original cultures. He grasped a potential for growth, not merely in terms of money and products, but in terms of civilization itself.
The policy of my administration toward the Americas will assume the same potential for harmony and unity in the pursuit of a true “new deal.” It will be a harmony with all peoples that is respectful, and a harmony with nature that is sustainable.
We will assert that small is beautiful and that the greatest wisdom can be found in the subtle thinking of ancient people, in the cultures of those who left only the slightest traces on the natural environment.
We will shy away from the gaudy rituals of politicians.
We will step back and promote a dialogue between people that dissolves away borders much as a swift current cuts a beautiful canyon through the hardest of stone.
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.
Alle Artikel von Global Research können in 51 Sprachen gelesen werden, indem Sie die Schaltfläche Website übersetzen unterhalb des Namens des Autors aktivieren.
Um den täglichen Newsletter von Global Research (ausgewählte Artikel) zu erhalten, klicken Sie hier.
Folgen Sie uns auf Instagram und Twitter und abonnieren Sie unseren Telegram-Kanal. Sie können die Artikel von Global Research gerne weiterveröffentlichen und mit anderen teilen.
***
Einführung
In der Neuzeit, der Zeit Aufklärung, haben die Menschen neue Ideen entwickelt. Doch der sozialistische Gedanke, der antimilitaristische Gedanke des Friedens, der Freiheit, der Gleichheit, der Gerechtigkeit und der Solidarität hat Schiffbruch erlitten. Er war die Hoffnung der Proletarier der ganzen Welt. Wir alle haben diese schönen Gedanken vernachlässigt und sie dadurch zunichte gemacht. Es gibt eben keine Politik, keine Erklärung der menschlichen Belange ohne Kenntnisse der Psychologie.
Der rumänische Schriftseller Panait Istrati war nach dem Ersten Weltkrieg in der Sowjetunion und hat seine Beobachtungen in drei Bänden niedergeschrieben. Über die Volksrepublik China schrieb vor kurzem Ökonomieprofessor Michel Chossudovsky „Es ist kein Sozialismus“. Gut zu wissen in heutiger Zeit. Bleibt die Frage: Wird der sozialistische Gedanke des Friedens und der Freiheit eines Tages nochmals Triumphe feiern?
Sowjetisches Experiment misslungen
In der ehemaligen Sowjetunion ist das Experiment völlig misslungen. Sie haben den Menschen nicht erfasst. Sie haben die Menschen nicht richtig eingeschätzt, sich nicht mit ihnen assoziiert. Die Kommissare stellten sich über die Arbeiter. Überall fehlte die Psychologie.
Das Volk wäre zu haben gewesen, es ist solidarisch. Der russische Bauer hat im Mir gelebt, einer russischen Dorfgemeinschaft. Ihr gehörten alle Bauern eines Dorfes an. Der von ihnen genutzte Grund und Boden wurde periodisch unter ihnen umverteilt. Jeder Bauer bekam soviel Land zur Nutzung, dass er sich selbst erhalten und seinen Verpflichtungen gegenüber Staat und Grundeigentümer nachkommen konnte. Jeder Haushalt konnte entsprechend der Anzahl seiner erwachsenen Mitglieder einen oder mehrere Landstreifen beanspruchen (1).
Wo hat die bäuerliche russische Bevölkerung jemals Richter oder Spitzel gesehen? Es gab keine. An den Türen haben sie keine Schlösser gehabt, weil sie sie nicht zugesperrt hatten. Bis zur Revolution bearbeiteten sie ihre Felder gemeinsam. Das bisschen Leben, das sie gehabt haben, verbrachten sie in Ruhe und Frieden und ohne Krieg.
Auf einmal sind die dummen „Roten“ gekommen und haben noch schlechter gewirtschaftet als der Zarismus. Kommissare, die nichts verstanden, sind auf das Land geschickt worden und haben den Bauern gesagt, was sie anbauen sollen. Sie haben den Staat aufrechterhalten und schließlich die Bauern und Arbeiter auf das „Feld der Ehre“ gejagt.
Im sehr armen Jugoslawien war das Prinzip menschlicher als in Russland. Wenn der Mensch Arbeit hatte, konnte er nicht gekündigt werden. Dort ist das Prinzip der Selbstverwaltung, der Arbeiterräte verwirklicht worden. Russland ist diesen Weg nicht gegangen und war deshalb gegen Jugoslawien.
Panait Istrati (1884 bis 1935) war ein französisch- und rumänischsprachiger Schriftsteller rumänischer Herkunft. Nach dem Ersten Weltkrieg ist er nach Russland gereist und hat nach seiner Rückkehr nach Frankreich seine Beobachtungen in drei Büchern niedergeschrieben. Dieser politische Reisebericht „Vers l‘autre flamme“ ist 1929 in französischer Sprache erschienen und lautet in deutscher Übersetzung „Auf falscher Bahn. 16 Monate in der Sowjetunion. Bekenntnisse eines Besiegten.“ (2)
Sein Bericht war ein leidenschaftlicher politischer Appell an seine Genossen, deren autoritäre stalinistische Organisationsformen, Linientreue und Obrigkeitsgläubigkeit er scharf anprangerte. Bis dahin waren im Westen ausschließlich Berichte über die Sowjetunion erscheinen, die des Lobes voll waren. Doch daraufhin wurde er sehr verleumdet:
„Istratis Buch bricht mit einem Tabu und wagt öffentliche Kritik an ihr. Schlagartig distanzierten sich alle seine bisherigen Freunde von ihm, allen voran sein bisheriger Mentor Romain Rolland. Er wird verleumdet und eine Hetzkampagne gegen ihn setzt ein. Von den Trotzkisten, denen er ansonsten fernstand, wurde Istrati hingegen vereinnahmt.“
(…).
„Auf falscher Bahn“ beeindruckt durch die Leidenschaftlichkeit und Wahrheitsliebe Istratis, letztlich aber auch durch seine Schonungslosigkeit sich selbst gegenüber. Am Ende bleibt ein ‚Besiegter‘ zurück, wie er es selbst ausgedrückt hat, ein einsamer Kämpfer jenseits der Ideologien, ein kranker und gebrochener Mensch.“ (3)
Michel Chossudovsky: „Die VR China ist kein sozialistisches Land.“
Zur gegenwärtigen Situation der Volksrepublik China schrieb der langjährige Forscher an der Universität Hongkong, Ökonomie-Professor Michel Chossudovsky den aufklärenden und vielbeachteten Artikel: „Es ist kein Sozialismus“: China ist eine kapitalistische Billiglohnwirtschaft, basierend auf extrem niedrigen Löhnen. Menschen auf der Linken behaupten, die VR China sei ein sozialistisches Land.“ (4)
In der Einleitung heißt es:
„Den meisten Analysten und Historikern ist nicht klar, dass sich China nach den frühen 1980er Jahren zu einem vollwertigen kapitalistischen Land entwickelt hat. Es gibt mächtige US-Geschäftsinteressen, darunter Big Pharma, große Hi-Tech-Unternehmen und Bankinstitute, die in China fest verwurzelt sind.
Die Vereinigten Staaten haben treuer Verbündete in Chinas Geschäftswelt sowie unter Akademikern, Wissenschaftlern und Ärzten, die tendenziell ‚pro-amerikanisch‘ sind.“ (5)
Der Artikel schließt mit einer persönlichen Anmerkung: Prof. Chossudovsky konnte das Manuskript seines 1984 verfassten Buches mit dem Titel „Towards Capitalist Restoration? Chinese Socialism after Mao“ erst zwei Jahre später veröffentlichen, weil es von den Linken „salopp abgelehnt“ worden war. Man kann es von seiner Homepage als PDF kostenlos herunterladen (6).
Wird Sozialismus nochmals Triumphe feiern?
Bei aller Genugtuung darüber, dass sich die Welt politisch ganz langsam Richtung Osten bewegt, ist es wichtig, Chossudovskys aufklärenden Beitrag zur Kenntnis zu nehmen, um sich keinerlei Illusionen hinzugeben. Ob die Idee des Sozialismus im kommunistischen Systems Russlands eine Chance hat, bleibt damit noch unbeantwortet.
Sollten die Menschen der Welt irgendwann zur Vernunft kommen und sich selbst erkennen, wird der sozialistische Gedanke, der Gedanke des Friedens und der Freiheit vielleicht seine Triumphe feiern.
*
Hinweis an die Leser: Bitte klicken Sie auf die obigen Schaltflächen zum Teilen. Folgen Sie uns auf Instagram und Twitter und abonnieren Sie unseren Telegram-Kanal. Fühlen Sie sich frei, Artikel von Global Research erneut zu veröffentlichen und zu teilen.
Dr. Rudolf Lothar Hänsel ist Schul-Rektor, Erziehungswissenschaftler (Dr. paed.) und Psychologe (Dipl.-Psych.). Nach seinen Universitätsstudien wurde er wissenschaftlicher Lehrer (Professor) in der Erwachsenenbildung: unter anderem Leiter eines freien Schul-Modell-Versuchs und Fortbildner bayerischer Beratungslehrkräfte und Schulpsychologen. Als Pensionär arbeitete er als Psychotherapeut in eigener Praxis. Bei einer Öffentlichen Anhörung zur Jugendkriminalität im Europa-Parlament war er Berichterstatter für Deutschland. In seinen Büchern und Fachartikeln fordert er eine bewusste ethisch-moralische Werteerziehung sowie eine Erziehung zu Gemeinsinn und Frieden. Für seine Verdienste um Serbien bekam er 2021 von den Universitäten Belgrad und Novi Sad den Republik-Preis „Kapitän Misa Anastasijevic“ verliehen.
January 24th, 2023 by Physicians and Medical Scientists
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.
***
17,000 physicians and medical scientists declare that the state of medical emergency must be lifted, scientific integrity restored, and crimes against humanity addressed.
We, the physicians and medical scientists of the world, united through our loyalty to the Hippocratic Oath, recognize that the disastrous COVID-19 public health policies imposed on doctors and our patients are the culmination of a corrupt medical alliance of pharmaceutical, insurance, and healthcare institutions, along with the financial trusts which control them. They have infiltrated our medical system at every level, and are protected and supported by a parallel alliance of big tech, media, academics and government agencies who profited from this orchestrated catastrophe.
This corrupt alliance has compromised the integrity of our most prestigious medical societies to which we belong, generating an illusion of scientific consensus by substituting truth with propaganda. This alliance continues to advance unscientific claims by censoring data, and intimidating and firing doctors and scientists for simply publishing actual clinical results or treating their patients with proven, life-saving medicine. These catastrophic decisions came at the expense of the innocent, who are forced to suffer health damage and death caused by intentionally withholding critical and time-sensitive treatments, or as a result of coerced genetic therapy injections, which are neither safe nor effective.
The medical community has denied patients the fundamental human right to provide true informed consent for the experimental COVID-19 injections. Our patients are also blocked from obtaining the information necessary to understand risks and benefits of vaccines, and their alternatives, due to widespread censorship and propaganda spread by governments, public health officials and media. Patients continue to be subjected to forced lock-downs which harm their health, careers and children’s education, and damage social and family bonds critical to civil society. This is not a coincidence. In the book entitled “COVID-19: The Great Reset”, leadership of this alliance has clearly stated their intention is to leverage COVID-19 as an “opportunity” to reset our entire global society, culture, political structures, and economy.
Our 17,000 Global COVID Summit physicians and medical scientists represent a much larger, enlightened global medical community who refuse to be compromised, and are united and willing to risk the wrath of the corrupt medical alliance to defend the health of their patients.
The mission of theGlobal COVID Summit is to end this orchestrated crisis, which has been illegitimately imposed on the world, and to formally declare that the actions of this corrupt alliance constitute nothing less than crimes against humanity.
We must restore the people’s trust in medicine, which begins with free and open dialogue between physicians and medical scientists. We must restore medical rights and patient autonomy. This includes the foundational principle of the sacred doctor-patient relationship. The social need for this is decades overdue, and therefore, we the physicians of the world are compelled to take action.
After two years of scientific research, millions of patients treated, hundreds of clinical trials performed and scientific data shared, we have demonstrated and documented our success in understanding and combating COVID-19. In considering the risks versus benefits of major policy decisions, our Global COVID Summit of 17,000 physicians and medical scientists from all over the world have reached consensus on the following foundational principles:
We declare and the data confirm that the COVID-19 experimental genetic therapy injections must end.
We declare doctors should not be blocked from providing life-saving medical treatment.
We declare the state of national emergency, which facilitates corruption and extends the pandemic, should be immediately terminated.
We declare medical privacy should never again be violated, and all travel and social restrictions must cease.
We declare masks are not and have never been effective protection against an airborne respiratory virus in the community setting.
We declare funding and research must be established for vaccination damage, death and suffering.
We declare no opportunity should be denied, including education, career, military service or medical treatment, over unwillingness to take an injection.
We declare that first amendment violations and medical censorship by government, technology and media companies should cease, and the Bill of Rights be upheld.
We declare that Pfizer, Moderna, BioNTech, Janssen, Astra Zeneca, and their enablers, withheld and willfully omitted safety and effectiveness information from patients and physicians, and should be immediately indicted for fraud.
We declare government and medical agencies must be held accountable.
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 Global COVID Summit
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
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 the last several months, the Russian military has been conducting intensive training for approximately 300,000 newly mobilized soldiers, in addition to other preparations that would enable it to deliver a final knockout punch and end hostilities in Ukraine. The stakes are now being raised even higher with Army General Valery Gerasimov, the Chief of the General Staff of the Russian Armed Forces, assuming the overall command of Russia’s counteroffensive against NATO’s “quasi-Barbarossa”. The move clearly implies that the Russian military is intent on achieving greater coordination and that it’s focusing much of its conventional capabilities to put the final nail in the coffin of the Neo-Nazi project in Ukraine.
Expectedly, the political West’s mainstream propaganda machine is presenting this change as the supposed failure of General Sergei Surovikin, resulting in his apparent replacement due to perceiving battlefield setbacks. However, quite conveniently, they are withholding critically important information, such as the fact that the Russian special military operation in Ukraine is now expanding in scope and magnitude, making it virtually impossible for Surovikin to coordinate the entire endeavor all by himself. For that reason, Moscow has decided to employ four of its top commanders and give them command of various operational sectors, with General Gerasimov at the helm of this expanded operation.
Apart from Russia’s Chief of the General Staff, three other top-ranking Russian military officers are directly taking part in commanding Moscow’s troops engaged in Ukraine — Army General Oleg Salyukov and Colonel General Alexei Kim, in addition to General Surovikin himself, now assuming the positions of General Gerasimov’s deputies, with special tasks within the enlarged scope of the special military operation. With a force of well over half a million men, supported by the Russian Aerospace Forces and Navy firing hundreds of long-range cruise missiles and swarms of drones, the Kiev regime is faced with an offensive the scale of which is incomparable to anything seen in decades.
Naturally, the Russian military’s plan for the new offensive in Ukraine is a secret, but the information provided by several sources allows a reasonable estimate as to how it might play out. Head of the Kiev regime’s State Property Fund Rustem Umerov claims that the upcoming offensive will come from three directions. “The attack will come from the north, [from] across the Belarusian border, from Russian strongholds in eastern Ukraine and from the south,” Umerov stated, without citing any sources or intelligence. The claim comes approximately a week after CIA chief William Burns visited Kiev and apparently warned Volodymyr Zelensky about Russia’s “impending offensive”.
The possibility of an all-out Russian offensive from three directions certainly shouldn’t be excluded. However, it’s also in the interest of the Russian military to maintain at least some element of surprise and deny the Kiev regime forces the ability to accurately predict its course of action. It’s a strong possibility that the Eurasian giant might decide to take control of the entire left-bank Ukraine, which would require offensive operations in at least three sectors, the northeast (toward Chernigov), east (toward Kharkov) and south (toward Zaporozhye and Dnepropetrovsk). All the while, troops deployed in the Donbass are expected to maintain pressure and tie in as many Kiev regime forces as possible, which eventually could result in the encirclement and final elimination of these units.
The success of such an operation would result in irrecoverable losses for the Neo-Nazi junta and possibly even end the conflict or at least wipe out Kiev’s overall fighting capability, limiting it to militia troops incapable of any maneuvers or large-scale movement necessary to stop further Russian advance. Meanwhile, many of the regime’s forces would be tied in expecting Russian advance from the north, which may or may not happen. And while it’s impossible to say how likely this scenario is, such shaping up of the battlefield can certainly be expected from the Russian military, as this would enable it to take key areas and further exacerbate the Neo-Nazi junta’s position, forcing it to negotiate on terms favorable to Moscow or even surrender if the battlefield losses become completely unbearable.
Although the mainstream propaganda machine is spinning the narrative about General Surovikin’s alleged “failures”, the Kiev regime’s high command doesn’t share the same blind optimism. Kiev’s chief commander General Valery Zaluzhny is well aware of Gerasimov’s competence, as he himself once described Russia’s top military officer as “the smartest of men”. Realizing the impending consequences of Gerasimov’s appointment as the overall commander of the Russian forces engaged in Ukraine, the Neo-Nazi junta is fuming at its NATO sponsors for not providing more weapons. The political West is now divided on delivering heavy tanks, with Washington DC and Berlin trying to toss the hot potato to each other.
Despite its refusal to commit more advanced heavy armor and repeated insistence that its European allies and vassals do this, the US wants the hostilities to last for as long as possible. During a meeting at the Ramstein airbase in Germany, the chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff General Mark Milley said: “From a military standpoint I still maintain that for this year it would be very, very difficult to militarily eject the Russian forces from all, every inch of… Russian-occupied Ukraine.” While NATO pledged more weapons for the Kiev regime, the aforementioned question of delivering heavy tanks was left unanswered. And although it still hasn’t even been a full month this year, the US wants the hostilities to last “well into 2024”, obviously hoping to see at least another year of stalemate, despite mounting casualties of its favorite puppet regime.
*
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.
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.
***
Introduction
In modern times, the Age of Enlightenment, people developed new ideas. But the socialist idea, the anti-militarist idea of peace, freedom, equality, justice and solidarity was shipwrecked. It was the hope of the proletarians of the whole world. We have all neglected these beautiful thoughts and thus destroyed them. There is no politics, no explanation of human concerns without knowledge of psychology.
The Romanian writer Panait Istrati was in the Soviet Union after the First World War and wrote down his observations in three volumes. About the People’s Republic of China, economics professor Michel Chossudovsky recently wrote “It’s Not Socialism”. Good to know in this day and age. The question remains: will the socialist idea of peace and freedom one day celebrate triumphs once again?
Soviet experiment failed
In the former Soviet Union, the experiment was a complete failure. They did not grasp the people. They did not assess people correctly, did not associate with them. The commissars put themselves above the workers. Psychology was missing everywhere.
The people could have been had, they are in solidarity. The Russian peasant lived in the Mir, a Russian village community. All the peasants of a village belonged to it. The land they used was periodically redistributed among them. Each peasant was given enough land to use to maintain himself and to meet his obligations to the state and the landowner. Each household could claim one or more strips of land according to the number of its adult members (1).
Where did the peasant Russian population ever see judges or informers? There were none. They had no locks on their doors because they did not lock them. Until the revolution they worked their fields together. What little life they had, they spent in peace and quiet and without war.
Suddenly the stupid “Reds” came and managed even worse than Tsarism. Commissars who understood nothing were sent to the countryside and told the peasants what to grow. They maintained the state and finally chased the peasants and workers to the “field of honour”.
In very poor Yugoslavia the principle was more humane than in Russia. If a person had work, he could not be dismissed. There the principle of self-management, of workers’ councils was realised. Russia did not go this way and was therefore against Yugoslavia.
Panait Istrati: “Vers l’autre flamme” (“On the wrong track”)
Panait Istrati (1884 – 1935) was a French- and Romanian-language writer of Romanian origin. He travelled to Russia after the First World War and wrote down his observations in three books after his return to France. This political travelogue “Vers l’autre flamme” was published in French in 1929 and its German translation is “Auf falscher Bahn. 16 Months in the Soviet Union. Confessions of a Defeated Man.” (2)
His report was a passionate political appeal to his comrades, whose authoritarian Stalinist forms of organisation, loyalty to the line and faith in authority he sharply denounced. Until then, only reports about the Soviet Union had appeared in the West, full of praise. But as a result he was much maligned:
“Istrati’s book breaks a taboo and dares to criticise it publicly. Suddenly all his previous friends distanced themselves from him, above all his previous mentor Romain Rolland. He was slandered and a smear campaign against him began. On the other hand, Istrati was taken over by the Trotskyists, from whom he otherwise stood aloof.”
(…).
“On the Wrong Track” impresses with Istrati’s passion and love of truth, but ultimately also with his ruthlessness towards himself. In the end, we are left with a ‘defeated man’, as he himself put it, a lonely fighter beyond ideologies, a sick and broken man.” (3)
Michel Chossudovsky: “The PRC is not a socialist country.”
“Most analysts and historians do not realise that China developed into a full-fledged capitalist country after the early 1980s. There are powerful US business interests, including Big Pharma, large hi-tech companies and banking institutions, that are firmly entrenched in China.
The United States has faithful allies in China’s business community as well as among academics, scientists and doctors who tend to be ‘pro-American’.” (5)
The article concludes on a personal note: Prof. Chossudovsky was unable to publish the manuscript of his 1984 book entitled “Towards Capitalist Restoration? Chinese Socialism after Mao” only two years later because it had been “casually rejected” by the left. It can be downloaded free of charge as a PDF from his homepage (6).
Will socialism celebrate triumphs once more?
Despite all the satisfaction that the world is slowly moving eastwards politically, it is important to take note of Chossudovsky’s enlightening contribution in order to avoid any illusions. Whether the idea of socialism has a chance in Russia’s communist system thus remains unanswered.
Should the people of the world eventually come to their senses and realise themselves, the socialist idea, the idea of peace and freedom, will perhaps celebrate its triumphs.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
Dr. Rudolf Lothar Hänsel is a school rector, educationalist (Dr. paed.) and psychologist (Dipl.-Psych.). After his university studies, he became an academic teacher (professor) in adult education: among other things, he was head of an independent school model experiment and further training instructor for Bavarian counselling teachers and school psychologists. As a retiree, he worked as a psychotherapist in private practice. He was rapporteur for Germany at a public hearing on juvenile delinquency in the European Parliament. In his books and articles, he calls for a conscious ethical-moral education and an education for public spirit and peace. For his services to Serbia, he was awarded the Republic Prize “Captain Misa Anastasijevic” by the Universities of Belgrade and Novi Sad in 2021.
New Zealand’s Prime Minister, Jacinda Ardern, resigned on 18 January 2022, in the midst of the WEF Davos 53rd Conference. PM Ardern is a graduate of the WEF’s Young Global Leaders (YGL) program. She is – or was? – a favored “daughter” of Klaus Schwab. About at the same level as Justin Trudeau, PM of Canada. He too has been schooled, or better, brainwashed, by Schwab’s Academy for Young Global Leaders.
The DNA template used does not come directly from an isolated virus from an infected person. The DNA template (severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 GenBank 908947.3), was generated via a combination of gene synthesis and recombinant DNA technology.
In September 2022, The Epoch Times asked the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to release its Proportional Reporting Ratio (PRR) data mining results. PRR measures how common an adverse event is for a specific drug compared to all the other drugs in the database.
While Western journalists insist that Ukraine is “winning” the conflict, experienced military and analysts continue to point to the evident fact that Russia cannot be defeated so easily. In a recent interview, a top US general commented that the situation is very complicated for the Ukrainians, who will have many difficulties to fulfill their promise to “expel” Russian forces from territories already reintegrated into Moscow’s sovereign space.
In advance of the invasion of Iraq 20 years ago, the UK media parroted government lies and fabrications uncritically and became an enthusiastic part of the state’s propaganda machine. An inquiry into British reporting of the Iraq war is well past due.
Undeniable fact is that Africa’s G5 Sahel (Burkina Faso, Chad, Mali, Mauritania and Niger) and Central African Republic (CAR) have bartered their natural resources for Soviet-era and Russian military weapons and equipment. The G5 Heads of State are currently struggling against growing terrorism in the region and needed support from external countries.
Russia might not employ nuclear weapons in the event of such an attack against Crimea — it might instead respond without nuclear warheads, but only with non-nuclear ones; and, since the invasion of Crimea would have been carried out by both Ukraine and America, Ukraine and/or America would be targeted.
As the political situation becomes even more intense in the capital city of Lima in Peru and other regions of the South American country, the western-backed administration of Dina Boluarte has called for dialogue among the contending political forces.
General Erich Ludendorff, the German Empire’s military ruler during the latter half of the First World War (1916-18), made a fateful attempt in the spring of 1925 to reclaim the dictatorship of Germany by participating in the presidential election.
The SARS CoV2 virus pandemic agenda was rolled out in early 2020. However, despite fear mongering and propaganda, UK total death statistics in 2020 were unremarkable aside from the month of April when there was increased death in mature and older age groups.
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.
***
Through the course of his political life, the current US president has often been injudicious. He has stumbled, bungled and miscalculated. His electoral victory was fortuitous, aided by a number of factors, not least the conduct of his opponent and the murderous gift of a global pandemic. Along with his fellow Democrats, he has made the issue of Donald Trump a matter of pathology rather than politics.
It is precisely that pathological approach that has come back to haunt his administration. While Trump continues to be characterised as the proto-authoritarian in waiting, squirreling off classified documents that should have been deposited in the national archives, Biden claimed to be above such behaviour.
His own Attorney General, Merrick Garland, has now appointed two prosecutors as special counsels responsible for investigating how Biden and Trump handled classified documents, with the latter also facing an investigation on his role in the January 6 storming of the Capitol. Former federal prosecutor in Maryland Robert K. Hur has been tasked with dealing with Biden and any relevant staff in their alleged mishandling of classified material. Veteran Department of Justice investigator Jack Smith is conducting two criminal investigations into the conduct of Trump.
Biden’s imbroglio centres on what happened to official documents after the conclusion of his Vice-Presidency during the Obama administration, though the problem is promising to be wider than that. The circumstance of their uncovering is significant and bruising for a president extolling the merits of transparency.
Last November, one of Biden’s personal attorneys, Pat Moore, uncovered relevant documents in the private office and home of Biden. These were then turned over to the National Archives. The timing was relevant: the discovery took place less than a week before the midterm elections. The following month, another tranche of classified documents were found in Biden’s garage in his Wilmington home. In January, a third set of documents were found at the Delaware home.
On January 20, the Justice Department made what it claimed to be thorough combing of the president’s Wilmington home. The search revealed a number of additional classified documents, some dating from Biden’s time as Senator, and more during his vice-presidential tenure. According to Bob Bauer, the president’s personal attorney, the seizure of six items involved “documents with classification markings and surrounding materials.” Handwritten notes from the vice-presidential period were also taken.
Such revelations have thrown the administration off its stroke. For one thing, the White House initially made no mention of the garage discovery. A few days later, the tune was tinkered and adjusted. There was little mention about what additional things would come out this month.
Neil Eggleston, White House counsel in the final two and half years of Obama’s presidency, is keen to diminish the significance of such discoveries. Speaking to the New Yorker, he claimed there was no reason to think that a crime had been committed. “It appears that, as the Vice-President’s office was being dismantled [at the end of the Obama presidency], some classified information got commingled with other material, and as soon as it was located it was turned over to the National Archives.”
Eggleston does, at the very least, admit that the White House could have handled matters “differently” and not just assume that the National Archives had the responsibility to alert the Justice Department. But he does much to leave room open for the fool’s defence, which is hardly admirable for the US Commander-in-chief.
Biden’s spin doctors are breaking into a sweat in pushing the already devastated and withered line that the president is not only cooperative, but transparent. That this whole search took place with his permission showed eagerness and willingness to resolve the matter, unlike the recalcitrant Trump, who made the FBI seek a court-approved search of Mar-a-Lago. “In the interest of moving the process forward as expeditiously as possible, we offered to provide prompt access to his home,” explained Baur.
Biden, for his part, is trying to play the role of receptive statesman, keen to follow advice and good counsel, thereby showing how one leads less from the front than from the cushioned middle. “I have no regrets in following what the lawyers have told me what they want me to do – it’s exactly what we’re doing.” With such un-presidential words, he was also confident that there was “nothing there” in terms of what documents had been found.
Only the most fervent of Trump supporters would claim that the doddery Biden would have actively sought to funnel and conceal classified documents, though the question will never go away. But from the throne of judgment, the current president has shown himself to be fallible and prone to habitual error.
As a result, the opposing Republican Party, which has been publicly cannibalising itself over such matters as the election of the House speaker, is receiving drip-feed sustenance. For one, they can argue that the Democrats can hardly make the purer-than-pure case about their own executive handling of classified documents. “It makes Biden look like a giant hypocrite,” opines Republican strategist and former spokesman for President George W. Bush, Alex Conant. “Clearly Trump’s handling of classified materials was a lingering problem that Republicans had not had a good answer for until this week.”
With each new discovery and unveiling, President Biden is also being shown to be a monumental, unreliable dolt. His commitment to, in the words of his special counsel Richard Sauber, “handling this responsibly because he takes this seriously” is proving increasingly risible.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
Dr. Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge. He currently lectures at RMIT University. He is a regular contributor to Global Research and Asia-Pacific Research. Email: [email protected]
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
***
An informational iron curtain is coming down across the West, and its architects are determined to make examples out of those who refuse to pick a side.
Our Democracy™ has adopted a zero-tolerance policy for pollution of the information ecosystem, and the Thought Police are standing by to halt rogue infodemics in their tracks, lest the people lose trust in their institutions.
Dr. Tim Coles, a freelance writer and postdoctoral researcher until recently at the University of Plymouth didn’t realize he was in their crosshairs until he found himself locked out of his university email account in October. Tech support was no help; department staff refused to talk to him, closing ranks and sending him a threatening email demanding he cease contact. Clearly, he had violated some unwritten law. But what?
The chain of emails that had culminated in his removal only raised further questions about why an apparent stranger whom Plymouth has refused to name – a university employee, he suspects – had complained about his writing for Australian magazine Nexus to his old PhD examiner.
In a Kafkaesque turn, the complaint lacked a single concrete accusation of wrongdoing that Coles could defend himself against, instead equivocating around familiar “conspiracy theorist” tropes. At any rate, no one had thought to consult Coles, perhaps believing him to be a disgruntled ex-student trading on his old university email rather than a researcher whose work at the university was funded by an outside trust and had nothing to do with his political writing. Rather than pause for clarification, his PhD examiner appeared to jump in with both feet, urging tech staff to help get Coles “off [the university’s] books.”
While a prolific writer on many controversial topics – US funding and training of neo-Nazis in Ukraine, the West’s neocolonial plunder of Africa under the guise of fighting terrorism, and Big Pharma’s giant power-grab under cover of Covid-19 unholy alliance of Big Pharma and Big Tech amid the coronavirus outbreak are just a few – Coles believes he ran afoul of the university censors with a series of articles about intelligence agencies blackmailing people with child sexual abuse that ran in Nexus not long before the cancellation effort began. That particular subject has a tendency to get journalists killed, and Coles wonders if his ejection from Plymouth might be a warning shot from groups displeased with his inquiries. He acknowledges, however, that the timing may be a coincidence – Hope Not Hate and other intelligence-controlled censorship advocates were apparently trying to have Nexus banned in the UK around the same time for its publication of unorthodox views on Covid-19.
While he believes the evidence in the email chain is enough to prove wrongdoing by the university, Coles couldn’t even file a complaint through the normal channels, as his inquisitors had roped the complaints department into their conspiracy by including them in the email chain. He has considered releasing the messages publicly as a last resort, but first plans to employ an outside arbitrator and give the System one last chance – more than he was given, at any rate.
Lessons from The Lobby
Coles is far from the first to be booted from a British university campus for thought crime. He sees parallels between his case and that of David Miller, the University of Bristol sociology professor who was subjected to a ferocious academic inquisition and ultimately drummed out of his post in late 2021 after the Board of Deputies of British Jews deliberately misinterpreted comments he had made about Israel weaponizing Jewish students abroad. The university’s Union of Jewish Students had been attacking him for years before seizing upon the supposedly discriminatory comment, which they only heard because they had sent in an activist ’spy’ to monitor one of his classes – ironically validating the professor’s claims better than his own arguments could have.
Like Coles, Miller was never directly confronted by his accuser, who opted for mealy-mouthed pseudo-accusations (“conspiracy theorist,” “inciting hatred”) over potentially-disprovable crimes. Like Plymouth, Bristol took the side of the accuser against its employee almost reflexively. Former Labour MP Chris Williamson, himself a victim of the Israeli lobby’s devastating smear machine, joined the Support David Miller campaign in warning that the university’s failure to stand up for the professor would only encourage “bad faith actors” to pursue further censorship.
Shortly before the lobby finally convinced Miller’s university to mount an investigation into his supposed bigotry, he observed that such pressure tactics were imported from the Israel lobby in the US and pointed out that if any other foreign lobby attempted to wage such total war on its critics, they would be “laughed out of the room.” But Coles’ experience suggests other groups have taken lessons from the Israelis – and that Williamson’s warning was prescient.
Academic “cancel culture” is a well-known scourge of American campuses, where careless tweeting costs lives and professors can be axed for using the wrong pronouns. But while most discussion of the phenomenon centers on the targeting of conservative professors, it has targeted left-wing heterodoxy with equal fury, as tenured New York University media studies professor Mark Crispin Miller discovered when a student demanded his firing via Twitter after taking offense to a discussion questioning the utility of masks in his 2020 class on Propaganda.
Like Coles and the other Miller across the pond, Miller was attacked by university colleagues with vague allegations of “attacks on students and others in our community,” “aggressions and microaggressions,” and “explicit hate speech” and an investigation was launched behind his back even in the absence of any specific forbidden act. Administrators went one step further and contacted all his students to remind them of the CDC’s mask guidance, lest their fragile minds have been corrupted by the conspiracy theorist in the classroom. They couldn’t fire him – he was tenured, after all – but they did their best to make his life so miserable that he would leave, forbidding him from teaching his beloved Propaganda class, and he has been on sabbatical since.
Even Kenneth Roth, the former executive director of Human Rights Watch, was recently denied a fellowship at the Carr Center for Human Rights, part of Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government, on the basis of wrongthink – what its dean described as his “anti-Israel bias.” Roth has toed the line on foreign policy groupthink elsewhere, dutifully demonizing Putin, Assad, Trump, and so on as the needs of Empire demanded. But his refusal to ignore Israel’s increasingly bold apartheid policies got him the David Miller treatment despite years of faithful service. If Roth isn’t safe, many academics have begun to wonder, what the hell are they going to do to me?!
Will Censor for Food
While Coles questions if universities were ever really the freethinkers’ utopia so many academic misfits yearn for, there is no denying groupthink has tightened its hold in recent years. While an academic might once have been left alone to research controversial subjects on his own time so long as he didn’t embarrass his employer, this laissez-faire approach has been replaced by an administrative panopticon that is both hyper-responsive and reflexively condemnatory – a “cottage industry of shutting people down,” in the words of its recent target. Censorship has been outsourced from the state and its corporate minions to “academics and think tanks who are given a well-funded government hammer so they see everything as a nail of disinformation,” Coles explains. Not simply salaried, they are financially incentivized to bag-and-tag as many pieces of “disinformation” as they can, essentially bounty hunters for inconvenient truths, enabling a much tighter, more granular control of information than was ever possible under a traditional totalitarian model.
These programs and campaigns – with names like Integrity Initiative, Center for Countering Digital Hate, Trusted News Initiative – initially appear to be independent nonprofits that just happen to share a common devotion to fighting fake news.
However, their cooperation is more than superficial, with many of the same entities ultimately directing their actions as they work together to artificially muscle the discourse in the desired direction, choking off competing narratives while maintaining plausible deniability regarding their connections to the state.
In this model of soft totalitarianism, the dissident is not so much ordered to cease publishing objectionable ideas, or even threatened with execution or creative torture. He is merely subjected to mounting insults, ‘nudged’ in certain directions, and gradually stripped of resources, especially any public platform he may have had in accordance with his refusal to follow the rules. Amid this complex ballet of carrot and stick, he is constantly reminded that these are his decisions, making him (in his own mind, at least) a willing participant in his own spiritual suffocation.
Fact-checkers, once mere newsroom employees tasked with verifying the details of major stories, have been artificially elevated into a caste of gatekeepers, deemed impartial arbiters of truth even as their donor lists burst with conflicts of interest from Pierre Omidyar to Bill Gates to George Soros. This veneer of independence allows them much greater latitude than any equivalent government body, as the ignominious collapse of the US’ Disinformation Governance Board last year proved. This official Ministry of Truth, which would have operated out of the Department of Homeland Security, was a bridge too far even for the American media establishment, which had long since embraced its unofficial equivalent censoring tweets and Facebook posts to keep the world safe for democracy.
All it took to get English-speaking countries to accept the need for these newly-minted (the International Fact Checking Network was only launched in 2015) cognitive babysitters was for a few pathological liars to blame Trump’s 2016 electoral victory and Brexit on Russian disinformation.
Never mind that neither hypothesis was ever substantiated, or that both have since been thoroughly discredited – unfiltered access to information has joined the lengthy list of threats to social harmony, and the fact-checkers, having tasted power, are unlikely to return to the newsroom. Given that a free press is integral to a functioning democracy, it goes without saying that any regime looking to dismantle the latter would want to get the former out of the way.
New Dawn in Old Bottles
No sooner had Coles been chased out of his university for his writing in one Australian alt-media magazine then he was engulfed in a censorship firestorm over another. An article appeared earlier this month in New Zealand news outlet Stuff excoriating bookstore chain Whitcoulls for carrying the latest edition of New Dawn, a publication which proudly bills itself as a “forum for alternative, non-mainstream ideas that question consensus reality.” Stuff’s coverage berated the bookstore for exposing unsuspecting customers to the jungle of “conspiracy theories” barely restrained within its pages (full disclosure: I have also contributed writing to New Dawn), focusing its rage on Coles’ “The curious case of Brenton Tarrant,” about the Christchurch mosque shooter.
When Whitcoulls did not immediately capitulate, “disinformation expert” Kate Hannah was called in to warn Kiwis who picked up the magazine that they were enabling “dark agendas” seeking to “destabilize liberal democracy.” Reading Coles’ article wasn’t just engaging in wrongthink, but actually committing a crime, she explained, because the article included information on how to access the illegal-in-New-Zealand helmet-cam video Tarrant recorded while shooting his way through the mosque. Just reading about where to find the video might run afoul of hate speech laws, she mused in a radio interview.
Of course, the article includes no such instructions, nor does it – as Hannah claimed – claim Tarrant didn’t shoot anyone. Coles is baffled by the disinfo expert’s disinfo, but suspects the reason they didn’t include his name (standard practice in establishment hit-pieces) in the pressure campaign is that he could justifiably sue for libel. But the mere threat of legal repercussions was sufficient to keep 99.9% of Kiwis away from the forbidden magazine, and perhaps sensing no sales in its future, Whitcoulls finally pulled the issue from its shelves.
New Zealand’s size and isolation make it a perfect experimental laboratory, and the other Four Eyes haven’t hesitated to use it as such. Nor have the Israelis, whose operation was exposed during the 2011 Christchurch earthquake. The 2019 shooting that launched the current touchless torture regime was preceded as such events often are by a series of odd ‘coincidences’ and foreshadowings. Just a few months before the massacre, a group of American survivors of the Parkland, Florida high school shooting visited the city to discuss “living through a tragedy” with their Kiwi counterparts; two Parkland survivors and a Sandy Hook survivor allegedly committed suicide in the months following the mosque killings. A police drill just happened to be taking place near the fleeing gunman, allowing participants to “heroically” capture him in what media dutifully described as a “hell of a coincidence.”
The speedy gun-grab that followed the tragedy left citizens helpless in the claws of Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern, and the subsequent clampdown on the internet was unprecedented in any other western “democracy,” with prison sentences meted out for merely sharing a link. Ostensibly to prevent anyone from reading Tarrant’s manifesto or watching the curiously videogame-like footage of the killings, the rules had the effect of banning access to entire video archives, international forums, and other information resources that might have helped the country’s residents make sense of what had just been done to them, and they were designed to be copied by the other four Eyes – or any other country that should want them.
While all five Eyes adopted unprecedented controls on social media during Covid-19, New Zealand went much further than its peers in controlling the actual publication of news. In March 2020, facing rumors that lockdown was imminent, Ardern warned upstanding citizens to avoid all unauthorized sources of information, urging them to stick with the government’s official site as “your single source of truth.”
The message didn’t age well – New Zealand was locked down within the week – but her point had gotten across loud and clear. Arrested while protesting Auckland’s return to lockdown in 2021 over just three “cases,” popular radio host and pandemic dissident Vinny Eastwood was only released on the conditions that he remain under house arrest 24/7 and stay off the internet – draconian requirements for a man who made his living live-streaming. He was later permitted back online, but only on the condition that he not advocate against Covid-19 restrictions – a deliberately subjective line in the sand meant to encourage self-censorship above all.
While the media establishment overflowed with praise for Ardern over her iron-fisted suppression of the population – er, pandemic – no one has thought to ask why, if the West questions all Covid-19 stats coming out of China due to government control of all information sources, they believed the numbers coming out of New Zealand. Even news sites like Stuff, which describes itself as “fiercely independent,” are actually public-private partnerships – in this case funded by the New Zealand government and the Google News Initiative, powered by the bonanza of helicopter money that was dumped on the news media in 2020 to fight the “infodemic” of Covid-19 “disinformation.”
That the campaign against New Dawn was no organic outrage was clear – Coles’ article is the last in the issue, and the likelihood of an indignant civilian pawing through 70 pages of conspiracy contraband just to find something they can claim is illegal approaches zero. Its favorable result means it will likely become the blueprint for future book-burning campaigns.
But why go after a couple of obscure Australian conspiracy magazines?
Especially in New Zealand, but increasingly in the US and Europe, Big Tech no longer allows the average user to stumble upon the kind of content published by New Dawn or Nexus.
Even non-Google search results from once-reliable alternatives like DuckDuckGo and Brave have been scrubbed clean of all deviations from the establishment line on topics like Covid-19 or the war in Ukraine, let alone the Christchurch shooting, and as Coles remarked, the censorship is even creeping through time into the Wayback Machine, the internet researcher’s go-to that once contained archives of much of the internet dating back decades – but now increasingly turns up error pages or sloppily retconned fact-checks. However, Kiwis browsing at Whitcoulls had at their fingertips a powderkeg of new information, rendered all the more volatile by three years spent in informational quarantine. Just as a person locked down for months will see her immune system suffer for lack of outside stimulation, any novel pathogens hitting her much harder when she finally goes outside, the Good Citizen who imbibed only Ardern-approved data for three years will likely be unable to muster even the slightest argument against whatever outrageous claims she finds in New Dawn and perhaps become lost to the weak grasp of establishment propaganda forever.
There’s an easy solution to this problem, should New Zealand want to solve it. Teach children to think critically, instead of the dumbed-down “media literacy” programs being promoted by every self-proclaimed “disinfo expert” this side of PropOrNot. Thought-stopping “information hygiene” techniques (Google it! Look it up on Wikipedia!) and reflexive appeals to authority (only a scientist can interpret that study for you!) do not help an individual resist persuasion. But a population armed with the ability to recognize an official lie and dismantle it would not allow themselves to be locked down over a few cases of a disease they were almost 100% certain to survive anyway – so of course New Dawn couldn’t be permitted to question Christchurch. It is the (shaky) foundation on which Ardern’s hastily-constructed police state was built. As rumors fly about her surprise resignation on Thursday and the media establishment rends its garments over how “unfairly” this “icon of many” was treated by “far-right extremists,” it seems clear her departure will be weaponized to further crack down on the increasingly nebulous specter of “hate speech.”
Replacing Replacement Theory
Americans who believe the New Dawn affair could only have happened in an unarmed, isolated nation like New Zealand should pay attention to what their Congress is up to. Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Texas) earlier this month introduced a bill that would criminalize the publication of “antagonism based on ‘replacement theory’” and “hate speech that vilifies or is otherwise directed against any non-White person or group” on social media if it can be said that the perpetrator of a “white supremacy inspired hate crime” had encountered the material before committing the crime – or that if they had encountered the material, it could conceivably have motivated them to take such actions.
Without bothering to define such critical terms as “hate speech” or even “replacement theory,” often trotted out for effect when the speaker needs to strike an emotional chord, the bill leapfrogs pre-crime to a total reversal of cause and effect. A content creator can be charged with conspiracy to commit a white supremacy motivated hate crime so long as the actual criminal can be shown to have engaged with their content before committing the crime. In fact, they don’t even need to engage with it – so long as the content could theoretically motivate a “person predisposed to engaging in a white supremacy inspired hate crime” to, well, you know. It’s completely subjective, based on what a “reasonable person” would do when no “reasonable person” would be caught dead in the same room as this bill. This means if someone reads the nursery rhyme “Baa baa black sheep” – declared ‘problematic’ nearly a decade ago for its racial overtones – then picks up an AR-15 and shoots a black family at church, the nursery rhyme writers could be charged with conspiracy to commit a white supremacy-motivated hate crime. Jackson Lee herself cited the example of “someone making a post online that catches the attention of someone who then drives to North Texas and kills 20 Mexican Americans” to make clear precisely how unhinged she is.
It’s doubtful that such a case would make it to court, or lead to a conviction if it did, but public opinion – a product of think tank fellows rather than crowds – can turn on a dime. What sorority girl getting sloshed on margaritas in an oversized Cinco de Mayo sombrero in 2012 would have thought she’d be sentenced to remedial readings of “White Fragility” in 2022? The aim is not to create more work for the official censors but to spook the target into silence with fear of what could happen. Leaving the definition of “white supremacy” open-ended allows an ever-larger spectrum of opinion to be cordoned off as toxic, banned from university campuses and social media, and finally memory-holed as unthinkable. At the same time, actual racists like Ukraine’s neo-Nazi Azov Battalion are invited with open arms to travel the US speaking on university campuses, swastika tattoos and all. While the Anti-Defamation League is quick to tar and feather anyone who points out Israeli war crimes, the censorship-loving Jewish organization has issued what amounts to an official indulgence for Ukraine’s biggest Third Reich fanboys.
Given the FBI’s penchant for crafting terrorism plots out of whole cloth, it would be a simple matter to take out all online wrongthinkers in one fell swoop under the white supremacy conspiracy law – just set up the usual militia honeypot for disaffected white boys, hand them the gear and point them at the minority in question, and make sure a manifesto is found nearby conspicuously listing the websites of every influential dissident in America. While last year’s Missouri v. Biden lawsuit proved – and the Twitter Files confirmed – that social media platforms were being used by a dozen or more government agencies to circumvent First Amendment prohibitions on state censorship, this new arrangement would eliminate even the need for that end-run, requiring only the fig leaf of Unacceptable White Supremacist Beliefs™ to justify the most egregious constitutional abuses.
“Replacement theory” – the idea that white Americans and/or Europeans are being deliberately supplanted in “their” nations by swarthy foreign hordes to suit nefarious ruling class purposes – first entered the mainstream discourse when Tarrant, who titled his manifesto “The Great Replacement,” supposedly set out to kill as many Muslims as possible because they were out-breeding Europeans. Tarrant’s manifesto would have gotten quite a few people in trouble as white-supremacy conspirators, many of them dead – it includes poems from Dylan Thomas and Rudyard Kipling, memes, Wikipedia articles, and an infamous passage explicitly citing black conservative commentator Candace Owens as his ideological inspiration. Tarrant and copycats like Payton Gendron (the Buffalo supermarket shooter and friend of the FBI whose manifesto borrowed liberally from Tarrant and others) have helped transform the epithet “conspiracy theory” from CIA-sponsored smear to precursor of violent extremism, though they couldn’t have done it without UNESCO, the World Jewish Congress, and the Council of Europe, who recently joined forces to remind humanity that “conspiracy theories cause real harm to people, to their health, and also to their physical safety.”
Europe has taken the legal lead in equating conspiracy theory to terrorism, banning author David Icke from the entire Schengen Area last year because his scheduled speech at a peace rally in the Netherlands posed a potential “threat to public order.” Rather than stand up to the police state, the media eagerly flew to its side, quoting “experts” who sagely opined that the “danger” posed by Icke’s “conspiracy ideology” was both clear and present and could inflict “lasting harm” upon the country.
This is in keeping with the refrain the WHO has kept up all alongside Covid-19 – that a deadly “infodemic” is spreading through sharing unapproved information about the virus, and that good citizens refrain from posting conspiracy theories online because words are equivalent to violence. This is a central part of children’s “media literacy” classes, aimed at building the perfect content filter directly into the child – because Big Brother can’t be everywhere. The idea is to graduate a generation for whom privacy is alien, dissent is criminal, obedience is a competitive sport, and turning in your parents for wrongthink is second-nature, all justified by the vague nonspecific crisis that has been looming in the background since they were born.
The censorship of New Dawn, the university witch-hunts against Dr. Coles and both Millers, the absurd white supremacy conspiracy bill, are all symptoms of the same totalitarian virus gradually sucking the will to resist out of humanity. Just as viruses need host cells to multiply, so does this one require an army of facilitators – “fake news” bounty hunters, “disinformation experts,” and the like – to smooth out humanity’s rough edges into blissful obedience. A pandemic – even an artificially-inflated synthetic one like Covid-19 – has to end, but an infodemic is forever, and this one has proven 100% fatal to human rights.
*
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.
Helen Buyniski is a journalist and photographer based in New York City. Her work has appeared on RT, Global Research, Ghion Journal, Progressive Radio Network, and Veterans Today. Helen has a BA in Journalism from New School University and also studied at Columbia University and New York University. Find more of her work at http://helenofdestroy.com and http://medium.com/@helen.buyniski or follow her on Twitter at @velocirapture23.
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.
***
I recently came across a fantastic email exchange between Francis Leader and the UK Medicine Regulator, the MHRA –
In this exchange, the MHRA admits that as regards the Covid-19 vaccines –
1. The DNA template used does not come directly from an isolated virus from an infected person
2. The DNA template (severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 GenBank 908947.3), was generated via a combination of gene synthesis and recombinant DNA technology.
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
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 Russian special envoy for Afghanistan, Zamir Kabulov, accuses Washington of attempting to build ties with armed opponents of the current Afghan government.
In an interview with Russia 24 TV, Kabulov added that the United States is seeking blackmail by freezing Afghan assets.
“They really want to avenge their shameful military-political defeat in Afghanistan and, in retaliation, they do everything so that peace is not established in this long-suffering land, but even worse is that, in addition to contacts with the armed opposition in Afghanistan, they secretly sponsor Daesh,” Kabulov said.
“Americans are using this tool as a pretext for blackmail. I promise to clear the never-ending case. To be frank, the authorities are currently using the humanitarian help that has been allotted to Afghanistan as a tool of pressure,” he said.
In reaction to the Russian special envoy’s remarks, the Islamic Emirate’s spokesperson, Zabiullah Mujahid, said that the current government will not allow any country to interfere in Afghanistan. He reiterated that the Islamic Emirate seeks good ties with all countries.
“Afghanistan is an independent country. We do not want any country’s interference here and we work to maintain good ties with all countries,” Mujahid said.
Kabulov said that there will be a number of meetings regarding Afghanistan with participation from regional nations in the next months. He added that assisting the Afghan people will be on the agenda of these events.
“The US uses the blocking of the Afghan people’s assets as a tool for political pressure and the most important negative impact of this pressure from the US is placing the Afghan people in a dire situation in terms of their economy and livelihood,” said Abdul Latif Nazari, the deputy minister of economy.
“The Islamic Emirate should strengthen its ties with all countries, including those in the region so that the US would no longer be able to interfere in Afghanistan,” said Abdul Jamil Shirani, a political analyst.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
***
In September 2022, The Epoch Times asked the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to release its Proportional Reporting Ratio (PRR) data mining results. The CDC refused. A Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request has now forced the release of these data, and they are stunning
The CDC’s PRR monitoring has identified several hundred safety signals, including for Bell’s palsy, blood clots, pulmonary embolism and death. In individuals aged 18 and older, there are 770 safety signals for different adverse events, and more than 500 of them have a stronger safety signal than myocarditis and pericarditis
In the 12- to 17-year-old age group there are 96 safety signals, and in the 5- to 11-year-old group there are 66, including myocarditis, pericarditis, ventricular dysfunction, cardiac valve incompetency, pericardial and pleural effusion, chest pain, appendicitis and appendectomies, Kawasaki’s disease and vitiligo
The proportions of deaths, which were only provided for the 18-plus age group, was 14% for the COVID jabs compared to 4.7% for all other vaccines
The FDA is also required to perform safety monitoring, using empirical Bayesian data mining. The Epoch Times asked the FDA to release its monitoring results in July 2022 but, like the CDC, the FDA refused, only to admit in December 2022 they’d confirmed the Pfizer shot was linked to pulmonary embolism
*
In September 2022, The Epoch Times asked the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to release its Proportional Reporting Ratio (PRR) data mining results. PRR1 measures how common an adverse event is for a specific drug compared to all the other drugs in the database.
According to the standard operating procedures2,3 for the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), which is run jointly by the CDC and the Food and Drug Administration, the CDC is required to perform these data mining analyses.
Not only did the CDC refuse to release the data, but it also provided false information — twice — in response to The Epoch Times’ questions about the monitoring being performed. As reported by The Epoch Times back in September 2022,4 the CDC initially claimed PRR analyses were “outside the agency’s purview” and that no monitoring was being done by them.
Eventually, the agency admitted it was doing PRRs, starting in February 2021, only to later claim they didn’t perform any PRRs until March 2022. The Epoch Times also cited several papers in which the FDA and/or CDC claimed their data mining efforts had come up empty handed.5 Now, we find that was all a pack of lies.
CDC Monitoring Reveals Hundreds of Safety Signals
In reality, the CDC’s PRR monitoring reveals HUNDREDS of safety signals, including Bell’s palsy, blood clots, pulmonary embolism and death — all of which, according to the rules, require thorough investigation to either confirm or rule out a possible link to the shots. As reported by The Epoch Times in early January 2023:6
“The CDC analysis was conducted on adverse events reported from Dec. 14, 2020, to July 29, 2022. The Epoch Times obtained the results through a Freedom of Information Act request after the CDC refused to make the results public …
PRR involves comparing the incidence of a specific adverse event after a specific vaccine to the incidence after all other vaccines. A signal is triggered when three thresholds are met, according to the CDC: a PRR of at least 2, a chi-squared statistic of at least 4, and three or more cases of the event following receipt of the vaccine being analyzed. Chi-squared tests are a form of statistical analysis used to examine data.
The results obtained by The Epoch Times show that there are hundreds of adverse events (AEs) that meet the definition, including serious conditions such as blood clotting in the lungs, intermenstrual bleeding, a lack of oxygen to the heart, and even death. The high numbers, particularly the chi-squared figures, concerned experts.
For many of the events, ‘the chi-squared is so high that, from a Bayesian perspective, the probability that the true rate of the AE of the COVID vaccines is not higher than that of the non-COVID vaccines is essentially zero,’ Norman Fenton, a professor of risk management at Queen Mary University of London, told The Epoch Times in an email after running the numbers through a Bayesian model that provides probabilities based on available information.”
Myopericarditis Is Far From the Only Problem
One of the few side effects of the COVID jabs that the CDC has actually acknowledged is myocarditis (heart inflammation), and a related condition called pericarditis (inflammation of the heart sack). Alas, the PRR monitoring results reveal there are more than 500 other adverse events that have stronger warning signals than either of those conditions.
Josh Guetzkow, an Israeli professor trained in statistics at Princeton University told The Epoch Times:7
“We know that the signal for myocarditis is associated with something that is caused by the mRNA vaccines, so it’s more than reasonable to say that anything with a signal larger than myocarditis/pericarditis should be taken seriously and investigated.”
Guetzkow expanded on his commentary in a January 4, 2023, Substack article.8 Below is a summary list of some of the key findings from the CDC’s PRR analysis. Guetzkow goes deeper in his article, so for more details, I suggest reading it in its entirety.
For even more analyses and commentary, see Fenton’s Substack article, “The CDC’s Data on COVID Vaccine Safety Signals.”9 If you want to investigate the PRR data for yourself, you can download them from The Epoch Times’ January 3, 2023, article.10 You can also find them here.11
It’s worth noting that the CDC didn’t perform its first safety signal analysis until March 25, 2022 — 15 months after the shots were rolled out. Why the long wait — especially since the CDC had announced it would begin monitoring in early 2021? Just consider, for a moment, how many lives have been lost because the CDC failed to properly monitor safety, and still drags its feet when it comes to warning people about the risks involved.
FDA Still Refuses to Share Safety Data
The FDA is also required to perform safety monitoring using another technique called Empirical Bayesian data mining. The Epoch Times first asked the FDA to release its monitoring results back in July 2022,13,14 but like the CDC, the FDA refused and insisted the data showed no evidence of serious adverse effects. In other words, “Just trust us. We’re experts.”
According to the FDA, the only potential signal they’d found through April 16, 2021, was for raised body temperature.15 Then, in mid-December 2022 — just four months after The Epoch Times tried to get these data — the FDA announced that pulmonary embolism (blood clots that block blood flow in the lungs) had met the threshold for a statistical signal, and continued to meet the criteria after in-depth evaluation, but it was only linked to the Pfizer jab.16
As noted by The Epoch Times,17 pulmonary embolism is also identified as a signal in the CDC’s PRR analysis for individuals as young as 12, which really ought to strengthen concerns.
The FDA also admitted it had already evaluated three other warning signals: lack of oxygen to the heart, immune thrombocytopenia (a blood platelet disorder) and intravascular coagulation (a type of blood clotting), but none of these continued to meet the threshold after analysis.
If the FDA was evaluating four warning signals, why did they tell The Epoch Times there was no evidence of ill effects, and why did they claim the only potential signal they’d found was slight fever? Are we to believe they discovered these signals after The Epoch Times asked for the monitoring results and then completed four in-depth investigations in four months?
Whatever the truth, it’s clear that both the CDC and FDA are not being transparent. Worse, they’ve hidden data, knowing it could mean the difference between life and death for hundreds of thousands of people.
CDC Has Ignored Clear ‘Death’ Signal
The CDC ignoring a clear signal for death is probably the most egregious example of its failures as a public health institution. As early as July 2021, Matthew Crawford published a three-part series18,19,20 detailing how the CDC was hiding safety signals by using a flawed formula. In August that year, Steve Kirsch informed the agency of these problems, but was ignored.
Then, in an October 3, 2022, article,21 Kirsch went on to show how “death” should have triggered a signal even when using the CDC’s flawed formula (which is described in its VAERS standard operating procedures manual22). Here’s an excerpt:23
“The formula the CDC uses for generating safety signals is fundamentally flawed; a ‘bad’ vaccine with lots of adverse events will ‘mask’ large numbers of important safety signals … Let me summarize the key points for you in a nutshell: PRR [proportional reporting ratio] is defined on page 16 in the CDC document24 as follows …
A ‘safety signal’ is defined on page 16 in the CDC document as a PRR of at least 2, chi-squared statistic of at least 4, and 3 or more cases of the AE [adverse event] following receipt of the specific vaccine of interest. This is the famous ‘and clause.’ Here it is from the document:
Only someone who is incompetent or is deliberately trying to make the vaccines look safe would use the word ‘and’ in the definition of a safety signal.
Using ‘and’ means that if any one of the conditions isn’t satisfied, no safety signal will be generated. As noted below, the PRR will rarely trigger which virtually guarantees that most events generated by an unsafe vaccine will never get flagged.
The PRR value for the COVID vaccines will rarely exceed 1 because there are so many adverse events from the COVID vaccine because it is so dangerous (i.e., B in the formula is a huge number) so the numerator is always near zero. Hence, the ‘safety signal’ is rarely triggered because the vaccine is so dangerous.”
A Fictitious Example
Using a fictitious vaccine as the example, Kirsch explained how an exceptionally dangerous vaccine will fly under the radar and not get flagged, thanks to this flawed formula:25
“Suppose we have the world’s most dangerous vaccine that causes adverse events in everyone who gets it and generates 25,000 different adverse events, and each adverse event has 1,000 instances.
That means that the numerator is 1,000/25,000,000 which is just 40 events per million reported events. Now let’s look at actuals for something like deaths. For all other vaccines, there are 6,200 deaths and 1 million adverse events total.
Since 40 per million is less than 6,200 deaths per million, we are not even close to generating a safety signal for deaths from our hypothetical vaccine which killed 1,000 people in a year … The point is that a dangerous vaccine can look very ‘safe’ using the PRR formula.”
Calculating Death Signal for the COVID Jab
Next, Kirsch calculates the PRR for death for the COVID jab — using VAERS data and the CDC’s definitions and formula. As of December 31, 2019, there were 6,157 deaths and 918,717 adverse events total for all vaccines other than the COVID shot. As of September 23, 2022, there were 31,214 deaths and 1.4 million adverse events total for the COVID jabs. Here’s the formula as explained by Kirsch:26
“PRR = (31,214/1.4e6) / (6,157/918,717) = 3.32, which exceeds the required threshold of 2. In other words, the COVID vaccine is so deadly that even with all the adverse events generated by the vaccine, the death signal did not get drowned out!
But there is still the chi-square test. Chi-square test results were 18,549 for ‘death,’ which greatly exceeds the required threshold of 4. The CDC chi-square test is clearly satisfied for the COVID vaccine. Because the death signal is so huge, it even survived the PRR test.
This means that even using the CDCs own erroneous … formula, all three criteria were satisfied:
1. PRR>2 [PRR greater than 2]: It was 3.32
2. Chi-square>2 [Chi-square greater than 2]: It was 18,549
3. 3 or more reports: There were over 31,214 death reports received by VAERS … which is more than 3
A safety signal should have been generated but wasn’t. Why not? … Hundreds of thousands of American lives have been lost due to the inability of the CDC to deploy their own flawed safety signal analysis … It’s been known since at least 2004 that using reporting odds ratio (ROR) is a better estimate of relative risk than PRR.27 I don’t know why the CDC doesn’t use it.”
The CDC is also hiding the severity of side effects in other ways. As explained by Fenton,28 the way side effects are categorized by the CDC help obfuscate the scale of certain problems. For example, “cardiac failure acute,” “cardiac failure,” “infarction,” “myocardial strain” and “myocardial fibrosis” are listed as separate categories, even though in real life they’re all potential effects of myocarditis.
By separating them, you end up with fewer frequency counts per category, thereby giving you an underpowered chi-square test so that a warning signal is not triggered. If related categories were merged, far stronger safety signals would likely emerge.
CDC Has No Reasonable Defense
The CDC is responsible for monitoring both VAERS and V-Safe, and between these two databases, there’s no possible way they could ever say they didn’t know the shots were harming and killing millions of Americans.
The CDC also has access to other databases, including the Defense Medical Epidemiology Database (DMED), which (before it was intentionally altered29) showed massive increases in debilitating and lethal conditions, including a tripling of cancer cases.30
The findings in these databases have never been brought forward during any of the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) meetings or the FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC) meetings, at which members have repeatedly voted to authorize the jabs to people of all ages, including infants and pregnant women.
They even added these toxic shots to the childhood vaccine schedule — which allows states to mandate them for school attendance — without addressing any of the 66 safety signals found in the CDC’s PRR analysis. The fact of the matter is that the CDC has known about these risks all along, and there’s no excuse for not sharing and acting on these data.
Help Spread the Word
Mainstream media are ignoring all of this, so help spread the word. Everyone needs to know what the CDC’s safety data reveal. To that end, here are a few suggestions for how you can help:
Write or call your members of Congress and ask them to investigate the CDC’s safety monitoring — We cannot have a public safety agency that is incapable of monitoring safety and taking appropriate action when problems are found, be it correcting a flawed formula or announcing that a safety signal has been detected. Of course, they must also publish their findings once an investigation has been made.
Contact your local newspaper and urge them to investigate and report on the CDC’s failure to act on safety signals.
Share the data on social media and ask why no one in the media, Congress, academia or medical community is investigating these matters.
Share this information with your doctor and members of the medical community.
Also share it with university administrators, and ask them to explain how and why, in light of these data, they are still mandating COVID shots.
*
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
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.
***
Arab citizens across the Middle East and North Africa continue to view Israel and the United States as the primary threats to their country’s security, and opposition to normalization with the Jewish state remains high, according to the 2022 Arab Opinion Index released Thursday by the Arab Center for Research and Policy Studies in Qatar.
Approximately 80 percent of respondents said that U.S. and Israeli policies “threaten the security and stability of the region.” By contrast, 57 percent said the same about Iran and Russia, an almost 15-point improvement for both countries since 2016. Turkey and China were the only countries that earned a positive approval rating for their policies in the Arab world.
“There is a general sense of American hypocrisy on Middle East policy,” argued Dana El Kurd, a professor at the University of Richmond, at a press briefing about the findings. “There is a sense that there is a Middle East exception to this administration’s pro-democracy position.”
Respondents had a particularly dim view of U.S. policy on Palestine, with only 11 percent saying they approve of Washington’s positions. By comparison, 31 percent of those polled approved of Iranian policy toward the Palestinians, and 43 percent approved of Turkish policy.
The Arab Opinion Index survey includes data from largely in-person interviews with 33,000 respondents across 14 Arab countries. (Interviews with Saudi respondents took place over the phone.) The 2022 poll is the eighth since 2011, when the Arab Center launched the project. Interviewers posed a wide range of questions on democracy, politics, and the economy.
While the detailed poll results are only available in Arabic, Arab Center Washington DC published an executive summary of the survey in English. Countries polled included Algeria, Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Mauritania, Morocco, Palestine, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, and Tunisia.
When it comes to foreign policy, the results highlight the sharp disconnect between the citizens of Arab countries and their leaders, many of whom have begun to seek détente with Israel. While the poll found a significant shift in favor of normalization in Morocco and Sudan — both of which, along with the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain, have already established ties with Israel — the vast majority (84 percent) of all respondents opposed any form of diplomatic relations with Tel Aviv.
In Saudi Arabia, which Israel has considered the most important target for mutual recognition, only five percent of respondents said they favored normalization, while 38 percent said they were opposed, and 57 percent said they either didn’t know or declined to answer. Opposition was strongest in Algeria, Mauritania, Libya, Palestine, Jordan, and Tunisia where from 90 to 99 percent of respondents said they opposed normalization with the Jewish state.
U.S. policymakers should take this divide into consideration when they formulate policy for the region, argued Khalil Jahshan, the executive director of the Arab Center Washington DC.
“For countries that pride themselves on support for democracy, it behooves them to look at public opinion… to look at what the public really wants,” Jahshan said.
The vast majority of respondents expressed support for democratic governance, though 47 percent expressed concern that their country is “unprepared for democracy.”
While 80 percent of those polled viewed the Arab people as a single nation, the survey revealed sharp divides between Gulf states and the rest of the Arab world over economic issues.
Over 90 percent of Gulf citizens described their family’s economic situation as good or very good, as compared to 66 percent in North Africa and 50 percent in the Levant. Eighty-six percent of Gulf natives said their household income was enough to get by or save money, while nearly half of Levant citizens — including respondents from Jordan, Palestine, and Lebanon — said their income is not enough to cover daily costs.
Nearly three out of four (73 percent) respondents said their home country suffered from widespread corruption. In Lebanon, Tunisia, and Iraq, more than 90 percent of respondents reported extensive corruption, while in Qatar and Saudi Arabia less than 30 percent said the same.
Notably, the survey also found that 36 percent of respondents rely on online news as their primary source of information, a 31-point jump from 2011, when the question was first asked. Despite the interest in online news, 57 percent said they do not trust information circulated on social media.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
***
Auditors say the Pentagon cannot account for $220 billion worth of government-owned gear provided to military contractors—and the actual total is likely much higher.
In a report released Tuesday, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) slammed the Pentagon’s handling of so-called “government-furnished property” (GFP) that has been passed off to contractors with little oversight. The GAO notes that auditors have asked for decades that the Pentagon develop a plan to account for that gear and equipment—which can include “ammunition, missiles, torpedoes,” and component parts for those items—to little avail. In 2001, the Pentagon said it would address the issue by 2005. In 2020, it said the process would be complete by 2026.
Perhaps someday we’ll know how much taxpayer-funded military gear has been handed out to contractors. For now, the GAO notes that the $220 billion estimate is “likely significantly understated.” That figure is based on a 2014 report, but in 2016 the Army told auditors that the actual figure is “unknown and that actual quantities may be greatly different than the Army’s documented property records reflect.”
The Pentagon failed a fifth consecutive audit in November, when it could only account for 39 percent of its $3.5 trillion in assets. Nevertheless, the military received $858 billion—a 10 percent budget increase—in the omnibus bill passed late last year.
The amount of taxpayer-funded military gear that’s been handed out to contractors is a relatively small sum compared to the Pentagon’s astronomical budget and gordian accounting issues. Even so, it serves as an illustrative example of the broader accountability problems within the most expensive portion of the federal discretionary budget.
“DOD’s lack of accountability over government property in the possession of contractors has been reported by auditors as far back as 1981,” the new GAO report states. “These long-standing issues affect the accounting for and reporting of GFP and are one of the reasons DOD is unable to produce auditable financial statements.”
It can also serve as a litmus test for the seriousness of would-be fiscal conservatives who are calling for spending cuts.
The new Republican majority in the House of Representatives has vowed to roll back discretionary spending to 2022 levels—effectively undoing the omnibus bill passed in December. But some are already indicating that they would like to exempt the Pentagon from that belt-tightening.
“During negotiations, cuts to defense were never discussed,” Rep. Chip Roy (R–Texas) said in a statement posted to his office’s Twitter account last week. “Spending cuts should focus on non-defense discretionary spending.”
That’s a bunch of nonsense. If the Department of Education couldn’t account for more than 39 percent of its assets, conservatives would rightly be outraged about the rampant waste. If the Department of Transportation had misplaced more than $220 billion of equipment, they would likely haul Secretary Pete Buttigieg before a committee to answer for the mess. The Pentagon should be treated no differently—in fact, given the long-standing accountability issues there, it should arguably be subjected to even tighter scrutiny.
A bipartisan group of senators including included Chuck Grassley (R–Iowa), Mike Lee (R–Utah), Sen. Bernie Sanders (I–Vt.), and Ron Wyden (D–Ore.), proposed a possible solution last year. Their bill would automatically cut 1 percent from the budget of any part of the Pentagon that fails an annual audit. If that had passed, 20 of the Pentagon’s 27 agencies would have faced budget cuts this year.
As it stands, there is little incentive for the military bureaucracy to get its act together because lawmakers from both parties will vote to shower more money on the Pentagon even when it can’t account for most of what it’s already been given. That won’t change until Congress’ approach to the Pentagon budget does.
*
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.
Eric Boehm is a reporter at Reason.
Featured image is a US Department of Defense photo
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
***
While Western journalists insist that Ukraine is “winning” the conflict, experienced military and analysts continue to point to the evident fact that Russia cannot be defeated so easily. In a recent interview, a top US general commented that the situation is very complicated for the Ukrainians, who will have many difficulties to fulfill their promise to “expel” Russian forces from territories already reintegrated into Moscow’s sovereign space.
According to the chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, Mark Milley, Ukraine will face many problems in order to achieve its military objectives in the current conflict against Russia. He points out that most Western leaders, and even the Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, despite the bellicose speech, believe that the resolution of the conflict will be done through diplomatic negotiations instead of by force. Milley seems skeptical of any possibility of Ukrainian success through the military dispute.
Milley also commented on the time it would take to end hostilities. Although some Ukrainian and Western politicians claim that they plan to expel the Russians as soon as possible, he does not believe in the possibility of this process being completed by 2023. The solid positions maintained by the Russian forces in the regions newly integrated into the Federation make it difficult to believe in the possibility of a rapid military reversal strong enough to guarantee Kiev the control of these territories.
“President Biden, President Zelensky, and most of the leaders of Europe have said this war is likely to end in a negotiation (…) From a military standpoint, this is a very, very difficult fight (…) I still maintain that for this year, it would be very, very difficult to militarily eject the Russian forces from every inch of Russian-occupied Ukraine (…) That doesn’t mean it can’t happen, doesn’t mean it won’t happen. But it’d be very, very difficult”, he said during the interview.
Milley’s views sound realistic. He makes it clear that Ukraine’s weaknesses will not be overcome so easily, despite Western help. The US alone has already sent over 110 billion dollars in military aid to Kiev, providing packages that include heavy weapons, combat vehicles, anti-aircraft systems and over a million artillery shells. Europe and NATO allied nations are also providing everything they can to the Ukrainian neo-Nazi regime. However, Russian military superiority sounds evident, as Moscow celebrates more and more important victories, such as the recent seizures of Soledar and Klescheevka.
There are many factors that explain Russia’s success despite Western aid to Ukraine. Moscow’s focus is on avoiding a war of attrition that needlessly kills Russian soldiers and civilians. For this, there is a strategic direction of the fighting forces to key regions, where the military victory makes viable the cutting of the supply lines of the Ukrainian forces. Also, Russian artillery focuses on big military zones and infrastructure facilities, while parallel troops, such as the private military company “Wagner Group” play the role of infantry force, mainly in urban areas.
On the other hand, Kiev seems to have difficulties in strategically managing the conflict. Despite NATO’s support, the Ukrainian forces, as already reported by several on the ground informants, are marked by disorganization and corruption. Most Western weapons are absolutely new to the Ukrainian soldiers, who do not know how to operate them correctly, often causing damages against their own side.
Furthermore, Ukrainians seem to prioritize territory over human lives, unlike Russians. While Moscow constantly promotes strategic retreats to save lives, Kiev keeps troops in the trenches even when the battles are virtually lost. The result is the death of thousands of soldiers in unnecessary combat. These soldiers are replaced by new fighters, with not enough training and no military experience, resulting in strategic errors and more deaths.
In addition, it is important to mention that since 2014 Kiev deliberately attacks civilians and this has been getting worse as heavy weapons from the West arrive in the country. Much of the equipment imported by Ukraine has been used in demilitarized areas in Donbass for the sole purpose of murdering ethnic Russian civilians, without any military gain, which makes it even more complicated for this Western aid to have any real impact in the conflict.
In fact, Milley’s words just confirm what has already become a constant conclusion among military experts: Kiev is not able to defeat Russia – both because Moscow is militarily stronger and because of the lack of organizational and administrative capacity on the part of the Ukrainians. The possibility of a real military reversal would only happen in a scenario of more direct NATO’s intervention, but in this case the war would certainly escalate to the nuclear level and end without winners.
On the near horizon, only the Russian victory looks like a real scenario. The best to do is to resume the talks, with Kiev fully accepting Russian ceasefire terms. As Milley suggested, Western politicians themselves believe this, but they prefer to continue funding the conflict just to try to destabilize Russia’s strategic environment as much as possible, even if it costs the lives of Ukrainian citizens.
*
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.
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 internal balances of the European Union are significantly transforming as a consequence of the US’ proxy war with Russia in Ukraine. The countries that are close neighbours of the conflict zone — countries of Eastern Europe and the Baltic States — have a greater sense of involvement in the conflict in comparison with the countries of Old Europe. These New Europeans have had a difficult history that puts them on a pronouncedly ‘anti-Russian’ trajectory.
Their Manichean fears of Russia brought them closer to the US and post-Brexit Britain than to their natural allies in western Europe. Poland, the mightiest entity of New Europe, is investing massively in defence, which may catapult it as the leading military power in Europe.
In 2022, Poland concluded a huge arms purchase contract with South Korea: heavy combat tanks (four times more than France), artillery, fighter jets, for 15 billion euros.Warsaw also signed a contract last month to purchase two observation satellites from France for 500 million euros. Poland is determined to be ever more consequential in European affairs.
On the other hand, for Germany, Europe’s powerhouse, the war is a particularly sensitive issue and it is caught up in a certain constant questioning of itself. Germany’s Nazi legacy, its chosen dependence on Russian gas and the reluctance to deliver the first weapons to Ukraine put it in agony today over the issue of heavy tank deliveries.
Nonetheless, Germany promptly seized the Russian special military operation in Ukraine to announce on February 27 a sharp increase in its military spending to more than 2% of its economic output in one of a series of policy shifts. The government of Chancellor Olaf Scholz decided to supply 100 billion euros for military investments from its 2022 budget. (Germany’s entire defence budget by comparison was 47 billion euros in 2021.)
Not to be left behind, President Emmanuel Macron said in June that Russia’s operation in Ukraine had sent France into “a war economy” that he expected to last a long time. He announced in the weekend he would ask parliament to approve a new budget of €400 billion for the period 2024-2030, up from €295 billion for 2019-2025.
The new budget is intended to modernise France’s military in the face of multiple potential new threats, Macron said on Friday, adding,“After repairing the armed forces, we are going to transform them. We need to do better and do it differently.”
To be sure, the geopolitical earthquake in Ukraine caused tremors all over Europe and every country is evaluating its position and role. Although no country is questioning its European commitment, there is a palpable sense of disorientation. Scholz wrote in an essay two months ago in Foreign Affairs magazine that it was time for a Zeitenwende, or historic “turning point,” on Germany taking responsibility.
Again, on Friday, Macron and Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez signed a new treaty of joint cooperation, described as a historic friendship treaty to achieve common strategic objectives. They have decided to put behind the tensions over the proposed MidCat gas pipeline through the Pyrenees (which was blocked by France due to environmental reasons.)
But both countries have different motivations. France may be shoring up European support as it prepares to dispute with the US over the billions of dollars in subsidies for American companies as part of President Joe Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act, which aims to fund a green transition. And Spain probably aims to become a more prominent player in the nucleus of European power, and is estimating that a tighter alliance with France will help.
However, by Sunday, Macron is celebrating the 60th anniversary of the Franco-German reconciliation of 1961 at a summit in Paris with Scholz, coupled with a joint Council of Ministers, with focus on recapturing the verve of the Paris-Berlin axis which used to preside over the EU until the conflict in Ukraine erupted. Whether that swagger can be recaptured remains to be seen.
France and Germany were not ready for this war in Ukraine, while the countries of the Eastern front were more vigilant vis-à-vis Moscow and immediately perceived the stakes. The political cost of this discrepancy is not quantifiable yet. Meanwhile, the balance of power in Europe has changed, and it is unclear whether France and Germany will succeed in forging a new balance.
For the present, Scholz has come under increasing pressure from allies to send German-made Leopard battle tanks to Ukraine, or to allow other countries to re-export from their own stocks. The US is leading this pantomime from the rear.
Washington is determined to put the final nails on the coffin of German-Russian rapprochement and disrupt the revival of the Franco-German axis to address jointly a European response to Biden’s predatory subsidy law and map out pathways to protect European industry. The economic stakes are very high as, lured by US subsidy, a migration of European industry to America is likely.
France and Germany are deeply skeptical that Washington will make meaningful changes to the green investment plan. At issue is “the ideal of a Europe that is united and in full control of its destiny,” as Macron said at the ceremony at Sorbonne in Paris today with Scholz by his side. Scholz in turn said, “Today we strive side by side to strengthen the sovereignty of Europe.” They affirmed amitié indestructible (indestructible friendship.)
Indeed, Poland chose precisely today to train its guns on Germany, while Macron and Scholz were celebrating the 60 years of Elysee Treaty in Paris to shore up their alliance with a day of ceremonies and talks on Europe’s security, energy and other challenges.
Polish Prime Minister Morawiecki tore into Scholz in extremely harsh language threatening to build a “smaller coalition” of European countries if Germany does not agree to the transfer of Leopard 2 tanks. Morawiecki thundered: “Ukraine and Europe will win this war — with or without Germany.”
He accused Scholz of not “acting up to the potential of the German state” and of undermining or sabotaging “the actions of other countries.” Morawiecki raged in uncontrollable anger: “They (German politicians) hoped to pawn off the Russian bear with generous contracts. That policy bankrupted them, and to this day Germany finds it difficult to admit its mistake. Wandel durch Handel has become synonymous with epochal error.”
It is still 36 hours to go for the first anniversary of the Russian operation in Ukraine. But the war has spilled over to Europe. As Russia steadily gains the upper hand militarily and the spectre of defeat haunts the US and NATO, Poland is getting frantic. A tipping point is coming for it to recover its “lost territory” in western Ukraine if and when that country collapses — although Stalin had compensated Poland with more than 40,000 square miles of east German lands.
Europe is unlikely to be party to Polish revanchism, especially Germany. These sweeping political maneuvers can be seen as an attempt to adapt to the new world of war and, perhaps, as well to prepare Europe for the one that comes after.
*
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: France’s President Emmanuel Macron (R) with German Chancellor Olaf Scholz as they arrive to attend a ceremony marking the 60th anniversary of the Elysee Treaty, Sorbonne university’s Grand Amphitheatre, Paris, Jan. 22, 2023
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.
***
Amidst indignant reactions to ex-Chancellor Angela Merkel’s revelations about the Minsk accords, worry about Americans “advising” Ukrainians en situ, and the back-and-forth of battle lines, it’s easy to forget what the Ukraine War is all about: the struggle of the United States to maintain its status as the world’s only superpower. More exactly, America’s attempt to suppress China as a rival superpower is the center of this tragedy.
China, allied with its back-door gas station Russia, is a nearly unbeatable foe. China’s seaports can easily be cut off if container ships are threatened against docking there. Its back door is another matter. So those hard-eyed folks in Washington, obsessed with the Wolfowitz Doctrine, need to eliminate or take over Russia. That is the sine qua non of the American strategy. Without this step, the strategy falls apart.
And the step needs to be taken quickly; already the confrontation with China is picking up momentum.
Hence the Ukraine War. As President Biden ad-libbed himself, “[Putin] cannot remain in power.” He later walked back the comment, but the slip obviously reflects thinking in the Oval Office. The nice way to remove him is to cause a Russian defeat in Ukraine and the resignation — or worse — of its president, replaced (neocons hope) by a pliable drunk like Boris Yeltsin. I would imagine that foreign-policy blobbers long ago convinced themselves that they would really, actually, in their heart-of-hearts prefer to do things this way. Because the other way is not nice.
Not nice at all: the other option is a nuclear attack. Invasion of Russia won’t do the trick. Russians would see it coming a mile off. And they wouldn’t stand for a conventional war on their territory because they know they would lose. Nor would they stand for another Yeltsin, nor a foreign ruler that broke the country into ten pieces. Long before the Yankees got to within a HIMARS-throw of Moscow, Russia would resort to nuclear weapons.
The savants of Washington know this, as they have always known that Russia could not possibly lose a conventional war against Ukraine: a table-flat country, on its border, with a third the population, and no real war-making resources other than an actor-president who — credit where credit is due — could sell sand in the Sahara. I would give him his bust in the halls of Congress just for sheer chutzpah.
A conventional attack being impossible, Washington needs a war right on Russia’s border to use as cover, as an excuse, for a nuclear attack. If you doubt that their determination, remember that this reckless gambit in international affairs has been built through four administrations of neocons, who: 1) scrapped the relevant arms-control treaties; 2) overthrew a democratically-elected regime on Russia’s border; 3) pulled Europe apart from Russia, wrecking the European economy; and 4) literally destroyed the NordStream pipeline to make sure that the wreck stayed wrecked. I would imagine that even among older practitioners of U.S. foreign policy — Kissinger, Baker and their lot — those measures must have raised a few eyebrows. Biden’s crew is like fifteen-year-olds let loose in the foreign-policy candy store.
There are two ways, as I see it, of the war provoking a nuclear crisis: if the United States and/or Nato enter the war, or if, somehow, the Ukrainians mount a chemical- or biological-weapon attack against Russia, perhaps a dirty bomb. In either case, a crisis explodes, threats are made, and the U.S. has an excuse to unleash a nuclear attack on Russia — maybe with just a minimum of tactical nukes to impose a surrender, for only God and the CIA know what the Americans can actually do.
The point is to have a credible excuse for a first strike; without the Ukraine War, credibility would have been problematic — or at least more problematic; I have no doubt that, in a pinch, the same agile novelists who gave us the Kennedy Assassination and 9-11 could come up with a vivid tale. Whatever it is, the public will accept it, for they have been carefully cultivated by media stories about Russia: how Putin has turned into a dictator, how the LGBT community is persecuted, how Russian men fled the country to avoid conscription, and especially, repeatedly, poundingly like the drumming on a heavy-metal tune, that Vladimir Putin is a madman, a megalomaniac.
When the first images of blasted-out Moscow appear, President Biden will explain to a frightened world his heart-wrenching decision to strike first: the covers of Siberian rocket silos had been removed, the radio traffic was unmistakable, humint and e-lint confirmed suspicions, the Russian military brass had all suddenly slipped away to command centers around the country, and the crowning touch: President Putin’s recent mental state was “extremely concerning.” His statement need be but the merest window-dressing; the public, though appalled, will breathe a sigh of relief to know that this madman is no more.
President Biden would never do such a thing? This foggy-headed grandfather might be fully against World War III, but his foreign-policy team has by now taken the measure of him and knows exactly what to say in order to panic him into acting.
The foreign-policy crew fears a nuclear response from Putin? Hardly. They seem to have taken the Russian’s measure as well, and come away satisfied. Putin didn’t react when: 1) Nato expanded again and again; 2) Washington staged the coup d’etat in Kiev; 3) Washington (the only real suspect, either hands-on or not) sabotaged the NordStream 2 pipeline; and 4) when Washington assisted the Ukrainian government’s attack on the Donbass. Indeed, Putin waited through eight years of this violence to finally invade, having exhausted every other possibility to avoid war, and even then launched not a war but a lame “special military operation.”
Add all of this to the neocons’ wishful thinking that once Russia is out of the way, China will be a piece of cake that they will eat deliciously smacking their lips; and a nuclear first strike easily crosses into their realm of the feasible. Hitler and Napoleon would understand.
How strange that the drive to conquer Russia returns again and again in history; it is the West’s recurring nightmare, and it will be this time as well — though this aspect of the Ukraine story is strictly ignored by our slovenly mainstream media. So I leave the last word to Argentine writer Jorge Luis Borges, who said, “The past is indestructible; sooner or later everything comes back around, and one of the things that come back around is the project to abolish the past.”
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
***
This is the advice which social media say the U.S. Government is today giving to the Zelensky regime in Kiev. It follows by a day or two the public release by German intelligence operatives of their own assessment of the latest course of the war, saying that the stubborn resistance of the Ukrainian Armed Forces to advancing Russian ground units in Artyomovsk (Bakhmut), just as the defense of Soledar (lost to the Russians a week ago) was and is a death trap set by the Russians for the Ukrainians. As the U.S. overlords understand today, continued losses of Ukrainian forces in these hopeless PR stunts are compromising any chances of their making a spring counteroffensive when the advanced military gear now being shipped to them arrives and is put into the field.
What conclusion can we reach from “withdraw from Artyomovsk”? Very simply that the notion of 1:1 death and ingured rates that the Anglosaxon news disseminators have been shouting for weeks to slant the news towards some “stalemate” between the opposing sides is pure nonsense. It would be safer to follow the figures put out by the Russian military, which indicate a 10:1 imbalance in casualties on the Ukrainian side.
Meanwhile, the big news in the past 24 hours was the meeting of the Ukraine Contact Group in the German army base at Ramstein. This was most notable for the failure of the defense ministers of the 50 participating countries to reach any agreement over delivery of tanks to the Ukrainians. Tanks are allegedly needed to support Ukraine’s spring counter offensive, with the objective not merely to push back the Russians to the line of demarcation in Donbas prior to the start of the Special Military Operation, but even to recapture the Crimea.
The central issue at Ramstein was German Chancellor Scholz’s refusal to send in German Leopard heavy tanks or to allow the many NATO countries where Leopards are held in the inventory to send any of their tanks to Kiev. Scholz is said to insist the Americans first ship their own Abrams tanks to Kiev before Germany will lift a finger. And why is he being so stubborn in resisting all the jackal states in NATO on this very issue? Western reports say he is fearful of leading the pack on delivery of tanks and incurring special Russian wrath.
Let us decode this message: the German chancellor is not some indecisive imbecile, as our newspapers hint. No, he is a cunning fox who is unwilling to allow Washington to send him and Europe to hell in what could easily become a Russia-NATO hot war if the Russian red lines forbidding heavy armaments deliveries are crossed.
So all the Ukrainians will get by way of new weapon systems as per the decisions announced yesterday in Ramstein are token deliveries of armored personnel carriers and armored machine gun and cannon vehicles that one might just call light tanks. That and a lot more howitzers of every variety coming from several different NATO countries.
But in terms of the big picture, what difference would tanks make? The vision of big tank warfare across the Ukrainian steppes that underlies the Washington war scenario is fallacious. As I have pointed out repeatedly, despite the lies and PR blasts from Washington and London, the war is being fought according to the Russian scheme, not the U.S. scheme.
We have heard how poorly the Russians coordinate air and ground. We have heard how they just cannot put together any good shock and awe. But this is beside the point. The Russians are waging an artillery war for good reasons: they have the world’s largest manufacturing industry of cannon, multi-rocket field launchers and munitions and they are waging a war of attrition on the ground which can only favor their armies.
If the slaughter of Ukrainians continues at its present rate, if the United States and its allies cannot ramp up munitions production, if the destruction of the Ukrainian energy infrastructure continues, if the logistics for conveying Western military supplies to the front are further impaired, then the Russians will find themselves against a disarmed Ukrainian army some time in the early spring, and they may get the capitulation they seek without shock and awe heroics.
In saying this, I acknowledge my own misreading of the Russian war plans, since I expected them to deliver the death blow to Kiev some time ago. But then I am joined in this misreading by many others who actually have military expertise guiding their assessments, such as Col. Douglas MacGregor.
Who laughs last, laughs best. And that may well explain the sardonic smile we see from time to time in President Putin’s public statements about the course of the war effort.
That is not to say that we can sleep calmly in the belief that the end of the war is nigh. There are risks arising as the inevitability of a Russian victory sinks into thick skulls at the Pentagon. The latest risks come from those saying publicly in Washington that the Ukrainians must be given longer range missiles so that they can strike directly at Russian military installations in Crimea if not in Central Russia. Such extravagant plans for the conquest of Russia can lead only to a nuclear response from Moscow and…the end of civilization as we know it.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
Gilbert Doctorow is an independent political analyst based in Brussels.
Featured image: Ukrainian trench during the battle, November 2022 (Licensed under CC BY 4.0)
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.
***
The US government is preparing to hand Ukraine assets confiscated from Russian businessmen under a scheme proposed by the Biden administration last year, which aims to target the wealth of “oligarchs” and pass it on to Kiev.
Andrew Adams – the head of ‘KleptoCapture,’ a Department of Justice sanctions task force created last March – detailed the progress made on the asset seizure plan during a talk at the Hudson Institute on Thursday.
“In the future, we’re also poised to begin the transfer of forfeited assets for the benefit of Ukraine,” he said. “In the closing days of 2022, Congress passed, and the president signed, the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2023, and among its provisions is a law that newly empowers the Justice Department to direct forfeited funds to the State Department for the purpose of providing aid to Ukraine.”
Adams noted that the law does not allow for all frozen Russian assets to be transferred to Kiev, namely those seized due to export control violations, and said the amounts involved are “minuscule” compared to the costs of Moscow’s invasion.
“It’s not a silver bullet, but it is nevertheless something that makes me hopeful that we will start to see the first transfers from Justice to the State Department occurring in the coming weeks and months,” he continued.
The White House first floated the asset scheme last April, pushing to confiscate any wealth thought to be “linked to Russian kleptocracy” and use it to “support Ukraine.” The proposal required Congress to change some existing laws, alterations that were included in the massive $1.7 trillion spending package for 2023.
According to the Atlantic Council’s Russia Sanctions Database, more than 1,300 Russian nationals and some 1,100 entities are under US sanctions. While the overall worth of Russian assets currently frozen by the US Treasury has not been publicized, Washington has also targeted wealth owned by Moscow’s central bank totaling around $300 billion. Those funds cannot be seized, however, and will remain frozen barring any change in US law.
A number of Western allies have followed suit on the sanctions and asset seizures, among them Canada, Switzerland, Britain, Australia and the European Union itself, all aiming to isolate Russia’s economy in retaliation for invading its neighbor last February.
Moscow responded harshly to Adams’ comments regarding Russian assets, saying plans to send the captured funds to Ukraine were a “breach of fundamental American values” and marked an “obvious disregard of generally accepted legal norms.”
“Such dangerous precedents only serve to discredit the United States as a ‘bastion’ of free enterprise,” the Russian Embassy in the US said in a statement on Thursday night. “Washington, with its own hands, is undermining confidence in both the American and international financial system, as well as the security of the dollar jurisdiction.”
*
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.
Will Porter is assistant news editor at the Libertarian Institute and a staff writer at RT. Find more of his work at Antiwar.com and Consortium News.
Featured image: FILE PHOTO: A stack of Russian currency. (Credit: Stockvault)
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 small Nordic country of Norway may not be particularly notable on the global crypto map. With its 22 blockchain solution providers, the nation doesn’t stand out even at the regional level.
However, as the race to test and implement central bank digital currencies (CBDCs) accelerates every day, the Scandinavian nation is taking an active stance on its own national digital currency. In fact, it was among the first countries to begin the work on a CBDC back in 2016.
Dropping cash
In recent years, amid a rise in cashless payment methods and concern over cash-enabled illicit transactions, some Norwegian banks have moved to remove cash options altogether.
“Today, there is approximately 50 billion kroner in circulation and [the country’s central bank] Norges Bank can only account for 40 percent of its use. That means that 60 percent of money usage is outside of any control.”
A year before that, another large Norwegian bank, Nordea, also refused to accept cash, leaving only one branch in Oslo Central Station to continue handling cash.
Last year Torbjørn Hægeland, executive director for financial stability at Norway’s central bank, Norges Bank, outlined to the project’s goal of replacing cash use in the country:
“With this background, the decline in cash use and other structural changes in the payment system are key drivers for the project.”
The experimental phase of the Norwegian CBDC will last until June 2023 and end with recommendations from the central bank on whether the implementation of a prototype is necessary.
Ethereum is the key
In September 2022, Norges Bank released the open-source code for the Ethereum-backed digital currency sandbox. Available on GitHub, the sandbox is designed to offer an interface for interacting with the test network, enabling functions like minting, burning and transferring ERC-20 tokens.
However, the second part of the source code, announced to go public by mid-September, has yet to be revealed. As specified in a blog post, the initial use of open-source code was not a “signal that the technology will be based on open-source code,” but a “good starting point for learning as much as possible in collaboration with developers and alliance partners.”
Earlier, the bank revealed its principal partner in building the infrastructure for the project — Nahmii, a Norway-based developer of a layer-2 scaling solution for Ethereum of the same name. The company has been working on this scaling technology for Ethereum for several years and has its own network and tokens. At this point, the test network for the Norwegian CBDC uses not the public Ethereum ecosystem, but a private version of the enterprise blockchain Hyperledger Besu.
In late 2022, Norway became part of Project Icebreaker, a joint exploration with the central banks of Israel, Norway and Sweden on how CBDCs can be used for cross-border payments. Within its framework, the three central banks will connect their domestic proof-of-concept CBDC systems. The final report for the project is scheduled for the first quarter of 2023.
Local specifics, universal problems
In terms of hopes and fears, what defines the Norwegian CBDC project among others is the national regulatory context. Like its geographical neighbors, Norway is known for its cautious approach to the digital assets market, with high taxes and the relatively small scale of its domestic crypto ecosystem — a recent study by EU Blockchain Observatory estimated its total equity funding at a modest $26.9 million.
Norwegian serial entrepreneur Sander Andersen, who has recently moved his fintech company to Switzerland, doubts that the upcoming project will co-exist peacefully with the crypto industry. There are already more than enough problems for tech entrepreneurs in the country, he said in a chat with Cointelegraph:
“Despite the country’s strong infrastructure for entrepreneurs in other industries, such as low energy costs and free education, these benefits do not extend to the digital realm. The tax burden faced by digital companies makes it nearly impossible to compete with businesses based in more business-friendly jurisdictions.”
As central bank digital currencies have the potential to compete with private cryptocurrencies, and the goal of any government is to control financial transactions as tightly as possible, Andersen doesn’t see Norway among the exceptions:
“The Norwegian central bank’s CBDC project can also pose a threat to the legal status of private stablecoins in the country. The introduction of a CBDC may prompt increased regulation and oversight of private stablecoins, making it harder for these companies to operate.”
Speaking to Cointelegraph, Michael Lewellen, head of solutions architecture at OpenZeppelin, a company contributing its contracts library to the Norges Bank project, doesn’t sound so pessimistic. From a technical perspective, he emphasized, there is nothing stopping private stablecoins from trading and operating alongside CBDCs on both public and private Ethereum networks, especially if they use common, compatible token standards such as ERC-20.
However, from a policy perspective, there’s nothing that can stop central banks from performing financial gatekeeping and enforcing the Know Your Customer (KYC) standards, and this is where the CBDC looks like a natural development. Banks will not sit idly by as the blockchain ecosystem grows, as there is a lot of shadow-banking activity happening on-chain, Lewellen specified, adding:
“CBDCs offer central banks the ability to better perform gatekeeping and enforce KYC rules on CBDC holders, whereas enforcing the same standards against entities using non-governmental stablecoins is far more challenging.”
Could Norway’s CBDC offer anything reassuring in terms of users’ privacy? It’s hardly possible from both technological and strategic points of view, Lewellen said. Today, a mature solution doesn’t exist that would allow privacy in a compliant manner regarding the use of CBDCs.
Any national digital currency would almost certainly require every address to be linked to an identity, using KYC and other means we see in banks today. In fact, if done on the private ledger, like the one that Norges Bank is testing right now, the CBDC will offer not only less privacy for a single customer, but at the same time less public transparency with regard to blockchains.
*
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
