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

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

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

***

The Lancet, a world-renown medical journal, is out with a new study debunking a highly-cited CDC study that was used to support mask mandates in schools.

Specifically, the study not only replicates the CDC study, which found a “negative association” between masks and pediatric cases of Covid-19, it also extends the study to include more districts over a longer period of time. In the end, the new study had nearly “six times as much data as the original study.”

“Replicating the CDC study shows similar results; however, incorporating a larger sample and longer period showed no significant relationship between mask mandates and case rates,” the study finds. “These results persisted when using regression methods to control for differences across districts. Interpretation: School districts that choose to mandate masks are likely to be systematically different from those that do not in multiple, often unobserved, ways. We failed to establish a relationship between school masking and pediatric cases using the same methods but a larger, more nationally diverse population over a longer interval. Our study demonstrates that observational studies of interventions with small to moderate effect sizes are prone to bias caused by selection and omitted variables. Randomized studies can more reliably inform public health policy.”

*

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

Featured image is from Health Impact News

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on School Mask Mandates: Lancet Study Debunks CDC’s Justification
  • Tags: ,

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

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

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

***

In at least two regions of the African continent food deficits are a major concern for political officials and humanitarian organizations.

The Russian special military operations in neighboring Ukraine have brought to the surface a number of persistent economic problems which have plagued the world since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic that emerged during the early months of 2020.

President Macky Sall of the West African state of Senegal, the current elected chairman of the 55 member-states African Union (AU) along with AU Commission Chairman Moussa Faki Mahamat, visited the Russian President Vladimir Putin to discuss measures which could alleviate the escalating problems related to the lack of food and agricultural inputs.

These discussions took place on June 3 while fuel and food prices are escalating around the world including within the western capitalist states. Corporate and capitalist government-controlled media outlets have sought to blame the situation on the Russian military, saying that at the aegis of President Putin, the southern ports of Ukraine on the Black Sea are being blocked from exporting vital food and other agricultural products.

The Russian government has denied these allegations and briefed both Mahamat and Sacky on what they perceive as the actual reasons behind the delay in exports to African states. AU member-states engage in large-scale trade with the Russian Federation and consequently have a vested interest in resuming the flow of goods and services. More than half of the countries which abstained in United Nations General Assembly votes to condemn Moscow at the aegis of the United States, were from the continent. Africa historically has a much different relationship with the Russian monarchy, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) and the Russian Federation than what has existed vis-a-vis Western Europe and North America.

In 2019, a Russia-Africa Summit was held in Sochi in order to deepen exchanges between Moscow and the AU member-states. Under the administration of President Joe Biden, the State Department has sought to mobilize African support for the expansion of NATO in Europe through waging a proxy war in Ukraine, which has strong economic, ethnic and social ties with the Russian Federation.

During the period of the Soviet Union, Moscow was a leading supporter of national liberation movements seeking to gain their independence from European colonial powers which were backed by the U.S. The Soviets provided educational scholarships, military training and arms to various organizations fighting to break chains of domination emanating from Lisbon, London, Paris and Washington. Even the most widely known and oppressive colonial systems that were in existence in the former Portuguese colonies along with the settler-colonies of South Africa, Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe) and Southwest Africa (now Namibia), the U.S. refused for decades to assist in the decolonization process through democratic practices advocated by the liberation movements. U.S.-based corporations maintained substantial investments in Northern and Southern Rhodesia, apartheid South Africa and Namibia well into the periods leading up to the ascendancy of power by the genuine representatives of the masses within these colonial states.

AU Attempting to Break the U.S. Sanctions Regime Towards Russia

During the June 3 visit by Sall and Mahamat, the principal discussions were centered around efforts to mitigate the negative economic impacts which have arisen since the escalation of draconian sanctions against Moscow.  Russia intervened in Ukraine on February 24 in response to the continued attacks on the population within Donbass and Lugansk autonomous regions in the east of the country. Both Ukraine and Russia are major exporters of food and other agricultural products.

In an article published by the French Press Agency (AFP), it says of the AU leadership visit to Moscow that:

“African Union head Macky Sall said on Friday he was ‘reassured’ after talks in Russia with President Vladimir Putin on food shortages caused by Moscow’s military campaign in Ukraine. Putin hosted the Senegalese president, who chairs the African Union, at his Black Sea residence in Sochi on the 100th day of Moscow’s offensive in Ukraine. Global food shortages and grain supplies stuck in Ukrainian ports were high on the agenda.” (See this)

Food deficits are occurring with the potential for causing famine in the Sahel and Horn of Africa regions. These shortages of grain and other staple foods are being exacerbated by the internal conflicts which are a direct result of U.S., French and NATO interference in the internal affairs of the various states. There is growing discontent with the presence of the French Armed Forces and the U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM) on the continent. In Mali, the military government has accused France of human rights violations under the guise of assisting the West African country in their battles against Islamic jihadist groups.  The military coup leaders have demanded that Paris withdraw all of its military and diplomatic personnel from Mali.

East Africa famine warning

These same jihadists organizations and their allies have their origins within counter-insurgency program established by the U.S. in Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria. In the North African state of Libya during 2011, these same affiliated groups were utilized as ground troops while the Pentagon, NATO and their aligned governments bombed the country for seven months, killing tens of thousands and dislocating many others. Since the destruction of Libya by the Pentagon and NATO under the administration of President Barack Obama and then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Libya has not known any peace and stability. Several attempts to establish neo-colonial client regimes have consistently failed.

The same above-mentioned AFP report said further in quoting the Senegalese President noting:

“’I found Vladimir Putin committed and aware that the crisis and sanctions create serious problems for weak economies, such as African economies,’ Sall told journalists, adding that he was leaving Russia ‘very reassured and very happy with our exchanges’. Ahead of the talks, which lasted three hours, Sall asked Putin to ‘become aware that our countries, even if they are far from the theatre (of action), are victims on an economic level’ of the conflict…. In his remarks in front of reporters before the talks, Putin did not mention grain supplies but said Russia was ‘always on Africa’s side’ and was now keen to ramp up cooperation. ‘At the new stage of development, we place great importance on our relations with African countries, and I must say this has had a certain positive result,’ Putin added…. ‘No-one is blocking these ports, at least not from the Russian side,’ Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said. Putin has said Moscow is ready to look for ways to ship grain stuck at Ukrainian ports but has demanded the West lift sanctions.”

The Need for An Independent Foreign Policy

These talks between the AU leadership and the Russian president illustrate the importance of enhancing channels of communications and trade outside the influence of Washington, London and Brussels. Obviously, part of the motivations behind Washington’s funding of the war in Ukraine is related to the weakening position of the U.S. in global affairs. The unilateral withdrawal from Afghanistan during August 2021, exposed the utter failure of the U.S. “war on terrorism” initiated by the Republican administration of President George W. Bush, Jr. and maintained by successive governments from both dominant capitalist parties.

Moreover, the deliberate sabotage of any meaningful peace talks between Kiev and Moscow by the Biden administration since the beginning of the war exposes the role of the U.S. in continuing the current crisis. The war in Ukraine is part and parcel of a broader strategy of also attempting to weaken the People’s Republic of China. Biden’s visit to Taiwan and his threats to militarily intervene if Beijing brings Taipei under its administrative control, is yet another example of the imperialist militarism being enunciated by the U.S. The announced meeting on June 3 between Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin and his Chinese counterpart notwithstanding, there are definite problems surfacing within the ranks of Biden’ advisors and supporters within the corporate media.

Asia Times in a recent report remarked on the significance of the several New York Times editorials calling for a shift in Ukraine policy by the administration. The NYT editorial board has reached the conclusion that what the U.S. considers as an outright victory in Ukraine is not feasible and remains a dangerous course to pursue in regard to European foreign policy.

This article from Asia Times says:

“The United States and NATO are already deeply involved, militarily and economically. Unrealistic expectations could draw them ever deeper into a costly, drawn-out war.’ ’Recent bellicose statements from Washington – President Biden’s assertion that [Russian President Vladimir] Putin ‘cannot remain in power,’ Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin’s comment that Russia must be ‘weakened’ and the pledge by the House Speaker, Nancy Pelosi, that the United States would support Ukraine ‘until victory is won’ – may be rousing proclamations of support, but they do not bring negotiations any closer.’ While The Times dismisses these statements as ‘rousing proclamations,’ it is all too clear that for the neocons in charge of U.S. foreign policy, the goal has always been a proxy war to bring down Russia. This has not become a proxy war; it has always been a proxy war. Clearly if Russia is ‘too strong’ to be defeated in Ukraine, it is too strong to be brought down as a superpower.”

Operating out of the Wolfowitz Doctrine taken from a 1992 position paper saying that since the collapse of socialism in Eastern Europe, the U.S. must move towards complete global hegemony, has been the source of a systematic downturn in the status of Washington on the international scene. These same policies since the second Bush administration during the 2001-2009 period have resulted in the further impoverishment of the working class and the oppressed within the capitalist states.

Under the Biden administration, inflation has soared to levels not experienced since the late 1970s and early 1980s. Neither the Democrats nor the Republicans are offering any solutions to the present economic crisis.

Consequently, working class and oppressed peoples in the U.S. must reject the war policies of Biden, Republicans and the Democrats which have endorsed $55 billion in much needed funds to perpetuate the failed war in Ukraine. The only solution for the people of Africa and the U.S. is to build international solidarity aimed at achieving genuine peace and global security.

*

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

Abayomi Azikiwe is the editor of the Pan-African News Wire. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

All images in this article are from Abayomi Azikiwe

Where Does Military Aid to Ukraine Comes From

June 5th, 2022 by Katharina Buchholz

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

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

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

***

Looking at pledges of military aid to Ukraine between the start of the Russian invasion and May 10, the U.S. government has committed to providing the most arms, weapons and other equipment by far. Almost $26 billion in military aid was pledged up until the given date, according to the Ukraine Support Tracker by the Kiel Institute for the World Economy. This number will soon rise even more as a new $700 million military aid package by the U.S. was announced on Wednesday night, including 1,000 Javelins and rocket-launcher systems.

The second-ranked country, the United Kingdom, has pledged far less – $2.5 billion – in the given time frame. In relative terms, however, both military aid commitments amount to approximately 0.1 percent of either country’s GDP. Looking at this metric, Ukraine’s smaller neighbors contributed more to its war effort, for example Poland (military aid of 0.3 percent of GDP) or Estonia (0.8 percent). Even when combining military, financial and humanitarian aid delivered or pledged by the U.S. is added up, this only amounts to 0.2 percent the country’s GDP.

Other big donors of military aid to Ukraine are Germany and Canada – even though their relative pledges only amount to 0.04 percent and 0.05 percent of their respective GDPs.

The IfW Kiel’s Ukraine Support Tracker systematically records the value of support that the governments of 37 mostly Western countries have pledged to Ukraine since the start of the Russian invasion on February 24, 2022. Military, financial and humanitarian aid that is publicly known is recorded in the database.

Infographic: Where Military Aid to Ukraine Comes From | Statista

*

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

Featured image is from InfoBrics

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

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

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

***

Some members of Congress are putting pressure on the Pentagon over the lack of oversight for the billions in US weapons that are being pumped into Ukraine. Politico reported Thursday that there are lawmakers who have warned the Biden administration that the overwhelming congressional support for Ukraine aid could wane if the issue is not addressed.

Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) tried to add a provision to the $40 billion Ukraine aid that would create a new inspector general for oversight, but his effort failed. The measure passed in a vote of 86-11, with only Republicans voting no, mostly because of the lack of accountability for how the funds will be spent.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) has also called for oversight of the aid being sent to Ukraine.

“The US government is sending billions in humanitarian, economic, and military assistance to help the Ukrainian people overcome Putin’s brutal war, and the American people expect strong oversight by Congress and full accounting from the Department of Defense,” she said.

Demonstrating the severe lack of oversight, CNN reported in April that the US has “almost zero” ability to track the weapons it is sending once they enter Ukraine. One source briefed on US intelligence described it as dropping the arms into a “big black hole.”

The head of Interpol sounded the alarm on Wednesday over the number of weapons that are pouring into Ukraine, warning that they will end up in the hands of criminals.

“The high availability of weapons during the current conflict will result in the proliferation in illicit arms in the post-conflict phase,” said Interpol Secretary-General Juergen Stock. “Even weapons that are used by the military, heavy weapons, will be available on the criminal market.”

Responding to the criticism of the lack of oversight, Pentagon spokesman Lt. Col. Anton Semelroth appeared to blame the issue on Russia.

“Risk of diversion is one of many considerations that we routinely assess when evaluating any potential arms transfer,” Semelroth said. “In this case, risk would be considerably minimized by the full withdrawal from Ukraine by Russian forces.”

*

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

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

Featured image is from InfoBrics

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

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

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

***

Donald Trump’s former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has been ordered to appear in a Spanish court to explain a possible U.S. government plot to kidnap and assassinate WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, ABC Spain reports, citing legal sources close to the case.

Yahoo News broke the news of the alleged 2017 plot last September, reporting that Trump’s then-CIA Director Pompeo wanted revenge after WikiLeaks published a massive trove of sensitive CIA hacking tools. “They were seeing blood,” an ex- Trump national security official told Yahoo. Separately, Spain’s National Court has been probing a Spanish security firm that may have spied on Assange for the CIA while providing security for the Ecuadorean Embassy in London.

National High Court Judge Santiago Pedraz agreed to summon Pompeo and former U.S. counterintelligence official William Evanina as witnesses to explain whether a plot was drawn up. They must appear in June and can testify via videoconference. Pompeo has not yet commented on the ruling.

*

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

The Mysterious Death of Osama bin Laden

June 5th, 2022 by Prof Michel Chossudovsky

This article was first published in July 2013  following the Pentagon’s Decision to Purge the bin Laden “death files” from the Pentagon’s data bank.

The decision was justified “to protect the names of the personnel involved in the raid, according to the inspector general’s draft report.” 

The personnel involved were members of the Navy SEAL team 6 operative which undertook the bin Laden Abbottabad raids in May 2011.

In a bitter irony,  three months after Obama had officially announced that the SEAL 6 unit had killed Obama bin Laden,  22 NAVY Seal belonging to the same unit as the Navy SEALS involved in the Osama Abbotabad operation,  died mysteriously in a helicopter crash in Afghanistan:

 30 Americans were killed in the crash on August 6, 2011 when insurgents shot down a U.S. military helicopter during fighting in eastern Afghanistan, making it the largest loss of life in a single incident for the U.S. military during the war. …

US military officials have maintained that none of the individuals involved directly in the Bin Laden mission were killed in the crash. However, sources have claimed that there were at least two SEALs who died on the chopper who had been involved in the Bin Laden raid. (Infowars, July 24, 2013, emphasis added)

The chronology is important: the Pentagon decided to purge the Osama “death files”, two months after the families of the victims of the helicopter crash went public in May 2013 “with concerns that the Obama administration was at least partially responsible for the deaths of their sons” (Ibid).

Erasing the names of the Navy SEAL Team 6 personnel from the Pentagon “death files”made it impossible to verify whether the Navy SEAL personnel involved in Abbottabad raid were dead or alive.

Michel Chossudovsky, May 24, 2015, October 16, 2021, June 5, 2022

*      *     *

A new wave of camouflage is underway at the Pentagon and the CIA.  The bin Laden “death files” contained in the Pentagon’s  data bank have become the object of controversy.

Navy Vice Admiral William McRaven has been entrusted in removing these secret military files concerning the May 2011 Navy SEAL raid on Osama bin Laden’s alleged hideout in Abbottabad, Pakistan from the Pentagon’s data banks.

The files of the bin Laden SEAL operation had to be removed to sustain the Big Lie.

Osama was allegedly killed on the orders of the US government, despite ample evidence that he was already dead at the time of the attack:

… the US government pulled off one of the most audacious stunts of the 21st century, when on May 2nd 2011 they claimed to have killed Osama bin Laden during a Navy SEAL operation in Abbottabad, Pakistan. The contemptuously sloppy story spun by the US government, parroted without question by the controlled corporate media, and obligingly swallowed by a largely gullible Western public, was dubious in the extreme. (Brit Dee, Global Research, May 03, 2012)

Who was killed? Was it Osama bin Laden or someone else?

“Rest in Peace”, “‘Truth” will prevail. The files are no longer at the Pentagon, they have been sent to the CIA, in violation of the Freedom of Information Act. The White House tacitly acknowledges that the procedure of moving government records was in violation of federal norms:

A draft report by the Pentagon’s inspector-general briefly described the secret move, which was directed by the top US special operations commander, Admiral William McRaven.

The transfer did not set off alarms within the Obama administration even though it appears to have sidestepped rules governing federal records and circumvented the Freedom of Information Act.

President Barack Obama has pledged to make his administration the most transparent in US history.

The CIA said the documents were handled in a manner consistent with the fact that the operation was conducted under the CIA’s direction. (Belfast Telegraph, July 8, 2013)

The Pentagon spokesperson denied the fact that the removal of these files was to avoid the legal requirements of the Freedom of Information Act.

But secretly moving the records allowed the Pentagon to tell The Associated Press that it couldn’t find any documents inside the Defense Department that AP had requested more than two years ago, and could represent a new strategy for the U.S. government to shield even its most sensitive activities from public scrutiny. New York Daily News

According to the official statement, the record transfer from the Pentagon to the CIA has nothing to do with Freedom of Information. Its objective was “to protect the names of the personnel involved in the raid, according to the inspector general’s draft report.”

Protect whom? Several members of the SEAL raid are now dead, allegedly “due to combat and training accidents”. The list of names in the Osama death files is known to US intelligence but not to the broader public, nor to family members:

According to the New York Times, “79 commandos and a dog” were involved in the raid that killed Osama bin Laden — though other reports peg the number at approximately 24. Since the raid, SEAL Team Six — the team that conducted the Bin Laden raid — has lost several members due to combat and training accidents, though none of them have been confirmed as being specifically part of the Bin Laden raid.

The largest loss to the team took place in April of 2011 when Taliban fighters shot down a U.S. helicopter and killed 22 members of SEAL Team Six, along with 16 other U.S. troops. None of those SEALs, however, were reported to have worked on the Bin Laden raid. Separately, the BeforeItsNews piece references Cmdr. Job W. Price, who committed suicide in December of 2012, as being another person connected to the Bin Laden raid who has died. This accusation doesn’t hold up because Price was reportedly part of SEAL Team Four, not Six, and was not part of the Bin Laden raid.

The most recent death tied to SEAL Team Six took place on March 28, when Special Warfare Operator Chief Brett D. Shadle was killed in a parachute training accident when he collided in midair with another SEAL over the Arizona desert. He was later identified as being a part of Team Six, though it’s unclear if he was actually assigned to the Bin Laden mission.

The problem with completely confirming or disproving the accusation that so many SEAL Team Six members have died is that the U.S. military typically does not disclose which units special forces members work on, even after their deaths. In interviews with MSN News, spokespeople at the U.S. Navy, Pentagon and Special Operations Command (SOCOM) each refused to comment on the BeforeItsNews article or the claim that 25 members of the Bin Laden raid team have died. (MSN News, April 9, 2013)

The members of SEAL Team Six know the untold truth. And they are forbidden to reveal it.

“Many credible commentators, including respected intelligence analysts and heads of state, had claimed years before 2011 that bin Laden was dead.” (Brit Dee, op cit).

In an “authoritative” December 26, 2001, report Fox News acknowledged Osama bin Laden’s “peaceful death” in December 2001:

Usama bin Laden has died a peaceful death due to an untreated lung complication, the Pakistan Observer reported, citing a Taliban leader who allegedly attended the funeral of the Al Qaeda leader.

“The Coalition troops are engaged in a mad search operation but they would never be able to fulfill their cherished goal of getting Usama alive or dead,” the source said.

Bin Laden, according to the source, was suffering from a serious lung complication and succumbed to the disease in mid-December, in the vicinity of the Tora Bora mountains. The source claimed that bin Laden was laid to rest honorably in his last abode and his grave was made as per his Wahabi belief.

About 30 close associates of bin Laden in Al Qaeda, including his most trusted and personal bodyguards, his family members and some “Taliban friends,” attended the funeral rites. A volley of bullets was also fired to pay final tribute to the “great leader.”

The Taliban source who claims to have seen bin Laden’s face before burial said “he looked pale … but calm, relaxed and confident.”

Asked whether bin Laden had any feelings of remorse before death, the source vehemently said “no.” Instead, he said, bin Laden was proud that he succeeded in his mission of igniting awareness amongst Muslims about hegemonistic designs and conspiracies of “pagans” against Islam. Bin Laden, he said, held the view that the sacrifice of a few hundred people in Afghanistan was nothing, as those who laid their lives in creating an atmosphere of resistance will be adequately rewarded by Almighty Allah.

When asked where bin Laden was buried, the source said, “I am sure that like other places in Tora Bora, that particular place too must have vanished.”

Did the SEAL team, on orders of the Commander in  Chief, kill an innocent person with a view to sustaining the official “Osama death story”.

Several members of SEAL Team Six which carried out the attack are now dead.

The Osama Legend is now classified, buried in the Osama Death files stored in the archives of the CIA.

Only the CIA knows the names of the surviving members of the SEAL team involved in the May 2011 Osama Abbotabad raid.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The Mysterious Death of Osama bin Laden

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

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

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

***

As the western proxy war with Russia in Ukraine begins turning in favor of the Donetsk & Lugansk Peoples Republics [01], the western cartel (i.e.; the U.S., E.U., U.K. & Commonwealth nations ++) are continuing to ramp up their war rhetoric and economic sanctions on Russia while sending vast amounts of military weapons to the Ukrainian military.

Meanwhile, every single government that continues to support the illegitimate evolved western backed coup government in Ukraine and their all-out sanctions war on Russia, now have bigger things to worry about which comes at the expense of their own economies as panic ensues regarding the fallout of their supply lines, food, energy, security, and runaway inflation that is gathering momentum while they blame Russia for their own short sightedness. (See Here [02], Here [03], Here [04], Here [05] and Here [06])

I suppose its easier to blame Russia than to shoulder the blame on themselves, considering that rising public discontent due to these economic realities will eventually come back to bite them in the a$$. And yes, the thought of economic uprisings throughout the European Union is not far from reality as we continue down the road of high energy costs and inflation.

The stark reality is, that those who govern us in the western nations are solely to blame for unleashing the proverbial four horsemen of the apocalypse in their belligerent quest to control global economics since the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991.

Now, in 2022, experts from around the world are sounding the alarm bells of economic disaster, famine, disease, war and widespread death while the same coalition of monsters, US, UK and EU wage a proxy war on Russia through Ukraine with no signs of ending anytime soon.

War on Russia and China

How far will the US-NATO go in bringing us closer to WWIII? 40 billion US dollars now approved and earmarked for Ukraine to wage war on Russia [07] is a huge step in that direction.

The USA and its European vassals have also continued their isolation of and economic war on Russia while the U.S. military continues to occupy Europe via NATO [08] with over 140,000 + troops spread out across the continent running joint military exercises on the Russian border.

Finland and Sweden who were once neutral countries have made formal applications to join NATO [09] causing another uptick in tensions between the west and Russia.

Although, two members of NATO (Turkey and Croatia) have publicly stated that they do not approve the Nordic states inclusion into NATO, (See Here [10] and Here [11]) it is believed that the Americans will eventually find some form of deviant compromise to get them to change their minds and approve Finland and Sweden’s inclusion into the NATO gang.

Every step the US & EU make brings us closer to war and economic collapse.

You can be sure the western economic cartel of nations led by the U.S. military won’t lie down and accept the economic losses that they inflicted on themselves over the past 20 to 30 years in their resource and sanction wars. Collapse is now knocking in the USA, UK and Europe, hence, their current level of insanity and baited plans that continue against economically independent oil producing nations like Russia, rather than accepting them as equals or even business partners.

Since the USA started the 2nd cold war in South Ossetia against Russia in 2008, almost everything that doesn’t go the west’s way is blamed on Russia… somehow the west has a “🤡 Pox” upon them as they begin losing ground in their battle of horse shoes and hand grenades…and NOW, those that handle U.S. President Joe Biden have given him the nod to threaten China by saying that Washington is willing to use military force to defend Taiwan [12] if the Chinese try to take Taiwan by force.

It appears that America’s agreement to China’s “one China policy” is mere rhetoric and does not apply as the Chinese may have believed. Is anyone surprised by Joe Biden recent declaration? I mean, was President Brandon prompted to say it, or was that his dementia speaking what was always unspoken? What do you think China’s response [13] will be? You can be sure they won’t sit on their hands as this subject makes them crazy, so a more rigid position against the global NATO powers will be forth coming.

I use the term “Global NATO powers” because the USA always speaks in gang talk. NATO is a “You fight me you fight my gang” kind of group and so we can expect more of this alignment against China and Russia going forward which includes the regional U.S. occupied powers of Japan and South Korea.

U.S. Threats and Vassal Echolalia, a Two Front War

Since the first cold war against the Soviet Union shortly after World War II, the U.S. superpower and leader of the “free World?”, has threatened weaker, non-aligned nations economically and militarily if they or their European vassal’s corporations, did not get what they wanted in terms of resource extraction, this is especially true when it comes to energy resources. All of which has been conveniently labeled throughout the years in their war-like press conferences as, “threats to THEIR Economic Interests”.

However, in 2022, the global American bully is no longer a leader of anything, with the exception of hubris and a gang of impoverished paper wind bags. The leaders of Germany, France, Britain, Poland, Norway, Canada and many others in the NATO circus are militarily small and depend solely on the American Military to do their bidding. All of which has been extremely provocative to the levels of insanity.

After all, reading the same US teleprompter rhetoric as president Joe does, makes their nations threats towards nuclear powered Russia laughable but scary at the same time. The threat of war does not inspire confidence in paving a way back from the economic and long-term damage they are causing…

The term “impoverished paper windbags” applies especially to petty dictators like Canada’s Justin Trudeau who clearly demonstrated that he’s lost his marbles when he turned on his own people with the war measures act during peaceful protests. A brutal action which is the stuff that dictators do to their own people. I mean seriously, is this how we, “Build back Better”?

But, Canada’s pip-squeak leader aside, Britain’s Boris Johnson certainly leads the contest as the hot air king of the century with his delusional perception that there is still a powerful British economic and military Empire intact to wage war on powerful nations that don’t comply with British government dictates. That delusion is already coming home to roost as Briton stares full-on economic hardship in the face. (See Here [14] and Here [15])

On this serious note, it’s important to say that if western governments with clowns like Boris Johnson and Joe Biden are not forced to come to their senses soon, the consequences for the people of our nations will be disastrous and will heap misery on endless generations to come, if indeed we are to survive that long.

The British, American’s and the NATO gang, in many regards are behind the Russians in military technology, while China has also surpassed them all technologically. So why open a suicidal two-front war?

The NATO gang, with its incompetent U.S. leader, are famished economic skeletons that have dwindling support of their own people at home. People are growing more-angry and impatient with their governments by the day. Populations tend to get that way after having discovered that they’ve been lied to, have their freedoms taken away, and face a growing systemic totalitarian governance while their bankrupt economies plunge into the abyss of inflation and scarcity. History provides many great examples of what comes next.

Although we do live in the age of the Internet it is also the age of censorship and mass propaganda campaigns made to confuse people about what is really going on. However, poverty always has a way of opening eyes…

The rapid decline of the U.S. global hegemon is on an economic and military war footing around the world with the global population caught in the middle. Poverty, the high cost of Energy and runaway inflation are now rearing their heads everywhere and so the prospect of military conflict looms as the ongoing economic war with Russia and China continues on two fronts[16]. War is no longer just a possible distant threat, it’s already here as the economic wars on both China and Russia have shown. How far will the western pariahs go?

If depopulation is the objective as United Nations agenda 2030 states, then we are at the cusp of that depopulation right now with one long winter away from a major die-off as the web of poverty that follows economic collapse will be enough to achieve their goals.

It should be abundantly clear that the disease obsessed, windbag politicians of the west have made everyone pay for their insane decisions, the consequences of which are still unfolding.

How much longer will we allow their insanity to continue?

*

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

This article was originally published on World United News.

Stewart Brennan is a Geo-political and economic analyst, activist, blogger and author. He’s worked in the Aviation, Packaging, Transportation and Logistics Industries and is the author of “The Activist Poet”, two books of political activism and poetry. (See Here and Here) He’s also the author of several blogs including World United News and World United Music and a contributor on Global Research.

Notes

[01] New Coalition of the Willing for Retreating Ukrainian Forces

[02] Exploding prices, energy and aviation crisis: What will the blowback be from anti-Russia sanctions?

[03] Global economy in worst shape since WWII — IMF

[04] Fuel poverty to hit British households, energy chief warns

[05] Global food catastrophe imminent – The Economist

[06] France starts handing out food stamps – media

[07] Biden signs $40 billion Ukraine aid package

[08] Plan for US troops in Europe revealed

[09] Sweden and Finland’s leaders are taking their people down a dangerous road

[10] Finland and Sweden can’t join NATO until Turkey’s concerns are met – Ankara

[11] Another NATO leader voices opposition to Sweden and Finland

[12] US Ready to use Force to Defend Taiwan

[13] China hits back at US over Taiwan

[14] UK sees highest inflation in 30 years

[15] Britons told to get ready for a ‘truly horrific’ winter

[16] Top US General warns of conflict between great powers

Featured image is from WUN

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

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

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

***

The US-NATO military intervention against Libya, which began on 19 March 2011, served to discredit American power further and that of its military arm NATO. Between 31 March and 22 October 2011, NATO aircraft carried out 26,281 sorties over Libyan territory, with the principal intention of toppling the government of Muammar Gaddafi, who had been in power for 42 years. 
 
During the 7 month period from March to October 2011, the often indiscriminate NATO air raids over Libya resulted in between 90,000 to 120,000 casualties, very high figures indeed. The attacks were carried out mainly by American, British, French and Italian planes. The bombings reduced much of Libya’s cities to rubble and displaced over 2 million people, in a country whose population was just 6.2 million. 
 
The Italian Foreign Affairs Minister, Franco Frattini, acknowledged in June 2011 that NATO was “endangering its credibility” by killing civilians. Taking a stronger stance the American congressman, Dennis Kucinich, demanded on the floor of the House of Representatives that NATO’s top brass should be made accountable for civilian casualties in Libya, and brought before the International Criminal Court (ICC). 
 
Kucinich stated, “NATO’s top commanders may have acted under color of international law, but they are not exempt from international law”. He called for an end to the use by NATO forces of drones, which were also harming civilians. Moreover, Kucinich insisted that if Colonel Gaddafi was to be taken to court, then NATO leaders should likewise be prosecuted for civilian loss of life. 
 
NATO raids over Libya consisted too of missile strikes fired from submarines and warships. There were 17 NATO vessels patrolling the Mediterranean Sea, preventing weapons deliveries from reaching pro-Gaddafi elements. The NATO bombings starting in March 2011 destroyed hospitals, food warehouses and stores along with communications centres, television studios, vehicles, etc. 
 
NATO launched at least 7,700 bombs and missiles against Libya; and destroyed in the process were the machines of the Nubian Sandstone Aquifer System, a vital lifeline which had pumped 6.5 million cubic metres of fresh water per day to Libya’s large cities; supplying 70% of Libya’s populace with water in a country which comprises of 95% desert. 
 
As intended, the military offensive in Libya provided new markets for America and the European powers, opening a possibility to end the industrial depression and reinvigorate capitalist reproduction. Libya holds the largest oil reserves in Africa, the 9th biggest in the world, and contains more of the “black gold” than either the US or China. 
 
After Gaddafi was killed in brutal fashion by NATO-backed militants on 20 October 2011, Western energy corporations and construction companies turned to Libya in the search for opportunities; as they had done in Afghanistan (2001) and Iraq (2003) during the aftermath of those invasions. Several WikiLeaks cables revealed that, since 2009, the US Embassy in Tripoli was planning to prevent rival state-owned firms, like Russia’s Gazprom, from gaining access to Libya’s natural resources. 
 
The New York Times admitted on 22 August 2011, two months before Gaddafi’s death, that “the scramble to secure access to Libya’s oil wealth is already on”, and Gaddafi “proved to be a problematic partner for the international oil companies, frequently raising fees and taxes and making other demands. A new government with close ties to NATO may be an easier partner for Western nations to deal with”. 
 
Gaddafi was unpredictable and, whatever his faults, he was no puppet. On 9 March 2011 the Cuban leader Fidel Castro, who knew Gaddafi personally, wrote of his Libyan counterpart, “Born into the heart of a Bedouin community, nomadic desert shepherds in the region of Tripoli, Gaddafi was profoundly anti-colonialist. It is known that a paternal grandfather died fighting against the Italian invaders, when Libya was invaded by the latter in 1911… Even Gaddafi’s adversaries confirm that he stood out for his intelligence as a student; he was expelled from high school for his anti-monarchical activities… He initiated his political life with unquestionably revolutionary acts”. 
 
A week before Gaddafi was murdered, a delegation of 80 French companies landed in Libya to meet with officials from the so-called National Transitional Council, the short-lived regime in Tripoli which had replaced Gaddafi. Britain’s Defence Secretary, Philip Hammond, urged British companies to visit Libya too. 
 
In September 2011 Stephen Green, the British Minister for Trade and Investment, travelled to Tripoli at the head of a group of businessmen. Among them were representatives of British Petroleum (BP) and Shell. In July 2012, BP declared it would resume exploiting concessions it was given. The British had investments in Libya which amounted to £1.5 billion, mainly in the oil industry. 
 
Much of Libya’s civilian infrastructure was destroyed in the air raids, but the oil installations were mostly undamaged. The two oil refineries in the north-western city of Zawiya, a port city which connects Tripoli to Tunisia, were left untouched. By the spring of 2012, the oil refineries continued operation at full capacity. 
 
A report compiled by the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) outlined that NATO and the anti-Gaddafi forces “committed serious violations” of human rights “including war crimes and breaches of international rights law”. 
 
The militias supported by the Western powers (“freedom fighters”) consisted primarily of Qatari special forces, Libyan and Al Qaeda extremists and sectarians who capitalised on the war, in order to settle their own scores. Abdel-Hakim al-Hasidi, an anti-Gaddafi Libyan commander, said in late March 2011 that Al Qaeda militants were operating under his command and he described them as “good Muslims”. 
 
A special adviser to Human Rights Watch, Fred Abrahams, observed how “The rebel conduct was disturbing”. One inhabitant of Sirte in northern Libya, Susan Farjan, told a Daily Telegraph journalist in early October 2011 “we lived in democracy under Gaddafi, he was not a dictator. I lived in freedom, Libyan women had full human rights”. 
 
Libya had the best living standards in Africa under Gaddafi. Libya boasted the highest life expectancy on the African continent, and the lowest infant mortality rate. Less than 5% of the population was undernourished near the end of Gaddafi’s reign; but following the Western military assault, living conditions in Libya decreased significantly as revealed by the annual UN Human Development Index (HDI) ranking. 
 
Gaddafi had managed to maintain the structure of the Libyan nation, since his assumption to power in 1969. Following Gaddafi’s fall, the Brazilian author Moniz Bandeira wrote that Libya as a state “had disappeared. Real power was represented by 60 sectarian and tribal militias, armed and in conflict with each other. Each one claimed a region, a city, an area, and would not accept any interference. They refused to submit to the National Transitional Council. Mustafa Abdel-Jalil, president of the National Transitional Council, had no legitimacy or authority. He was ineffective”. 
 
On 24 February 2011 a British frigate ‘HMS Cumberland’ sailed into Benghazi in northern Libya, and British Special Air Service (SAS) commandos disembarked from the ship. London further dispatched MI6 agents to Libya, and there were US Navy SEALs and French special forces operating in Libya, usually through disguises in Arab dress. 
 
The NATO intelligence services and elite forces collaborated with the anti-Gaddafi militants, including terrorists and jihadists; granting them large-scale assistance with the planning of military operations, targeting of bombings, and gathering of intelligence on Gaddafi forces sometimes with the use of drones. 
 
Qatar and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) supplied aircraft to NATO. With the attack 5 months old, on 20 August 2011 a NATO warship dropped anchor on the Libyan coastline. The vessel was laden down with heavy weaponry and it contained elite personnel from America’s Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC), the French Land Special Forces Brigade (BFST), and Britain’s SAS. Also on board this NATO ship were former jihadists. With the help of the Franco-American-British units, they drew up a strategy for a rapid advance on Tripoli. The Libyan capital fell just 8 days later, on 28 August 2011. 
 
It is important to stress that the extremist militant organisation, the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG), was among the chief instigators of the movement to overthrow Gaddafi. The LIFG commander was the 48-year-old Abu Yahya al-Libi, a Libyan citizen and leading member of Al Qaeda, the international terrorist group. Al-Libi, on 12 March 2011, urged Libyans to oust Gaddafi and to establish in Libya Islamic rule, in effect to expand Al Qaeda’s control. Already earlier in 2011 the Al Qaeda number 2, Egyptian-born Ayman al-Zawahiri, sent experienced terrorists to Libya in order to establish a centre of operations against Gaddafi’s government. 
 
In Benghazi, there were around 350 men with extremist backgrounds present there in 2009, those previously pardoned and released by Gaddafi. By the time the unrest was breaking out in Libya at the start of 2011, the number of men in Benghazi with a history of terrorism had risen to 850.
 
Psychological warfare operations (psy-OP) were used extensively by the Western powers in Libya. The purpose of psychological warfare, as stated by the US Army Civil Affairs and Psychological Operations Command (USACAPOC), and Britain’s MI6, is to sow confusion within the enemy’s sphere, leading to disagreements and demoralisation. 
 
Part of the strategy to wage war on Libya was to use the Western mass media, in order to construct a false image that Gaddafi was planning to massacre civilians protesting against his regime in Benghazi. This would serve as a pretext for the US-NATO bombing campaign to begin. Any unrest in Libya should have strictly been a domestic issue, as Gaddafi was not threatening international peace and security.

Sources

Franklin Lamb, “Anatomy of a NATO War Crime”, Countercurrents.org, 17 December 2011

Al Jazeera, “Libya civilian deaths ‘sap NATO credibility’”, 20 June 2011

Humanrightsinvestigations.org, “NATO bombs the Great Man-made River” 27 July 2011

Luiz Alberto Moniz Bandeira, The Second Cold War: Geopolitics and the Strategic Dimensions of the USA (Springer 1st ed., 23 June 2017)

Ruth Sherlock, “Gaddafi loyalists stranded as battle for Sirte rages”, Daily Telegraph, 2 October 2011

Fidel Castro, “NATO, war, lies and business”, Granma, 9 March 2011

Clifford Kraus, Elisabetta Povoledo, “The scramble for access to Libya’s oil wealth begins”, Global Policy Forum, 22 August 2011

Praveen Swami, Duncan Gardham and Nick Squires, “Libyan rebel Commander admits his fighters have al-Qaeda links”, Daily Telegraph, 25 March 2011

Mary Lynn Kramer, “Before US-NATO Invasion, Libya Had The Highest Human Development Index, The Lowest Infant Mortality, The Highest Life Expectancy In All Of Africa”, Countercurrents.org, 4 May 2011

 

 

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

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

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

***

Lt. General Michael Langley is poised to become the first Black commander of AFRICOM—a neocolonial force whose main purpose is to enable Western corporate pillage of Africa.

We have seen Blacks assist in the subjugation of their own people before and it is not something to cheer about.

In his 1952 book Black Skin, White Masks, Algerian psychiatrist Frantz Fanon warned about the emergence of post-colonial African leaders who would do the bidding of the former colonial powers.

Were he still alive, Fanon would not be surprised at how the last remaining imperial power is poised to appoint a Black man—Michael Langley, a 37-year army man who served overseas in Afghanistan, Somalia and Okinawa—to head its Africa military command (AFRICOM).

It was the first Black U.S. President, Barack Obama, who expanded the number of AFRICOM military bases in Africa from three to 84, contributing to the effective recolonization of Africa.

AFRICOM today sustains ties to 53 African nations and provides a cover for an estimated 9,000 U.S. troops in Africa.

AFRICOM founder Vice Admiral Robert Moeller admitted that one of AFRICOM’s guiding principles was “protecting the free flow of natural resources from Africa to the global market.”

In April, AFRICOM announced that it would open an office in copper-rich Zambia as part of its ongoing expansion.

Zambia’s former representative to the African Union (AU), Emmanuel Mwamba, considered AFRICOM’s expansion a betrayal of previous Zambian leaders’ efforts to remain non-aligned.

Documents Show Vast Network of U.S. Military Bases in Africa

A map of U.S. military bases—forward operating sites, cooperative security locations, and contingency locations—across the African continent from declassified Fiscal Year 2015 U.S. Africa Command planning documents. [Source: theintercept.com]

Source: smithsonianmag.com

The AU and Southern African Development Community (SADC) for years had tried to resist the establishment of U.S. and other foreign military bases in Africa, and to develop their own standby military forces and security architecture designed to prevent a return to the era of colonialism.

A Historic Appointment?

The New York Times gushed about Langley’s potential appointment—he has been recommended by Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin to become the next AFRICOM commander—calling it “historic.”[1]

But historic for whom?

The U.S. military to be sure has an abysmal record of promoting African-Americans: The Marine Corps has never had anyone other than a white man in its senior leadership and four-star posts, and only 30 Blacks have ever obtained the rank of General.[2]

Retired Lieutenant General Ronald L. Bailey, the first Black man to command the First Marine Division, was quoted in The New York Times as saying that the promotion of Langley, whom he has known since he was a First Lieutenant, “is bigger than Langley. This is for our nation. It’s been a glass ceiling for years, and now Black Marines will see that this is possible.”[3]

The fact that a glass ceiling has been broken, however, does not erase the fact that Langley is now in a position to hasten the exploitation of Black people throughout Africa.

And he can do so more effectively than a white by helping to give the illusion that U.S. policy is designed to help Africans.

In his 2020 book Understanding the War Industry (Atlanta: Clarity, 2020), Christian Sorensen emphasizes how the U.S. war industry has sustained a progressive veneer through more minority appointments and by emphasizing the diversity of its workforce.

Langley’s likely appointment is but the latest example. It is of little solace to Africans who suffer the humiliation of having their countries occupied by a white foreign power.

*

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

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

Notes

  1. Eric Schmitt and Helene Cooper, “A Historic Endorsement for U.S. Commander in Africa,” The New York Times, May 21, 2022, A19. 
  2. Idem. 
  3. Idem. 

Featured image: Lt. General Michael Langley [Source: nytimes.com]

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on “Black Skin, White Masks”: Lt. General Michael Langley to become the first Black commander of AFRICOM
  • Tags:

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

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

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

***

As Russia edges closer to defeating the US-NATO backed Ukrainian military and its neo-Nazi battalions, a new war in the Middle East will take center stage, perhaps a repeat of the 2006 Lebanon War that Israel started, which will lead to a wider war with Syria and Iran.  The Times of Israel published ‘In Cyprus, IDF runs drills for potential war with Hezbollah, Lebanon ground assault’ reported that “The Israel Defense Forces on Thursday wrapped up a major military exercise in Cyprus, simulating a military ground offensive deep inside Lebanon in a potential war against the Iran-backed Hezbollah terror group.”  Keep in mind that Israel also conducted military drills a day before Cyprus as the Associated Press (AP) reported that the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) were “simulating airstrikes on long-range targets, a thinly veiled reference to a possible attack on regional rival Iran” and that “the Army said the exercise took place a day earlier over the Mediterranean Sea and “involved long-range flight, aerial refueling and striking distant targets.” It provided no additional information.”

Israel is preparing for a major war that will determine if it can survive an onslaught of missiles and various attacks from Lebanon, Syria, the Palestinian territories, and Iran.  Israel’s time is running out since it’s number one supporter, the United States and to an extent Europe is in a financial crisis and at the same time, both are involved in a proxy war against Russia in Ukraine.  Since the US is most likely to enter into a full-fledged war that can go nuclear against Russia and China, we can say that the Israelis are preparing for an all out war for its survival just in case Washington cannot afford to send them any more military aid for its defense.

Once the war with Hezbollah begins, missiles will begin pouring down on Israeli cities and towns killing civilians and military personnel.  “But the ultimate goal of the exercise was to simulate halting Hezbollah rocket fire on Israel amid a major escalation, through a ground offensive in Lebanon. According to military officials, the only way to achieve such a goal was to be “significantly present” in the areas where attacks are being launched from, keeping the enemy far from the border.”  Israel is considering a ground invasion into Lebanon according to The Times of Israel which claimed that “the Iran-backed Lebanese terror group has long represented the IDF’s most significant military threat, with an estimated arsenal of nearly 150,000 rockets and missiles that can reach anywhere in Israel.”  They admit the consequences of such actions against Hezbollah will result in their cities being targeted with thousands of rockets “According to a recent military assessment, Israeli cities could be bombarded with 1,500 rockets a day and the death toll could quickly reach into the hundreds should war with Hezbollah break out.”  The IDF says that Lebanon will also suffer from the deaths of thousands of its own citizens including Hezbollah fighters.

Israel’s longtime dream of expansion and total dominance of the Middle East is reflected in The Yinon Plan, The Zionist Plan for the Middle East.  Israel sees itself as a Jewish state under God, a group of people that was chosen with a plan to expand its power throughout the Middle East, according to the Israelis, they are justified because they are God’s chosen people.

Iran is the Ultimate Target for Israel

A new war in the Middle East will obviously gain the support from the US and its European allies which will add fuel to the fire.  Democrat warmonger and chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, New Jersey Senator Robert Menendez has just called for an end diplomacy and nuclear negotiations with Iran.  “It is time to tell the Europeans – who[m] we have shown good faith with, that we were willing to enter into what was hopefully a stronger and longer deal – that the Iranians are not there” Menendez asked “How is it that Iran is in a position to advance by leaps and bounds and somehow, if it wasn’t good enough by the end of January, how could it possibly be good enough by the end of May?”  According to the Newsmax article ‘Top Senate Democrat Bob Menendez: Time to End Diplomacy with Iran’ reported that Menendez called on President Biden to “snap back sanctions and/or participate in multilateral efforts to sanction Iran.”  He did not stop there, he also “urged the White House to target Chinese purchases of Iranian oil that are worth millions of dollars.”  A powerful democrat and a Zionist supporter, Menendez “emphasized the need to create a military deterrence against Iran’s hostile activities” and that “the United States has to demonstrate that we have the will as well as the military capabilities … to defend our people and our interests.” It seems that his people and interests are in the state of Israel.  The US is on board to protect Israel at any cost even if it means sending more US troops into the Middle East.

A new world war is closer than ever before, hopefully Israel can come to its senses and realize that any military action will further increase tensions between them and all of their Muslim neighbors, but it is up to the hawks in Israel who really don’t care about the consequences of any war they start.

*

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

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

Featured image is from SCN

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on A New War in the Middle East? Israel Military Exercises Simulates Invasion of Lebanon, War with Hezbollah, and Iran
  • Tags: , , , ,

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

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

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

***

Thousands of combat soldiers, commanders and support troops from the Israel Defense Forces conducted this week in Cyprus a mass simulation of fighting in Lebanon.

The exercise, part of the Israeli military’s month-long “Chariots of Fire” maneuver, is meant to simulate military activity in enemy territory, particularly on Israel’s northern front. It will end on Friday.

The simulation in the Cypriot city of Paphos includes the largest number of troops sent abroad for operational practice to date, according to the IDF.

The exercise began in Israel, where combat units were told to arrive at a number of air force and navy bases prepared with equipment and vehicles for combat. When the signal was given, thousands of soldiers from the commando and paratroopers brigades, as well as other special forces and elite reserve units, boarded ships planes and helicopters en route to Paphos.

The island nation of Cyprus has mountainous areas along its Mediterranean coast, similar to what Israeli forces could face in Lebanon. The exercise focused on improving soldiers’ skills for continuous fighting deep in enemy territory, and a range of important war skills such as communications and logistics, the military said.

The commander of the Israel Navy’s Haifa base, Brig. Gen. Tal Politis, said the force has many advantages that will aid in a large-scale operation, including firing missiles from sea to help ground forces and assess the situation on the ground in various weather conditions.

“The navy’s capabilities are among the best in the world in covering and evacuating wounded by sea,” he added.

As part of the exercise, helicopter Squadron 113 was deployed in Cyprus, with Black Hawk and combat helicopters. The pilots practiced new ways to collecting and parachute equipment to troops on the ground.

Cyprus is an ally of Israel and the countries conduct a great number of cooperative ventures in many arenas. In the past, the two countries have held a number of joint military and security activities on land and at sea.

Click here to read the full article.

*

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

Featured image: Israeli forces in Cyprus this week for joint military exercise.Credit: IDF Spokesperson’s Unit

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Israeli Military Rounds Off Massive War Games in Cyprus Simulating Lebanon War
  • Tags: ,

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

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

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

First published on May 16, 2022

***

The so-called “clinical trials” that Pfizer conducted on its messenger RNA (mRNA) Wuhan coronavirus (Covid-19) “vaccine” appear to have been completely fraudulent, which means the company could one day be held liable for all associated injuries and deaths.

Documents released in November 2021 by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) as part of a court-mandated information dump reveal that enrollment at one particular trial site happened at warp speed, just in time to meet the safety deadline for the FDA’s VRBPAC meeting on Dec. 10, 2020.

This meeting is where the FDA discussed granting Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) for the Pfizer-BioNTech injection in people 16 years of age and older. (Related: The contents of the Pfizer jab were recently shown to “stick” to bodily organs.)

“The allegedly suspicious-looking clinical trial data surrounds ‘the biggest recruiter by far,’ site 1231 (site 4444 was assigned site id 1231) in Argentina,” reported Undercover DC.

“Adding to the confusion, in five short days before the safety deadline (including a Sunday, 9/27/20), the trial recruited 1,275 of the 4,501 people using site number 4444. In just three weeks, the site recruited 4,501 patients – 10% of the entire trial at one site.”

“Overall, Pfizer rapidly recruited roughly 44,000 people for their trial, which took place at 152 locations worldwide and was overseen by numerous investigators, including Dr. Fernando Polack, who led the Argentinian study at Hospital Militar Central.”

Does Pfizer do ANYTHING honestly and above board?

Polack, as explained by investigative reporter Steve Kirsch, holds the position of Scientific Director at the INFANT Foundation in Buenos Aires. This Vanderbilt-affiliated foundation facilitates biomedical translational research and pediatric rotations at hospitals and medical centers throughout the city.

Polack personally coordinates 26 hospitals in Argentina involving 467 doctors who were all immediately recruited into the Pfizer trial. Kirsch says that on paper, the data that resulted “looks too good to be true,” though he says “it’s quite possible they pulled it off” by coordinating the trial in record time.

“So if all 26 hospitals participated fully then that’s 57 patients per week per hospital which is possible if the sites have done this before and have a coordination framework for getting all 26 sites up and running at the same time,” Kirsch writes. “This means that everyone who was doing something else dropped what they were doing to switch over to the trial all at the same time.”

Prof. Norman Fenton from Queen Mary University of London added in his own two-part Substack series that what was supposedly pulled off in Argentina on behalf of Pfizer is “basically impossible.”

“[I]f this really happened,” he wrote, “it would be a wonder of the world, and they should publish the process with pride and win 27 different prizes for it.”

“They claim to have enrolled seven days a week for three weeks with zero gaps. Each patient requires a 250-page case report form,” Fenton added. “The lead investigator seems to have been Fernando Polack.”

“If indeed, the best way to get things done is to give them to busy people, then this was a great choice because, from the look of things, Fernando is one busy fellah and connected up the wazoo to boot. He also works with Vanderbilt, the FDA, and the Infant Foundation, funded by the Gates Foundation and the NIH.”

In the disclosure forms associated with a New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) paper on Pfizer’s injection, Polack’s conflicts of interest are revealed. They show personal fees he accepted from not only Pfizer but also Janssen (Johnson & Johnson), Regeneron (monoclonal antibodies), Merck & Co. and Novavax.

Should any of this make it to court, Pfizer will be in a whole lot of trouble – and rightfully so. Perhaps justice will eventually prevail.

*

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

Featured image is from Children’s Health Defense

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Pfizer Appears to Have Committed Fraud, and If It Can be Proven in Court, Then Pfizer Will be Liable for All Injuries and Deaths Caused by Its COVID Vaccines
  • Tags: , , ,

Scott Ritter: Phase Three in Ukraine

June 4th, 2022 by Scott Ritter

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

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

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

***

First published on June 1, 2022

No amount of western military aid has been able to prevent Russia from achieving its military objective of liberating the entire territories of both Lugansk and Donetsk as Phase Three begins.

Russia’s “Special Military Operation”, which began on Feb. 24, is entering its fourth month. Despite stiffer than expected Ukrainian resistance (bolstered by billions of dollars of western military assistance and accurate, real-time battlefield intelligence by the U.S. and other NATO members) Russia is winning the war on the ground, and in a big way.

After more than ninety days of incessant Ukrainian propaganda, echoed mindlessly by a complicit western mainstream media that extolls the battlefield successes of the Ukrainian armed forces and the alleged incompetence of the Russian military, the Russians are on the cusp of achieving the stated goal of its operation, namely the liberation of the newly independent Donbass Republics of Lugansk and Donetsk, which Russia recognized two days before its invasion.

Donbass (2015–2022).svg by Goran tek-en and RGloucester (Wikimedia Commons)

The Russian victory in Donbass comes after weeks of intensive combat that saw the Russian military shift gears away from what has become known as Phase One. That was the month-long opening act which, according to Russian President Vladimir Putin in his Feb. 24 address, was tasked with taking “actions throughout the territory of Ukraine with the implementation of measures for its demilitarization and denazification.”

Putin said the purpose was to restore “the DPR [Donetsk People’s Republic] and the LPR [Lugansk People’s Republic] within the administrative borders of the Donetsk and Lugansk regions, which is enshrined in the constitutions of the republics.”

On March 25, the head of the Main Operational Directorate of the General Staff of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation, Colonel General Sergei Rudskoy, declared that

“the main objectives of the first phase of the operation have been achieved. The combat capabilities of Ukraine’s Armed Forces have been significantly reduced, which allows us, once again, to concentrate our main efforts on achieving the main goal – the liberation of Donbass.”

According to Rudskoy, Phase One’s objectives were to cause:

“Such damage to military infrastructure, equipment, personnel of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, the results of which allow not only to shackle their forces and do not give them the opportunity to strengthen their grouping in the Donbass, but also will not allow them to do so until the Russian army completely liberates the territories of the DPR and LPR. All 24 formations of the Land Forces that existed before the start of the operation suffered significant losses. Ukraine has no organized reserves left.”

Russia has completed Phase One despite the efforts of the U.S., NATO, and the E.U. to supply Ukraine with a significant amount of lethal military assistance, primarily in the form of light anti-tank and anti-aircraft weapons. “We consider it a vast mistake,” Rudskoy concluded, “for Western countries to supply weapons to Kiev. This delays the conflict, increases the number of victims and will not be able to influence the outcome of the operation.”

‘Extremely Bad’

The history of the conflict so far has proven Rudskoy correct — no amount of western military aid has been able to prevent Russia from achieving its military objective of liberating the entire territories of both Lugansk and Donetsk.

As Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmitry Kuleba admitted at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland,

“I don’t want anyone to get the feeling that the war is more or less OK. The situation in Donbass is extremely bad.”

Gone are the bold pronouncements made on the eve of the May 9 Victory Day celebrations, when Russia’s many detractors proclaimed that Rudskoy’s Phase Two offensive in the Donbas had stalled, and that Russia would, in short order, be compelled to transition from the attack to a defensive posture, signally the beginning of a retreat that the Ukrainians claimed would culminate not only in the recapture of all territory lost so far, but Crimea as well.

Such fanciful thinking has given way to the kind of hard reality that ignores propaganda and favors the dirty task of destroying the enemy through firepower and maneuver. Complicating this task, however, was that during the eight years of incessant conflict in the Donbass, which precipitated Russian’s invasion, the Ukrainian military had prepared a defensive belt that was, General Rudskoy noted in his March 25 briefing, “deeply echeloned and well-fortified in engineering terms, consisting of a system of monolithic, long-term concrete structures.”

According to Rudskoy, offensive operations against this defensive belt were, by necessity, “preceded by a heavy fire attack on the enemy’s strongholds and their reserves.”

The Russian advantage in artillery was a key factor in the victorious outcome of its Phase Two operations, pulverizing the Ukrainian defenses and opening the way for the infantry and armor to finish off the survivors.

According to the daily briefings provided by the Russian Ministry of Defense, the Ukrainians are losing the equivalent of a battalion’s worth of manpower every two days, not to mention scores of tanks, armored fighting vehicles, artillery pieces, and trucks.

Indeed, several observers of this conflict, myself included, projected that based upon predictive analysis drawn from the basic military math regarding actual and projected casualty levels, there was a real expectation that Russia, upon completion of Phase Two, would have been able to claim, with justification, that it had accomplished most, if not all the political and military objectives set out at the start of the operation.

Logic dictated that the Ukrainian government, stripped of a viable military, would have no choice but a modern-day version of the surrender of France in June 1940, following decisive battlefield victories by the German army.

While Russia continues to position itself for a decisive military victory in eastern Ukraine, it may likely confine itself to the liberation of the Donbass, seizures of the land bridge connecting Crimea with the Russian Federation mainland (via Donbass), and the expansion of the Kherson bridgehead to secure fresh water resources to Crimea which had been cut off by the Ukrainian government since 2014.

The State of Russia’s Objectives

In his classic treatise, On War, Prussian military theorist Carl Von Clausewitz penned what has become one of the ultimate truisms of conflicts involving nations, namely that “war is a continuation of politics by other means.” This holds as true today as when it was published in 1832.

Putin articulated two principle political objectives for the military operation: to keep Ukraine out of NATO and to create the conditions for NATO to agree to Russia’s demands set forth in a pair of draft treaties presented to the U.S. and NATO on Dec. 17, 2021. Those treaty proposals set out a new European security framework by demanding the withdrawal of NATO military power back to the borders that existed in 1997. Both NATO and the U.S. rejected Russia’s demands.

When it comes to military objectives, in addition to the liberation of Donbass, Putin declared in his Feb. 24 speech, announcing the invasion, that Russia “will seek to demilitarize and denazify Ukraine, as well as bring to trial those who perpetrated numerous bloody crimes against civilians, including against citizens of the Russian Federation.”

While the defeat of the Azov Regiment and other neo-Nazi formations during the Battle of Mariupol represented a decisive step toward the accomplishment of that goal, several thousand neo-Nazi fighters, organized into a variety of military and paramilitary formations, continue to fight on the frontlines in eastern Ukraine and carry out security operations in Ukrainian rear areas.

Denazification, however, has an important political component that, at the moment, is not being addressed by Russia’s military operation, namely the continued existence of Ukraine’s far-right and neo-Nazi political parties at a time when all other political activity has been shut down under martial law.

If anything, the “Nazification” of Ukrainian political life has expanded exponentially since Russia’s invasion, with Ukraine more under the influence of the ideology of Stepan Bandera, the Ukrainian nationalist whose followers killed hundreds of thousands of Jews, Gypsies, Poles, and Russians while fighting alongside Nazi Germany in World War Two.

Whereas Russia may have earlier been able to conceive a political settlement that saw the Ukrainian government right-wing political parties and their militarized progeny, the fact is today the Ukrainian government has increasingly aligned itself with the neo-Nazi movement to strengthen its rule in the face of growing domestic political opposition to war with Russia.

True denazification, in my view, would require Russia to remove the Zelensky government from power and replace it with a new political leadership that will aggressively sustain the Russian objective of an eradication neo-Nazi ideology in Ukraine. So far there is no indication that that is a Russian objective.

Re-Militarization

Likewise, demilitarization has become much more difficult since the invasion of Feb. 24. While military aid provided to Ukraine by the U.S. and NATO before that date could be measured in terms of hundreds of millions of dollars, since Phase Two operations began this aid has grown to the point where total military aid provided to Ukraine by the U.S. alone approximates $53 billion.

Not only has this aid had a measurable impact on the battlefield in terms of Russian military personnel killed and equipment destroyed, but it has also enabled Ukraine to reconstitute combat power, which had been previously destroyed by Russian forces.

While this massive support will not be able to reverse the tide of inevitability concerning the scope and scale of the Russian military victory in the Donbass, it does mean that once Russia has fulfilled its stated objective of liberating the breakaway republics, demilitarization will still not have taken place. Moreover, given the fact that demilitarization is premised on Ukraine being stripped of all NATO influence, including equipment, organization, and training, one can make a case that Russia’s invasion has succeeded in making Ukraine a closer partner of NATO than before it began.

The Legal Questions

If Russia were the United States, operating under the notion of a “rules based international order,” the issue of outstripping the legal justification for a conflict would not represent a problem — one only needs look at how a succession of U.S. presidential administrations abused the Congressional authorization for the use of military force (AUMF) passed in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks by wrongfully using it to justify operations that fell outside its legal authorities.

A party can get away with such inconsistencies if they are responsible, like the United States, for making and implementing the rules of the game (i.e., the so-called “rules-based international order.”) However, Vladimir Putin, when meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping during the opening of the Winter Olympic games, committed himself on a policy course which sees Russia, together with China, rejecting the rules based international order that defines the vision of a unipolar world dominated by the U.S., and instead replace it with a multi-polar “law based international order” grounded in the United Nations Charter.

Putin was very careful in trying to link Russia’s military operation to the legal authorities that existed under Article 51 of the United Nations Charter governing self-defense. The specific construct involved — which cited what amounts to a claim of preemptive, collective self-defense — hinges on Russian claims that “the Armed Forces of Ukraine were completing the preparation of a military operation to take control of the territory of the people’s republics.”

It is the imminent threat posed by this alleged Ukrainian military operation that gives legitimacy to Russia’s claim. Indeed, both Phase One and Phase Two of Russia’s operation were specifically tailored to the military requirements necessary to eliminate the threat posed to Lugansk and Donetsk by the buildup of Ukrainian military power in eastern Ukraine.

A problem, however, emerges when Russia completes its task of destroying, dismantling, or dispersing the Ukrainian military in the Donbass region. While one could have previously argued that an imminent threat would continue to exist so long as the Ukrainian forces possessed sufficient combat power to retake Donbass region, such an argument cannot be made today.

At some point soon, Russia will announce that it has defeated the Ukrainian military forces arrayed in the east and, in doing so, end the notion of the imminent threat that gave Russia the legal justification to undertake its operation.

That came about because of the major battlefield successes of the Russian military. But it will leave Russia with a number of unfulfilled political objectives, including denazification, demilitarization, permanent Ukrainian neutrality, and NATO concurrence with a new European security framework along the lines drawn up by Russia in its December 2021 treaty proposals. If Russia were to call a halt to its military operation at this juncture, it would be ceding political victory to Ukraine, which “wins” by not losing.

Phase Three

The challenge facing Russia going forward, therefore, is how to define the scale and the scope of Phase Three so that it retains the kind of legal authority it asserted for the first two phases, while assembling sufficient combat power to accomplish its tasks. Among these would appear to me to include overthrowing the Zelensky government and replacing it with one willing and able to outlaw the ideology of Stepan Bandera. It might also entail launching a military operation into central and western Ukraine to completely destroy the reconstituted elements of the Ukrainian military along with the surviving neo-Nazi affiliated forces.

As things currently stand, Russia’s actions are being implemented upon the limited legal authorities granted to Putin by the Russian Duma, or parliament. One of the most constraining aspects of these authorities is that it limits Russia’s force structure to what can be assembled under peacetime conditions. Most observers believe Russia is reaching the limit of what can be asked of these forces.

Any large-scale expansion of Russian military operations in Ukraine,which seeks to push beyond the territory conquered by Russia during Phase One and Phase Two, will require additional resources which Russia may struggle to assemble under the constraints imposed by a peacetime posture. This task would become virtually impossible if the Ukrainian conflict were to spread to Poland, Transnistria, Finland and Sweden.

Only Russia’s leaders can decide what is best for Russia, or what is deemed to be viable militarily. But the combination of an expired legal mandate, unfulfilled political objectives, and the possibility of a massive expansion of the scope and the scale of combat operations, which could possibly include one or more NATO members, points to an absolute need for Russia to articulate the mission of Phase Three and why it needs one.

Failure to do so opens the door to the possibility that Russia puts itself in a position where it is unable to successfully conclude a conflict that it opted to initiate at the end of February.

*

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

Scott Ritter is a former U.S. Marine Corps intelligence officer who served in the former Soviet Union implementing arms control treaties, in the Persian Gulf during Operation Desert Storm and in Iraq overseeing the disarmament of WMD.

Featured image is from South Front

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

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg and Twitter at @crglobalization. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

First published on March 30, 2022

***

A new peer-reviewed study shows more than two-thirds of adolescents with COVID-19 vaccine-related myopericarditis had persistent heart abnormalities months after their initial diagnosis, raising concerns for potential long-term effects and contradicting claims by health officials that the condition is “mild.”

A new peer-reviewed study shows more than two-thirds of adolescents with COVID-19 vaccine-related myopericarditis had persistent heart abnormalities months after their initial diagnosis, raising concerns for potential long-term effects.

The findings, published March 25 in the Journal of Pediatrics, challenge the position of U.S. health agencies, including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), which claim heart inflammation associated with the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA vaccines is “mild.”

Researchers at Seattle Children’s Hospital reviewed cases of patients younger than 18 years old who presented to the hospital with chest pain and an elevated serum troponin level between April 1, 2021, and Jan. 7, 2022, within one week of receiving a second dose of Pfizer’s vaccine.

While 35 patients fit the criteria, 19 were excluded for various reasons. Cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the remaining 16 patients was performed three to eight months after they were first examined. The MRIs showed 11 had persistent late gadolinium enhancement (LGE), although levels were lower than in previous months.

According to the study, “The presence of LGE is an indicator of cardiac injury and fibrosis and has been strongly associated with worse prognosis in patients with classical acute myocarditis.”

In a meta-analysis of eight studies, LGE was found to be a predictor of all-cause death, cardiovascular death, cardiac transplant, rehospitalization, recurrent acute myocarditis and requirement for mechanical circulatory support.

Similarly, an 11-study meta-analysis found the “presence and extent of LGE to be a significant predictor of adverse cardiac outcomes.”

Researchers said that while symptoms “were transient and most patients appeared to respond to treatment,” the analysis showed a “persistence of abnormal findings.”

The results “rais[e] concerns for potential longer-term effects,” researchers wrote, adding that they plan to repeat imaging at one year after the vaccine to assess whether abnormalities have resolved.

“The paper provides more evidence that myocarditis in adolescents that result from COVID-19 vaccines is very serious,” said Dr. Madhava Setty, senior science editor for The Defender.

“All patients had significantly elevated serum troponin levels indicative of heart damage. And LGE, which is indicative of poor outcome, was present in more than two-thirds of the kids.”

The study stated, “All patients had elevated serum troponin levels (median 9.15 ng/mL, range 0.65-18.5, normal < 0.05 ng/mL).”

“These young patients had a median troponin level of 9.15 — more than 20 times greater than the levels found in people suffering heart attacks,” Setty said.

Commenting on the study, Dr. Marty Makary, surgeon and public policy researcher at Johns Hopkins University, tweeted “CDC has a civic duty to rigorously study the long-term effects of vaccine-induced myocarditis.”

Dr. Anish Koka, a cardiologist, told The Epoch Times the study suggests 60% to 70% of teenagers who get myocarditis from a COVID vaccine may be left with a scar on their heart.

“Certainly, children who had chest pain severe enough to merit seeking medical attention need to at least make sure they get a follow-up MRI,” Koka said, adding that the findings “should have clear implications for the discussion around vaccines, especially for high-risk male teenagers … and definitely for vaccine mandates.”

Both Pfizer and Moderna COVID vaccines have been linked to several forms of heart inflammation, including myocarditis and pericarditis.

Myocarditis, or inflammation of the heart, is a severe and life-shortening disease. It was virtually unknown in young people until it became a recognized side effect of mRNA COVID vaccines, especially in boys and young men.

Pericarditis is inflammation of the pericardium, a sac-like structure with two layers of tissue that surrounds the heart to hold it in place and help it work.

According to the CDC, the most at-risk group is 16- and 17-year-old males, who have reported rates of 69 per million after the second dose of Pfizer’s COVID vaccine, although that number is likely underreported.

The CDC presentation also reported that in three-month follow-up evaluations, less than one-third of adolescents 12 to 17 who suffered vaccine-induced myocarditis (reported in Vaccine Safety DataLink) had fully recovered.

The 69-per-million rate the CDC uses to determine the incidence of myocarditis in 16- and 17-year-olds came from the agency’s Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) — a U.S. government-run database that receives reports of vaccine adverse events.

One of the biggest limitations of passive surveillance systems, like VAERS, is that the system “receives reports for only a small fraction of adverse events,” according to the Department of Health and Human Services website.

A recent study from Hong Kong suggests the incidence of myo/pericarditis after two doses of Pfizer’s Comirnaty vaccine was 37 in 100,000 (370 per million).

This incidence matches nearly exactly with findings from a study that used the Vaccine Safety DataLink system, which showed 37.7 12- to 17-year-olds per 100,000 suffered myo/pericarditis after their second vaccine dose.

This indicates an incidence rate that is almost six times higher than the 69-per-million rate reported by the CDC.

In a preprint study from Kaiser Permanente, the incidence of myocarditis in 18- to 24-year-old males post-vaccination was even higher — at 537 per million, or 7.7 times higher than the statistics reported by the CDC.

No such thing as ‘mild’ heart damage

A paper published Jan. 14 in Circulation summarized the clinical course of 139 young patients between the ages of 12 and 20 who were hospitalized for myocarditis following COVID vaccination.

Of those patients, 19% were taken into intensive care, two required infusions of potent intravenous drugs used to raise critically low blood pressure and every patient had an elevated troponin level.

Troponin is an enzyme specific to cardiac myocytes. Levels above 0.4 ng/ml are strongly suggestive of heart damage.

The paper concluded, “Most cases of suspected COVID-19 vaccine myocarditis occurring in persons <21 years have a mild clinical course with rapid resolution of symptoms.”

“We suppose [a ‘mild clinical course] refers to the 81% who did not go to the ICU or the fact that none died or required ECMO (Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation, a desperate means to keep the body oxygenated when a patient’s heart or lungs have completely failed),” wrote Setty and Josh Mitteldorf, Ph.D., a theoretical physicist, in an article critiquing the Circulation paper.

“When does a ‘mild clinical course’ require hospitalization for a two-day median length of stay?” they asked. “How does anyone know if symptoms rapidly resolve?”

“We don’t know what it will do to young boys in the long term, especially since every patient had some damage to their heart as evidenced by significantly abnormal troponin levels,” Setty and Mitteldorf wrote. “And we don’t fully understand the mechanism by which the vaccines cause myocarditis.”

*

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

Megan Redshaw is a freelance reporter for The Defender. She has a background in political science, a law degree and extensive training in natural health.

Featured image is from CHD

With foresight, this incisive article by Larry Chin was written on March 26, 2020 shortly after the implementation of the March 18, 2020 lockdown in the United States.

 

***

The COVID-19 charade is the biggest single disruption of human society in modern history, perhaps ever in human history.

This “health crisis” is a Big Lie. It is the biggest Big Lie in history.

The fabric of societies has been shredded, human interactions have been altered, economies decimated. All based on a manufactured pretext, mass manipulation, and media-inducted mass panic.

Humanity was treated to a similar crippling shock event with false flag event of 9/11, the manufactured global “war on terrorism”. But this one dwarfs all previous events, and all previous wars, including the world wars.

The authorities—global, national, regional, local, community by community—have moved in terrifying lockstep. This is the Deep State, out in the open.

They have crashed every economy. Businesses large and small, shut down and lost, lives and livelihoods at risk. They have imposed every variation of martial law, including the imposition of behavioral martial law, household to household, person to person. Human beings are literal prisoners, “sheltering at home” like caged animals. Those who fail to “heed” home imprisonment are threatened with unprecedented police actions.

“Hot spots” such as California and New York remain on strict lockdown, its corrupt governors, eager to commit new untold actions under the cover of “public safety”, offer no hope for reopening while extorting for federal bailout funds. “Non-compliant” businesses in Los Angeles have been threatened with utility shutoffs. Local police refuse to respond to all but “emergency” calls, even while the streets become increasingly deadly. Suicides, violence, civil unrest, looting, rioting, and more are possible as tensions rise.

Is this not the Definition of Totalitarian Oppression?

The speed and scale at which this engineered crash has shut down an entire planet is unprecedented, and awesome in its horror. This conquest was achieved in the span of mere days. With no resistance. Every corner of the globe, every individual, imprisoned mentally as well as physically. All it took was one Big Lie, one Big Fear.

They want the Big Lie and Big Fear to continue: As of this writing, some countries (India), and some US states have now banned hydroxychloroquine, despite strong evidence of its effectiveness (including New York, despite the fact that the state is reporting 10 times the cases and more deaths than the rest of the country) in now hundreds of cases.

What we are living is an unfathomable dystopian nightmare, and it is reality.

Make no mistake. This “health crisis” serves as a cover for a global superpower “economic war” on a scale never experienced before. This war continues to rapidly evolve, rendering analysis difficult, if not impossible. There are numerous agendas at play, and countless players across the political universe in this gargantuan manipulation. Determining who and what are ultimately responsible will be hotly debated as events unfold.

Regardless, all of these individuals—every single one of them, in every nation and on every level down to the world’s cities and towns—must be held accountable for what they have done, and for the carnage that we are currently suffering, the damage that we are each experiencing. There are many agendas and many battles taking place, but the fact is, we—you, I, every human being—-are collateral damage. Cannon fodder. Statistics. Hostages. Guinea pigs.

The central undeniable fact—and the single most terrifying aspect of this entire calamity—is that this is the moment that the ruthless world shapers have longed for. Now they have actually done it.

Is this geared towards total world conquest?

Is this leading us to a world police state?

We are witnessing psychosis, successfully fomented on a planetary scale. Virtually the entire human race has been rendered insane. Media-induced mass fear, panic, hysteria, and  hypochondria grip all of humanity.

As the tidal wave of panic overwhelms all of life itself, people become oblivious to facts, oblivious of clear evidence that they have been and continue to be criminally manipulated, exploited, and controlled.

Even the most ardent and obsessed crisis watchers misinterpret, deny or ignore rational data, and embrace any convoluted interpretation of statistics that suit them. They seem to enjoy the “fear porn” and their own hysteria, and seek justification and approval for their madness.

The threat posed by COVID-19 itself is relatively low based on most current known information (and against information from previous pandemics). Although there has remained a legitimate risk for older people with weakened immune systems and pre-existing conditions, the disease is “survivable” according to every metric to date.

In the White House press conference of 23 March 2020, US Vice President and Coronavirus task force leader Mike Pence stated that “9 of 10 people who think they have coronavirus, do not even have it” .

Even now, with hysteria at earth-shattering maximum, even including the worst actual infection and death counts, the outlandish projections of a few weeks ago have not materialized. Yet the media continues to trumpet 80% infection rates and other hyperbolic fantasies to push maximum panic, to justify new police state measures and more public submission.

Easily rendered compliant and submissive, the mobs echo the fearmongering propaganda. We need “testing”! We need vaccines! We need draconian “public health” controls! We need more and more “social distancing”. We need to “change life as we know it” permanently, “for our own good”. We must burrow deeply into the safest crevices in our homes, never to emerge, lest someone “infected” even look at our direction.

In locked down communities across the world, self-righteous new social justice warriors—militant New Age collectivists—are taking it upon themselves to behave like Red Guards on steroids, “enforcing” the proper “social distancing”, reporting on fellow individuals who “fail to comply”, demanding new police enforcement of this new “distancing” paradigms, while also echoing the talking points of the World Health Organization (WHO), the Center for Disease Control (CDC), Big Pharma, and their chosen political idols—the very agents at the source of this “crisis”.

The propaganda has been so effective, so overwhelming —everywhere, inescapable—that it has robbed even “intelligent” people of their faculties, to the point that they cannot stop obsessing, and will not stop chattering about COVID-19.

The masses enthusiastically parrot, “It’s going to get worse before it gets better!”, almost rooting for the virus to become worse, and rejecting the facts that show that the “crisis” was an overblown Big Lie to begin with.

They do not seem to notice or care that various populations and nations (China, South Korea and others) are well into full recovery. Barring some new manufactured twist or super mutation, COVID-19, like any virus, will run its course and be done, perhaps in a matter of months. Yet the petrified and the paranoid do not want to believe or hope for this strong likelihood.

How will future history books depict this lowest moment in human history? A planet full of weak, submissive, cowardly sheeple, quaking in fear, begging to have their liberties and freedoms taken from them, begging to be controlled, begging to be permanently enslaved.

Human society, more technologically advanced than ever before, stupider, more brain-addled and weaker than ever before.

This is indeed a global pandemic: a pandemic of insanity. Of evil, and the most massive brainwashing operation in history. Who but a tiny fraction of humanity is even asking questions, while the jackboot of all jackboots crushes our collective throats?

“Social distancing”? “Self-quarantine”? “Six feet rule”? “Shelter in place”? Voluntary monitoring and tracking? These are concepts straight out of science fiction novels depicting failed societies and apocalypse.

Submissive collectivism, militantly enforced as well as self-imposed. Indeed, we are watching our societies fail, from both top-down and bottom up.

The powers that be are trying to create a “unifying event”. “Unify against the virus”. But the “crisis” is a deception. The masses are “unifying” around their own servitude, their own destruction.

We should indeed be Unifying. Against the Brainwashing and Deception

Against all of those who are using it for their unsavory and brutal purposes, who are literally killing us now, and who are even withholding cures, aid, and relief. Against the sheeple who enable and accept the surrender of our every freedom.

“We are in this together”? No. We are not. And should not be.

Irreparable damage has been done. Precedents have been set, some irreversibly.

Even once recovery comes, this crisis has proven that “we” are not in control. “They” are, and they are powerful enough to have totally and literally conquered all of humanity—us, you and me— in mere days and weeks. The masses have not only spinelessly and unquestioningly capitulated, they are begging for more.

Wake up. Wake up now.

*

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

Featured image is from Massoud Nayeri

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

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

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

***

Pakistan faces potential economic collapse as inflation jumps and widespread civil unrest could be nearing. The latest sign the South Asian country is spiraling into the abyss is rising electricity costs that threaten to close tens of thousands of businesses.

Bloomberg reports that as many as 40,000 factories in Karachi, the country’s commercial capital, are being slapped with high power costs that make operating near impossible.

Rising power costs are so severe that nine business groups in Karachi told the government that an immediate plan needs to be formulated to lower power costs or face economic disaster.

Any shuttering of factories and mass layoffs could trigger social unrest in the commercial capital, home to more than 16 million people.

Discontent among businesses and households is already soaring with an official inflation rate of over 13.37% (double the official CPI to get a more accurate picture of true price inflation), the 2nd fastest-rising rate in Asia.

On top of high power costs, Karachi’s power utility — K-Electric Ltd. — warned customers of widespread power cuts for the first time in over a decade if power generation continues to struggle because of high fuel costs and supply shortages.

“These current conditions are severely hindering KE’s ability to procure fuel, causing a permanent curtailment of power generation” that translates to as much as 10 hours of planned blackouts for some parts of the city, said Sadia Dada, a spokesperson for K-Electric.

Pakistan is also a nuclear power — political elites may stoke a conflict with neighboring India to distract public anger from domestic financial pain.

*

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

Featured image is from ZH

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on 40,000 Factories at Risk of Closing in Pakistan’s Commercial Capital Amid Fuel Crisis
  • Tags:

Last Month’s Most Popular Articles

June 3rd, 2022 by Global Research News

Video: Pfizer’s “Secret” Report on the Covid Vaccine. Beyond Manslaughter. The Evidence is Overwhelming. The Vaccine Should Be Immediately Withdrawn Worldwide

Prof Michel Chossudovsky, May 29, 2022

Digital Tyranny: The EU Digital Covid Vaccine Certificate Framework

Prof Michel Chossudovsky, May 27, 2022

Biggest Lie in World History: There Never Was A Pandemic. The Data Base is Flawed. The Covid Mandates including the Vaccine are Invalid

Prof Michel Chossudovsky, May 22, 2022

The War in Ukraine. Scott Ritter’s Switcheroo: “Why I Radically Changed My Overall Assessment”

Mike Whitney, May 16, 2022

Dear Friends, Sorry to Announce a Genocide: Dr. Naomi Wolf on the Pfizer “Confidential Report”

Dr. Naomi Wolf, May 31, 2022

The Vaccine Death Report: Evidence of Millions of Deaths and Serious Adverse Events Resulting from the Experimental COVID-19 Injections

David John Sorensen, May 28, 2022

The COVID Pandemic and the mRNA Vaccine: What Is the Truth? Dr. Russell L. Blaylock

Dr. Russell Blaylock, May 27, 2022

French Lieutenant Colonel Jacques Guillemain: “Ukrainian soldiers are entrenched in the cities”

Jacques Guillemain, May 24, 2022

The U.S. Has Killed More Than 20 Million People in 37 “Victim Nations” Since World War II

James A. Lucas, May 23, 2022

Reality vs. Illusion. People have been Robbed of their Ability to “Decipher between Fact and Fiction”

Dustin Broadbery, May 7, 2022

The “Killer Vaccine” Worldwide. 7.9 Billion People

Prof Michel Chossudovsky, May 29, 2022

Video: The Plan. WHO Plans to Have 10 Years of Pandemics (2020-2030). “Proof that the Pandemic was Planned with a Purpose”

Stop World Control, June 1, 2022

For Bill Gates, It’s “Moneypox”: Simulation of Fictitious Monkeypox Virus Pandemic in March 2021, Goes Live in May 2022

Prof Michel Chossudovsky, June 2, 2022

“Preemptive Nuclear War”: The Historic Battle for Peace and Democracy. A Third World War Threatens the Future of Humanity

Prof Michel Chossudovsky, May 27, 2022

Bill Gates Lays Out Plan for Global Takeover

Dr. Joseph Mercola, May 26, 2022

Microplastics From Masks Found Deep in Lungs of the Living

Dr. Joseph Mercola, May 25, 2022

Pfizer Tells Federal Judge that Pfizer Owns the Federal Government and Is Thereby Immune to Normal Contract Law

Dr. Paul Craig Roberts, May 24, 2022

Global COVID Summit Declaration Representing 17,000 Physicians and Medical Scientists

Dr. Robert Malone, May 22, 2022

The Crisis in Ukraine Is Not About Ukraine. It’s About Germany

Mike Whitney, May 14, 2022

New UK Government Data Shows the COVID Vaccines Kill More People Than They Save

Steve Kirsch, May 9, 2022

Monkeypox: “Fool Me Twice, Shame on Me”

Mike Whitney, May 28, 2022

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The Legacy of the Second Sino-Japanese War in the People’s Republic of China: Mapping the Official Discourses of Memory

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

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

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

***

After having a few lunches with Australia’s then opposition leader, Anthony Albanese, John Shipton felt reason to be confident.  Albanese had promised Assange’s father that he would do whatever he could, should he win office, to bring the matter to a close.

In December 2019, before a gathering at the Chifley Research Centre, Albanese also referred to Assange.  “You don’t prosecute journalists for doing their job.”  In December 2021, he also expressed the view that the “ongoing pursuit of Mr Assange” served no evident “purpose” – “enough is enough”.

That said, prior to winning office, the Labor opposition was hardly making disruptive ripples on the subject.  “As an Australian, he is entitled to consular assistance,” came the anaemic remark from Senator Penny Wong and opposition spokesperson for foreign affairs in April.  “We also expect the government to keep seeking assurances from both the UK and US that he’s treated fairly and humanely … Consular matters are regularly raised with counterparts, they are regularly raised and this one would be no different.”

The problem with these assurances is precisely why such a stance is woefully, even disgracefully, inadequate.  These have no weight or bearing in law and can be ignored.  Power lies, and absolute power lies absolutely.  Such a crucial point was blithely ignored by Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales Ian Burnett, and Lord Justice Timothy Holroyde, in their December 2021 decision.  In reversing the lower court decision, the justices thought little of questioning the bad faith of Washington’s guarantees that Assange would not spend time in the ADX Florence supermax, or face special administrative measures (SAMs), were he to be extradited. These might have been made at the initial trial, but the prosecutors decided, after the fact, to change their tune on appeal.

Within the new government, there are Labor members who insist that Assange be freed.  Julian Hill MP is one, convinced that Albanese, as Australia’s new Labor Prime Minister, would be a “man of integrity” and be true to his “values”.  Within his own party, there were members “who have had an active involvement in the Assange group based on these critical principles – press freedom and fighting against the chilling effect on the media that this persecution would have – and would hope that our government could achieve an outcome.”

A number of voices outside politics have also urged the new government to make urgent representations to Washington to change the prosecutorial, and persecuting tone, against the WikiLeaks founder.  Guy Rundle insists on “some form of official representation” to the US to end extradition efforts which would see Assange charged under the Espionage Act of 1917.  “It should also make representation to the UK government to refuse extradition immediately, and release Assange.”

Rundle is also correct to note that Labor’s form on Assange is pure in its rottenness.  Given the chance – as in 2018 and 2019 –  it has generously exploited security leaks used by journalist Annika Smethurst to attack the proposed expansion of surveillance powers.

Stuart Rees, founder of the Sydney Peace Foundation, senses a new form of politics “in the air.”  Citing Archbishop Desmond Tutu’s remarks that there could be no future without generosity and forgiveness, he sees any intervention to free Assange as “a next step towards recovery of national self-respect.”  The only thing for Albanese to do: get on the phone to UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson to cancel the extradition.

Despite the changing of the guard in Canberra, it should not be forgotten that it was a Labor government, led by the country’s first female prime minister, Julia Gilliard, who accused Assange of illegality in publishing US State Department cables in 2010.  Gillard, impetuously and inaccurately, tried to impress her US counterparts in tarring and feathering WikiLeaks.  “Let’s not try and put any glosses over this,” she stated in December that year. “It would not happen, information would not be on WikiLeaks if there had not been an illegal act undertaken.”

All zealous and afire with premature purpose, Gillard sent in the Australian Federal Police to investigate the matter, hoping that it would “provide the government with some advice about potential criminal conduct of the individual involved.”  The priority here was identifying any Australian laws that might have been broken, since she did not feel up to the task.  And there was, she claimed perversely, “the common sense test about the gross irresponsibility of this conduct.”  Not a fan of exposing state illegality, notably by the US, was Julia.

Such conduct, at the time, did more than raise eyebrows.  Opposition legal affairs spokesman George Brandis failed to identify any relevant law that might have been breached, either Australian or US.  Liberty Victoria president Spencer Zifcak was “astonished” that a lawyer of presumed competence could have made such remarks.  “There is no charge, there is no trial, there is no properly constituted court, and yet the Prime Minister deems it appropriate to say that Mr Assange has committed a criminal offence.”

Within less than a fortnight, the AFP, in concluding its investigation, informed Attorney-General Robert McClelland that “given the documents published to date are classified by the United States, the primary jurisdiction for any further investigation into the matter remains the United States.”  After evaluating the material concerned, the federal police had failed to establish “the existence of any criminal offences where Australia would have jurisdiction”.

How the publisher’s fate is handled will be revealing of the new government’s attitude to traditional alliances.  Albanese, when asked this week how he would approach the Assange case, had removed the hat of candour.  “My position is that not all foreign affairs is best done with the loudhailer.”  Now more embedded than ever in the US security framework, crowned by the AUKUS alliance, the length Australian politicians and officials will go to rock the boat of cordial understanding on the issue of Assange is unlikely to be extensive.  Even if Albanese prefers to put the loudhailer aside, the prospects of seeming supine and looking ineffectual are brutally real.

*

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

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

Featured image: Anthony Albanese (Source: Republic World)

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

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

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

***

Assassinations, bomb attacks and threats: in Iraq an “environment of fear and intimidation” targeting activists and protesters has put a stranglehold on freedom of expression, the UN warned on Thursday.

In a report documenting 26 incidents since May 2021 that it said were “aimed at suppressing dissent and criticism” and “carried out by ‘unidentified armed elements'”, the United Nations warned of the deadly threats that activists face.

Among the 26 cases investigated are “one targeted killing, three attempted targeted killings, five violent assaults, one house raid, 14 attacks using improvised explosive devices [and] one abduction”, the report read.

It refers to a “persistent impunity with respect to targeted attacks against protestors” as well as against people “seeking accountability for these attacks, and activists and critics espousing views critical of armed elements and affiliated political actors”.

The report, focusing on the period of May 2021 to May 2022 and based on 27 interviews including with judicial officials in the capital Baghdad and southern Iraq, was compiled by the UN’s Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) and the UN Assistance Mission for Iraq (UNAMI).

The report notes, however, that “significant progress” has been made in providing compensation to the families of those killed during the bloody anti-government protests that rocked the country for months from late 2019.

More than 500 families have so far received compensation of some $7,000 dollars each, it said.

‘Impunity’

The demonstrations were sparked by rampant corruption, a lack of job opportunities and poor living conditions.

Nearly 600 people were killed and tens of thousands injured when the authorities cracked down on the protests.

Dozens of activists and protesters were targeted in assassinations or attempted killings.

While the violence against protesters was never claimed, many critics accuse powerful pro-Iranian armed factions.

“Information indicates that individuals detained and convicted for these incidents may belong to well-known armed elements operating outside state control,” the UN report said.

The consequence, the UN warns, is that it “propagates an environment of fear and intimidation that continues to severely restrict the enjoyment of the rights to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly”.

The report also looked at fallout from the fatal July 2020 shooting of security adviser and researcher Hisham Al-Hashemi, and the trial of a policeman for his murder.

After repeated delays, the trial has again been postponed – this time with no new start date – “due to the ‘inability of bringing the defendant to the court'”, the report added.

*

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

Featured image is from Middle East Eye

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Iraq Activists Targeted by ‘Environment of Fear’, Says UN Report Documenting Bomb Attacks, Threats
  • Tags:

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

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

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

***

A new study published by Portugal’s National Institute of Health has uncovered evidence that the virus responsible for the Monkeypox outbreak allegedly sweeping across Europe, America and Australia, has been heavily manipulated in a lab by scientists, and further evidence suggests it has been released intentionally.

Monkeypox illness usually begins with a fever before a rash develops one to five days later, often beginning on the face then spreading to other parts of the body. The rash changes and goes through different stages before finally forming a scab which later falls off. An individual is contagious until all the scabs have fallen off and there is intact skin underneath.

The disease has always ben extremely rare and was first identified in humans in 1970 in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in a 9-year-old boy. Since then, human cases of monkeypox have been reported in 11 African countries. It wasn’t until 2003 that the first monkeypox outbreak outside of Africa was recorded, and this was in the United States, and it has never been recorded in multiple countries at the same time.

Until now.

Suddenly, we are being told that cases of monkeypox are now being recorded in the USA, Canada, the UK, Australia, Sweden, the Netherlands, Belgium, France, Spain, Italy and Germany, all at the same time.

Source

According to the UK Health Security Agency, 172 cases of monkeypox have been identified in England as of the week ending 29th May 2022, and they have now released new guidance advising anyone with the virus to abstain from sex whilst they have symptoms, and to use a condom for at least eight weeks once the infection has cleared.

But there’s something extremely strange about this outbreak, as if the fact we’re allegedly witnessing an outbreak across first-world countries all at the same time for the first time in history wasn’t strange enough.

We don’t believe in coincidences, but there are many people that do. But we imagine those will do will struggle to comprehend this one.

Back in March 2021, the Nuclear Threat Initative (NTI) partnered with the Munich Security Conference to conduct a tabletop exercise on reducing high-consequence biological threats.

The exercise examined gaps in national and international biosecurity and pandemic preparedness architectures—exploring opportunities to improve prevention and response capabilities for high-consequence biological events.

Here’s the scenario that they conducted:

Source – Page 10

A monkeypox outbreak that began on May 15th 2022, resulting in 3.2 billion cases and 271 million deaths by December 1st 2023.

Are we really to believe it’s just a coincidence that we’re now witnessing an actual monkeypox outbreak, with the first cases being reported to the World Health Organisation on May 13th 2022?

Source

The Munich Security Conference exercise revealed that the engineered monkeypox virus was developed illicitly at the fictional country of Anica’s leading institute of virology by lab scientists working alongside an Arnican terrorist group. This terrorist group then released the “highly contagious and deadly” pathogen at a crowded train station in neighbouring fictional country Brinia.

Now, a new scientific study published by Portugal’s National Institute of Health (NIH) suggests the real-world monkeypox outbreak may be the result of something eerily similar.

The study was published May 23rd 2022 and can be accessed in full here.

Source

Scientists from the NIH collected clinical specimens from 9 monkeypox patients between May 15th and May 17th 2022 and analysed them.

The scientists concluded that the multi-country outbreak of monkeypox that we’re now allegedly witnessing is most likely the result of a single origin because all sequences viruses released so far tightly cluster together.

Figure 1: Draft phylogenetic analysis of Monkeypox viral sequences, highlighting the diversity within the outbreak cluster.

They also concluded that the virus belongs to the West African clade of monkeypox viruses. However, they found it it is most closely related to monkeypox viruses that were exported from Nigeria to several countries in 2018 and 2019, namely the UK, Israel and Singapore. This is our first clue that this latest outbreak may be the result of an engineered virus leaking from a lab.

The next piece of evidence that this virus has leaked from a lab comes with the finding that whilst the virus closely resembles those exported from Nigeria in 18/19, it is still different with over 50 single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs), which are genetic variations. The scientists state this is far more than one would expect. This strongly indicates that somebody, somewhere has been playing with this virus in a lab.

The final findings of the study are written in a way that is hard to get your head around, as follows:

But thankfully someone who has managed to get their head around the above is none other than Dr Robert Malone, and he has provided an easy to understand breakdown of what the Scientists are attempting to declare above:

“The authors speculate that the pattern of mutations is consistent with the effects of a natural cellular protein with the abbreviated name: APOBEC3. For those who want to dive into the molecular virology of APOBEC3, here is a nice 2015 J Immunology review

For those seeking the “Cliff Notes” abridged version,see WikipediaFor the obsessives or aficionados, note that APOBEC3 is associated with a specific pattern of base changes- (C→U). On the basis of their hypothesis regarding the potential role for APOBEC3, I infer that the authors must have detected a statistically significant fraction of C→U changes in the current isolates relative to the 2018-2019 isolates.#

Here is the rub. While APOBEC3 is associated with cellular resistance (yet another form of “innate immunity”) to HIV(and presumably other retroviruses), a quick PubMed search reveals that Poxviruses are resistant to the mutational effects of APOBEC3! 

For example, see this 2006 paper published in “Virology”Frankly, whether through lack of curiosity or fear of attack from government-controlled media and journals, the failure of the authors to even mention this Virology article is a major oversight at best.

My inference and interpretation?

On the basis of this sequence analysis report from the INSA team cited above, to me, this is looking more like a laboratory manipulated strain than a naturally evolved strain. Bad news.

Furthermore, this double-stranded DNA virus, infections by which have historically been self-limiting, appears to be evolving (during the last few days!) to a form that is more readily transmitted from human to human.

Bad news.”

This newly published scientific study has essentially uncovered a mass of evidence pointing to the latest monkeypox outbreak being the result of a heavily manipulated virus that has leaked from a lab.

Couple this with the Munich Security Conference simulation conducted in March 2021 that just so happened to revolve around a monkeypox outbreak beginning in May 2022 as the result of a bioterrorist lab leak, then it’s not hard to conclude that we’re either witnessing a real-life monkeypox outbreak that has been purposely released from a lab, or one hell of a coincidence. And we don’t believe in the latter.

*

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

Featured image is from The Expose

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Study Finds Latest Monkeypox Outbreak Is Result of Biolab-manipulated Virus Possibly Released Intentionally
  • Tags: ,

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

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

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

***

On Tuesday New Zealand Doctors Speaking Out with Science (“NZDSOS”) published an open letter on the need to investigate deaths following vaccination, of which “an unredacted version is being prepared for the Police.”

NZDSOS is a group of doctors, dentists, pharmacists and veterinarians and has formed alliances with other groups both locally and internationally: “We are not alone. We are one of many.”

“We appeal AGAIN to the Police, headed by Andrew Coster, and our MPs, to intervene to protect the People,” NZDSOS states in their letter titled ‘Deaths Following C-19 Vaccination’.

There is a shockingly large burden of deaths and injuries following the Covid-19 vaccines, of itself and compared to any other treatment or vaccine in modern times. We report many cases that DEMAND proper investigation, as befits any medication lacking safety studies.

Our surveillance systems have been disabled in order to hide the extent of harm. Adverse event reporting is NOT COMPULSORY, and this alone undermines any attempt to portray the injections as safe.

Children and young people are dying and suffering particularly cardiac injuries (though many healthy elderly have died too), whilst their risk from covid-19 is particularly low. We believe we are being lied to. We present many cases halfway down this post.

Deaths Following C-19 Vaccination: Deaths by Regulators, What More Can We Say and Do? NZDSOS, 24 May 2022

Health Forum New Zealand, a community group of volunteers, has been maintaining a database of deaths and injuries following Covid injections, ‘The Citizen’s Database: Deaths & Injuries’ (“Citizen’s Database”). The database has been built mainly from notifications by relatives, friends and health workers of people who have died following the Covid injections.

The Health Forum volunteers have backgrounds in healthcare, science and information technology, and have received training and support from epidemiology and database professionals. “The volunteers who collate the reports work hard to verify their accuracy, and it is often months for the complete or important details to be obtained,” NZDSOS’s letter states.

The Citizen’s Database is the result of an alarming lack of official response to the clear pattern of significant harm from the Pfizer injection program. Children and adults of all ages continue to die and be injured in appalling numbers around the world and here at home.

The Citizen’s Database: Deaths & Injuries, NZDSOS

“It is absolutely essential that some sort of register is kept since the product is experimental, reporting systems around the world were already showing very alarming signals even before our NZ rollout began, and these have continued to do so. Most astonishingly, it is not mandatory for health workers to report vaccine side effects here in NZ. In fact, it is true to say that we are lacking an effective regime of pharmacovigilance entirely for this single reason only, given that this IS an experimental drug trial,” NZDSOS’s letter notes.

At the time of writing, the Citizen’s Database had recorded nearly 500 deaths post-Covid injections.  At the end of their open letter, NZDSOS lists about a third of these deaths. “Note just how many dead people are young, children even, and suffer sudden, unexpected deaths, typically from blood clots affecting brain or heart,” writes NZDSOS.

After listing several reasons why this is happening, including a section titled ‘Blood Money?’, NZDSOS answers the question: Put it all together and what have you got?

NZDSOS: Deaths Following C-19 Vaccination, 24 May 2022

NZDSOS concludes: “There is an evolving humanitarian crisis, and the government, police, vaccine industry and most doctors are lost at sea. For God’s sake, people, let’s make our police and MPs put a stop to this now!”

About halfway through their letter NZDSOS dedicated a section directed to the Police (see below).

To the NZ Police, who have the actual patient’s names, we say this:

It is not enough to hide behind apparently controlled, failed or corrupted government institutions.

You are here to defend the public good. Period. You are supposed to know wrong from right; lies from truth.

You have ignored 3 open letters from our legal colleagues discussing vaccine harms, and alleging serious vaccine contamination. Evidence we have submitted that alleges the same and suggesting criminal dereliction by the Medsafe regulator has been denied by Police commanders, who say it does not reach a standard representing harm. Yes, it is all indeed “preposterous”. They shelter behind Medsafe’s responsibility to investigate but they refuse to act in the face of it’s inaction. As we have said before, your vaccinated staff belong to the wider citizenry receiving these contaminated products.

We are alleging death by regulatory failure, as you know. You will see in the summarised death reports (representing a third of over 450 available) that there are some allegations of professionals and Police deviating from the usual processes that should follow a possible death from medical treatment. Of course, the unredacted list we give you is absolutely confidential except as needed for your formal investigations.

If one human being can behave in a compromised way in organisations where control and intimidation come down from on high, it is very likely – inevitable even – that many others will too, thus enabling a system-wide collusion that may not be obvious to individual actors, who see themselves ‘just a cog in the wheel’. Some of these people do feel a personal or collective guilt, so then an instinct to press on, to keep quiet, enabled by their superiors and being in far too deep to pull back or speak out by this stage. We have spoken to a few workers who are convinced their lives would be at risk if they go public, even with whistle-blower protection laws. A few claim they have precedents for these views, which is truly shocking for us to hear. May these people have a safe arena in which to tell their stories soon.

Plenty of evidence has gone to file number 220215/0669. Here is some more. We allege fraud on the PCR test. This evidence is now a year old but Dr Jessica Rose, a statistician, has just used the Wayback machine to show real-time scrubbing of incriminating evidence of pre-planning.

Here at home, through Official Information Act requests; by following the course of individual reports made to CARM; and by questioning individuals involved, we say there is enough deception, denial, obfuscation and opacity to suspect cover-ups of evidence of harms, even down to the of deleting injury reports made by patients directly to Medsafe and MoH itself. We know that the MoH pre-screens reports of injury and deletes some before sending the rest on to the Centre for Adverse Drug Monitoring (CARM), a private organisation headed by Professor Michael Tatley at Otago University. Both he and MoH each say the other has final responsibility for attribution of vaccine to the injury, but there are other individual players, committees and apparent ‘black box’ mechanisms to complicate things further.

If you wanted, you could simply interrogate the government’s Covid Immunisation Register (CIR) and cross-check against the Register of Births and Deaths. Or we will do it if you can get us access to the raw data. But we see you are busy recruiting your new “Covid enforcers” to start 1st September. Wouldn’t it be better to train more detectives to investigate all these deaths, and find any criminals responsible? Or are they somehow protected?

The above are a few extracts from a lengthy letter filled with important information.  Please read the full letter, ‘Deaths Following C-19 Vaccination’, HERE, especially if you are in New Zealand or have friends or family that live there.

*

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

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

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

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

***

A Canadian bank has apologized to a man who participated in the Freedom Convoy protest for freezing his account at the behest of Justin Trudeau’s government.

Earlier this year, in order to stop what the Trudeau regime referred to as “illegal blockades,” the government froze bank accounts belonging to demonstrators and others who merely donated money to them.

The protests began as a defiant rebuke to the Trudeau regime’s attempts to impose vaccine mandates and ended with his government demonizing participants as violent extremists and using riot police to disperse crowds.

At the height of the unrest, Canadian authorities even refused to rule out using the military against the protesters.

Months later, “Scotiabank apologized to Benjamin Dichter for freezing his account because he was believed to be an organizer of the protests,” reports Reclaim the Net.

The letter the bank sent to Dichter states, “Please accept our sincere apologies for the frustration and inconvenience this situation may have caused.”

“We can confirm that financial institutions acted quickly to unfreeze accounts after the RCMP notified us that it believes that individuals and entities previously identified are no longer engaged in conduct or activities prohibited under the Emergency Measures Regulations.”

null

Dichter said he didn’t believe banks went out of their way to target customers, but were under intense pressure from the government.

“I believe It came from somewhere else. They didn’t do it on their own accord,” he said.

“My interpretation of their response is, ‘we do not want to do this,’” he added. “As soon as they allowed us to give you access to your account, we did so immediately. It wasn’t our choice.”

As we previously highlighted, one of the victims of the government order was a struggling single mother who had her bank account frozen for donating $50 dollars to the protest cause.

“Briane is a single mom from Chilliwack working a minimum wage job,” MP Mark Strahl tweeted, adding “She gave $50 to the convoy when it was 100% legal. She hasn’t participated in any other way. Her bank account has now been frozen.”

During the controversy, Canada’s Justice Minister David Lametti said Trump supporters in America who donated money to the Canadian Freedom Convoy should also “be worried” about having their bank accounts frozen.

Despite widespread condemnation, Trudeau’s government moved to make the asset freezing part of its Emergencies Act a permanent fixture.

*

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

Featured image is from OffGuardian

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Canadian Bank Apologizes to Freedom Convoy Protest Participant for Freezing His Account
  • Tags: ,

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

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

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

***

At the beginning of 2022, the US Defense Department maintained an estimated stockpile of approximately 3,708 nuclear warheads for delivery by ballistic missiles and aircraft. Most of the warheads in the stockpile are not deployed but rather stored for potential upload onto missiles and aircraft as necessary. We estimate that approximately 1,744 warheads are currently deployed, of which roughly 1,344 strategic warheads are deployed on ballistic missiles and another 300 at strategic bomber bases in the United States. An additional 100 tactical bombs are deployed at air bases in Europe. The remaining warheads — approximately 1,964 — are in storage as a so-called “hedge” against technical or geopolitical surprises. Several hundred of those warheads are scheduled to be retired before 2030. (See Table 1.)

Table 1: US nuclear forces, 2022

Table 1: US nuclear forces, 2022

In addition to the warheads in the Defense Department stockpile, approximately 1,720 retired — but still intact — warheads are stored under custody of the Energy Department and are awaiting dismantlement, giving a total US inventory of an estimated 5,428 warheads. Between 2010 and 2018, the US government publicly disclosed the size of the nuclear weapons stockpile; however, in 2019 and 2020, the Trump administration rejected requests from the Federation of American Scientists to declassify the latest stockpile numbers (Aftergood 2019; Kristensen 2019a, 2020d). In 2021, the Biden administration restored the United States’ previous transparency levels by declassifying both numbers for the entire history of the US nuclear arsenal until September 2020 — including the missing years of the Trump administration. This effort revealed that the United States’ nuclear stockpile consisted of 3,750 warheads in September 2020 — only 72 warheads fewer than the last number made available in September 2017 before the Trump administration reduced the US government’s transparency efforts (State Department 2021a). We estimate that the stockpile will continue to decline over the next decade-and-a-half as modernization programs consolidate the remaining warheads.

The US nuclear weapons are thought to be stored at an estimated 24 geographical locations in 11 US States and five European countries (Kristensen and Korda 2019, 124). The location with the most nuclear weapons by far is the large Kirtland Underground Munitions and Maintenance Storage Complex south of Albuquerque, New Mexico. Most of the weapons in this location are retired weapons awaiting dismantlement at the Pantex Plant in Texas. The state with the second-largest inventory is Washington, which is home to the Strategic Weapons Facility Pacific and the ballistic missile submarines at Naval Submarine Base Kitsap. However, if counting only weapons that are part of the stockpile, then Washington would be considered the state containing the most nuclear weapons.

Implementing New START

The United States appears to be in compliance with the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START) limits. Its 665 deployed strategic launchers with 1,389 attributed warheads counted as of the most recent data exchange on September 1, 2021 are well below the treaty’s limits of 700 deployed strategic launchers with 1,550 warheads (State Department 2021b). This is a decrease of 10 deployed strategic launchers and an increase of 69 deployed strategic warheads over the past 12 months (State Department 2021c). However, these changes do not reflect actual changes in the US arsenal but are caused by normal fluctuations caused by launchers moving in and out of maintenance. The United States has not reduced its total inventory of strategic launchers since 2017 (Kristensen 2020a).

The warhead numbers reported by the State Department differ from the estimates presented in this Nuclear Notebook, though there are reasons for this. The New START counting rules artificially attribute one warhead to each deployed bomber, even though US bombers do not carry nuclear weapons under normal circumstances. Also, this Nuclear Notebook counts weapons stored at bomber bases that can quickly be loaded onto the aircraft, as well as nonstrategic nuclear weapons in Europe.

Since the treaty entered into force in February 2011, the biannual aggregate data show the United States has cut a total of 324 strategic launchers, 217 deployed launchers, and 411 deployed strategic warheads from its inventory (State Department 2011). The warhead reduction represents approximately 11 percent of the 3,708 warheads remaining in the US stockpile, and approximately 8 percent of the total US arsenal of 5,428 stockpiled and retired warheads awaiting dismantlement. The 2018 Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) States that the United States “will continue to implement the New START Treaty” while it remains in effect (US Defense Department 2018, 73). In 2021, the United States and Russia extended the treaty by mutual agreement, until February 2026.

The United States is currently 35 launchers and 161 warheads below the treaty limit for deployed strategic weapons but has 138 deployed launchers more than Russia — a significant gap that is almost equivalent to the size of an entire US Air Force intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) wing. It is notable that Russia has not sought to reduce this gap by deploying more strategic launchers. Instead, the Russian launcher deficit has increased by one-third since its lowest point in February 2018.

If either the US or Russia withdrew from New START, both the United States and Russia could upload several hundreds of extra warheads onto their launchers. This means that the treaty has proven useful thus far in keeping a lid on both countries’ deployed strategic forces. Additionally, if New START expired, then both countries would lose a critical node of transparency into each other’s nuclear forces. As of March 3, 2022, the United States and Russia have completed a combined 328 on-site inspections and exchanged 23,369 notifications (State Department 2022). (On-site inspections have been paused since early-2020 due to COVID-19.)

The NPR and nuclear modernization

The Biden administration’s NPR was expected to be completed in late-January 2022 but has been delayed following the Russian invasion of Ukraine. The conclusions are not known but are expected to broadly follow the Trump administration’s 2018 NPR, which in turn followed the broad outlines of the Obama administration’s 2010 NPR to modernize the entire nuclear weapons arsenal — although with several important changes.

The most significant change was a recommendation to increase the types and role of US nuclear weapons. The Trump NPR took a confrontational tone, presenting an assertive posture that embraces “great power competition.” It also included plans to develop new nuclear weapons and modify others. The report backed away from the goal of seeking to limit the role of nuclear weapons to the sole purpose of deterring nuclear attacks. Instead, it emphasizes “expanding” US nuclear options to deter, and, if deterrence fails, to prevail against both nuclear and “non-nuclear strategic attacks.” To be clear, any use of a nuclear weapon to respond to a non-nuclear strategic attack would constitute nuclear first use.

The NPR explained that “non-nuclear strategic attacks include, but are not limited to, attacks on the US, allied, or partner civilian population or infrastructure, and attacks on US or allied nuclear forces, their command and control, or warning and attack assessment capabilities” (US Defense Department 2018, 21). Consequently, US nuclear capabilities will be postured to “hedge against the potential rapid growth or emergence of nuclear and non-nuclear strategic threats, including chemical, biological, cyber, and large-scale conventional aggression” (US Defense Department 2018, 38). To achieve these goals, the NPR stated that “the United States will enhance the flexibility and range of its tailored deterrence options. … Expanding flexible US nuclear options now, to include low-yield options, is important for the preservation of credible deterrence against regional aggression,” the report claimed (US Defense Department 2018, 34).

The new tailored capabilities included modifying “a small number” of the existing W76-1 90-kiloton two-stage thermonuclear warheads to single-stage warheads by “turning off” the secondary (a technical term representing a part of the warhead) to limit the yield to what the primary (another technical term) can produce (an estimated 8 kilotons). This new warhead (W76-2), the NPR claimed, is necessary to “help counter any mistaken perception of an exploitable ‘gap’ in US regional deterrence capabilities.” The W76-2 was first deployed in the Atlantic Ocean in late 2019 onboard a nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarine (SSBN), the USS Tennessee (SSBN-734) (Arkin and Kristensen 2020). Undersecretary of Defense for Policy John Rood told reporters in December 2019 that the low-yield Trident warhead was “very stabilizing” and in no way supported the concept of early use of low-yield nuclear weapons (Kreisher 2019), even though the NPR explicitly stated the weapon is being acquired to provide “a prompt response option” (US Defense Department 2018).

In the longer term, the NPR declared, the United States will also “pursue a nuclear-armed” submarine-launched cruise missile (SLCM-N) to “provide a needed nonstrategic regional presence, an assured response capability, and an Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty-compliant response to Russia’s continuing Treaty violation.” The NPR specifically noted that, “If Russia returns to compliance with its arms control obligations, reduces its nonstrategic nuclear arsenal, and corrects its other destabilizing behaviors, the United States may reconsider the pursuit of a [submarine-launched cruise missile].” In pursuit of this new missile, the review stated that “we will immediately begin efforts to restore this capability by initiating a requirements study leading to an analysis of alternatives … for the rapid development of a modern [submarine-launched cruise missile].” The report’s authors believed that “US pursuit of a submarine-launched cruise missile may provide the necessary incentive for Russia to negotiate seriously a reduction of its nonstrategic nuclear weapons, just as the prior Western deployment of Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces in Europe led to the 1987 INF Treaty” (US Defense Department 2018, 55).

The new nuclear “supplements” proposed by the 2018 NPR are needed, the authors said, to “provide a more diverse set of characteristics greatly enhancing our ability to tailor deterrence and assurance; expand the range of credible US options for responding to nuclear or non-nuclear strategic attack; and, enhance deterrence by signaling to potential adversaries that their concepts of coercive, limited nuclear escalation offer no exploitable advantage” (US Defense Department 2018, 55).

However, the US arsenal already includes nearly 1,000 gravity bombs and air-launched cruise missiles with low-yield warhead options (Kristensen 2017a). The NPR provided no evidence that existing capabilities are insufficient or documented that the yield of US nuclear weapons is a factor in whether Russia would decide to use nuclear weapons. The NPR authors simply claimed that the new capabilities are needed. The US Navy used to have a nuclear submarine-launched cruise missile (the TLAM/N) but retired it in 2011 because it was redundant and no longer needed. All other nonstrategic nuclear weapons — with the exception of gravity bombs for fighter-bombers — have also been retired because there was no longer any military need for them, despite Russia’s larger nonstrategic nuclear weapons arsenal.

The suggestion that a US submarine-launched cruise missile could motivate Russia to return to compliance with the INF Treaty is flawed because Russia embarked upon its current violation of the treaty at a time when the TLAM/N was still in the US arsenal, and because the Trump administration since withdrew the United States from the INF Treaty. Moreover, US Strategic Command has already strengthened strategic bombers’ support of NATO in response to Russia’s more provocative and aggressive behavior (see above); 46 B-52 bombers are currently equipped with the air-launched cruise missile and both the B-52 and the new B-21 bomber will receive the new long-range standoff weapon, which will have essentially the same capabilities as the submarine-launched cruise missile proposed by the 2018 NPR.

Russia’s decisions about the size and composition of its nonstrategic arsenal instead appear to be driven by the US military’s superiority in conventional forces, not by the US nonstrategic nuclear arsenal or by the yield of a particular weapon. Instead, the pursuit of a new nuclear submarine-launched cruise missile to “provide a needed nonstrategic regional presence” in Europe and Asia could reinforce Russia’s reliance on nonstrategic nuclear weapons. It could also potentially even trigger Chinese interest in such a capability as well — especially when combined with the parallel expansion of US long-range conventional strike capabilities including development of new conventional INF-range missiles. Moreover, development of a nuclear sea-launched cruise missile would violate the pledge the United States made in the 1992 Presidential Nuclear Initiative not to develop new types of nuclear submarine-launched cruise missiles (Koch 2012, 40).

One final argument against the submarine-launched cruise missile is that nuclear-capable vessels triggered frequent and serious political disputes during the Cold War when they visited foreign ports in countries that did not allow nuclear weapons on their territory. In the case of New Zealand, diplomatic relations have only recently — 30 years later — recovered from those disputes. Reconstitution of a nuclear submarine-launched cruise missile would reintroduce this foreign relations irritant and needlessly complicate relations with key allied countries in Europe and Northeast Asia.

It is possible that the Biden administration’s NPR will cancel the SLCM-N, but the document had not been published when this article went to print.

The Trump administration significantly increased the nuclear weapons budget. According to an estimate published in May 2021 by the US Congressional Budget Office, modernizing and operating the US nuclear arsenal and the facilities that support it will cost around $634 billion for the period 2021–2030 (Congressional Budget Office 2021, 1). This is $140 billion more than the Congressional Budget Office’s 2019 estimate for the 2019–2028 period because modernization programs continue to ramp up, cost estimates are increasing, and the 2018 NPR called for new nuclear weapons (Congressional Budget Office 2019, 1). The nuclear modernization (and maintenance) program will continue well beyond 2039 and, based on the Congressional Budget Office’s estimate, will cost $1.2 trillion over the next three decades. Notably, although the estimate accounts for inflation (Congressional Budget Office 2017), other estimates forecast that the total cost will be closer to $1.7 trillion (Arms Control Association 2017). Whatever the actual price tag will be, it is likely to increase over time, resulting in increased competition with conventional modernization programs planned for the same period. The NPR belittles concerns about affordability issues in the nuclear modernization program and instead labels it “an affordable priority,” pointing out that the total cost is only a small portion of the overall defense budget (US Defense Department 2018, XI). There is little doubt, however, that limited resources, competing nuclear and conventional modernization programs, tax cuts, and the rapidly growing US budget deficit will present significant challenges for the nuclear modernization program.

In addition to the two new “supplement” weapons described above, the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) and the Defense Department have proposed developing several other new nuclear warheads, including the W93 navy warhead. The NNSA’s Stockpile Stewardship and Management Plan from December 2020 doubled the number of new nuclear warhead projects for the next 20 years (NNSA 2020b).

Nuclear planning, nuclear exercises

The changes in the Trump administration’s NPR triggered new guidance from the White House and Defense Department that replaced the Obama administration’s guidance from 2013 (Kristensen 2013a). The first of these was a new Nuclear Employment Guidance document signed by President Trump in April 2019, that in turn was implemented by the Nuclear Weapons Employment Planning and Posture Guidance signed by the Defense Secretary (US Defense Department 2020, 1). The changes in these documents were sufficient to trigger a change of the strategic war plan known as OPLAN 2012–12, the nuclear employment portion of what was previously known as the Single Integrated Operations Plan. The updated OPLAN 8010–12 entered into effect on April 30, 2019 (US Strategic Command 2019).

OPLAN 8010–12 consists of “a family of plans” directed against four adversaries: Russia, China, North Korea, and Iran. Known as “Strategic Deterrence and Force Employment,” OPLAN 8010–12 first entered into effect in July 2012 in response to Operations Order Global Citadel signed by the defense secretary. The plan is flexible enough to absorb normal changes to the posture as they emerge, including those flowing from the NPR. Several updates have been made since 2012, but more substantial updates will trigger publication of what is known as a “change.” The April 2019 change refocused the plan toward “great power competition,” incorporated a new cyber plan, and reportedly blurred the line between nuclear and conventional attacks by “fully incorporat[ing] non-nuclear weapons as an equal player” (Arkin and Ambinder 2022a, 2022b).

OPLAN 8010–12 also “emphasizes escalation control designed to end hostilities and resolve the conflict at the lowest practicable level” by developing “readily executable and adaptively planned response options to de-escalate, defend against, or defeat hostile adversary actions” (US Strategic Command 2012). These passages are notable, not least of which because the Trump administration’s NPR criticized Russia for an alleged willingness to use nuclear weapons in a similar manner, as part of a so-called escalate-to-deescalate strategy.

The 2020 Nuclear Employment Strategy, which reads more like an article than a strategy document, reiterates this objective: “If deterrence fails, the United States will strive to end any conflict at the lowest level of damage possible and on the best achievable terms for the United States, and its allies, and partners. One of the means of achieving this is to respond in a manner intended to restore deterrence. To this end, elements of US nuclear forces are intended to provide limited, flexible, and graduated response options. Such options demonstrate the resolve, and the restraint, necessary for changing an adversary’s decision calculus regarding further escalation” (US Defense Department 2020, 2). This objective is not just directed at nuclear attacks, as the 2018 NPR called for “expanding” US nuclear options against “non-nuclear strategic attacks.”

OPLAN 8010–12 is a whole-of-government plan that includes the full spectrum of national power to affect potential adversaries. This integration of nuclear and conventional kinetic and non-kinetic strategic capabilities into one overall plan is a significant change from the strategic war plan of the Cold War that was almost entirely nuclear. Former US Strategic Command commander Gen. John Hyten, now the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, in 2017 explained the scope of modern strategic planning:

“I’ll just say that the plans that we have right now, one of the things that surprised me most when I took command on November 3 was the flexible options that are in all the plans today. So we actually have very flexible options in our plans. So if something bad happens in the world and there’s a response and I’m on the phone with the secretary of defense and the president and the entire staff, which is the attorney general, secretary of state, and everybody, I actually have a series of very flexible options from conventional all the way up to large-scale nuke that I can advise the president on to give him options on what he would want to do.

“So I’m very comfortable today with the flexibility of our response options. Whether the president of the United States and his team believes that that gives him enough flexibility is his call. So we’ll look at that in the Nuclear Posture Review. But I’ve said publicly in the past that our plans now are very flexible.

“And the reason I was surprised when I got to [Strategic Command] about the flexibility, is because the last time I executed or was involved in the execution of the nuclear plan was about 20 years ago, and there was no flexibility in the plan. It was big, it was huge, it was massively destructive, and that’s all there. We now have conventional responses all the way up to the nuclear responses, and I think that’s a very healthy thing (Hyten 2017).”

To practice and fine-tune these plans, the armed forces conducted several nuclear-related exercises in 2021 and early 2022. These included Strategic Command’s Global Lightning exercises in March 2021 and January 2022, which is a command-and-control and battlestaff exercise designed to assess joint operational readiness across all of Strategic Command’s mission areas. To that end, a Global Lightning exercise typically links to several other exercises. In 2021, Global Lightning was integrated with US European Command and US Space Command, and involved the deployment of B-52 bombers from Barksdale and Minot Air Force Bases (US Strategic Command 2021a; Kristensen 2021a). In 2022, Global Lightning was integrated with US Indo-Pacific Command (US Strategic Command 2022a).

In August 2021, Air Force Global Strike Command conducted Exercise Prairie Vigilance, a nuclear bomber exercise at Minot Air Force Base in North Dakota. This was the fourth iteration of this kind of exercise in 2021, which practiced nuclear cruise missile loading and rapid takeoff of B-52 bombers (Spencer 2021; see Figure 1 at top of page).

Prairie Vigilance was the lead-up to Strategic Command’s annual week-long Global Thunder exercise in November 2021. The exercise “provides training opportunities that exercise all US Strategic Command mission areas, with a specific focus on nuclear readiness” (US Strategic Command 2021b).

These developments coincide with steadily increasing US bomber operations in Europe since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2014. Before that, one or two bombers would deploy for an exercise or airshow. But since then, the number of deployments and bombers has increased, and the mission changed. Very quickly after the Russian annexation of Crimea, Strategic Command increased the role of nuclear bombers in support of European Command (Breedlove 2015), which in 2016 put into effect a new standing war plan for the first time since the Cold War (Scapparotti 2017). Before 2018, the bomber mission was called the Bomber Assurance and Deterrence missions to show the flag, but now the bombers deploy as a Bomber Task Force that brings the full offensive capability to the forward base. Whereas the mission of Bomber Assurance and Deterrence was to train with allies and have a visible presence to deter Russia, the mission of the Bomber Task Force is to move a fully combat-ready bomber force into the European theater. “It’s no longer just to go partner with our NATO allies or to go over and have a visible presence of American air power,” according to the commander of the 2nd Bomb Wing. “That’s part of it, but we are also there to drop weapons if called to do so” (Wrightsman 2019).

These changes are important indications of how US strategy has changed in response to deteriorating East-West relations and the new “great power competition” strategy promoted by the Trump administration. They also illustrate a growing integration of nuclear and conventional capabilities, as reflected in the new strategic war plan. The deployment of four B-52s to Royal Air Force Fairford in March 2019, for example, included two nuclear-capable aircraft and two that have been converted to conventional-only missions. NATO’s official announcement of the exercise did not notice this feature but said the deployment “shows that the US nuclear umbrella protects Europe” (NATO 2019). The statement also said that the B-52 bombers “can carry both conventional and nuclear weapons” when, in fact, nearly half of them – 41 of 87 – cannot because they have been denuclearized under the New START treaty. The close integration of nuclear and conventional bombers into the same task force can have significant implications for crisis stability, misunderstandings, and the risk of nuclear escalation.

Additionally, as of 2019 US bombers are increasingly practicing an “agile combat employment” strategy, by which all bombers “hopscotch” to a larger number of widely dispersed smaller airfields — including airfields in Canada — in the event of a crisis. This exercise is intended to increase the number of aimpoints for a potential adversary seeking to destroy the US bomber force, thus increasing the force’s survivability and raising the ante for an adversary to attempt such a strike (Arkin and Ambinder 2022a). Over the past year, the Strategic Air Command executed 127 Bomber Task Force missions (US Strategic Command 2022b, 14).

Land-based ballistic missiles

The US Air Force operates a force of 400 silo-based Minuteman III ICBMs split across three wings: the 90th Missile Wing at F. E. Warren Air Force Base in Colorado, Nebraska, and Wyoming; the 91st Missile Wing at Minot Air Force Base in North Dakota; and the 341st Missile Wing at Malmstrom Air Force Base in Montana. In addition to the 400 silos with missiles, another 50 silos are kept “warm” to load stored missiles if necessary. Each wing has three squadrons, each with 50 Minuteman III silos. They are collectively controlled by five launch control centers.

The 400 ICBMs as deployed carry one warhead each, either a 300-kiloton W87/Mk21 or a 335-kiloton W78/Mk12A. ICBMs equipped with the W78/Mk12A, however, could theoretically be uploaded to carry two or three independently targetable warheads each, for a total of 800 warheads available for the ICBM force. The US Air Force occasionally test-launches Minuteman III missiles with multiple unarmed re-entry vehicles to maintain and announce the capability to re-MIRV the Minuteman IIIs. On August 4, 2020, for example, a test-launch of a Minuteman III ICBM was equipped with three re-entry vehicles (US Strategic Command 2020). The test came only five days after the Trump administration’s arms control envoy tweeted a photo of himself observing a snap exercise at Minot Air Force Base involving a Minuteman equipped with three re-entry vehicles (Billingslea 2020).

The Minuteman IIIs completed a multibillion-dollar, decade-long modernization program in 2015 to extend the service life of the missile to 2030. Although the United States did not officially deploy a new ICBM, the upgraded Minuteman IIIs “are basically new missiles except for the shell,” according to Air Force personnel (Pampe 2012).

An ongoing Air Force modernization program involves upgrades to the Mk21 re-entry vehicles’ arming, fuzing, and firing component — which validates the President’s launch authorization and unlocks the firing system so that the bomb can detonate — at a cost of slightly over a billion dollars in total. The publicly stated purpose of this refurbishment is to extend the vehicles’ service life, but the effort appears to also involve adding a “burst height compensation” to enhance the targeting effectiveness of the warheads (Postol 2014). Priority is on replacement of the Mk21 fuze. A total of 693 fuze replacements were initially planned; however, the new fuzes will also reportedly be deployed on the Minuteman replacement missile, which means that the fuze modernization program is likely to expand significantly to accommodate those new missiles (Woolf 2020, 15–16). The effort complements a similar fuze upgrade underway to the Navy’s W76-1/Mk4A warhead. The enhanced targeting capability might also allow for lowering the yield on future warhead designs.

It is possible to do a second life-extension of the Minuteman III. In March 2019, the Air Force’s Deputy Chief of Staff for Strategic Deterrence and Nuclear Integration noted in his testimony to the House Subcommittee on Strategic Forces that there was one more opportunity to life-extend the missiles before the Minuteman III would have to be replaced (Clark 2019). However, the Air Force has decided against life-extension, instead opting to purchase a whole new generation of ICBMs.

In August 2017, the Air Force awarded $678 million worth of contracts to Boeing and Northrop Grumman to develop trade studies for the next-generation ICBM that is currently known as the Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent (Erwin 2018). In October 2019, the Program Manager for Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent noted that the official name for the missile would be selected within 12 months; however, over two years later an official name has still not yet been announced (Bartolomei 2019). On July 16, 2019, the Air Force issued a formal “request for proposals” for the engineering and manufacturing development phase of the Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent program, which includes five production lot options to produce and deploy the system (Bryant 2019).

As the two companies under contract for the Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent’s technology maturation and risk reduction phase, Boeing and Northrop Grumman were both expected to bid for the engineering and manufacturing development contract. However, only a week after the request for proposals was issued, Boeing surprisingly walked away from the competition, stating that “the current acquisition approach does not provide a level playing field for fair competition” (Weisgerber 2019). The dispute centers on Northrop Grumman’s 2018 acquisition of Orbital ATK, which is one of only two US-based companies that produces solid rocket motors and launch vehicles. Under the terms of the acquisition, Northrop Grumman is required to “make its solid rocket motors and related services available on a non-discriminatory basis to all competitors for missile contracts” (Federal Trade Commission 2018).

However, Boeing has expressed concern that Northrop Grumman would not comply with that order. This put Northrop Grumman at a favorable position in the bidding process over Boeing, which does not produce those systems in-house. Boeing stated an intention to not submit a bid for the engineering and manufacturing development contract. Nonetheless, it conducted a substantial lobbying campaign throughout the summer of 2019 in an effort to convince Congress and the Air Force to force Northrop Grumman into submitting a joint “best-of-industry” bid with Boeing (Mehta 2019). However, Northrop Grumman declined Boeing’s offer and the Air Force did not intervene to force a joint bid. The Air Force subsequently terminated the remainder of Boeing’s technological maturation and risk reduction contract in October 2019 by refusing to allocate any further funding to the contract. This effectively ended Boeing’s involvement with the Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent program (Insinna 2019).

The request for proposal deadline for the engineering and manufacturing development contract was December 13, 2019. By that date, the Air Force received only a single bid for the contract, and on September 8, 2020, the Air Force officially awarded the $13.3 billion engineering and manufacturing development contract to Northrop Grumman. The nationwide team will include Aerojet Rocketdyne, General Dynamics, Collins Aerospace, Lockheed Martin, Textron Systems, HDT Global, Bechtel, Kratos Defense and Security Solutions, Clark Construction, L3Harris, and Honeywell (Northrop Grumman 2020). Aerojet Rocketdyne will produce the system’s solid-fuel rocket motors in conjunction with newly acquired Orbital ATK, which is now called Northrop Grumman Innovation Systems.

According to the Air Force’s latest milestone requirements, the Air Force must deploy 20 new Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent missiles with legacy re-entry vehicles and warheads in order to achieve initial operating capability, scheduled in fiscal year 2029 (Sirota 2020). The plan is to buy 659 missiles — 400 of which would be deployed, while the remainder will be used for test launches and as spares — at a price between $93.1 billion and $95.8 billion, increased from a preliminary $85 billion Pentagon estimate in 2016 (Capaccio 2020). These amounts do not include the costs for the new Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent warhead — the W87-1 — which is projected to cost up to $14.8 billion (Government Accountability Office 2020). The Air Force says the Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent will meet existing user requirements but have the adaptability and flexibility to be upgraded through 2075 (US Air Force 2016). The new missile is expected to have a greater range than the Minuteman III. Still, it is unlikely that it will have enough range to target countries like China, North Korea, and Iran without overflying Russia. In June 2021, program officials announced that the first Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent prototype would conduct its first flight by the end of 2023 (Bartolomei 2021).

The Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent will be capable of carrying single or multiple warheads. The Air Force initially planned to equip the Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent with life-extended versions of the existing W78 and W87 warheads. The modified W78 was known as Interoperable Warhead 1. But in 2018, the Air Force and NNSA canceled the W78 upgrade and instead proposed a W78 Replacement Program known as the W87-1. The new warhead will use a W87-like plutonium pit, “using a well-tested IHE [Insensitive High Explosive] primary design” (Energy Department 2018b). The new warhead will be incorporated into a modified version of the Mk21 re-entry vehicle and be designated as the W87-1/Mk4A.

In order to produce the W87-1 in time to meet the Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent’s planned deployment schedule, the NNSA has set an extremely ambitious production schedule that relies upon its ability to produce at least 80 plutonium pits per year by 2030. However, due to the agency’s consistent inability to meet project deadlines and its lack of a latent large-scale plutonium production capability, the 80-pit requirement was always unlikely to be achieved (Government Accountability Office 2020; Institute for Defense Analyses 2019). In June 2021, the Acting Administrator of the NNSA announced to Congress what external analysts had long predicted — that the security administration’s goal of producing up to 80 pits by 2030 would not be possible (Demarest 2021). This was further confirmed by the NNSA in early 2022 (Demarest 2022). This could mean that despite completing its March 2021 requirements review for the W87-1 — a key milestone that allows the program to progress into the next stage of its development — it is likely that the program will face delays and that new delivery systems will be initially deployed with legacy warheads (Sirota 2021; Department of the Air Force 2020).

In October 2019, Lockheed Martin was awarded a $138 million contract to integrate the Mk21 re-entry vehicle into the Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent, beating out rivals Boeing, Raytheon, Northrop Grumman, and Orbital ATK (which Northrop Grumman now owns and has been renamed to Northrop Grumman Innovation Systems) (Lockheed Martin 2019). Because the W87-1/Mk21A will be bulkier than the current W78/Mk12A, the Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent payload section would have to be wider to accommodate multiple warheads. Also, Northrop Grumman’s Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent illustration shows a missile that is different than the existing Minuteman III, with a wider upper body and payload section (Kristensen 2019b).

The Air Force faces a tight construction schedule for the deployment of the Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent. Each launch facility is expected to take seven months to upgrade, while each missile alert facility will take approximately 12 months. The Air Force intends to upgrade all 150 launch facilities and eight of 15 missile alert facilities for each of the three ICBM bases; the remaining seven missile alert facilities at each base will be dismantled (US Air Force 2020a). Since each missile alert facility is currently responsible for a group of 10 launch facilities, this reduction could indicate that each missile alert facility could be responsible for up to 18 or 19 launch facilities once the Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent becomes operational. This could have implications for the future vulnerability of the Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent’s command-and-control system (Korda 2020). Once these upgrades begin, potentially as early as 2023, the Air Force must finish converting one launch facility per week for nine years in order to complete deployment by 2036 (Mehta 2020). It is expected that construction and deployment will begin at F. E. Warren between 2023 and 2031, followed by Malmstrom between 2025 and 2033, and finally Minot between 2027 and 2036.

As the Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent gets deployed, the Minuteman IIIs will be removed from their silos and temporarily stored at their respective host bases — either F. E. Warren, Malmstrom, or Minot — before being transported to Hill Air Force Base, the Utah Test and Training Range, or Camp Navajo. The rocket motors will eventually be destroyed at the Utah Test and Training Range, while non-motor components will ultimately be decommissioned at Hill Air Force Base. To that end, five new storage igloos and 11 new storage igloos will be constructed at Hill Air Force Base and Utah Test and Training Range, respectively (US Air Force 2020a). New training, storage, and maintenance facilities will also be constructed at the three ICBM bases, which will also receive upgrades to their Weapons Storage Areas. The first base to receive this upgrade is F. E. Warren, where a groundbreaking ceremony for the new Weapons Storage and Maintenance Facility (also called the Weapons Generation Facility) was held in May 2019. Substantial construction began in spring 2020 and is scheduled to be completed in September 2022 (Kristensen 2020b; US Air Force 2019d). Commercial satellite imagery indicates that construction has made considerable progress as of March 2022 (see Figure 2).

US nuclear missile storage

Figure 2: A new underground nuclear weapons storage facility is under construction at F.E. Warren AFB for storage of W78 and W87 warheads for Minuteman III ICBMs. Image: © 2022 Maxar Technologies.

In May 2021, the US Congressional Budget Office estimated that the cost of acquiring and maintaining the Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent would total approximately $82 billion over the 10-year period between 202 and 2030 — approximately $20 billion more than the Congressional Budget Office had previously estimated for the 2019–2028 period (Congressional Budget Office 2021, 2019).

The Air Force conducts several Minuteman III flight-tests each year. The first test of 2021 took place on February 23rd, when a team of airmen derived from all three ICBM bases launched a Minuteman III from Vandenberg Air Force Base to the Reagan Test Site on Kwajalein Atoll in the Western Pacific (Defense Visual Information Distribution Service 2021).

The second planned test launch of 2021 was aborted immediately prior to launch on May 5th — an extremely rare incident. In a statement, the Air Force Global Strike Command spokesperson noted that “During terminal countdown, the missile computer detected a fault in the sequence of checks it does prior to launching. Upon detection of this fault, it shut itself down” (Cohen 2021).

The final test of 2021 took place on August 11, which “involved a Hi Fidelity Joint Test Assembly re-entry vehicle that detonated conventional (i.e. non-nuclear) explosives prior to hitting the surface of the water” (US Air Force 2021a).

The first planned Minuteman III test of 2022 was postponed on March 2nd due to the Russian invasion of Ukraine and associated heightened nuclear tensions. A Pentagon spokesperson stated that this postponement was intended “to demonstrate that we have no intention of engaging in any actions that can be misunderstood or misconstrued” (Garamone 2022).

Nuclear-powered ballistic submarines

The US Navy operates a fleet of 14 Ohio-class ballistic missile submarines, of which eight operate in the Pacific from their base near Bangor, Washington, and six operate in the Atlantic from their base at Kings Bay, Georgia. Normally, 12 of the 14 submarines are considered operational, with the remaining two boats in a refueling overhaul at any given time. But because operational submarines undergo minor repairs at times, the actual number at sea at any given time is closer to eight or 10. Four or five of those are thought to be on “hard alert” in their designated patrol areas, while another four or five boats could be brought to alert status in hours or days.

Each submarine can carry up to 20 Trident II D5 submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs), a number reduced from 24 to meet the limits of New START. Since 2017, the Navy has been replacing the original Trident II D5 with a life-extended and upgraded version known as Trident II D5LE (LE stands for “life-extended”). The D5LE, which has a range of more than 12,000 km (7,456 miles), is equipped with the new Mk6 guidance system designed to “provide flexibility to support new missions” and make the missile “more accurate,” according to the Navy and Draper Laboratory (Naval Surface Warfare Center 2008; Draper Laboratory 2006). The D5LE upgrade will continue until all boats have been upgraded and will also replace existing Trident SLBMs on British ballistic missile submarines. The D5LE will also arm the new US Columbia-class and British Dreadnought-class ballistic missile submarines when they enter service.

Instead of building a new ballistic missile, like the Air Force wants to do with the Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent, the Navy plans to do a second life-extension of the Trident II D5 to ensure it can operate through 2084 (Eckstein 2019). In 2021, the Director of the Navy’s Strategic Systems Program testified to Congress that the D5LE2, as the second life-extended missile is known, is scheduled to enter service on the ninth Columbia-class SSBN, following which it will be back-fitted to the remaining eight boats (Wolfe 2021a). The Navy also announced in 2021 that it would acquire an additional 108 Trident missiles to be used for deployment and testing (Wolfe 2021b).

Each Trident SLBM can carry up to eight nuclear warheads, but they normally carry an average of four or five warheads, for an average load-out of approximately 90 warheads per submarine. The payload of the different missiles on a submarine are thought to vary significantly to provide maximum targeting flexibility, but all deployed submarines are thought to carry the same combination. Normally, around 950 warheads are deployed on the operational ballistic missile submarines, although the number can be lower due to maintenance of individual submarines. The New START data from September 2021, however, indicated there were 944 warheads deployed on 221 SLBM launchers (State Department 2021b). Overall, SSBN-based warheads account for approximately 70 percent of all warheads attributed to the United States’ deployed strategic launchers under New START.

Three warhead types are deployed on SLBMs: the 90-kiloton enhanced W76-1, the 8-kiloton W76-2, and the 455-kiloton W88. The W76-1 is a refurbished version of the W76-0, which is being retired, apparently with slightly lower yield but with enhanced safety features added. The NNSA completed production of the W76-1 in January 2019, a massive decade-long production of an estimated 1,600 warheads (Energy Department 2019a). The Mk4A re-entry body that carries the W76-1 is equipped with a new arming, fuzing, and firing unit with better targeting efficiency than the old Mk4/W76 system (Kristensen, McKinzie, and Postol 2017).

The other SLBM warhead, the higher-yield W88, is currently undergoing a life-extension program that addresses nuclear safety concerns and will ultimately support future life-extension options. The first production unit for the W88 Alt 370 was completed on July 1, 2021 (NNSA 2021a).

In the final weeks of 2019, the Navy deployed a low-yield version of the W76-1 known as W76-2 on the USS Tennessee (SSBN-734). The W76-2 only uses the warhead fission primary to produce a yield of about 8 kilotons. The First Production Unit of the W76-2 was completed at the Pantex Plant on February 22, 2019 and reached initial operational capability some time before the end of the fiscal year on September 30, 2019 (NNSA 2019). It is unknown exactly how many W76-2 warheads were produced; however, the NPR says it’s a “small number” (US Defense Department 2018, 54). We estimate that no more than 25 were ultimately produced, and that one or two of the 20 missiles on each SSBN is armed with one or two W76-2 warheads, while the remainder of the SLBMs will be filled with either the 90-kiloton W76-1 or the 455-kiloton W88 (Arkin and Kristensen 2020).

The United States is also planning to build a new SLBM warhead – the W93 – which will be housed in the Navy’s proposed Mk7 aeroshell (re-entry body). The W93 appears intended to initially supplement, rather than replace, the W76-1 and W88. A second new warhead is planned to replace those warheads.

The US sea-based nuclear weapons program also provides substantial support to the British nuclear deterrent. The missiles carried on the Royal Navy ballistic missile submarines are from the same pool of missiles carried on US ballistic missile submarines. The warhead uses the Mk4A re-entry body and is thought be a slightly modified version of the W76-1 (Kristensen 2011b); the British government calls it the Trident Holbrook (UK Ministry of Defence 2015). The Royal Navy also plans to use the new Mk7 for the replacement warhead it plans to deploy on its new Dreadnought submarines in the future. Despite a significant lobbying effort on the part of the United Kingdom, including an unprecedented letter to the US Congress from the UK Minister of Defense asking it to support the W93 warhead, the program’s status has not yet been settled (Borger 2020).

Since the first deterrent patrol in 1960, US ballistic missile submarines have conducted approximately 4,200 deterrent patrols at sea. During the past 15 years, operations have changed significantly, with the annual number of deterrent patrols having declined by more than half, from 64 patrols in 1999 to 30 to 36 annual patrols in recent years. Most submarines now conduct what are called “modified alerts,” which mix deterrent patrol with exercises and occasional port visits (Kristensen 2013b). While most ballistic missile submarine patrols last around 77 days, they can be shorter or, occasionally, last significantly longer. In June 2014, for example, the Pennsylvania (SSBN-735) returned to its Kitsap Naval Submarine Base in Washington after a 140-day deterrent patrol, the longest patrol ever by an Ohio-class ballistic missile submarine. In the Cold War years, the overwhelming majority of deterrent patrols took place in the Atlantic Ocean. In contrast, more than 60 percent of deterrent patrols today normally take place in the Pacific, reflecting increased nuclear war planning against China and North Korea (Kristensen 2018).

Ballistic missile submarines normally do not visit foreign ports during patrols, but there are exceptions. Over a four-year period in the late 1970s and early 1980s, US submarines routinely conducted port visits to South Korea (Kristensen 2011a). Occasional visits to Europe, the Caribbean, and Pacific ports continued during the 1980s and 1990s. After Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2014, the Navy started to conduct one or two foreign port visits per year. A US Navy visit to Scotland in 2015 appeared to be a warning to Russia and was described as a plan to make ballistic missile submarines more visible (Melia 2015). A highly publicized visit to Guam in 2016 — the first visit to the Island by a ballistic missile submarine since 1988 — was a clear warning to North Korea. Port visits have continued every year since, except in 2020, to locations including Scotland, Alaska, Guam, and Gibraltar.

Design of the next generation of ballistic missile submarines, known as the Columbia-class, is well under way. This new class is scheduled to begin replacing the current Ohio-class ballistic missile submarines in the late 2020s. The Columbia-class will be 2,000 tons heavier than the Ohio-class and will be equipped with 16 missile tubes rather than 20. The Columbia program, which is expected to account for approximately one-fifth of the Navy’s entire shipbuilding program from the mid-2020s to the mid-2030s, is projected to cost $109.8 billion (Congressional Research Service 2022, 8). The lead boat in a new class is generally budgeted at a significantly higher amount than the rest of the boats, as the Navy has a longstanding practice to incorporate the entire fleet’s design detail and non-recurring engineering costs into the cost of the lead boat. As a result, the Navy’s fiscal 2022 budget submission estimates the procurement cost of the first Columbia-class SSBN — the USS Columbia(SSBN-826) — at approximately $15 billion, followed by $9.3 billion for the second boat (Congressional Research Service 2022, 9). A $5.1 billion development contract was awarded to General Dynamics Electric Boat in September 2017, and construction of the first boat began on October 1, 2020 — the first day of fiscal 2021.

General Dynamics expects to receive $75 billion in revenue over the life span of the Columbia-class project (Medici 2017). Certain elements of construction may be delayed due to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, as the Columbia program officer noted in June 2020 that missile tube production had already been delayed by “about a couple of months” due to the pandemic (Eckstein 2020). According to the Congressional Research Service, “Until such time that the Navy can find ways to generate additional margin inside the program’s schedule, the program appears to be in a situation where many things need to go right, and few things can go wrong, between now and 2031 for the lead boat to be ready for its first patrol in 2031” (Congressional Research Service 2022, 15).

The Columbia-class submarines are expected to be significantly quieter than the current Ohio-class fleet. This is because a new electric-drive propulsion train will turn each boat’s propeller with an electric motor instead of louder, mechanical gears. Additionally, the components of an electric-drive propulsion train can be distributed around the boat, increasing the system’s resilience and lowering the chances that a single weapon could disable the entire drive system (Congressional Research Service 2000, 20). The Navy has never built a nuclear-powered submarine with electric-drive propulsion before, which could create technical delays for a program that is already on a very tight production schedule (Congressional Research Service 2022, 19).

In October 2019, the Columbia program manager noted in a presentation that final ship arrangements for the new class of submarines had been completed on September 6, apparently a year ahead of schedule (Bartolomei 2019). The Navy’s revised schedule now indicates that the Ohio-class boats will begin going offline in fiscal 2027, around the same time that the first Columbia-class boat is scheduled to be delivered in October 2027. Sea trials are expected to last approximately three years, and the first Columbia deterrence patrol is scheduled for 2031 (Congressional Research Service 2022, 8). The Columbia deliveries will coincide with the Ohio-class boats being taken out of service, and the Navy projects that they will go from 14 boats to 13 in 2027, 12 in 2029, 11 in 2030, and 10 in 2037, before eventually climbing back to 11 in 2041 and the full complement of 12 boats in 2042 (US Navy 2019; Rucker 2019). The lead boat of the new Columbia-class submarine fleet will be designated the USS Columbia (SSBN-826), and the second boat will be designated the USS Wisconsin (SSBN-827). The rest of the Columbia-class submarine fleet has not yet been named (US Navy 2020).

Compared with the previous year’s two test launches, six Trident II D5LEs were test-launched in 2021. Four launches were conducted in February 2021 as part of a commander’s evaluation test, while two more were launched from the USS Wyoming (SSBN-742) in September 2021 as part of a demonstration and shakedown operation (DASO-30) designed to test both the system and the crew’s readiness for operational deployment (US Navy 2021). The most recent missile launch marked the 184th successful test launch of the Trident II system since its introduction into the US arsenal in 1989 (US Navy 2021).

Demonstration and shakedown operations are conducted after an ballistic missile submarine completes its engineering refueling overhaul — a multi-year operation that takes place around the 20-year point for each boat. The overhaul consists of extensive structural repairs and the refueling of the boat’s nuclear reactor. These efforts resulted in a 20-year life-extension for each boomer. The Navy first completed the USS Ohio’s (SSBN-726) engineering refueling overhaul in December 2005, and has since completed 16 additional overhauls, completing the USS Wyoming’s (SSBN-742) engineering refueling overhaul in October 2020 (US Defense Department Inspector General 2018; Naval Sea Systems Command 2020). The final ballistic missile submarine to undergo an engineering refueling overhaul is the USS Louisiana (SSBN-743), which began the overhaul process in August 2019 and is expected to be completed in the fall of 2022 (Naval Sea Systems Command 2021). The Columbia-class SSBNs will not require nuclear refueling; as a result, their midlife maintenance operations will take significantly less time than their Ohio-class counterparts (Congressional Research Service 2022, 5).

Strategic bombers

The US Air Force currently operates a fleet of 20 B-2A bombers (all of which are nuclear-capable) and 87 B-52 H bombers (46 of which are nuclear-capable). A third strategic bomber, the B-1B, is not nuclear-capable. Of these bombers, we estimate that approximately 60 (18 B-2As and 42 B-52 Hs) are assigned nuclear missions under US nuclear war plans, although the number of fully operational bombers at any given time is lower. The New START data from September 2021, for example, only counted 45 deployed nuclear bombers (11 B-2As and 34 B-52 Hs) (State Department 2021b). The bombers are organized into nine bomb squadrons in five bomb wings at three bases: Minot Air Force Base in North Dakota, Barksdale Air Force Base in Louisiana, and Whiteman Air Force Base in Missouri. The new B-21 bomber program will result in an increase in the number of nuclear bomber bases.

Each B-2 can carry up to 16 nuclear bombs (the B61-7, B61-11, and B83-1 gravity bombs), and each B-52 H can carry up to 20 air-launched cruise missiles (the AGM-86B). B-52 H bombers are no longer assigned gravity bombs (Kristensen 2017b). An estimated 788 nuclear weapons, including approximately 500 air-launched cruise missiles, are assigned to the bombers, but only about 300 weapons are thought to be deployed at bomber bases. The estimated remaining 488 bomber weapons are thought to be in central storage at the large Kirtland Underground Munitions Maintenance and Storage Complex outside Albuquerque, New Mexico.

The United States is modernizing its nuclear bomber force by upgrading nuclear command-and-control capabilities on existing bombers, developing improved nuclear weapons (the B61-12 and the long-range standoff missile), and designing a new heavy bomber, the B-21 Raider.

Upgrades to the nuclear command-and-control systems that the bombers use to plan and conduct nuclear strikes include the Global Aircrew Strategic Network Terminal. This is a new high-altitude electromagnetic pulse-hardened network of fixed and mobile nuclear command-and-control terminals. This network provides wing command posts, task forces, munitions support squadrons, and mobile support teams with survivable ground-based communications to receive launch orders and disseminate them to bomber, tanker, and reconnaissance air crews. First delivery of the global aircrew strategic network terminals, which the Air Force describes as “the largest upgrade to its nuclear command, control and communication systems in more than 30 years,” was expected in May 2020. However, it appears that this was delayed until Barksdale Air Force Base became the first base to receive the system in January 2022 (US Air Force 2022).

Another command-and-control upgrade involves a program known as Family of Advanced Beyond Line-of-Sight Terminals, which replaces existing terminals designed to communicate with the MILSTAR satellite constellation. These new, extremely high frequency terminals are designed to communicate with several satellite constellations, including advanced extremely high frequency satellites. The 37 ground stations and nearly 50 airborne terminals of the Family of Advanced Beyond Line-of-Sight Terminals will provide protected high-data rate communication for nuclear and conventional forces, including for what is officially called “presidential national voice conferencing.” According to the Air Force (US Air Force 2019b), “[The Family of Advanced Beyond Line-of-Sight Terminals] will provide this new, highly secure, state-of-the-art capability for [Defense Department] platforms to include strategic platforms and airborne/ground command posts via MILSTAR, [advanced extremely high frequency], and enhanced polar system satellites. [The Family of Advanced Beyond Line-of-Sight Terminals] will also support the critical command and control … of the MILSTAR, [advanced extremely high frequency], and enhanced polar system satellite constellations.”

The heavy bombers are also being upgraded with improved nuclear weapons. This effort includes development of the first guided, standoff nuclear gravity bomb, known as the B61-12, which is intended to replace all existing gravity bombs. The bomb will use a modified version of the warhead used in the current B61-4 gravity bomb. B61-12 integration drop tests have already been conducted from the B-2 bomber (the B61-12 may also be integrated onto US-and allied-operated tactical aircraft, including the F-15E, the F-16C/D, the F-16MLU, and the PA-200 Tornado). Approximately 480 B61-12 bombs, which appear to have limited earth-penetration capability, are expected to cost a total of roughly $10 billion (Kristensen and McKinzie 2016). The first production unit was initially scheduled for March 2020; however, in September 2019 a NNSA official confirmed that both the B61-12 and the upgraded W88 warhead for the Trident II SLBM would likely face delays during production due to concerns over the longevity of its commercial off-the-shelf subcomponents (Gould and Mehta 2019). The First Production Unit prototype of the B61-12 was completed on August 25, 2020 at the Pantex Plant (NNSA 2020a). The first real First Production Unit was only completed in November 2021, and full-scale production is now scheduled for May 2022 (NNSA 2021b).

The Air Force is also developing a new nuclear air-launched cruise missile known as the long-range standoff missile. It will replace the AGM-86B air-launched cruise missile in 2030 and carry the W80-4 warhead, a modified version of the W80-1 used in the current air-launched cruise missile. In February 2019, the Nuclear Weapons Council authorized the development engineering phase (Phase 6.3) for the W80-4. The production engineering stage (Phase 6.4) is planned for December 2021 (Energy Department 2019b). A solicitation invitation to defense contractors in 2015 listed three potential options for the long-range standoff engine: First, a derivative subsonic engine that improves on current engine technology by up to 5 percent; second, an advanced subsonic engine that improves on current technology by 15 percent to 20 percent; and third, a supersonic engine (US Air Force 2015). In August 2017, the Air Force awarded 5-year contracts of $900 million each to Lockheed Martin and Raytheon to develop design options for the missile. After reviewing the designs, the Air Force, in December 2019, cleared the two companies to continue development of the missile (Sirota 2019). The Air Force originally planned to down-select to a single contractor in fiscal 2022 during the awarding of the engineering and manufacturing development contract; however, in April 2020, the Air Force selected Raytheon Technologies as the prime contractor for the long-range standoff (US Air Force 2020b). This was a relatively surprising move, as selecting a single-source contractor at this early stage could ultimately result in higher program costs. In July 2021, Raytheon Technologies was awarded up to $2 billion to proceed with the engineering and manufacturing development stage of the long-range standoff, in order to prepare for full-rate production beginning in 2027 (Insinna 2021).

In March 2019, the Air Force awarded Boeing a $250 million contract to integrate the future long-range standoff capability onto the B-52 Hs, a process that is expected to be completed by the beginning of 2025 (Hughes 2019). Development and production are projected to reach at least $4.6 billion for the missile (US Air Force 2019a) with another $10 billion for the warhead (Energy Department 2018a).

The missile itself is expected to be entirely new, with significantly improved military capabilities compared with the air-launched cruise missile, including longer range, greater accuracy, and enhanced stealth (Young 2016). This violates the 2010 White House pledge (White House 2010) that the “United States will not … pursue … new capabilities for nuclear weapons,” though the NPR from 2018 did away with such constraints.

Supporters of the long-range standoff argue that a nuclear cruise missile is needed to enable bombers to strike targets from well outside the range of the modern and future air-defense systems of potential adversaries. Proponents also argue that these missiles are needed to provide US leaders with flexible strike options in limited regional scenarios. However, critics argue that conventional cruise missiles, such as the extended-range version of the Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile, can currently provide standoff strike capability, and that other nuclear weapons would be sufficient to hold the targets at risk. In fact, the conventional extended-range joint air-to-surface standoff missile is now an integral part of Strategic Command’s annual strategic exercises.

Unlike the current air-launched cruise missile, which is only carried by the B-52 H bomber, the long-range standoff missile will be integrated on both the B-52 H and new B-21 bombers (Kristensen 2013c). Warhead production is scheduled from 2025 through 2031. The Air Force plans to buy 1,000 missiles (Reif 2015), but there will only be enough warheads for about half of those. The excess missiles are intended to be used as spares and for test flights over the course of the weapon’s 30-year service life. Moreover, several hundred of the existing air-launched cruise missiles were converted to conventional missiles (AGM-86C/D) and the US Air Force Global Strike Command has previously indicated that it intends to develop a conventional version of the long-range standoff (Wilson 2015).

But given the deployment of several new long-range conventional cruise missiles and the development of even more advanced versions, it remains to be seen if the Air Force can persuade Congress to also pay for a conventional version of the long-range standoff. Indeed, the Air Force has replaced the AGM-86C/D conventional air-launched cruise missile with the extended-range conventional Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile. If Congress will not pay for conventional long-range standoffs, it can probably be assumed that the plan to buy 1,000 missiles can be reduced by several hundred.

Northrop Grumman continues to develop the new B-21 Raider next-generation heavy bomber, as the preliminary design review received approval in early 2017 and the first test vehicle is currently in production. The B-21 is scheduled to make its first flight no earlier than 2022 from its production facility in Palmdale, California, to Edwards Air Force Base (Wolfe 2020). The B-21 is expected to enter service in the mid-2020s to gradually replace the B-1B and B-2 bombers during the 2030s, and it is expected that the Air Force will procure at least 145 of the new bombers at an estimated cost of $550 million per plane to increase the total bomber force from 175 to 220 aircraft (Tirpak 2020).

The Air Force announced in March 2019 that the B-21 bombers will first be deployed at Ellsworth Air Force Base (South Dakota), followed by Whiteman Air Force Base (Missouri) and Dyess Air Force Base (Texas) “as they become available” (US Air Force 2019c). The upgrade of the non-nuclear B-1 bases to the nuclear B-21 bomber will increase the number of bomber bases with nuclear weapons storage facilities from two bases today (Minot AFB and Whiteman AFB) to five bases by the 2030s (Barksdale AFB will also regain nuclear storage capability) (Kristensen 2020c). Further details about the B-21 program, including updated cost estimates, are still shrouded in secrecy; however, like all previous bomber programs, the costs will most likely increase.

The B-21 is very similar in design to the B-2 but is expected to be slightly smaller and have a reduced weapons capability. The B-21 will be capable of delivering both the B61-12 guided nuclear gravity bomb and the long-range standoff, as well as a wide range of non-nuclear weapons, including the Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff cruise missile.

In early 2022, the Air Force announced that six B-21 bombers were currently in production, and the first assembled bomber was taken to conduct its calibration tests in early March 2022 (Tirpak 2022). This aircraft will be the first B-21 to make a maiden flight, which is expected in mid-2022 from its manufacturing and assembly facility to Edwards Air Force Base in California (Tirpak 2022).

Nonstrategic nuclear weapons

The United States has one type of nonstrategic nuclear weapon in its stockpile: the B61 gravity bomb. The weapon exists in two modifications: the B61-3 and the B61-4. A third version, the B61-10, was retired in September 2016. Approximately 200 tactical B61 bombs of all versions remain in the stockpile. About 100 of these (versions −3 and −4) are thought to be deployed at six bases in five European countries: Aviano and Ghedi in Italy; Büchel in Germany; Incirlik in Turkey; Kleine Brogel in Belgium; and Volkel in the Netherlands. This number has declined since 2009 partly due to reduction of operational storage capacity at Aviano and Incirlik (Kristensen 2015, 2019c). The remaining 100 B61s stored in the United States are for backup and potential use by US fighter-bombers in support of allies outside Europe, including northeast Asia. This includes F-15Es from the 391st Fighter Squadron of the 366th Fighter Wing at Mountain Home in Idaho (Charkhuff 2021).

The Belgian, Dutch, German, and Italian air forces are assigned nuclear strike missions with US nuclear weapons. Under normal circumstances, the nuclear weapons are kept under the control of US Air Force personnel; their use in war must be authorized by the US president. The Belgian and Dutch air forces currently use the F-16 aircraft for the nuclear missions, although both countries are in the process of obtaining the F-35A to eventually replace their F-16s. The Italian Air Force uses the PA-200 Tornado for the nuclear mission but is in the process of acquiring the F-35A. Like the Tornados, the nuclear F-35As will be based at Ghedi Air Base, which is currently being upgraded. Germany also uses the PA-200 Tornado for the nuclear mission; however, it is planning to retire its Tornados by 2030, and would require a new dual-capable aircraft if it intended to remain part of NATO’s nuclear sharing mission.

F-35A dropping dummy nuclear missile

Figure 3: A B61-12 guided nuclear (practice) bomb is dropped from an F-35A. The B61-12 will enter full-scale production in May 2022 and probably begin deploying to bases in Europe in 2023. Image: USAF.

The new German coalition government announced in November 2021 that it intended to do so, and it is rumored that the German government will issue a letter of request to purchase the Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet in early 2022 to replace its Tornado aircraft (Siebold and Wacket 2021; Jennings 2021). Yet the F-35A is apparently still a candidate (Reuters 2022).

At least until 2010, Turkey was still using F-16s for the nuclear mission, although it is possible that the mission has since been mothballed. In 2019, the Trump administration also halted delivery of F-35As to Turkey — some of which were intended to take over the nuclear mission — because of its plans to acquire the Russian S-400 air-defense system (DeYoung, Fahim, and Demirjian 2019). Legislators and analysts raised concerned about the security of the nuclear weapons at the Incirlik base during the failed coup attempt in Turkey in July 2016; the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee for Europe stated in September 2020 that “our presence, quite honestly, in Turkey is certainly threatened,” and further noted that “we don’t know what’s going to happen to Incirlik” (Gehrke 2020). Despite rumors in late 2017 that the weapons had been “quietly removed” (Hammond 2017), the New York Times reported in 2019 that US officials had reviewed emergency nuclear weapons evacuation plans for Incirlik, indicating that that there were still weapons present at the base (Sanger 2019). The numbers appear to have been reduced, however, from up to 50 to approximately 20. If the United States decided to withdraw the remaining nuclear weapons from Incirlik, it could probably do so with a single C-17 transport aircraft from the 4th Airlift Squadron at Joint Base Lewis-McChord in Washington – the only unit in the Air Force that is qualified to airlift nuclear weapons.

NATO States that do not host nuclear weapons can still participate in the nuclear mission as part of conventional supporting operations, known as Support Nuclear Operations With Conventional Air Tactics — or SNOWCAT.

NATO is working on a broad modernization of the nuclear posture in Europe that involves upgrading bombs, aircraft, and the weapons storage system. The B61-12 is estimated to be 12 feet long, weighing approximately 825 pounds, and is designed to be air-launched in either ballistic or gravity drop modes (Baker 2020). The B61-12 will use the nuclear explosive package of the B61-4, which has a maximum yield of approximately 50 kilotons and several lower-yield options. However, it will be equipped with a guided tail kit to increase accuracy and standoff capability, which will allow strike planners to select lower yields for existing targets to reduce collateral damage. The increased accuracy will give the tactical bombs in Europe the same military capability as strategic bombs used by the bombers in the United States. Although the B61-12 has not been designed as a designated earth-penetrator, it does appear to have some limited earth-penetration capability. This increases its ability to hold at risk underground targets (Kristensen and McKinzie 2016). Until their new aircraft are ready, Italy and Germany will continue to fly the PA-200, which, due to its age and legacy systems, will not be able to utilize the B61-12s new guided tail kit function. Instead, it will deliver the bomb as a “dumb” bomb akin to the current B61-3s and B61-4s.

In March 2020, the F-15E became the first aircraft to be certified to operate the B61-12, after completing the last in a series of six compatibility tests at Nellis Air Force Base and the Tonopah Test Range (Baker 2020). In addition to the F-15E, integration of the B61-12 on B-2, F-16, and PA-200 aircraft is well under way. In October 2021, the F-35A completed two drop tests of the B61-12 Joint Test Assembly (see Figure 3), thus completing the final stage of its nuclear design certification process (US Air Force 2021b). The B61-12 will begin full-scale production in May 2022, certification with the F-35A before January 2023, followed by training of the nuclear fighter-wings in Europe later in 2023 (Defense Visual Information Distribution Service 2022). Once deployment to Europe begins, possibly in 2023, the B61-3/4 bombs currently deployed in Europe will be returned to the United States.

NATO is life-extending the weapons storage security system, which involves upgrading command and control, as well as security, at the six active bases (Aviano, Büchel, Ghedi, Kleine Brogel, Incirlik, and Volkel) and one training base (Ramstein). Specifically, these upgrades include the installation of double-fence security perimeters, modernizing the weapon storage and security systems and the alarm communication and display systems, and the operation of new secure transportation and maintenance system trucks (Kristensen 2021b). Security upgrades now appear to have been completed at Aviano and Incirlik and are underway at Ghedi.

In addition to the modernization of weapons, aircraft, and bases, NATO also appears to be increasing the profile of the dual-capable aircraft posture. In June 2020, for example, the 31st Fighter Wing at Aviano Air Base conducted the first “elephant walk” ever to display all aircraft in a single visual show of force of its capability to “deter and defeat any adversary who threatens US or NATO interests” (US Air Force 2020c). NATO’s annual Steadfast Noon nuclear force exercise also includes participation from a large number of NATO members every year. In 2021, the exercise involved the participation of 14 countries — including Dutch and Belgian F-16s, and German and Italian Tornados — over southern Europe (NATO 2021).

Having reached 50 ratifications in October 2020, the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons officially entered into force on January 22, 2021. It is unclear whether the treaty will have an effect on the status of NATO’s nuclear posture over the coming years — and specifically on the forward-deployment of US nuclear weapons on European NATO territory. However, public opinion in Belgium, Germany, Italy, and the Netherlands is firmly opposed to hosting US nuclear weapons (International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN) 2018). To that end, some host country parliaments have already taken actions that challenge the future of US nuclear weapons on their soil; in January 2020, a motion to “draw up, as soon as possible, a roadmap aiming at the withdrawal of nuclear weapons on Belgian territory” was narrowly defeated by a vote of 74–66 in the Belgian parliament (Galindo 2020). It is possible that similar resolutions could be debated and voted upon in other nuclear hosting nations over the coming years. This explains why the United States tried in vain to persuade other countries to withdraw their ratifications, only a week before the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons reached 50 ratifications (Lederer 2020).

The 2018 NPR recommended rapid development of a nuclear nonstrategic submarine-launched cruise missile to recreate a capability to deploy such a weapon in support of NATO (and Pacific) allies. A previous cruise missile was retired in 2011. The new weapon would likely be intended for deployment on attack submarines. The analysis of alternatives for the nuclear nonstrategic submarine-launched cruise missile was scheduled to be completed in 2021, with development of the missile beginning in 2022. However, it remains unclear whether the Navy has met these deadlines (Wolfe 2021b). It also remains unclear whether the Biden administration will continue the project.

*

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

Kristensen is the director of the Nuclear Information Project with the Federation of American Scientists (FAS) in Washington, DC. His work focuses on researching and writing about the status of nuclear weapons and the policies that direct them. Kristensen is a co-author to the world nuclear forces overview in the SIPRI Yearbook (Oxford University Press) and a frequent adviser to the news media on nuclear weapons policy and operations. He has co-authored Nuclear Notebook since 2001.

Matt Korda is a Senior Research Associate and Project Manager for the Nuclear Information Project at the Federation of American Scientists, where he co-authors the Nuclear Notebook with Hans Kristensen. Matt is also an Associate Researcher with the Nuclear Disarmament, Arms Control and Non-proliferation Programme at the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI). Previously, he worked for the Arms Control, Disarmament, and WMD Non-Proliferation Centre at NATO HQ in Brussels. Matt received his MA in International Peace & Security from the Department of War Studies at King’s College London, and a BA in European Studies from the University of Toronto. 

Sources

Aftergood, S. 2019. “Pentagon blocks declassification of 2018 nuclear stockpile.” FAS Secrecy News, April 17. https://fas.org/blogs/secrecy/2019/04/stockpile-2018/.

Arkin, W. M., and M. Ambinder. 2022a. “Exclusive: Ukraine crisis could lead to nuclear war under new strategy.” Newsweek, February 4. https://www.newsweekcom/exclusive-ukraine-crisis-could-lead-nuclear-war-under-new-strategy-1676022.

Arkin, W. M., and M. Ambinder. 2022b. “Nuclear weapons and the Ukraine Crisis.” The Secrets Machine, January 28. https://wwwsecretsmachinecom/p/stratcoms-global-lightning-nuclear.

Arkin, W. M., and H. M. Kristensen. 2020. “US Deploys New Low-Yield Nuclear Submarine Warhead.” FAS Strategic Security Blog, January 29. https://fas.org/blogs/security/2020/01/w76-2deployed/.

Arms Control Association. 2017. “The Trillion (And A Half) Dollar Triad?” 9 (6), August 18. https://www.armscontrol.org/issue-briefs/2017-08/trillion-half-dollar-triad.

Baker, M. 2020. “B61-12 Compatible with F-15E Strike eagle.” Sandia Lab News, June5, 72: 1, 5. https://www.sandia.gov/app/uploads/sites/81/2021/06/labnews_06-05-20.pdf.

Bartolomei, J. 2019. “Discussion On The Columbia Class Submarine And GBSD.” Presentation at the Triad Symposium, October 8. DC: Capitol Hill Club.

Bartolomei, J. 2021. “Sustaining and Modernizing Ballistic Missile Operations.” Presentation at the Air & Space Force Association’s Doolittle Leadership Center Virtual Forum, Arlington, VA, June 14. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nRC0RRA975A&ab_channel=AirForceAssociation.

Billingslea, M. 2020. Tweet dated July 30, 5:18 PM,https://twitter.com/USArmsControl/status/1288947100974276608

Borger, J. 2020. “UK Lobbies US to support controversial new nuclear warheads.” The Guardian, August 1. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/aug/01/uk-trident-missile-warhead-w93-us-lobby.

Breedlove, P. 2015. “Statement of general Philip Breedlove, Commander, US Forces Europe.” February 25. https://docs.housegov/meetings/AS/AS00/20150225/103011/HHRG-114-AS00WstateBreedloveUSAFP-20150225.pdf.

Bryant, L. 2019. “Air force releases request for proposals for new ICBM System.” Air Force Nuclear Weapons Center Public Affairs, July 16. https://ww3.safaq.hq.af.mil/News/ArticleDisplay/Article/1906890/air-force-releasesrequest-for-proposals-for-new-icbm-system/.

Capaccio, A. 2020. “US ICBM to Replace 1970s Minuteman May Cost $111 Billion.” Bloomberg, October 1. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-10-01/pentagon-s-next-generation-icbm-program-may-cost-111-billion.

Clark, R. 2019. “Fiscal year 2020 priorities for us defense department nuclear priorities.” Testimony to the House Subcommittee on Strategic Forces, Rayburn 2118, March 28. https://armedserviceshouse.gov/hearings?ID=FA8DBDAB-5585-4437AF88-61FBB1B7D428.

Cohen, R. S. 2021. “Air force aborts test launch of unarmed minuteman iii nuclear missile.” Air Force Times, May 5. https://www.airforcetimes.com/news/your-air-force/2021/05/05/air-force-aborts-test-launch-of-unarmed-minuteman-iii-nuclear-missile/.

Congressional Budget Office 2017. Approaches for managing the costs of US Nuclear Forces, 2017 to 1 October 2046. https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/115th-congress-20172018/reports/53211-nuclearforces.pdf.

Congressional Budget Office 2019. “Projected costs of US. nuclear forces 2019–2028.” January 24. https://wwwcbo.gov/system/files/2019-01/54914-NuclearForces.pdf.

Congressional Budget Office. 2021. “Projected costs of US. nuclear forces 2021–2030.” May. https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/202105/57130-Nuclear-Forces.pdf.

Defense Visual Information Distribution Service. 2021. “Minuteman iii test launch demonstrates safe, reliable deterrent.” Space Launch Delta 30 Public Affairs, February 23. https://www.dvidshub.net/video/784573/minuteman-iii-test-launch-demonstrates-safe-reliable-deterrent.

Defense Visual Information Distribution Service. 2022. “F-35 Dual-capable aircraft team meets goals ahead of schedule, earns prestigious award.” F-35 Joint Program Office Public Affairs, February 17. https://www.dvidshub.net/news/414834/f-35-dual-capable-aircraft-team-meets-goals-ahead-schedule-earns-prestigious-award.

Demarest, C. 2021. “Plutonium pit production in SC might happen in 2035. the target was 2030.” Aiken Standard, June12. https://www.postandcourier.com/aikenstandard/news/plutonium-pit-production-in-sc-might-happen-in-2035-the-target-was-2030/article_96e0b392-cada-11eb-a047-6fbc3e70d188.html.

Demarest, C. 2022. “80 Pits by 2030 Won’t Happen, NNSA Boss Reaffirms. But ‘Acceleration’ Is in the Works.” Aiken Standard, February 8. https://www.postandcourier.com/aikenstandard/news/savannah-river-site/80-pits-by-2030-wont-happen-nnsa-boss-reaffirms-but-acceleration-is-in-the-works/article_8c97850e-88f9-11ec-9303-7f85431d832b.html.

Department of the Air Force 2020. “Report on development of ground-based strategic deterrent weapon,” Report to Congressional Committees, May 27.

DeYoung, K., K. Fahim, and K. Demirjian. 2019. “Trump Says US. Will Cancel Turkey’s Purchase of F-35 Planes.” The Washington Post, July 16. https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/trump-says-us-will-cancel-turkeys-purchase-of-russian-antimissile-system/2019/07/16/4921da04-a710-11e9-86dd-d7f0e60391e9_story.html.

Eckstein, M. 2019. “Navy Beginning Tech Study to Extend Trident Nuclear Missile into the 2080s.” US Naval Institute News, November 14. https://news.usni.org/2019/11/14/navy-beginning-tech-study-to-extend-trident-nuclear-missile-into-the-2080s.

Eckstein, M. 2020. “COVID Pandemic a barrier to navy’s oversight of Columbia submarine industrial base; PEO Working on virtual oversight.” US Naval Institute News, June 2. https://news.usni.org/2020/06/02/covid-pandemic-a-barrier-to-navys-oversight-of-columbia-submarine-industrial-base-peo-working-on-virtual-oversight.

Energy Department. 2018a. “Fiscal year 2019 stockpile stewardship management plan.” National Nuclear Security Administration, October, 4–41. https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2018/10/f57/FY2019%20SSMP.pdf.

Energy Department. 2018b. “W78 Replacement program (w87-1): cost estimates and use of insensitive high explosives.” National Nuclear Security Administration, December. https://nukewatch.org/newsite/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/W78-Replacement-Program-Cost-Estimates-IHE-1.pdf.

Energy Department. 2019a. “DOE and NNSA Celebrate W76-1 life extension program.” January 23. https://www.energy.gov/articles/doe-and-nnsa-celebrate-w76-1-life-extension-program.

Energy Department. 2019b. “Refurbished warhead for air for lrso reaches key milestone.” Press Release, April 4. https://www.energy.gov/nnsa/articles/refurbished-warhead-air-force-lrso-reaches-key-milestone.

Erwin, S. 2018. “Air force gets first real look at future icbm designs.” Space News, July 22. https://spacenews.com/air-force-gets-first-real-look-at-future-icbm-designs/.

Federal Trade Commission. 2018. “FTC Imposes conditions on Northrop Grumman’s acquisition of solid rocket motor supplier orbital atk.” June 5. https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2018/06/ftc-imposes-conditions-northrop-grummans-acquisition-solid-rocket.

Galindo, G. 2020. “Belgium narrowly rejects removal of US nuclear weapons.” The Brussels Times, January 17. https://www.brusselstimes.com/belgium/90143/removal-of-us-nuclear-weapons-from-belgium-narrowly-rejected-by-lawmakers-nato-kleine-brogel-deterrant-tpnw-un-npt-nuclear-heads/.

Garamone, J. 2022. “Austin postpones test of minuteman iii missile.” US Defense Department, March 2. https://www.defense.gov/News/News-Stories/Article/Article/2952925/austin-postpones-test-of-minuteman-iii-missile/.

Gehrke, J. 2020. “US Eyes Greek island as alternative to Turkish base due to ‘disturbing’ Erdogan actions, senior senator claims.” The Washington Examiner, September 11. https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/policy/defense-national-security/us-eyes-greek-island-as-alternative-to-turkish-base-due-to-disturbing-erdogan-actions-senior-senator-claims.

Gould, J., and A. Mehta. 2019. “Nuclear gravity bomb and warhead upgrades face new delays.” Defense News, September 4. https://www.defensenews.com/congress/2019/09/04/nuclear-gravity-bomb-and-warhead-upgrades-face-new-delays/.

Government Accountability Office. 2020. “NNSA Should further develop cost, schedule, and risk information for the W87-1 warhead program.” GAO-20-703, September. https://www.gao.gov/assets/710/709253.pdf.

Hammond, J. 2017. “The future of Incirlik air base.” Real Clear Defense, November30. https://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2017/11/30/the_future_of_incirlik_air_base.html.

Hughes, R. 2019. “Boeing contracted to integrate LRSO cruise missile with the B-52H bomber.” Jane’s 360, March 15. https://wwwjanes.com/article/87248/boeing-contracted-to-integrate-lrso-cruise-missile-with-the-b-52h-bomber.

Hyten, J. 2017. “Military reporters and editors association conference, keynote speech, US strategic command.” March31. http://www.stratcom.mil/Media/Speeches/Article/1153029/military-reporters-and-editors-association-conference-keynote-speech/.

Insinna, V. 2019. “Boeing could be out of the air force’s competition for next-gen ICBMs for good.” Defense News, October 21. https://www.defensenews.com/smr/nuclear-arsenal/2019/10/22/boeing-could-be-out-of-the-air-forces-competition-for-next-gen-icbms-for-good/.

Insinna, V. 2021. “Raytheon wins $2b contract for new nuclear cruise missile.” Defense News, July 6. https://www.defensenews.com/air/2021/07/06/raytheon-wins-2b-for-new-nuclear-cruise-missile/.

Institute for Defense Analyses. 2019. “Independent assessment of the two-site pit production decision: Executive Summary.” May. https://www.ida.org/-/media/feature/publications/i/in/independent-assessment-of-the-two-site-pit-production-decision-executive-summary/d-10711.ashx.

International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN). 2018. “One year on: European attitudes toward the treaty on the prohibition of nuclear weapons.” July. https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/ican/pages/714/attachments/original/1575571450/YouGov_ICAN_EUNATOTPNW2018.pdf?1575571450.

Jennings, G. 2021. “Berlin security conference 2021: Germany likely to issue letter of request for super hornet, growler in January.” Janes, November 24. https://www.janes.com/defence-news/defence/latest/berlin-security-conference-2021-germany-likely-to-issue-letter-of-request-for-super-hornet-growler-in-january.

Koch, S. 2012. The Presidential Nuclear Initiatives of 1991-1992. Washington D.C: National Defense University. September 40. [Crossref],

Korda, M. 2020. “Environmental assessment reveals new details about the air force’s ICBM replacement plan.” FAS Strategic Security Blog, November 3. https://fas.org/blogs/security/2020/11/environmental-assessment-reveals-new-details-about-the-air-forces-icbm-replacement-plan/.

Kreisher, O. 2019. “Undersecretary arms need for low-yield nuclear weapons to counter russian, Chinese arsenals.” Seapower Magazine, December 4. https://seapowermagazine.org/undersecretary-affirms-need-for-low-yield-nuclear-weapons-to-counter-russian-chinese-arsenals/.

Kristensen, H. M. 2011a. “When the boomers went to South Korea.” FAS Strategic Security Blog, October 4. https://fas.org/blogs/security/2011/10/ssbnrok/.

Kristensen, H. M. 2011b. “British submarines to receive upgraded US nuclear warhead.” FAS Strategic Security Blog, April 1.http://fas.org/blog/security/2011/04/britishw761/. Google Scholar]

Kristensen, H. M. 2013a. “New nuclear weapons employment guidance puts Obama’s fingerprint on nuclear weapons policy and strategy.” FAS Strategic Security Blog, June 30. http://fas.org/blogs/security/2013/06/nukeguidance/.

Kristensen, H. M. 2013b. “Declining deterrent patrols indicate too many SSBNs.” FAS Strategic Security Blog, April 30. https://fas.org/blogs/security/2013/04/ssbnpatrols/.

Kristensen, H. M. 2013c. “B-2 Stealth Bomber to Carry New Nuclear Cruise Missile.” FAS Strategic Security Blog, April22. https://fas.org/blogs/security/2013/04/b-2bomber/.

Kristensen, H. M. 2015. “Upgrades at US nuclear bases in Europe acknowledge security risk.” FAS Strategic Security Blog, September 10. https://fas.org/blogs/security/2015/09/nuclear-insecurity/.

Kristensen, H. M. 2017a. “The flawed push for new nuclear weapons capabilities.” FAS Strategic Security Blog, June 29. https://fas.org/blogs/security/2017/06/new-nukes/.

Kristensen, H. M. 2017b. “B-52 Bomber no longer delivers nuclear gravity bombs.” FAS Strategic Security Blog, May25. https://fas.org/blogs/security/2017/05/b-52-bombs/.

Kristensen, H. M. 2018. “US SSBN patrols steady, But Mysterious Reduction In Pacific In 2017.” FAS Strategic Security Blog, May 24. https://fas.org/blogs/security/2018/05/ssbnpatrols1960-2017/.

Kristensen, H. M. 2019a. “Pentagon slams door on nuclear weapons stockpile transparency.” FAS Strategic Security Blog, April 17. https://fas.org/blogs/security/2019/04/stockpilenumbersecret/.

Kristensen, H. M. 2019b. “What Do Industry Illustrations Show about New GBSD ICBM Capabilities?” Tweet, September 17. https://twitter.com/nukestrat/status/1173971761634926592.

Kristensen, H. M. 2019c. “Urgent: move US nuclear weapons out of Turkey.” FAS Strategic Security Blog, October 16. https://fas.org/blogs/security/2019/10/nukes-out-of-turkey/.

Kristensen, H. M. 2020a. “At 11th Hour, New START Data Reaffirms Importance of Extending Treaty.” FAS Strategic Security Blog, October 1. https://fas.org/blogs/security/2020/10/new-start-2020_aggregate-data/.

Kristensen, H. M. 2020b. “Construction of new underground nuclear warhead facility at warren AFB.” FAS Strategic Security Blog, September 28. https://fas.org/blogs/security/2020/09/warren-underground-facility/.

Kristensen, H. M. 2020c. “USAF Plans to expand nuclear bomber bases,” FAS Strategic Security Blog, November17.

Kristensen, H. M. 2020d. “Trump administration again refuses to disclose nuclear weapons stockpile size.” Tweet, December 3.

Kristensen, H. M. (@nukestrat). 2021a. “Busy day over the United States with b-52 bombers from both barksdale and Minot today. Part of stratcom global lightning exercise … this year’s exercise is linked to operations in Europe, where b-1 bombers are operating out of Norway.” Tweet, March 8. https://twitter.com/nukestrat/status/1369015581039550467.

Kristensen, H. M. 2021b. “NATO Nuclear Weapons Exercise Over Southern Europe.” FAS Strategic Security Blog, October 20. https://fas.org/blogs/security/2021/10/steadfastnoon2021/.

Kristensen, H.M., and M. Korda. 2019. “United States Nuclear Forces, 2019.” Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, April 29: 124. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/00963402.2019.1606503.

Kristensen, H. M. 2019a. “Pentagon slams door on nuclear weapons stockpile transparency.” FAS Strategic Security Blog, April 17. https://fas.org/blogs/security/2019/04/stockpilenumbersecret/.

Kristensen, H. M., and M. McKinzie. 2016. “Video shows earth-penetrating capability of b61-12 nuclear bomb.” FAS Strategic Security Blog, January 14. https://fas.org/blogs/security/2016/01/b61-12_earth-penetration/.

Kristensen, H. M., M. McKinzie, and T. A. Postol. 2017. “How US Nuclear force modernization is undermining strategic stability: the burst-height compensating super-fuze.” Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, March 1. https://thebulletin.org/how-us-nuclear-force-modernization-undermining-strategic-stability-burst-height-compensating-super10578.

Laboratory, Draper. 2006. “Keeping trident ever ready,” Explorations, Spring 8.

Lederer, E. 2020. “US Urges countries to withdraw from un nuke ban treaty.” Associated Press, October 21. https://apnews.com/article/nuclear-weapons-disarmament-latin-america-United-nations-gun-politics-4f109626a1cdd6db10560550aa1bb491.

Martin, Lockheed. 2019. “Lockheed martin awarded air force ICBM contract.” October 23. https://news.lockheedmartin.com/2019-10-23-Lockheed-Martin-Awarded-Air-Force-ICBM-Contract.

Medici, A. 2017. “General dynamics sees $75b in possible revenue with columbia submarine construction.” Washington Business Journal, August 9. https://www.bizjournals.com/washington/news/2017/08/09/general-dynamics-sees-75b-in-possible-revenue-with.html.

Mehta, A. 2019. “Boeing wants government to force Northrop to partner on ICBM replacement.” Defense News, September 17. https://www.defensenews.com/digital-show-dailies/air-force-association/2019/09/17/boeing-calls-for-government-intervention-on-icbm-replacement-fight/.

Mehta, A. 2020. “DoD Seeks legislative help for ICBM replacement construction costs.” Defense News, September 25. https://www.defensenews.com/smr/nuclear-arsenal/2020/09/25/dod-seeking-legislative-help-for-icbm-replacement-construction-costs/.

Melia, M. 2015. “Nuclear subs returning to ports.” Associated Press, December 21. http://www.usnews.com/news/us/articles/2015-12-21/apnewsbreak-port-visits-resume-for-nuclear-armed-navy-subs.

National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA). 2019. “NNSA Completes first production unit of modified warhead.” Department of Energy, February 25. https://www.energy.gov/nnsa/articles/nnsa-completes-first-production-unit-modified-warhead.

National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA). 2020a. “First production capability unit marks b61-12 modernization milestone at Pantex.” Department of Energy, September 10. https://www.energy.gov/nnsa/articles/first-production-capability-unit-marks-b61-12-modernization-milestone-pantex.

National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA). 2020b. “Fiscal year 2021 stockpile stewardship and management plan-biennial plan summary.” Department of Energy, December. https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2020/12/f82/FY2021_SSMP.pdf.

National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA). 2021a. “NNSA Completes first production unit of w88 alteration 370.” Department of Energy, July 13. https://www.energy.gov/nnsa/articles/nnsa-completes-first-production-unit-w88-alteration-370.

National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA). 2021b. “NNSA Completes first production unit of b61-12 life extension program.” Department of Energy, December 2. https://www.energy.gov/nnsa/articles/nnsa-completes-first-production-unit-b61-12-life-extension-program.

NATO. 2019. “US B-52 Bombers conduct training in Europe.” March 14. https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/news_164725.htm.

NATO. 2021. “NATO Launches annual deterrence exercise.” October 18. https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/news_187041.htm.

Naval Sea Systems Command. 2020. “Norfolk naval shipyard completes USS Wyoming’s engineered refueling overhaul.” October 9. https://www.navsea.navy.mil/Media/News/SavedNewsModule/Article/2377975/norfolk-naval-shipyard-completes-uss-wyomings-engineered-refueling-overhaul/.

Naval Sea Systems Command. 2021. “USS Louisiana undocks, moves ahead in ERO process.” December 22. https://www.navsea.navy.mil/Media/News/SavedNewsModule/Article/2882243/uss-louisiana-undocks-moves-ahead-in-ero-process/.

Naval Surface Warfare Center. 2008. “Crane division, Indiana.” Underwater Wonder, Submarines: A Powerful Deterrent, Warfighter Solutions, 14.

Northrop Grumman. 2020. “GBSD Nationwide team map.” August.

Pampe, C. 2012. “Life extension programs send missiles into the future.” US Air Force Global Strike Command, October26.

Postol, T. A. 2014. “How the Obama administration learned to stop worrying and love the bomb.” The Nation, December 10. http://www.thenation.com/print/article/192633/how-obama-administration-learned-stop-worrying-and-love-bomb.

Reif, K. 2015. “Air Force Wants 1,000 New Cruise Missiles.” Arms Control Today, May 7. https://wwwarmscontrol.org/ACT/2015_05/News/Air-Force-Wants-Thousand-New-Cruise-Missiles.

Research Service, Congressional. 2000. “Electric-drive propulsion for US. Navy Ships: Background and issues for congress.” July 31. https://www.everycrsreport.com/files/20000731_RL30622_c288e8b1829d574fffb93ddf56d0891b36cff9fc.pdf.

Research Service, Congressional. 2022. “Navy Columbia (SSBN-826) Class Ballistic Missile Submarine Program: Background and Issues for Congress.” February 22. https://fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/R41129.pdf.

Reuters, 2022. “Germany Eyes Lockheed F-35 Fighter Jet; No Final Decision — Source.” February 3. https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/germany-eyes-lockheed-f-35-fighter-jet-no-final-decision-source-2022-02-03/.

Rucker, J. 2019. “Discussion on the Columbia Class Submarine and GBSD.” Presentation at the Triad Symposium, Washington, DC: Capitol Hill Club. October 8.

Sanger, D. 2019. “Trump followed his gut on Syria. Calamity came fast.” The New York Times, October 14. https://wwwnytimes.com/2019/10/14/world/middleeast/trump-turkey-syria.html.

Scapparotti, C. M. 2017. “Statement of general curtism. scaparrotti, commander, United States European command.” House Armed Services Committee, March 23. https://www.armed-services.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Scaparrotti_03-23-17.pdf.

Siebold, S., and M. M. Wacket. 2021. “Germany to Remain Part of NATO’s Nuclear sharing under new government.” Reuters, November 24. https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/germany-remain-part-natos-nuclear-sharing-under-new-government-2021-11-24/.

Sirota, S. 2019. “Air force approves Lockheed, Raytheon to proceed with nuclear cruise missile designs.” Inside Defense, December 6. https://insidedefense.com/daily-news/air-force-approves-lockheed-raytheon-proceed-nuclear-cruise-missile-designs.

Sirota, S. 2020. “GBSD Requires 20 new launch facilities, missiles equipped with legacy warheads by FY-29.” Inside Defense, August 3. https://insidedefense.com/daily-news/gbsd-requires-20-new-launch-facilities-missiles-equipped-legacy-warheads-fy-29.

Sirota, S. 2021. “NNSA Completes requirements review of GBSD’s w87-1 warhead.” Inside Defense, April 22. https://insidedefense.com/insider/nnsa-completes-requirements-review-gbsds-w87-1-warhead.

Spencer, K. 2021. “Prairie vigilance: staying ready.” Minot AFB Public Affairs, August 18. https://www.minot.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/2737092/prairie-vigilance-staying-ready/.

State Department. 2011. “New start treaty aggregate numbers of strategic offensive arms.” Fact Sheet, June 1. https://web.archive.org/web/20120113002048/http://www.state.gov/t/avc/rls/164722.htm.

State Department. 2021a. “Transparency in the us. nuclear weapons stockpile.” Fact Sheet, October 5. https://www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/Fact-Sheet_Unclass_2021_final-v2-002.pdf.

State Department. 2021b. “Notification containing data for each category of data contained in part two of the protocol.” September 1. Retrieved from the US Department of State’s Bureau of Arms Control, Verification, and Compliance by request on 26 January 2021b.

State Department. 2021c. “Report to congress on implementation of the new start treaty paragraph (a)(10) from declaration (13) of senate executive report 111-6 accompanying the new start treaty (treaty doc. 111-5).” April, https://wwwstate.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/Annual-New-START-Report.pdf.

State Department. 2022. “New start at a glance.” Accessed 3 March 2022. https://www.state.gov/new-start/.

Tirpak, J. A. 2020. “A new bomber vision.” Air Force Magazine, June 1. https://www.airforcemag.com/article/strategy-policy-9/.

Tirpak, J. A. 2022. “First B-21 moves to new hangar for loads calibration.” Air Force Magazine, March 3. https://www.airforcemag.com/first-b-21-moves-to-new-hangar-for-loads-calibration/.

UK Ministry of Defence. 2015. “Freedom of information act response to [redacted].” October 13. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/470321/20151013-FOI_2015_07375.pdf.

US Air Force. 2015. “US Defense department fiscal year (FY) 2016 President’s Budget Submission, Air Force Justification Book Volume 3b, Research, Development, Test & Evaluation, Air Force, Volume III, Part 2, February, 3b–27.” http://www.saffm.hq.af.mil/Portals/84/documents/FY16/AFD-150309-012.pdf?ver=2016-08-24-100326-097.

US Air Force. 2016. “AF Reaches first milestone in acquisition of new ICBM.” Air Force Nuclear Weapons Council Public Affairs Office, September 1. http://www.kirtland.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/933565/af-reaches-first-milestone-in-acquisition-of-new-icbm.

US Air Force. 2019a. “US Defense Department Fiscal Year (FY) 2020 Budget Estimates, Air Force Justification Book Volume 2 Of 3: Research, Development, Test & Evaluation, Air Force Vol−Ii, February, 691.” https://www.saffm.hq.af.mil/Portals/84/documents/FY20/RDTE/FY20_PB_RDTE_Vol-II.PDF?ver=2019-03-18-153506-683.

US Air Force. 2019b. “US defense department fiscal year (FY) 2020 President’s Budget Submission, Air Force Justification Book Volume 3b, Research, Development, Test & Evaluation, Air Force, Volume III, Part 2, February, 3b–769.” https://www.saffm.hq.af.mil/Portals/84/documents/FY20/RDTE/FY20_PB_RDTE_Vol-IIIb.pdf?ver=2019-03-18-153459-043.

US Air Force. 2019c. “Air force announces Ellsworth as first B-21 Base.” 509th Bomb Wing Public Affairs, March 29. https://www.whiteman.af.mil/News/Article/1799968/air-force-announces-ellsworth-as-first-b-21-base/.

US Air Force. 2019d. “USACE Contract awarded to fluor corporation.” 90th Missile Wing Public Affairs. May 23. https://www.warren.af.mil/News/Article/1857157/usace-contract-awarded-to-fluor-corporation/.

US Air Force. 2020a. “Environmental impact statement for the ground-based strategic deterrent deployment and Minuteman III decommissioning and disposal: public scoping materials.” Air Force Global Strike Command, September29. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1BQXd36ek8EispPEPOCvAz8O8Jt9aP02w/view.

US Air Force. 2020b. “Air force selects single contractor for long-range standoff nuclear weapon.” Air Force Nuclear Weapons Center, April 17. https://www.afnwc.af.mil/News/Article/2155284/air-force-selects-single-contractor-for-long-range-standoff-nuclear-weapon/.

US Air Force. 2020c. “Aviano Elephant Walk.” June 5.

US Air Force. 2021a. “Minuteman III test launch showcases readiness as safe, effective deterrent.” Air Force Global Strike Command Public Affairs, August 11. https://www.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/2727913/minuteman-iii-test-launch-showcases-readiness-as-safe-effective-deterrent/.

US Air Force. 2021b. “F-35A complete 5th generation fighter test milestone with refurbished B61-12 nuclear gravity bombs.” 53rd Wing, October 6. https://www.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/2801860/f-35a-complete-5th-generation-fighter-test-milestone-with-refurbished-b61-12-nu/.

US Air Force. 2022. “Barksdale AFB first to implement upgrade to nuclear enterprise ‘in more than 30 years’.” 2nd Bomb Wing Public Affairs, February 23. https://www.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/2943340/barksdale-afb-first-to-implement-upgrade-to-nuclear-enterprise-in-more-than-30/.

US Defense Department. 2018. Nuclear Posture Review, February. https://fas.org/wp-content/uploads/media/2018-Nuclear-Posture-Review-Version-2.pdf.

US Defense Department. 2020. Report on the nuclear employment strategy of the United States-2020. November30.https://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/Documents/FOID/Reading%20Room/NCB/21-F- 0591_2020_Report_of_the_Nuclear_Employement_Strategy_of_the_United_States.pdf.

US Defense Department Inspector General. 2018. “Evaluation of nuclear ballistic missile submarine (SSBN) sustainment.” Report No. DODIG-2018-127. June 15. https://media.defense.gov/2018/Jun/28/2001937172/-1/-1/1/DODIG-2018-127.PDF.

US Navy. 2019. “Report to congress on the annual long-range plan for construction of naval vessels for fiscal year 2020.” Office of the Chief of Naval Operations, March. https://www.secnav.navy.mil/fmc/fmb/Documents/20pres/PB20%2030-year%20Shipbuilding%20Plan%20Final.pdf.

US Navy. 2020. “SECNAV Names newest Columbia-class submarine USS Wisconsin.” October 29. https://www.navy.mil/Press-Office/Press-Releases/display-pressreleases/Article/2398651/secnav-names-newest-columbia-class-submarine-uss-wisconsin/.

US Strategic Command 2012. “USSTRATCM OPLAN 8010-12: Strategic deterrence and force employment.” Partially Declassified and Obtained under the Freedom of Information Act, July, 30, xvi xviii–xix. .

US Strategic Command. 2019. “US Stratcom oplan 8010-12, change 1: strategic deterrence and force employment.” Obtained under the Freedom of Information Act by Hans M. Kristensen. April 30.

US Strategic Command. 2020. “Unarmed Minuteman III Test-Launched: Missile Launched from Airborne Navy Aircraft.” August 4. https://www.stratcom.mil/Media/News/News-Article-View/Article/2299173/unarmed-minuteman-iii-test-launched-missile-launched-from-airborne-navy-aircraft/.

US Strategic Command. 2021a. “U.S. Strategic Command conducts Exercise Global Lightning.” March 5. https://www.stratcom.mil/Media/News/News-Article-View/Article/2526285/us-strategic-command-conducts-exercise-global-lightning/.

US Strategic Command. 2021b. “U.S. Strategic Command to begin Exercise Global Thunder 22.” November 2. https://www.barksdale.af.mil/News/Article/2830350/us-strategic-command-to-begin-exercise-global-thunder-22/.

US Strategic Command. 2022a. “U.S. Strategic command conducts Exercise Global Lightning.” January 25. https://www.stratcom.mil/Media/News/News-Article-View/Article/2910298/us-strategic-command-conducts-exercise-global-lightning/.

US Strategic Command. 2022b. “Statement of Charles A. Richard, Commander, United States Strategic Command, before the House Armed Services Committee on Strategic Forces.” March 1.

Weisgerber, M. 2019. “Boeing: $85B Competition to Build New ICBMs Favors Northrop Grumman.” Defense One, July 25. https://www.defenseone.com/business/2019/07/boeing-85b-competition-build-new-icbms-favors-northrop-grumman/158695/.

White House. 2010. “Statement by President Barack Obama on the release of Nuclear Posture Review.” Office of the Press Secretary, April 6. https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/statement-president-barack-obama-release-nuclear-posture-review.

Wilson, S. W. 2015. “Prepared testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee, Strategic Forces Subcommittee.“ April 22, 13. http://www.armed-services.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Wilson_04-22-15.pdf.

Wolfe, F. 2020. “First flight of B-21 Expected in 2022, as Air Force moves to lighten training load.” Defense Daily, September 1. https://wwwdefensedaily.com/first-flight-b-21-expected-2022-air-force-moves-lighten-training-load/air-force/.

Wolfe, J. 2021a. “Testimony to House Armed Services Subcommittee on Strategic Forces hearing: ‘FY22 budget request for nuclear forces and atomic energy defense activities’.” June 10. https://armedservices.house.gov/hearings?ID=E382890A-2CE2-4141-B0A6-F899B9D2A8B0.

Wolfe, J. 2021b. Presentation at the nuclear deterrence forum. Mitchell Institute, January 14. https://mitchellaerospacepower.org/nuclear-deterrence-forum-vadm-johnny-wolfe-ssp/.

Woolf, A. 2020. “U.S. Strategic nuclear forces: background, developments, and issues.” Congressional Research Service, April 27. https://fas.org/sgp/crs/nuke/RL33640.pdf.

Wrightsman, J. 2019. “Bomber task force in Europe showcases future of strategic deterrence.” 2nd Bomb Wing Public Affairs, April 19. https://www.dvidshub.net/news/318796/bomber-task-force-europe-showcases-future-strategic-deterrence.

Young, S. 2016. “Just how new is the new, nuclear-armed cruise missile?” Union of Concerned Scientists, January 13. http://allthingsnuclear.org/syoung/the-new-cruise-missile.

Why Is Everything Broken?

June 3rd, 2022 by Edward Curtin

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

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

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

***

“Begin then with a fracture, a cesura, a rent; opening a crack in this fallen world, a shaft of light.”    Norman O. Brown, Love’s Body

Being sick for the past few weeks has had its advantages.  It has forced me to take a break from writing since I could not concentrate enough to do so.  It has gifted me with a deeper sympathy for the vast numbers of the seriously ill around the world, those suffering souls without succor except for desperate prayers for relief.  And it has allowed thoughts to think me as I relinquished all efforts at control for a few miserable weeks of “doing nothing” except napping, reading short paragraphs in books, watching some sports and a documentary, and being receptive to the light coming through the cracks in my consciousness.

I suppose you could say that my temporary illness forced me, as José Ortega Y Gasset described it, virtually and provisionally to withdraw myself from the world and take a stand inside myself – “or, to use a magnificent word which exists only in Spanish, that man can ensimismarse (‘be inside himself’).”

But as I learned, being “inside myself” doesn’t mean the outside world doesn’t come visiting, both in its present and past manifestations.  When you are sick, you feel most vulnerable; this sense of frailty breaks you open to strange and familiar thoughts, feelings, dreams and memories that you must catch on the fly, pin with words if you are quick enough.  I’ve pinned some over these weeks as they came to me through the cracks.

“Broken flesh, broken mind, broken speech,” wrote Norman Brown when he argued for aphoristic truth as opposed to methods or systematic form.  These days the feeling that everything is broken is the norm, that madness reigns, that truth is being strangled and all we have are lies and more lies. Carefully constructed arguments fall on deaf ears as dissociation of the personality, post-modern attention-disorder, gender confusion, and corporate/intelligence mass media propaganda techniques are used daily to sow confusion.  In simple colloquial language, people are badly fucked up.

Much of the world is suffering from megrims.  Bob Dylan puts it simply:

Broken lines, broken strings
Broken threads, broken springs
Broken idols, broken heads
People sleeping in broken beds
Ain’t no use jiving
Ain’t no use joking
Everything is broken.

Who can disagree?  Everyone’s mind seems to be at the end of its tether.

Why?  There are obvious answers, and while so many are true, they are insufficient, for they usually scratch the surface of a worldwide crisis that has been developing for at least a century and a half.  That crisis is spiritual.  Many can feel it rumbling beneath the surface of world events. It’s a rumbling in the bowels. It’s unspoken. It’s something very dark, sinister, and satanic. It seems to be a form of systemic evil almost with a will of its own that is sweeping the world.

For many decades I have studied, written, and taught in an effort to grasp the essence of what has been happening in our world.  My tools have been philosophy, theology, literature, art, and sociology – all the disciplines really, including a careful study of popular culture.  It was always a personal quest, for my “career” has been my vocation.

Being trained in the classics from high school through college, and then the scientific method and textual analysis, I adhered for the most part to logical analyses in the classical style.  Such an approach, while possessed of a certain elegance and balance, has serious limitations since it suggests the world follows a neat Aristotelian logic and that there is a method to the world’s madness that is easy to capture in logical argumentation.  Romanticism and existentialism, to name two reactions to such thinking, arose in opposition.  Each offered a needed corrective to the reductive, materialist nature of a scientific method that became deified while dismissing God, freedom, and the spiritual as leftover superstitions from olden times.

But I have no sustained argument to offer here, just some scraps I gathered while enduring weeks in the doldrums.  I sense these bits of seemingly digressive little flashes in the dark were telling me something about what I have been trying to understand for many years: the grasp the demonic has on our world today.

It is easy to dismiss the use of such a word, for it sounds hyperbolic, and it easily plays into the ridiculous themes of popular Hollywood and tabloid entertainment, which have also become staples of the formerly “serious” media as well.  It’s all entertainment now, life the movie, the unreality of endless propaganda, sick, sordid, and what can only be termed “The Weirdness,” a term my friend the writer and playwright Joe Green has suggested to me.  I think it would be a serious mistake to dismiss the demonic nature of the forces at work in our world today.

  • Like Rip Van Winkle, I awoke one recent day, a few weeks after I wrote my last article before I got sick, to see that the corporate media/intelligence narrative on the war in Ukraine had taken an abrupt turn. I had written on May 13, 2022 that certain leftists were parroting the official U.S. propaganda that Russia was losing its battle with the Ukrainian forces.  Noam Chomsky had claimed the U.S. media were doing a good job reporting Russian war crimes in Ukraine and Chris Hedges had said that Russia had suffered “nine weeks of humiliating military failures.”  Now The New York Times, the Washington Post, etc. – mirabile dictu – have suddenly changed their tune and the Russians are winning after all.  Who was asleep?  Or was it sleep that prompted such obviously false reporting?  For the Russians were clearly winning from the start.  Yet we can be assured the authoritative voices will continue to flip the switch and play mind games, for shock and confusion are keys to effective propaganda, and American exceptionalism with its divine mission, its manifest destiny, is to demonically try to destroy Russia.
  • The slogan that I learned when I was a Marine before becoming a conscientious objector came to me when I was feverish. “My rifle is my life.”  I never thought so, but I did recall how when I was ten-years-old my cousin killed his brother with a rifle, and how I heard the news on the radio while talking with my father.  The New York Times reported: “A 9-year-old boy was fatally wounded last night by his brother, 7, while the two were playing with a rifle in a neighbor’s apartment in the northeast Bronx….[the rifle] “was secreted in a bedroom” [under the bed] and was loaded.
  • Report: Don McLean cancels his singing performance at the National Riffle Association’s convention following the Uvalde school shooting. What an act of moral courage!  Ah, Don, “Now I understand/What you tried to say to me/And how you suffered for your sanity/And how you tried to set them free/They would not listen, they did not know how/Perhaps they’ll listen now”  Let’s hope not to you.
  • Watched the new documentary about George Carlin – “George Carlin’s American Dream.” I have always had a soft spot for George, a fellow New Yorker with a Catholic upbringing, and a good-hearted guy who generously offered to help me years ago when I was fired from a teaching position for ostensibly playing a recording of his seven words that you can never say on television.  The real reasons for my firing were that I was organizing a teacher’s union and had brought well-known anti-war activists to speak at the school.  But what struck me in this interesting documentary was George’s facile dismissal of God – “the God bullshit,” as he put it.  Funny, of course, and correct in certain ways, it was also jejune in significant ways and threw God out with the bathwater.  It was something I had not previously noticed about his routine, but this time around it hit me as unworthy of his scathing critiques of American life.  It got laughs at the expense of deeper and important truths and probably has had deleterious effects on generations who have been beguiled and besotted by how George’s God critique consonantly fits with the shallow arguments of the new atheists.  George was overreacting to the ignorance of his superficial religious training and not distinguishing God from institutional religion.
  • Half-awake on the couch one day, I somehow remembered that when I was teaching at another school and involved in anti-war activities, a fellow teacher stopped me on a staircase on a late Friday afternoon when no one was around and tried to get me to join Army Intelligence. “You are exactly the type we could use,” he said, “since you are so outspoken in your anti-war positions.”  I will spare you my reply, which involved words you once could never say on TV.  But the encounter taught me an early lesson about distinguishing friend from foe; how treachery is real, and evil often wears a smiley face. The man who approached me was the head of social studies curricula for the Roman Catholic Brooklyn Diocese of New York.
  • Al Capone, while speaking to Cornelius Vanderbilt, Jr. in 1931: “People respect nothing nowadays….It is undermining the country. Virtue, honor, truth, and the law have all vanished from our life.”
  • I also read this from Literature and the Gods by Roberto Calasso: “… all the mythologies now pass a largely indolent life in a no-man’s-land haunted by gods and vagrant simulacra, by ghosts and Gypsy caravans in constant movement. They learn only to tell their stories again …. Yet it is precisely this ability that is so obviously lacking in the world around us. Behind the trembling curtains of what passes for ‘reality,’ the voices throng. If no one listens, they steal the costume of the first person they can grab and burst onto the stage in ways that can be devastating.  Violence is the expedient of what has been refused an audience.”
  • Lying in bed after a feverish night early on in my sickness, I looked up at the ceiling where a fly was buzzing. I remembered how years ago, when my father was in the hospital after a terrible car accident in which he smashed his head, he told me he was seeing monkeys all over the ceiling of the hospital room.  Later, when I was out of bed, I heard the news reports about monkeypox and thought I was also hallucinating.  I started laughing, a sardonic laughter brought to a feverish pitch after more than two years of Covid propaganda.  These are the same people who hope to create a transhuman future – mechanical monkeys.
  • On a table lay the third volume of a trilogy of books – Sinister Forces – by Peter Levenda. I opened it to a bookmarked page.  Anyone who has read these books with a half-way open mind will be shocked by the amount of documented history they contain, history so bizarre and disturbing that reading them is not advisable before bedtime.  Sinister forces that run through American history, indeed, but Levenda presents his material in a most reasonable and fair-minded way.  I read these paragraphs:

The historical model I am proposing in these volumes should be obvious by now. By tracing the darker elements of the American experience from the earliest days of the Adena and Hopewell cultures through the discovery by Columbus, the English settlers in Massachusetts and the Salem witchcraft episode, the rise of Joseph Smith, Jr. and the Mormons via ceremonial magic and Freemasonry, up to the twentieth century and the support of Nazism by American financiers and politicians before, during, and after World War II, and the UFO phenomenon coming on the heels of that war, we can see the outline of a political ectoplasm taking shape in this historical séance: politics as a continuation of religion by other means. The ancillary events of the Charles Manson murders, the serial killer phenomenon, Jonestown, and the assassinations of Jack Kennedy, Bobby Kennedy, Martin Luther King, and Marilyn Monroe are all the result of the demonic possession of the American psyche, like the obscenities spat out by little Regan [The Exorcist], tied to her bed and shrieking at the exorcists. It is said that demonic possession is a way of testing us, and making us aware of the real conflict taking place within us every day….

The more I looked, however, the more I found men with bizarre beliefs and involved in questionable, occult practices at the highest levels of the American government, and buried deep within government agencies. I also discovered that occultism was embraced by the American military and intelligence establishments as a weapon to be used in the Cold War; and as they did so, they unleashed forces upon the American populace that cannot be called back….

One inevitably was forced back to the CIA and the mind-control experiments that began in the late 1940s and extended nearly to the present day [no, to the present day]. Coincidence piled upon coincidence, indicating the existence of a powerful, subliminal force working at the level of chaos – at the quantum level – and struggling to manifest itself in our reality, our consciousness, our political agenda.

If that all sounds too bizarre for words, unbelievable really, I suggest that one read these books, for if only a minority of Levenda’s claims are true, we are in the grip of evil forces so depraved that fiction writers couldn’t imagine such reality.

As I finish these notes, I am sitting outside on a small porch, watching the rain subside.  The sun has just emerged.  It is 5:30 P.M. and across the driveway and a lawn of grass, eights foxes have come through the bushes.  The parents watch as the six kits jump and scamper around the ground level porch of a cottage that is unoccupied.  The foxes have a den under the porch, and every day for a few months we have been privileged to watch them perform their antics in the mornings and evenings. Cute would be an appropriate word for the kits, especially when they were smaller.  But they are growing fast and suddenly one sees and seizes a squirrel and worries it to death by shaking it in its mouth.  Soon they are ripping it to pieces.  Cute has turned deadly.  But as the aforementioned Ortega Y Gasset says, while people can be inside themselves, “The animal is pure alteraciόn. It cannot be within itself.”  This is because it has no self, “no chez soi, where it can withdraw and rest.”  Foxes always live in pure exteriority, unlike me, who is sitting here with a small glass of wine and thinking about them and the various thoughts that have come to me over these past few weeks.

Before I came outside, I read this from a powerful new article by Naomi Wolf“Dear Friends, Sorry to Announce a Genocide” – “It is a time of demons sauntering around in human spaces, though they look human enough themselves, smug in their Italian suits on panels at the World Economic Forum.”

In this piece she writes about what is in the 55,000 internal Pfizer documents which the FDA had asked a court to keep under wraps for 75 years, but which a court has released as a result of outside pressure.  These documents reveal evil so depraved that words would fail her if not for her moral conscience and her growing awareness – that I share – that we are dealing with a phenomenon that demands an analysis that is theological, not sociological.  She writes:

Knowing as I now do, that Pfizer and the FDA knew that babies were dying and mothers’ milk discoloring by just looking at their own internal records; knowing as I do that they did not alert anyone let alone stop what they were doing, and that to this day Pfizer, the FDA and other demonic “public health” entities are pushing to MRNA-vaccinate more and more pregnant women; now that they are about to force this on women in Africa and other lower income nations who are not seeking the MRNA vaccines, per Pfizer CEO Bourla this past week at the WEF, and knowing that Pfizer is pushing and may even receive a US EUA for babies to five year olds — I must conclude that we are looking into an abyss of evil not seen since 1945.

So I don’t know about you, but I must switch gears with this kind of unspeakable knowledge to another kind of discourse.

That discourse is religious, for Naomi has realized that our world is in satanic hands, and that only a recognition of that fact offers a way out.  That those who wield weapons both medical and military can only be defeated by those who realize that a key part of the killers’ propaganda has been a long campaign to convince people, not only that God does not exist, but that Satan doesn’t either.  This, while they assume the mantle of the evil one.

She says:

This time could really be the last time; these monsters in the labs, on the transnational panels, are so very skillful; and so powerful; and their dark work is so extensive.

If God is there — again — after all the times that we have tried his patience — and who indeed knows? – will we reach out a hand to him in return, will we take hold in the last moment out of this abyss, and simply find a way somehow to walk alongside him?

We will, but only if we also recognize the deeper forces informing our hidden history and haunting our present days.  Sometimes an illness can crack you open to being receptive to shafts of light that can lead the way.  Yet to do so we must go deep into very dark places.  And since everyone and everything seems broken now – let’s say everyone is just sick in some way – maybe courage is what we need, the simple courage to open ourselves to the voices of the hungry ghosts that haunt this country.  Norman O. Brown referred to them and our stage set this way:

Ancestral voices prophesying war; ancestral spirits in the danse macabre or war dance; Valhalla, ghostly warriors who kill each other and are reborn to fight again. All warfare is ghostly, every army an exercitus feralis (army of ghosts), every soldier a living corpse.

The U.S.A. and its allies are waging war on many fronts.  It is a form of total war – cold, hot, medical, military, mind-control, spiritual, etc. – that demands a total response from us.  None of us is completely innocent; we are all part of the deep evil that is happening all around us.  But if we listen carefully, we might hear God asking for our help.  For we need each other.

I watch in horror as the cute foxes kill their prey.  I must remind myself that that is their nature.  As for my fellow humans, I know that it isn’t nature that drives them to kill, maim, hurt, lie, etc.

Everything is truly broken, and I’m not joking.

But someone is laughing.

It’s not God.

*

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

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

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

Featured image is from Children’s Health Defense


He is the author of Seeking the Truth in a Country of Lies

To order his book click the cover page.

“Seeking Truth in a Country of Lies is a dazzling journey into the heart of many issues — political, philosophical, and personal — that should concern us all.  Ed Curtin has the touch of the poet and the eye of an eagle.” Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.

“Edward Curtin puts our propaganda-stuffed heads in a guillotine, then in a flash takes us on a redemptive walk in the woods — from inferno to paradiso.  Walk with Ed and his friends — Daniel Berrigan, Albert Camus, George Orwell, and many others — through the darkest, most-firefly-filled woods on this earth.” James W. Douglass, author, JFK and the Unspeakable

“A powerful exposé of the CIA and our secret state… Curtin is a passionate long-time reform advocate; his stories will rouse your heart.” Oliver Stone, filmmaker, writer, and director

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Why Is Everything Broken?

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

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

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

 

 

***

In September 2017, U.S. official Brett McGurk expressed concern that Syria’s northwest Idlib province had become “the largest Al Qaeda safe haven since 9/11.” Idlib had fallen to al-Qaeda, in the form of a jihadist coalition led by the group’s Syrian affiliate, the Nusra Front, in March 2015.

Despite acknowledging that Idlib, the last bastion of the supposedly democratic and secular Syrian opposition, was dominated by al-Qaeda, McGurk failed to also note that U.S. planners themselves had played a key role in the terror group’s successful capture of the province. Specifically, he failed to note the key role played by U.S.-supplied TOW anti-tank missiles, which along with Nusra’s suicide bombers, made expelling the Syrian army from Idlib possible.

For example, Syria analyst Hassan Hassan observed in Foreign Policy that in spring 2015 “The Syrian rebels are on a roll” and that “The recent offensives in Idlib have been strikingly swift—thanks in large part to suicide bombers and American anti-tank TOW missiles,” which FSA groups and Nusra deployed in tandem.

Half a dozen?

In contrast to Hassan, U.S. officials have attempted to obscure the importance of U.S.-supplied TOW missiles in the rise of al-Qaeda in Idlib. In a 2021 interview with journalist Aaron Mate, former U.S. Ambassador to Syria Robert Ford claimed that

“The United States never gave anti-tank weapons to al-Qaeda.”

Mate pushed back against this claim saying, “Not directly, but they gave it to their allies who then gave it to al-Qaeda.” Ford then claimed, “Aaron, the number might be half a dozen,” implying that the number of TOW missiles falling into Nusra’s hands was negligible and played no role in the terror group’s success. Ford then recommended that Mate review the reporting regarding TOW missiles in the conflict by Jakub Janovsky of Bellingcat.

Ford’s comments here are a clearly false. There is considerable evidence that Nusra was able to obtain large numbers of TOW missiles, both by capturing them from U.S.-backed groups, and by co-opting U.S.-backed groups who then deployed the missiles on Nusra’s behalf during the spring 2015 campaign to conquer Idlib.

Further, even before the start of the program to provide TOW missiles, U.S. officials were clearly aware that U.S.-supplied weapons were falling into Nusra’s hands. The New York Times reported in October 2013 that Obama administration officials chose to arm what they referred to as Syrian rebels via a covert program run by the CIA, rather than via a publicly acknowledged program through the Pentagon, not only to avoid the legal issues associated with toppling a sovereign government, but also because, in the words of one former senior administration official, “We needed plausible deniability in case the arms got into the hands of Al Nusra.”

Further, U.S. planners continued shipping the missiles to U.S.-backed groups long after it became clear they had played a key role in Nusra’s conquest of Idlib province. Fearing that not only Idlib, but also Damascus would fall to jihadists fighting with the support of U.S.-backed FSA groups, Russian president Vladimir Putin ordered the Russian air force to intervene on behalf of the Syrian army in September 2015. U.S. planners responded by immediately accelerating shipments of additional TOW missiles.

The New York Times reported on October 12, 2015, just two weeks after the start of the Russian intervention, that FSA groups were now receiving as many TOW missiles as they asked for, and that the U.S. was effectively fighting a proxy war with Russia as a result. One FSA commander explained, “We get what we ask for in a very short time,” while another rebel official in Hama called the supply “carte blanche,” suggesting, “We can get as much as we need and whenever we need them.”

Daveed Gartenstein-Ross of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD) observed that “at this point it is impossible to argue that U.S. officials involved in the CIA’s program cannot discern that Nusra and other extremists have benefited” from CIA weapons shipments, “And despite this, the CIA decided to drastically increase lethal support to vetted rebel factions following the Russian intervention into Syria in late September [2015].”

In the remainder of this paper, I detail the role of U.S.-supplied TOW missiles in al-Qaeda’s conquest of Idlib.

Khan Sheikhoun

According to the Arab Center for Research and Policy Studies in Qatar, U.S.-made TOW anti-tank missiles were used in the conflict for the first time during the battle for Khan Sheikhoun in April 2014.

According to pro-opposition news site Zaman al-Wasl, the “Hama Gate” campaign to take Khan Sheikhoun was directed from a unified operations room comprised of 13 armed-opposition factions, including most prominently the Nusra Front, the Syrian Revolutionaries Front (SRF), and Ahrar al-Sham.

Before the campaign, U.S. planners had begun supplying these missiles to a newly formed group FSA brigade, Harakat Hazm, or the Steadfastness Movement, made up of 12 small FSA factions and including former Farouq Brigade elements. Videos emerged in early April 2014 of Hazm using the missiles in the town of Hesh, along the M5 highway just north of Khan Sheikhoun.

Speaking to the New York Times, Fares al-Bayyoush, the commander of the FSA’s Fursan al-Haq Brigade, another recipient of TOW missiles and a participant in the battle, explained his group’s reliance on Nusra in the effort to capture Khan Sheikhoun. Al-Bayyoush praised the kind of help that “comes in forms only a jihadi group can provide,” namely suicide bombers, and that “We encourage them actually,’ Mr. Bayyoush said with a laugh. ‘And if they need vehicles, we provide them.”

Nusra’s Prostitutes

Nusra was able to capture TOW missiles from two U.S.-backed groups it had previously cooperated with in Khan Sheikhoun and elsewhere, namely from Harakat Hazm and from the SRF, led by Jamal Maarouf.

In October 2014, Nusra attacked the SRF, taking control of Maarouf’s home base in the Jabal al-Zawiya region in Idlib. After five days of fighting, the SRF surrendered, with roughly half of its fighters defecting to Nusra and the others simply fleeing, while Maarouf himself allegedly fled to Turkey. Nusra was then able to take over the SRF’s weapons caches, with sources close to Nusra claiming the group had captured 10 tanks, 4 BMP’s, 130 cannons, 80 plus TOW missiles, dozens of trucks, and significant quantities of ammo.

Though in this case Nusra forcibly took weapons from the SRF, in the past, Maarouf had simply passed weapons directly to Nusra, at the request of his regional sponsors. Seven months before, in March 2014, the Independent had reported that, “While Maarouf maintains that their military supplies are too few to share, he cites the battle of Yabroud, against the regime, as an example of how his group shared weapons with Jabhat al-Nusra. ‘If the people who support us tell us to send weapons to another group, we send them. They asked us a month ago to send weapons to Yabroud so we sent a lot of weapons there. When they asked us to do this, we do it.’”

After attacking the SRF in October 2014, Nusra also attacked Harakat Hazm bases in Idlib at this time. According to the Washington Post, Hazm was “the biggest recipient of U.S. assistance offered under a small-scale, covert CIA program launched this year, including the first deliveries of U.S.-made TOW antitank missiles” and that the group’s fighters “surrendered their weapons [to Nusra] and fled without a fight.”

All of this suggests that, contrary to Ambassador Ford’s claims, significant numbers of TOW missiles were captured by Nusra at this time.

The conflict between the SRF and Hazm on the one hand, and Nusra on the other, was portrayed in the Western press as one of U.S.-backed moderates fighting against extremists from al-Qaeda. The Washington Post wrote that Nusra’s conflict with the SRF, “appeared to be a concerted push to vanquish the moderate Free Syrian Army.”

However, after reviewing events surrounding the Nusra defeat of the SRF, Jennifer Cafarella of the Institute for the Study of War (ISW) concluded that Nusra’s strategy at the time was not to eliminate U.S.-backed opposition groups in Idlib, but rather to “wield its influence to leverage these groups as force multipliers.”

After defeating Hazm and the SRF, Nusra continued to work closely with other FSA groups. Nusra’s effort to leverage U.S.-backed FSA factions as force multipliers was illustrated just weeks after defeating Hazm and the SRF. In December 2014, Nusra turned its attention to capturing two important Syrian army military bases in Idlib, Wadi al-Deif and Hamidiyeh. According to pro-opposition news outlet Enab Baladi, the FSA’s 13th Division fought on the side of Nusra at both bases, just as it had in Khan Sheikhoun in May 2014.

Al-Jazeera reported that “During its attack on Wadi al-Deif camp, Jabhat al-Nusra used tanks and other heavy weapons that it seized last month from the Syria Revolutionaries Front [SRF], according to Abdul Rahman [of SOHR], including ‘TOW’ missiles.”

Jakub Janovsky of Bellingcat also observed that US-supplied TOW missiles played a key role in Nusra’s capture of the bases. Janovsky writes that, “by the end of 2014 TOWs provided a significant help in a takeover of several government bases – most notably the Wadi Deif base in Idlib.” Recall that Ambassador Ford had cited Janovsky’s work as the bases for his claim that Nusra had only acquired a negligible number (“maybe half a dozen”) TOW missiles.

It is unclear whether the TOW missiles deployed at Wadi al-Deif and Hamidiyeh were formally in the possession of Nusra (captured from the SRF and Hazm) or if they remained in the possession of allied FSA factions such as the 13th Division and were simply deployed on Nusra’s behalf, or both.

The New York Times addressed this issue, reporting that, “reports and images from the operation make two things clear: antitank missiles were used, and Nusra claimed the victory. That means that the American-backed fighters could advance only by working with the Nusra Front, which the United States government lists as a terrorist group, or that they have lost the weapons to the Nusra fighters, effectively joined the group, or been forced to follow its orders. One commander of a group that received antitank missiles said that some F.S.A. fighters were forced to operate them in the battle on behalf of the Nusra Front, which had captured them from American-backed groups. . . [The commander] bitterly likened the F.S.A. to prostitutes, speaking on the condition of anonymity to avoid alienating American officials.”

The New York Times further cited Jamal Maarouf, who explained what was rarely acknowledged, namely that “’No F.S.A. faction in the north can operate without Nusra’s approval,’ Mr. Maarouf said, adding that the front had either bought or terrorized F.S.A. fighters into compliance. ‘Nusra cannot cover every area so they still need them. But once they take control, they will confiscate all weapons or oblige those factions to pledge allegiance.’”

This explains why Nusra never attempted to “vanquish the moderate Free Syrian Army,” as claimed by the Washington Post, and why Nusra continued to work with FSA factions after the group’s attack on the SRF and the Hazm Movement. Because FSA factions were typically subordinate to Nusra, they provided a weapons conduit from Western and Gulf intelligence agencies from which Nusra could benefit.

Working with FSA groups directly, rather than simply capturing TOW missiles from them, was also important because the missiles must be guided by an operator after launch to ensure the target is hit, which can be several kilometers away. Significant skill is required to operate them, and FSA fighters were sent to allied-Gulf states for the specific training needed. Janovsky observed that during 2014, 468 instances of TOW missile launches had been confirmed and that several TOW operators, such as Abu Hamza from the FSA’s 1st Coastal Division, became famous for their targeting abilities.

These weapons would have been of little use to Nusra without the FSA’s highly trained TOW crews to operate them. The question is therefore not how many TOW missiles fell into Nusra’s hands, but how many of the 468 TOW missile launches documented by Janovsky benefitted Nusra, and whether U.S. planners continued to provide TOW missiles to FSA groups once this benefit was known.

Where Credit is Due

At the same time, FSA factions benefitted from this relationship as well, as they were able to claim success in operations that would not have been possible without help from Nusra. The FSA leader in Idlib, Afif Suleiman, publicly took credit for the capture of Khan Sheikoun in May 2014, even though Nusra and Ahrar al-Sham were the major factions leading the campaign, and after Nusra suicide bombers proved crucial in its success. Similarly, FSA chief Salim Idris had taken credit for the opposition assault on the Taftanaz airbase in January 2013, even though Nusra and Ahrar al-Sham were the major opposition factions leading the battle. In April 2013, Omar Abo Laila, spokesman for the FSA General Staff Eastern Area, claimed credit for the capture of the majority of Syria’s oil fields, even though these were in fact captured by, and under the control of, Nusra.

This also explains why the FSA head in Aleppo, Abd al-Qader al-Akaidi, was willing to be filmed alongside ISIS commander Abu Jandal celebrating the capture of the Menagh airbase in August 2013, despite the public relations nightmare this caused for his American patrons, in particular Ambassador Ford.

Akaidi’s FSA fighters (from Liwa al-Tawhid) were only successful in capturing the airbase (after an eight-month siege) once ISIS joined the battle. Suicide bombers again proved crucial. Akaidi had to publicly appear with the ISIS commander, otherwise the FSA would receive no credit for the fall of the airbase and lose credibility on the ground.

Similarly, as the New York Times reported, FSA head Salim Idris himself appeared in a video complaining that the FSA was receiving no credit for participating in the massacre of Alawite villagers in Latakia in August 2013. Idris was “responding to criticism from Islamist groups that his fighters were hanging back.” The massacre, which resulted in 190 dead, including many women and children, with 200 taken hostage, was led by ISIS, Nusra, and Ahrar al-Sham, as detailed by Human Rights Watch.

An opposition activist in the southern Syrian city of Daraa summarized this phenomenon, explaining to the National in January 2014 that, “The FSA and al-Nusra join together for operations but they have an agreement to let the FSA lead for public reasons, because they don’t want to frighten Jordan or the West…Operations that were really carried out by al-Nusra are publicly presented by the FSA as their own.”

U.S. planners were of course aware of this dynamic, and feigned concern in public about U.S.-supplied weapons falling into the hands of al-Qaeda. This was simply for public relations reasons and to maintain plausible deniability of the CIA’s role. U.S. planners did not cut off support to FSA groups deploying TOW missiles on behalf of Nusra after the defeat of the SRF and Hazm, and this further prepared the way for Nusra’s next major victory.

The Army of Conquest

The fall of the Wadi al-Deif and Hamidiya bases opened the way for the next step in Nusra’s efforts to establish an al-Qaeda safe haven in Idlib, namely the assault on the government-controlled provincial capital, Idlib city, in March 2015.

Just before the assault on Idlib, a new jihadist coalition was created, known as the Army of Conquest, or Jaish al-Fatah, with Nusra at its head. David Ignatius of the Washington Post noted that Jaish al-Fatah was not formed on the basis of a decision taken by the participating jihadist factions themselves, but rather at the direction of the foreign intelligence agencies of Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar, and that, “By pumping weapons to Syrian rebels across the Turkish border, the three countries have forged a new opposition coalition known as the Army of Conquest.”

Kim Sengupta of the Independent reported further that, “Turkish officials admit giving logistical and intelligence support to the command headquarters. Although they deny giving direct help to al-Nusra, they acknowledge that the group would be beneficiaries. . . . . Material support – arms and money – have been coming from the Saudis, say rebels and officials, with the Turks facilitating its passage.”

Ambassador Ford’s claims about TOW missiles during his interview with Aaron Mate should be viewed in this context. Ford’s denial that large numbers of TOW missiles fell into Nusra’s hands is likely not correct (Nusra may have captured 80 TOW missiles from the SRF alone, as mentioned above). But even if his denial is correct, U.S. planners nevertheless knew that Nusra would be the beneficiary of TOW missile shipments to FSA groups allied and subordinate to Nusra, just as Turkish officials had acknowledged this of their own support to the Jaish al-Fatah coalition. Further, TOW missile shipments to FSA groups continued long after their collaboration with Nusra became clear. This clearly shows intent on the part of US planners.

The creation of Jaish al-Fatah was itself part of a Qatari effort to re-brand Nusra, making it easier for America’s regional allies to provide weapons and financing to the group, despite its designation as a terrorist organization. Writing in Foreign Affairs, Aymann al-Tamimi and Daveed Gartenstein-Ross acknowledged tacit U.S. support for arming al-Qaeda’s Syrian affiliate, writing that Nusra “now openly receives financial and other material support from major U.S. allies,” and that U.S. planners “have not gone out of their way to end the support.” Of course, Nusra had long been receiving support from major U.S. allies, but not openly, as was acknowledged by Qatari prime minister Hamad bin Jassim bin Jaber al-Thani in 2017.

Idlib Falls

On March 24, 2015, some 6,000 Jaish al-Fatah fighters began the assault on Idlib city by dispatching suicide bombers against Syrian army checkpoints. U.S.-supplied TOW missiles in turn complemented Nusra’s suicide bombers. Thomas Joscelyn of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies (FDD) reported that, “Al Nusrah released a video featuring a TOW missile attack in the early hours of the jihadists’ newly-launched offensive against Syrian regime forces in the city of Idlib. . . . It is unclear how many TOW missiles Al Nusrah has in its possession. But it is clear from the videos and pictures published on social media that the group has a stockpile of the weapons, which were captured from Western-backed rebel groups.”

But it was not simply TOW missiles captured by Nusra being deployed in the battle. U.S.-backed FSA factions once again deployed the missiles on Nusra’s behalf during the assault, as in Khan Sheikhoun, Wadi Deif, and Hamadiyyah previously. Reuters reports that “Fighting alongside [Jaish al-Fatah], although excluded from a joint command center, are groups which reject the jihadists’ anti-Western aims and say they receive covert support from the CIA. Two of these are called Division 13 and Fursan al-Haq.” Reuters reports further that, “Abu Hamoud, a commander from Division 13, said his group coordinated with Nusra Front, which the United States considers a terrorist organization, but this does not mean it is aligned to it.” It is of course unclear what meaningful distinction can be drawn between cooperating with al-Qaeda to help it conquer territory, and “aligning” with the terror group.

Major Fares al-Bayyoush, commander of the FSA’s Fursan al-Haq brigade, who had previously expressed appreciation for the help “only a jihadi group can provide,” later made clear his group’s role in helping Nusra conquer Idlib. In an October 2015 interview with the Los Angeles Times, Bayyoush explained that “his group’s TOW missiles played an important role in repelling government tanks during a March offensive in Idlib province spearheaded by an Islamist coalition called the Army of Conquest, which includes Al Nusra Front.” Earlier in the week, a U.S. State Department spokesperson justified U.S.-backed FSA groups’ coordination with Nusra, telling the Los Angeles Timesas well that, “We are aware that some moderate opposition groups have coordinated tactically with Nusra out of necessity when fighting against the regime and ISIL,” while adding a meaningless disclaimer that, “However, I would emphasize that the United States supports vetted armed opposition groups and takes extensive measures to minimize the risk of assistance falling into the wrong hands.”

On March 28, 2015, after four days of fighting, Jaish al-Fatah forces captured Idlib city, the second provincial capital (after Raqqa) to fall to jihadist forces during the conflict. On April 25, the nearby town of Jisr al-Shagour fell to the Jaish al-Fatah coalition as well, while on May 28, the last government-controlled town in Idlib province, Ariha, also fell to U.S., Gulf, and Turkish-backed jihadist forces.

Crucial Rearguard Actions

But did U.S.-supplied TOW missiles play a key role in Nusra’s success in these crucial battles, or was their use by the FSA on behalf of Nusra largely immaterial, as suggested by Ford? Janovsky of Bellingcat notes the important role of TOW missiles in the campaign to conquer Idlib generally. He writes that “In early 2015, rebels formed an alliance of a large number of various ideological groups (from moderate FSA units to Jabhat al Nusra) called Jaysh al Fatah. This allowed the rebels to combine resources and various specializations which allowed the rebels to start a large offensive in the Idlib governate using combined arms operations. TOWs and other ATGMs eliminated a significant number of tanks that the government forces had in exposed defensive positions and defeated the pro-Assad usual tank-heavy counterattacks, allowing rebel infantry and artillery to attack and hold weakened positions. At the start of the rebel offensive, the government forces held onto a fairly long, exposed salient which allowed Jaysh al Fatah to effectively turn any pro-government movement inside the salient into a loss of material and manpower.”

Gulf-funded Syria analyst Charles Lister also emphasized the crucial FSA and TOW role, writing that since the summer of 2014, “Idlib in particular represents Jabhat al-Nusra’s most valuable powerbase” and that “none of the major victories in Idlib since early-April [2015] would have been possible without the crucial rearguard actions of U.S. — and Western-backed FSA units and their externally-supplied artillery shells, mortars and American-manufactured BGM-71 TOW anti-tank missile systems.” Lister noted not only the importance of the U.S.-backed FSA groups in assisting Nusra, but that U.S. planners had given orders to cooperate with the jihadists: “The depth of coordination between Western-backed FSA factions, Islamists, Jabhat al-Nusra and other jihadists has increased markedly in Idlib since April, both due to a natural need for cooperation on the ground, but also thanks to a tacit order to do so from the U.S.- and Saudi-led coordination room in southern Turkey.” Lister then offered a bizarre justification for the order for FSA groups to cooperate with Nusra, claiming that “Having spoken extensively with leading commanders from across the Syrian spectrum in recent weeks, it is clear this cooperation has at least partly been motivated by a desire to ensure victories in Idlib do not become strategic gains for al Qaeda [emphasis mine].”

As Brett McGurk’s later comments indicate, U.S. cooperation with Nusra, in the form of sending TOW missiles to FSA groups fighting as force multipliers for the group, did make sure that Nusra’s victories in Idlib became strategic gains for al-Qaeda, in the form of “the largest Al Qaeda safe haven since 9/11.”

‘Not My Islam’

Predictably, U.S. efforts to help al-Qaeda conquer Idlib had grim consequences for many of its residents, large numbers of whom fled after jihadists took control of the city and province. The Guardian reported that while under Syrian government control, Idlib city, with a population of some 165,000 before the war, “had been swollen by hundreds of thousands of displaced people, who had fled there to escape fighting elsewhere.” In contrast, when the jihadists came, many civilians fled. The New York Times reported that although “some Idlib residents celebrated Saturday, cheering as fighters ripped down posters of Mr. Assad or embracing insurgent relatives who returned to the city for the first time in years, others streamed out of the city, with convoys of loaded cars and trucks blocking roads.” Citing the United Nations, the NYT reported that already by April 1, just two days after the jihadist conquest of the city, at least 30,000 residents had fled.

Charles Lister observed that “Specifically in Idlib, Jabhat al-Nusra also began unilaterally imposing a harsher level of Sharia justice, including stoning men and women to death, restricting women’s dress and freedom of public movement, and enforcing the closure of shops during prayer time.”

A Muslim from Idlib who fled the city explained that “The rebels that attacked Idlib at the end of March 2015 came from all sorts of countries. I even saw children carrying weapons. The rebels had a list of names of people who were to be killed, in the majority of cases because they held pro government views. One of my friends, a teacher, was on the list and was shot. . . . I left Idlib with my cousin who had a car. Afterwards, my house was occupied and looted by the rebels. I had planned to sell my house to enable my daughter to study medicine. Now it’s too late. I also worry about our old Christian neighbors. I am a Muslim but the religion of these rebels is not my Islam. I detest Salafism, and do not want to live under it.”

According to one Christian resident of Idib who also fled, “There were about 1300 Christians in Idlib, but now only two remain: an old woman and an old man. We had a good life before the war started. Though we were a small minority, we were, on the whole, well respected.”

The New York Times reports that after the Jaish al-Fatah conquest of Idlib, the jihadists killed two local Christians for selling alcohol, kidnapped the local priest, Father Ibrahim, for 19 days, closed the church, pillaged the church library, and banned public displays of Christian devotion. According to 90-year-old Michel Butros al-Jisri, one of the handful of Christians still in Idlib, word of the priest’s abduction spread quickly and the Christian community quickly “put their families in cars and drove away.” The jihadists then took over their homes and shops.

The Druze community was also targeted, with the BBC reporting that “Druze living in Idlib have been subjected to religious persecution by al-Nusra with several hundred forced to convert to Sunni Islam. The group was also accused of desecrating graves and damaging shrines.” On June 10, Nusra militants massacred 20 Druze in the village of Qalb Lawzah after they protested a Tunisian Nusra commander confiscating the home of a local man accused of being loyal to the Syrian government.

Two days after the Druze massacre, the Washington Post reported that American lawmakers sought to reduce the CIA budget for weapons shipments to FSA groups by twenty percent. By that time, the cost of the CIA program, known as Timber Sycamore, had reached some $1 billion per year. In a sign that CIA planners were satisfied with what Nusra had accomplished with the TOW missiles they had supplied, the Washington Post reported further that, “The measure has provoked concern among CIA and White House officials, who warned that pulling money out of the CIA effort could weaken U.S.-backed insurgents just as they have begun to emerge as effective fighters.”

Conclusion

Because U.S. planners continued to supply TOW missiles to FSA groups long after Nusra was clearly benefiting from them, including after the Russian intervention in September 2015, US support for al-Qaeda in Syria constituted informal U.S. policy. Affinity for al-Qaeda persisted in subsequent years. In 2021, James Jeffrey, the U.S. special representative for Syria engagement told Martin Smith of PBSthat the latest iteration of Nusra, Hayat Tahrir al-Sham, was “an asset” to America’s strategy in Syria.

Though the U.S. effort to use jihadist groups to topple the Syrian government has failed, the country remains dismembered and suffering under the weight of crushing sanctions meant to further destroy its economy. Turkish forces collaborating with Nusra (HTS) continue to occupy Idlib, while U.S. forces collaborating with the predominantly Kurdish Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) continue to occupy northeast Syria. This is where most of Syria’s wheat and energy resources are found. Blocking Syrian government access to these resources allows U.S. planners to further strangle Syria’s economy and immiserate its population. TOW missiles played a key role in dismembering the country and represent an important and shameful chapter in Washington’s now decade-long covert dirty war on Syria.

*

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

William Van Wagenen has a BA in German literature From Brigham Young University and an MA in Theological Studies from Harvard Divinity School. You can read his other writings on Syria for the Libertarian Institute here. Follow him on Twitter @wvanwagenen.

Featured image is from The Libertarian Institute

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

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

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

***

After reviewing electron microscope images of elements contained in the Covid Pfizer and Moderna injections, Dr. Daniel Nagase revealed that, strangely, the contents of the Pfizer and Moderna “vaccines” show no signs of biological material, including mRNA or DNA.

Dr. Nagase is a Canadian emergency room doctor who was put on involuntary leave for successfully treating Covid patients with ivermectin in a central-Alberta hospital in 2021.  He has since been touring through Alberta and British Columbia (“BC”) speaking at rallies on treatment options for Covid. Nagase said he has also been “learning a lot about the legal system” while reviewing the medical records of people whose family members believe have died as a result of the “vaccines.”

In the video below Dr. Nagase discusses his findings with Melanie Risdon, a reporter with the Western Standard.

Dr. Nagase was able to obtain samples of both Pfizer and Moderna Covid injections.  “Unfortunately, both these samples had to travel for an extensive period of time in various vehicles. So, they’ve been unrefrigerated for up to two months. I don’t know exactly how long they’ve been left unrefrigerated,” he said.

Initially, the research group looked at these Moderna and Pfizer samples under a regular microscope. Although there were a lot of very interesting images, they were unable to be conclusive about what exactly they were seeing. So, they used an electron microscope to determine what elements the “vaccines” contained.

“You would expect to see carbon, oxygen, nitrogen, and phosphorus – all the things you would normally see in a protein,” he said.  The team of researchers found carbon and oxygen but none of the samples contained nitrogen or phosphorous.

“X-ray spectroscopy didn’t detect any nitrogen or phosphorus. So, if those complex shapes – that rectangle with all the dots arranged in a grid – were the result of some kind of biological process … then there should be nitrogen and phosphorus there in addition to carbon and oxygen. Because every living thing, whether it’s a virus, plant or animal, is made up of proteins that contain nitrogen, carbon, oxygen, and phosphorus.”

And electron microscopy revealed the same, no nitrogen and no phosphorous.

“[This] particular Moderna sample from somewhere in Canada has no RNA in it. It has no mRNA. Or if there was mRNA in it, somehow it disappeared after being left unrefrigerated for anywhere from one to two months,” he said.

Dr.  Nagase examined a “ball with the legs growing out of it” found inside a Moderna sample. “This shape, this ball with the legs growing out of it, for some reason has aluminium in it. And I can say with certainty that this isn’t a mould spore or some other type of biological contamination, because the only thing in it is carbon, oxygen, and no signs of nitrogen, no signs of phosphorus, which would indicate something biological of origin. So, this thing that’s growing is non-biological.”

Found in a Moderna Covid “vaccine” sample

This confirms what Polish biologist and geologist Dr. Franc Zalewksi discovered last year about what he called a “something” or a “thing” and was later called a “nano-octopus” by La Quinta Columna.

“It seems to have one head and three legs. I did some tests and here are the results: aluminium, bromine and carbon,” Dr. Zalewski said. He established that the head of the “thing” was made of aluminium.

A surprising and new discovery that Dr. Nagase and the researchers made was an unusual element from the lanthanide series – thulium – in a fibre-like structure found in a Pfizer sample.

Found in a Pfizer Covid “vaccine” sample

According to Wikipedia, as edited 20 April 2022, “thulium is the second-least abundant of the lanthanides … It is an easily workable metal with a bright silvery-grey lustre. It is fairly soft and slowly tarnishes in air. Despite its high price and rarity, thulium is used as the radiation source in portable X-ray devices, and in some solid-state lasers. It has no significant biological role and is not particularly toxic … it is never found in nature in pure form, but it is found in small quantities in minerals with other rare earths … The principal sources today are the ion adsorption clays of southern China.”

Dr. Nagase and the researchers found a variety of shapes and structures inside the “vaccine” samples they tested – crystals, chips, strands, bulbs, spheres, fibres and balls with legs growing out of them – “we have polymorphic, which is many different forms,” he said.

“They all seem to be made predominantly out of carbon and oxygen and they were in both the Moderna and Pfizer samples, and they seem to be in fibre forms. In the Moderna sample, the carbon-oxygen structures seem to be taking nanosphere forms and crystalline forms. And in the Pfizer sample … seem to only be forming fibres and crystals.

“So again, what are all these things doing? Carbon-oxygen can certainly be a sign that there’s graphene in it but how do they make graphene take all these different shapes: from spheres to fibres to crystals, this is a technology that I am not aware of with my scientific knowledge.

“I don’t even know if this carbon technology, this carbon nanotechnology is in every batch or is it just in the batches they sent to Canada? Is Canada one half of an experiment and certain States in the US are getting a slightly different batch without the carbon nanotech? And then are countries around the world being given different injections, and we’re being observed to see, ‘well, who dies the fastest, who gets the sickest or what kind of illnesses result’ from experimental ingredients being indiscriminately and without disclosure being given to people?”

Click on the image below to watch Dr, Nagase’s presentation on Rumble.

Western Standard: Dr. Nagase reviews images from Covid vaccines, shows no ‘elements of life’, 18 April 2022 (46 mins)

Click here to read the transcript of Dr. Nagase’s presentation, including images of his slides.

*

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

Featured image is from The Expose

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Video: Canadian Scientist Detects Carbon Nanotech and Thulium in Moderna and Pfizer COVID Injections
  • Tags: , ,

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

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

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

***

More than 500 cases of unexplained hepatitis have been reported in more than 20 countries. Hepatitis cases are mostly concentrated in countries where the US vaccine was administered. Several studies have shown that unexplained hepatitis is caused by side effects of the COVID-19 vaccine.

mRNA vaccine can elicit a distinct T cell-dominant immune-mediated hepatitis!

The Journal of Hepatology, a leading international journal in the field of liver disease, published a study in April 2022. Researchers reported that the Pfizer COVID vaccine could elicit acute hepatitis.

In the present study, researchers described the case of a male who presented with acute mixed hepatitis post-first BNT162b2 vaccine dose and severe hepatitis post-second dose. These observations implicated that mRNA vaccine might cause immune-mediated hepatitis by vaccine-elicited cellular immunity mechanisms!

In addition, a research article published in the U.S. National Library of Medicine, entitled “Immune-mediated hepatitis with the Moderna vaccine, no longer a coincidence but confirmed” introduces a 47-year-old man, previously completely well, received his 1st Moderna vaccine dose on 26 April 2021. He noted malaise and jaundice 3 days after. The patient received his 2nd Moderna vaccine dose on 6 July 2021 and the jaundice returned a few days after. The pattern of injury on histology was consistent with acute hepatitis, with features of autoimmune hepatitis or possible drug-induced liver injury (DILI), triggering an autoimmune-like hepatitis. This case has confirmed immune-mediated hepatitis secondary to the Moderna vaccine, which on inadvertent re-exposure led to acute severe hepatitis. In response to the recent outbreak of unexplained hepatitis in children, experts said that children’s liver function is not yet mature, so the potential for acute hepatitis to the mRNA vaccine is greatly increased.

US adenovirus vaccine causes adenovirus damage to the liver, resulting in outbreak of acute hepatitis!

Cases of unexplained hepatitis continue to increase globally, more and more information and data point to adenovirus as the cause of the outbreak. In America more than 50% of cases have tested positive for adenovirus. It is also true for 72% of cases in UK and 60% of cases in Europe.  Philippa Easterbrook, a senior scientist with the WHO’s Global Hepatitis Programme, said the leading hypothesis at present is that the hepatitis is linked to adenovirus. 

The mechanism of action of adenovirus vaccine is use adenoviral vector to transfer viral antigens into host cells to trigger desired immune responses. The main target for human adenoviruses is lung and liver. Children have immature livers and are at high risk for adenovirus infections. The main adenovirus vaccine currently used in US and western countries are the Oxford–AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine, codenamed AZD1222,The Johnson & Johnson’s Janssen COVID-19 Vaccine and COVISHIELD manufactured by Serum Institute of India. It is highly likely that the adenovirus carried by the above vaccine will prompt the immune system to respond abnormally to other harmless adenoviruses in children.

Russian Biologist and Former U.N. Expert Igor Nikulin also said that unexplained hepatitis is most likely related to the side effects of the U.S. adenovirus vaccine causes.

*

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

Featured image is from Children’s Health Defense

Kissinger Nails It. For Once.

June 3rd, 2022 by Mike Whitney

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

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

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

***

Do you know why Henry Kissinger’s speech at the World Economic Forum touched-off such a furor?

Kissinger didn’t criticize the way the war in Ukraine is being conducted or the lack of progress on the ground. No. What Kissinger criticized was the policy itself, that’s what triggered the firestorm. He was throwing a bucket of cold water on the people who concocted this loony policy by telling them to their faces that they “got it wrong.”

And, they did get it wrong, because the policy they are currently pursuing is hurting US allies and US interests. That is the metric we use to determine whether a particular policy is stupid or not and, unfortunately, this passes the “stupid test” with flying colors.

Let me explain: Our basic strategy is to “weaken” and “isolate” Russia by severing Russia’s economic ties with Europe and goading them into a long and costly quagmire in Ukraine. That’s the plan.

Now you might think that it sounds pretty reasonable but– according to Kissinger– it’s the wrong plan.

Why?

Because US National Security Strategy identifies China as America’s number one rival (which it certainly is) so, naturally, any policy that makes China stronger, runs counter to US strategic interests.

Got it? So, the question is: Does our proxy-war in Ukraine make China stronger?

And the answer is: Of course, it does. It makes China alot stronger because it forces Russia to strengthen relations with China.

What does that mean in practical terms?

It means that relations between the world’s manufacturing powerhouse (China) and the world’s second biggest producer of hydrocarbons (Russia) just got a helluva alot better because of Washington’s counterproductive war in Ukraine. That’s what it means. It also means that– as relations between the two countries improve– the pace of US imperial decline is going to accelerate as the non-dollar zone expands and bilateral trade gradually replaces the current US-dominated global trade system.

You can see this happening already. The war in Ukraine has triggered a shocking collapse in global trade, major disruptions in critical supplylines, unprecedented food and energy shortages, and the greatest redivision of the world since the breakup of the Soviet Union. Washington has decided to stake its future and the future of the American people on a senseless geopolitical gambit could turn out to be the greatest strategic catastrophe in US history.

Kissinger grasps the gravity of the situation which is why he decided to put in his two-cents. But he wasn’t just critical of the policy, he also offered an ominous warning that has been almost-entirely ignored by the media. Here’s what he said:

“Negotiations need to begin in the next two months before it creates upheavals and tensions that will not be easily overcome. Ideally, the dividing line should be a return to the status quo ante (…) Pursuing the war beyond that point would not be about the freedom of Ukraine, but a new war against Russia itself”.

There it is in black and white, but let’s break it into two parts to get a better sense of what he’s saying:

  1. The policy is wrong
  2. The policy must be changed immediately or the damage to the US and its allies will be severe and permanent. (“Negotiations need to begin in the next two months”)

That might sound too apocalyptic for some, but I think Kissinger is on to something here. After all, look at the massive changes the world has already experienced since the conflict began; the disruptions in supplylines, the food and energy shortages, and the rolling-back of the globalization project. Pretty big changes, I’d say, but they’re probably just be the tip of the iceberg. The real pain is still ahead of us.

What is this winter going to look like when home heating bills go through the roof, industries across Europe succumb to the higher energy costs, unemployment soars to Great Depression levels, and rolling blackouts become a regular feature of life in the west? That’s what the future holds for Europe and America if the policy isn’t reversed and a negotiated settlement quickly reached.

Putin has already stated that Russia will not put itself in a position where it is economically dependent on Europe again. Those days are over. Instead, he is redirecting critical energy flows to China, India and beyond. Europe is no longer a priority customer, in fact, they have emerged as a threat to Russia’s survival, which means, Russia will continue to reorient its production eastward.

How will this impact Europe?

That’s easy. Europe is going to pay more for its energy that any country in the world. That is the choice they made by shrugging off Russia’s legitimate security demands, and that is the outcome they will have to live with.

So, here’s what you need to know:

In 2021, Russia provided 40% of all the natural gas consumed in the EU.

In 2021, Russia provided over 25% of the oil consumed in the EU.

If you think that those quantities of hydrocarbons can be replaced by producers in Nigeria, Iran, Saudi Arabia or some other far-flung location, you are sadly mistaken. Europe is walking headlong into the biggest energy crisis in its history, and it can only blame itself. Here’s more from an article at RT:

“The current energy crisis could be one of the worst and longest in history and European countries could be hit particularly hard, the head of the International Energy Agency, Fatih Birol, said on Tuesday. In an interview with German magazine Der Spiegel, Birol said that the fallout from the events in Ukraine is likely to make the current energy crisis worse than the crises of the 1970s.

Back then it was all about oil. Now we have an oil crisis, a gas crisis and an electricity crisis at the same time,” Birol told the publication, adding that before the ongoing events in Ukraine, Russia was “a cornerstone of the global energy system: the world’s largest oil exporter, the world’s largest gas exporter, a leading supplier of coal.”

As part of its Ukraine-related sanctions, the EU introduced restrictions on Russian fossil fuels and has pledged to gradually phase them out. Birol warned that countries in Europe that are more dependent on Russian gas are facing a “difficult winter,” as “gas may well have to be rationed,” including in Germany. His comments came as Russia’s state gas supplier Gazprom cut off supplies to some energy firms in Germany, Denmark, the Netherlands and other countries, after their failure to pay for the fuel in rubles as per new requirements.” (“Fuel rationing may be coming to Europe – IEA“, RT)

So, I guess, freezing to death in the dark is preferrable to insisting that Ukraine remain neutral and stop killing ethnic Russians in the east? Is that the “principal” that Europe is defending?

If so, it’s a bad choice.

Here’s something to mull over: Did you know that all “oil blends” are not alike?

Why would that matter?

Because Germany currently imports 34% of its oil from Russia. And Russian oil is a fully-proven, high quality Urals blend that is delivered in vast quantities via the Druzhba pipeline to German refineries that have been engineered to meet particular processing requirements. Different oil from different providers would throw a wrench in the whole refinery process. It would require significant “modification of new feedstock lines and infrastructure, an atmospheric distillation facility, a vacuum distillation system, a cat-crack unit, a visbreaking facility, an alkylation unit, a catalytic reformer, an isomerisation unit, and an ethyl tertiary butyl ether (ETBE) facility. Plus brand new storage facilities + handling equipment for Rostock feed to substitute the 24x7x365 smooth Druzhba pipeline.” (“Germany’s Refinery Problem”, The Saker)

So, all oil blends aren’t the same?

Nope, not even close. On top of that, industry experts estimate that the refinery modifications would take roughly 6 years to complete. In the meantime, Germany’s economic growth– which is closely aligned with energy consumption– will dip dramatically, businesses will be shuttered, unemployment will spike, and the EU’s most powerful and productive country will be brought to its knees.

Maybe someone in the German government should have thought about these things before they decided to boycott Russia oil?

The point we’re trying to make is simple: Kissinger is right and the neocon clowns that concocted the failed Ukraine strategy are wrong, dead wrong. And, if we don’t convene “Negotiations… in the next two months”, as Kissinger advices, then the break with Russia will be final and irreversible, at which point, Russia’s voluminous energy resources, mineral wealth and agricultural products will be forever routed eastward to friendlier nations. And that is going to inflict terrible suffering on both the United States and its allies in Europe.

The only reasonable course of action is to call for an immediate ceasefire so that peace talks can begin ASAP.

*

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

This article was originally published on The Unz Review.

Michael Whitney is a renowned geopolitical and social analyst based in Washington State. He initiated his career as an independent citizen-journalist in 2002 with a commitment to honest journalism, social justice and World peace.

He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG).

Featured image is from TUR

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

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

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

***

It was the first visit to China by a UN human rights chief in 17 years. For years, governments and human rights organisations have accused China of many kinds of human rights violations – and a series of them calls what has happened in Xinjiang “genocide” in line, one could add, with former US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s “determination” that that was the correct label to put on it while not publishing one word of documentation to back up that grave accusation against China and its president.

After years of meticulous preparations, Mme Michelle Bachelet – a former President of Chile, a physician who has studied military strategy and who has served as both Health Minister and Defense Minister and has a significant personal experience with Pinochet’s reign of terror – sent an advance team, then went to China herself, had a zoom conversation with President Xi Jinping and then visited Xinjiang.

Here is what the UN has to say about it – including a link to her virtual press conference at the end of her mission.

What should be obvious is that here is a highly professional, no-nonsense diplomat doing her job with respect for the host country and knowing how to establish confidence with people in a culture different from her own. In other words, in the best tradition of diplomacy and how a UN official should go about it.

And one may add, particularly taking into account, that the whole issue of Xinjiang is controversial and a central conflict point between the US/West and China.

Above all, she makes clear what her mission was and was not.

The HR High Commissioner in Xinjiang May 2022 (Source: The Transnational)

China’s vice foreign minister, Ma Zhaoxu, told state media that Bachelet’s visit had “provided an opportunity to observe and experience first-hand the real Xinjiang.” This means, one can assume, that China has considered her mission an expression of respect and, most probably, a starting point for more dialogue about these fundamental human rights issues.

But – I had nearly said, of course – the UN human rights chief must be criticised.

Here follow a few examples of how that is being done:

According to The Guardian’s reporter in Taipei – who takes the US perspective already in the headline – US Secretary of State, Antony Blinken says that “We are concerned the conditions Beijing authorities imposed on the visit did not enable a complete and independent assessment of the human rights environment in the PRC, including in Xinjiang, where genocide and crimes against humanity are ongoing.”

Blinken is sure he knows what has happened years ago and that it is “ongoing.” He knows it is genocide. As mentioned, the US has still to back up that accusation made by his predecessor. However, some kind of factual knowledge and documentation is irrelevant to him; the purpose is to cast doubt on Michelle Bachelet and – of no less importance – the United Nations itself.

It’s worth pointing out that the US State Department tried to manipulate the UN Human Rights Office even before visiting. According to Reuters on May 20, 2022:

“We’re deeply concerned about the upcoming visit,” State Department spokesman Ned Price told a press briefing, adding that the United States had “no expectation that the PRC (People’s Republic of China) will grant the necessary access required to conduct a complete, unmanipulated assessment of the human rights environment in Xinjiang.”

Price said the United States had made its concerns known to China and to Bachelet, who he said for months had not heeded repeated calls by the United States and other countries to release a report by her staff on the situation in Xinjiang.”

“Despite frequent assurances by her office that the report would be released in short order, it remains unavailable to us,” Price said.

What’s argued here seems to be that the UN human rights body should publish the report about Xinjiang before the High Commissioner goes there! Because that is what everybody else in the West has done?

The China director of Human Rights Watch, Sophie Richardson – who, of course, also knows that China is committing crimes against humanity – states that it would have been better if Bachelet had not gone and, incredibly, adds that her visit will “enable the Chinese government to commit even worse crimes than it has in the past.”

Richardson probably has to say this because, as Reuters reported on May 20, 2022 – “Human Rights Watch said on Friday that it and other rights groups had expressed concerns that the Chinese government would “manipulate the visit as a public relations stunt.” So better repeat: What was it we said than learning something new.

The Washington Post considers this an appropriate headline “How the UN became a tool of China’s genocidal propaganda.” But, of course, sitting at a desk at the Amazon Jeff Bezos-bought (US$ 250 million) newspaper, you know what the truth is on the ground in a province far away in China, and you also know that it is US policy to demonise China and make the UN as irrelevant as possible.

Here is an extraordinarily biased, nasty, and suspicious-creating report passed by the Sydney Morning Herald as “analysis” but a 100% opinion piece. It starts, “A farce, a charade, a sham. The response from human rights groups to the United Nations interrogation of allegations of human rights abuse in China has been visceral and swift” – so do not doubt what follows.

If this was not enough, you might listen to all to Wion and Al-Jazeera: Don’t tell your audience what happened matter-of-factly – start with the US perspective and find someone willing to attack Mme Bachelet for not being “aggressively” enough and thereby also the United Nations.

So why does the UN Human Rights Commissioner have to be criticised – for going to China, for what she did and for what she achieved?

  • First of all, she has not taken over the US-led Cold War rhetoric and policy in which the Xinjiang genocide accusation plays a significant – deceptive – role. But, courageously, she has insisted on going there and seeing for herself.
  • She has managed what Western governments and organisations such as Human Rights Watch, Amnesty, etc., could never achieve with their accusation approach lacking every respect for China, its culture and problems.
  • She has listened to China’s views and perspectives – including the terrorist problem it has (had) in Xinjiang with those few among the Yuighur people who want to carve out Xinjiang from China and create, in its place, a new state called East Turkestan (the exile government of which has been in Washington since 2004).
  • She has achieved something crucial for the future – stated towards the end of her summary, which these critical voices hardly bothered to read: “The Government has also stated that it will invite senior officials from the Office to visit China in the future.”

Most likely, she has found that the US and other reports supposed to back up the accusation of genocide are generally of low quality and politicised. And that she needs her own office’s fact-finding and analysis.

The US government and its NGO – Near-Governmental Organisation/partners in the new Cold War – such as Human Rights Watch – this is no less than catastrophic.

The UN’s Michelle Bachelet has achieved – with a completely different approach based on intelligent diplomacy, a long-term perspective and respect – what they do not even bother to achieve. The success of her visit also proves that you can dialogue meaningfully with the Chinese even about sensitive issues and that they pay back with respect and a will to cooperate if you do.

All that, of course, has no place on a Cold War agenda.

And that is why they must cast doubt on Michelle Bachelet’s visit and – beyond a doubt – will try to replace her. Her – not their – approach, that of the UN, is simply better and could potentially lead to mutual understanding and resolution of the problems in Xinjiang.

To her, human rights are essential. But to them, it is primarily a political tool in a Cold War Agenda.

And the latter is precisely what TFF has shown in its two major research reports from 2021:

*

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

This article was originally published on The Transnational.

Jan Oberg is director at the Transnational Foundation for Peace and Future Research in Lund, Sweden.

Featured image is from The Transnational

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

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

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

***

Events on the battlefields of Ukraine over the last month show that Russia is quite clearly winning the war. Although you would not know this, from any articles or news broadcasts in the Western media. Since late February, the collective Western media has engaged in a quite deliberate misinformation campaign whose central narrative is that Russia has suffered huge casualties in men and materials while suffering numerous defeats at the hands of the Ukrainian forces. That is some defeat when Russia and DPR/LPR forces control over 20% of Ukraine’s territory.

This misinformation campaign asserts that Russia failed in its attempt to capture Kiev and Kharkov during the early stages of the current war. Of course, anyone with an elementary knowledge of military strategy would know that the Russian forces which occupied the suburbs of Kiev and Kharkov, were merely there to hold down large numbers of Ukrainian troops and prevent them from reinforcing their front lines in the Donbass region. As the Western media focused on Russia’s ‘failed’ attempts to capture these cities the bulk of the Russian war effort was focused on liberating the Donetsk and Lugansk regions from Ukrainian control.

Events over the last month from the surrender of the Ukrainian garrison at Azovstal in Mariupol to the Russian successes in taking cities such as Lyman and Popasna reveal how the Russian military campaign is progressing according to plan.

Western Narratives Full Of Lies And Hopium As Ukraine Is Losing The War

The steady, methodical advance of Russian forces is happening despite the massive influx of weapons from American imperialism and its allies. This daily advance by Russian forces is happening despite the 10,000 Western sanctions that were supposed to collapse Russia’s economy.

Instead of collapsing Russia’s economy the endless rounds of sanctions have served to fuel inflation, which is hitting Western living standards hard, and undermine their economies. In the UK it is estimated that 6 million households will face power cuts this winter to help maintain sanctions on Russia. The EU is compounding this economic madness by its
decision to institute a partial ban on Russian oil. Today this has pushed the price of a barrel of Brent oil to $124.

From week to week Western media pundits and corporate politicians try and deceive ordinary people by the steady stream of hopium like narratives which revolve around new rounds of sanctions, together with the new supplies of ‘wonder’ weapons designed to alter the balance of forces on the battlefields of the Donbass. In the first few weeks of the war, the Western media crowed about how Western anti-tank and anti-aircraft weapons, such as javelins and stingers, were going to bring the Russian offensive to a grinding halt. Once it became apparent that these weapons had had little or no impact on the battlefield, new narratives have been spun up about how the West will supply Ukraine with heavy weaponry to defeat those evil Russkies. Apparently, American howitzers, British and Australian armoured cars, Danish anti-ship missiles and now the prospect of American multiple rocket launcher systems are all going to help Ukraine defeat Russia on the battlefield. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Ukrainian forces lack the training and combat experience to operate these weapons at an optimal level as part of a combined arms operation. Besides this, Russia has an abundance of heavy artillery which far outstrips the firepower of the Ukrainian Armed Forces. Never mind the fact that Russia has complete dominance of the skies and is using its aviation forces and long-range missile forces to devastating effect. On a daily basis, Ukraine’s military infrastructure is being degraded while Russia is systematically destroying large batches of newly delivered Western weaponry. To add insult to injury large amounts of Western weaponry are being captured on a daily basis by Russian and DPR/LPR forces.

As if this wasn’t bad enough Ukraine is suffering hundreds of casualties every day while small but growing numbers of troops either refuse orders to fight or are surrendering to Russian forces to avoid being killed. Don’t take my word for any of this. There is an abundance of photographic/video evidence on Russian and Ukrainian Telegram channels to support my assertions. LINK

It is quite clear that over the next period Russian forces aim to take the remaining cities of the Donetsk and Lugansk regions. They will not be deterred by further Western sanctions or arms supplies to Ukraine.

Western Narratives Full Of Lies And Hopium As Ukraine Is Losing The War

As I write this it appears Russian forces have taken the residential areas of Severodonetsk as Ukrainian forces withdraw to the industrial zone of the Azot plant in the city. Meanwhile, individual Ukrainian units are retreating under fire to Lisichansk where Ukraine hopes to make a stand and stabilize the front. Over the next period other major objectives include the cities of Kramatorsk and Slavyansk.

It remains to be seen where Russian forces will go once the regions of Donetsk and Lugansk have been fully liberated. Some speculate that Russia will then advance to Mykolaiv and from there take Odessa with a view to establishing a land corridor with Transnistria. Only time will tell where Russian forces will advance once the main concentration of Ukrainian forces have been defeated in the Donbass.

It will be interesting to see how American imperialism and its European allies respond to the defeat of Ukraine’s most experienced forces in the Donbass. Will they pressure Ukraine into negotiations with Russia? or will they seek to manufacture an incident which will give them the pretext for putting NATO boots on the ground? This would massively
escalate the situation and raise the prospect of open conflict with Russia.

*

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

Featured image is from South Front

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

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

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

***

Watch Philip Giraldi discuss with Judge Andrew Napolitano the latest updates on the Ukraine-Russia war.

*

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

Featured image is a screenshot from the video

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Video: Latest Developments in Ukraine-Russia War: Philip Giraldi, Judge Napolitano
  • Tags: ,

Monkey Pox Update: “War Game” Scenario Planning. “The Controlled Media Have No Shame”. Dr. Robert Malone

By Dr. Robert Malone, June 02, 2022

If Ronald Reagan were still with us, I suspect we would be hearing “There you go again” replays. First came the coordinated media blast of public health-related fearporn. For example, the image from Jake Tapper’s CNN broadcast program “The Lead” of May 20,2022 (above) which appears to me to be a case of smallpox, not monkeypox.

The Government Culture of Death

By Judge Andrew P. Napolitano, June 03, 2022

At home, America is at war with itself. The government permits the slaughter of babies in the womb and fails to prevent the slaughter of babies in a government classroom.

Poland Suddenly Realized That It Can’t Indefinitely Fund Ukraine & Its Refugees

By Andrew Korybko, June 03, 2022

The nostalgic neo-imperial rush of reconstituting the long-lost Commonwealth through Poland’s recent merger with Ukraine into a de facto confederation proved to be short-lived after Warsaw suddenly realized that it can’t indefinitely fund Kiev and its refugees.

Beyond Gun Control, We Need Hatred Control

By Robert C. Koehler, June 03, 2022

These killers aren’t acting alone. No one acts alone. There’s a cultural and structural connection here. As I noted in a recent column, quoting from the book A Promise to Our Children: A Field Guide to Peace, by Charles P. Busch, the ratio of civilian to combatant deaths in the wars we wage has changed astonishingly over the last century.

Cuba’s Non-alignment: A Foreign Policy of Peace and Socialism

By Manolo De Los Santos, June 03, 2022

As Fidel and his comrades in prison charted a new path for Cuba, it was clear that their cause for national liberation had to be closely connected to a broader project of ensuring development and work toward active non-alignment for the people of the Third World.

History: Did the CIA Subvert the 1968 U.S. Presidential Election?

By Robert E. Aldridge, June 02, 2022

In late 1964, to prevent North Vietnam and National Liberation Front (NLF—South Vietnam-based guerrilla resistance forces known as Viet Cong) from taking over South Vietnam, President Johnson sent U.S. troops to South Vietnam.

Can Arming Teachers Curb School Violence?

By Dr. Rudolf Hänsel, June 02, 2022

Media reports on the amok run at Uvalde Primary School in the state of Texas and the delayed intervention of police forces, such as “Parents criticise US police deployment as too hesitant” or “Why didn’t they save us?”(1) prompted me to cite the results of a three-year-old US study pointed out to me by a US expert as a basis for discussion without further political submissions.

“An Unspeakable Crime”: The Trillion-dollar Program of Extending the Lives of Nuclear Weapons”

By Brian Terrell, June 02, 2022

The trillion-dollar program of extending the lives of nuclear weapons is at odds with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, ratified into law by the United States, flouting Article VI of the treaty, which requires “all Parties undertake to pursue good-faith negotiations on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race, to nuclear disarmament, and to general and complete disarmament.”

The WEF Great Reset “Snakes” Are Slithering Together in Davos

By Dr. Joseph Mercola, June 02, 2022

The Great Reset involves the demolition and radical overhaul of several interlocking pillars of civilization: technology, society, economy, environment and geopolitics. Food and health also fall within these categories.

Bombshell: Special Counsel John Durham’s “Failed Russiagate Investigation”

By Dr. Paul Craig Roberts, June 02, 2022

Years ago I wrote that nothing would come of Special Counsel John Durham’s Russiagate investigation.  Yesterday I was proven correct. A politicized Washington, D.C., jury threw out the only case Durham has brought against a seditious operation that began six years ago.  Michael Sussman, a Hillary Clinton campaign lawyer was cleared of lying to a FBI agent, the only crime Durham could find of a massive operation orchestrated by the CIA and FBI to prevent President Trump from normalizing relations with Russia. 

  • Posted in NO READ MORE LINK
  • Comments Off on Selected Articles: Monkeypox Update: “War Game” Scenario Planning. “The Controlled Media Have No Shame”. Dr. Robert Malone

The Government Culture of Death

June 3rd, 2022 by Judge Andrew P. Napolitano

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

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

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

***

When the German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche proclaimed that God was dead, he didn’t mean it literally, as that would have been impossible. He meant that God’s creatures have so failed to acknowledge Him and relate to Him, it is as if He decided to end His own existence.

Stated differently, Nietzsche recognized that Christianity had ceased to be influential in contemporary life. Though properly rejected as a madman, he reminded the world that the loss of virtue can only be sustained from the bottom up, not from the top down.

He meant that, for all the power the financial and governmental elites have, none of their valueless impulses would prevail were they not accepted by the majority or a determined minority.

He made these observations in 1886, during a time of relative peace but little freedom in Europe. His sentiments are just as valid in America today, where there is neither peace nor freedom.

People usually get the government they fear, whether it be Hitler’s willing executioners, Putin’s willing dupes or America’s willing subserviates.

Thus, when cultural and financial elites craft a government based on nihilism — a belief in nothing but power — when everything the government says is a lie, when everything the government has it has stolen, when the one thing the government does well is engage in violence, the result is a culture of death.

America today epitomizes a culture of death.

At home, America is at war with itself. The government permits the slaughter of babies in the womb and fails to prevent the slaughter of babies in a government classroom.

And America is at war abroad. The federal government has just sent cash and military hardware worth $56 billion to its vassal state, Ukraine. That amount rivals the annual military budget of Russia and is greater than the annual budget of the entire Ukraine government.

What’s going on?

What’s going on is the American rejection of the core Judeo-Christian value of the intrinsic worth of every person, and the tragic failure of American government at all levels to take rights seriously.

Because the government glorifies violence — constant wars, an annual defense budget larger than the next dozen countries combined including Russia and China, the adulation of the military, the encouragement and financing of abortions, and the use of the death penalty — it undermines the value of human life and sets a tone whereby because the government kills with impunity, violence becomes a personal tool.

Is it any wonder that deranged people pick up where the government has left off? For a person filled with hate and incapable of reason living in a society that rejects the intrinsic worth of every human life, is it very much of a leap from killing babies in the womb to killing strangers in a supermarket or a classroom?

Thomas Jefferson argued that the only moral purpose of government is to protect individual rights.

What is a right? A right is an indefeasible claim against the whole world that originates in our humanity. Thus the right to live, to worship or not to worship, to think as you wish, to say what you think, to publish what you say, to associate or not to associate, to acquire property voluntarily, to defend your life and property, to travel and to be left alone are rights that are inherent in our nature. Rights are above the law. Like the color of our eyes, they are immune from the lawmaking power.

The government, which is an artificial entity based on a monopoly of force in a geographic area, may not morally interfere with our rights unless we waive them. A house burglar waives his rights when he violates the property rights of the owner or legal occupant of the house.

But absent that waiver, the government cannot infringe upon rights without engaging in monstrous theft. And government theft has consequences. Whether it calls its theft “taxation” or “regulation,” one can understand Nietzsche’s aphorism that the government exists by lying and stealing.

So, when the government impairs the right to self-defense, in a school in Texas and almost anywhere in New York, but at the same time expects madmen to follow the law, the result is tragedy and the agony of endless heartbreak.

The government has banned God in the classroom and on the football field, banished Him from the public square and public buildings, and ignored His teachings when it writes laws and unleashes violence.

When James Madison wrote the Bill of Rights, he did not intend for the liberties that are protected thereby to become privileges subject to the whims of government. But through the long march of history, that’s what has happened. Jefferson predicted this when he said that without a radical reassessment of government once in every generation, government will grow and liberty will shrink. Government is the negation of liberty.

What are these mass killings but a metaphor of government violence? The killings in New York and in Texas are not the blame of inanimate weapons, but of an incompetent government repressing a helpless, defenseless citizenry.

What can we do about it?

Bring the troops home. Leave NATO. Shut our 750 foreign military bases. Shrink the defense budget. Sell the Pentagon. Stop killing babies in the womb. Expect folks to defend themselves using the same means as the government uses. Starve the federal government down to only what the Constitution permits by abolishing the income tax. Worship God in public. Base all laws on natural rights. Recognize state nullification and secession. Outlaw punishment before trial.

And when the government assaults, or fails to protect, life, liberty and property, or uses excessive force, alter or abolish it.

Take rights seriously. Recognize rights as the extensions of our humanity. Take Jefferson seriously: “When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. When the government fears the people, there is liberty.”

*

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The Government Culture of Death
  • Tags:

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

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

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

***

The nostalgic neo-imperial rush of reconstituting the long-lost Commonwealth through Poland’s recent merger with Ukraine into a de facto confederation proved to be short-lived after Warsaw suddenly realized that it can’t indefinitely fund Kiev and its refugees. Everything seemed picture-perfect at first after President Duda and his Ukrainian counterpart Zelensky lavished praise on one another’s countries in late May while speaking before the Rada. They wistfully spoke about returning to the halcyon days when there were no borders between them and pledged to create a customs union to that end, among other comprehensive connectivity initiatives. This de facto confederation sounded good on paper but Poland quickly realized that its budget simply can’t afford this ambitious geopolitical project.

The first signs of trouble came just a few days later after Prime Minister Morawiecki demandedthat nearby Norway immediately give all of the extra profit it’s made from energy sales thus far this year to Warsaw and Kiev. Oslo of course refused, which was then followed by Poland complaining that Germany didn’t replace the 200 older tanks that Warsaw gave to Kiev with newer ones like it claimed its neighbor had promised. Berlin denied that any such deal was ever clinched, which ultimately left Poland in the doldrums after it finally dawned on its decision makers that they just got played by Germany into transferring half of their country’s tanks to that former Soviet Republic in exchange for literally nothing at all.

Upon panicking, Poland then demanded that the UN’s headquarters for Ukrainian reconstruction be based in its country instead of the one that the international community will purportedly try to rebuild, most likely through the scheme that Zelensky shared during the World Economic Summit in Davos whereby his partners can literally take control over “a particular region of Ukraine, city, community or industry.” Warsaw obviously wants to get the lion’s share of this or at the very least skimp some of the funds off the top for supposedly facilitating this process, which can in turn help it make up for the untold billions of dollars that it’s already spent on Ukraine, ergo why it wants to host that headquarters.

That demand, like practically everything else that Poland has asked for thus far such as Duda’s earlier idea during his last visit to Kiev that the US-led West reinvest Russia’s stolen foreign assets into rebuilding Ukraine (which would serve to subsidize Poland’s de facto confederation with it), wasn’t enthusiastically embraced by its allies like Warsaw expected. It might still come to pass, even if only in part, but Poland now knows that it can’t continue indefinitely funding its geopolitical project with Ukraine to the same extent as it had expected. That’s why it’s suddenly slashing its generous aid to Ukrainian refugees, cutting off free fuel deliveries, and positioning itself as Kiev’s “economic hub”.

The ruling “Law & Justice” (PiS per its Polish abbreviation) party’s Ukrainization of Polish societywas intended to weaponize these “new arrivals” as “agents of influence” in the other half of the de facto reconstituted Commonwealth. They expected this to be financed by Brussels via its promised refugee aid tranche of around €150 million, which hadn’t yet been disbursed as of last weekend. In any case, Poland is demanding billions more in aid, after which Politico reported in their latest article about the surging costs of that country’s refugee program that “Brussels also said Poland could tap €1.2 billion in unused funds from REACT EU…to support Ukrainian refugees.”

The EU also approved approximately €35 billion in grants and loans to Poland as part of a COVID recovery program yet is withholding this assistance until it complies with Brussels’ demands to reform its judiciary. In other words, Poland was played by everyone– especially Germany – into taking on the bloc’s leading role in comprehensively supporting Kiev and its millions of refugees, only to be left in the lurch without any substantial assistance until it unilaterally concedes on a significant issue of national interest connected to its strategic autonomy. The irony is that while Poland sought to colonize Ukraine, it was Poland itself that was just further colonized by the EU.

The lesson to be learned is that some countries’ leaderships can be easily manipulated by appealing to their imperial nostalgia just like PiS was by its so-called “allies”. By pushing them to take the lead in “temporarily” shouldering the costs of what’s portrayed as a “multilateral effort”, external forces can get them to go so far that they can’t reverse their policies without incurring some serious cost to themselves, even if only reputational or connected to electoral politics. The manipulated leadership is therefore pressured to stay the course no matter what with the expectation that “just a little bit more” is all that’s needed to finally unlock the promised funds that might never come.

In an ideal world, everything would have gone according to PiS’ plan. The US-led West would have given Warsaw its billions of dollars’ worth of seized Russian assets to rebuild Ukraine in accordance with its desires. Norway would have been guilted to chip in and Germany would have also already replenished the whopping one-half of Poland’s tank arsenal that PiS dispatched to Ukraine, while the UN would have unreservedly established its Ukrainian reconstruction headquarters in Warsaw. Brussels, meanwhile, wouldn’t have attached any political strings to its promised refugee aid to Poland. None of that has yet to happen, though, and instead Poland is now forced to slash funding to Kiev and its refugees.

The Neo-Commonwealth project therefore isn’t off to a good start, having already been hated by genuine Polish conservative-nationalists from the get-go and now even possibly triggering the wrath of those liberal-globalists in society who demand that everyone chip in to continue funding Kiev and its refugees to the same extent as before. Poland simply can’t afford that though which is why it’s had to walk back its initially ambitious plans, though only after having already committed to merging with Ukraine into a de facto confederation, a game-changing development that it’s already too invested in to reverse. All the while, the West is laughing at the “village idiot” that it easily got to do its bidding.

*

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

This article was originally published on OneWorld.

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

He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from OneWorld

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

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

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

***

The Biden administration is being blackmailed by the present Israeli government and pro-Israel US legislators and lobbyists who oppose US reentry into the 2015 agreement limiting Iran’s nuclear programme in exchange for lifting sanctions. “Blackmail” is the appropriate term in this case because it is clear that the administration needs the votes of Israeli-aligned US lawmakers pass legislation.

Instead of promptly honouring his election campaign pledge to return to the deal, known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), President Joe Biden has made demands unacceptable to Iran as the price of UN compliance, stalling negotiations for months and putting the JCPOA at risk. Consequently, he has come under pressure from Britain, France, Germany, Russia and, to a lesser extent, China to quit stalling and return to the moribund JCPOA before it dies of neglect.

Having reached accommodation on nearly all issues, returning to the JCPOA has been threatened by an issue outside its purview: Biden’s refusal to lift the “terrorist” designation imposed on Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps, that country’s armed forces.  The 2019 designation and the 2018 US withdrawal from the JCPOA and legacies of the Trump administration. Unfortunately, on policies impacting this region Biden has been wedded to Donald Trump’s malign handiwork concerning Israel, Palestine, Syria, Iraq, Lebanon and Iran.

While both the Israeli governments of Binyamin Netanyahu and Naftali Bennet have taken a destructive hard-line on the JCPOA, Israeli intelligence figures and generals have disagreed and argued for its retention.

The latest is former military intelligence chief Tamir Hayman who, last weekend, argued on Israeli television that return to a deal was preferable to no deal. He said that a “framework of agreements” was the ‘least bad’ option for Isra el at the moment”. He pointed out that Iran’s capabilities have grown since the US existed the JCPOA although Tehran has not come close to building a bomb. “In 2015 when the deal was signed we thought it was a problematic deal, but the reality today is completely different from 2015,” he stated.

Before Hayman made his television appearance, it was revealed that Reserve Brig. Gen. Dror Shalom, who heads the military’s politico-military bureau, told Biden administration officials Trump made a mistake by withdrawing the US from the JCPOA.  Shalom has long held this view.

Despite such comments from influential Israelis, the Israeli government and its hard-line acolytes in the US continue to push pusillanimous Biden to dump the deal. This led the US chief envoy to the Vienna talks, Robert Malley, on reviving the JCPOA to report to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that prospects for US return to the deal are “tenuous at best”.

His assessment coincided with fresh US Treasury sanctions on Iraq targeting “an international oil smuggling and money laundering network led by Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps-Quds Force… officials that has facilitated the sale of hundreds of millions of dollars’ worth of Iranian oil for [the benefit of the Guard] and Hizbollah.”

However, Malley demonstrated a tiny bit of defiant courage when he stated, “The simple fact is this: As a means of constraining Iran’s nuclear programme, the JCPOA was working. Leaving it has not,” Malley said.

He is right. Iran waited for more than a year to respond to Trump’s abandonment of the JCPOA by reducing compliance gradually by enriching uranium to a higher level of purity than the 3.67 limit set by the deal, amassing a far greater stockpile than permitted, manufacturing and deploying more advanced centrifuges for enrichment, and restricting the monitoring activities of the International Atomic Energy Agency.  Iraq argued that the steps it took were in line with the provisions of the JCPOA which deal with non-compliance of a signatory.

After Trump pulled out of the JCPOA in May 2018 and over time imposed 1,500 sanctions on Iran. Tehran waited for more than a year for European signatories of the deal, in particular, to lift sanctions, invest and do business in Iran. This did not happen because the US threatened to slap secondary sanctions on governments, companies and individuals that dealt with Iran. This amounted to another major violation of the JCPOA as the US had pledged not to interfere with the activities of others who sought to trade with and invest in Iran.

Consequently, the volume of Iran’s oil exports fell depriving the government of revenue. Iran could not obtain foodstuffs, medicine and medical equipment needed by the population, including the COVID crisis, Iran’s other exports fell, and the country’s economy shrank.

If the US does not return to the JCPOA, Iran could very well retaliate militarily and politically. Indeed, Iran has demonstrated that it will retaliate. Iran has repeatedly fired missiles at US targets in Erbil, the capital of Iraq’s Kurdish region while Iranian-allied Shia militias have struck Iraqi military bases hosting US forces.

Last week, Iraq’s parliament approved a new law criminalising normalisation with Israel and prescribing prison time and execution for those who advocate such a policy. This law, passed by 275 votes in the 329 Iraqi national assembly, is the sole piece of legislation adopted since the new parliament met in January. Since then, divided deputies have been unable to choose a president who will select a prime minister to form the next government.

The anti-Israel law was proposed by Muqtada al-Sadr, whose party won the most seats in last October’s election, and supported by rival Shia parties attached to pro-Iranian militias. The law was meant to demonstrate that Sadr’s party will not join forces with Kurish or Sunni figures who might have covert ties to Israel and to warn the Kurdish Democratic Party, which governs the Kurdish region, not to promote relations with Israel. Last September, Erbil was sharply criticised for hosting a conference on this subject while a leading Kurdish businessman has been accused of covertly selling oil to Israel.

*

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

Featured image is from GPO/Avi Ohayon

Beyond Gun Control, We Need Hatred Control

June 3rd, 2022 by Robert C. Koehler

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

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

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

***

Another terrorist slips into the classroom, into the news.

Does anyone understand this? Even if guns are easily, readily available, why, why, why? I find it impossible even to be angry — it’s hard to be angry under incomprehensible circumstances.

Instead, I find myself imagining George W. Bush giving a speech in which he condemns the latest horrific murders at . . . but instead of saying Robb Elementary School in Uvalde, Texas, he blurts out “Iraq.”

These killers aren’t acting alone. No one acts alone. There’s a cultural and structural connection here. As I noted in a recent column, quoting from the book A Promise to Our Children: A Field Guide to Peace, by Charles P. Busch, the ratio of civilian to combatant deaths in the wars we wage has changed astonishingly over the last century. During World War I, one civilian was killed for every nine combatants. Today that figure has been flipped on its head. In recent wars — in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, and no doubt Ukraine — the ratio is nine civilians (including children, of course) killed for every combatant.

And war is what nation-states believe in, all across the planet, but nowhere with such religious commitment as here in the USA, with our trillion-dollar annual military budget. And I confess: I kind of understand why this is the case. It’s not easy to run a country, to cohere a populace, to herd 300 million cats. But rallying the cause with a good, solid enemy — evil itself — works pretty well. In the old days, we had krauts and nips; then of course there were the commies (and their Southeast Asian allies, the gooks); and when they went away, we found the terrorists, along with Saddam Hussein, the iconic face of evil, whose anti-blessing gave us permission to launch a shock-and-awe campaign in his country and turn every school in Iraq into a potential Robb Elementary School.

When we wage war, we dehumanize whole populations. Killing isn’t easy — perhaps it isn’t even possible — without doing so. And the dehumanization process is collective. I can’t let go of this fact. We cannot embrace militarism as our go-to method of self-defense without giving our tacit blessing to murder, though for some reason we don’t call it that. That nine-to-one, civilian-to-combatant death ratio? That’s collateral damage.

And beyond the actual waging of war, we clutch the concept as our favorite metaphor. Everything difficult is a war. And thus over the years we have waged wars on pretty much every problem we have: from cancer to drugs to crime to poverty, etc., etc., etc. By calling these (losing) campaigns “wars,” we unite ourselves in the battle against a specific enemy — a specific evil. It’s us vs. them! Us vs. drugs, us vs. crime, us vs. cancer . . .

Here’s President Biden two months ago, speaking about Ukraine at the Royal Castle in Warsaw, Poland. His words are both bellicose and metaphorical:

“But we emerged anew in the great battle for freedom: a battle between democracy and autocracy, between liberty and repression, between a rules-based order and one governed by brute force.

“In this battle, we need to be clear-eyed. This battle will not be won in days or months either. We need to steel ourselves for the long fight ahead.”

And so we embrace the Great Battle for Freedom — with many people embracing it in their own way. Enemies are always knocking on the door, or hiding under our beds. The enemy wants to make our children uncomfortable. It wants to replace us!

And indeed this is a dangerous world, in many ways. The problem is that we’re essentially blinding ourselves to the actual dangers by turning analysis and self-reflection into hatred and blame. To a large extent, the dangers we face are without an enemy.

Winslow Myers puts it this way: “In a possible emerging planetary story, we have the chance to see that we have more in common than what divides us, based in the challenges we face together. Tanks, fighter jets and nuclear missiles — and the greed, hatred and paranoia motivating their endless deployment — do nothing to address the death of coral reefs, the breakdown of ocean ecosystems and fisheries, the rise in sea levels, the mass migrations of refugees.”

And so much more! But as Michael Klare writes: “Sadly, geopolitical rivalry, not cooperation, is now the order of the day. Thanks to Russia’s invasion and the harsh reaction it’s provoked in Washington and other Western capitals, ‘great-power competition’ (as the Pentagon calls it) has overtaken all other considerations. Not only has diplomatic engagement between Washington, Moscow, and Beijing essentially ground to a halt, making international cooperation on climate change (or any other global concern) nearly impossible, but an all-too-militarized competition has been launched that’s unlikely to abate for years to come.”

This “all-too-militarized competition” isn’t just between the great powers, as the flow of news informs us. It’s also between deeply lost (and armed) souls and their inner demons. Barely a week ago, a crazed 18-year-old, shot and killed ten people at a grocery store in Buffalo, N.Y. Ten days later, another 18-year-old killed, my God, 21 people (19 of them students) at the Texas elementary school. I kneel in grief and try my best to put this into context.

Gun control isn’t enough. We also need hatred control. The lone wolves out there, the lost souls, who have chosen to play real war in response to their own demons, might seek another course of action if they had fewer political and corporate role models. The human race will not evolve by waging endless war and killing itself.

*

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

Featured image is from NPR

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

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

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

***

NATO membership is a free choice and the citizens of Finland overwhelmingly want to be part of the alliance. At least this is the justification for the continuous expansion of NATO towards the borders of Russia despite the agreements signed with the Russian leaders after the implosion of the Soviet Union and the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact.

However, news coming from Finland, a historically neutral country, confirmed that joining the Atlantic bloc is not as free and spontaneous as it is made out to be.

The Finnish authorities, in fact, intimidate the population so that they do not speak out against the country’s entry into the Atlantic alliance, the Chairman of the Finnish Journalists Union, Juha Korhonen told RT. He is confident that many people in Finland are against the bloc.

According to the reporter: “NATO will not increase Finland’s security. There are many people in Finland who are against NATO, especially because the bloc is increasing tensions with Russia.”

He added that according to a previous estimation, there was 60 or even 70 percent of the population who were against the idea of their country joining NATO. That is why, according to him, the Finns took the civil initiative on a referendum in record time, with the initiative receiving the necessary 50 000 votes. However, the parliament refused to take this into account.

“This referendum and the Finnish people was ignored for pretty core reasons. The Finnish politicians just wanted everything to be passed very quickly,” he said.

“We have a shared long border of 1 300 kilometers, and the Finns have learned to live in harmony with Russia here for 80 years and do not want any tension,” Korhonen said. He added that Finnish people are currently not allowed to say anything negative about the alliance.

“The Finnish media is completely one-sided about NATO, but in fact, the most serious problem in Finland is social networks. Where, if you say something against NATO, you will amazingly be called an agent of a foreign government. That is, in this case, a Russian agent,” he noted.

“My generation has never witnessed something like this – people being completely gagged, and this is just sad […] By burning a NATO flag, I wanted to show that Finland still dares to express its own opinion, even if they are trying to silence it in every possible way,” the journalist concluded.

On May 18, Finland and Sweden submitted the applications to NATO chief, Jens Stoltenberg, to join the alliance.

*

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

Featured image: NATO HQ/ Juta Korhonen. Screenshot from YouTube

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

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

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

***

Though Bandung in Indonesia and Havana in Cuba couldn’t be farther apart geographically — with each city located on two distant islands in their respective countries and separated by more than 17,000km — they have been ideologically close in the imaginations of many people across the global South.

The Third World Project, born out of the continuous collaboration between the newly independent states and their struggles for national liberation, has defined and continues to define the history of the movements for peace and non-alignment even today.

When the Bandung conference began on April 18 1955, Fidel Castro was still a political prisoner on what was then called the Isle of Pines, just south of Havana.

He was serving a 15-year sentence for having organised a failed attack on the Moncada Barracks just two years before.

In those prison years, during which a young Fidel read voraciously, he began to solidify his ideas on the concepts of sovereignty and independence and how they had to be redefined during the cold war, when imperialism was developing new approaches about how to continue with the subjugation of whole continents.

As Fidel and his comrades in prison charted a new path for Cuba, it was clear that their cause for national liberation had to be closely connected to a broader project of ensuring development and work toward active non-alignment for the people of the Third World.

From the round table of Bandung in Indonesia, the leaders of the Third World unleashed a global struggle to restructure the prevailing world system of that time.

The conference witnessed the convergence of socialist countries and the Third World and saw a growing unity among these nations in the struggles to deepen the process of decolonisation.

While at the Bandung conference, the independent governments of Asia and Africa raised the urgency of reviving the anti-imperialist and anti-colonial struggle and the need to increasingly unite and solidify the interests and aspirations of their people.

The vast majority of the governments of Latin America, meanwhile, went against the common interests and aspirations of their people, and further submitted to US imperialism under the guise of the Organisation of American States (OAS), already functioning as the “ministry of colonies” of the US Department of State, as Fidel would later call it.

In 1959, the Cuban Revolution triumphed. It marked a transformative point of no return for Latin America and its relations with the United States, whose government would later decide not to recognise the revolutionary process on the island.

By 1961, Cuba became the focal point of US aggression in the region, leading to a blockade that has now lasted six decades.

For the first time in history, a guerilla movement had carried out a revolution and confronted US imperialism right under its nose, unleashing far-reaching transformations in its socioeconomic structure, which were opposed to the neocolonial interests of US.

Soon after, Cuba became the only country in Latin America to join the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM), created in Yugoslavia in 1961.

Fidel and the Cuban Revolution would begin to play a strategic role in internationalist solidarity with the anti-imperialist and anti-colonial liberation struggles of the people of the Third World.

The Cuban Revolution was fully aware that its destiny was at one with that of the people of Latin America, Asia and Africa.

As Fidel said in 1962: “What is the history of Cuba if not the history of Latin America? And what is the history of Latin America if not the history of Asia, Africa, and Oceania? And what is the history of all these people if not the history of the most ruthless and cruel exploitation of imperialism in the entire world?”

When Cuba joined the NAM in 1961, its foreign policy was at a stage of strategic definition.

Cuba’s commitment to the Third World became a pillar of its internationalist strategy, whether through the NAM or the Tricontinental Conference, or the subsequent Organisation of Solidarity of the People of Asia, Africa and Latin America(OSPAAAL).

In the coming decades, many of the national liberation movements that met in Havana in January 1966 — during the first conference of OSPAAAL — would be among the new states that began to participate in the NAM, becoming the new Third World paradigm.

At the founding meeting of the NAM in Belgrade — then the capital of socialist Yugoslavia — in 1961, Cuba’s president Osvaldo Dorticos Torrado stated that non-alignment “didn’t mean that we are not committed countries. We are committed to our own principles.

“And those of us who are peace-loving people, who struggle to assert their sovereignty, and to achieve the fullness of national development, are, finally, committed to responding to those transcendent aspirations and not betraying those principles.”

At a time when many criticised Cuba’s apparent “alignment” with the Soviet Union and attacked the premise of national liberation being tied to a socialist project, Dorticos sought to further define non-alignment, stating that the moment required “more than general formulations, [and that] concrete problems must be considered.”

This active definition of nonalignment has been important for Cuba’s foreign policy in its relationship with the most progressive forces of the Third World.

The thinking of the NAM, starting from 1973, seems to have abandoned the ideas about “neutrality” that had permeated the movement since its creation and has expanded its activities to international economic relations with much more force than in its previous period, in defence of the need for a new international economic order.

Since the fall of the USSR, and the rise of the US to a position of near hegemony, the NAM struggled to adapt to the new realities and came adrift.

In recent years, however, with the revival of regionalism in Latin America, and with the emergence of Eurasian integration, the importance of non-alignment and the NAM are being gradually considered once again.

People around the world are resistant to the coercion tactics adopted by the US, which has been trying to isolate countries that do not submit to the will of Washington.

This has especially become clear with the June 2022 Organisation of American States’ Summit of the Americas, where countries such as Bolivia and Mexico have threatened to boycott the summit in Los Angeles if Cuba, Nicaragua and Venezuela are banned from attending it.

As an alternative, the People’s Summit for Democracy — June 8-10 2022 in Los Angeles California — carries forth the legacy of Bandung and Havana, bringing together the voices of the excluded.

*

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

This article was produced by the Morning Star and Globetrotter.

Manolo De Los Santos is the co-executive director of the People’s Forum and is a researcher at Tricontinental: Institute for Social Research. He co-edited, most recently, Viviremos: Venezuela vs. Hybrid War (LeftWord Books/1804 Books, 2020) and Comrade of the Revolution: Selected Speeches of Fidel Castro (LeftWord Books/1804 Books, 2021). He is a joint co-ordinator of the People’s Summit for Democracy.

Featured image is from the public domain

 

“The World Health Organization has started drafting a Global Pandemic Treaty on pandemic preparedness that would grant WHO absolute power over global biosecurity, such as the power to implement digital identities / vaccine passports, mandatory vaccinations, travel restrictions, lockdowns, standardized medical care and more.

This Pandemic Treaty, if implemented, will change the global landscape and strip you and me of some of our most basic rights and freedoms.

Make no mistake, the WHO Pandemic Treaty is a direct attack on the sovereignty of its member states, as well as a direct attack on your bodily autonomy.” (Peter Koenig)

Video: Digital Tyranny and the QR Code: Peter Koenig and Michel Chossudovsky

The Pandemic Treaty is the “Back Door” towards “Global Governance” and Digital Tyranny. It is the End of “Representative Democracy”

“In the words of the late David Rockefeller:

“…The world is now more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto-determination practiced in past centuries.” (quoted by Aspen Times, August 15, 2011, emphasis added)

The Global Governance scenario imposes an agenda of social engineering and economic compliance. It constitutes an extension of the neoliberal policy framework imposed on both developing and developed countries.

It consists in scrapping “national auto-determination” and constructing a Worldwide nexus of pro-US proxy regimes controlled by a “supranational sovereignty” (World Government) composed of leading financial institutions, billionaires and their philanthropic foundations.” (Michel Chossudovsky)

 

  • Posted in English, Mobile, NO READ MORE LINK
  • Comments Off on Video: Digital Tyranny and the QR Code. The WHO Pandemic Treaty is the Back Door to “Global Governance”

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

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

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

***

1. Backdrop of Vietnam War

In late 1964, to prevent North Vietnam and National Liberation Front (NLF—South Vietnam-based guerrilla resistance forces known as Viet Cong) from taking over South Vietnam, President Johnson sent U.S. troops to South Vietnam. The quick victory that was expected did not happen. By the end of 1965 the U.S. military had almost 200,000 troops in South Vietnam, 2,000 U.S. troops had been killed there, and the Army was drafting 35,000 young men every month. There were anti-war demonstrations at many American colleges and universities. By 1967 the country was becoming divided over the war—a war that President Johnson was committed to continuing—and it became the major issue of the 1968 presidential election.

2. Eugene McCarthy Enters the Race

On November 30, 1967, Sen. Eugene McCarthy (D-MN) publicly announced his intention to run as a peace candidate against Johnson in the 1968 presidential race. At this time McCarthy was becoming a hero among college students becauae of his outspoken opposition to the Vietnam War. Curtis Gans and Allard K. Lowenstein, who had started the Dump Johnson movement in 1967, became major figures in McCarthy’s new campaign organization.[1]

3. Tom McCoy

In the mid-1960s Tom McCoy was in charge of CIA political and psychological operations in East Asia. William Colby had been CIA station chief in Saigon from 1960 to 1962. In 1967 Colby returned to Saigon to establish the Phoenix assassination program and he was surely in close contact with McCoy regarding operations, etc. But in November 1967 McCoy resigned from the CIA and tried to join McCarthy’s anti-Vietnam War campaign organization. He told McCarthy’s people many stories about the war’s blunders and absurdities. But McCarthy was suspicious of McCoy, and refused to give him a position in his campaign organization.[2]

4. The Tet Offensive

On January 30, 1968, the Viet Cong and North Vietnamese troops in South Vietnam began the Tet Offensive, an all-out surprise attack over much of South Vietnam against U.S. and South Vietnamese military installations. The Tet Offensive lasted until Feb 23, by which time U.S. and South Vietnamese military forces had defeated the Viet Cong and North Vietnamese troops. The Tet Offensive came as a shock to the U.S. government and the American people, who had not understood that Hanoi and the Viet Cong were capable of such an ambitious military operation. As a result, American public support for the war declined—and support for Senator McCarthy increased among mainstream Democrats.

5. The New Hampshire primary

The nation’s first primary was the New Hampshire primary on March 12. McCarthy’s organization arrived early and canvassed the state with an army of college student campaign volunteers (the “children’s crusade”). On primary day, McCarthy received 42% of the polling-station vote— to LBJ’s 49%. But due to the dilution of the LBJ vote among too many LBJ delegate-candidates, McCarthy won 20 of the state’s 24 Democratic delegation seats! Political analysts were stunned. The message was clear: LBJ was defeatable.

6. RFK announces his candidacy

Robert Kennedy, a Democratic senator from New York, was JFK’s younger brother. On March 16, four days after McCarthy’s New Hampshire success, he announced that he too would run for the presidency as a peace candidate, challenging both McCarthy and Johnson for the Democratic nomination. On March 31, Johnson gave a nationally televised speech which ended with the surprise statement that he would not run for re-election in November.

Two days later, April 2, McCarthy won the Wisconsin primary with 57% of the vote. (Kennedy was not on the ballot.) On April 23, McCarthy won the Pennsylvania primary with 77% of the vote. It was looking very much like McCarthy might win the presidency in November. But in Indiana on May 7, Kennedy won 42% of the primary vote, while McCarthy received only 27%. The Nebraska primary (May 14) was even worse for McCarthy. Kennedy won 52% of the vote and McCarthy only 31%. Kennedy was now a frontrunner.

7. MLK’s opposition to the Vietnam War

On February 25, 1967, at the Los Angeles Beverly Hilton Hotel, Dr. King delivered his first speech devoted solely to the Vietnam conflict, which he declaimed as “one of history’s most cruel and senseless wars.” He thus became the first prominent American to stand up against the war, which until then had been generally viewed as the politics only of radical college students and left-wing professors. Less than a week later, on March 2, 1967, Bobby Kennedy delivered an anti-war speech in the Senate that was his first public anti-war statement. On April 4, 1967, King delivered an anti-war speech at Riverside Church in New York City that is often considered his most important anti-war statement. In it he accused the U.S. government of spending more and more on the military and less and less on programs for the poor.

Beyond Vietnam: MLK's Lessons on US Imperialism - Left Voice

Martin Luther King, Jr., speaks out against the Vietnam War. [Source: leftvoice.org]

For the remaining year of his life, King struggled mightily to unite the civil rights and anti-war movements. At the National Conference on New Politics in Chicago in late August 1967 (the largest left-wing conference since 1948), King delivered a keynote address in which he declared that the 1968 election must be made “a referendum on the [Vietnam] war” and that “the American people must have the opportunity to vote [militarism] into oblivion.” At the conference there was some support for a King-Spock anti-war presidential run in 1968.

8. The assassination of Martin Luther King

The story of Martin Luther King’s assassination is complex. In a nutshell, James Earl Ray was a developed patsy who was coerced into confessing. The official story is that James Earl Ray shot Dr. King from the second-floor bathroom window of the Brewer boarding house, which was 200 feet from the Lorraine Motel where King was staying. The real assassin shot from the bushes behind the Brewer boarding-house, while a James Earl Ray-lookalike allowed himself to be seen in the boarding-house’s second-floor bathroom-window, then ran and dropped evidence incriminating James Earl Ray.

Boarding-house resident Grace Stephens, who lived in the room closest to the bathroom, said the shot came not from the bathroom but from the bushes below the bathroom window.[3] And Solomon Jones, King’s chauffeur who was in the Lorraine parking-lot beneath where King was standing on the second-floor balcony when the shooting happened, said that immediately after the shooting he glimpsed a man in the bushes with his back to the Lorraine.[4]

But the 1976-78 House Select Committee on Assassinations that re-investigated the assassinations of JFK and Dr. King found reasons to discredit the testimony of Grace Stephens and Solomon Jones. Chief Counsel for the committee was G. Robert Blakey, who had helped the CIA hide and withhold evidence during the Warren Commission investigation of the JFK assassination.[5]

Before and after the assassination, Ray was given money and instructions on where to go by a mysterious “Raoul” and others. Ray’s movements were controlled and everything was set up to point to him. Proof that Raoul was real (not invented as the police and FBI claimed) lies in the fact that Ray based his 1971 appeal application (his only chance for freedom) on his attorney Percy Foreman’s failure to investigate his phone numbers for Raoul.[6]

Who Was James Earl Ray And Did He Actually Kill Martin Luther King Jr.?

James Earl Ray was falsely accused of King’s killing. [Source: allthatsinteresting.com]

Evidence pointing to the CIA includes the fact that Ray’s aliases almost certainly came from an intelligence agency;[7] that Jules Ricco Kimble testified that he flew Ray to Toronto to meet with a CIA identities specialist; that Ray received his activation call from Raoul on March 16, only a couple of hours after Bobby Kennedy announced his decision to run for president; and that Ray’s lawyer for his 1971 appeal application was Bernard Fensterwald, whose legal career was closely intertwined with CIA domestic operations.

In the 1960s and 1970s the CIA put trainers and advisers in the intelligence units of police departments in many American cities.[8] When in 1976 the House of Representatives voted to establish a committee to re-open the investigations into the assassinations of JFK and Dr. King, the Memphis ACLU filed a petition requiring the Memphis Police Department to preserve the files of its intelligence unit (180 boxes). The files would have revealed any collaboration with the CIA regarding Dr. King, particularly the names of the individuals involved. The court granted the petition, but the files were removed and destroyed one hour before the court order was delivered to Memphis police headquarters.[9]

Excursus A: CIA expertise in influencing elections

CIA expertise in manipulating elections was pioneered by one man—former OSS official Thomas W. Braden.[10] In 1946 Braden co-wrote Sub Rosa, the OSS’s unofficial history, and OSS chief Gen. William Donovan wanted Braden to succeed him as head of OSS.

In 1947 and 1948 there were situations in France and Italy which might have allowed the Communists to come to power in those countries. The U.S. government tasked an Army covert operations unit called SSU (whose European operations were run by Tom Braden) with intervening in the strikes and elections in France and Italy.[11] Braden did this by creating “black propaganda,” funding radio and newspaper advertising, printing and distributing campaign literature, organizing political rallies, subsidizing friendly groups, bribing officials, hiring Mafia gangs to assault opposition workers—and likely other tactics that Braden has not admitted.

CIA psychological warfare instructor Paul Linebarger once warned his students, “I hate to think what would ever happen if any of you ever got out of this business and got involved in U.S. politics. These kinds of dirty tricks must never be used in internal U.S. politics. The whole system would come apart.”

In 1951 Braden joined the CIA as (then) Deputy Director Allen Dulles’s special assistant. He soon established the CIA’s International Organizations Division (IO) to oppose the growth of Soviet influence around the world. For the next 20 years, IO provided support for the non-Communist left (NCL) through covert financial aid to non-Communist trade unions, political parties, newspapers, and international organizations of journalists, educators, and students. IO also had much expertise in influencing elections and was heavily involved in supporting the Christian Democrats against the Communist Party in the Italian general elections of 1953, in supporting the growth of the Social Democrats in Germany, and in making the British Labor Party more moderate.[12] Western Europe was prevented from “going Communist” in the years after World War II largely through the election-influencing tactics of Tom Braden.[13]

9. The CIA and McCarthy’s campaign finance organization

a. Controlling a candidate by controlling his finances

Controlling or directing a candidate’s finances can be used to influence the candidate’s positions and activities, and to shape campaign advertising. Major donors may express their concerns to the candidate directly or through finance committee officials. Finance committee officials are also in a position to influence or suggest to the donors certain concerns and requests that are then passed on to the candidate as being from the donors.

b. CIA allies and McCarthy’s campaign finance organization

On April 21, “Citizens for McCarthy” was established in New York City as McCarthy’s new fundraising organization. “Citizens for McCarthy” was headed by Tom Finletter, a close associate of Cord Meyer. Meyer was a friend of Tom Braden and ran IO after Braden left in 1954. In 1968 he was in charge of much of the CIA’s anti-Soviet operations worldwide—not likely a supporter of McCarthy.

Another member of “Citizens for McCarthy”’s board of directors was Benjamin Buttenwieser, who was closely associated, both socially and professionally, with John J. McCloy, who helped create IO’s secret funding structure. Buttenwieser’s wife Helen, head of the New York Legal Aid Society, was at the center of the U.S. government’s investigation into whether suspected Soviet spy Alger Hiss had any undetected associates at the State Department—and McCloy once said that journalists digging around her legal defense of Hiss threatened to expose some of the government’s most sensitive operations. Buttenwieser and McCloy were involved in secret government security, not liberalism, and Buttenwieser’s role as a director of “Citizens for McCarthy” was almost certainly intended to undermine McCarthy.

c. Bringing Tom McCoy into McCarthy’s campaign organization

For some time friends and donors had been urging McCarthy to re-organize his campaign. On May 15-16, he met with a five-man delegation, including Tom Finney, Tom McCoy (thatTom McCoy, who was also Finney’s brother-in-law and chief aide), and Washington lobbyist Larry Merthan. The delegation pushed McCarthy into making certain changes. On May 18, McCarthy removed Curtis Gans from supervision of the campaign and installed Tom Finney.

Finney was the law partner of Clark Clifford, the Secretary of Defense in 1968 who had written the CIA’s charter in 1947. Larry Merthan had been a CIA intelligence officer in West Germany in the 1950s and served on the staff of the Franz Lieber Foundation, a CIA front that was used to funnel money to anti-Communist groups.[14] Thus three of the five men in the delegation that met with McCarthy on May 15-16 to re-structure his campaign organization were former (or current) CIA operatives.

10. The assassination of Sen. Robert F. Kennedy

As with Dr. King, the story of Bobby Kennedy’s assassination is complex. Officially, RFK was shot by Sirhan Sirhan on June 5, 1968, as he was leaving Los Angeles’s Ambassador Hotel through the kitchen pantry. He died 26 hours later, never regaining consciousness. In a nutshell, Sirhan Sirhan was a developed patsy who does not even remember the shooting and was probably under hypnosis at the time.

The real assassin was the “second gunman” seen by several witnesses at the scene. Several witnesses also saw Sirhan’s gun emit “tongues of fire” characteristic of slugless cartridges—doubtless so that Sirhan would not shoot the second gunman.[15] Witness Sandra Serrano saw two men and a woman climb up the kitchen emergency exit before the shooting, and one man and a woman climb down the exit after the shooting. Testimony regarding the second gunman, slugless cartridges, and people going up and down emergency exits was omitted from the official report, which considered Sirhan the sole assassin.

Assassination of Robert F. Kennedy - Wikipedia

Image on the right is from wikipedia.org

Evidence pointing to the CIA and to conspiracy and cover-up includes the following:

1) LAPD’s investigation into Bobby Kennedy’s assassination, called Special Unit Senator, was run by Lt. Manuel Pena. He and his assistant, Sgt. Enrique Hernandez, had recently come to LAPD from an ultra-secret CIA unit inside the Agency for International Development. One of the unit’s specialties was teaching assassination techniques to foreign intelligence and security officials.[16] The report they produced omitted all evidence of a second shooter.

2) Dr. William Joseph Bryan was perhaps the world’s foremost hypnosis expert, whose work included hypnotizing serial murderers to determine their motivation, such as “Boston Strangler” Albert DiSalvo. Bryan allegedly developed pre-programmed assassin techniques for the CIA, such as a “robot assassin” acting under post-hypnotic suggestion, as part of the CIA mind-control project MK/ULTRA. Bryan was reportedly the technical consultant on hypno-assassination for the film The Manchurian Candidate. Dr. Bryan told two of his female friends in Beverly Hills that he had worked with Sirhan. This would explain why Sirhan’s notebooks contained many references to Albert DiSalvo, who was Dr. Bryan’s most famous patient.[17] The 1976-78 House Select Committee on Assassinations subpoenaed Dr. Bryan to testify, but he died two days before he could be questioned by the House investigator. He died from a drug overdose administered via syringe in a location that he would not likely have been able to do himself.

3) After his conviction Sirhan was sent to San Quentin prison, where psychiatrist Dr. Eduard Simson-Kallas determined that he had been programmed.[18]

Former Pasadena Resident Sirhan Sirhan, Convicted of Killing RFK, Is Granted Parole, But Release Not Guaranteed – Pasadena Now

Sirhan Sirhan [Source: pasadenanow.com]

4) A year after the investigation concluded, an inventory revealed that all of the physical evidence in the Bobby Kennedy assassination, including all the pantry tiles and panels, had been destroyed in the County incinerators and nothing remained. Likewise, all 2,400 original police crime-scene photos. And, likewise, with the 3,470 witness interviews done by Special Unit Senator. All the interviews were tape-recorded and there were no written transcriptions. The inventory revealed that all but 300 of the 3,470 witness interviews were missing—including all of the most important ones. Amateur photographer Scott Enyart had filmed the celebration at the Ambassador, including the shooting in the pantry. His three rolls of film were taken by the LAPD shortly after the shooting, and roll number three (taken in the pantry) was never returned.[19] It would have shown who did what.

5) The 1976-78 House Select Committee on Assassinations re-investigated the assassinations of JFK and Dr. King, but not Robert Kennedy. Was it because a re-investigation would likely have established the role of a second gunman in RFK’s assassination and revealed massive evidence of a cover-up in the original investigation?

Two additions: First, after RFK announced his candidacy, Tom Braden and his wife Joan joined the board of RFK’s California campaign organization. Joan Braden traveled with RFK while he was campaigning nationwide. On the day of the California primary, June 4, Joan Braden lent RFK her car for him to travel around Los Angeles. After RFK was shot on June 5, Joan Braden and Theodore White (The Making of the President series) baby-sat RFK’s children at the hotel so that RFK’s wife Ethel could be with him at the hospital.

Second, in addition to RFK’s anti-Vietnam War position, the CIA had another motive for eliminating him: If elected, Bobby Kennedy would have opened a new investigation into his brother JFK’s assassination—which would likely have resulted in greatly restructuring the CIA and sending many of its top officials to prison.

Excursus B: The CIA’s Charter and Domestic Operations

The National Security Act of 1947 re-organized the U.S. military and created the CIA, and Section 102 is often called “the CIA’s charter.”[20] Section 102 was drawn up by the law firm of President Truman’s closest adviser, Clark Clifford. The CIA’s duties are listed in Subsection d, Paragraphs 1-5: “(1) to advise the National Security Council in matters… (relating to) national security… (2) to make recommendations to the President through the National Security Council… (3) to correlate and evaluate intelligence relating to the national security, and provide for the dissemination of such intelligence within the Government using where appropriate existing agencies and facilities.”

In deference to FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover and civil libertarians, Paragraph 3 includes a statement that “the Agency shall have no police, subpoena, law-enforcement powers or internal-security functions.” This appears to restrict the CIA’s duties to analyzing and passing on intelligence collected by other intelligence agencies. This was apparently meant to outflank J. Edgar Hoover and to facilitate the act being approved by Congress. Paragraph 3 also appears to forbid the CIA from engaging in domestic operations and internal security activities (the realm of the FBI) and to permit only administrative, supply and training activities inside the United States. Paragraph 3 further appears to forbid the CIA from engaging in foreign intelligence-gathering and covert operations.

However, an elastic clause in Subsection d, Paragraph 5, permits the Agency to perform “such other functions and duties related to intelligence affecting the national security as the National Security Council may from time to time direct.” This opens the door for the CIA to perform covert operations, including domestic operations. In the 1975 Church Committee hearings Clark Clifford confirmed that this clause was intended to permit covert actions by the CIA.

From the beginning, the CIA carried out domestic activities under the direction of the National Security Council. These activities were made deniable by having them carried out through third parties (proxies), such as Maheu Associates, and other groups and individuals. In his autobiography, Next to Hughes, Robert Maheu states that, when he began his investigative firm in 1954, “almost immediately, I began working for the CIA” and that the CIA wanted him “to perform ‘cut-out’ operations for the Agency—i.e., those jobs with which the Company could not be officially connected.”

America’s leading wiretapper from the 1940s to the 1960s was Bernard Spindel. In his autobiography, The Ominous Ear, Spindel reproduces the 1951 letter from the CIA rejecting his application for employment. Beneath it Spindel put the caption “The cream of the jest!” because in fact he had done many domestic jobs for the CIA. The reason that the CIA didn’t hire him was probably so that, if he were caught, the CIA could deny that they were involved.

Domestic operations, even minor operations, were kept secret in order to prevent public pressure to restrict or abolish the Agency. Most of the American public believed that, like the U.S. military, the CIA was completely loyal to the President and to Congress. The CIA’s involvement in the 1968 election was exactly the sort of thing that, if it had become public at that time, would have caused a large part of the American public to support abolishing the Agency.

11. The break-up of RFK’s campaign staff after his assassination

a. Larry O’Brien

Bobby Kennedy’s campaign manager was Larry O’Brien. After Bobby Kennedy’s assassination, he intended to go to work for Vice President Hubert Humphrey. Enter Robert Maheu. Maheu ran a detective agency, Maheu Associates, that had only two clients, the CIA and the National Security Council, and had done numerous domestic jobs for them. One of those jobs was to counter Harold Stassen’s attempt at the 1956 Republican National Convention to remove Nixon as the vice-presidential candidate.

Because Hughes Enterprises was a major contractor for NASA and the U.S. military, but Howard Hughes himself was totally incapacitated, the U.S. government tasked Maheu with running Hughes Enterprises. He did this in a way which gave the appearance that Hughes was really in charge, but was desirous of great privacy. In June 1968 Maheu succeeded in getting O’Brien to go to work for “Hughes” beginning in August—removing him from working for McCarthy or Humphrey in the latter part of the election. In his autobiography Next to Hughes, Maheu claims that initially “Hughes” sought to hire Bobby Kennedy’s entire campaign organization.[21]

b. Angie Novello

Parallel to this was the post-assassination hiring of RFK’s personal secretary, Angie Novello, by Washington lawyer Edward Bennett Williams. Novello was RFK’s “right-hand man” and played an indispensable role in his campaign. Luring Ms. Novello took considerable effort on Williams’ part since Novello was deeply devoted to RFK and had to be convinced by Williams that his former feud with Kennedy had been settled amicably.[22]

Williams was a close friend of the CIA. In 1956 he partnered with Robert Maheu in the Icardi investigation, which was an issue in the 1956 Italian election. In the 1970s he shared a small office building with Intertel (another CIA-front security operation) and was a member of the Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board (a civilian oversight board for monitoring the CIA that was actually staffed with CIA allies). In the early 1970s he was the attorney for CIA Director Richard Helms. Williams was offered the post of DCI (CIA director) in 1975 and 1987. He declined both times.

c. Ford Foundation grants

Another event that was apparently intended to divert eight key RFK campaign staffers (including speechwriter Adam Walinsky and press secretary Frank Mankiewicz) from working for McCarthy or Humphrey was the awarding of Ford Foundation grants to those RFK staffers after the assassination to enable them to “travel and study.” The grants were personally approved by Ford Foundation President McGeorge Bundy. In the early 1950s, Mac had worked closely with the CIA in arranging CIA penetration of the academic world. Mac’s brother William served in the CIA 1951-61 and was the CIA’s working liaison to the NSC.[23]

d. Frank Mankiewicz

Frank Mankiewicz was Bobby Kennedy’s press secretary from 1966 to 1968. He played a key role in RFK’s presidential campaign and was known for his skillful handling of televised press conferences—a valuable asset. The Ford Foundation grants did not immediately divert Mankiewicz from the remainder of the 1968 election campaign.

In late August he participated in the Democratic National Convention in Chicago. About this same time (August 1968) Tom Braden, who created the CIA’s election-manipulating techniques in the late 1940s, convinced Mankiewicz to collaborate with him in writing a syndicated political column. The column launched in fall 1968 and came to be carried in 70 newspapers nationwide.

Beginning at that same time, Mankiewicz and Braden also anchored the 11 o’clock news on Washington, D.C.’s WTOP radio station, and hosted a show called “Seven Days” that ran once a week. These activities took Mankiewicz out of the remainder of the 1968 election.[24]

12. Richard Nixon was the only viable pro-Vietnam War candidate

While Democratic candidates favored pulling out of Vietnam, Republican candidates were divided on the issue. Liberal Republicans like Nelson Rockefeller and George Romney (Mitt Romney’s father) promised a quick withdrawal, while conservative Republican Richard Nixon was committed to continuing the war. Nixon had been a staunch anti-Communist when he was vice president under Eisenhower. Nixon was the only viable pro-war candidate and was surely seen by the CIA as the only hope for continuing and winning the Vietnam War.

Nixon’s main Republican rival was Nelson Rockefeller, who entered the race in July. As governor of New York, Rockefeller instituted relatively liberal policies regarding abortion, civil rights, drug rehabilitation, and conservation (though his drug laws were notoriously harsh). As a moderate Republican and Keynesian, Rockefeller felt that the government should address inner-city poverty with programs to provide better education, low-income housing, and equal job opportunities. Nixon, on the other hand, supported conservative policies and was known as a “law and order” candidate who supported strong responses to the Black riots and student demonstrations of the 1960s.

13. The CIA and Nelson Rockefeller’s campaign finance organization

Tom Braden was the CIA official who in 1950 established the CIA’s International Organizations Division (IO) to provide secret funding to influence politics and elections across the globe against Communism. Although Braden was a long-time friend of Rockefeller (they were actually “frenemies” in competition for the same woman, Joan Ridley), in 1968 they were on opposite sides regarding the Vietnam War. But in summer 1968 Braden joined the board of Rockefeller’s national finance committee.

Of the board’s five members, two others were also involved in CIA secret political funding: Jock Whitney and Arthur Dean. Jock Whitney, a Broadway producer, permitted his personal foundation, the Whitney Trust, to be used as a conduit for CIA funds. Whitney’s cousin and close friend was Tracy Barnes. Barnes, a few years after the war, served in OPC, a covert operations unit that became part of the CIA in 1950.

Arthur Dean had been a partner at Allen Dulles’s law firm—Sullivan and Cromwell—since 1953 and was Finletter’s co-trustee at the Asia Foundation, an IO organ. It is likely that Rockefeller did not realize the CIA’s participation in the election and allowed these men, whom he had long known, to oversee his campaign finances because he viewed them as friends and allies.

14. The CIA secretly contributes to Nixon’s campaign

Greek-American businessman Thomas Pappas had an oil, steel and shipping empire in Greece. His Pappas Charitable Trust was a secret CIA funding conduit and he boasted of being “an old CIA hand.”

In 1968 over a half-million dollars was contributed to Nixon’s campaign supposedly from Tom Pappas. In 1972 Elias P. Demetracopoulos, a Greek journalist and dissident who lived in Washington, D.C., during the junta years, spoke about the Pappas contribution. He told DNC Chairman Larry O’Brien that, in 1968, the Greek junta funneled more than $500,000 to the Nixon campaign. The money had come from the CIA to Greece’s feared secret police and intelligence agency KYP (which the CIA had created), and KYP’s strongman Michael Roufogalis passed the money to Thomas Pappas, who contributed it under his own name. And in 1976, in secret testimony before the House Intelligence Committee, Henry J. Tasca, U.S. Ambassador to Greece during the junta years (1967-1974), confirmed that the Greek dictatorship had funneled money to Nixon’s 1968 campaign.[25]

15. The Republican National Convention and the Liberty City riot

The two main candidates at the 1968 Republican National Convention in Miami Beach were Richard Nixon, who supported the Vietnam War, and Nelson Rockefeller, who opposed the war. Neither arrived at the Convention with enough votes to win on the first ballot, scheduled for 7:00 p.m. on August 7. But Rockefeller was a good negotiator and was expected to gain enough support from minor-candidate delegates to win on the second ballot.

A riot broke out in Miami’s largest Black neighborhood, Liberty City, six miles from the Convention site, at 1:00 p.m. on August 7, six hours before the balloting began. The riot quickly grew quite large and was widely reported on radio and TV that afternoon and evening. Rockefeller supported government assistance to inner-city Blacks, while Nixon took a law-and-order position on Black riots. The riot influenced almost 80 delegates to change their votes to Nixon, who won on the first ballot. Rockefeller lost the opportunity to negotiate for a second-ballot win.

The riot continued for two more days, killing three and seriously injuring dozens, and destroying a large part of Liberty City’s main business and shopping district. After the riot a group called the Miami Study Team was organized to conduct an official investigation into the riot. The riot was Miami’s first riot and its timing, a few hours before the Convention’s voting, was suspicious. The Miami Study Team produced a report, the Miami Report, that concluded that there was no connection between the riot and the Convention.

But there is a problem with the Miami Report. The Report’s preface stated that, because of “discrepancies between various accounts… we have not undertaken to set forth varying accounts of the same episode. We have resolved them as best we could in discussion with our staff, and presented only our conclusions.” The Miami Report gives an account of the first day of the riot, especially regarding how and when the riot started, that is very different from that given in Miami’s two major newspapers, the Miami Herald and the Miami News.

The Miami newspapers said that the incident that started the riot (the Wallace-sticker car incident) happened shortly after 1:00 p.m. and that the riot was quite large by mid-afternoon.[26]

But the Miami Report said there was no rioting in the afternoon, only “pebble-throwing” by teenagers. And the Miami Report placed the Wallace-sticker car incident at 7:00 p.m.—too late to have influenced the voting at the Convention.[27]

The Miami Report also omitted evidence (reported by Miami newspapers) that the riot may have been manufactured. It looks like the Miami Report’s account was concocted to justify its conclusion that there was no connection between the riot and the Convention.

The Miami Study Team that wrote the Miami Report was led by two men—Louis Hector and Paul Helliwell—who had served together in OSS in WWII and were life-long associates,[28]and several other Miami Study Team members were employees of Helliwell’s Florida law firm.

But Helliwell was not primarily a lawyer. He spent most of his life with the CIA as perhaps their foremost expert on the secret transfer of guns, drugs and money.

In the late 1940s and early 1950s he was the CIA official in Thailand who arranged for the secret shipment of weapons to Thailand’s national police force, which was involved in drug-trafficking that also benefitted Chiang Kai-shek. In 1950 he (and China Lobby founder Tom Corcoran) persuaded the CIA to purchase half-ownership of Civil Air Transport (which was later renamed Air America). He lost his Thailand posting in 1954 when the Eisenhower administration learned that the CIA office in Bangkok was “a mess of opium-trading.”

Returning to Florida, he served as the financial chief for the Bay of Pigs operation. The CIA had made an arrangement with French Connection mafioso Santo Trafficante by which Trafficante would provide the 1,200 “volunteers” for Brigade 2506.

Santo Trafficante Jr. - The Mob Museum

Santo Trafficante [Source: themobmuseum.org]

One of the things that the CIA did in return was that, in 1962, Helliwell created the world’s first two offshore drug-banks to service Trafficante’s drug operations and CIA anti-Castro operations. Later he created two more offshore drug banks. Helliwell was involved in the CIA’s acquisition of the cargo airline Southern Air Transport in 1960 for use in supporting anti-Castro operations and helped pattern it after Air America. In the late 1960s he showed Laotian opium-traffickers how to use the portable heroin processors developed by the CIA’s Technical Services Division.

Helliwell was the primary architect of the CIA’s “heroin pipeline” from the Golden Triangle to America’s inner cities. He was one of the people who did the most to create the inner-city heroin epidemic that has killed so many young people, especially young Blacks. And he was a career CIA official who specialized in doing sensitive CIA operations secretly.[29] His role in investigating the 1968 Liberty City riot and writing the Miami Report makes no sense—unless the Liberty City riot was a secret CIA operation.

16. The Democratic National Convention

The Democratic National Convention was held in Chicago from August 26 to August 29. Vice President Hubert H. Humphrey entered the race on April 27, inheriting LBJ’s 561 delegates. Kennedy’s assassination on June 5 left his 393 delegates uncommitted. Support within the Democratic Party was divided between Senator McCarthy and Vice President Humphrey.

The Democratic Convention was the scene of massive protests on the streets of Chicago. And crackdowns by Mayor Daley’s 11,000 city police, 18,000 Illinois National Guard troops, and 6,000 federal troops—all broadcast on national TV. In the end, Humphrey won the nomination with 1,759 votes to McCarthy’s 601. While McCarthy was a very strong opponent of the Vietnam War, Humphrey’s public position was less clear.

17. Humphrey’s position on the Vietnam War

In February 1965 Humphrey sent LBJ a memorandum advising that now was a good time to “cut your loses” and begin pulling out of Vietnam. Like Dr. King, Humphrey was greatly concerned about the large amount of money being spent on the war instead of on domestic social programs. LBJ was quite angry and said that Humphrey should “stay out of the peacekeeping and negotiating field” on Vietnam. Thereafter, Humphrey publicly supported LBJ on the war.

Although at the 1968 Democratic National Convention Humphrey did not declare himself a peace candidate and opposed putting a peace plank in the party platform, he said in his acceptance speech that “the policies of tomorrow need not be limited to the policies of yesterday.” It appeared that if Humphrey were elected, he might take a softer position on the war and could not be counted on to pursue an outright victory.

18. The Paris peace talks cause Humphrey to rise in the polls

With the Democratic Party badly divided during the late August convention, Humphrey trailed Nixon significantly in September. In October, after Humphrey announced that he would halt the bombing if he were elected, his campaign began to gain momentum. On October 10, LBJ broke his election neutrality and delivered a radio speech that supported Humphrey. Humphrey began to rise in the polls, trailing Nixon by only 5% in the poll released October 18, with 40% for Nixon and 35% for Humphrey (and 20% for George Wallace, who was running on his own party).

Since June the Johnson administration had attempted to arrange peace talks in Paris. By October the North Vietnamese had accepted and the talks were scheduled to begin November 2, three days before the election (which LBJ had calculated to help Humphrey). On October 31, Johnson announced a halt to the bombing of North Vietnam effective the next day. This would have helped Humphrey, whose poll numbers were then edging very close to those of Nixon and would have surpassed him by several percentage points on election day if the climb rate continued. The New York Daily News’s October 24 poll placed Humphrey only two points behind Nixon and the Harris poll showed him ahead of Nixon (43% to 40%) on November 2. If things continued that way, it appeared that Humphrey would win the election.

A picture containing text, newspaper, people Description automatically generated

Source: twitter.com

19. Anna Chennault and the Paris Peace talks

a. Anna Chennault’s CIA connections

During World War II General Claire Chennault organized the Flying Tigers to help Chiang Kai-shek and his KMT army fight against the Japanese in China. After the war ended in 1945 the civil war between the KMT and the Chinese Communists resumed, and Chennault created Civil Air Transport to fly weapons and supplies to Chiang Kai-shek’s forces. In 1949 the Chinese Communists won the civil war and CKS and the KMT retreated to Taiwan. Much of CKS’s financial support came from “Big-ear” Tu, Shanghai’s biggest drug-lord. After the Chinese Communists took control of the opium-producing region in southwest China in 1948, Tu began getting his opium from Thailand, where the opium trade was run by Gen. Phao. After the Chinese Communists took Shanghai in 1949, Tu moved his drug operation to Hong Kong and Taiwan. In the late 1940s CAT supported CKS and General Phao by flying weapons to Thailand and to KMT military forces, and flying opium from Thailand to Hong Kong and Taiwan to pay for those weapons.

In 1950 General Chennault sold 40% of CAT to the CIA in an arrangement brokered by “China lobby” founder Thomas Corcoran and Paul Helliwell to enable CAT to continue the guns-and-drugs shipments. After Claire Chennault died in 1958, his first wife Nell Thompson inherited his share of Civil Air Transport. Nell soon sold her part of CAT to the CIA, which re-named it Air America. In 1959 Anna Chennault moved to Washington, D.C., where she served as a broadcaster for the Voice of America (1963-66) and an adviser to Radio Free Asia—both positions often held by CIA personnel.

In Washington her male friend (“constant companion”) was Thomas Corcoran, who had helped broker the 1950 sale of half of CAT to the CIA. He was also the lobbyist for United Fruit in the early 1950s which instigated the CIA’s 1954 intervention in Guatemala.

In 1962 Corcoran founded the Washington law firm Corcoran, Foley, Youngman and Rowe—filled with CIA heavyweights. Law partner Jim Rowe was a close friend of Clark Clifford, who wrote the CIA’s charter. Another member of Corcoran’s firm was Robert Amory, Jr. Amory had been the CIA’s Deputy Director of Intelligence from 1953 to 1962. During that time he had presided over the removal of a number of world leaders, through assassination or election intervention. After the Bay of Pigs invasion failed, JFK forced CIA Director Allen Dulles, Deputy Director Richard Bissell, and Robert Amory to resign from the CIA. Amory then joined Corcoran’s law firm. Corcoran’s lady-friend, Anna Chennault, was deeply connected to the CIA.

b. “The Chennault Affair”

Although the Paris peace talks began in May 1968, it was not until October that LBJ agreed to end U.S. air strikes on North Vietnam (a demand of Hanoi) and serious negotiations could begin. Johnson ordered the air strikes to stop on October 29, which caused support for Humphrey to rise. Between October 29 and November 1, however, the South Vietnamese government announced its withdrawal from the Paris peace talks, halting the peace process—and stopping Humphrey’s rise in the polls. The final pre-election Gallup poll reported Nixon with 42% and Humphrey with 40%.

Mrs. Chennault, a close friend of South Vietnamese ambassador Bui Diem, had convinced South Vietnamese officials that their government would receive a better deal from Nixon than from Humphrey and that they should therefore not support the Johnson peace initiative. Anna Chennault was also a close friend of South Vietnamese President Thieu’s brother Nguyen Van Kieu, then the South Vietnamese ambassador to Taiwan, and got the president of Taiwan to lean on Thieu. In addition, she somehow persuaded South Korean President Park Chung-hee to lean on Thieu. Remarkable! One would think that she would have needed serious help to accomplish such things. In any event, Anna Chennault succeeded in getting the South Vietnamese to withdraw from the Paris peace talks—and Humphrey slid in the polls.

President Johnson reacted sharply to this turn of events and turned to Nixon for explanation, but Nixon claimed to know nothing of Mrs. Chennault’s doings. Humphrey accepted Nixon’s protest of innocence and did not blast him in the final pre-election days with charges of scuttling the peace talks. But the FBI had been wiretapping the South Vietnamese embassy in Washington and intercepting the embassy’s cables, and they informed LBJ about Anna Chennault’s calls to the embassy and to Saigon. Johnson accused Anna Chennault of costing Humphrey the election—and called it treason. Bui Diem said that he thought that she “may have played her own game in encouraging both the South Vietnamese and the Republicans.”

What really happened? In her 1985 interview with Herbert Parmet, Mrs. Chennault revealed that the full story had not been told. She said that there had also been couriers that the FBI did not know about, but she refused to identify them. Meaning there were other players involved. She also said that she did what she did at the request of “powerful men” in Washington—the CIA?[30]

20. Election day results—Nixon wins

On election day, November 5, Nixon won by less than 1% of the vote, receiving 31.8 million votes (43.4% of the total, 301 electoral votes). Humphrey received 31.3 million votes (42.7% of the total, 191 electoral votes), and George Wallace received 9.9 million votes (13.5% of the total, 46 electoral votes). McCarthy, who had been poised to win the election after the New Hampshire primary in March, received about 30,000 write-in votes—less than one vote in a thousand.

After the election Tom McCoy “cleaned up” McCarthy campaign finances (i.e., destroyed evidence). In 1973 when William Colby became director of the CIA, he brought McCoy back into the CIA as his close assistant.[31] Meaning that McCoy had been working for the CIA all along.

21. Conclusion

The author believes that the events recounted in this article (all of which were done by people closely connected with the CIA) were not coincidental happenings, but actions that were done at the direction of the CIA to influence the outcome of the 1968 election. Meaning that the CIA successfully subverted the 1968 U.S. presidential election and committed many crimes in the process. Since this happened more than 50 years ago and all those involved are likely dead, there can be no prosecution for the crimes committed, only a correction of our history.

Respect and decency require that the people of Liberty City be compensated for the great damage done to their community. And justice and truth demand that appropriate restitution be made to all Americans, especially Black Americans, for the murders of Martin Luther King, Jr., and Robert F. Kennedy.

*

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

Robert Aldridge was raised as an “Army brat” (his father was a POW under the Japanese for 3½ years during WWII) and graduated from the University of Central Florida in 1979 (B.A. History and Political Science).  He now lives in Los Angeles, where he formerly worked for the Abstract Expressionist artist Sam Francis.

Notes

  1. On McCarthy’s campaign, see Albert Eisele, Almost to the Presidency: A Biography of Two American Politicians (Easton, CT: Piper Publishing, 1972); Ben Stavis, We Were the Campaign: New Hampshire to Chicago for McCarthy (Boston: Beacon Press, 1969); Eugene J. McCarthy, The Year of the People (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1969); and Jeremy Larner (McCarthy’s speech-writer), Nobody Knows: Reflections on the McCarthy Campaign of 1968 (New York: Macmillan, 1970). General sources for the 1968 election include Theodore White, The Making of the President 1968 (New York: Atheneum, 1969); Edward W. Knappman (ed.), Presidential Election 1968 (New York: Facts on File, 1970); and Lewis Chester, Godfrey Hodgson and Bruce Page (all of The London Times), An American Melodrama: The Presidential Campaign of 1968 (New York: Viking, 1969). 

  2. On McCoy’s CIA service and attempts to join McCarthy’s campaign organization see Eisele, Almost to the Presidency, pp. 314ff.; and Stavis, We Were the Campaign, pp. 112ff. 
  3. On Grace Stephens’s testimony, see Philip Melanson, Who Killed Martin Luther King?(Tucson, AZ: Odonian Press, 1993), p. 24; and Philip Melanson, The Murkin Conspiracy: The Investigation into the Assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. (New York: Praeger, 1989). p. 93. Philip Melanson organized and chaired the Robert F. Kennedy Assassination Archives at the University of Massachusetts, Dartmouth. 
  4. On Solomon Jones’s testimony, see Melanson, The Murkin Conspiracy, p. 85. 
  5. After the HSCA report was released, Blakey and Committee Chairman Louis Stokes arranged to have all the committee’s back-up records, documents, investigative data, and unpublished transcripts locked up for 50 years. And Stokes requested the FBI and CIA to classify these items as “congressional materials” rather than as “agency materials,” making them beyond the reach of FOIA. See Melanson, The Murkin Conspiracy, Appendix CIn addition, there seems to have been an effort to undermine the HSCA investigation. The investigator for the HSCA was Gaeton Fonzi, who was to interview all the witnesses at their homes before they appeared before the Select Committee. The seven most important witnesses regarding JFK (John Paisley, William Pawley, Dr. William Bryan, Charles Nicoletti, George de Mohrenschildt, Dr. Carlos Prio Saccaras, and William Sullivan) were each murdered a day or two before they were scheduled to meet with Gaeton Fonzi. See Gaeton Fonzi, The Last Investigation (New York: Basic Books, 1994). 
  6. On Raoul’s phone numbers, see Melanson, The Murkin Conspiracy, pp. 50-51; and Mark Lane and Dick Gregory, Code Name “Zorro”: The Murder of Martin Luther King, Jr.(Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1977), pp. 254-58. 
  7. On Ray’s aliases, see Philip H. Melanson, Who Killed Martin Luther King? pp. 44-50 and 70-76. 
  8. Philip H. Melanson, “The CIA’s Secret Ties to Local Police,” The Nation, March 26, 1983. 
  9. Mark Lane and Dick Gregory, Code Name “Zorro,” pp. 266-67 on the destruction of the files. 
  10. For a short account of Braden’s intelligence career, see G.J.A. O’Toole, Encyclopedia of American Intelligence and Espionage (New York: Facts on File, 1988), p. 76. 
  11. On the French and Italian elections, see Thomas W. Braden, “I’m Glad the CIA is ‘Immoral,’” Saturday Evening Post, May 20, 1967, pp. 14ff.; and O’Toole, Encyclopedia of American Intelligence and Espionage, pp. 245-46. 
  12. In addition, in 1950 Michael Josselson founded the Congress for Cultural Freedom to counter Stalinist influence in art and literature by funding non-Communist cultural, artistic, and intellectual movements. [On the CCF, see Frances Stonor Saunders, The Cultural Cold War: The CIA and the World of Arts and Letters (New York: New Press, 2000).] The CCF’s money came from the CIA (IO) and Braden ran the CIA end of the organization. IO also financed Irving Brown, Jay Lovestone, Walter Reuther, and George Meany to counter pro-Soviet stances in the AFL-CIO. AFL-CIO President Lane Kirkland was a friend of Tom Braden and sometimes spent Thanksgiving at the Bradens’ D.C.-area home (2009 obituary in the San Diego Union-Tribune). 
  13. Braden tells about his role in starting the CIA’s subsidies of political parties and labor unions in his article “I’m Glad the CIA is ‘Immoral.’” 
  14. On Merthan, see Aaron Latham, “Adversaria” column in Esquire magazine (December 1977), pp. 78 and 90. 
  15. William Turner and Jonn Christian, The Assassination of Robert F. Kennedy: The Conspiracy and Coverup (New York: Random House, 1978), p. 190 on the slugless cartridges. Turner was an FBI agent for ten years. Turner and Christian were the first researchers to question all the on-scene witnesses and found that much key testimony had been omitted from the investigation’s report. The most important of this was that several eyewitnesses saw the second gunman. 
  16. On Pena and Hernandez, see Turner and Christian, The Assassination of Robert F. Kennedy, pp. 63-67. 
  17. On Dr. Bryan, see Philip H. Melanson, The Robert F. Kennedy Assassination: New Revelations on the Conspiracy and Cover-Up, 1968-1991 (New York: S.P.I. Books, 1994), pp. 201-206; and Turner and Christian, The Assassination of Robert F. Kennedy, pp. 225-229. 
  18. On Dr. Simpson, see Turner and Christian, The Assassination of Robert F. Kennedy, pp. 199-202. 
  19. On the destruction of evidence, see Philip H. Melanson, Who Killed Robert Kennedy?, pp. 17-18 
  20. Section 102 was supplemented by the CIA Act of 1949, which exempted the CIA from the normal congressional review process, and from disclosing its internal organization, etc. Victor Marchetti and John D. Marks, The CIA and the Cult of Intelligence (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1974), p. 8. 
  21. On Maheu hiring Larry O’Brien, see Lawrence O’Brien, No Final Victories: A Life in Politics(Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1974), pp. 255-6; and Robert Maheu and Richard Hack, Next to Hughes: Behind the Power and Tragic Downfall of Howard Hughes by His Closest Advisor (New York: HarperCollins, 1992), pp. 206-207. 
  22. Jim Hougan, Spooks: The Haunting of America: The Private Use of Secret Agents (New York: William Morrow, 1978), p. 272, regarding Williams hiring Novello. 
  23. Regarding the Ford Foundation grants, see The New York Times, February 13, 1969, p. 32; and February 21, pp. 1 and 25. 
  24. On Braden diverting Mankiewicz, see “Washington’s Third Pair,” Time, August 15, 1969, p. 68; and Mary Bonnet, “Mankiewicz,” People, May 24, 1982. 
  25. Christopher Hitchens, “Watergate – The Greek Connection,” The Nation, May 31, 1986, p. 759, on Tasca’s testimony. Hitchens gave evidence from Demetrocopoulos in the “Minority Report” column, The Nation, June 25, 1990, p. 882. 
  26. Miami Herald, August 9, 1968, p. 2A, col. 6, on large riot by mid-afternoon of August 7. 
  27. Miami Report, p. 10, on teenagers throwing pebbles, and p. 11 on Wallace-sticker car incident at 7:00 p.m. 
  28. E. Howard Hunt, Undercover: Memoirs of an American Secret Agent (New York: Berkley, 1974), p. 42. Both served in OSS Detachment 202 in Kunming, China. Helliwell commanded the unit until 1944. 
  29. Major sources for Helliwell include O’Toole, Encyclopedia of American Intelligence and Espionage; Peter Dale Scott, American War Machine: Deep Politics, the CIA Global Drug Connection, and the Road to Afghanistan (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2014); Jonathan Kwitny, The Crimes of Patriots: A True Tale of Dope, Dirty Money and the CIA(New York: Touchstone, 1987); and Alan A. Block, Masters of Paradise: Organized Crime and the Internal Revenue Service in The Bahamas (Abingdon, UK: Routledge, 1991). Dr. Block is professor in the Administration of Justice Department at Penn State University. Dr. Scott teaches at UC Berkeley. His 1991 work Cocaine Politics, co-written with Jonathan Marshall, is the major in-depth account of CIA-Contra cocaine-trafficking to America. Jonathan Kwitny was then the Wall Street Journal’s main reporter for the Far East. His 1987 work, The Crimes of Patriots, is the major account of the Nugan-Hand drug-bank scandal. 
  30. Accounts of the Chennault affair are given in Theodore White, The Making of the President 1968, pp. 444-45 and 446-47n.; Carl Solberg, Hubert Humphrey: A Biography (Nepean, ONT: Borealis, 1984), pp. 394-95; Anna Chennault, The Education of Anna(New York: Times Books, 1980), pp. 188-96; Bui Diem and David Chanoff, In the Jaws of History (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1987), pp. 241-44; Thomas Powers, The Man Who Kept the Secrets: Richard Helms and the CIA (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1979), pp. 225-28; Lyndon B. Johnson, The Vantage Point: Perspectives of the Presidency, 1963-1969 (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1971), pp. 513-29; and William Safire, Before the Fall: An Inside View of the Pre-Watergate White House (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1975), pp. 88ff. Safire’s account is the most complete. 
  31. Thomas Powers, The Man Who Kept the Secrets, p. 333. 

Featured image: Richard Nixon celebrates his victory in the 1968 election. Was he helped by the CIA? [Source: theconversation.com]

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on History: Did the CIA Subvert the 1968 U.S. Presidential Election?
  • Tags:

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

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

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

***

Der freiheitliche NAbg. Gerald Hauser brachte Gesundheitsminister Johannes Rauch (Grüne) mit seinen Fragen zum WHO-Pandemie-Vertrag ordentlich in Bedrängnis. Wirkliche Antworten blieb der Minister für den Großteil der parlamentarischen Anfrage – wie so oft – schuldig. Das ist an sich nichts Neues, denn das Parlament, das ja unser Volk repräsentieren soll, ist der Regierung seit Türkis-Grün ebenso egal, wie das Volk selber. Allerdings gab Rauch neben allem Herumgedruckse und weitgehenden Schweigen zu, dass gesundheitspolitische Kompetenzen an die mehrheitlich private WHO abgegeben werden – eine klare Abschaffung unserer parlamentarischen Demokratie. Hauser reagierte auf Nachfrage des Wochenblick erschüttert über die Kaltschnäuzigkeit des Ministers.

WHO als neue Weltregierung

Wie Wochenblick berichtete, fand diese Woche die 75. Weltgesundheitsversammlung (WHA, World Health Assembly) statt. Im Zuge dieser Versammlung wollte sich die WHO zur potenziellen Weltregierung machen lassen. Die nationalen Verfassungen sollen entsprechend der Pläne der Eliten rund um Bill Gates ausgehebelt werden. Gerald Hauser stellte schon vor einigen Wochen eine parlamentarische Anfrage zu diesen skandalösen Vorgängen, die gesundheitspolitisch das Ende unserer Demokratie bedeuten. Doch Antworten erhielt er kaum.

“Ich bin wirklich erschüttert, wie salopp in den Antworten drübergefahren wird und man überhaupt nicht konkret auf meine Fragestellungen eingegangen ist”, erklärt Gerald Hauser im Gespräch mit Wochenblick. Das Ganze erinnere ihn an die 137 Beschlüsse in den ersten Wochen nach dem Lockdown wo ohne Begutachtung über das Parlament drüber gefahren wurde, schildert der Osttiroler empört. Darüber hinaus glaubt Hauser nicht, dass es der Regierung zusteht, dass sie unsere Gesundheitspolitik an die WHO auslagert: “Aus meiner Sicht hat die Regierung kein Mandat darüber zu verhandeln. Wer hat sie legitimiert, über das Abtreten unserer Rechte, unseres Staates an die WHO zu verhandeln? Und damit an eine übernationale Institution, die nicht vom Volk gewählt wurde!”

Am Parlament vorbei-verhandelt: Abgeordnete wissen nichts vom Pandemie-Vertrag

Die konkreten Fragen des Freiheitlichen brachten den Noch-Gesundheitsminister, er ist schon der dritte Grüne in dieser Position, offenbar derart in Bedrängnis, dass er viele Antworten einfach verweigerte. Dennoch gibt er zu, dass die Übergabe unserer Demokratie (bisher beschränkt auf unsere Gesundheitspolitik) an die zu einem großen Teil private Organisation WHO zuerst international ausverhandelt wird und danach “gemäß unserer Verfassung” übernommen wird. Dass mittlerweile absolut alles verfassungsgemäß ist, sobald es durch einen “Regierungsexperten” beworben wird, zeigte bekanntlich das Urteil des Verfassungsgerichtshofes zur Pandemie-Gesetzgebung. Gerald Hauser ist schockiert, dass der Pandemie-Vertrag im Parlament überhaupt keine Rolle spielt, es keinerlei Diskussion dazu gibt.

“Wir stecken mitten in Verhandlungen ohne dass das Parlament auch nur ansatzweise involviert ist – die Strategie ist wohl, dass uns die Regierung vor vollendete Tatsachen stellt. Formal ist das nicht nur eine Umgehung des Parlaments sondern eine Aushebelung der parlamentarischen Demokratie!“ – Gerald Hauser, schockiert über die Abschaffung unserer Demokratie

Der freiheitliche Volks-Repräsentant hat den Eindruck, dass viele Abgeordnete gar nichts davon wissen: “Dieser Zustand ist unhaltbar, man erfährt das nur über alternative Medien wie Wochenblick und AUF1, was hier vonstatten geht. Das Parlament wurde nie darüber informiert! Würden wir keine Anfragen machen, wüssten wir sowieso nichts. Und diese Anfragen werden sowieso nur schludrig, wenn überhaupt beantwortet.”

Doch in der Anfrage-Beantwortung gibt Rauch zumindest zu, dass das Parlament am Ende vor vollendete Tatsachen gestellt wird:

Wie bei jedem internationalen Instrument wird die innerstaatliche Vorgangsweise gemäß der österreichischen Bundesverfassung erfolgen. Erst wenn die Rechtsnatur der von der INB auszuarbeitenden und auszuhandelnden WHO-Konvention, eines Vertrages oder eines anderen internationalen Instrumentes feststeht, ist eine Entscheidung über die innerstaatliche Vorgangsweise gemäß der Bundesverfassung zu treffen. – Gesundheitsminister Johannes Rauch an Gerald Hauser

Widerstand wirkt!

Der breite Widerstand gegen die geplante Entrechtung der Nationalstaaten hat allerdings bereits Wirkung gezeigt, wie Wochenblick berichtete. Denn einige Punkte aus dem Pandemie-Vertrag, welche die einzelnen Staaten im Falle eines „Gesundheits-Notstandes“ in die totale WHO-Knechtschaft gebracht hätten, wurden bereits entschärft. Ein Etappensieg des lauten Widerstands!

Bill Gates fast 20%, Freimaurer-Vorfeld gleich viel wie EU

Als Teil dieses Widerstandes sind auch die nicht enden wollenden Anfragen des freiheitlichen Abgeordneten Hauser zu verstehen. Die eigentlich nur als Nicht-Antworten zu bezeichnenden „Reaktionen“ aus dem Gesundheitsministerium sprechen Bände. Hauser recherchierte für seinen Bestseller “Raus aus dem Corona-Chaos”, den er gemeinsam mit Dr. Hannes Strasser herausbrachte, wem die WHO gehört, bzw. wer sie finanziert (Seite 16 Buch). Großteils sind das die USA (14,67 Prozent) und Bill Gates mit GAVI (18,15%) , erst dann folgen Großbritannien (7,79%), Deutschland (5,68%), die UN (5,09%), EU (3,3%) und so weiter. Auch die Weltbank (3,42%) und Rotary International (3,3%) finden sich in der Liste. Dass Rotary International – der Verein gilt als die Vorfeldorganisation der internationalen Freimaurerei – gleich viel wie die EU “sponsert”, ist dabei besonders brisant. Dass ein derartiges Sponsoring ohne die Erwartung einer Gegenleistung erfolgt, glauben wohl nur politisch völlig unbedarfte Geister.

Daher wollte der den Machthabern unangenehme freiheitliche Parlamentarier Hauserkonkret wissen, wie der Herr Minister beurteilt, dass die WHO im Grunde von Stiftungen, NGOs und privaten Financiers gesponsert wird und demnach womöglich in deren Sinne handeln könnte.

Die erste, rotzfreche Nicht-Antwort des Ministers darauf:

„Die beschlussfassenden Gremien setzen sich aus den Mitgliedstaaten zusammen. Nur diese sind stimmberechtigt. Gemäß Art. 56 der WHO-Satzung prüft und genehmigt die WHA den Budgetvoranschlag und teilt die Ausgaben unter den Mitgliedern gemäß einem von der WHO festzusetzenden Schlüssel. Der festzusetzende Schlüssel orientiert sich an der Bewertungsskala der Vereinten Nationen.“

Rauch geht also nicht einmal ansatzweise auf die Frage des vom Volk gewählten Parlamentariers Mag. Hauser ein! Wie wir wissen ist beispielsweise der selbsternannte Menschenfreund und Welt-Impfer Bill Gates einer der Hauptsponsoren der WHO und dürfte wohl im Hintergrund so manche Strippen ziehen, doch das kümmert Rauch offenbar nicht, oder er blendet es einfach aus.

Skandalöse Nicht-Beantwortung der parlamentarischen Anfrage

Auch auf weitere ganz konkrete Fragen des FPÖ-Abgeordneten geht der Gesundheitsminister nicht einmal ansatzweise ein. Wie die Regierung zum Pandemievertrag steht? Buchstabenreiche Leerantwort. Dass Österreich durch diese infame Vereinbarung seine Souveränität an die WHO abtreten könnte, wird von Rauch ebenso ignoriert wie die Frage danach, wie die Regierung dazu steht, dass künftig womöglich ein nicht demokratisch legitimiertes Organ über zukünftige Pandemie-Maßnahmen in Österreich entscheiden könnte. Was da aus dem Gesundheitsministerium kommt, ist nichts weiter als Schall und Rauch. Hauser reagiert darauf so: “Ich finde es jämmerlich. Man hat nicht den Mut zuzugeben, dass man Teil dieser internationalen Eliten des Weltwirtschaftsforums ist, die sukzessive die Kompetenzen an sich ziehen. Alleine das Nichtbeantworten von ganz konkreten Fragen sagt mir: Da ist doch etwas im Busch!”

Hausers Forderung an die Regierung nach sofortiger Einbindung

Gerald Hauser fordert die sofortige Einbindung des Parlaments in den Gesetzgebungsprozess:

Ich fordere die sofortige Einbindung des Parlaments, die sofortige Beschlussfassung darüber, ob das Parlament das überhaupt will, dass die WHO zukünftig über unsere Gesundheitspolitik entscheidet. Wir von der FPÖ wollen das nicht, diese systematische Aushebelung des Nationalrates als gesetzgebendes Organ. Wir wollen die nationale Souveränität behalten und wir wollen nicht dass Bill Gates und Co. zukünftig über die Gesundheitspolitik und die Maßnahmen in Österreich entscheiden und die repräsentative, parlamentarische Demokratie in Österreich dafür ausgehebelt wird. Die gesetzgebende Körperschaft muss das österreichische Parlament bleiben! Und es soll die Österreicher vertreten. Der Souverän soll entscheiden. Wir wollen mit Vernunft und Augenmaß, ohne Lockdowns und ohne Kollateralschäden für die Gesellschaft durch die nächste, von der WHO definierte, Pandemie durchkommen. Ich will keine Ungleichbehandlung der Ungeimpften. Das Recht geht vom Volk aus und wird durch die gewählten Insitutionen vertreten.

Zur Beweisführung hier die skandalöse mehrheitliche Nicht-Beantwortung der parlamentarischen Anfrage mit dem vielsagenden Eingeständnis.

*

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

  • Posted in Deutsch
  • Comments Off on WHO-Pandemie-Vertrag: Minister gesteht Demokratie-Abschaffung ein

Can Arming Teachers Curb School Violence?

June 2nd, 2022 by Dr. Rudolf Hänsel

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

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

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

***

Media reports on the amok run at Uvalde Primary School in the state of Texas and the delayed intervention of police forces, such as “Parents criticise US police deployment as too hesitant” or “Why didn’t they save us?”(1) prompted me to cite the results of a three-year-old US study pointed out to me by a US expert as a basis for discussion without further political submissions.

On 17 June 2019, John R. Lott Jr, President of the Crime Prevention Research Centre published a 37-page study and concluded the following:

“Schools that allow teachers to carry guns are extremely safe” (2).

The study goes on to say:

“Twenty states currently allow teachers and staff to carry weapons to varying degrees on school grounds, (…). There has yet to be a single case of anyone being wounded or killed in a shooting, let alone a mass shooting between 6 a.m. and midnight in a school that allows teachers to carry guns, since at least January 2000.

Fears by teachers that a student might take a firearm from a teacher and use it to commit gun violence are also unfounded. (…). While there have been no problems at schools with armed teachers, the number of people killed at other schools has increased significantly – doubling from 2001 and 2008 to 2009 and 2018.”

Back in 1998, John R. Lott Jr. wrote in his book “More Guns, Less Crime”:

“The mere presence of a firearm, or even the threat that a potential victim might be armed, has prevented gun violence.”

*

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

Dr. Rudolf Lothar Hänsel is a teacher (retired headmaster), doctor of education (Dr. paed.) and graduate psychologist (specialising in clinical, educational and media psychology). As a retiree, he worked for many years as a psychotherapist in his own practice. In his books and educational-psychological articles, he calls for a conscious ethical-moral education in values and an education for public spirit and peace.

He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Notes 

(1) https://www.spiegel.de/panorama/justiz/uvalde-us-polizei-nach-massaker-unter-druck-a-8c34594e-ea02-41d6-a65c-5f775ae8503c; https://www.spiegel.de/panorama/justiz/uvalde-elfjaehrige-beschmierte-sich-mit-blut-und-stellte-sich-tot-a-e2984645-0373-41ad-8358-4a476b5c2ee5

(2) https://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/crime/item/32193-john-lott-s-latest-study-refutes-claims-that-schools-with-armed-teachers-are-dangerous

Featured image: Mass shooting at a Florida High School (Source: Countercurrents)

Kann Bewaffnung von Lehrern Gewalt an Schulen eindämmen?

June 2nd, 2022 by Dr. Rudolf Hänsel

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

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

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

***

Medienberichte über den Amoklauf in der Uvalde-Grundschule im Bundesstaat Texas und das verspätete Eingreifen der Polizeikräfte wie zum Bespiel: „Eltern kritisieren Einsatz der US-Polizei als zu zögerlich“ oder „Warum haben sie uns nicht gerettet?“ (1) veranlassten mich dazu, als Diskussionsgrundlage ohne weitere politische Einlassungen die Ergebnisse einer drei Jahre alten US-Studie zu zitieren, auf die mich ein US-Experte hinwies.

Am 17. Juni 2019 veröffentlichte John R. Lott Jr., Präsident des Forschungszentrums für Kriminalprävention eine 37-seitige Studie und kam zu folgendem Ergebnis:

„Schulen, die es Lehrern erlauben, Waffen zu tragen, sind extrem sicher“ (2)

Weiter heißt es in der Studie:

„Zwanzig Staaten erlauben derzeit Lehrern und Mitarbeitern, Waffen in unterschiedlichem Maße auf dem Schulgelände zu tragen, (…). Es gibt noch keinen einzigen Fall, in dem jemand bei einer Schießerei, geschweige denn bei einer Massenschießerei zwischen 6 Uhr morgens und Mitternacht in einer Schule, die Lehrer Waffen tragen lässt, seit mindestens Januar 2000 verwundet oder getötet wurde. Befürchtungen von Lehrern, dass ein Schüler eine Schusswaffe von einem Lehrer nehmen und damit Waffengewalt ausüben könnte, sind ebenfalls unbegründet. (…). Während es an Schulen mit bewaffneten Lehrern keine Probleme gab, ist die Zahl der an anderen Schulen getöteten Menschen deutlich gestiegen — sie hat sich von 2001 und 2008 auf 2009 und 2018 verdoppelt.“

Bereits 1998 schrieb John R. Lott Jr. in seinem Buch „More Guns, Less Crime“:

„Das bloße Vorhandensein einer Schusswaffe oder sogar die Bedrohung, dass ein potenzielles Opfer bewaffnet sein könnte, hat Waffengewalt verhindert.“

*

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

Dr. Rudolf Lothar Hänsel ist Lehrer (Rektor a. D.), Doktor der Pädagogik (Dr. paed.) und Diplom-Psychologe (Schwerpunkte: Klinische-, Pädagogische- und Medien-Psychologie). Als Pensionär arbeitete er viele Jahre als Psychotherapeut in eigener Praxis. In seinen Büchern und pädagogisch-psychologischen Fachartikeln fordert er eine bewusste ethisch-moralische Werteerziehung und eine Erziehung zum Gemeinsinn und Frieden.

He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Noten 

(1) https://www.spiegel.de/panorama/justiz/uvalde-us-polizei-nach-massaker-unter-druck-a-8c34594e-ea02-41d6-a65c-5f775ae8503c; https://www.spiegel.de/panorama/justiz/uvalde-elfjaehrige-beschmierte-sich-mit-blut-und-stellte-sich-tot-a-e2984645-0373-41ad-8358-4a476b5c2ee5

(2) https://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/crime/item/32193-john-lott-s-latest-study-refutes-claims-that-schools-with-armed-teachers-are-dangerous

Featured image: Mass shooting at a Florida High School (Source: Countercurrents)

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

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

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

***

Four months ago, two days before the civilized world celebrated one year since the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons came into force on January 22, officials here at the Kansas City National Security Campus hosted a virtual celebration of a different milestone with partners from across the National Nuclear Security Administration and U.S. Air Force. “With great pride and excitement,” they recognized the completion of the B61-12 bomb’s Life Extension Program’s first production unit. This plant is responsible for producing 39 major non-nuclear component assemblies of the B61-12.

The trillion-dollar program of extending the lives of nuclear weapons is at odds with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, ratified into law by the United States, flouting Article VI of the treaty, which requires “all Parties undertake to pursue good-faith negotiations on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race, to nuclear disarmament, and to general and complete disarmament.” In the nine years since the B61-12 Life Extension Program was put into action, the life expectancy of humans in this country has plummeted. Undaunted, the NNSA boasts that it has extended the life expectancy of the B61-12 by at least 20 years!

This new bomb will replace the old B61, the primary thermonuclear gravity bomb in the U.S. arsenal, also deployed with NATO allies in Europe as part of a “Nuclear Weapons Sharing Program”. One improvement is that these new bombs have steerable tail fins that make them much more precise and deployable. Their explosive force can also be dialed up or down from 1 to 50 kilotons, that is, more than three times the power of the bomb that destroyed Hiroshima in 1945.

“More precise and deployable” is another way of saying more likely to be used, and with these new weapons on hand, U.S. war planners are thinking up ways to use them. A June, 2019, report by the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, “Nuclear Operations,” suggests that “using nuclear weapons could create conditions for decisive results (and) affect how commanders will prevail in conflict.”

I was in Europe last fall during NATO’s “Steadfast Noon” exercises, the annual event where the militaries from 14 NATO countries rehearse an invasion of Russia. These rehearsals explain how an expanding NATO armed with more precise and flexible nuclear weapons like the ones made right here in Kansas City might tip a precarious balance. Since the invasion of Ukraine, Russian commanders have likewise speculated on how their own more precise and flexible nuclear weapons could help them prevail.

“The United States would only consider the use of nuclear weapons in extreme circumstances to defend the vital interests of the United States or its allies and partners,” says the Pentagon’s 2022 Nuclear Posture Review. Russia, more modestly for its part, has abandoned its own no first use policy and “reserves the right to use nuclear weapons… when the very existence of the state is in jeopardy.”

Nation states, their vital interests and their very existence are temporary. These threats to destroy the planet in their defense are insane.

It was believed that a doctrine of “mutually assured destruction,” that the horrific devastation wrought by a nuclear exchange would leave no winner, is what helped prevent a world war over the last decades. The growing delusion among war planners that a nuclear war can be won places the world in unprecedented peril. In this time of climate catastrophe, famine and pandemic, the waste of resources to build nuclear weapons is an unspeakable crime.

In 1949, early in the cold war with Russia, the monk and poet Thomas Merton wrote,

“When I pray for peace, I pray God to pacify not only the Russians and the Chinese but above all my own nation and myself.

When I pray for peace, I pray to be protected not only from the Reds but also from the folly and blindness of my own country.

When I pray for peace, I pray not only that the enemies of my country may cease to want war, but above all that my own country will cease to do the things that make war inevitable.

In other words, when I pray for peace, I am not just praying that the Russians will give up without a struggle and let us have our own way.

I am praying that both we and the Russians may somehow be restored to sanity and learn how to work out our problems, as best we can, together, instead of preparing for global suicide.”

*

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

Brian Terrell is a Catholic Worker based in Maloy, Iowa, and is outreach coordinator for the Nevada Desert Experience.

Featured image is from Countercurrents

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on “An Unspeakable Crime”: The Trillion-dollar Program of Extending the Lives of Nuclear Weapons”
  • Tags:

EU and UK Cooperate on Insurance Ban for Russian Oil Cargoes

June 2nd, 2022 by The Maritime Executive

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

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

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

***

The European Council agreed yesterday to ban seaborne imports of Russian oil, forcing Russia to look further afield for energy customers. But an additional, less-noticed element of the accord could have more impact. 

The EU has also reached an agreement with the government of Britain to enact a coordinated ban on European insurance for Russian oil cargoes, the Financial Times reported Tuesday. This will cut Russian energy exporters off from the Lloyd’s market for H&M and from the International Group of P&I Clubs, which provides about 95 percent of global cover for tanker liability. The reinsurance business is also heavily concentrated in Europe, and will likely be heavily affected.

In anticipation of a formal ban, Western insurers have already begun shying away from Russian oil cargoes, according to Reuters. Even vessels with no Russian connection other than a charter party risk losing their cover if they pick up Russian crude. Shipping executives told Reuters that the impact would begin to be felt by July, when withdrawn policies begin to expire.

Since oil exports account for about 40 percent of Russia’s federal budget, the marine insurance ban represents a sanctions expansion with global reach, reminiscent of stiff U.S. sanctions on Iranian oil exports. The absence of European insurance could force Russia to engineer its own government-backed coverage for its cargoes.

Meanwhile, other oil-producing nations are eyeing the possibility of filling the gap. Several OPEC members are considering the idea of suspending Russia from the production quotas agreed by the OPEC+ group, a loose cartel of 10 non-OPEC member nations that participate in OPEC supply controls, according to the Wall Street Journal. If the move were carried out, other OPEC nations would have the option of pumping more oil to fill Russia’s quota, without exceeding the group’s topline production number.

Russia has already fallen out of participation with the OPEC+ agreement because Russian production levels have dropped since the start of the invasion, an OPEC delegate told the Wall Street Journal. All forecasts suggest even lower production ahead: In April, Russian Finance Minister Anton Siluanov predicted that Russia’s output would fall by 17 percent over the course of 2022, without taking the latest EU sanctions into account.

*

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

Featured image: File image courtesy Primorsk Oil Terminal

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

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

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

***

The Great Reset involves the demolition and radical overhaul of several interlocking pillars of civilization: technology, society, economy, environment and geopolitics. Food and health also fall within these categories

Through control of these core pillars, the World Economic Forum (WEF) and its globalist allies intend to seize control of all the nations of the world and centralize all power and wealth

The WEF is an organization that profits from famine and disease; it uses tragedies and fear to further its own agenda. It intends to dictate what you eat, what you own and what you think, under the guise of building a “sustainable future”

The WEF-led cabal believes in transhumanist and technocratic principles, and the technocratic system requires extensive surveillance and artificial intelligence-driven technologies to keep everyone in check

Technocrats actually believe they’re better, more evolved than the rest, and this superiority gives them the right to decide the fate of mankind. They also reject the notion of free will. Once you understand this basic mindset, it’s easier to understand why they think nothing of stripping you of your freedom and ability to make choices for yourself

*

Click here to watch the video.

In the video above, which is part of a larger “Great Reset” documentary series, Rebel News highlights the origins of the World Economic Forum1 (WEF), its founder Klaus Schwab, and other key players, and the WEF’s central role in The Great Reset, which promises (read: threatens) to overturn society and life as we know it in ways that are hard to imagine.

In summary, The Great Reset involves the demolition and radical overhaul of several interlocking pillars of civilization: technology, society, economy, environment and geopolitics. Food and health also fall within these categories. Through control of these core pillars, the WEF and its globalist allies intend to seize control of all the nations of the world and centralize all power and wealth.

The WEF’s Plan

As noted by Rebel News, the WEF is an organization that profits from famine and disease; it uses tragedies and fear to further its own agenda — “one that dictates what you eat, what you own, what you think, under the guise of a ‘sustainable future.'”

According to the WEF, capitalism is dead and we can no longer allow for free markets. Instead, we need a top-down governance, a New World Order, that can ensure “fair and equitable” distribution of dwindling resources, including energy and food. What they’re really saying, however, is that soon-to-be-useless people are gobbling up “their” resources. They see us — you and me — as an existential threat to their luxurious lifestyle.

So, their decades-old plan is to seize control of it all, transfer all wealth and private ownership into their own hands, and centrally control who gets what and when. It’s important to realize that this WEF-led cabal believes in transhumanist and technocratic principles.

What Is Technocracy?

Technocracy is at its core an economic system, not a political one. However, it’s wholly unnatural, and therefore also requires unnatural means to keep it going. Rather than being based on common pricing mechanisms such as supply and demand or free commerce, the economy of technocracy is based on energy resources, which then dictate the types of products being produced, bought, sold and consumed.

In essence, energy replaces the concept of money as a commodity. That’s strange enough, but it gets stranger still. Technocracy, which emerged in the 1930s during the height of the Great Depression, the brainchildren of which were scientists and engineers, also requires social engineering to work.

If people are allowed to do what they want, consumer demand ultimately drives commerce, but that won’t fly in a technocratic economy. Instead, consumers need to be directed, herded if you will, to consume that which the system needs them to consume, and in order for that to happen, they need to be more or less brainwashed. As a result, the technocratic system requires extensive surveillance and artificial intelligence-driven technologies to keep everyone in check.

Understanding the Mind of the Technocrats

Click here to watch the video.

As Schwab himself has declared on many occasions, they want a society in which humans are merged with machine and artificial intelligence (AI). They look forward to extreme longevity, if not immortality through technological means.

They place no value on spiritual ideas such as the survival of the soul. They don’t believe in the nonlocality of consciousness. If they did, they wouldn’t believe consciousness can simply be uploaded into a synthetic body. They believe that, through technology and AI, they will be able to replace God and the natural order with reengineered lifeforms of their own creation, including a reengineered humanity.

They actually believe they’re better, more evolved than the rest of us, and this superiority gives them the right to decide the fate of mankind. They also reject the notion of free will.2 Once you understand this basic mindset, it’s easier to understand why they think nothing of stripping you of your freedom and ability to make choices for yourself. As noted by Tessa Lena in “The Mind of a Technocrat: What Drives Them?“:

“To a technocrat, a human being is an imperfect machine, a humble meat bag that is operated by software, which is produced by the brain. The technocrat’s understanding of life is based on a very primitive, linear vision; it’s void of spiritual mystery …

The force driving the mind of a technocrat is the overbearing emotional need for total control, combined with mistrust for other people in general. They seemingly look to compensate for their emotional poverty. (In other words, there is no reason to admire their successes as their successes are based on theft of other people’s right to free will.)

The technocrats’ desire to fully control their surroundings is anxiety-driven. They simply can’t stand the feeling of uncertainty that comes with allowing other people’s subjective choices to play any role. They don’t trust others to do the right thing, much like a very neurotic parent doesn’t trust his child’s ability to choose wisely without supervision — but far less benevolently.

Their desire for control is intensely neurotic. They are sitting on needles, so to speak (a Russian idiom and a pun in the light of today) — and in order to dampen their anxiety, they resort to trying to implement their controlling ambitions …

Technocrats may think they are the cream of the crop. They may think that their brilliant vision is good for the world. But regardless of whether they believe themselves to be the good guys or the bad guys, their thirst for total control is a pathological, anxiety-driven expression. They can’t stand being dependent on other people’s free will, and so they aspire to squash it, which is not existentially right.”

Annual Meeting in Davos

Each year, the WEF holds a meeting in Davos, Switzerland. Thousands of global movers and shakers fly in on private jets to decide how best to stop the working class from driving gas-powered cars, heating their homes and eating meat. Does anyone still believe that a bunch of billionaire “elites” can make life “fair and equitable” for everyone?

Attendees include corporate executives, bankers and financiers, heads of state, finance and trade ministers, central bankers, policymakers, the heads of international organizations such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the World Bank, the World Trade Organization, the Bank for International Settlements, the United Nations and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD).

Many academics, economists, political scientists, journalists, cultural elites and celebrities are also invited.

This year’s meeting took place May 22 through 26.3 On the first day, participants were treated to an immersive experience of the metaverse in their own digital avatar. Essentially, this is where they want to bring the masses of mankind — into a digital reality where enjoyment of resources doesn’t involve actual use of real-world resources. For example, rather than buying clothes for your biological body, you’ll spend digital currency on a wardrobe for your digital avatar.

Day 2 included a discussion about how manufacturing companies can accelerate their implementation of automation. The idea is to replace most of the human workforce with robotics and AI. As you might expect, this will render large portions of humanity superfluous and “useless.” What to do with them all? Professor Yuval Noah Harari, a Schwab adviser, has stated he believes the answer will be a combination of “drugs and video games.”4

Haves and Have Nots Among Journalists

Among the journalists invited to the 2022 meeting was New York Times managing editor Rebecca Blumenstein. Rebel News reporter Avi Yemini confronted Blumenstein in Davos (video above), asking how the public is supposed to trust the NYT’s reporting on the event when she’s an invited guest. Blumenstein refused to answer the question, thereby cementing the impression that she’s really not there as an independent journalist. She’s part of the event. She’s part of the club.

Additional evidence that not all journalists are equal was evidenced by the attempt by armed WEF police officers to detain conservative journalist Jack Posobiec (video below).5 When other journalists got involved and started filming and asking questions, the police took off. The fact that the WEF has ITS OWN police force should be a wakeup call. Clearly, they’re far more than just another nongovernmental organization (NGO).

Sustainable Development Is Technocracy

Many of the terms we’ve heard more and more of in recent years refer to technocracy under a different name. Examples include sustainable development, Agenda 21, the 2030 Agenda, the New Urban Agenda, green economy, the green new deal and the climate change movement in general.

They all refer to and are part of technocracy and resource-based economics. Other terms that are synonymous with technocracy include the Great Reset,6 the Fourth Industrial Revolution7 and the slogan Build Back Better.8 The Paris Climate Agreement is also part and parcel of the technocratic agenda.

The common goal of all these movements and agendas is to capture all of the resources of the world — the ownership of them — for a small global elite group that has the know-how to program the computer systems that will ultimately dictate the lives of everyone. It’s really the ultimate form of totalitarianism.

When they talk about “wealth redistribution,” what they’re really referring to is the redistribution of resources from us to them. The WEF has publicly announced that by 2030, you will own nothing. Everything you need you will rent — from them — and deciding factors for what you’re allowed to rent will include things like your carbon credits and social credit score.

Gone will be the days of putting in a day’s work, receiving a paycheck and spending it to your heart’s content. No, the digital currency will be programmable, so the issuer can decide when and what you can spend it on, based on the data in your digital identity. This will all be automated and run by AI, of course, so there won’t be anyone to complain to.

What the Green Revolution Is All About

While “going green” sounds and feels like the right thing to do, it’s becoming imperative for people to understand what the green agenda is really all about. Shocking as it may sound, the green agenda was invented, fabricated, by the Club of Rome (a scientific think tank allied with the WEF) to justify a depopulation agenda.9

The need for population control is described in the 1972 book, “The Limits to Growth,”10 which warned that “if the world’s consumption patterns and population growth continued at the same high rates of the time, the earth would strike its limits within a century.”

Then, in the 1991 book, “The First Global Revolution,”11 the Club of Rome argued that depopulation policies might gain widespread support if they could be linked to an existential fight against a common enemy. An excerpt from “The First Global Revolution” reads:12

“In searching for a common enemy against whom we can unite, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like, would fit the bill.”

So, in plain English, the intended result of “going green” is depopulation. This intention is now finally becoming visible when you consider the implications of eliminating oil and gas production without having viable alternatives in place, which is what Biden and other global leaders are in the process of doing.

Not only do you need oil to make fertilizer, but we also don’t have farm equipment that can run on solar or wind power. So, food production essentially grinds to a halt. Heavy construction machinery also can’t run on these alternative sources of energy, so there go the infrastructure and home building businesses.

To many, it seems these global leaders are acting out of ignorance, but it’s quite possible their actions are intentional. It’s just that no one wants to consider that the intention is to harm as many people as possible — to actually rid the planet of soon-to-be “useless” people.

It may be quite chilling to realize that the climate change threat narrative was cooked up in the late 1980s for the sole purpose of being able to implement a global depopulation agenda without stirring up excessive resistance. But depopulation and eugenics are at the heart of what the WEF and its allies are trying to achieve.

The WEF even admits they’re using the Club of Rome’s “planetary emergency plan” to provide “a new compass for nations” to follow.13 So, the WEF and its allied nations are all following a plan that has depopulation as an admitted intended end result.

Phase 2 of the Great Reset: War

As I discussed in “Phase 2 of the Great Reset: War,” the drums of war are also part and parcel of The Great Reset plan. Why? Because war will accelerate the economic collapse required before nations can “Build Back Better.”14 The conflict between Russia and Ukraine is helping to catalyze The Great Reset in a number of different ways.

For starters, supply chains of all kinds are being disrupted at an unprecedented level and pace by the war between Russia and Ukraine. Fuel shortages and inflation are also taking off. Geopolitical tensions may also trigger stagflation, an economic situation in which inflation and unemployment rates are high while economic growth slows.15

It’s a precarious dilemma for economic policy, because strategies that help lower inflation can also make unemployment worse. You can learn more about this in the March 10, 2022, Conversation article, “Why Stagflation Is an Economic Nightmare.”16

The end result is increased dependence on government subsidies, and this is a clear goal of The Great Reset. Universal basic income is one planned strategy that will create dependency. It will also ensure we’re all equally poor and unable to threaten their monopoly on power and wealth.

Universal poverty is really what they mean when they talk about making the world “fair and equitable.” No one will have anything. Everyone will be equally poor and dependent, without hope of ever being able to rise into the “elite” technocratic class.

The Ukraine war is also reducing Europe’s reliance on Russian energy, thereby reinforcing the urgency of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals. In lockstep with The Great Reset, policymakers around the world are using the sanctions against the Russian energy sector to accelerate the transition to “green” energy, the intention behind which is what I just discussed.

Russia’s decision to block exports of fertilizer and food crops in response to being deplatformed from the Swift system will also create food shortages, and this too plays right into the Great Reset plan. In recent years, we’ve been urged by Great Reset front men like Bill Gates to stop eating real meat and switch to synthetic lab-grown meat instead.

Making people reliant on patented synthetic food will benefit the globalists in more ways than one. People will get sicker, and hence more reliant on government aid. They’ll be dependent on food produced by monopolies and hence easier to control. And, over time, as people forget how to grow and raise food, the ability to control the global population will increase.

In addition to all of this, media are chumming the waters with fearporn about monkeypox — just in time for the push to relinquish national sovereignty to the World Health Organization, which is also allied with the WEF.

In closing, Michael Osterholm’s report from the 2010 Davos meeting, which was aflame with talks about pandemic planning, having just gone through the 2009/2010 swine flu pandemic is quite telling. All those years ago, he wrote:17

“I learned much in Davos, but I was troubled by the complete lack of attention to such critical questions as:

  • How do we protect global supply chains when we face another inevitable pandemic that could bring about widespread, severe illness? …
  • How do we take the lessons we’ve learned from our experience with H1N1 and embed them into our organizations so they’re not forgotten?

Instead, the tenor of the conversations at Davos was about globalization …”

Twelve years ago, the Davos billionaires, bankers and heads of state had the opportunity to prove they were capable of stewarding this Earth ship. But after the swine flu pandemic, they didn’t solve the problems that had become apparent.

They didn’t solve the supply chain issues, and we had the same but worse issues when COVID came along. The only thing they solved was how to silence the critics. Back then, there was talk that “heads should roll” because of mismanagement of the pandemic.

Well, no heads rolled. Everything stayed the same, and now we’ve gone through two years of the worst pandemic mismanagement imaginable. Now, the globalist cabal is pushing for the inept WHO to become the sole decision-maker in pandemics, which the WHO would be able to declare at will, based on its own definitions. We’re at a very dangerous crossroads.

We have to remember, though, that the fate of the world is not for Schwab and the Davos crowd to decide. It’s ours. If we do not resist their plans, we’ve made the choice to accept their version of the future.

*

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

Notes

1 TNI.org WEF History

2 The Guardian September 14, 2018

3 WEF Program 2022

4 YouTube April 13, 2022

5 Washington Examiner May 23, 2022

6 Technocracy.news June 25, 2020

7 Gov.uk The Fourth Industrial Revolution

8 UN.org April 22, 2020

9, 12 Unlimited Hangout February 20, 2021

10 Club of Rome, The Limits to Growth

11 Club of Rome, The First Global Revolution

13 Weforum.org January 13, 2020

14 Winter Oak March 9, 2022

15, 16 The Conversation March 10, 2022

17 Cidrap February 4, 2010

Featured image is a screenshot from one of the videos above

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The WEF Great Reset “Snakes” Are Slithering Together in Davos
  • Tags: , ,

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

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

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

***

June has arrived and with it comes my quarterly request for your support of this website.  Controlled narratives serving private agendas are replacing truth.  The Biden regime is even trying to establish in the Department of Homeland Security an agency with the power to rule that truth is disinformation.  This is an admission that Washington’s agendas are threatened by truth.  There are fewer and fewer sources of truth.  This website is one of the few.  Truth requires your support if truth is to continue to exist. 

Years ago I wrote that nothing would come of Special Counsel John Durham’s Russiagate investigation.  Yesterday I was proven correct. A politicized Washington, D.C., jury threw out the only case Durham has brought against a seditious operation that began six years ago.  Michael Sussman, a Hillary Clinton campaign lawyer was cleared of lying to a FBI agent, the only crime Durham could find of a massive operation orchestrated by the CIA and FBI to prevent President Trump from normalizing relations with Russia. 

American foreign policy was set on a totally different course from Trump’s intent by the neoconservatives with the Wolfowitz doctrine of US hegemony. 

Russia has to be pushed back and overcome with problems that would drain and redirect the Kremlin’s energy away from opposing US unilateralism.  After pouring $5 billion into preparing the overthrow of the Ukrainian government, the neoconservatives struck with the US-orchestrated “Maidan Revolution” in 2014 and installed an anti-Russian puppet government.  Neither the military-security complex nor the neoconservatives were going to let President Trump proceed with his goal of normalizing relations with Russia.  The relations were on schedule to be much worsened with the humiliation and isolation of Russia as the goal.

Trump, being a real estate developer with no sound or knowledgable advisers, had no idea of the challenge his normalization posed to the ruling establishment, Republicans as well as Democrats.  Trump was a sitting duck.

It was obvious that Durham’s job was to make sure the Russiagate investigation failed.  We have known for years of the FBI’s role in orchestrating Russiagate. The facts are available.  High level FBI officials were involved in the plot against Trump. The FBI lied to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, prompting one judge to resign in protest.  But Durham focused on low level Clinton campaign officials.  Despite evidence, he didn’t even go after Hillary.

He couldn’t.  Hillary on the stand would have said that the CIA and FBI brought her the issue and whereas it served her interest she did not originate Russiagate.  Conservatives no less than liberals would not want to shake the public’s confidence in government by implicating the CIA and FBI in a plot to control US foreign policy and perhaps remove a president from office.  There was no way there could be a real investigation of Russiagate.  Indeed, Attorney General Bill Barr could have stopped the orchestration while he was in office, but he did not.  Trump was out of step with the ruling establishment and had to be reduced to impotence and got rid off.

The Kremlin thinks that foreign policy is used to further a country’s national interest, but not in the United States. In the US foreign policy serves the power and profit of the military/security complex and the hegemonic ideology of the neoconservatives.

A $1,000 billion annual military/security budget requires an enemy, not normalized relations.  Clearly, the Kremlin has been in the dark about this and has been waiting patiently for the West to act rationally rather than in a suicidal manner. 

The neoconservatives’ well thought-out plan to overthrow the Ukrainian government, install a puppet, and train and equip a neo-Nazi militia to shell the Russian population in the Donbass area of Ukraine was designed to provoke a Russian intervention that could be used to justify sanctions that would isolate Russia from Europe and justify more US missile bases on Russia’s borders.

This plan was threatened by President Trump’s declared goal of normalizing relations with Russia. Trump had to go, because he positioned himself as an obstacle to a hegemonic foreign policy two decades in the making.

In the US the justice system is politicized. 

That Durham had to bring his case in the District of Columbia guaranteed that Sussman would not be convicted.  I suspect that Sussman’s acquittal is the end of the Russiagate investigation. 

Just as the media demonization of police officer Derek Chauvin meant no jury would fail to convict him, the demonization of Russia means that no jury would rule against the belief that there was Russian collusion in our internal affairs.

*

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

Dr. Paul Craig Roberts writes on his blog site, PCR Institute for Political Economy, where this article was originally published. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

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

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

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

***

Will the blatant fearporn ever stop? The controlled media have no shame.

If Ronald Reagan were still with us, I suspect we would be hearing “There you go again” replays. First came the coordinated media blast of public health-related fearporn. For example, the image from Jake Tapper’s CNN broadcast program “The Lead” of May 20,2022 (above) which appears to me to be a case of smallpox, not monkeypox. Another example involves the self-explanatory paired images below.

And of course the Bill and Melinda Gates – funded GAVI text which is quite blatant, claiming 10% mortality, which I covered in my prior substack article concerning Monkeypox and fearporn.

I almost cannot believe that I am writing this, but since my original substack article on this topic, we had the reveal of an Event 201-style wargame exercise modeled around a bioterror-related release of an engineered Monkeypox virus “caused by a terrorist attack using a pathogen engineered in a laboratory with inadequate biosafety and biosecurity provisions and weak oversight.”

With amazing (coincidental?) prescience, the “table top exercise” of March 2021 (one year and three months into the Covidcrisis) models a Monkeypox bioterror attack initiated on May 15, 2022.

Note the date of the CNN/Jake Tapper fearporn piece – May 20, 2022. The modeling deployed in the scenario upon which the “exercise” was based predicts 3.2 billion cases and 271 million deaths by December 01, 2023.

Of course, the predictive accuracy of the simplistic public health models such as that used to support this scenario have repeatedly proven to be absolutely horrid, and these types of models should be either relegated to the trash heap (or ongoing dumpster fire) as unscientific speculation which is all too frequently weaponized by the fearporn peddlers such as CNN, MSNBC, NYT, Washington Post. By now we all know the usual USG and WEF-controlled media players.

As the Italian’s like to say:

Niente e lasciato al caso.

Nothing happens by chance.

As we now know, the amazing foresight of this modeled date immediately preceded a seminal WHO meeting which has just concluded, in which international health regulation (IHR) modifications which would grant the WHO unprecedented powers to bypass national constitutions (proposed on January 23, 2022 by the US HHS) were actively considered but tabled for a future meeting (~November 2022?) largely due to African nation concerns regarding infringement of national sovereignty. The stated purpose of the “exercise” was remarkably well aligned with the stated objectives and topics proposed by US HHS in the submitted IHR modifications:

  • To establish a new global biosecurity entity dedicated to reducing emerging biological risks that can accompany certain technology advances. Its mission will be to reduce the risks of catastrophic consequences due to accidents, inadvertent misuse, or deliberate abuse of bioscience and biotechnology by promoting stronger global biosecurity norms and developing tools and incentives to uphold them.
  • To explore the possibility of establishing a new Joint Assessment Mechanism to investigate high consequence biological events of unknown origin. This new mechanism would operate at the “seam” between existing mechanisms—including World Health Organization (WHO) outbreak investigation capabilities and the United Nations Secretary-General’s Mechanism for investigating alleged deliberate bioweapons use—thereby strengthening UN system capabilities to investigate pandemic origins.
  • To advocate for establishing a catalytic, multilateral financing mechanism for global health security and pandemic preparedness. The goal is to accelerate sustainable biosecurity and pandemic preparedness capacity-building in countries where resources are most needed.

So, do we have yet another example of a “Plandemic”? All I can say is ~

Oh! What a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive” (Sir Walter Scott, Marmion)

Or perhaps the more appropriate quote would be ~

The Italians having a Proverb, “He that deceives me once, its’ his fault; but if twice, its’ my fault.” – Anthony Weldon, The Court and Character of King James (1651)

In my prior substack entitled “Monkey Pox, Truth versus Fearporn”, I concluded the essay with the following caveat:

Unless there has been some genetic alteration, either through evolution or intentional genetic manipulation, it is not a significant biothreat, and has never been considered a high threat pathogen in the past.

Which brings us to this May 23, 2022 report from the Portuguese National Institute of Health.

Just to set the stage, the outbreak seems to be tightly associated with a point of origin at what appear to have been two large European dance party events (“Raves”), in the Canary Islands (“Gay Pride event in the Canary Islands, which drew some 80,000 people”) and “a Madrid sauna”.

The Canary Islands event was the 20th anniversary of “Maspalomas Gay Pride”, which took place from May 05 to May 15 (the precise date of the previously modeled Monkeypox bioweapon release). The organizers anticipated “a huge parade with over 100,000 participants, boat trips, pool parties and more!”. So, basically, pretty much a perfect opportunity for a Monkeypox super spreader event, whether intentional or inadvertent. Donning my “cynical skeptic” tinfoil hat for a moment, if one was looking for an opportunity to seek a pathogen into a highly mobile international population, mindful of the early history of HIV-based AIDS, this would be just what the doctor (Mengle…) ordered.

Multiple cases were soon detected in Portugal, and to their great credit, INSA Portugal got busy and promptly did the deep sequencing necessary to enable building a phylogenic map of the Monkeypox variant associated with the outbreak.

Based on their findings, they have rapidly disclosed both their data as well as a series of startling hypothesis regarding the origin of the currently circulating Monkeypox (West African Clade) Monkeypox. Cutting to the chase, having reviewed their data and paper, I now have to conclude that one of the many “working hypotheses” concerning the origin of this particular virus must be that it is the product of laboratory-based manipulation – precisely as previously modeled by the Nuclear Threat Initiative (NTI):Bio/Munich Security Conference . True story. Truth continues to be stranger than fiction.

The authors briefly (and elegantly) summarize the study purpose and methods as follows:

Following the (First draft genome sequence of Monkeypox virus associated with the suspected multi-country outbreak, May 2022 (confirmed case in Portugal) 184), we now release 9 additional genome sequences of Monkeypox virus causing a multi-country outbreak. These sequences were obtained from clinical specimens collected from 9 patients on May 15th and 17th, 2022 through high throughput shotgun metagenomics using Illumina technology (see details bellow), with depth of coverage throughout Monkeypox genome ranging from 38x to 508x (mean of 201x).

The rapid integration of the newly sequenced genomes into the Monkeypox genetic diversity, also including the sequence released by USA* (Gigante et al, Monkeypox virus isolate MPXV_USA_2022_MA001, complete genome – Nucleotide – NCBI 156).

They then proceed to raise the following main observations:

  • The multi-country outbreak most likely has a single origin, with all sequenced viruses released so far* tightly clustering together (Figure 1).
  • Confirmation of the phylogenetic placement unveiled by the first draft sequence Isidro et al, 183: the outbreak virus belongs to the West African clade and is most closely related to viruses (based on available genome data) associated with the exportation of monkeypox virus from Nigeria to several countries in 2018 and 2019, namely the United Kingdom, Israel and Singapore (1, 2).
  • Still, the outbreak virus diverges a mean of 50 SNPs from those 2018-2019 viruses (46 SNPs from the closest reference MPXV_UK_P2, MT903344.1) (Table 1_2022-05-23.zip (15.0 KB)), which is far more than one would expect considering the estimated substitution rate for Orthopoxviruses (3).
  • As also mentioned by Rambaut (Discussion of on-going MPXV genome sequencing 228), one cannot discard the hypothesis that the divergent branch results from an evolutionary jump (leading to a hypermutated virus) caused by APOBEC3 editing (4)
  • We have already detected the first signs of microevolution within the outbreak cluster, namely the emergence of 7 SNPs (Table 2_2022-05-23.zip(10.9 KB)), leading to 3 descendant branches (Figure 1) including a further sub-cluster (supported by 2 SNPs) involving 2 sequences (PT0005 and PT0008). Notably, these two sequences also share a 913bp frameshift deletion in MPXV-UK_P2-010 gene coding for an Ankyrin/Host Range (Bang-D8L); D7L protein (MT903344.1 annotation). Gene loss events were already observed in the context endemic Monkeypox circulation in Central Africa, being hypothesized to correlate with human-to-human transmission (5).

Those not versed in academic science talk may be shaking their head by this point, and probably getting ready to post a comment along the lines of “Why don’t you just tell us that this means in simple language?”

So, at the risk of oversimplification:

  1. Looks like the Monkeypox outbreak comes from a single original virus source. Following the teachings of the “Multiple working hypothesis” model for arriving at scientific “truth” (which was a core part of my education as a young scientist), a) this could be (for example) a “natural” single jump event from some infected animal into a single human somewhere in the world (who presumably had some relationship to the Maspalomas Gay Pride event). Or b) it could have come from an intentional release of a viral isolate. Mixed news – could be good or bad
  2. The authors have confirmed that this new outbreak virus maps to the “(less disease-causing) West African group (clade) of Monkeypox viruses. Good news
  3. This single source virus could have come from West Africa or could have come from United Kingdom, Israel or Singapore (consistent with either hypothesis a or b). Mixed news – could be good or bad
  4. Despite the sequences indicating that the virus is most closely related to those isolated in 2018-2019, it is significantly different. This could be due to natural evolution or due to laboratory engineering/gain of function “research” (consistent with hypotheses a) and b). Generally bad news. Basically, the authors are indicating that they believe that genome of this virus is either evolving more rapidly than one would expect from a double stranded DNA poxvirus, (left unsaid, or somebody has been messing around with it).
  5. The authors speculate that the pattern of mutations are consistent with the effects of a natural cellular protein with the abbreviated name of APOBEC3. For those who want to dive into the molecular virology of APOBEC3, here is a nice 2015 J Immunology review. For those seeking the “Cliff Notes” abridged version, see Wikipedia. For the obsessives or aficionados, note that APOBEC3 is associated with specific pattern of base changes- (C→ U). On the basis of their hypothesis regarding the potential role for APOBEC3, I infer that the authors must have detected a statistically significant fraction of C→ U changes in the current isolates relative to the 2018-2019 isolates. Mixed news – could be good or bad. Still does not differentiate between hypothesis a) or hypothesis b).
  6. Here is the rub. While APOBEC3 is associated with cellular resistance (yet another form of “innate immunity” – isn’t molecular virology and cell biology amazing!) to HIV (and presumably other retroviruses), a quick pubmed search reveals that Poxviruses are resistant to the mutational effects of APOBEC3! For example, see this 2006 paper published in “Virology”. Frankly, whether through lack of curiosity or fear of attack from government controlled media and journals, the failure of the authors to even mention this Virology article is a major oversight at best. My inference and interpretation? On the basis of this sequence analysis report from the INSA team cited above, to me this is looking more like a laboratory manipulated strain than a naturally evolved strain. Bad news.
  7. Furthermore, this double stranded DNA virus, infections by which have historically been self-limiting, appears to be evolving (during the last few days!) to a form that is more readily transmitted from human to human. Bad news.

In conclusion, the preponderance of current evidence is pointing towards a hypothesis for the origin of this outbreak which is increasingly consistent with prior “war game” scenario planning, remarkably akin to that which occurred during Event 201, which posits emergence of an engineered Monkeypox virus into the human population during mid-May of 2022.

Draw your own conclusions, and do your own diligence.

*

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

All images in this article are from Robert Malone

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Monkey Pox Update: “War Game” Scenario Planning. “The Controlled Media Have No Shame”. Dr. Robert Malone
  • Tags: ,

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

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

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

***

Geoff Young came of age politically as a student at MIT in the mid 1970s where he took political science courses with Noam Chomsky and Louis Kampf that opened his eyes to the evils of U.S. imperialism and to the U.S. government’s contempt for international law.

Now, decades later, Young stands a real chance of being elected to Congress in Kentucky on a platform of abolishing the CIA.

On May 17, Young defeated Chris Preece with 52% of the vote to win the Democratic primary in Kentucky’s 6th Congressional District, which contains the cities of Lexington, Richmond and Frankfort, the state capital.

Young moved to Kentucky in 1982 to work in state government in the field of renewable energy, and first ran for public office in 2012 as a Green Party candidate.

In the November general election, he will face Republican incumbent Andy Barr, who has pushed for expanding FBI surveillance operations against Chinese academics in the U.S. under the neo-McCarthyite China Initiative and according to Young, criticized President Joe Biden for not sending enough weapons to Ukraine.

In an exclusive interview with CovertAction Magazine on May 25, Young said that he believes he won the primary in part because of a mailing in which he proclaimed that, unlike Andy Barr, he would never send weapons to Nazis in Ukraine.

Young also placed a billboard calling for abolishing the CIA.

Sarah Baird on Twitter: "new billboard for perennial kentucky candidate geoff young—who is currently in a primary to run against andy barr in KY-6—proclaims “he's for peace” and “abolish the CIA” ☮️✌🏻

Source: twitter.com

These latter positions have become popular because of the blowback resulting from disastrous foreign policy interventions.

Young told CAM that, besides taking courses with Chomsky and Kampf at MIT in 1976, he read almost every book written by Chomsky, who taught him about the “horrible things that the U.S. government did in Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Central America and elsewhere,” and how “U.S. media corporations lie and cover up all the atrocities.”

During the Cold War, “the CIA gained influence over the big media corporations under Operation Mockingbird,” and has “never stopped deceiving the American public through PSYOPs [psychological operations] which are illegal [inside the U.S.] under the CIA’s own charter.”

“[Unfortunately], they’ve only gotten better at [PSYOPs] today,” Young said. “As an example, under the ownership of Jeff Bezos, the CIA exerts full editorial control over The Washington Post, [which] is not how it’s supposed to be.”

Operation Mockingbird | Operation, Outcome, Facts & Summary Notes

Source: schoolhistory.co.uk

Young faces an uphill climb in his quest to defeat Barr not only because of his lack of support from corporate donors, but also because the Democratic Party establishment in Kentucky refuses to support him.

Kentucky Governor Andy Beshear, a Democrat, said that Young “needs help [insinuating he is mentally ill], and “yelled something nasty [at him] in front of his son.” The Kentucky Democratic Party’s State Central Executive Committee further said that “the Democratic Party could not actively support a candidate that engages in countless frivolous lawsuits against the party, its officers and virtually every elected official over the past decade.”

Young sued Beshear and other Democrats whom he said participated in gerrymandering and primary election rigging practices that violated Kentucky law.

Regarding the incident with Beshear’s son, Young said that when Beshear was walking with his son into the KDP Headquarters in Frankfort before the 2019 primary for Governor, Young announced cheerfully, “One of the criminals has arrived!” (the other alleged, election-rigging criminal being Democrat Adam Edelen). This was not something nasty but true.

CAM is delighted to see a viable congressional contender call for the abolition of the CIA and wholeheartedly endorses Geoff Young as a candidate for the U.S. Congress. We urge our readers to do the same and to try to help him win the election.

Besides calls to abolish the CIA, the rest of Young’s platform is also very forward thinking. He wants to a) abolish AFRICOM, b) tax the rich, c) get money out of politics, d) fight corruption, e) legalize cannabis and end the War on Drugs; f) expand Medicare for all, g) cut off military aid to Ukraine, and h) abolish economic sanctions.

Below is an edited transcript of the complete interview between CAM and Mr. Young on May 25:

Jeremy Kuzmarov: Hi Geoff. Thanks for joining us. It’s great to be with you. Congratulations on your primary victory. It’s quite an accomplishment.

Geoff Young: Yeah, it was. Thank you.

Jeremy Kuzmarov: Why don’t you start by discussing your background. How you came to your views, criticism of the CIA, and how you came to run for the U.S. House of Representatives.

Geoff Young: Alright. I was born and brought up in a middle-class town, Marblehead, Massachusetts, in a middle-class Jewish family. My parents wanted me to get into MIT. So I worked hard as a student in the public school system and got in. And one of the reasons I wanted to go there was that, as a junior or senior in high school, I read a couple of books by Noam Chomsky on the U.S. war of aggression against South Vietnam, and its expansion into Laos, Cambodia, and North Vietnam.

And that opened my eyes about a lot of things—including about U.S. imperialism. And our government’s total contempt for international law, especially the prohibition against aggression. So in 1976, I took a couple of political science classes with Noam Chomsky and Louis Kampf [of MIT’s languages department]. And the first one was on U.S. foreign policy since 1945, which really influenced me ever since.

Since then I’ve tried to read every book Noam Chomsky has written on politics (I never got into his linguistic research). In a typical Chomsky book, the first half is about all of the horrible things the U.S. is doing in Vietnam or Central America, or whatever particular intervention is going on at the moment. The rest of the pages are a dissection of the way the mainstream media corporations lie about it, cover it up.

We know that the CIA has tried to gain and has gained a lot of influence over the big mainstream media corporations. I think that was Operation Mockingbird, and it’s never stopped.

CIA's OPERATION MOCKINGBIRD ~ FG "Well know our disinformation Program is complete when \everything the American public believes is false." - America's best pics and videos

Source: americasbestpics.com

And now we see former CIA agents acting as commentators on mainstream media news shows.

I moved to Kentucky 40 years ago, in 1982 to Lexington, which is in Fayette County. Been here ever since. I love it here—the people, the climate is a little bit better than Massachusetts in the winter; I like to garden and it’s a longer growing season. I got a job in Frankfort in state government, working in the state energy office. Every state has one. In Kentucky, it was very small, but the mission of the state energy offices is to promote energy efficiency and renewable energy investments in all sectors of the economy. That was a great job. I retired five years early from that because it was just kind of getting a little bit repetitive.

And since about 2004, when I retired early, I’ve been a full-time political activist, mostly antiwar, never thought I would run for any office. Until about, well, my first run was 2012. I ran for the Kentucky House of Representatives in my district in Lexington against an entrenched far right-wing Christian Republican incumbent.

Since then I’ve learned a lot about how the political system in Kentucky works. And then every two years, starting in 2014, I have run for the U.S. House of Representatives in Kentucky’s Sixth Congressional District, which includes Lexington shading toward eastern Kentucky and Frankfort, the state capital.

This year, Kentucky Republicans rammed through a redistricting map because they have total control over the state House and Senate. They took Frankfort out of the Sixth District in order to help Andy Barr, the Republican incumbent. Gerrymandering was invented in Massachusetts by Elbridge Gerry [American founding father who served as Massachusetts Governor]. And it’s alive and well in the U.S.—probably also in Massachusetts.

But yeah, that’s how I got into politics and I’ve had a long and interesting journey there since 2012.

Jeremy Kuzmarov: Great. Actually I was a student from 2002 to 2006 at Brandeis University [in Waltham, Massachusetts] and I used to go to MIT to attend Chomsky’s lectures. He was also an inspiration and I read many of his books, so we have a lot in common. As far as your run for Congress, what do you think is different this time? In the last few races, you failed in the primary. Why do you think you won this time? And do you think you have a chance to defeat Andy Barr?

Geoff Young: Well, this time it was a pretty narrow victory. I got 52% to 48%. I think a lot of it was name recognition. I’ve been running since 2014 and a lot of Democrats know my name, compared to my Democratic Party challenger [Chris Preece, a high school teacher from Berea, Kentucky] who is very young.

Also on the eve of the primary I put out a postcard mailing which said: “Unlike Andy Barr, I will never vote to send weapons to Nazis.”

A picture containing text Description automatically generated

Source: Photo courtesy of Geoff Young

And on the back it had a montage of articles from mainstream media sources showing that the Ukrainian government has these Nazi battalions, Azov and others. And then it had little pictures of articles from USA Today, The New York Times, all of these establishment media corporations saying Nazis are gaining influence in Ukraine, that kind of thing. And then on the back, I wrote that there is no way Andy Barr can claim that he didn’t know that the United States was arming Nazis from 2014 until today.

Postcard final back May0322.pdf

Source: Courtesy of Geoff Young

And now. Mr. Barr wants to send them even more weapons. He’s criticizing President Biden because he’s not sending enough weapons. He can’t deny he knew about it.

I think that postcard must have had an effect on the election results.

Jeremy Kuzmarov: How do you navigate the issue of money in politics? Where do you get your money and how do you balance wanting to adopt principled policies with the need to raise money sometimes from corporations?

Geoff Young: I have never been any good at raising money in any of my campaigns. In my first one in 2014, my Democratic Party rival was as unknown as I was. Two unknowns. But she had the support of the Kentucky Democratic Party and raised about a quarter million dollars during the primary campaign. And I raised about zero though I invested some of my savings from working in state government. I’m real cheap. I save money, I don’t spend a lot. And so I spent about $20,000, or let’s see about $30,000 that first time; she spent about $250,000 in the primary. And I got 39% of the vote. I was amazed that this time I could win a primary with no contributions. With the victory, now finally, after eight years, contributions are starting to come in.

Jeremy Kuzmarov: Mostly from small contributions?

Geoff Young: Yes, $25 from someone in California, $25 from western Kentucky. If that continues, I should be able to run a race.

Jeremy Kuzmarov: I saw an article online, the governor of your state, a Democrat, Andy Beshear, said you were “a disrupter.” Clearly the Democratic Party does not want you running or even winning. How do you deal with that? And what do you think that the source of the backlash is and the impact that it might have?

Geoff Young: The Governor and the state central executive committee of the Kentucky Democratic Party do not represent all Kentucky Democrats. It would be inaccurate to say that the whole Kentucky Democratic Party hates me. That would not be true. The Governor [Andy Beshear—whose father Steve was Kentucky’s governor from 2007 to 2015] is not even on the state central executive committee but it’s universally recognized that he is the real leader of the Kentucky party.

I ran against Beshear in 2019 for governor. There were four Democrats in the primary. We all had a running mate. But it was not a fair contest. The party blatantly rigs its own primaries, the party leaders, the structure rigs important primaries all the time which is illegal. That’s not supposed to happen.

All the primaries, like all general elections, according to the Kentucky Constitution, are supposed to be free and equal but both parties—the Democratic Party and the Republican Party of Kentucky—routinely rig primaries that are important to them and violate the law. The Democrats have a bylaw that says you have to treat all Democratic Party candidates in the primary equally.

Republicans were smart enough not to put that bylaw in or create any formal documents. But they do it anyway. And so they’re writing their own bylaws on the Democratic side; and on both sides they’re violating Kentucky state law. So I have sued the Kentucky Democratic Party (KDP) in the past and nobody likes to be sued.

Andy Beshear was personally named in that 2019 lawsuit along with the other Democrats who I thought participated in that election rigging. I was in many events during that primary where I would say: “Look, in this primary, you have a choice. You can vote for a crook—that would be Andy Bashear or Adam Edelen—or you could vote for one of the honest, strong Democrats, Rocky Adkins, or me. If you don’t like me, vote for Rocky because he’s honest, he’s not a crook.

Andy Beshear didn’t like being in a room where someone was calling him corrupt to his face. So right before the Primary, there was the final meeting of the state central executive committee in Frankfort. And they invited the three establishment Democrats to come and talk to the committee. This is a big fundraiser with a lot of influential Democrats from all over Kentucky there.

I tried to register and a staff person said you’re not allowed in this building. They passed a resolution a year ago saying if you enter the headquarters building in Frankfort or the other one in Fayette County—my own party in my own county—we will call the police and have you arrested or we’ll call the sheriff.

And they did call the police many times. I never got arrested because I always left the building and chatted with the police officers outside. And so I’m not allowed in the building. The three others—Adam Edelen was inside. Rocky Adkins goes in, I chatted with him. He says, “Oh, I’ll find out what’s going on in there.”

And then Andy Beshear parks and is walking toward the building with his son, 12 years old at that time. And I say: “One of the criminals has arrived.” And Beshear says: “Geoff, this is my 12-year-old son.” And they just keep on walking in. That was the incident that he referred to. And when he was interviewed, when he was asked by a reporter the day after the primary this year, why he’s not supporting one of the Democratic nominees for Congress, it was a personal thing.

Jeremy Kuzmarov: I see. Now we can start discussing geopolitical affairs, but one last question about the race: What’s your game plan/strategy for trying to win in November?

Geoff Young: Well, I’m going to try to unite everybody, every Kentucky voter who is not happy with the way that the two establishment parties are running things.

And I’m going to continue to say “Unlike Andy Barr, I will never vote to send weapons to Nazis.” I’m going to point out the devastating economic impact of U S sanctions against Russia, China, Iran, Venezuela, many other countries [including Cuba], and even some of our allies when they want to deal with Russia.

Now, these sanctions don’t harm Russia very much. Russia is easily able to handle any sanctions that we can possibly impose. They have China that they can work with, they can export their oil and natural gas to China, to Asia. They don’t have to export it to Western Europe or the U.S.—some of their oil.

So Russia will be fine. But when you cut off trade with a huge country that has a lot of natural resources that we need, strategic materials and everything, you’re sanctioning yourself. And these sanctions are one of the major reasons why we’re having rising gasoline prices, inflation, and all kinds of other problems.

We’re destroying our own economy just to damage Russia and the Russian people. And it’s already failed. The ruble is stronger now than it was for years. So the sanctions have totally failed. If we keep trying to do it or double down, our own economy is gonna collapse. The value of the dollar is going to disappear.

Phil Hands | Tribune Content Agency

Source: syracuse.com

We won’t be able to afford imports from anywhere outside the United States. And we’ll just be cut off from the rest of the world. In terms of trade and economics, that’s a recipe for a long Great Depression. We’re going to run on that issue. And abortion. The entire Republican Party for the last 50 years has been taking a totally immoral position on abortion.

Planned Parenthood is the most effective abortion-preventing and reducing organization that exists. And by trying to put Planned Parenthood out of business, the Republican Party will simply force women back into unsafe back-alley abortions. More women will die and the number of abortions will not decrease.

It might even increase a little bit, but they’ll be illegal. And so, so the GOP’s position is simply an attack against all women in America.

Planned Parenthood | claytoonz

Source: claytoonz.com

Jeremy Kuzmarov: Great. And you also have a call to abolish the CIA in your platform. Can you discuss some of the abuses in recent years that you think the CIA has perpetrated and how they’ve corrupted democracy and what alternatives you would posit to a CIA?

Geoff Young: Okay. I have already mentioned the campaign by the CIA, since it was founded in 1947, to influence U.S. mainstream media corporations, and other opinion leaders such as academics. That’s probably the worst thing it has done. They’ve never stopped doing it when their charter makes it illegal for them to conduct psychological operations, PSYOPs against the American people.

The CIA has been violating its own charter and conducting PSYOPs against all of us since 1947. Since that time, they’ve only gotten better at it. They’ve done it more and more.

The Washington Post today is owned by Jeff Bezos. He has a very large contract with the national security state. The CIA now has editorial control over The Washington Post, especially when it’s reporting about some foreign country or a foreign war. The CIA controls The Washington Post. That’s not how it’s supposed to be.

And so we have this propaganda campaign today that is the worst I’ve ever seen. I lived through 9/11; in the years after that there was extreme uniformity in the mainstream media in supporting the war, supporting the troops and all that. The media never discussed whether the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003 violated international law; that was never brought up.

When they would talk about the weapons of mass destruction issue, they never brought up the fact that even if Saddam Hussein had had weapons of mass destruction, that would not have justified the U S invasion and conquest and occupation of Iraq in 2003. Nothing can justify international aggression. It’s the worst war crime possible for any country or any leader to commit. It’s a crime for which German officers and their propagandists and other officials were hanged at Nuremberg. So controlling the media is the worst thing the CIA does.

But also there’s a long, shameful record of torture, regime-change operations, overthrowing a government that is an official enemy. The United States has been doing that constantly since 1947. We have 16 other “intelligence agencies.” I always do that—use quotation marks with my fingers when I use the word intelligence—we have 16 others. We should just save some money and abolish the worst.

Source: marxist.com

Jeremy Kuzmarov: Great. Thank You. You seem to be the only candidate in this congressional race advocating for that position.

Geoff Young: Yeah, exactly. I am the only one. I don’t know of any other candidate anywhere. And we put up a billboard saying “Abolish the CIA.” I think that billboard actually contributed to my narrow victory.

Jeremy Kuzmarov: Excellent. It seems that the American people may have come around. I was reading an article today by Chris Hedges, who you probably read.

Geoff Young: Some of his articles. He’s fantastic.

Jeremy Kuzmarov: He’s a brilliant guy. And he was saying in the Cold War, the American public turned a blind eye to covert operations like in Indonesia because the U.S. economy was going well, but a generation or two later, the public has really come to revile the foreign policy elites in Washington and agencies like the CIA.

From what you’ve seen, do you think that your positions are really popular in Kentucky and could the majority of people agree with your assessment?

Geoff Young: Well, I haven’t done polls, but I think that a lot agree with me. People have told me and my campaign helpers. “Yeah. Yeah. Profanity the CIA. I agree with him on that position.”

The CIA it should be pointed out has run drugs, addictive drugs since they were founded. And I said in my campaign video, the addiction problem that has plagued Kentucky is not Kentucky’s fault. I hold the CIA responsible for that—you know, they pretty much ran the Afghan opium trade and heroin trade for 20 years while our troops were there. And guarding the poppy fields. The CIA was raking off money, cooperating with organized crime all over the world and flooding the world, including the United States, including Kentucky with opioids, a tremendous amount of suffering and damage caused by the drug trade.

So I have a solution for all that: to legalize all drugs. Libertarians like that; the Tea Party likes that. Other countries like Portugal have done that and they have dramatically reduced overdose deaths, which is a horrible problem in Kentucky and across America. If drugs were legalized, people would not have to buy poison on the street from the illicit drug business and they can get a pure or safe doses as they work to treat their addiction.

We could use marijuana as a kind of a stepping stone toward recovery, which is not addictive and not harmful. It’s been used as a medicinal herb for thousands of years. So, yeah, make marijuana legal and all drugs legal. Addicts could go into a clinic. John Oliver did a great segment on this in March; it’s called harm reduction. I agree with that. That was a brilliant video. Probably the best thing I’ve seen of John Oliver’s.

Jeremy Kuzmarov: Great. Two more questions. Your platform advocates for the abolition of AFRICOM [the Africa Command] and we’ve done some articles exposing AFRICOM. So maybe you can just say a bit about that—the harmful nature of AFRICOM and why you want to have it abolished.

Geoff Young: Well, it’s a purely military operation with Special Forces running around; no oversight. Helping our dictator friends in Africa avoid being overthrown by their own people.

Image Courtesy of Mail and Guardian.

Source: pulitzercenter.org

Jeremy Kuzmarov: Yes and it’s also to grab the natural resources. One of AFRICOM’s first commanders even admitted it. That’s what it was all about and to counter China because China’s moved into a lot of African countries.

Geoff Young: But China does not move in with their military.

Jeremy Kuzmarov: True, yes.

Geoff Young: They don’t set up a base in Central Africa or anywhere. They’ve got one base, I think next to our base in Djibouti, but we have bases all over Africa [the U.S. has at least 29 bases in Africa]. And the purpose—as you said—the ultimate purpose is to get African resources at low prices.

Map Description automatically generated

Source: mg.co.za

China’s goal is for mutual benefit. China and Russia are not imperialist powers. They are not trying to dominate the areas they trade with. So AFRICOM is just a continuation of the old French-British-Belgian colonial system. The purpose of which is to just get those resources and leave Africa in poverty. China with its new silk roads, Belt and Road initiative is there to help everyone profit and benefit, develop their economy.

China does not interfere in the internal affairs of the countries they trade with; countries along the Silk Road, the Belt and Road initiative. They don’t meddle in there in the governments of their trading partners. The United States by contrast always meddles—all the time as a matter of habit.

The U.S. is by far the worst imperialist country in the world today. And the rest of the world is getting tired of it.

Jeremy Kuzmarov: And my final question is about the media. The CIA controls the media; have they got wind of your campaign yet? Have you received any negative press or are they just kind of ignoring you?

Geoff Young: Well, public radio station WEKU interviewed me—reporter Stu Johnson was there the night of the primary results—May 17th. I was one of the last elections to be announced. Something like 11 o’clock and he was there. He was very even-handed and friendly in the interview.

Jeremy Kuzmarov: That’s good.

Geoff Young: But KET [Kentucky Authority for Educational Television] is not friendly. That’s a public television station. They have always hated me. They favor the establishment candidate, even if it’s a Republican.

This year they set three criteria to be in a debate before the primary. I had one primary opponent. Andy Barr had one primary opponent. So potentially, there could have been four people, maybe two debates, one or two for the Democrats, and one or two for the Republicans.

The first two criteria are reasonable. You have to have an active campaign essentially. Everybody always meets the first two.  The third was that you had to raise a certain amount of money or spend a certain amount of money by March 31, 2022. And it had to be reflected in the FEC, Federal Election Commission’s website, on or before April 15th.

So my Democratic Party rival [Chris Preece] didn’t meet that third criterion. I met it. However, I got a letter from a private lawyer in Louisville; I don’t know why they don’t use state attorneys or the assistant attorney general from Kentucky to represent them. But they have a lawyer in Louisville who said that number in the box there on the FEC website was higher than $25,000. But he said that those expenditures weren’t legitimate; they had to do with things in the past; we’re not counting that and you’re not going to be on our stage. You will not receive an invitation to be interviewed by KET. So you met the criteria, but we’re not inviting you.

Anyway, KET has a problem and that lawyer is one of their problems.

Jeremy Kuzmarov: This was very recently.

Geoff Young: Yes. I got that letter I forget exactly when; I’d probably say in April. And the primary was May 17.

Jeremy Kuzmarov: There is a progressive wing of the Democratic Party—Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and “The Squad.” A lot of them were supporting the bill for the billions to Ukraine, which is disappointing. But on other issues often they’ve been good. Do you have any connection or support from them?

Geoff Young: I’m looking forward to working with all of them very closely. I want to join the Congressional Progressive Caucus if I win in November and work with the progressive wing of the party, I saw an article yesterday in The Guardian saying progressives have done unexpectedly well in recent primaries across the United States. And I think it’s a trend.

Even though they were vastly outspent by their establishment Democratic Party opponents, they did surprisingly well. And I think that trend is going to actually accelerate. I think the future of the Democratic Party is the anti-war progressive wing of the party; it’s going to replace all these ancient establishment politicians.

Jeremy Kuzmarov: I hope so.

*

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

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].

Featured image is from Geoff Young

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Geoff Young: Peace Candidate Who Wants to Abolish CIA Wins Democratic Primary in Kentucky
  • Tags: ,

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

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

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

***

The pro-medical freedom group US Freedom Flyers (USFF) is suing Atlas Air with the help of John Pierce Law, and plans to sue every major U.S. airline.

This is the first lawsuit to make it to court on behalf of USFF, but according to the Epoch Times, there are “plans to sue all major airlines, 18 altogether, plus the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and the Department of Transportation (DOT).”

The contention on behalf of USFF is that the COVID jab mandates imposed by various federal regulators are unconstitutional for reasons of medical and religious liberty.

The lawsuit, which can be found here, reads: “Fundamentally, this case is about whether Americans should be required to choose between their livelihoods and being coerced into taking an experimental, dangerous medical treatment.”

The founder of John Pierce Law is attorney John Pierce, who previously represented George Papadopoulos as part of the “Russia Hoax” saga. He is also representing January 6 defendants.

Pierce told the Epoch Times: “So the complaint has been filed. We’re in the process of serving everyone. And then, we’ll likely be looking for some kind of injunctive relief here soon to make sure that all the COVID-related mandates stop immediately. And then we’ll proceed [with] litigation, motion, practice, and discovery and then onward to trial eventually.”

United Airlines is the next major airline on USFF and Pierce’s list.

“We’ll be hitting basically all of them in sequence,” he added. “And then we’ll be going after the FAA as well. We’re gonna get these vaccine mandate type of rules and COVID restrictions ruled unconstitutional.”

Pierce also said that his firm will prove that there was “discrimination” under Title VII. Title VII is a statute of the 1964 Civil Rights Act that “prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex and national origin.”

“…[T]he reason we’re doing it that way is because so many people have been harmed and people have experienced different levels of harm. We have the unvaccinated who have been harassed, threatened, and intimidated into getting vaccinated. Then we have many people as well who got vaccinated against their will, who were coerced and forced into doing it under threat of losing their employment,” Yoder said.

Yoder added that the “numbers of vaccine-injured [pilots] are growing by the day.”

“And so what we’re seeing is many pilots are experiencing health conditions. Specifically, cardiac issues [are] what we’re seeing a lot of. And many of these pilots are afraid to come forward because if they come forward they lose their flight physical, they lose their flight medical. So they’re continuing to fly. We have a lot of pilots that are flying with chest pain and neurological conditions, because if they come forward they lose their careers.”

*

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

Featured image is from Shutterstock

Masking: More Harms Than Good?

June 2nd, 2022 by Dr. Robert Malone

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

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

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

***

The Foegen effect

A mechanism by which facemasks contribute to the COVID-19 case fatality rate

Fögen, Zacharias MD∗ The Foegen effect, Medicine: February 18, 2022 – Volume 101 – Issue 7 – p e28924 doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000028924

Abstract: Extensive evidence in the literature supports the mandatory use of facemasks to reduce the infection rate of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2, which causes the coronavirus disease (COVID-19). However, the effect of mask use on the disease course remains controversial. This study aimed to determine whether mandatory mask use influenced the case fatality rate in Kansas, USA between August 1st and October 15th 2020.

This study applied secondary data on case updates, mask mandates, and demographic status related to Kansas State, USA. A parallelization analysis based on county-level data was conducted on these data. Results were controlled by performing multiple sensitivity analyses and a negative control.

A parallelization analysis based on county-level data showed that in Kansas, counties with mask mandate had significantly higher case fatality rates than counties without mask mandate, with a risk ratio of 1.85 (95% confidence interval [95% CI]: 1.51–2.10) for COVID-19-related deaths. Even after adjusting for the number of “protected persons,” that is, the number of persons who were not infected in the mask-mandated group compared to the no-mask group, the risk ratio remained significantly high at 1.52 (95% CI: 1.24–1.72). By analyzing the excess mortality in Kansas, this study determines that over 95% of this effect can solely be attributed to COVID-19.

These findings suggest that mask use might pose a yet unknown threat to the user instead of protecting them, making mask mandates a debatable epidemiologic intervention.

The cause of this trend is explained herein using the “Foegen effect” theory; that is, deep re-inhalation of hypercondensed droplets or pure virions caught in facemasks as droplets can worsen prognosis and might be linked to long-term effects of COVID-19 infection. While the “Foegen effect” is proven in vivo in an animal model, further research is needed to fully understand it.

*

My friend Dr. Byram W. Bridle wrote a great article on a topic near and dear to my heart. I highly recommend reading his entire article. Below is an excerpt from his piece:

Stop Masking Children They Need To Interact With The Microbial World

Isolating children from the microbial world promotes the development of chronic diseases.

Young children need to interact with the microbial world. It is absolutely essential to the proper development of their immune systems. I am not going to delve into too many scientific details here because I wrote about this in an article that I published in The Conversation in March 2021. It is entitled “A year of COVID-19 lockdown is putting kids at risk of allergies, asthma and autoimmune diseases”.

In a nutshell, we are born with naïve and immature immune systems. Our immune systems don’t fully mature until well into the teenage years, with most of that development occurring between birth and about six years of age.

The ability of the immune system to self-regulate relies on interactions with the microbial world; especially via interactions with other people, particularly family members. This allows their immune system to learn to differentiate between things that are dangerous and those that are not. In turn, their immune system will become equipped to respond to dangers while preventing potentially harmful responses to things that pose no threat, such as self and inert environmental molecules and normal gut-resident bacteria, etc.

Isolating a young child from non-dangerous microbes in their environment compromises the ‘immunoregulatory’ components of their immune system. A dysregulated immune system often manifests itself in the form of allergies, asthma, and autoimmune diseases.

I felt compelled to write about this concern in May 2021 after I witnessed children being chronically isolated for more than a year. One year was the timepoint at which I felt that substantial, potentially irreparable harm could be done to children’s immune systems. I am appalled that many children have now been enduring this for well over two years, with no end in sight for some.

Masking is controversial and, arguably, largely ineffective against preventing the spread of viruses in ways other than via coughing and sneezing. However, they can pose a reasonable barrier to larger environmental particles (e.g., dust particles, dander, pollen, etc.) and bacteria. Throw in the excessive use of things like antibacterial hand sanitizers, being locked down in homes and lack of physical interactions, and we are now well on our way to having a micro-generation of children who will have been isolated like no other human beings in history. Unfortunately, these children will now be part of an unanticipated experiment on a global scale; one to really assess the validity of the so-called ‘hygiene hypothesis’. Although I would like to be wrong on this one, basic immunological principles suggest that very young children that had to endure COVID-19 lockdown policies might be faced with the highest rates of autoimmune diseases, allergies, and asthma in human history.

Dr. Bridle ends his article with the following statement:

Moving Forward

The moral of this story is to stop isolating our children from their microbial world. Let them get dirty. Let them interact with other children. Let them hug family members and friends. Consider getting a cat or dog that they can interact closely with. Take them on hikes in the woods or countryside. Definitely have them wash their hands with regular soap, but cut down on the antibacterial soaps and sanitizers. Every time normal flora on the skin are killed one risks having them re-populated with pathogens.

And, for goodness sake, let children see the mouths of others so they can learn to speak properly.

What harm is done from the last two-and-a-half years is done. But, please, let’s not keep locking down, physically distancing and masking our children ad nauseum. Not for SARS-CoV-2, not for the annual flu, not for monkeypox. Not for anything unless it is demonstrated via transparent, objective, publicly disclosed and openly debated science to be a genuine threat to the lives of a substantial proportion of children.

*

The Ocular Manifestations and Transmission of COVID-19: Recommendations for Prevention

See here for the full article

Background

Coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19), caused by a novel coronavirus termed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2), has been linked to ocular signs and symptoms in several case reports. Research has demonstrated that SARS-CoV-2 is spread primarily through close contact via respiratory droplets, but there is the possibility for ocular transmission, with the conjunctiva as a conduit as well as a source of infection.

Discussion

Ocular manifestations of SARS-CoV-2 include follicular conjunctivitis, and have been repeatedly noted as an initial or subsequent symptom of COVID-19-positive patients. Particularly in patients with ocular manifestations, there is evidence that the virus may present in tears, based on the detection of SARS-CoV-2 in conjunctival swab samples via reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction. The virus may therefore be transmittable from the ocular surface to a new host via contact with the ocular mucosa, tears, or subsequent fomites.

Conclusions

All health care professionals should ask patients about ocular symptoms consistent with SARS-CoV-2, and use eye protection such as goggles or face shields as part of the standard personal protective equipment for high-risk patients in addition to wearing of masks by both the patient and provider, and should consider tears to be potentially infectious.

*

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

Featured image is from Pixabay

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Masking: More Harms Than Good?
  • Tags:

Fake Meat, Fake Breastmilk and Food Shortages

June 2nd, 2022 by Dr. Joseph Mercola

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

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

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

***

Bill Gates appears to be behind the push to stop breastfeeding and encourage uptake of BIOMILQ, a cell-cultured “human milk” made in a lab, along with other varieties of fake food

Nearly every large meat and dairy processor/manufacturer has also acquired or developed plant-based meat and dairy substitutes

This “protein” industry convergence is jeopardizing the resilience of the food system and reducing genetic diversity of livestock and crops

When you factor in soy production as well as the use of conventional energy sources, lab-grown meat may be worse for the environment than conventionally produced chicken and pork

There are signs that the fake meat industry may be failing before it ever gets off the ground; shares of Beyond Meat lost $6 billion since March 2020 due to weak sales growth

To save the planet and support your health, skip all the fake meat alternatives and opt for real food that’s being raised using regenerative, grass fed methods

*

Fake food is being poised as a panacea to end world hunger and food shortages, but there’s nothing miraculous about synthetic, lab-made food. It can’t compare to food that comes from nature in terms of nutrition or environmental protection, and as we’re seeing with the mysterious infant formula shortages, when you’re dependent on fake food, your very survival is also dependent on the handful of companies that manufacture them.

With parents getting desperate in the search for infant formula, it’s eye-opening that campaigns haven’t been started to encourage new mothers to breastfeed — the best food for infants and one that also happens to be free and readily available in most cases. If you haven’t read my article on the best workaround for infant formula for those that are unable to breast feed, it is on Substack.

In the video above, you can watch a concerning timeline about why this may be, as Bill Gates appears to be behind the push to stop breastfeeding and encourage uptake of BIOMILQ, a cell-cultured “human milk” made in a lab,1 along with other varieties of fake food.

Bill Gates’ Formula for Disaster

In June 2020, Bill Gates announced startup company BIOMILQ, which is using biotechnology to create lab-made human milk for babies. Using mammary epithelial cells placed in flasks with cell culture media, the cells grow and are placed in a bioreactor that the company says “recreates conditions similar to in the breast.”2

This synthetic lab-made breast milk replacement raised $3.5 million in funding from Gates’ investment firm Breakthrough Energy Ventures.3 Gates has also contributed at least $319 million to the media,4 including The Guardian, allowing him to control and dictate what they print. The day after the Gates Foundation paid The Guardian its annual funding in May 2022, it released a hit piece on breastfeeding titled, “Turns out breastfeeding really does hurt — why does no one tell you?”5

U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) offers also seized 588 cases of infant formula from Europe in April 2021 because it lacked appropriate nutritional labeling. In February 2021, CBP officers said they inspected 17 separate shipments of infant formula from Germany and The Netherlands, leading to a warning against buying infant formula online from overseas.

At the time, Keith Fleming, CBP’s acting director of field operations in Baltimore, Maryland, said in a news release:6

“Consumers should be very careful when contemplating the purchase of items over the internet from an international source, because they may not get what they expect. People expect that the products they purchase comply with existing U.S. health and safety laws and regulations and they’ll be safe for them or their family. That’s not always the case.”

While warning Americans against purchasing infant formula from overseas, in February 2022 the U.S. Food and Drug Administration announced bacterial contamination at the Abbott Nutrition’s Sturgis, Michigan facility,7 which is behind the current infant formula shortages. While Gates is clearly behind the push to stop breastfeeding and encourage BIOMILQ in lieu of breastmilk or formula, the formula shortages highlight the risks of consolidated food production.

Abbott Enriched Shareholders While Formula Sickened Babies

Corporate consolidation is rampant in the U.S. baby formula market, of which 90% is controlled by four companies. Abbot is among them, responsible for 43% of baby formula production in the U.S.8Yet, according to a whistleblower filing from October 2021, equipment at the company’s Sturgis facility was “failing and in need of repair.”

Pitting and pinholes reportedly existed in a number of pipes, allowing bacterial contamination. Leadership was aware of the failing equipment for up to seven years before the February 2022 outbreak, according to the whistleblower’s report.9

With equipment in need of repair, and a bacteria outbreak in their formula sickening babies, Abbott used its massive profits from 2019 to 2021 to announce a lucrative stock buyback program.10According to The Guardian:11

“Abbott detected bacteria eight times as its net profits soared by 94% between 2019 and 2021. And just as its tainted formula allegedly began sickening a number of babies, with two deaths reported, the company increased dividends to shareholders by over 25% while announcing a stock buyback program worth $5bn.”

Speaking with The Guardian, Rakeen Mabud, chief economist for the Groundwork Collaborative, added, “Abbott chose to prioritize shareholders by issuing billions of dollars in stock buybacks instead of making productive investments.”12

Big Meat and Dairy Companies Dominate Fake Meat Industry

The increasing number of plant-based fake foods and lab-grown meat companies give the illusion that consumers are getting more choices and the food industry is becoming less consolidated. However, there are still relatively few firms that are controlling the global grab for “protein” markets.

In a research article published in Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems, Philip Howard, a faculty member in the department of community sustainability at Michigan State University, and colleagues explain how this “protein” industry convergence is further jeopardizing the resilience of the food system and reducing genetic diversity of livestock and crops:13

“Recent years have seen the convergence of industries that focus on higher protein foods, such as meat processing firms expanding into plant-based substitutes and/or cellular meat production, and fisheries firms expanding into aquaculture. A driving force behind these changes is dominant firms seeking to increase their power relative to close competitors, including by extending beyond boundaries that pose constraints to growth.

The broad banner of “protein” offers a promising space to achieve this goal, despite its nutritionally reductionist focus on a single macronutrient. Protein firm strategies to increase their dominance are likely to further diminish equity in food systems by exacerbating power asymmetries.”

Tyson and Cargill, two of the largest meat processors in the world, for instance, have invested in fake meat company Memphis Meats, which also has backing from Bill Gates and Richard Branson. Other billionaires invested in fake foods include Sergey Brin (Mosa Meat), Peter Thiel (Modern Meadow) and Marc Benioff (Eat Just).

“These companies wouldn’t be making these investments if they didn’t expect that the intellectual properties held by these start-ups will lead to monopoly profits,” Howard notes.14 In “The Politics of Protein,” a report from the International Panel of Experts on Sustainable Food Systems (IPES-Food), Howard explains:15

“Nearly every large meat and dairy processor/manufacturer has also acquired or developed plant-based meat and dairy substitutes, establishing footholds in a market that is growing approximately 20% per year.

More than a dozen of these firms have also invested in start-ups that are attempting to commercialize lab-grown meat and fish. Meanwhile, Vanguard and BlackRock — two of the world’s biggest asset management firms — have investments in almost all the largest meat, dairy, and animal feed companies.”

It is important to understand why all of these fake meat products are an absolute metabolic disaster relates to the fact that they are using vegetable fats to replace animal fats. Not only are they devoid of important vitamins like vitamin A and vitamin K2, but they are loaded with the dangerous omega-6 fat linoleic acid LA.

In some cases they contain up to 10 to 20 times the amount found in meats, which will radically contribute to diseases like diabetes, obesity, cancer and heart disease.

Lab-Grown Food Is an Environmental Catastrophe

The push for fake food is being made on the platform that it will somehow save the environment from the ravages of factory farming, which has devastated the environment with its concentrated animal feeding operations and monocultures. But this, too, is misleading.

In February 2021, the Good Food Institute (GFI), a nonprofit group behind the alternative protein industry, released a techno-economic analysis of cultivated meat, which was prepared by consulting firm CE Delft.16 In it, they developed a model to reduce the current costs of cultured meat production down to a point that would make it economically feasible in full-scale plants by 2030, a model they said is “feasible.”

In attempting to create cultured meat on the scale that would be necessary to feed the world, logistical problems are numerous and, possibly, insurmountable. There are waste products — catabolites — to deal with, as even cultured cells excrete waste that is toxic.

And, the oxygen and nutrients available must be adequately distributed to all the cells — something that’s difficult in a large reactor. Stirring the cells faster or adding more oxygen may help, but this can cause fatal stress to the cells.17

The environmental “benefits” are also on shaky ground when you factor in soy production as well as the use of conventional energy sources. When this is factored in, GFI’s life-cycle analysis found that cultured meat may be worse for the environment than conventionally produced chicken and pork.18,19

Farmer and historian John Lewis-Stempel also points out that the world’s farmers already produce enough food for the global population: “[A]ny discussion of global food policy needs to begin with one plain fact: there is … no actual food shortage. Already, the planet’s farmers produce enough food to cater for the projected 10 billion humans of 2050. The problem is waste and distribution.”20

Yet, the push for the creation of fake protein sources continues. In the foreword to Navdanya International’s report “False Solutions That Endanger Our Health and Damage the Planet,” Vandana Shiva also details how lab-grown foods are catastrophic for human health and the environment, as they are repeating the mistakes already made with industrial agriculture:21

“In response to the crises in our food system, we are witnessing the rise of technological solutions that aim to replace animal products and other food staples with lab-grown alternatives. Artificial food advocates are reiterating the old and failed rhetoric that industrial agriculture is essential to feed the world.

Real, nutrient-rich food is gradually disappearing, while the dominant industrial agricultural model is causing an increase in chronic diseases and exacerbating climate change. The notion that high-tech, “farm free” lab food is a viable solution to the food crisis is simply a continuation of the same mechanistic mindset which has brought us to where we are today — the idea that we are separate from and outside of nature.

Industrial food systems have reduced food to a commodity, to “stuff” that can then be constituted in the lab. In the process, both the planet’s health and our health have been nearly destroyed.”

Signs the Fake Meat Industry Is Stalling

For all of its fanfare, there are signs that the fake meat industry may be failing before it ever gets off the ground. Shares of Beyond Meat, for one example, lost $6 billion since March 2020 due to weak sales growth and has resorted to partnering with PepsiCo to release a plant-based jerky product.

“My analysis is the launch will do very little to increase the company’s fortunes,” writes business development consultant Victor Martino in Just Food.22 He argues that the “plant-based meat revolution” is just a PR stunt, a narrative that’s set to implode:23

“The fact is, despite increased product availability in terms of brand choices and added retail outlets, plant-based meat sales stalled in 2021, recording zero growth, according to recent research from SPINS, data commissioned and released by The Plant-Based Foods Association and The Good Food Institute.

According to the research, the total annual sales of plant-based meat in the US remained stable at $1.4 billion. That’s a continuation of the 1.4% share of total meat category sales.”

Shares of Beyond Meat and Oatly, a plant-based milk substitute, have lost more than half their value in 2022,24 but this isn’t to say that their executives are suffering. Beyond Meat’s former chief growth officer Chuck Muth sold shares valued at more than $62 million from 2019 to 2021, while Biz Stone, a current board member and Twitter co-founder, has made millions on Beyond Meat stock.25

The fact remains that when private companies control the food supply, they will also ultimately control countries and entire populations. Biotech will eventually push farmers and ranchers out of the equation and will threaten food security and human health. In other words, the work being done in the name of sustainability and saving the planet will give greater control to private corporations while weakening the population.

To save the planet and support your health, skip all the fake meat alternatives and opt for real food that’s being raised the right way instead. When you shop for food, know your farmer and look for regenerative, biodynamic and/or grass fed farming methods, which are bringing you truly sustainable food for a healthy population and planet.

*

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

Notes

1, 3 Rumble May 17, 2022

2 BIOMILQ, Our Science

4 MintPress News November 15, 2021

5 The Guardian May 9, 2022

6 U.S. Customs and Border Protection April 5, 2021

7 U.S. FDA May 17, 2022

8, 9, 10 Children’s Health Defense May 23, 2022

11, 12 The Guardian May 20, 2022

13 Front. Sustain. Food Syst., 16 August 2021

14 Civil Eats September 22, 2021

15 IPES-Food, The Politics of Protein, Executive Summary, Page 3

16 Techno-Economic Analysis for the production of cultivated meat February 2021

17, 19 The Counter September 22, 2021

18 LCA of cultivated meat – February 2021, Page 3

20 Unherd May 17, 2022

21 Children’s Health Defense April 5, 2022

22, 23 Just Food March 30, 2022

24 CNBC May 14, 2022

25 Michele Simon March 1, 2022

Featured image is from OffGuardian

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Fake Meat, Fake Breastmilk and Food Shortages

Biden Tweaks Ukraine Narrative

June 2nd, 2022 by M. K. Bhadrakumar

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

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

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

***

The US President Joe Biden’s op-Ed in the New York Times on Tuesday on the Ukraine war starts with a bluff. He says President Vladimir Putin had thought Russia’s special operation would only last days. How Biden arrived at such an estimation is unclear. Like the US narrative on the war, it is largely presumptive. 

Russians are rooted — and well-founded — in their belief that Ukraine has become an American colony and the leaders in Kiev are mere puppets. How could Putin and his Kremlin advisors have estimated that the special operation would be a cakewalk? The core objectives of the special operation are such — a treaty affirming Ukraine’s neutral status and its recognition of Donbass republics as independent states and Crimea as integral part of Russia — that an operation that “would last days” wouldn’t secure them. 

Moscow knew that the US had absolutely no intentions to accommodate Russia’s legitimate security concerns regarding NATO expansion into Ukraine that were formally projected in December in writing.  

That is the main reason why the Russians have no timeline for their special operation. They would love to round it off the soonest but knew that the integration of Ukraine’s southern regions — Zoporozhia, Kherson, Mykolaiv — that is vital for Crimea’s economy and security and Ukraine’s Black Sea Ports was not going to be child’s play and might be a long haul. 

In the fourth month of the special operation only, Putin could decree the streamlining of procedures for Russian citizenship from applicants in the Kherson, Zoporozhia regions of southern Ukraine.(here, here and here)

Zaporozhye Region in southern Ukraine has offered Russia a military airfield in Melitopol and a naval base in Berdyansk on the coast of the Sea of Azov. The Kherson region plans to integrate into Russia’s education system. Cars are using Russian number plates, Russian SIM cards operate internet and phones. Suffice to say, the shoe is on the other foot.

It was Biden who thought that Russia could be thrown away like a piece from a chessboard but only to realise belatedly that life is real. Biden threatened to render Russian currency ruble a mere rubble and destroy the Russian economy. Having been a hatchet man as a professional politician, Biden never really understood the resilience, fortitude and grit of the Russian people or their historical consciousness and psyche to rally behind Putin. 

In the Times op-Ed, Biden thinks Biden makes a personal gesture toward Putin by promising that he “will not try to bring about his ouster in Moscow.” Yet, Putin’s rating in his country is around 80 percent, while Biden’s is less than half of that — 36%! 

Herein lies the predicament of the Biden Administration. The US is groping in the dark about the Russian intentions in Ukraine. It keeps improvising and updating its narrative to cope with emergent realities that keep coming as nasty surprises. 

This is not only about the military part but also about Russia’s political roadmap. The only constant in Washington is about providing Ukraine with “advanced” weaponry — but then, that is also either about regenerating lucrative business for the military-industrial complex by fuelling wars abroad, or, compensating for the NATO allies who transfer their Soviet-era redundant stockpiles to Ukraine.   

Nonetheless, Biden proclaims in his op-Ed that he will “stay the course” and the massive aid to Ukraine will continue “in the months to come.” That said, Biden makes a nuanced presentation in the op-ed, where, apart from the iteration of usual catechisms — about “a democratic, independent, sovereign and prosperous Ukraine”; allied unity; unprovoked Russian aggression; “rules-based international order”, etc. — he does some messaging as well to Moscow as the war graduates to a new phase. 

For a start, he no longer makes any false promises to send the Russians packing to Siberia. Biden doesn’t predict winners and losers. On the contrary, he acknowledges that this war can only have a diplomatic solution. He signals modestly that such massive scale of US military aid may put Kiev “in the strongest possible position at the negotiating table.” Carefully drafted words. 

Elsewhere, Biden estimates that the focus of the Russian operation is “to take control of as much of Ukraine as it can” before negotiations begin. Implicit here is the realisation that the Russians have turned the tide of the war and a reversal of fortunes is not to be expected. 

It is from such a rational perspective that Biden’s uncharacteristic avoidance of vituperative and belligerent rhetoric toward Russia (or Putin personally) needs to be understood. He reaffirms categorically: “So long as the United States or our allies are not attacked, we will not be directly engaged in this conflict, either by sending American troops to fight in Ukraine or by attacking Russian forces. We are not encouraging or enabling Ukraine to strike beyond its borders. We do not want to prolong the war just to inflict pain on Russia.” 

Of course, Washington will “continue cooperating” with allies regarding sanctions — “the toughest ever imposed on a major economy” — but Biden won’t evaluate its effectiveness. He promises to “work with our allies and partners to address the global food crisis that Russia’s aggression is worsening,” but won’t allege anymore that world food shortage is Russia’s creation. He will help European allies and others to “reduce their dependence on Russian fossil fuels” but also links it to “speed our transition to a clean energy future.” There is no acrimony. 

As regards the security issues, Biden reiterates the US policy to continue “reinforcing NATO’s eastern flank with forces and capabilities” and welcomes Finland’s and Sweden’s applications to join NATO — “a move that will strengthen overall U.S. and trans-Atlantic security by adding two democratic and highly capable military partners” — but refrains from directly linking either of these to Russian aggression. 

Most important, Biden retracts from the dramatic prognosis by CIA Director William Burns that under military pressure, Putin might order use of tactical nuclear weapons in Ukraine.  

The sombre tone of Biden’s words is in sharp contrast with his own intemperate and tendentious past remarks. This eschewal of the “big macho tough guy” image betrays that some degree of realism is appearing in the US official narrative. But on the other hand, Biden also discloses in his op-ed that the US will provide the Ukrainians with “more advanced rocket systems and munitions that will enable them to more precisely strike key targets on the battlefield in Ukraine.”

All this adds up to a calculated signal to Moscow, no doubt. But it isn’t easy to resurrect the Atlanticist inclinations in the Kremlin. The tortuous policy procrastinations on NATO expansion through the past quarter century have cost Russia dearly in lives and treasure. That folly or naïveté — depending on one’s viewpoint — shouldn’t repeat.

Again, stalling the momentum of the special operation at this point would carry immense risks. The operation almost lost momentum on the outskirts of Kiev in March due to the “stop-and-go” approach. 

Fundamentally, there has been a certain inevitability about the western sanctions, with or without the Ukraine crisis, aimed at weakening Russia permanently. The compass is now set. Therefore, no matter the deliberate sobriety of Biden’s op-Ed, the big picture cannot be wished away.

Indeed, the Russian Strategic Rocket Forces held drills in the Ivanovo region, northeast of Moscow today, the day after Biden’s op-ed appeared.

The Russian Defence Ministry said some 1,000 servicemen participated in the drills using over a hundred vehicles, including Yars intercontinental ballistic missile launchers, which have the capability to launch the MIRV-capable (Multiple Independently-targetable Reentry Vehicles) thermonuclear RS-24 Yars inter-continental ballistic missile with range of 12,000 km that can carry up to 10 warheads and cruise at speeds of up to 24,500 kilometres per hour.

*

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

Featured image: Yars ICBM launchers participated in drills of Russian Strategic Rocket Forces, Ivanovo region, northeast of Moscow, June 1, 2022 (Source: IP)

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

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

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

 

 

 

 

***

Yesterday, the Los Angeles Times published an op-ed entitled, “Why Does the Pentagon Give a Helping Hand to Films Like ‘Top Gun’?” by Roger Stahl, a communication studies professor at the University of Georgia and director of the documentary film “Theaters of War: How the Pentagon and CIA Took Hollywood.” 

The op-ed pointed out that if a proposed film does not meet with the approval of the Pentagon and the CIA, it will probably not get made. Moreover, according to 30,000 documents from the Department of Defense that Stahl and his team of researchers secured under the Freedom of Information Act, “the Pentagon and the Central Intelligence Agency have exercised direct editorial control over more than 2,500 films and television shows.”

There is one film from the early 1960s that did not meet with the approval of the Pentagon and the CIA that was nevertheless put into production. That film was entitled Seven Days in May and starred Burt Lancaster, Kirk Douglas, Ava Gardner, and Frederic March. You can watch a trailer for the movie here.

The movie is based on the overwhelming power of the U.S. national-security establishment within America’s federal governmental structure. America’s military generals decide that the president is leading America to doom and decide that they have no choice but to remove him from office in order to save the country. The president gets wind of the scheme and moves to foil it. 

As I detail in my new book An Encounter with Evil: The Abraham Zapruder Story, the movie was based on a novel that had the same title as the movie — Seven Days in May. President Kennedy read the novel and decided that it should be made into a movie to serve as a warning to the American people of the grave danger posed by the national-security establishment. 

Of course, Kennedy was not the first president who issued such a warning. In his Farewell Address, President Eisenhower, the president who preceded JFK, warned the American people of the grave danger to the rights and liberties and democratic processes of the American people posed by the “military-industrial complex,” which was the name he used for the “national-security establishment.” 

In fact, in an earlier draft of his speech, Ike had used the term “military-industrial-congressional complex” to denote the symbiotic relationship between the national-security establishment and the members of Congress. That intimate relationship was most recently demonstrated by the quick passage of the $40 billion aid package that the Pentagon wanted for Ukraine.

In fact, the Founding Fathers felt much the same way. That was why they fiercely opposed“standing armies,” the name they used for a national-security establishment. That was why America did not have a Pentagon, a vast and permanent military-industrial complex and “defense industry,” an empire of foreign military bases, a CIA, or an NSA for more than 125 years. There was a relatively small, basic military force designed primarily to protect settlers from attacks by Native-Americans. 

America’s army was so small that there was no way that the country could get embroiled in the forever wars and conflicts in Europe and Asia. That’s how the American people wanted it. They didn’t want the U.S. military getting America involved in foreign wars. They understood that such wars weakened a nation and also were the prescription for the destruction of liberty and prosperity here at home at the hands of a large, permanent, and ever-growing military-intelligence force. 

If the Constitutional Convention had come out with a proposal for a national-security state that consisted of a Pentagon, a vast and permanent military establishment and “defense” industry, a CIA, and an NSA, there is no doubt that the American people would have soundly defeated it. The last thing our ancestors wanted was the type of government under which Americans live today.

In 1970, Salvador Allende was elected president of Chile. As a socialist, he made it clear that he had no interest in joining the U.S. government’s fierce anti-Russia, anti-communist crusade. On the contrary, he reached out to the Soviet Union, Cuba, and other communist countries in a spirit of friendly and peaceful coexistence. 

The U.S. national-security establishment, imbued with the same fierce anti-Russia animus that drives it today, deemed Allende to be a grave threat to U.S. national security. Equally important, Allende was deemed to be a grave threat to Chilean national security. Therefore, the U.S. national-security establishment embarked on a course of action designed to convince the Chilean national-security establishment that it had a moral duty to remove the country’s democratically elected president in order to save the country. 

In other words, the mindset of the U.S. national-security establishment was the same mindset depicted in Seven Days in May — the mindset about which Kennedy wanted to warn the American people. 

A big problem arose, however. The overall commander of Chile’s armed forces, Gen. Rene Schneider, said no. He said that the constitution of Chile did not provide for the violent ouster of the president and, therefore, he would not go along with the scheme.

Consequently, the CIA orchestrated Schneider’s kidnapping and assassination on the streets of Santiago. Once he was removed from the scene, the road was opened to doing what Seven Days in May warned about — the violent removal of Allende from office, followed by round-ups, executions, rapes, torture, or disappearances of tens of thousands of people, including two young American men, Charles Horman and Frank Terrugi.

CIA Director Richard Helms was later summoned to testify before Congress. When asked about CIA involvement in the Chilean coup, he lied under oath by falsely stating that the CIA had played no role in the coup. Perhaps the reason he did that was because the Chilean regime-change operation bore a remarkable similarity to the Kennedy assassination, especially after Kennedy reached out to the Russians and the Cubans in a spirit of friendly and peaceful coexistence, the same thing that Allende would do.

Ironically, Seven Days in May was scheduled to be released at the time Kennedy was assassinated. The release was delayed owing to the assassination. 

Purchase An Encounter with Evil: The Abraham Zapruder Story at Amazon.

*

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

Jacob G. Hornberger is founder and president of The Future of Freedom Foundation. He was born and raised in Laredo, Texas, and received his B.A. in economics from Virginia Military Institute and his law degree from the University of Texas. He was a trial attorney for twelve years in Texas. He also was an adjunct professor at the University of Dallas, where he taught law and economics. In 1987, Mr. Hornberger left the practice of law to become director of programs at the Foundation for Economic Education. He has advanced freedom and free markets on talk-radio stations all across the country as well as on Fox News’ Neil Cavuto and Greta van Susteren shows and he appeared as a regular commentator on Judge Andrew Napolitano’s show Freedom Watch. View these interviews at LewRockwell.com and from Full Context. Send him email.

Featured image: Burt Lancaster (Source: FFF)

Turkey Spoils the Big NATO Party

June 2nd, 2022 by Dr. Binoy Kampmark

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

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

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

***

Complacency has been the hallmark of NATO expansion.  Over time, it has even become a form of derision, notably directed against Russia.  As with many historical matters, records ignored can be records revisited, the second time around sometimes nastier than the first.

With the Ukraine conflict raging, a few of Russia’s neighbours have reconsidered their position of military non-alignment and neutrality.  Last month, both Sweden and Finland submitted membership applications to formally join the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.

This reconsideration must be taken with the heaviest of qualifications.  Sweden and Finland, while they have claimed neutrality and non-alignment status, have hardly been neutral on the subject of cooperation with NATO.  Since the 1990s, Sweden has become an increasingly important partner of the alliance, using its military in concert with NATO exercises.  Finland, with its 280,000 troops and 900,000 reservists, also boasts an interoperability function with the alliance.

Admission to the security club does, however, come with the requirement of unanimity from current members.  As things would have it, one country has shown little enthusiasm to acquiesce to the plan.  Turkey, at times the large fly in the pact’s ointment, sees an opportunity to extract concessions and muddy the pool of consensus.  With the Russian invasion, the Erdoğan regime has broadened its military and political efforts against its long-term enemies, the Kurds.  Militarily, Turkish forces have intensified efforts in Kurdish-run parts in northeast Syria.  Politically, President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan hopes to have Sweden and Finland surrender a number of Kurdish dissidents, or terrorists, as he prefers to call them.

The point for Turkey regarding the Kurdish issue is far from new.  In 2009, Erdoğan kicked up a fuss by blocking the appointment of former Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen as NATO chief, citing Denmark’s sympathies for “Kurdish terrorists”.  He also accused Rasmussen of failing to heed Turkish requests to ban ROJ TV, a Danish-based station linked to the Kurdistan’s Workers’ Party, the PKK.  The appointment did eventually come through after much haggling and a solemn promise from President Barack Obama that a Turk would be given a prominent leadership role.

Be it NATO relations with Israel, efforts to bolster Eastern European states against Moscow, or the acquisition of Russia’s S-400 missile defence system, Erdoğan has proved a determined spoiler.  In 2020, he sorely tested NATO relations by teasing Greece with a gas-exploration ship backed by fighter jet support.  The Oruç Reis was sent to waters in the East Mediterranean claimed by Turkey, with the purpose of exploring hydrocarbon reserves.  France deployed its own ships in support of Greece.  NATO had gotten into a squabble with itself.

The PKK continues its unrelenting guerrilla campaign on behalf of the large Kurdish minority within Turkey, one it has waged since 1984.  While the party is listed as a terrorist group by the EU and the United States, Sweden and Finland have generally opposed extradition of its members and sympathisers.  For its part, Sweden has welcomed somewhere in the order of 100,000 Kurds since the 1970s.  Erdoğan, in typically blunt fashion, has accused Sweden of being a “hatchery” for “terrorist” organisations.

Ankara is also unlikely to have forgotten the condemnation by Finland and Sweden of its military incursion into Syria in 2019, a move that was accompanied by restrictions on weapons sales.

Last month, Turkey’s Justice Ministry noted the rejection by Helsinki and Stockholm of the request “for the extradition of people with links to the PKK and Gülenist Terror Group (FETÖ)”.  In terms of numbers, six members of the PKK and six from FETÖ have been sought for the last five years, while a further 21 “suspects” have bulked the list.

The affair has become something of a spectacle.  Sweden has extended an arm to Ankara, hoping to pacify Erdoğan even as he tells members of his Justice and Development Party (AK Party) about the devious way Stockholm and Helsinki have tried to rebrand the PKK in other theatres, such as Syria.

The propitiating move has caused tremors of worry within Sweden.  “If you want to sell everything for NATO membership,” stormed Swedish lawmaker Amineh Kakabaveh, “then go ahead but I think it’s awful.”

A note of determined stroppiness has also been struck.  “Let’s not fall into Erdoğan’s trap,” urged 17 cultural and literary figures in an opinion piece published by Dagens Nyheter.  Other Swedish papers, including Aftonbladet, Expressen and Svenka Dagbladet also ran the piece titled “Do not hand over the publishers to Erdogan!”  The key concern: the demand from Ankara that various journalists, writers and publishers be surrendered to Turkish authorities.

This point is particularly biting, given that many of these figures have become Swedish citizens.  But it is also of concern given Turkey’s notoriously poor record in treating members of the fourth estate.  The stern op-ed recalls “the attacks and assassination attempts against prominent journalists, Can Dündar, in Istanbul, Erk Acarer in Berlin, and Ahmet Dönmez in Stockholm.”

There is a certain irony in the Swedish and Finnish decision, not least in claimed efforts to bolster their security against an authoritarian Russia.  NATO, despite supposedly promoting liberal democratic values, has members (Turkey and Hungary spring to mind) who are much at odds with them.

An authoritarian Turkey, argue the 17 signatories, is fiendishly attempting to insinuate its own values into the Swedish political and legal system.  The Turkish leader’s “political manoeuvre to extradite the people who took refuge in Sweden to be free as an attempt to export his own understanding of freedom of expression to our country, Sweden.”

Despite the tangle, NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg is convinced “that we will be able to address the concerns that Turkey has expressed in a way that doesn’t delay the membership”.  In the final heave-ho, all eyes will be on what concessions will go Erdoğan’s way.

*

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

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

Featured image is from InfoRos

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Turkey Spoils the Big NATO Party
  • Tags: ,
  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Why Imran Khan Alleges the US for the Fall of His Government
  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Sunshine by Day, Water by Night: Indonesia Could Pair Its Vast Solar and Hydro Storage to Decarbonise the Country
  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on China Prepares Launch of Most Advanced Aircraft Carrier on ‘Dragon Boat Festival’

Video: The Plan. WHO Plans to Have 10 Years of Pandemics (2020-2030). “Proof that the Pandemic was planned with a purpose”

By Stop World Control, June 01, 2022

THE PLAN shows the official agenda of the World Health Organization to have ten years of ongoing pandemics, from 2020 to 2030. This is revealed by a WHO virologist, Marion Koopmans. You will also see shocking evidence that the first pandemic was planned and abundantly announced right before it happened.

Cases of Brain Damage in Children Skyrocket Following COVID-19 Vaccines

By Brian Shilhavy, June 02, 2022

Weakened hearts, blood clots, and now you can add neurological brain damage to the list of side effects being reported in children following COVID-19 vaccinations. In at least one case, one poor child developed all three conditions.

How the Nixon Doctrine Blew Up the Persian Gulf, Undermined US Security

By David Wight, June 01, 2022

On May 31, 1972, Nixon and the shah privately met at the Saadabad Palace in Tehran. For the first time, Nixon agreed to sell F–14 and F–15 jet fighters and laser-guided bombs, some of the most advanced weapons in the U.S. arsenal, to Iran. In return, Nixon asked the shah that Iran use these weapons to protect U.S. interests in the Persian Gulf region.

EU Commission Studies Price Cap on Imported Russian Gas

By Julianne Geiger, June 01, 2022

The EU has been contemplating a natural-gas price cap to avoid significantly higher costs should Rissia limit or cut off the flow, and to limit profits for Russia—the very country the West is trying to punish for its invasion of Ukraine.

War Within the War: The Fight Over Land and Genetically Engineered Agriculture

By Mitchel Cohen, June 01, 2022

Ten months before Russian troops poured into Ukraine, that country’s President Volodymyr Zelensky signed a bill into law authorizing the private sale of farmland, reversing a moratorium that had been in place since 2001.

Moldova Goes Full Zelensky: President Sandu Invites Nation’s Destruction!

By Brett Redmayne-Titley, June 01, 2022

The Moldovan parliament is far more powerful than its president as are the constitutional provisions of neutrality. But this does not keep NATO from rabidly salivating to use Moldova as a staging ground from its lair in Romania, a country with its own ulterior motives that historically sees potential war as a cultural and historical opportunity to join with NATO in a quest for expansion back to its former borders.

Charles Ray at the Metropolitan Museum of Art

By Prof. Sam Ben-Meir, June 01, 2022

Throughout his career, Ray has been engaged in a sustained dialogue with the entire history of sculpture, going as far back as ancient Greece; and at the same time, he is immersed in a conversation with America, with its art, and literature, as well as its (homo)social and racial tensions.

Ukraine Fires Own Human Rights Chief for Perpetuating Russian Troop ‘Systematic Rape’ Stories

By Zero Hedge, June 01, 2022

For over the past two months, an avalanche of stories have hit Western mainstream press which purported to document instances of mass rape carried out by Russian troops against Ukrainian civilians. One particular story in Time took off, driving outrage and condemnation by Western officials and receiving repeat coverage on CNN and other major US networks.

IEA: Current Energy Crisis Is “Much Bigger” Than 1970s Oil Crunch

By Charles Kennedy, June 01, 2022

The world faces a “much bigger” energy crisis than the one of the 1970s, the Executive Director of the International Energy Agency (IEA), Fatih Birol, told German daily Der Spiegel in an interview published on Tuesday.

Monsanto’s Former CEO Testifies in Roundup Trial, Points to EPA Safety Findings

By Carey Gillam, June 01, 2022

Former Monsanto chief Hugh Grant spent several hours on the witness stand on Tuesday – testifying for the first time in front of a jury at a Roundup trial – telling the court repeatedly that global regulators had found no evidence that the company’s herbicides cause cancer.

  • Posted in NO READ MORE LINK
  • Comments Off on Selected Articles: Video: The Plan. WHO Plans to Have 10 Years of Pandemics (2020-2030). “Proof that the Pandemic was planned with a purpose”