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 Instagram, Twitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

A United States Congressional bill has already been approved by a wide margin that would target and punish African states that maintain political and economic relations with the Russian Federation.

The hostile action by the Congress which is dominated by the Democratic Party continues the efforts to isolate Moscow and intensify the war in Ukraine.

Labeled as the “Countering Malign Russian Activities in Africa Act” (H.R. 7311) was passed on April 27 by the House of Representatives in a bipartisan 419-9 majority and will probably be approved by the Senate which is evenly split between the Democrats and the Republicans. This legislative measure is broadly worded enabling the State Department to monitor the foreign policy of the Russian Federation in Africa including military affairs and any effort which Washington deems as “malign influence.”

Russian military operations in Ukraine are in response to Washington and Wall Street’s efforts to expand the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) deeper into Eastern Europe as a direct threat to the interests of the Russian Federation and its allies. Two other bills have recently been passed to maintain and expand Pentagon military bases around the world along with providing an additional $40 billion to supply weapons to the Ukrainian government which is bolstered by neo-Nazi militias integrated into the armed forces.

During the early phase of the Russian special operations in Ukraine, many African states abstained from two United Nations General Assembly resolutions motivated by Washington to condemn the Russian government for its intervention in Ukraine while completely ignoring the level of fascist infiltration of Kiev military forces and the necessity of reaching a diplomatic solution to the burgeoning conflict. African heads-of-state, such as President Cyril Ramaphosa of the Republic of South Africa, have consistently argued that the African National Congress (ANC) led government in Pretoria will not support the Ukraine war along with the draconian sanctions instigated by the Biden administration. Ramaphosa has demanded that the U.S. State Department and White House support negotiations between Kiev and Moscow, which have been routinely undermined by Biden and his cabinet members.

Long before the February 24 intervention by the Russian armed forces, the U.S. has engaged in repeated threats against President Vladimir Putin and the entire government based in Moscow demanding that it acquiesce to the expansion of NATO. Unprecedented sanctions with the stated aims of completely blocading Russia from the world economic system have largely failed to curtail the advances by Moscow in eastern Ukraine.

The only foreign policy towards Eastern Europe that has been devised by the Biden administration, which follows a neocon ideological orientation, is to announce additional sanctions and send in more weapons to the regime of Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky. The war policy towards Moscow is extended to the People’s Republic of China where Biden has also threatened military intervention in relation to the Taiwan situation. Even within the Western Hemisphere, Biden has sought to isolate the Republic of Cuba and the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela from a Summit of the Americas planned for June in Los Angeles.

A leading Nigerian newspaper, Premium, sought to provide a rationale for the legislation now moving through the Senate. The report issued on May 20 reads in part that:

“New York Democrat Gregory Meeks, chair of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, said the bill was designed to thwart Russian President Vladimir Putin’s efforts to ‘pilfer, manipulate and exploit resources in parts of Africa to evade sanctions and undermine U.S. interests,’ and to finance his war in Ukraine. Mr. Meeks also presented the bill as supportive of Africa, intended to protect ‘all innocent people who have been victimized by Putin’s mercenaries and agents credibly accused of gross violations of human rights in Africa, including in the Central African Republic and Mali.’ It is specifically in the Central African Republic (CAR) and Mali that Wagner has been accused of committing human rights violations to prop up dubious governments and thwart Western interests. Some African governments suspect there’s more at play than protecting ‘fragile states in Africa,’ as Mr. Meeks put it. ‘Why target Africa?’ one senior African government official asked. ‘They’re obviously unhappy with the way so many African countries voted in the General Assembly and their relatively non-aligned position.’”

‘Neo-Colonialism: The Last Stage of Imperialism’

Yet within Congressman Meek’s comments there is no acknowledgement of the centuries-long enslavement and colonization of African people by the western feudal and capitalist states, including the U.S. In fact, there has never been any apology let alone gesture towards paying reparations to the African people on the continent and throughout the globe for the destruction caused by the plunders of involuntary servitude and political domination engendered by international finance capital.

The actual historical record reveals that Russia, even under monarchial rule prior to 1917, never participated in the Atlantic Slave Trade, colonization on the continent or the Western Hemisphere where hundreds of millions of Africans remain up until this day. Contrary to the posture of the U.S. and its NATO allies, the former Soviet Union as well as China and other socialist states supported the anti-colonial, national liberation and civil rights struggles waged by the African people from the period after World I up until the 21st century. It was successive administrations in Washington which gave military and economic solace to the colonial powers operating in Africa and throughout the world. All of the legitimate liberation movements and popular struggles against racism, capitalism, colonialism and imperialism were opposed by the U.S.

Africa and Russia Summit during 2019 (Source: Abayomi Azikiwe)

Since the advent of independent African states during the late 1950s, the U.S. has become the leading neo-colonial imperialist power on the continent and around the world. Neo-colonialism seeks to maintain economic, political and social control over independent states through the roles of transnational corporations and military apparatuses, with NATO as the leading alliance designed to maintain the global status-quo.

According to Dr. Kwame Nkrumah, founder of modern Ghana and Africa, Neo-colonialism is the major threat to African unity and development since the 1960s. Nkrumah states in his book entitled “Neo-Colonialism: The Last State of Imperialism” (1965):

“Faced with the militant peoples of the ex-colonial territories in Asia, Africa, the Caribbean and Latin America, imperialism simply switches tactics. Without a qualm it dispenses with its flags, and even with certain of its more hated expatriate officials. This means, so it claims, that it is ‘giving’ independence to its former subjects, to be followed by ‘aid’ for their development. Under cover of such phrases, however, it devises innumerable ways to accomplish objectives formerly achieved by naked colonialism. It is this sum total of these modern attempts to perpetuate colonialism while at the same time talking about ‘freedom’, which has come to be known as neo-colonialism. Foremost among the neo-colonialists is the United States, which has long exercised its power in Latin America. Fumblingly at first she turned towards Europe, and then with more certainty after world war two when most countries of that continent were indebted to her. Since then, with methodical thoroughness and touching attention to detail, the Pentagon set about consolidating its ascendancy, evidence of which can be seen all around the world.”

Consequently, the U.S. Congress at the beckoning call of the Biden administration has no right to dictate what the relations between the Russian Federation and the African Union (AU) member-states should be. The AU governments and more so among the workers, women, farmers, youth and revolutionary intelligentsia, have nothing to gain from the U.S. attempts to prohibit sovereign states from engaging in trade deals and military alliances that Washington deems to be at variance with its own interests.

Moreover, the peace and antiwar movements in the U.S. should be outraged at all of these legislative and administrative measures which will not only harm the people of Africa and other geopolitical regions, these actions by the ruling elites in Washington are a detriment to the working class and oppressed within North America. As U.S. working families face the highest increases in fuel, food, housing and other costs in over four decades, it will not be long before the people understand that the alleviation of the impoverishment among the masses cannot be addressed absent of the elimination of the Pentagon budget and dismantling of military bases around the globe.

*

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.

Featured image: Central African Republic and Russia solidarity on billboard (Source: Abayomi Azikiwe)

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

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

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

***

As Boris Johnson’s government galvanises international action to take Russia to the International Criminal Court over Ukraine, his officials are escaping accountability for their own complicity in violations of international humanitarian law.

The UK government has announced that it has “galvanised allies to refer atrocities in Ukraine to the International Criminal Court (ICC) in the Hague”, and “expedite an ICC investigation, through state party referral.”

Russia, in its war in Ukraine, is far from exceptional in targeting civilians and civilian infrastructure. Sadly, such behaviour is par for the course in warfare today.

Violations of International Humanitarian Law (IHL) – in particular the indiscriminate or even purposeful killing and maiming of civilians – have been a regular feature of armed conflicts in recent decades.

Impunity for violations of IHL and war crimes has become one of the most dire features of the international order, to the detriment of global stability and multilateralism. The violations are not just ignored but accepted and excused by some of the world’s most powerful countries, particularly those exporting arms to conflict zones.

Civilians in Syria, the Occupied Palestinian Territories and Yemen have been suffering the full horrors of impunity for war crimes with weapons made in Russia, Europe and the US for countless years.

The UK, along with a number of other European countries, is complicit in violations of IHL in the war in Yemen, now in its eighth year, though currently with a temporary truce in place.

Despite warnings from the very early stages of the war that IHL violations were occuring, arms exports from the UK, Spain, Italy, France and Germany to the Saudi Arabian-led coalition, and especially to the Saudi regime itself, have continued.

Some of these states have limited arms export licences to the Coalition. But the UK stands out for its unrivalled determination to maintain arms exports in the face of multiple legal, political and moral challenges.

Since the war in Yemen began in 2015 the UK has exported over £23 billion worth of arms to the Saudi-led Coalition.

Going to court

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, Twitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

On Memorial Day, America remembers and honors those who died while serving in the military. It is altogether fitting and proper to ask: for what did they die? Do the rationales offered by the military and government officials who decide when and how the US will go to war, and embraced by the public, particularly those who lose loved ones, stand up to scrutiny and analysis? Some will recoil, claiming it inappropriate on a day devoted to honoring the dead. However, it is because war is a matter of life and death, for members of the military and inevitably civilians, that its putative justifications be subject to the strictest tests of truth and the most probing of analyses.

Millions have marched off to war believing they were defending the US, which implies the US was under attack. Yet, setting aside for a moment Pearl Harbor and 9/11, US territory hasn’t been invaded by a foreign power since the Mexican-American War (arguably—Mexico claimed the territory it “invaded” was part of Mexico), or, if the Confederacy is considered a foreign power, the Civil War. That war ended a century-and-a-half ago, yet every US military involvement since has been justified as a defense of the US. That has gradually attenuated, in a little noted slide, to a defense of US “interests,” which is something far different.

Only one of those involvements could, arguably, have been said to have forestalled not an invasion, but a possible threat of invasion: World War II. Watching newsreel graphics of Germany’s drives across Europe, Northern Africa, and the USSR, and Japan’s across Asia and the Pacific, it was perhaps understandable that Americans believed the Axis powers would eventually come for them, especially after Pearl Harbor. However, that was a one-off attack by the Japanese to disable the US’s Pacific Fleet. To launch an invasion of the US, Japan, a smaller, less populated nation whose economy depended on imports of vital raw materials, including oil, would have had to cross the Pacific and fight the US, and undoubtedly Canada, on their home territories. The Pearl Harbor attack, provoking America’s entry into the war, proved a strategic blunder for the Japanese. An invasion would have been ludicrous. Similarly, Germany, up to its eyeballs in a two-front war, couldn’t conquer Russian winters or Great Britain across the English Channel. How was it supposed to either cross the Atlantic, or the USSR and hostile guerrillas, then the Pacific, and attack the US? That, too, would have been ludicrous.

The 9/11 attack was also a one-off. A majority of the attackers came not from a US enemy but rather a supposed ally, Saudi Arabia. They received funding and other support from people in that country and perhaps its government. A conventional war against a “state sponsor of terrorism” might have required war against Saudi Arabia; it is still not clear how involved its government was. That option was never considered. Rather, the Bush administration performed metaphysical gymnastics and launched the first war in history against a tactic: terrorism. Although the jihadists who perpetrated 9/11 were self-evidently not the vanguard of an invasion, the terrorism they employed was deemed a threat to US interests in the Middle East, and to life and property in the US. However, none of our subsequent involvements in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Egypt, and Yemen have been necessary to maintain US citizens’ freedoms, the nation’s territorial integrity, or its lives and property.

There are undoubtedly many epitaphs on tombstones in this country to the effect: Here lies the deceased, who died defending America, and not one that reads: Here lies the deceased, who died defending American interests. However, the latter is in most cases more accurate than the former. Who decides the interests for which members of America’s military will die? Those considering entering the military today must look beyond the slogans, contemplate the risks of being killed, wounded, dismembered, paralyzed, or psychologically traumatized, and ask themselves: why and for whom are these risks being borne? You don’t fight for your country, you fight for your government. Is it worth risking one’s life for the US government?

In 1821, John Quincy Adams said America had not gone “abroad in search of monsters to destroy,” and while we wished those seeking liberty well, theirs was not our fight (see “In Search of Monsters,” SLL, 4/11/15). Since then, America has searched for monsters, found, and in some cases, destroyed them. However, as the poison of power has worked its evil on the minds and souls of those who possess it, the monsters have become more ethereal, apparitions conjured like creatures in the closet by children when they go to bed. The war on terrorism creates more terrorists, the monsters of choice since 9/11. The government still pays occasional lip service to “democratic values” and “civil liberties,” but allies itself with regimes which have no more fealty to those values and liberties than the “tyrants” the government opposes. “Defending America” and “Promoting Our Way of Life” have become transparent pretexts for American power and domination unbounded. As Adams so presciently warned, the search for monsters has turned the government itself into a monster, the biggest threat to Americans’ “inextinguishable rights of human nature.”

Those who have fought and died to defend America and its freedoms are noble beyond measure. Those who pay self-serving tribute to their valor, but make war and expend lives as means to corrupt ends are evil beyond redemption. Honor the former; expose and oppose 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 SLL

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, Twitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

 

 

***

This video was first produced in June 2020 in the immediate wake of the March 11, 2020 lockdown.  

Michel Chossudovsky describes the economic and social consequences of the corona crisis.

This is the most serious global debt crisis in World History.

***

“V the Virus” is said to be responsible for the wave of bankruptcies and unemployment. That’s a lie. There is no causal relationship between the (microscopic) SARS-2 virus and economic variables.

It’s the powerful financiers and billionaires who are behind this project which has contributed to the destabilization (Worldwide) of the real economy.

And there is ample evidence that the decision to close down more than 190 national economies (resulting in poverty and unemployment) will inevitably have an impact on patterns of morbidity and mortality. 

Since early February 2020, the Super Rich have cashed in on billions of dollars.

Amply documented it’s the largest redistribution of global wealth in World history, accompanied by a process of Worldwide impoverishment.” 

Michel Chossudovsky, November 2021

 

VIDEO (click Watch on Youtube to leave a comment)

About the Author

Michel Chossudovsky is an award-winning author, Professor of Economics (emeritus) at the University of Ottawa, Founder and Director of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), Montreal, Editor of Global Research.

He has undertaken field research in Latin America, Asia, the Middle East, sub-Saharan Africa and the Pacific and has written extensively on the economies of developing countries with a focus on poverty and social inequality. He has also undertaken research in Health Economics (UN Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC),  UNFPA, CIDA, WHO, Government of Venezuela, John Hopkins International Journal of Health Services (1979, 1983)

He is the author of twelve books including The Globalization of Poverty and The New World Order (2003), America’s “War on Terrorism” (2005),  The Globalization of War, America’s Long War against Humanity (2015).

He is a contributor to the Encyclopaedia Britannica.  His writings have been published in more than twenty languages. In 2014, he was awarded the Gold Medal for Merit of the Republic of Serbia for his writings on NATO’s war of aggression against Yugoslavia. He can be reached at [email protected]

See Michel Chossudovsky, Biographical Note

Michel Chossudovsky’s Articles on 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 Instagram, Twitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

 

 

 

 

 

 

***

Reading Ngaio Marsh’s Scales of Justice I realized that the word, “impertinence” has gone out of use.  Indeed, what was once an outrage is now so common that no one recognizes it as impertinence.  Impertinence has become accepted routine behavior and is no longer recognized when it occurs.  

The phenomena of impertinence requires a polite, somewhat formal society in which privacy, self-control, and respect for others are requirements. 

Gentlemen don’t read other gentlemen’s mail.  Tell that to the NSA, CIA, FBI, Google, and all corporations who spy on Internet usage. 

In England prior to 1950 it was impertinence for a male to go too far in his compliments to a woman.  When I was a student at Oxford University in the 1960s, it was an impertinence to telephone a person to whom you had not been introduced.  Today we live with constant telephone intrusions from telemarketers, robots, and scam artists.  A society in which impertinence is understood no longer exists. 

Consequently, civilized life has taken on a purely technological meaning.  Insouciant Silicon Valley nerds build more police state tools for Big Brother in Orwell’s 1984 and see this as civilization’s progress.

Another concept that has disappeared from use is ladies and gentlemen.  This term implies distinctions among people and cannot survive in a time when even gender differences are denied.  The ultimate impertinence would have been a male declaring himself a women and competing in women’s sports.  

We see the extermination of Western civilization in its politics. In America the fight between Democrats and Republicans is settled by which side’s lies are most convincing to the voters. 

Shame has lost its meaning. 

A recent Republican fundraiser asks if we “believe that Democrats in Congress are tough enough to stand up to China and Russia?” 

How is this question possible with the Biden regime threatening war with China, declaring its commitment to Russia’s defeat in Ukraine, pumping into Ukraine $40 billion, heavy weapons, diplomatic support, sanctions on Russia?  

The Democrats oppose parental rights and are able to make appeals to voters on this basis.  Florida Democrats are rallying against Gov. DeSantis because he supports parental rights. 

Really, this is true. Democrats expect to be elected, because they are against parental rights and the 1st, 2nd, and 14th Amendments to the Constitution.  Censorship of free speech (contrary to the 1st Amendment) and imposition of discriminatory quota regimes ( contrary to the 14th Amendment) are mainstays of the Democrats’ agenda.

As I have emphasized in my writings, the United States is the Constitution. In the absence of the Constitution, the United States no longer exists.  Some other entity has taken its place. 

The disrespect for the Constitution is bi-partisan.  It was the George W. Bush regime that declared the power to suspend habeas corpus and hold citizens indefinitely without due process. 

It was the Obama regime that declared the president’s ability to execute citizens on suspicion alone without due process. 

It is the Democrats who discriminate against white males, declare white people “racists,” impose censorship, and attack the 2nd Amendment.  Law schools dissolve the Constitution into an ever-changing “living document” changed at will by judges and law professors. 

Western civilization has been replaced by a rootless tower of babel, a structure without strength.  The question Republicans and Democrats should be asking is how can a civilization as weak as the West go to war against Russia and China?

*

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.

Featured image is from Amazon

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, Twitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

After the Russian reports concerning biolabs in Ukraine, the topic of bioweapons research has gained global notoriety, resulting in great scrutiny. It did not take long to realize that Eastern Europe is not the only region on the planet chosen by the US to operate this type of clandestine activity. Now, evidence points to the existence of biolaboratories in Indonesia, increasing even more the concerns of the entire international society with this threat.

Before biological military research became commonplace in newspapers around the world, Indonesia was already a country that accumulated concerns about this topic. For decades, a laboratory of the NAMRU-2 (Naval Medical Research Unit Two) project operated in Jakarta. This Navy military research program is dedicated to operating biomedical activities in several countries on the Asian continent and worked in Indonesia between 1970 and 2009, when it was finally closed after the country’s government declared the existence of this type of unit as a threat to national sovereignty. The main problem is that there is evidence that, despite the official closure of the laboratory, US activities have not actually ended, with current biological research possibly going on in Indonesia without authorization from the local government.

Last month, the Indonesian newspaper Detik published an article denouncing the alleged continuity of operations, stating that at least since 2016, when US military activities in the region intensified due to Pacific Partnership drills, secret research has been maintained. Documents and photos from such drills allegedly obtained by local investigative journalists were exposed in the article, proving the existence of the research. At the time, aboard the hospital ship USS Mercy, three dogs infected with rabies and twenty-three Indonesian nationals were transferred from West Sumatra and navigated across the coast of Padang without prior authorization from the Indonesian Ministry of Health.

At first, the repercussion of the news was low, but the case gained credibility and visibility after recent statements by Fadila Supari, a renowned Indonesian cardiologist, with award-winning research at the WHO, and former minister of health of the country. According to her, although there are little documentary proofs, there is clear evidence that such activities actually continue to take place in Indonesia. She also believes that the events of the 2016 drills were not an isolated situation, but just an episode among several clandestine actions that would be taking place, even involving cooperation between the US military, international institutes and Indonesian universities.

“I think it’s true, the research activity still exists. I can’t prove it, but from what I’ve read and heard, research activities are still going on in various forms of cooperation with research institutes and universities in Indonesia. I think the government should be aware of this”, she said during an interview this week.

It is necessary to mention how experienced in this topic Dr. Supari is. She was one of those responsible for the investigations into the activities of NAMRU-2, which led to the conclusion that the unit represented risks to Indonesian biosecurity, motivating its closure in 2009 – the year in which Supari retired from the Ministry of Health. She conducted an extensive investigation, including surprise visits to the laboratory facility, which made her an adversary to US officials. Julian Assange’s WikiLeaks website in 2010 published leaked documents in which Supari’s name could be read as the main subject of meetings between US military and diplomats in Jakarta and Washington, as she was obstructing the laboratory’s activities – which were considered to be of maximum strategic interest to the US. Finally, in 2009, Supari formally wrote a letter to the US government in which she withdrew the Indonesian Ministry of Health from the international agreement that allowed the installation of the NAMRU biolaboratory in Jakarta, allowing for its subsequent closure in the same year.

It is interesting to note how she emphasizes she believes that international institutes are also involved in such activities – which is probably a conclusion she draws from concrete investigations and data that have not yet been made public. Previously the NAMRU project was openly funded by the Rockefeller Foundation, which was committed to research related to diseases that affected the Asian continent. Today, with the data revealed by Moscow about Ukrainian biolabs, we know that several renowned institutes and companies are involved in the funding and operation of clandestine research in Eastern Europe – including big names in Big Pharma, such as Pfizer, for example. So, this may also be the case in Asia, as the existence of public (military) and private interests in the existence of these activities is evident.

Certainly, none of this data is new, but the subject was considered “controversial” until then. In 2009, the Indonesian government was heavily criticized for denouncing US activities as serious biological risks. For years, talking about the existence of biological research for military purposes was considered a conspiracy theory. Now, with the Ukrainian case, the matter has come to light and more and more information is revealed. It seems to be just the beginning of a big black box with many secrets yet to be discovered.

*

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.

Lucas Leiroz is a researcher in Social Sciences at the Rural Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, geopolitical consultant.

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 Instagram, Twitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

Once again, US irresponsible attitudes are threatening global food security. Recent reports point out that Washington is intensifying the smuggling of Syrian wheat, importing the product from regions illegally occupied by foreign troops and paramilitary militias. This situation is a strong affront to the Syrian sovereignty and has a negative impact on global efforts to reduce hunger and poverty.

Russia’s Permanent Representative to the UN, Vasily Nebenzia, said on May 25 that US importers are significantly increasing their purchases of Syrian wheat, continuing the country’s strategy of maximizing imports from regions in crisis and conflict, such as Syria and Ukraine. In addition to grain, oil is being imported on a large scale, taken from regions over which the legitimate Syrian government has no control.

These were some of his words:

“The United States continues to loot the natural and agricultural resources that belong to the Syrian people (…) [The US] expands its illegal trade in Syrian grain and oil and smuggles them outside the border (…), looting the Syrian wheat and oil, which are the basis for addressing the energy and food crisis”. In his speech, he also emphasized the current situation of those US-occupied areas from which oil and wheat are being imported, stating that “civilians in the areas occupied by the United States in Syria live under unacceptable humanitarian conditions and there is no accountability for crimes”.

This situation in Syria, although intensifying now as the world approaches a global supply crisis, began many years ago. For two decades, Syria was the only Arab country that was self-sufficient in wheat, also maintaining a high surplus that guaranteed it exporting capacity. In 2007, wheat plantations occupied crops totaling 1.7 million hectares and produced a total volume of more than four million tons of grain. The situation began to deteriorate as a result of the West-financed war against the legitimate government. In 2012, a year after the start of the conflict, Syria was for the first time forced to import wheat flour. And since then the country has become absolutely dependent on grain imports for its food security.

As the war escalated, the Syrian government lost control of some of the main wheat producing areas, which came under the control of paramilitary groups of the US-led Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF). After the unauthorized US intervention, American troops were deployed in these zones and ensured the direct flow of goods out of Syria, causing the Syrian government to lose almost its entire production. In every region that rebel forces advanced, local farmers were prohibited from selling their grain to the government in regional agricultural markets. All production was confiscated by US and paramilitary forces and then immediately shipped abroad. A similar process happened with oil, whose producing areas were a special target of the American occupation.

Commenting on the case, Taleb Ibrahim, a Syrian political analyst and deputy director of the Damascus Center for Strategic Studies said:

“The US began the great organised robbery in Syria five years ago. The regions where they are stealing oil and grains are the most productive parts of Syria, as an example the eastern parts of Syria where the US established the illegal military bases are providing Syrian people with 90% of oil products and 80% of grain. At the same time the US has imposed heavy sanctions on Syria to prevent the Syrian government from importing the most important necessities for the Syrian people, which is a war crime, like what had happened in Iraq, Libya, Cuba, North Korea, and other countries (…) The Western countries are taking the whole world for an international famine, they do not care about humanitarian considerations”.

It is important to note how these allegations come at a time of particular concern for the global food supply. The conflict in Ukraine damages world trade of grains and fertilizers, in addition to a series of sanctions imposed by the West that obstruct the flow of capital and goods. As the Ukrainian government, militarily defeated and economically bankrupt, insists on taking the fight forward, the situation becomes even more dangerous.

In this context, a true global race for food is on the rise, with countries looking to store grains to ensure food security in the long term. The West, in this sense, has acted in a rather complicated way, adhering to a predatory import of Ukrainian wheat grains in exchange for military aid in the conflict. Tons of Ukrainian wheat are being exported daily to the US and Europe, while the country’s population and the soldiers themselves suffer from growing hunger.

Nebenzia also commented on this issue in his speech:

“Grain are being carried out of Ukraine actively using railways and using barges on the Danube but where is this screen going? We have reason to suspect that this grain is not being used to feed the hungry in the Global South, but it’s being stored in grain storage of a number of different European countries”.

As the situation tends to get even worse in the coming months, it is urgent that the matter becomes an international concern and that the West is obliged by the UN to fit its methods of obtaining grain into the regulations applicable to each case. It is illegal for the US to import Syrian grain without authorization from the Syrian government, just as it is unlawful for Zelensky to sign agreements to arbitrarily export grain in exchange for weapons. Either international organizations take control of the situation, or their omission will generate global hunger.

*

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.

Lucas Leiroz is a researcher in Social Sciences at the Rural Federal University of Rio de Janeiro; geopolitical consultant.

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 Instagram, Twitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

The new government’s latest deal with Russia could muddle the narrative from their opponents that they came to power to punish the former premier for his ties with that country, which is why it can’t be described as business as usual even if the terms are the same or very similar to the ones that had been agreed to in the past and not close to the 20% discount that Imran Khan was reportedly negotiating.

The Express Tribune reported on Sunday that Pakistan’s Finance Ministry announced the day prior that “The [Economic Coordination Committee of the Cabinet] allowed import of two million metric tonnes of wheat on a government-to-government basis” from Russia. The outlet added that

“The Ministry of National Food Security had proposed that the Foreign Office and the Ministry of Commerce should jointly explore the possibility of barter trade with Russia due to sanctions imposed by the West. However, there are no sanctions on the import of grains from Russia but the government would have to work out a mechanism to make the payments after Moscow has been thrown out of the global payments clearing system –the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication (Swift).”

It remains unclear whether the price that was agreed upon comes close to the 20% discount that former Prime Minister Imran Khan earlier claimed that Russia had offered his country prior to his scandalous ouster, just like nobody knows the details of the alternative payment mechanism that’ll be employed. Observers should also note that it isn’t exceptional in and of itself that Pakistan is importing wheat from Russia since it’s done so before in the past. For this reason, one might be inclined to believe that this deal is business as usual and nothing all that important to pay attention to, yet the larger context in which it was announced indicates that there’s something different this time, even if it’s not the advantageous terms that Pakistan’s former premier was reportedly trying to negotiate with Russia.

He blamed his scandalous ouster on a US-orchestrated regime change plot to punish him for his independent foreign policy, particularly its Russian dimension, a charge that the US and the new government that replaced him both deny. The nearly two months since his removal through a no-confidence motion have seen the country slide into one of its worst political crises, which has in turn resulted in Pakistan sending very mixed signals to Russia that implied credence to the premier’s claims that his relations with that Eurasian Great Power had something to do with his removal from office. After all, one would assume that their reported discounted commodity talks would have remained on track and likely already led to the deals that the former premier mentioned had that not been the case.

This lack of progress over nearly the past two months came as Pakistan sunk into one of its worst-ever economic crises that’ll necessitate it seeking the reliable import of discounted food and fuel, which together consume 37.39% of the country’s total import bill, if it’s serious about cutting costs. It’s presumably for this pressing reason why the new US-friendly Pakistani government didn’t rule out such imports from Russia last week despite its traditional partner probably frowning upon Islamabad’s continued dealings with Moscow. Simply put, pragmatism might take precedence over politics in pursuit of “regime reinforcement” regardless of the speculative external pressure involved since former Prime Minister Khan’s successors’ priority is to not be removed from power through poverty-driven riots.

It might very well have been with this goal in mind instead of a desire to reaffirm its principled neutrality in the New Cold War that the Finance Ministry just announced that it allowed the import of two million metric tonnes of wheat from Russia.  So as not to be misunderstood, this deal will serve the objective interests of the Pakistani people even if it wasn’t agreed to on the advantageous terms that the former premier was reportedly negotiating since the country urgently needs to ensure its food security amidst the global crisis in this sphere, though there’s also no ignoring that it’s in the new government’s political interests as well for the earlier explained reason. Building upon the last-mentioned observation, it can be predicted that some of its supporters might spin the deal to refute the former premier’s claims.

For example, they could point to this agreement to cast doubt on his accusation that they came to power as part of a US-orchestrated regime change plot to punish him for his Russian-friendly foreign policy after they themselves just proved that they’re capable of reaching a deal with that multipolar Great Power in spite of actively trying to improve ties with its unipolar American rival. In possible response to that domestic politicization of this international deal, their opponents could retort that the terms might not have been as advantageous as what former Prime Minister Khan was reportedly trying to negotiate, the claim of which could be intended to erode the potential boost to the new government’s legitimacy and thus uphold the legitimacy of their critics’ allegations against them.

The new government’s latest deal with Russia could muddle the narrative from their opponents that they came to power to punish the former premier for his ties with that country, which is why it can’t be described as business as usual even if the terms are the same or very similar to the ones that had been agreed to in the past and not close to the 20% discount that Imran Khan was reportedly negotiating. Put another way, Pakistan’s relations with Russia have been at the center of the country’s latest political crisis but had hitherto been instrumentalized by the former government, though now the incumbents might have realized that they could spin the deal that they likely reached purely out of survival necessity and not for political pragmatic reasons in order to cast doubt on their critics’ accusations against them.

*

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 Instagram, Twitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

This video opens a non-periodic series in which some news of Pangea Grandangolo is aired on Friday on Byoblu.

Click image to watch the video.

The news mentioned in this episode is the exclusion of the Russian violinist Lidia Kocharian and two other Russian violinists from the 41st International Violin Competition organized by the Rodolfo Lipizer Music School of Gorizia. This decision was officially communicated to the violinist with these words: “following the European provisions deriving from the Russia-Ukraine war and following the example of other competitions in various disciplines”.

Lidia Kocharian, interviewed by Berenice Galli, recounts this experience, confirming that it is not an isolated case but is part of a real anti-Russian campaign. M° Stefano Burbi, composer and conductor, after expressing his solidarity with Lidia and her colleagues, explains the extreme gravity decision to exclude from the international competition the three violinists because they are Russian. At the end of the program, Lidia Kocharian dedicates one of her pieces to the Byoblu audience.

*

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 in Italian on byoblu.

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

Featured image is a screenshot from the video

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, Twitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

One recalls that when war fever surged demanding intervention by Imperial Britain in the Russo-Turkish War of 1877, a song became popular in the music halls which included “We don’t want to fight, But by Jingo if we do, We’ve got the ships, we’ve got the men, we’ve got the money too.” If the refrain sounds familiar, it should as the United States has been experiencing extreme “jingoism” since 2001. Any rejection of the “rules based international order” established and policed by “leader of the free world” Washington has resulted in immediate punishment by sanctions followed by threats of military intervention. In some cases, as in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Syria, the actual armed intervention seeking regime change has been the end result. And it is all done to spread “freedom” and “democracy,” a claim that might be disputed by the millions of dead mostly Muslims who have had to suffer the consequences.

So the United States of America has been a country, like its best friend Israel, that seems to be perpetually at war…so what else is new? What’s new is that under President Joe Biden there has been zero diplomacy and almost reflexive reliance on wielding the “big stick.” To quote another bon mot from one of my favorite authors Raymond Chandler, creator of private eye Philip Marlowe, “…when in doubt, have two guys come through the door with guns.”

Don’t worry, Chandler’s two guys and many more like them are now in Ukraine under cover and in mufti training Ukrainians to use all the nifty Raytheon and Lockheed toys Uncle Joe has sent them. They are working together with the largely neocon advisers coaching Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, who is guarded by British and US special forces, on what to say and do during his increasingly strident international calls to widen the war. If they are successful and manage to sink another Russian ship or two using harpoon missiles, which Zelensky is threatening to do, the proxy US war with Russia could quickly become for real. Zelensky’s family meanwhile is reportedly safely ensconced in an $8 million villa in Israel. He also has a multi-million dollar villa property near Miami and another in Tuscany. Who would have thought that being president of the poorest country in Europe could bring such material rewards?

Australian journalist Caitlin Johnstone, who has a huge worldwide audience, opines that Biden is possibly the worst US president ever, worse even that his consistently denigrated predecessor and media punching bag Donald Trump. Her recent article succinctly addresses what makes Biden’s egregious failure both different and incredibly dangerous. She writes

“Preventing nuclear war is a US president’s single most important job. It’s so important you shouldn’t even really have to talk about it, because it’s so self-evidently the number one priority. And this administration is just rolling the dice on nuclear conflict with increasing frequency every day. Even if humanity survives this standoff (and the one with China that’s next in line), Biden will still have been an unforgivably depraved president for allowing it to get this close. There’s no excuse whatsoever for just casually rolling the dice on all terrestrial life like this.”

Indeed, Joe Biden’s latest tricks include declaring that the US will go to war with China to protect Taiwan if Beijing should prove so bold as to want to take control of its wayward province. But the US established policy is to maintain “strategic ambiguity” about China/Taiwan, a diplomatic solution crafted in 1979 to help prevent any provocations by either party that would lead to the situation developing into a shooting war. Joe seems to have missed that point, if he ever understood it in the first place, and certainly his advisers appear to be no more savvy than he is, though the White House quickly issued a correction on the apparent gaffe in the form of a statement that automatic defense of Taiwan is not official policy. Yet.

But my favorite move by the Biden Administration, if one might be so bold as to suggest that it is actually capable of administering anything more kinetic than a hot dog stand, is the latest pander to Israel. The recent murder by military sharpshooter of Palestinian/American journalist Shireen Abu Akleh followed by a humiliating spectacle of police violence at the funeral as well as subsequently at a second Palestinian funeral, actually found some administration flunkies and congress critters calling for a full investigation by Israel. The Israeli government and army refused to do so and the White House has pretended that there is no longer anything to see or consider. Israeli Defense (sic) Minister Benny Gantz recently visited Washington but the issue of a murdered American was not even raised as top official tried to outdo each other in expressing both their love for and fealty to the Jewish state, which Biden will soon be visiting. The US president will ignore the fact that Israel is celebrating his visit with its greatest eviction of Palestinian residents in twenty years.

That the United States has been a major source of money, weapons and political cover for Israel since 1967 if not before is indisputable, the result of corruption of America’s government at all levels by the groups and billionaires euphemistically described as the “Israel Lobby.” War criminal Israeli leaders like Ariel Sharon and Benjamin Netanyahu have boasted about their control over Congress and the White House as well as the media and every time Israel does something atrocious the only US response has been to give it more money. Israel would sorely love to have the United States fights its wars, most prominently by attacking Iran, but somehow that military intervention and regime change, apart from a number of assassinations, has not yet taken place.

But now all of that might be changing due to a combination of the Biden regime’s recklessness and Israel’s genuine contempt for the American people, who they have been parasitically feeding off of since their settler state was founded. The US has, for the first time, participated in a large-scale military exercise with Israel on May 18^thwhich was designed to simulate an attack on Iran using American Air Force refueling planes to enhance the ability of Israel to keep its jets flying to maintain air superiority over the Persians. It was a war game in the most literal sense even though the tanker aircraft did not actually refuel any Israeli planes and it basically commits the United States to be a dedicated participant if the Israelis should throw the dice and chance on a military attack on Iran’s presumed nuclear and air defense sites.

I also smell a possible false flag if the exercise is repeated, as it surely will be. What if one of the US planes taking part in a future exercise were to be shot down in an incident staged by Israel that might plausibly be attributed to Iran? As the exercises will presumably take place over the Mediterranean Sea in the coastal waters part of which Israel has inter alia stolen from Gaza and controls, bringing Iran into the equation would be difficult but possible to manage with enough cleverness combined with hubris, which the Israelis have in plentiful supply. That Israel would without hesitation shed American blood if it were to advance its own perceived interests should not be doubted by anyone. Look only at the two Israel false flag attacks against the US, the Lavon bombing incident in 1954 and the bloody assault on the USS Liberty in 1967, which killed 34 American sailors and injured more than a hundred others in an attempt to sink the ship and kill all its crew. That is the Israel America has grown to love and nourish, a viper in one’s bosom, always willing to strike the body that feeds it.

But to return to Caitlin Johnstone’s observation, America is in deep trouble. Its economy is visibly sinking while standards of living are dropping and will decline further as military spending grows while both the increasingly “woke” educational system and industrial base are no longer competitive. We have a plausibly psychopathic government that is bringing us to the brink of war with several nuclear powers. What we Americans need is not another war, but rather an end to war, particular those wars that can somehow kill most or even all of us. Instead, help build pressure to wind down the Ukraine war through negotiations, stop feeding Zelensky with weapons and money. Leave China alone and stop being Israel’s patsy against Iran and inside Syria. Try to get along with competitors. It would indeed be a Brave New World, wouldn’t it? A country at peace with itself and working to benefit the American people – something that we have rarely seen since 1945.

*

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.

Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation (Federal ID Number #52-1739023) that seeks a more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is councilforthenationalinterest.org, address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email is [email protected].

He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

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 Instagram, Twitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

Authoritarian politicians wasted no time using the recent shootings in Buffalo, New York, and Uvalde, Texas, to justify new infringements on liberty. Just days after the Buffalo shooting, the US House of Representatives passed a law creating new domestic terrorism offices in the FBI, the Justice Department, and the Department of Homeland Security.

This is a step toward achieving the longstanding goal of many progressives of focusing the national security state on “domestic terrorists” and “right-wing extremists.” Supporters of these efforts have used the Buffalo shooter’s mention of “replacement theory” in his “manifesto” to attack prominent conservative commentators, most notably Tucker Carlson. Carlson and others are accused of spreading the replacement conspiracy theory because they have pointed out that the Left has for years celebrated the coming “replacement” of the white majority population. The goal is to stigmatize, intimidate, and even criminalize those expressing views or facts that contradict the cultural Marxists or the Democrat party establishment.

Painting the Buffalo shooter as a conservative requires ignoring his self-description as an environmental-fascist and his disdain for “Fox News conservatism.” The mainstream media also ignores the shooter’s use of the same neo-Nazi symbol used by the Ukrainian Azov brigade. This may be because they do not want the American people to realize their tax dollars are supporting actual Nazis in Ukraine.

The push to use the police state against “right-wing extremists” is supported by many progressives who (correctly) oppose the national security state’s civil liberties abuses of Muslim and other minorities. Conversely, many conservatives who have defended all infringements on liberty done in the name of the “global war on terror,” (correctly) oppose federal crackdown on “right wing extremists.”

Both sides fail to realize that a violation of any individual’s liberty is a threat to everyone’s liberty.

The massacre of 19 school children and two teachers in Uvalde Texas was followed by calls for expanded gun controls from President Biden and other prominent politicians. Among the proposals floated are a renewed push for federal Red Flag laws. Red Flag laws allow law enforcement to take someone’s guns without due process based on a mere allegation that an individual poses a risk of violent behavior. Despite being unconstitutional, easily abused, and ineffective at stopping violent crime, Red Flag laws enjoy broad bipartisan support. For example, former President Donald Trump endorsed a policy of “take the gun first, worry about due process later.”

If Congress was serious about protecting liberty and security, they would pass Kentucky Representative Thomas Massie’s legislation repealing the “Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990.” This poorly worded law leaves children defenseless against mass shooters who are not dissuaded from their evil intentions by “Gun-Free Zone” signs. Video showing the Uvalde police not only standing around outside the school, but tasering parents who were trying to protect their children reinforces the importance of allowing school personnel to protect themselves and their students by carrying firearms.

Expanding the police state to “monitor” right-wing extremism and giving the government new powers to deny law-abiding individuals access to firearms make us less safe and less free. Instead of allowing politicians to use mass shootings as an excuse to further expand their powers, we must insist they repeal all federal laws that trade real liberty for phony security starting with the USA FREEDOM Acts (previously known as the USA PATRIOT Act) and the so-called Safe and Gun Free Schools Act.

*

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 Abayomi Azikiwe

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

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

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

***

The FDA has authorized the use of a booster COVID-19 shot in children ages 5 to 11; less than one-third — only 28.8% — of U.S. children in this age group have received the first two doses of this experimental gene therapy

Effectiveness of COVID-19 shots in children wanes rapidly; a CDC study found that two to four weeks after the second dose of Pfizer’s COVID-19 shots, effectiveness was 60.1% among 5- to 11-year-olds, but this fell to just 28.9% by month two

There is still no data on whether the booster is effective against COVID-19, and whether the effectiveness will quickly wane, as it has with all previous shots as well as booster doses in adults

Artificially inflated antibodies triggered by booster shots signal to your body that you’re always infected, and the resulting immune response could prove to be detrimental to your health

COVID-19 shots are associated with liver injury, including liver failure that led to a liver transplant

Children are at an extremely low risk of serious illness from COVID-19, and CDC data show that COVID-19 case rates among children who received two COVID-19 shots are now higher than rates in children who did not get the shots

*

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration amended its emergency use authorization for the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 shot to allow a booster dose for children ages 5 to 11.¹ The FDA’s “evaluation of safety” for the booster dose in young children was based on a study of only about 400 children, and no meeting was held with the Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee.

The booster shot is intended to be given at least five months after the primary two-dose series has been completed, but less than one-third — only 28.8% — of U.S. children in this age group have received the first two doses of this experimental gene therapy.²

“[G]iven that these children have the lowest coronavirus vaccination rate of all eligible Americans, [as most parents have wisely avoided giving their child the jab,] public health experts are not expecting a rush for the booster,” The New York Times reported,³ and this is good news, since multiple red flags have risen regarding the use of these shots, particularly among children.

COVID Shots’ Dismal Effectiveness Wanes Rapidly

Booster shots are typically released because the initial shots aren’t working as planned. This is certainly the case with COVID-19 shots, which have been found to have dismally low effectiveness rates of 12%, according to research conducted by the New York State Department of Health.⁴ In their rationale for why a booster dose is now needed for children, Dr. Peter Marks, Ph.D., director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, said:⁵

“Since authorizing the vaccine for children down to 5 years of age in October 2021, emerging data suggest that vaccine effectiveness against COVID-19 wanes after the second dose of the vaccine in all authorized populations.”

From December 13, 2021, to January 24, 2022, the New York State Department of Health researchers analyzed outcomes among 852,384 children aged 12 to 17 years, and 365,502 children aged 5 to 11 years, who had received two doses of the shots. Effectiveness declined rapidly among 5- to 11-year-olds, falling from 68% to just 12%.

Protection against hospitalization also dropped, from 100% to 48%. Among 11-year-olds alone, vaccine effectiveness plunged to 11%.⁶ The lackluster response was blamed on the dosage discrepancies among the age groups, as 5- to 11-year-olds receive two 10-microgram Pfizer shots, while 12- to 17-year-olds receive 30-microgram shots.⁷

A CDC study also found that the effectiveness of two doses of Pfizer’s COVID-19 shots against symptomatic COVID-19 infection “was modest and decreased rapidly” from December 2021 to February 2022.⁸ The study found that two to four weeks after the second dose of Pfizer’s COVID-19 shots, effectiveness was 60.1% among 5- to 11-year-olds. This fell to just 28.9% by month 2.

A similar trend was seen among adolescents aged 12 to 15 years. Vaccine effectiveness two to four weeks after the second dose of the shots was 59.5%, and this fell to 16.6% during month two.⁹Among adolescents who received a booster dose, effectiveness went back up to 71.1% two to 6.5 weeks later, but it’s not revealed what happened after that.

If data from adults are any indication, the boost in effectiveness from the booster will also be short-lived. Among adults, within four to five months post-booster, protection against emergency department and urgent care visits due to COVID-19 decreased to 66%, then fell to just 31% after five months or more post-booster.¹⁰

Children’s Booster Trial Didn’t Test Effectiveness

The FDA’s decision to allow a booster dose for children was based on an ongoing Pfizer trial — the same one that it used to authorize the first set of COVID-19 shots in the 5- to 11-year-old age group.

Antibody responses were evaluated in only 67 subjects who received a booster shot seven to nine months after the two-dose primary series of shots. “The antibody level against the SARS-CoV-2 virus one month after the booster dose was increased compared to before the booster dose,” the FDA noted.¹¹

However, there is still no data on whether the booster is effective against COVID-19, and whether the effectiveness will quickly wane, as it has with all previous shots. The New York Times also reported:¹²

“In the Pfizer-BioNTech clinical trial, children showed a sixfold increase in antibody levels against the original version of the virus one month after receiving the booster, compared with one month after receiving a second dose …

Laboratory tests of blood samples from a tiny subgroup of 30 children also showed 36 times the level of neutralizing antibodies against the Omicron variant compared with levels after only two doses. The study did not show how long the antibodies last or test effectiveness against Covid-19.”

High, Artificially Elevated Antibodies Come at a Cost

What’s more, the notion that increasing antibodies equates to disease protection and better health is misguided. Artificially inflated antibodies signal to your body that you’re always infected, and the resulting immune response could prove to be detrimental to your health.

Your adaptive immune system, specifically, generates antibodies that are used to fight pathogens that your body has previously encountered.¹³ During normal infections, your cellular immune system produces high fever and temporary T-cell elevations, along with elevated antibodies to the infection, gradually dissipate.

Ali Ellebedy, Ph.D., an associate professor of pathology & immunology at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, explained, “It’s normal for antibody levels to go down after acute infection, but they don’t go down to zero; they plateau.”¹⁴ This is a normal response and isn’t a measure of waning immunity.

On the contrary, repeatedly, artificially inflating antibodies with booster shots comes with a cost and can lead to a “death zone,” accelerating the development of autoimmune conditions such as Parkinson’s, Kawasaki disease and multiple sclerosis, according to tech leader and COVID analyst Marc Girardot, who urges a retreat from the vaccination “death zone” before it’s too late.¹⁵

It’s known, for instance, that certain autoimmune diseases are seen alongside high levels of antibodies.¹⁶ Further, COVID-19 shots train your body to produce singular antibodies for one spike protein and cannot compare to the protection provided by natural immunity, which occurs after recovery from an illness. Speaking with Daniel Horowitz, pathologist Dr. Ryan Cole explained that natural infection produces broad immunity that can’t be matched by vaccination:¹⁷

“A natural infection induces hundreds upon hundreds of antibodies against all proteins of the virus, including the envelope, the membrane, the nucleocapsid, and the spike. Dozens upon dozens of these antibodies neutralize the virus when encountered again.

Additionally, because of the immune system exposure to these numerous proteins (epitomes), our T cells mount a robust memory, as well. Our T cells are the ‘marines’ of the immune system and the first line of defense against pathogens. T cell memory to those infected with SARSCOV1 is at 17 years and running still.”

Dr. Robert Malone, the inventor of the mRNA vaccine core platform technology,¹⁸ also stated, “When it comes to COVID, public health officials have consistently downplayed and ignored natural immunity among children. Yet 81 research studies¹⁹ confirm that natural immunity to COVID is equal or superior to any ‘vaccine immunity.’”²⁰

COVID Shots Cause Liver Failure, Other Serious Adverse Effects

A concerning number of case reports describe the development of immune-mediated and autoimmune hepatitis in the days and weeks following COVID-19 injections.²¹ A team of researchers collected date from such cases from 18 countries, identifying 87 patients with a median age of 48 years who developed autoimmune hepatitis-like liver injury after a COVID-19 shot.²²

Typically, the liver injury was diagnosed 15 days after the shot. Most cases (59%) were attributed to Pfizer’s COVID-19 shot while 23% were linked to the Oxford-AstraZeneca shot and 18% to Moderna’s shot. All of the patients in the study recovered from the liver injury after treatment — except for one. That man developed liver failure and had to have a liver transplant. The researchers concluded:²³

“SARS-CoV-2 vaccination can be associated with liver injury. Corticosteroid therapy may be beneficial in those with immune-mediated features or severe hepatitis. Outcome was generally favorable, but vaccine associated liver injury led to fulminant liver failure in one patient.”

Young children are also developing severe hepatitis at an unusually high rate and nobody knows why.²⁴ It’s unclear how many of the children have received COVID-19 shots, but researchers did suggest that mild or asymptomatic COVID-19 infection could have left behind spike protein that’s acting as a “superantigen”²⁵ and triggering the immune system to over-react to other viruses, such as adenovirus-41F, which is causing liver damage.²⁶

If that’s the case, the spike protein that circulates in the body after COVID-19 shots could also be problematic, especially since “mRNA vaccines promote sustained synthesis of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein.”²⁷ Other concerning adverse events have also been reported.

One study published in Scientific Reports, for instance, revealed that calls to Israel’s National Emergency Medical Services (EMS) for cardiac arrest and acute coronary syndrome increased more than 25% among 16- to 39-year-olds from January to May 2021, compared to the same time period in 2019 and 2020.²⁸

COVID-19 Case Rates Higher in Injected Children

Children are at an extremely low risk of serious illness from COVID-19, making the recommendations for COVID-19 shots, and now boosters, among this population highly questionable — even ludicrous.

“Research shows that there is no benefit to children receiving a COVID shot, and in fact, the shots can cause potential harm, adverse effects and death. According to Pfizer’s own study trial data, the chance of death in children from the shot is 107 times higher than death from COVID,” Malone stated.²⁹

The CDC’s own data also show that COVID-19 case rates among children who have received two COVID-19 shots have been higher than rates in children who did not get the shots since February 2022.³⁰

“That’s the first time CDC recorded a higher case rate among fully vaccinated young children since data was first collected in December 2021,” Malone said,³¹ and perhaps it’s harbinger of things to come. Adding a booster dose to the already dangerous, ineffective and flawed COVID-19 shot recommendations for children will only add more fuel to the fire.

*

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, 5, 11 U.S. FDA May 17, 2022

^2, 3, 12 The New York Times May 16, 2022

⁴ medRxiv February 28, 2022

^6, 7 CNBC February 28, 2022

⁸ JAMA. Published online May 13, 2022. doi:10.1001/jama.2022.7493

⁹ JAMA. Published online May 13, 2022. doi:10.1001/jama.2022.7493, Key Points

¹⁰ The New York Times February 11, 2022

¹³ InformedHealth.org, How does the immune system work? April 23, 2020

¹⁴ NewsWise May 24, 2021

¹⁵ Marc Girardot, COVID Myth Buster News January 30, 2021

¹⁶ Science Daily July 12, 2016

¹⁷ The Blaze July 14, 2021

¹⁸ Trial Site News May 30, 2021

¹⁹ Children’s Health Defense October 19, 2021

^20, 29, 31 Substack, Who is Robert Malone May 17, 2022

²¹ Journal of Hepatology October 4, 2021

^22, 23 Hepatology. 2022 May 14. doi: 10.1002/hep.32572. Online ahead of print

²⁴ NBC News April 15, 2022

²⁵ The Lancet Gastroenterology & Hepatology May 14, 2022

²⁶ Reuters May 16, 2022

²⁷ Food and Chemical Toxicology June 2022, Volume 164, 113008

²⁸ Scientific Reports volume 12, Article number: 6978 (2022)

³⁰ CDC, Rates of COVID-19 Cases by Vaccination Status and Age Group, December 5, 2021-March 19, 2022

Featured image is from 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 Instagram, Twitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

Quietly and without a murmur, the Middle East policy of US President Joe Biden appears to be performing what stunt riders call a handbrake turn.

Biden is veering away from his signature policy, a nuclear deal with Iran, and lurching towards Saudi normalisation with Israel, which was the major piece of unfinished business of former President Donald Trump’s Abraham Accords.

After this stunt has been performed, Biden’s Middle East policy will be all but indistinguishable from Trump’s. Qatar will no longer be under siege but Iran will remain under maximum sanctions, and all US attention will be on growing Israel’s links with the region.

For all his naked mercantilist ambitions – backing illegitimate despots in return for his 30 pieces of silver – Trump’s legacy in the Middle East is enduring. Having denounced both its de facto ruler and the kingdom of Saudi Arabia itself as a “pariah” state, Biden seems to be only too willing to deal with pariahs. He is following sheep-like in Trump’s footsteps.

The clearest indication of this is what Biden has done to the draft agreement to reinstitute the Iran nuclear deal, from which Trump unilaterally withdrew four years ago. The product of 11 months of talks with two Iranian administrations, the US walked away at the end of March with what a State Department spokesman described as a “small number” of outstanding issues.

Since then, lead American negotiator Rob Malley has been denounced in the US media as too dovish on Iran. His proposal to remove the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC)’s designation as a Foreign Terrorist Organisation (FTO) has been overruled by Biden, and the whole deal seems to be heading for the sands.

Malley’s latest public assessment is that the chances of striking a deal are “at best tenuous”. Privately, Malley is frustrated – and by no means is all of that frustration directed at Iran.

Contradictory signals

On the Iranian side, there is bemusement that the FTO issue is the deal-breaker. This declaration is almost entirely rhetorical, and lifting it would not affect the US Treasury sanctions on the IRGC, which would continue. But this is not the only issue. The American side has also been wavering, or sending contradictory signals, on the two issues that are key to this deal: verification and sanctions relief.

Let us be clear: Iran, under this deal, would have agreed to almost all of its 60-percent-enriched uranium being shipped out of the country in return for Russian yellowcake.

Suddenly, everyone has stopped talking about this. No one is talking about the ability of Iran to reach “nuclear breakout”, which we were told could be only a matter of days away. If the genuine aim was to stop Iran from having the capacity to get a bomb, here is the US walking away from a deal that verifiably deprives Tehran of that capacity.

If the US and Israel were as concerned as they claim to be about the prospect of Iran manufacturing a bomb, and the ensuing nuclear proliferation in the Gulf, then why is one party walking away and the other applauding it for doing so?

Coincidentally, the well-informed Barak Ravid reports that one of Israel’s most senior defence officers, retired Brigadier General Dror Shalom, told State Department officials on a recent visit that the US made a mistake by exiting the Iran deal in 2018. Shalom argued that the exit brought Iran closer to a nuclear weapon.

If you follow that logic, why would you not want to sign the deal as it now exists?

Of course, the Iranians could say that their nuclear enrichment programme was always used by the West as a pretext for sanctions. The real aim of sanctions was to bring about regime change in Iran – and I don’t think, on this evidence, they are wrong.

Two uninhabited islands

But the shelved deal with Iran is not the only sign of Biden’s shift. His officials have alighted on the outstanding issue of the transfer of two strategically placed but uninhabited islands from Egypt to Saudi Arabia.

When Egypt decided five years ago to transfer two disputed islands in the Red Sea, Tiran and Sanafir, to Saudi Arabia, protests broke out in Cairo. The move enraged Egyptians, who saw the deal as a concession to the kingdom in exchange for continued financial support for President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi’s bankrupt regime.

Initially, the Americans were not involved. Now they are, and not just any Americans, but one official in particular: Brett McGurk, the White House coordinator for the Middle East and North Africa, who in the words of the people who know and work with him, “torches the house and then shows up with a fire hose”. McGurk is reportedly spearheading secret talks between Saudi Arabia, Israel and Egypt over the transfer of the islands.

Tiran and Sanafir control the Straits of Tiran, a sensitive passage of water to the ports of Aqaba in Jordan and Eilat in Israel. The islands were demilitarised as part of the 1979 peace treaty between Israel and Egypt, which gives Israel a say on the continuing work of a multinational force of observers who patrol the islands and ensure the passage remains open.

Israel reportedly has its own conditions. It wants Saudi Arabia to allow Israeli airlines to use Saudi airspace to shorten its flights to India, Thailand and China, along with direct flights from Israel to Saudi Arabia for Muslims on pilgrimage to Mecca and Medina.

All of this is pushing rapidly in the direction of Saudi normalisation with Israel, the jewel still missing in the crown of the Abraham Accords.

Palestinians sidelined

As is by now well known, the crown prince and future king of Saudi Arabia, Mohammed bin Salman (MBS), has set normalisation with Israel as his primary foreign policy goal.

Chumming up to then-Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu in clandestine meetings was the young prince’s path to getting his name recognised by the White House and to building a relationship with the Trump dynasty.

But his father, King Salman, still retains ownership of and pride in Saudi Arabia’s brokerage of the Arab Peace Initiative two decades ago, which promised Arab recognition of Israel only once it reached a negotiated settlement with the Palestinians.

This was the last serious opportunity for a regional peace deal, and at the time it was ignored by Israel. The Abraham Accords have reversed this principle by sidelining the Palestinians, whose fate is irrelevant to the deals being made between the UAE, Egypt, Bahrain, Morocco and Israel.

Biden, whose administration started by echoing King Salman’s concerns about the Abraham Accords, is now falling increasingly into an unholy embrace with his son. It’s unlikely to work. Saudi Arabia is still insisting on keeping Russia as co-chair of Opec+. But MBS will revel in the opportunity to keep Biden dangling.

Of course, Biden on his forthcoming visit to Israel and the Gulf will perform the related rituals, and meet Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, who refuses to retire or to allow Palestinians to hold free elections.

But the real meat of this visit is not to maintain the fiction that talks can be restarted between a defunct Palestinian leadership and an Israeli political establishment that refuses to contemplate a Palestinian state being set up in the midst of a Jewish state that controls the area from the river to the sea.

It is to push for Saudi normalisation with Israel.

Widening gap

Never before has the gap between this sort of statecraft and the reality on the ground been as wide. No Saudi, Palestinian or Egyptian is being given a say in the deals being hatched over their heads, which will have a profound impact on their lives – because if they were, their leaders would meet the same fate as Muammar Gaddafi. They would face a lynch mob.

In recent months, 14 Israelis have been killed by lone attackers with no affiliation to Palestinian militant groups and little to each other. That is more than who died by the rockets fired by Hamas after Israel’s strikes on Gaza last year.

The reality for a new generation of Palestinians is not which leader they are going to vote for, or what hopes they have that this leader will secure a Palestinian state.

The placement of a senior Fatah official, such as Hussein al-Sheikh, as a likely successor to Abbas means nothing to them. Sheikh’s very credentials to power – that he was the minister in charge of security coordination with Israel – are the very reasons why he could never secure the trust of Palestinians in the occupied West Bank.

The only choice left for them is what form of resistance they will take against the occupation. They have no hope of attaining liberation by any other means. So their choice is this: to die now quickly in attacks on Israeli settlers, soldiers or civilians, or to die slowly under occupation.

Neither Israel, nor the US, nor any Arab state has an answer for them. To report on the conflict, as Shireen Abu Akleh did for Al Jazeera, is to court a targeted Israel sniper attack, which Al Jazeera is now bringing to the International Criminal Court as a war crime.

To bury her body is to court the blows and bullets of Israeli police. To fly a Palestinian flag is apparently now license for lethal force from those who get heavy police escorts to parade Israeli flags all around Palestinian quarters.

Asked specifically to condemn the police attacks on the coffin-bearers, Biden gave a Trump-like response: “I don’t know all the detail, but I know it has to be investigated.”

A more potent bomb

When Trump was confronted by evidence that his protege MBS had ordered the killing of journalist Jamal Khashoggi, he said something similar: “It could very well be that the crown prince had knowledge of this tragic event – maybe he did and maybe he didn’t! We may never know all of the facts surrounding the murder of Mr. Jamal Khashoggi.”

Both US presidents deliberately and persistently look the other way to foster an alliance between the two least stable forces in the Middle East: Israel and Saudi Arabia. How much longer Biden can look away on events about to unfold in Jerusalem is another matter.

On Sunday, a mighty parade of Israeli flags will be pushed right through the Muslim quarter of the Old City, in what is known as the Jerusalem Day Flag March. The same parade last year sparked a war with Gaza and clashes between armed vigilante gangs of settlers and Palestinians in mixed cities all over Israel, with 232 Palestinians, including 54 minors and 38 women, killed in the ensuing firestorm.

Jerusalem has a track record in starting wars, the Crusades and the Crimean War being just two. The Judaisation of occupied East Jerusalem, the now-weekly police raids on al-Aqsa Mosque, the calls for the Dome of the Rock to be dismantled, the attacks on Palestinians waving their national flag  – all make this city a far more potent bomb than the Iranian nuclear enrichment programme.

Trump’s decision to move the US embassy there, followed by a Biden administration that refuses to move on its promise to reopen its consulate for Palestinians in occupied East Jerusalem, leaves Washington incapable of applying a brake on Israel’s plans for the city.

US foreign policy has been taken by surprise on too many occasions in the last three decades. The US was surprised by the results of its invasion of Iraq. It was surprised by the sudden collapse of Kabul after so much time and money had been spent propping it up. It was surprised by Russian President Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine.

But few in their right mind could claim to be surprised by the outbreak of a third intifada over Jerusalem. Least of all the Biden administration.

It took just 16 months for Biden to morph into Trump in the Middle East. If Nero had been alive today, he would be smiling at the sight of Biden fiddling while Jerusalem burns.

*

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.

David Hearst is co-founder and editor-in-chief of Middle East Eye. He is a commentator and speaker on the region and analyst on Saudi Arabia. He was The Guardian’s foreign leader writer, and was correspondent in Russia, Europe, and Belfast. He joined the Guardian from The Scotsman, where he was education correspondent.

Featured image: Thousands of Muslims praying at Al Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem (Source: Liberation News)

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, Twitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

More than two weeks have passed since Israeli soldiers shot and killed Al Jazeera reporter Shireen Abu Akleh and, much to Israel’s chagrin, the issue is not fading into the background, as it usually does when Palestinians die at Israel’s hands. 

Had Shireen been killed by the military of any other country, a thorough, transparent, and honest investigation would be virtually automatic. She was a Palestinian citizen of the United States. Yet, as we have seen in the past, the odds are against the U.S. undertaking an investigation let alone carrying one out that is independent and impartial.

But now, CNN and the Associated Press—neither of which has ever demonstrated any “anti-Israel bias,” despite occasional, baseless accusations from far-right Israeli figures and supporters—have both conducted impartial investigations that support the very strong eyewitness testimony and video evidence that we already have, and refute Israel’s counter-claims. This will add to the growing pressure on the Biden administration to launch an investigation.

That pressure has taken an unusual form: a congressional letter calling for the State Department and the FBI to investigate Shireen’s death. That letter is not just another message from the few members of Congress that speak out occasionally for Palestinian rights. It was signed by 57 members of the House of Representatives, more than one fourth of the House Democratic caucus and includes names that surely raised a few eyebrows.

While we might expect Rashida Tlaib, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Cori Bush, Ilhan Omar and Barbara Lee to call for a U.S. investigation into the death of a U.S. citizen at Israel’s hands, this letter was signed by some members who generally try to avoid voting against Israel. Seth Moulton, Tom Malinowski, Eric Swalwell, and others tend to support bland statements about a two-state solution but avoid controversial issues. And this is certainly controversial.

The letter was spearheaded by Andre Carson (D-IN), one of only three Muslim members of Congress, and Lou Correa (D-CA). Carson has worked with and been endorsed by J Street, which, along with Americans for Peace Now, have been supporting this bill. He is among the House members who tends to be more critical of Israel.

Correa, by contrast, has been endorsed by such groups as AIPAC and Pro-Israel America, and has been hawkish on Israel, even voting to condemn Barack Obama’s lone abstention at the United Nations on a bill criticizing Israeli settlements in 2016. That Correa would not only support a bill calling for an investigation of Israel’s involvement in what would be a war crime but take the lead on it is quite stunning.

While the letter steers notably clear of accusing Israel of Abu Akleh’s killing, it does state that Israel’s defense against the charges has been called into question. It says that

“The Israeli military claimed that the victims were caught between gunfire between (sic) Palestinian militants and Israeli Defense Forces. However…Shaza Hanaysheh, another Palestinian journalist…said there were no clashes or shootings in the immediate area.”

The letter noted other testimony stating flatly that there were no Palestinian fighters in the immediate area.

That’s far from a direct accusation, but in Congress it’s nearly blasphemy to even hint that Israel might have committed a war crime, as the deliberate killing of a journalist would be. But this letter was more than enough to draw a sharp response from Israel’s Ambassador to the United States Michael Herzog.

Herzog complained that the Carson-Correa letter didn’t acknowledge Israel’s call for a joint investigation with the Palestinian Authority, a call which the Palestinians flatly and sensibly rejected. He accuses the congressmembers of omitting “significant evidence” that has either been debunked or Israel has not presented at all.

The Israeli ambassador’s hyperbolic reaction is an indication of how badly Israel is losing the fight for public opinion. While the scene at Shireen’s funeral certainly didn’t help, the real problem is that all the evidence that has been made public and every investigation that has not been led by the very military that stands accused have all pointed to Israel’s guilt.

Nevertheless, it remains unlikely that the Biden administration will launch any kind of investigation. That should be a wake up call for every American citizen. As a matter of course, the State Department should, as part of its obligation to protect American citizens abroad, investigate what was, in any case, a wrongful and violent killing of an American citizen. But many supporters of Palestinian rights in the United States will surely wonder if it is worth pursuing such an investigation.

There would be a huge amount of skepticism about any U.S. investigation based on the U.S.’ long history of covering for and defending Israeli behavior. But that should not imply that the U.S. government is absolved of its responsibilities to its citizens. If a citizen of any country is killed abroad, that country should make certain that all the facts of that death are known, and accountability, if any is called for, is meted out.

But the United States routinely accepts Israel’s explanations for the deaths of Americans. The most infamous example of this is Rachel Corrie who, in 2003, was crushed to death under and Israeli bulldozer as she tried to protect a Palestinian home in the Gaza Strip from being demolished. Back then, many of us were active in pressing for a U.S. investigation, but to no avail. The United States accepted Israel’s claim of accidental death, and Rachel’s family fought for years in U.S. and Israeli courts but received no justice.

In January of this year, Omar Asaad, a 78 year old Palestinian American, Omar Asaad, was killed at an Israeli checkpoint when soldiers pulled him from his car, marched him to a construction site and left him bound and gagged for over an hour, causing a heart attack. The soldiers who did it were lightly reprimanded and transferred. The State Department said they were “continuing to discuss the case” with Israel, but the matter has simply dropped off the radar, much as Israel is hoping Shireen’s death will do in due course.

State and the FBI are probably the best options among U.S. agencies for conducting a legitimate investigation of Shireen’s death. But it’s hard to imagine a U.S. investigation that ended with blame falling squarely on Israel, even if all the evidence indicates that’s where it belongs, as, so far, it does.

An international investigation would stand a better chance of being fair and transparent. But we can be certain that Israel, which consistently claims that the United Nations and every international institution is bent on its destruction, would refuse to cooperate, and will reject any findings short of absolute exoneration as biased and antisemitic. That was proven quite clearly in 2009, when Richard Goldstone, an eminent South African judge who was one of the most respected international jurists in the world, was Jewish and was not only a Zionist, but had deep ties to Israel, was tapped to investigate Israel’s assault on Gaza earlier that year.

He was pilloried personally and ostracized from his community. The report itself was rejected by Israel and the United States and, while it remains part of the historical record, it had no material impact on Israel’s behavior, as subsequent assaults on Gaza have demonstrated.

Yet as grim as this outlook is, there would be one significant and tangible benefit to a State Department/FBI investigation into Israel’s killing of Shireen Abu Akleh. It would be a step—a small one, but a step—toward eroding Israeli impunity. Even a less than convincing U.S. investigation is progress from no investigations at all.

The case against Israel in Shireen Abu Akleh’s killing is strong. Israel dismissed CNN’s damning investigation as “baseless” but offered no refutation of the considerable evidence presented in CNN’s report. Their inability to substantively respond to the evidence presented beyond name-calling and far-fetched conspiracy theories that depend on eyewitnesses all lying and maintaining perfect coordination between their “lies” and the video evidence, shows how thin their defense is.

A U.S. investigation would have a tough time supporting such a thin defense. If they tried, and they likely would, it would only look more like a cover-up. It’s worthwhile to try to push the U.S. into that position. Raising the costs of covering for Israel in that way is a potentially sound strategy.

*

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.

Mitchell Plitnick is the president of ReThinking Foreign Policy. He is the co-author, with Marc Lamont Hill, of Except for Palestine: The Limits of Progressive Politics. Mitchell’s previous positions include vice president at the Foundation for Middle East Peace, Director of the US Office of B’Tselem, and Co-Director of Jewish Voice for Peace. You can find him on Twitter @MJPlitnick.

Featured image: JOE BIDEN SPEAKING AT THE 2019 IOWA FEDERATION OF LABOR CONVENTION. (PHOTO: FLICKR/GAGE SKIDMORE)

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, Twitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

The European Union’s REPowerEU seeks to reduce the European Union’s dependency on Russian fossil fuels and accelerate the transition away from carbon-intensive energy sources. The European Commission’s cost estimate, however, may fall short as Rystad Energy analysis suggests the plan will require at least €1 trillion in investment to meet the core objective of increasing renewable generation from 40% to 45% of total energy supply by 2030. Additional investment will be required to meet targets, including grid and battery storage developments to ensure a stable supply of energy as the whole European power system will need to be restructured. While the plan defines different angles to tackle the current crisis, the most detailed section outlines the roadmap for solar PV. The strategy aims to bring 320 gigawatts (GW) of solar PV online by 2025 and almost 600 GW by 2030, aiming to displace 9 billion cubic meters (Bcm) of gas demand. Europe currently has around 189 GW of installed solar PV capacity, meaning 131 GW need to be installed by the middle of the decade, or an equivalent of 44 GW per year. This would mean almost doubling the installation rate, which was 24 GW in 2021 and is expected to be 29 GW this year. To reach the targeted 600 GW by 2030, around 56 GW of new solar PV capacity would need to be installed during the following five years.

Assuming an average cost for solar PV of €1.1 million per megawatt (MW) of installed capacity, installing 411 GW between now and 2030 would represent an investment of €452 billion. Reaching 45% renewable energy supply by 2030 additionally requires significant investments in wind capacity – for which the plan does not have a lot of detail. Rystad Energy’s estimates suggest another 450-490 GW of wind capacity would need to be installed by 2030 to reach the target of 45% renewable energy supply, requiring an additional €820 billion in investments.

Such a transition will require huge investments but thus far the European Commission has been unclear about the total amounts allocated to achieve its goals. Recent announcements and communications mention that €225 billion is already available in loans and that an additional investment of €300 billion could be needed by 2030. Regardless of the total amount being assigned to new renewable energy developments, the figures seem to fall considerably below the required additional investment needed in power transmission, storage, gas infrastructure, and hydrogen production. Furthermore, such a large demand for new capacity will put additional pressure on the supply chain for solar panel and wind turbine manufacturing and could lead to a further increase in costs for these technologies.

“The ambition of the REPowerEU plan is huge. Power companies and energy markets will be looking for details on investments and infrastructure. While the targets are achievable, it will require wartime-like planning, levels of investment, construction, and production to meet goals by 2030,” says Carlos Torres Diaz, head of power research at Rystad Energy.

Targets breakdown

The EU has identified six key areas to reach REPowerEU targets:

• Smart investment
• Tackle slow and complex permitting for major renewable projects
• Saving energy
  • Increase binding energy efficiency targets from 9% to 13%
  • Cut gas and oil demand by 5% through behavioral changes
• Diversifying fossil fuels supplies
  • Develop a joint purchasing mechanism to negotiate gas purchases
  • Develop major hydrogen corridors in the Mediterranean and the North Sea
• Accelerating the rollout of renewable energy
  • Increase the target for renewables from 40% to 45% of total energy supply by 2030
  • Double solar PV capacity by 2025 and reach 600 GW of installed capacity by 2030
  • Double the rate of heat pump deployment
  • Eliminate red tape for renewable energy project permitting
  • Produce 10 million tonnes of renewable hydrogen and import an additional 10 million tonnes by 2030
• Reducing fossil fuel consumption in industry and transport
  • Reduce natural gas consumption from the industrial sector by an additional 35 Bcm by 2030 by using renewable hydrogen, biogas, and biomethane

Reducing red tape

REPowerEU acknowledged the need to address the bottlenecks in the permitting process. Currently, a wind energy permit could take up to nine years. To address this issue, the Commission put forward a new legislative proposal on renewables permitting based on three things:

1. It will declare that renewables are presumed to be in “overriding public interest”. That would ensure renewable energy projects are prioritized, especially in the current scenario and until climate neutrality is reached.
2. The proposal also urges nations to create so-called, “go-to” areas. These areas are to be set following an environment assessment (declaring that renewables projects are not a direct threat to the environment). Projects in these areas would need to be permitted within one year.
3. The Commission also plans to keep existing permitting deadlines (i.e., two years) for the normal new projects and one year for repowered projects.

Speeding up the permitting process is crucial for the European Union to be able to meet its ambitious targets.

*

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 ft.com

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, Twitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

The fallout of the war in Ukraine over Europe is largely seen in terms of the uncertainties over the continent’s heavy dependence on Russian energy and the impact of it on the economies of the 27 EU member countries. Imposing restrictions on Russian oil has proven a much more complicated task than imagined previously.

Countries that are highly dependent on Russian fossil fuels are concerned about the implications of such measures for their own economies. Hungary, for example, is apparently asking for financial support of between $16 billion and $19 billion to move away from Russian energy. It also refuses to discuss the matter at the upcoming Extraordinary European summit on Monday/Tuesday in Brussels. Prime Minister Viktor Orban asked in a letter to the President of the European Council, Charles Michel, that the oil embargo be removed from the topics of discussion at the summit.

Equally, there is much of debris falling on Europe on other fronts. The UN says that as of May 24, 6.6 million refugees have left Ukraine for neighbouring countries. They are entitled to social welfare payments and access to housing, medical treatment and schools. But this coincides with a cost of living crisis in Europe. A confluence of economic shocks continues to threaten the outlook for the EU bloc. The CEOs of several European blue chip companies told CNBC recently that they see a significant recession coming down the pike in Europe. 

But what is by far most crucial for Europe is the endgame in Ukraine, which Russia cannot afford to lose. Such wars usually end with a dirty diplomatic settlement. Clearly, the initial blue-and-yellow flag-waving phase of the war is steadily giving way to a sombre mood as the slow, grinding phase of the Russian advance in the Donbass and the stunning success in Mariupol bring in grim realities.

Henry Kissinger has come out in the open at the World Economic Forum at Davos to argue that Europe needs to have its own independent, and clear-headed definition of its strategic goals. In a conversation with WEF founder Klaus Schwab on Monday, Kissinger made three important points. He said,  

“Parties should be brought to peace talks within the next two months. Ukraine should’ve been a bridge between Europe and Russia, but now, as the relationships are reshaped, we may enter a space where the dividing line is redrawn and Russia is entirely isolated.”

Kissinger estimated that European interests would be best served by a normalisation of relations and increased cooperation right across the European continent, including Russia and Ukraine. This is the first point. Second, Kissinger’s prognosis is that the conflict in Ukraine can permanently restructure the global order. In his words,

“We are facing a situation now where Russia could alienate itself completely from Europe and seek a permanent alliance elsewhere. This may lead to Cold War-like diplomatic distances, which will set us back decades. We should strive for long-term peace.” 

A highly nuanced hint here is that both Europe and Russia’s interests vis-a-vis China’s rise are congruent and if the Atlanticist politicians in Brussels and their assorted Russophobic allies in Eastern Europe and their mentors in Washington, DC keep pushing the dated Cold War ideology over the long-term political and economic interests of European citizens, the most likely scenario will be even greater Russian rapprochement with China.

To quote Kissinger,

“Looked at from a long-term point of view, Russia has been, for 400 years, an essential part of Europe, and European policy over that period of time has been affected, fundamentally, by its European assessment of the role of Russia. Sometimes in an observing way, but on a number of occasions as the guarantor, or the instrument, by which the European balance could be re-established. Current policy should keep in mind the restoration of this role is important to develop, so that Russia is not driven into a permanent alliance with China. But European relations with it are not the only key element of this…”

What Kissinger didn’t say explicitly is that in such a scenario, the EU is destined to suffer a loss of clout and a subaltern role to Washington’s, with less strategic autonomy than it would and could have enjoyed, had it not subordinated all of its interests to Washington and had instead maintained a more independent and balanced position. 

Third, Kissinger argues that realpolitik dictates that the European efforts should concentrate on the resolution of the territorial disputes between Russia and Ukraine: “Ideally, the dividing line should be a return to the status quo ante. Pursuing the war beyond that point will not be about the freedom of Ukraine, but a new war against Russia itself.” By status quo ante, he was of course referring to Kiev’s acceptance of Crimea, Lugansk, and Donetsk remaining under Russia’s control.

In a very refreshing perspective, Kissinger all but hinted that an EU-Ukraine-Russia axis would be competitive with Beijing and Washington on the global playing field. He visualised that China and United States “in the next years have to come to some definition of how to conduct the long-term relationship of countries, it depends on their strategic capacities, but also on their interpretation of these capacities… The challenge is whether this adversarial aspect can be mitigated and progressively eased by the diplomacy that both sides conduct and it cannot be done unilaterally by one side. So, both sides have to come to the conviction that some easing of the political relationship is essential…”

Given Kissinger’s formidable foreign-policy legacy as a diplomatist and statesman, his remarks are bound to influence the European statesmen about the endgame in Ukraine. The telephone conversation between Russian President Vladimir Putin, French President Emmanuel Macron and German Chancellor Olaf Scholz on Saturday can be seen against the above backdrop. 

The conversation took place on the eve of the European summit in Brussels. But Washington has let it be known on Saturday already through a media leak that the Biden Administration is considering the transfer of long-range rocket systems to Ukraine as soon as the coming week. Now, that would be seen as provocation by Russia. All indications are that the Biden administration will not mind a prolonged war in Ukraine and may see advantages in it.

The former Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovich has warned that Ukraine risks not only losing vast territories in its south and east  but also a “complete destruction” of its sovereignty. He said the US never really saw Ukraine as an independent country but as a mere “territory from which a total weakening of Russia should begin.” Indeed, Zelensky himself reminds us increasingly of the Christian legend of the Wandering Jew who, as a consequence of rejecting Jesus, is condemned never to die, but to wander homeless through the world.  

About a month ago, in a rare statement, Russia’s Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR) accused Washington and Warsaw of plotting to restore Polish control over part of western Ukraine, which Poland had ruled at different times in the past, most recently between the two world wars. The territories include the city of Lviv, which were absorbed into the Soviet Union at the end of World War II.

The SVR said the US was discussing with Poland a plan under which Polish “peacekeeping” forces without a NATO mandate would enter parts of western Ukraine where the chance of a confrontation with Russian forces was low. The SVR’s intelligence scoop presumably triggered an expulsion of 45 Russian diplomats in Poland and a physical attack on the Russian Ambassador at a public function at Warsaw.

Curiously, soon afterward, on May 24, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky announced “joint customs control” on Ukraine’s border with Poland, which he described as “also the beginning of our integration into the common customs space of the European Union… (and) a truly historic process.” Zelensky said Ukraine-Poland relations are “finally completely free of quarrels and the legacy of old conflicts. I would like the brotherhood between Ukrainians and Poles to last forever… our unity of Ukrainians and Poles is a constant that no one will break.” Two days before that, Polish President Andrzej Duda had visited Kiev. 

To be sure, Zelensky and Duda acted with US approval. In effect, Ukraine’s sovereignty over its western regions bordering Poland is eroded. Kiev has also announced plans to grant special legal status to Polish citizens. Plainly put, a de facto “merger” is under way.

A reclamation of lost territories in western Ukraine (estimated to be 178000 sq. kms) would make Poland much larger than Germany — exceeding 500,000 sq. kms as against Germany’s 357, 588 sq. kms. The geopolitical implications are far too profound to be overstated — to name a few, EU’s future, Germany’s rise, Europe’s autonomy, German-Russian relations, Russia’s 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.

Featured image: “Brotherly friends”: Ukrainian President Zelensky (R) and visiting Polish President Andrzej Duda, Kiev, May 22, 2022

COVID-1984: Orwell’s Vision, Our Reality?

By Dr. Joseph Mercola, May 30, 2022

“Is it just me, or does it feel like someone out there is using Orwell’s work, not as a warning, but as an owner’s manual?” GBNews host Neil Oliver asked in a May 7, 2022 monologue. He summarized a scene from George Orwell’s book, “Animal Farm,” in which the farm animals discover that the pigs are taking all the apples and milk for themselves.

Pakistan on the Verge of Inflationary Collapse – Pleads for Larger IMF Bailout

By Zero Hedge, May 31, 2022

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, Pakistan has sought relief from foreign debt obligations and an IMF bailout deal.

Armed Jewish Extremists May Ignite a Regional War

By Steven Sahiounie, May 31, 2022

Yesterday, thousands of Israelis have pushed through the Muslim quarter of the Old City in Jerusalem in a Flag March, marking its occupation by Israel in the 1967 Arab-Israeli war.

CDC Plans to Stop Reporting Suspected COVID Cases to Ease Burden

By Riley Griffin and Drew Armstrong, May 30, 2022

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention plans to simplify the Covid-19 hospital data it collects as the demands of the pandemic evolve and some assembled information has become outdated or redundant.

Mark Esper’s Tell-some Reveals US Plans for War and Terror Against Venezuela

By Alan MacLeod, May 30, 2022

A new book from former Defense Secretary Mark Esper has revealed shocking new details about the Trump administration’s war on Venezuela. “A Sacred Oath: Memoirs of a Secretary of Defense During Extraordinary Times” admits that the Trump administration plotted to invade Venezuela and discussed assassinating President Nicolas Maduro, carrying out a wave of terrorist attacks on civilian infrastructure, and raising a mercenary army to start a Contra-style terror war.

Video: Russian Military Wins Battle for Liman. Ukrainian Armed Forces (AFU) Pockets in Donbass Diminishing

By South Front, May 30, 2022

In recent days, the main military development on the Donbass front lines was the storming of the town of Liman in the north of the Donetsk People’s Republic. Krasny Liman is one of the first cities that were captured by the Ukrainian Army with heavy fighting in June 2014.

The Extradition Hearing of Julian Assange. The Power of Lies

By Craig Murray, May 30, 2022

The comments on Peter Oborne’s excellent article on Julian Assange in the Guardian last week are a damning indictment of the media’s ability to instil near universal acceptance of “facts” which are easily proven lies.

Yes, the Government Really Does Stash Billions of Pounds of Cheese in Missouri Caves

By Emily Baron Cadloff, May 30, 2022

It’s not as wacky as it sounds. The USDA has a large presence in Kansas City, Missouri, and when it found itself with millions of pounds of surplus dairy and needed a safe, climate-controlled place to put it all, it started to search locally. A set of caves along Interstate 435 offered a convenient cold-storage option.

Looks Like Latin America Is Boycotting ‘Bad Neighbor’ Uncle Sam

By Walt Zlotow, May 30, 2022

U.S. plans to host a Summit of the Americas in Los Angeles in June have been upended by several countries dropping out. Why? They are boycotting our mean spirited decision to not invite Cuba, Venezuela and Nicaragua. Seems these poor, small countries don’t bend to America’s demanding they kowtow to U.S. unipolar dominance of the world, especially in America’s backyard.

Listen to Kissinger and CIA’s William Burns and Compare with Populist Political Platitudes

By Jan Oberg, May 30, 2022

This short article aims to merely illustrate – not prove – the difference between security political intellectualism and ignorance. It does not focus on peace – theories, ideas, concept or policies – simply because none of the personalities appearing below are in the business of peace.

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, Twitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has announced he will submit a draft bill to parliament giving special status to Poles in Ukraine. It mirrors and reciprocates a similar bill recently endorsed by Poland. The unprecedented bill grants Ukrainians almost the same rights as Polish citizens, regarding social benefits, education, residence, and so on. Zelensky’s announcement was made during the Polish President Andrzej Duda’s visit to the Ukrainian Parliament on May 22.

In his speech, Zelensky also announced plans for bilateral agreements pertaining to joint border and customs control. Interestingly, he had this to say about Poland:

“Our nations are also brothers (…) and there should be no borders or barriers between us.” He added: “The unity of our nations must last forever”. Given the complex Warsaw-Kiev history, these dramatic statements have certainly raised eyebrows. Andrzej Duda in turn said in his own speech that “the Polish–Ukrainian border should unite, not divide.”

On May 3, Duda had already stated that he hopes one day “there will be no border” between the two countries.

Considering these statements and previous Russian intelligence reports, it is no wonder Maria Zakharova, official representative of the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, has described Zelensky’s plan as “legalizing the Polish takeover of Ukraine.”

Since the beginning of the Russian military operation in Ukraine in February, Polish authorities in Warsaw have been providing Kiev with support and there has been a lot of cooperation. The Russian-Ukrainian conflict has projected Poland – NATO’s largest state member in Eastern Europe – as a strategic player in the region, as it is no stranger to great-power confrontations.

It is thus not far-fetched at all to interpret the initiatives discussed and the rhetoric employed by the two leaders as a kind of first step towards a future Ukrainian-Polish confederation. Such a “merging” scenario, in a very creative way, could thereby “hack” the long process of bringing Kiev into the EU and the Western bloc, a goal which the West clearly pursues by whatever means necessary – as has been indicated by Macron’s recent proposal to create a new and more inclusive European political organization, for instance.

Interestingly, this possible future development would accomplish the same thing a military “annexation” would – and even so might also pave the way for a future Polish peace mission. On April 28, the Russian Foreign Intelligence Service’s director claimed Poland was secretly planning to employ its troops to partly take over Western Ukraine, with American support. The justification for that would be “to defend” the neighboring country from “Russian aggression”. According to Russian intelligence, in late April, this so-called peace mission was being discussed with Biden’s officials and was still under preliminary agreements.

Moreover, Polish officials were supposedly negotiating with members of the Ukrainian elite to change Kiev’s policies by making them more “democratic” and pro-Warsaw, so as to counterbalance its nationalist elements. These data have been reported by the Russian press and such coverage has often been labeled as Russian “propaganda” and “disinformation” by Western media. The Russian intelligence also worried that such a development, if it came to fruition, would actually pave the way for a kind of future “reunification”.

Historically, Western Ukraine was ruled by Poland a number of times, including after the 1921 Riga peace treaty, and anti-Polish feelings are part of Ukrainian nationalism today. While Warsaw has been supporting Kiev in key strategic issues since the 2014 Maidan revolution, the very way both countries perceive and politicize 20 century history has hampered their bilateral relations. During World War II, the Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA) cooperated with the Nazi Waffen-SS and several war crimes were commited against Poles. Today’s post-Maidan Ukraine glorifies UPA leader Stepan Bandera and this fact is not well received in Poland.

Here, some older history is relevant. A large part of today’s Ukraine was once dominated by the then Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. After 1349, then Ruthenia, which largely corresponds to today’s Western Ukraine, was subjected to foreign domination. By 1569, most of it became Polish territory. The pressures for Polonization, which included converting to Roman Catholicism, the ongoing enserfment of the peasantry by Poland, and the persecution of the Orthodox Church alienated peasants and Cossacks. In 1648, the Cossack leader Bohdan Khmelnytsky led an uprising against the Polish King, founded the Cossack Hetmanate, and was hailed a liberator of the people. In 1654, with the  Pereyaslav agreement, this new Cossack state pledged its loyalty to the Russian Tsar. To this day, Khmelnytsky is hailed by some as a Ukrainian national hero and a precursor of  nationalism because of his fight against Polish domination – even though some criticize him for his alliance with the Tsar.

Dmytro Yarosh, adviser to the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of Ukraine Valerii Zaluzhny, stated in an interview on May 27, 2019 that  Zelensky would “lose his life” and “hang on a tree on Khreshchatyk” if he “betrayed” Ukrainian nationalists by negotiating an end to the civil war in Donbass. Yarosh is a co-founder of the Right Sector and former commander of the far-right Ukrainian Volunteer Army. Therefore, considering Kiev’s persistent problem with extremist violence and the blatant neo-Nazism of its key Azov battalion, not to mention the complicated Polish-Ukrainian relations historically, one can conclude that Zelensky and Duda’s plans will face some challenges, and could escalate internal tensions dramatically.

*

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.

Uriel Araujo is a researcher with a focus on international and ethnic conflicts.

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 Instagram, Twitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

Yesterday, thousands of Israelis have pushed through the Muslim quarter of the Old City in Jerusalem in a Flag March, marking its occupation by Israel in the 1967 Arab-Israeli war.  The march was organized by Jewish settler groups who demanded to perform religious rites in the Al Aqsa Mosque, which had been prohibited by an agreement in place since 1967 allowing non-Muslims onto the site during visiting hours, but they were barred from praying there.

“Death to the Arabs…we will demolish Al-Aqsa” was chanted by the Jewish settlers in the Flag March yesterday.

According to the Palestinian Red Crescent, 112 Palestinians were injured by Israeli occupation forces in Occupied Jerusalem and the West Bank in the aftermath of the Flag March.

A Jewish settler pointed a gun at a photojournalist covering the event on Sunday.  In Oreef, south of Nablus, Jewish settlers attacked a secondary school, and Palestinians there, while Israeli forces observed the violence, but took no action.  At a checkpoint near Nablus, Israeli forces shot and injured a young Palestinian man.

In Shu’fat camp Yusif Hamdi Diab, age 7, was injured when Israeli forces attacked Palestinians. In Sheikh Jarrah, a neighborhood in occupied Jerusalem, Jewish settlers attacked a young Palestinian man and attacked vehicles owned by Palestinians there.

Since 2003, Israel has allowed settlers into the Al Aqsa compound almost daily. The Flag March last year sparked a war with Gaza and clashes between armed Jewish gangs of settlers and Palestinians in mixed cities all over Israel, with 232 Palestinians, including 54 children and 38 women, killed in the ensuing violence. Previous marches have included Israeli chants of “Death to Arabs” and attacks on Palestinian homes and shops in the Old City. Israeli police prevent any Palestinian, or foreign tourist, from waving a Palestinian flag in Jerusalem.

The recent funeral in Jerusalem for the American journalist Shireen Abu Akleh, murdered by Israeli forces, was marred by Israeli forces who violently beat mourners who waved Palestinian flags.

The Al-Aqsa Mosque compound is located inside the Old City and is one of the holiest sites in Islam.  Israel occupied East Jerusalem during the 1967 Arab-Israeli War and annexed the entire city in 1980, which the international community has never recognized.

Israeli government domestic policy calls for the ethnic cleansing of Jerusalem.  For decades, the Jews have displaced Palestinians in Jerusalem and their goal is to dismantle the Al Aqsa Mosque compound and create a new Jewish temple in its place.  This plan has made the Middle East tense and set the stage for a potential regional war.

On May 26, an Israeli court overturned a ruling on a longstanding ban on non-Muslim prayer at the Al Aqsa Mosque compound. Magistrate Court Judge Zion Saharai ruled in favor of three Jewish appellants who had been banned from the Old City by police for 15 days for praying at the site.

Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas issued a statement calling the ruling “a grave assault against the historic status quo … and a flagrant challenge to international law”.

The Palestinian Ministry of Waqf and Religious Affairs reported that a total of 34,562 Israeli settlers stormed the Al Aqsa Mosque compound in 2021.  A tense status quo has been maintained at Al Aqsa; however, Israeli police repeatedly raided the compound during the Muslim fasting month of Ramadan in April of this year, which coincided with the Jewish Passover festival, to protect settler visits. Hundreds of Palestinians were wounded and arrested.

The US, Egypt, and Jordan have all warned against any violent attacks on the Al Aqsa Mosque and have called for the status quo to be respected and maintained.

Jordan’s Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Haitham Abu Al-Foul said that the decision is null and void, which “lacks legal status under international law that does not recognize Israeli jurisdiction on territories occupied in 1967, including East Jerusalem.”

Abu Al-Foul stressed that the decision is considered a blatant breach of international legitimacy resolutions related to Jerusalem, including the UN Security Council resolutions that urge all to maintain the status quo of the holy city, while adding that the Al-Aqsa Mosque is “a place of worship for Muslims only,” and the Jordan-run Department of the Jerusalem Awqaf and Al-Aqsa Mosque Affairs is the only institution for administering the affairs of the mosque.

Christians as well as their Islamic brethren have been oppressed under the brutal Israeli military occupation, and have suffered from ethnic cleansing.  In 1948, the Christian community of Palestine was about 20% of the population, but today is less than 2% as the result of the ethnic cleansing campaign.

Father Manuel Musallem, a member of the Islamic-Christian Committee in Support of Jerusalem and its Sanctuaries, has called for civil disobedience in occupied Jerusalem today to protect Al-Aqsa Mosque from illegal Jewish settlers.

“O Palestinians,” said Father Musallam, “block Jerusalem with your bodies, let a million Palestinians ascend to it, and let the people sit in the squares, roads, and doors. Do not leave a space so that not even a Zionist ant can enter Jerusalem.”

Musallam stressed the need to prevent settlers from entering Al-Aqsa Mosque and desecrating the Holy Land. “Jerusalem Day is a day that belongs to the homeland and its people. We will sacrifice our blood for the sake of Jerusalem; if it lives, we live, and if it perishes, we perish with it.”

The current Israeli government is led by Nephtali Bennett, who is opposed to any peace plan with the Palestinians, and opposed to the two-state solution which is the foundation of the US and UN resolutions and policies.

Bennett is currently facing a domestic political crisis, and his government might fall. He and his allies may use the Al Aqsa Mosque flag parade as a source of nationalistic pride and religious fervor.  Bennett supports the illegal settler groups, who are mainly American citizens who are well armed and have a long history of violence against Palestinians, and ethnic hatred of all groups who are not Jews.

According to the Geneva Convention, armed resistance to occupation is justified.  The Palestinians, and those committed to the end of the occupation of Palestine, will retaliate with more resistance and confrontation to rein in Israel’s plans to remove, kill or imprison all non-Jewish people.

In recent months, 14 Israelis have been killed by lone attackers who were not members of any Palestinian militant groups, and not part of a formal network.

According to news reports after the Flag March, 22 Israelis were injured in the last 48 hours in Jerusalem and the West Bank by Palestinian resistance.

Palestinians see no hope of obtaining freedom or human rights by any means other than resistance against the occupation.  They are choosing between a quick death in a resistance operation, or a slow death under brutal military occupation.

The famous American Patrick Henry said, “Give me liberty, or give me death.”

*

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 Mideast Discourse.

Steven Sahiounie is a two-time award-winning journalist. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image: Head band of figure in the poster says “Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades”

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, Twitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

“Science” has been used to strip us of medical rights and personal freedoms for the last two years. Now, “science” is touted as the justification for not eating real beef and getting used to insects and lab-grown protein alternatives instead. “Science” is also being weaponized to cajole us into accepting rolling blackouts and energy deprivation

Mirroring George Orwell’s dystopian novel, “1984,” the Biden administration has been telling us the economy is good, the GDP is strong and inflation is transitory, even though data clearly tell a different story

Biden has even insisted that borrowing (read: printing) more money will reduce prices while not affecting the value of the dollar. It’s basic economics that increasing money supply results in inflation, but even inflation is being redefined at whim

At the end of April 2022, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security even created an actual “ministry of truth,” the Disinformation Governance Board, in blatant violation of the First Amendment. Government has basically “memory-holed” the Constitution and pretends it doesn’t exist, hoping you’ll pretend along with them

Is government gaslighting the public? Gaslighting is a form of emotional manipulation and abuse where the abuser creates a false narrative and makes the victim question their sanity. Rewriting history is a key hallmark, as is refuting what is obvious fact

*

“Is it just me, or does it feel like someone out there is using Orwell’s work, not as a warning, but as an owner’s manual?” GBNews host Neil Oliver asked in a May 7, 2022 monologue. He summarized a scene from George Orwell’s book, “Animal Farm,” in which the farm animals discover that the pigs are taking all the apples and milk for themselves.

When their selfish behavior is revealed, the pigs defend it saying it has been scientifically proven that pigs alone require milk and apples for good health. There’s nothing self-serving about their taking all the apples and milk for themselves. “Many of us don’t even like apples.”

Who’s Actually Following the Science?

This term, “science” has been repeatedly thrown in our faces and shoved down our throats over the past two years, while unfairly and irrationally separating the superiors from the plebs. “Science” has been used to strip us of medical rights and personal freedoms.

Now, “science” is touted as the justification for not eating real beef and getting used to insects, grubs and lab-grown protein alternatives instead. “Science” is also being weaponized to cajole us into accepting rolling blackouts and energy deprivation.

“Energy giant E.On recently sent pairs of polyester socks to customers with the message, ‘Energy down. CO2 down.’ Those literally in control of the power are telling people to wear more clothes to fend off the cold rather than have heating in their homes,” Oliver said.

‘1984’ — A Manual for Totalitarianism

In Orwell’s dystopian novel “1984,” we find both a Ministry of Plenty and a Ministry of Truth. Both names are the opposite of their true function. The Ministry of Plenty’s job is to maintain a consistent level of poverty while publishing fabricated production numbers for items that were never actually made, and the task of the Ministry of Truth is to memory-hole inconvenient facts and rewrite history daily to fit the political narrative.

In the U.S., the Biden administration has been telling us the economy is good, the GDP is strong¹ and inflation is transitory,² even though data clearly tell a different story. The first quarter of 2022 actually had a negative growth rate,³ consumer debt soared $52 billion in March,⁴ and inflation over the past year has been the fastest in four decades,⁵ with no end in sight.

Biden has even insisted that borrowing (read: printing) more money will reduce prices while not affecting the value of the dollar. To quote The Hill contributor Chris Talgo,⁶ “That is called, to borrow a Biden-ism, malarkey,” because “when the government prints or borrows trillions of dollars, the value of the dollar declines, and prices rise. That is called inflation.” It’s basic economics, but even that is being redefined at whim.

As if that weren’t Orwellian enough, at the end of April 2022, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security created an actual “ministry of truth,” the Disinformation Governance Board, in blatant violation of the First Amendment (free speech).

The DHS is basically pretending as though the Constitution doesn’t exist anymore, yet no one can recall it being formally abolished. It should still be there — the supreme law of the land. But government is acting as though it’s been memory-holed, and no doubt hope you’ll just go along with it. It’s nothing short of insane-making, and perhaps that’s the intention.

Government Gaslighting

It’s very reminiscent of gaslighting,⁷ a form of emotional manipulation and abuse where the abuser creates a false narrative and step by step makes the victim question their sanity. Rewriting history is a key hallmark, as is refuting what is obvious fact. Silly examples might be commenting on your “black shirt” when the shirt you’re wearing is white, or insist you arrived an hour late when clearly, you were right on time, judging by every clock in the house.

While the victim may wonder if they’re losing their mind, it’s actually the people who do the gaslighting who typically have a mental health disorder. They tend to be pathological liars with strong narcissistic tendencies.

To protect yourself, psychologists recommend you get some distance from the perpetrator, save all evidence (so you can confirm the facts when you get unsure), and set firm boundaries for what you will tolerate and what you won’t. Lastly, you need to sever the relationship — something to keep in mind.

In his monologue, Oliver laments the poor turnout in the local elections, noting that most people are simply worn out by the abuse. Exhausted by the lies. Fatigued beyond care by the hypocrisy. Let this be a lesson to Americans — do not fall into apathy.

The answer is to replace the abusive leadership by voting in record-setting numbers. Get more involved, not less. You could volunteer as a poll worker, for example. It’s true, we’re being hit with phenomenally powerful psychological warfare, but remaining focused on the truth and refusing to get side tracked is your best defense.

Enemies of Freedom

Aldous Huxley was a contemporary and mentor of Orwell. In the 1958 interview above, Huxley discussed a series of essays he’d written called “Enemies of Freedom.” The series outlines “impersonal forces” that are “pushing in the direction of progressively less freedom,” and “technological devices” that can be used to accelerate the process by imposing ever greater control of the population.

With the advent of television, Huxley foresaw how an authoritarian leadership could become a source of ‘a one-pointed drumming’ of a single idea, effectively brainwashing the public. Beyond that, he predicted the technological capability to ‘bypass the rational side of man’ and manipulate behavior by influencing people on a subconscious level. This is precisely what we’re faced with today.

Huxley pointed out that as technology becomes more complex, it becomes increasingly necessary to form more elaborate hierarchal organizations to manage it all. Technology also allows for more effective propaganda machines that can be managed through those same control hierarchies.

Huxley cited the success of Hitler, noting that aside from Hitler’s effective use of terror and brute force, “he also used a very efficient form of propaganda. He had the radio, which he used to the fullest extent, and was able to impose his will on an immense mass of people.”

With the advent of television, Huxley foresaw how an authoritarian leadership could become a source of “a one-pointed drumming” of a single idea, effectively brainwashing the public. Beyond that, he predicted the technological capability to “bypass the rational side of man” and manipulate behavior by influencing people on a subconscious level. This is precisely what we’re faced with today.

Google and Facebook have both been collecting data on you for nearly two decades. They have created massive server farms that are capable of analyzing this data with deep learning and artificial intelligence software to mine information and generate incredibly precise details on just what type of propaganda and narrative is required to surreptitiously manipulate your beliefs and behavior.

Centralization Is the Engine of Huxley’s Dystopia

Huxley argued that to create the dystopian future presented in his books, you would have to centralize wealth, power and control, which is precisely what the technocratic and transhumanist-inspired globalist cabal have been doing. Their control grid is nearly complete.

One of the final nails in our collective coffin will be the rollout of a global digital identity system, as this will give them more or less total control over every human being on the planet. The World Health Organization is working on one. The European Union just announced the rollout of digital ID, and the U.K. government is drawing up legislation to make digital ID services more secure.⁸

While sold as the ultimate in speed and convenience, digital ID “poses one of the gravest risks to human rights of any technology that we have encountered.” The Expose warns:⁹

“Ultimately, social credit systems, such as those that are currently being developed in China, will be based on digital ID, thereby enabling or disabling our full and free participation in society.

By developing facial recognition and AI and machine learning technologies in parallel with systems for a Digital ID, we are not simply establishing an identity to access basic social services. Digital IDs will become necessary to function in a connected digital world …

Digital ID systems, as they are being developed today, are ripe for exploitation and abuse, to the detriment of our freedoms and democracies. You may be thinking that this would never happen in the West and it is only unique to China. But they already enforced it here without you realizing it, through COVID-19 Vaccine Passports.

Mandatory COVID passports have almost nothing to do with public health and everything to do with social control. Why? Because the COVID-19 injections do not prevent infection or transmission … Vaccine Passports make absolutely zero sense from a Public Health perspective. But they make perfect sense for enforcing a Digital ID and Social Credit system …

You’ll have to use your Digital ID to buy certain things, be granted access to places, and most probably to even access the mainstream internet. But, if you haven’t done what the Government has decided makes you a ‘good citizen,’ and kept up a good social credit score, you won’t be able to do any of those things.

Once Digital IDs have been normalized, they will be one of the greatest tools that Governments have ever had in their arsenal to both control and manipulate the public and remain in power, thanks to the huge amount of personal data they will generate.”

Decentralization Protects Freedom

If centralization is the prerequisite for Huxley’s dystopia, then decentralization is the way to protect against it. Today, the wisdom of this is on full display. I believe decentralization of the internet will be required to prevent censorship and manipulation in the future.

This means that websites and platforms are not stored in one central place that can easily be controlled and manipulated but, rather, widely distributed to thousands, if not millions, of computers all over the world. Because there is no central storage it can’t be removed.

Decentralized platforms allow the majority of power to reside with the individual. Technologies that can be easily misused to control the public narrative must also remain largely decentralized, so that no one person or agency ends up with too much power to manipulate and influence the public. Our modern-day social media monopolies are a perfect example of what Huxley warned us about.

The same goes for our food system and our economic institutions too. Today, we can see how the role of the central bank (in the U.S. known as the Federal Reserve) — a privately-owned entity with the power to break entire countries apart for profit — is forcing us toward a new global economic system that will impoverish and quite literally enslave everyone, with the exception of the cabal members themselves.

Like the ruling pigs in “Animal Farm,” they may insist they’re “building back better” and working toward a “fairer and more equitable” society, but if they get their way, they will be the only ones dining on apples and milk in the farmhouse, while the rest of us own nothing and subsist on rationed grubs.

*

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.

See original source for notes.

Featured image is from Red Voice Media

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, Twitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

“Near entire planet is closed down for two years due to unprecedented threat etc., draconian rules imposed at numerous levels – then, bingo, suddenly not even worth reporting” Felicity Arbuthnot

See excerpts from this  Bloomberg Report

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention plans to simplify the Covid-19 hospital data it collects as the demands of the pandemic evolve and some assembled information has become outdated or redundant.

The agency is likely to stop collecting data from hospitals on suspected Covid cases that haven’t been confirmed by tests, …

Early in the pandemic, when Covid tests were sparse and it could take days to confirm cases, the US encouraged hospitals to report all likely infections. But since most hospitals now test all patients on admission, suspect cases can be confirmed or ruled out within hours, making the data not particularly useful.

 

The agency is also suggesting that the US stop collecting Covid vaccination data from hospitals because it isn’t required to be reported, isn’t widely used and hospital workers are required to report their vaccine status via a different mechanism.

Health officials are also considering whether or not to decrease the cadence in which hospitals report data, such as collecting data only on Monday, Wednesday and Friday, or collecting it once weekly.

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 is from NaturalNews.com

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, Twitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

The liberal NAbg. Gerald Hauser caused Health Minister Johannes Rauch (Greens) a lot of trouble with his questions about the WHO Pandemic Treaty. As is so often the case, the minister failed to provide any real answers to most of the parliamentary questions. This is nothing new in itself, because the parliament, which is supposed to represent our people, hasn’t mattered to the government since turquoise-green, just like the people themselves. However, despite all the hustling and extensive silence, Rauch admitted that health policy competencies are being handed over to the mostly private WHO – a clear abolition of our parliamentary democracy. When asked by the Wochenblick, Hauser was shocked by the minister’s callousness.

WHO as the new world government

As Wochenblick reported, the 75th World Health Assembly (WHA, World Health Assembly) took place this week. In the course of this meeting, the WHO wanted to be made a potential world government. According to the plans of the elite around Bill Gates, the national constitutions are to be overturned. A few weeks ago, Gerald Hauser made a parliamentary question about these scandalous events, which mean the end of our democracy in terms of health policy. But he hardly got any answers.

“I’m really shocked at how casually the answers were passed over and my questions weren’t specifically addressed at all,” explains Gerald Hauser in an interview with Wochenblick. The whole thing reminds him of the 137 resolutions in the first few weeks after the lockdown, where Parliament was passed without an assessment, the East Tyrolean describes indignantly. In addition, Hauser does not believe that it is up to the government to outsource our health policy to the WHO: “In my view, the government has no mandate to negotiate this. Who gave them legitimacy to negotiate the ceding of our rights, our state, to the WHO? And thus to a supranational institution that was not elected by the people!”

Negotiated past Parliament: MPs know nothing about the pandemic contract

The specific questions from the Freedom Party brought the Minister of Health, who is already the third Green in this position, into such distress that he simply refused many answers. Nevertheless, he admits that the handover of our democracy (so far limited to our health policy) to the largely private organization WHO will first be negotiated internationally and then taken over “according to our constitution”. As is well known, the judgment of the Constitutional Court on pandemic legislation showed that absolutely everything is now constitutional as soon as it is advertised by a “government expert”. Gerald Hauser is shocked that the Pandemic Treaty plays no role at all in Parliament, that there is no discussion about it.

“We are in the middle of negotiations without Parliament even remotely involved – the strategy seems to be that the government presents us with a fait accompli. Formally, this is not only a circumvention of the parliament but an undermining of parliamentary democracy!” – Gerald Hauser, shocked by the abolition of our democracy

The liberal people’s representative has the impression that many MPs know nothing about it:

“This state of affairs is untenable, you only find out about what’s going on here through alternative media such as Wochenblick and AUF1. Parliament was never informed! If we didn’t make any inquiries, we wouldn’t know anything anyway. And these inquiries are only answered sloppily, if at all, anyway.”

But in the response to the question, Rauch at least admits that in the end, Parliament will be faced with a fait accompli:

As with any international instrument, the domestic procedure will follow the Austrian Federal Constitution. Only when the legal nature of the WHO convention to be drawn up and negotiated by the INB, a treaty or another international instrument is certain, a decision on the domestic procedure in accordance with the Federal Constitution can be made. – Health Minister Johannes Rauch to Gerald Hauser

Resistance works!

However, the broad resistance against the planned disenfranchisement of the nation states has already had an effect, as Wochenblick reported. Because some points from the pandemic treaty, which would have brought the individual states into total WHO bondage in the event of a “health emergency”, have already been defused. A stage victory of the loud resistance!

Bill Gates almost 20%, Freemason advance equal to EU

The never-ending questions from the liberal deputy Hauser are also to be understood as part of this resistance. The “reactions” from the Ministry of Health, which can actually only be described as non-answers, speak volumes. Hauser researched for his bestseller “Raus aus dem Corona-Chaos”, which he wrote together with Dr. Hannes Strasser revealed who owns the WHO and who finances it (page 16 of the book). Most of these are the USA (14.67 percent) and Bill Gates with GAVI (18.15%), followed only then by Great Britain (7.79%), Germany (5.68%), the UN (5.09%) , EU (3.3%) and so on. The World Bank (3.42%) and Rotary International (3.3%) are also on the list. The fact that Rotary International – the association is considered to be the preliminary organization of international Freemasonry – “sponsors” as much as the EU is particularly explosive. That such sponsoring takes place without expecting anything in return is something that only the most inexperienced in politics would believe.

Therefore, the free parliamentarian Hauser, who was uncomfortable with those in power, wanted to know how the minister assesses that the WHO is basically sponsored by foundations, NGOs and private financiers and could therefore possibly act in their interests.

The first, snotty non-answer from the minister:

“The decision-making bodies are made up of the Member States. Only these are entitled to vote. In accordance with Article 56 of the WHO statutes, the WHA examines and approves the budget proposal and divides the expenditure among the members according to a key to be determined by the WHO. The key to be determined is based on the rating scale of the United Nations.”

So Rauch doesn’t even begin to answer the question of the parliamentarian Mag. Hauser, who was elected by the people! As we know, for example, the self-proclaimed philanthropist and world vaccinator Bill Gates is one of the main sponsors of the WHO and is probably pulling some strings in the background, but Rauch apparently doesn’t care or he just ignores it.

Scandalous non-response to the parliamentary question

The Minister of Health does not even begin to answer other very specific questions from the FPÖ MP. What is the government’s position on the pandemic contract? Blank answer full of letters. Rauch ignores the fact that Austria could cede its sovereignty to the WHO through this infamous agreement, as well as the question of how the government stands on the fact that a non-democratically legitimate body could possibly decide on future pandemic measures in Austria in the future. What comes out of the Ministry of Health is nothing more than smoke and mirrors. Hauser reacted like this: “I think it’s pathetic. One does not have the courage to admit that one is part of these international elites of the World Economic Forum, which are successively taking over the powers. Just not answering very specific questions tells me: Something is up!”

Hauser’s call to the government for immediate involvement

Gerald Hauser calls for the immediate involvement of Parliament in the legislative process:

I call for the immediate involvement of Parliament, for immediate decision-making as to whether Parliament even wants the WHO to decide on our health policy in the future. We at the FPÖ do not want this, this systematic undermining of the National Council as a legislative body. We want to retain national sovereignty and we don’t want Bill Gates and Co. to decide on health policy and measures in Austria in the future and the representative, parliamentary democracy in Austria to be undermined for this. The legislative body must remain the Austrian Parliament! And it is supposed to represent the Austrians. The sovereign should decide. We want to get through the next pandemic, as defined by the WHO, with common sense and a sense of proportion, without lockdowns and without collateral damage to society. I don’t want unequal treatment of the unvaccinated. The law emanates from the people and is represented by the elected institutions.

As evidence here the scandalous majority non-response to the parliamentary question with the meaningful admission.

*

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 Instagram, Twitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

 

 

 

 

 

 

***

A new book from former Defense Secretary Mark Esper has revealed shocking new details about the Trump administration’s war on Venezuela. “A Sacred Oath: Memoirs of a Secretary of Defense During Extraordinary Times” admits that the Trump administration plotted to invade Venezuela and discussed assassinating President Nicolas Maduro, carrying out a wave of terrorist attacks on civilian infrastructure, and raising a mercenary army to start a Contra-style terror war. Esper also all but confirms Washington’s involvement in Operation Gideon – a botched military invasion of the country, and a 2018 attempt on Maduro’s life.

While barely covered in Western media, Esper’s confessions have caused a storm of commotion in the South American nation. However, Diego Sequera, a Caracas-based investigative journalist, told MintPress that few were taken aback by the news. “It is, in a way, shocking. But on the other hand, it is pretty much usual for us here,” he said, adding: “The news is not surprising at all; we in Venezuela are used to it. Since 2004, when the first Colombian paramilitary unit with a plan to assassinate President [Hugo] Chavez was arrested, there have been a lot of exposés of this nature.”

“Really part of the United States”

Donald Trump invited self-declared Venezuelan President Juan Guaidó to be the guest of honor at his State Of The Union address in 2020, where Guaidó was described as “the true and legitimate president” and received a standing ovation from Republicans and Democrats alike.

Trump and Guaidó’s post-SOTU meeting was reported in the press at the time as “focused on actions to achieve democracy and liberty.” Esper’s account, however, reveals that the conversation revolved around an American invasion of the country. Trump, who Esper says had been “fixated on Venezuela since the early days of his administration,” asked Guaidó directly, “What if the U.S. military went down there and got rid of Maduro?” The offer was music to the ears of the Venezuelan, who replied, “Of course we would always welcome U.S. assistance.” Guaidó had attempted four coups already, each time calling on the people and the military to rebel and join his side, but had received a less than enthusiastic response.

Esper’s account aligns with that of a previous tell-all book from National Security Advisor John Bolton. In “The Room Where It Happened: A White House Memoir,” Bolton claims Trump said that it would be “cool” to invade Venezuela because it is “really part of the United States.”

The invasion had some vociferous backers in the room, including Mauricio Claver-Carone, senior director of the National Security Council, and Robert O’Brien, Trump’s national security advisor. Esper felt Claver-Carone’s judgment was clouded by his personal investment in undermining Latin American socialism, being as he was, a member of the virulently anti-communist Miami-Cuban community. Often called “the capital of Latin America,” Miami is full of emigres who push Washington for a more hawkish stance on Cuba, Venezuela, and Latin America more generally. Bolton’s book also paints Claver-Carone and O’Brien as hawks.

Esper, however, was alarmed by the prospect of a military quagmire and suspected that Guaidó was far less powerful than he made out to be. As Esper told Trump, the Venezuelan opposition would only “fight to the last American.” When he asked Guaidó directly whether “his people” would be willing to organize, train and fight, the response amounted to “It would be so much easier and quicker if the U.S. would do this for us.”

Operation Gideon

Instead, Esper and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Mark Milley suggested raising an army of mercenaries to carry out a terror war against the Venezuelan population, along the lines of what the U.S. did with the Contras in Nicaragua. As Esper wrote:

General Milley also thought we should look at irregular warfare options, such as the U.S. training and arming of Venezuelan expatriates [REDACTED]. The United States had a long history with these types of operations. It was an idea worth developing. Milley and I had discussed this several times before.”

However, Guaidó’s team was more interested in discussing secret plans of which even Esper was unaware. At one point, one of Guaidó’s colleagues leaned forward and said, “We have some plans you [the U.S. government] know we are working on; they’re just not ready yet,” made a quick reference to Florida, and shared a smile, a nod and a knowing look with Claver-Carone.

At the time, Esper claims to have been nonplussed by this comment. However, he later understood it as a reference to Operation Gideon, an attempt by a semi-private Florida mercenary firm to mount an amphibious invasion of Venezuela, shoot their way to the presidential palace, capture, detain, or “remove” Maduro, and install Guaidó as “president.”

Operation Gideon was attempted just a few weeks after the meeting, but failed spectacularly as the heavily armed mercenaries were overpowered even before they reached land, when disgruntled lobstermen from the local fishing collective disarmed them with nothing more than fishing knives and old revolvers. The event has since been christened Trump’s “Bay of Piglets.”

While the operation was carried out with extraordinary incompetence, the seriousness of the event should not go understated. Guaidó himself signed a contract with SilverCorp USA, a Trump-linked mercenary firm, that stated the group would become his personal death squad after the insurrection, with the power to murder and assassinate all people resisting the new government. For this service, Guaidó promised to pay SilverCorp an initial fee of around a quarter of a billion dollars. The deal was signed at Trump’s Mar a Lago resort in Florida. The U.S. servicemen who participated in the botched operation were sentenced to 20 years in a Venezuelan prison.

lol, Silvercorp charged Guaidó a quarter-billion dollars for potentially only one day's work yet they're still putting in traps trying to fleece the sucker even harder. How greedy can you get? pic.twitter.com/GOdDax9RYN

— Alan MacLeod (@AlanRMacLeod) May 8, 2020

“I wasn’t at all surprised by Mark Esper’s revelations, given the U.S.’s long and sordid history of destabilization of governments that are not to its liking,” said Steve Ellner, a retired professor of economic history and political science at the Universidad de Oriente in Venezuela.

Ellner, an American who has lived in Venezuela for over 40 years and closely studied the rise in tensions between the two nations, added:

Esper’s revelations lead to nothing less than the conclusion that Washington was involved in the abortive drone strike in August 2018 that exploded at a public event that was meant to kill Maduro, his wife Celia Flores and various top military commanders. It also leads to the conclusion that Washington was involved in the Operation Gideon of 2020 that had as its goal the kidnapping of Maduro.”

Bolton’s book also hints at U.S. involvement in the 2018 assassination attempt, which he describes as “hilarious.” Shortly after the attempt, Trump demanded that Bolton “get it done” – “it” meaning the removal of Maduro. “This is the fifth time I’ve asked for it,” he added.

Terror Squad

Esper’s memoir also reveals that senior U.S. officials often spoke frankly and candidly about carrying out waves of terror attacks on Venezuelan civilian infrastructure, a disclosure that sheds new light on a number of highly suspicious explosions, fires, blackouts and other mishaps inside Venezuela – events that the Maduro administration has long blamed on the United States. Western media, however, routinely dismissed these allegations as conspiracy theories.

Esper alleges that on June 9, 2020, O’Brien proposed a military strike on a coastal port that handled much of the country’s oil imports and exports. “The means could be either an air strike or the use of Navy SEALs,” he said. The effect would be to “further disrupt their energy supplies and provoke more unrest.” According to Esper, the group rejected the plan in favor of a coordinated cyberattack on critical Venezuelan infrastructure instead.

However, ten days later, the U.S. government (including Esper himself) agreed to what he called the development of “kinetic and nonkinetic options, both overt and [REDACTED], that could disrupt Venezuela’s oil and arms shipments. Options would need to include actions that would have a material impact on key industrial and other high-value targets.”

Just weeks after this decision, former U.S. Marine and CIA agent Matthew Heath was arrested outside Venezuela’s largest oil refining complex. When apprehended, Heath was carrying a submachine gun, a grenade launcher, four blocks of C4 explosives, a satellite phone, stacks of U.S. dollars and detailed information about the complex. Both the U.S. government and U.S. media have largely ignored Heath’s trial for terrorism and arms trafficking, strongly suggesting that he was indeed caught in the act while on “official business.”

The Beto O’Rourke of Venezuela

While Trump was publicly singing Guaidó’s praises, endorsing him as the true leader of a free Venezuela, behind closed doors, he said exactly the opposite. According to Esper, Trump thought Guaidó was a remarkably “weak” politician, especially compared to the “strong” and “tough” Maduro.

Trump commented on the fact that Guaidó’s wife, Fabiana Rosales, did not even wear a wedding ring, another sign of weakness, according to the president. In fact, Esper says, “Trump seemed more impressed by Rosales than her husband,” always making time to speak to her rather than him, and treating her very warmly. The 73-year-old president commented that the 27-year-old Rosales looked “very young” and attractive.

Bolton’s book also mentions that Trump quickly soured on Guaidó but remained intensely interested in his wife. After multiple failed coups, Trump reportedly took to calling him “the Beto O’Rourke of Venezuela” – suggesting that he saw Guaidó as someone who talked a good game but had no substance or support behind him.

Trump’s judgment appears to have been better than that of those around him. After a series of failed coups and embezzlement scandals, what support Guaidó had appears to have withered away, with some polls showing only 4% of the Venezuelan public backing him. As the population suffers, Guaidó continues to live a life of extreme luxury, mostly from Venezuelan funds confiscated by the U.S. “At this point, Juan Guaidó is nothing other than a joke in Venezuela,” Ellner told MintPress, adding:

I say that not only because he is totally discredited among the Venezuelan people, but because leaders of the hard-line faction of the opposition have distanced themselves from him, and of course even more so in the case of the other half of the organized opposition, which favors dialogue with Maduro.”

Sequera agreed, calling Guaidó the “frontman of a criminal operation that is stealing our own goods.”

Financial Terrorism and Invading Africa

The Trump administration also tightened the noose around Venezuela’s economy by intensifying the Obama administration’s sanctions. Companies found to be in breach of the U.S. economic blockade could be shut down, fined, and their executives threatened with decades in prison. The result was a collapse in the Venezuelan economy and huge shortages of goods. A United Nations Special Rapporteur who visited the country likened the Trump administration’s actions to a medieval siege, estimated that over 100,000 Venezuelans had been killed as a result, and recommended the UN investigate the U.S. for crimes against humanity.

Esper claims that as Venezuela and Iran tried to find ways of trading with each other to prevent their economies collapsing and to prevent mass deaths, his team “looked for ways to shut those activities down.” One of these methods was to arrest and kidnap Venezuelan businessman and diplomat Alex Saab, who was traveling between the two countries to secure a trade deal. On U.S. orders, Saab was arrested after his plane stopped off in Cabo Verde, an island nation off the west coast of Africa. Saab was detained and is now being held hostage in Florida. In November, MintPress traveled to Caracas to speak to Saab’s wife Camila.

The detention of Saab – who was traveling on official business using a diplomatic passport – was a major violation of international law. Esper reveals that the Trump administration was paranoid that Russia, a Venezuelan ally, would stage a special operations mission to rescue Saab. As a precaution, the Department of Defense immediately ordered the U.S. fleet in the Mediterranean Sea be deployed to Cabo Verde – including thousands of marines.

Thus, the U.S. would be effectively invading Cabo Verde under the pretext that Russia might try to free the diplomat they had kidnapped. Esper and others put a stop to this plan at the 11th hour, but the U.S. continues to hold Saab captive to this day.

By the time of the Saab affair, Bolton had been kicked out of the White House. But his account of U.S. sanctions against Venezuela tells a similar story (although he uses much more sadistic language than does Esper). In Bolton’s view, “we had Maduro by the windpipe and needed to constrict it.” “We began devising steps to take immediately against Maduro’s regime, and also Cuba,” he explained, “Oil sanctions were a natural choice, but why not declare Venezuela a ‘state sponsor of terrorism,’ something I first suggested on October 1, 2018, and also return Cuba to the list after Obama had removed it?” he asked, thereby inadvertently conceding that the State Sponsors of Terrorism list has nothing to do with terrorism and is merely a list of governments the U.S. wants to overthrow.

As Bolton – a much more openly cold-blooded person than Esper – states, sanctions are not about justice, but about “using America’s massive economic power to advance our national interests.”

What Comes after ‘Sociopath’?

Throughout his account, Esper portrays himself as a long-suffering but loyal bureaucrat who was trying to do the best thing for his country while surrounded by fools and loose cannons. While he considered quitting in protest, even knowing he would be treated as a “hero” for doing so, he decided to persevere as “it was the right thing to do for our country.” “My soldiers don’t get to quit when the going gets tough, so I won’t either,” he added. Indeed, at some points, Esper presents himself as a veritable saint, claiming that, “[o]n more than one occasion, Leah would say to me, ‘As your wife, please quit. As an American citizen, please stay.’”

Despite his best intentions, Esper still comes off as a sociopath attempting to intimidate the world into submission. Throughout the book, he reveals how he had to constantly quash Trump’s desire to end endless wars and pursue peace with adversaries.

Trump himself proposed a complete withdrawal of American troops from Afghanistan and South Korea, nations where U.S. forces have been stationed for nearly 20 and 70 years respectively. This, for Esper, was “outlandish.” He explained to Trump that, “[w]ithout [the U.S. occupation], we would squander the leverage that a continued U.S. military presence and the threat of force gave us.”

Esper was also “disgusted” by Trump’s proposition to meet with the Taliban for peace talks that could have ended the war. According to Esper, the entire team was against ending the occupation, stating:

​​As the president went around the room, we each tried to dissuade him in different ways. I recommended against it, reminding him that ‘the Taliban have the blood of American service members on their hands, not to mention their role in the death of nearly three thousand civilians killed on our own soil on 9/11.’”

Esper refrained from noting that none of the 9/11 hijackers were Afghans and most came from U.S. ally Saudi Arabia.

Trump was also reportedly highly skeptical of the need to flood Ukraine with weapons, questioning why the United States had to support such a corrupt administration as Zelensky’s and asking why Germany or other European nations could not do so if it were so imperative. To Esper’s relief, the hawks in the room were able to win the day on that issue as well.

MintPress also spoke with Joe Emersberger, co-author of the book “Extraordinary Threat: The U.S. Empire, the Media, and Twenty Years of Coup Attempts in Venezuela.” In Emersberger’s opinion, there is “absolutely no basis for doubting the truth of the excerpts from Esper that have been so widely cited.” As he explained:

Esper is not ‘confessing’ to anything that could bring legal trouble for himself or other U.S. officials. The U.S. has imposed murderous and utterly criminal sanctions on Venezuela in broad daylight, flaunting its extreme impunity. Esper speaks with [the] calm candor of a hitman who has already cut a rock-solid deal with prosecutors and fears nothing.”

Trump was far from an anti-war activist, however, and was committed to regime change in Venezuela, whatever the cost. The billionaire president reportedly saw it as a massive money-spinner and was obsessed with gaining control over Venezuela’s vast oil fields, something Esper saw as gauche. Esper was also committed to overthrowing Maduro, but only in “the right way, the smart way.”

According to Emersberger,

Trump ignorantly assumed the Maduro government would be an easy target, something a bully like Trump could not resist, especially the prospect of direct looting of its oil. By the time he realized otherwise, he and his gang were locked into a cycle of escalation that Biden has essentially maintained, backtracking only slightly due to fallout from the war in Ukraine.”

While Esper was no dove, others in Trump’s inner circle appear to have delighted in cruelty. Esper claims that the president’s senior policy advisor, Stephen Miller, argued that U.S. forces in the Middle East should cut off the heads of enemy forces, smear them in pig’s blood (which Muslims consider to be unholy), and display them in public as a means of psychological warfare.

Yesper

Esper’s new book also makes a number of other sensational claims about what went on in the White House behind closed doors. Among them is that Trump was furious at the George Floyd protests in Washington, asking General Milley why he would not simply shoot them all in the legs as he had asked. Trump demanded 10,000 troops in the streets of the nation’s capital in order to “restore order.”

Trump also reportedly discussed sending 250,000 troops to the Mexican border and firing missiles into Mexico in order to destroy cartel-run drug labs. “We could just shoot some Patriot missiles and take out the labs quietly…no one would know it was us,” he insisted.

Trump, for his part, has rejected the comments about shooting protesters in the leg, although he refused to comment on the Mexico missiles idea. “Mark Esper was a stiff who was desperate not to lose his job,” Trump retorted. “He was a lightweight and a figurehead, and I realized it very early on.” Trump went on to say that Esper was a “RINO [Republican in name only] incapable of leading” and that he called him “Yesper” – a nickname suggesting that he saw him as a spineless yes man.

While the revelations about Mexico and the George Floyd Protests have received significant attention in corporate media, such is the bipartisan consensus in Washington on Venezuela that carrying out wars, regime-change operations, terrorist attacks and assassination attempts against an elected foreign head of state has been ignored. When it comes to the U.S. empire, everyone, it seems, is on the same page.

*

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.

Alan MacLeod is Senior Staff Writer for MintPress News. After completing his PhD in 2017 he published two books: Bad News From Venezuela: Twenty Years of Fake News and Misreporting and Propaganda in the Information Age: Still Manufacturing Consent, as well as a number of academic articles. He has also contributed to FAIR.org, The Guardian, Salon, The Grayzone, Jacobin Magazine, and Common Dreams.

Featured image is from Amazon

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, Twitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

Read the English version:

The WHO as a “Proxy World Government”? Abolition of the Nation State? Say NO to “Global Tyranny”

By Dr. Rudolf Hänsel and Peter Koenig, May 28, 2022

---

Im Schatten des Ukraine-Krieges bereitet die WHO – von der Öffentlichkeit unbemerkt – ein völkerrechtlich verbindliches „internationales Abkommen zur Verhütung und Bekämpfung von Pandemien“ vor. Die Verhandlungen in Genf haben bereits begonnen. Ursprünglich war die „Machtübergabe“ für den 1. Mai 2022 geplant, das heißt alle 194 Mitgliedsstaaten der WHO wären dann gezwungen, die von der WHO beschlossenen Maßnahmen wie Lockdowns oder allgemeine Impfpflicht umzusetzen.

Ein neues Memorandum des Concilium Europa vom 3. März 2022 hat den Prozess jedoch erheblich verzögert. In der Zwischenzeit soll ein Arbeitsentwurf dieses neuen WHO-„Weltregierungsabkommens“ für weitere interne Verhandlungen am 1. August 2022 fertig sein. Wenn eine Pandemie ausbricht, sind alle gefährdet.

Der Rat gibt grünes Licht für die Aufnahme von Verhandlungen über ein internationales Pandemieabkommen

Am 3. März 2022 nahm der Rat einen Beschluss an, um die Aufnahme von Verhandlungen über ein internationales Abkommen über die Prävention, Vorsorge und Reaktion auf Pandemien zu genehmigen.

Das zwischenstaatliche Verhandlungsgremium, das mit der Ausarbeitung und Aushandlung dieses internationalen Instruments beauftragt ist, wird seine nächste Sitzung am 1. August 2022 abhalten, um die Fortschritte bei einem Arbeitsentwurf zu erörtern . Anschließend wird sie der 76. Weltgesundheitsversammlung im Jahr 2023 einen Fortschrittsbericht vorlegen, mit dem Ziel , das Instrument bis 2024 zu verabschieden.

Offizielle Begründung für dieses von der WHO für notwendig erachtete Unterfangen ist laut „Rat der Europäischen Union“ der Vorwand, die internationale Gemeinschaft müsse noch besser auf mögliche künftige Pandemien und deren koordinierte Bekämpfung vorbereitet sein (2). Laut „Epochtimes“ vom 5. März scheinen die EU sowie private Akteure wie die Rockefeller Foundation und Bill Gates Ideengeber zu sein (3). Angesichts der Pandemieerfahrungen der vergangenen zwei Jahre ist dies ein Hinweis darauf, was die Welt zu erwarten hat.

Grundlage der Vereinbarung ist Artikel 19 der WHO-Satzung. Diese besagt, dass die Generalversammlung der WHO mit Zweidrittelmehrheit Vereinbarungen annehmen kann, die für alle Mitgliedstaaten verbindlich sind. Nationalstaaten können dann nicht mehr souverän entscheiden, welche Pandemie-Bekämpfungsmaßnahmen sie einführen wollen.

Die Abschaffung des Nationalstaates bedeutet zugleich den Verlust von Grund- und Bürgerrechten.

Davor hat schon der renommierte deutsch-britische Soziologe, Publizist und Politiker Ralf Dahrendorf gewarnt:

„Wer den Nationalstaat aufgibt, verliert damit die bisher einzige wirksame Garantie seiner Grundrechte. Wer heute den Nationalstaat für entbehrlich hält, erklärt damit – wenn auch unbeabsichtigt – Bürgerrechte für entbehrlich.“ (4)

Bei einer so weitreichenden Frage muss jedoch das Volk das letzte Wort haben: Alle wahlberechtigten Bürger eines Landes müssen das Recht und die Möglichkeit erhalten, ihre Meinung in einem Referendum zu äußern.

Vorschlag eines Sachverständigen an alle Landesregierungen

Dr. Stuckelberger, der seit über 20 Jahren für die WHO arbeitet, machte laut „greatreject.org“ folgenden Vorschlag:

• Jedes Land sollte einen öffentlichen Protestbrief an die WHO senden.
• Die „Regierungen“ sollten einen Brief schreiben, in dem sie erklären, dass die Menschen nicht akzeptieren, dass die Unterschrift des Gesundheitsministers ohne Referendum über das Schicksal von Millionen von Menschen entscheiden kann. Es ist sehr wichtig, diesen Brief von jedem Land an die WHO in Genf zu senden.
• Die WHO fordert alle Länder auf, die Maßnahmen bis Mai 2022 umzusetzen [diese Forderung wurde inzwischen auf 2024 verschoben, siehe hier ].
• Bisher hatten nur die Russen einen solchen Absagebrief verschickt (5).

Das Völkerrecht lässt keine UN-Regelung zu, die über der Verfassung einzelner Länder steht.

Das gilt auch für die WHO – eine UN-Organisation.

*

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.

Translated by Helmut Muellers Klartext.

Dr. Rudolf Hänsel ist Rektor i.R., Erziehungswissenschaftler und Diplom-Psychologe. Er schreibt regelmäßig Beiträge für Global Research.

Peter Koenig  ist geopolitischer Analyst und ehemaliger Senior Economist bei der Weltbank und der Weltgesundheitsorganisation (WHO), wo er seit über 30 Jahren weltweit im Bereich Wasser und Umwelt tätig ist. Er lehrt an Universitäten in den USA, Europa und Südamerika. Er schreibt regelmäßig für Online-Journale und ist Autor von  Implosion – An Economic Thriller about War, Environmental Destruction and Corporate Greed; und  Co-Autorin von Cynthia McKinneys Buch „When China Sneezes: From the Coronavirus Lockdown to the Global Politico-Economic Crisis“ (Clarity Press – 1. November 2020)Er ist wissenschaftlicher Mitarbeiter des Center for Research on Globalization (CRG). Er ist außerdem nichtansässiger Senior Fellow des Chongyang Institute of Renmin University, Beijing.

Noten

(1) [Aktualisierte englische Version]

https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/policies/coronavirus/pandemic-treaty/

(2) https://www.consilium.europa.eu/de/policies/coronavirus/pandemic-treaty/

(3) https://www.epochtimes.de/politik/ausland/globaler-pandemievertrag-der-who-kann-nationale-verfassungen-aushebeln-a3744145.html

(4) https://weltwoche.ch/daily/im-schatten-des-uktaine-krieges-werkelt…ns-sollen-zum-neuen-instrument-der-internationalen-politik-werden/

(5) https://greatreject.org/who-is-world-government-power-grab/

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, Twitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

In recent days, the main military development on the Donbass front lines was the storming of the town of Liman in the north of the Donetsk People’s Republic. Krasny Liman is one of the first cities that were captured by the Ukrainian Army with heavy fighting in June 2014.

The clashes in the area resumed weeks ago, when the Russian military approached the nearby villages and took control of Yampol. Amid fierce resistance of the Ukrainian units, Russian-led forces entered Liman from the north on May 23^rd. During the fighting, two bridges across the Seversky Donets River were destroyed. As a result, Ukrainian servicemen left their positions.

On May 26^th, the Russian military claimed control over Liman. The Armed Forces of Ukraine (AFU) acknowledged the loss. Mop up operations continue in the villages and forests to the south of the town.

The further offensive of Russian troops in this area is hampered by the need to cross the Seversky Donets River, where the threat of the attacks by Ukrainian forces on Russian units is high. Thus, it is expected that the Russian command will not continue active offensive operations in the region, but will concentrate forces for operations in the Severodonetsk-Lisichansk area, where the Ukrainian grouping of about 10,000 servicemen remains cut off from the main supply routes and risks being caught in a strategic encirclement in the near future.

Fighting continues on the outskirts of Severodonetsk. Russian-led forces attack the AFU positions in the city but have avoided entering the street fighting so far. Fierce clashes reached the bus station in the eastern district of Severodonetsk. Russian forces storm the town of Borovskoe to the south of the city. Chechen units claimed that they had entered the city of Lisichansk. Fighting likely reached the city’s outskirts.

One of the main battlefields in the Donbass is the front along the Seversk-Soledar-Bakhmut-Toretsk line. The joint Russian, DPR and LPR forces are advancing from the east. They have already cut off the road between Bakhmut and Lisichansk in Belogorovka and Nahornoe. The last Ukrainian stronghold in the east in Zolotoe is almost surrounded.

On the Donetsk front lines, fierce fighting for Avdeevka continues. The front lines in the region have remained almost unchanged since 2015.

The DPR battalion Somalia and other units supported by Russian forces are advancing to the eastern outskirts of Avdeevka from Novoselkovki-2 and Novobakhmutovka. So far, the DPR units have managed to secure a foothold along the route to Konstantinovka.

At the same time, joint forces are advancing from the south-eastern direction, from the village of Spartak. Clashes reached the industrial zone, which has been the scene of heavy clashes for 8 years.

*

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.

SUPPORT SOUTHFRONT: 

PayPal: [email protected], http://southfront.org/donate/ or via: https://www.patreon.com/southfront

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, Twitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

The comments on Peter Oborne’s excellent article on Julian Assange in the Guardian last week are a damning indictment of the media’s ability to instil near universal acceptance of “facts” which are easily proven lies.

The Guardian chose as its “Guardian pick” to head the section a comment full of these entirely untrue assertions.

If you look through all the comments, they repeat again and again that Wikileaks published unredacted documents, including names of US agents, which put lives at risk. The entire basis of most of the comments is simply untrue – and none of the readers seems to have any information to contradict them.

Julian Assange has never said that governments should have no secrets. That would be a ridiculous position and clearly some information held by government is rightly confidential. He has said that governments should be very much more open to the public, and that most government secrecy is unjustified.

Nor has Wikileaks ever dumped data unread and unedited on to the internet. The commenter is correct to say that Wikileaks has shared editing responsibilities with organisations including the Guardian and the New York Times. This is precisely because the material needs to be edited to avoid revealing inappropriate material, and to make journalistic decisions on what to write stories about.

The notion that Assange was “lazy” because he did not read all the material and do all the editing himself is self-evidently ridiculous. The US diplomatic cables and Iraq and Afghan war logs alone constituted over 600,000 documents. It was simply impossible for Assange to read it all personally. He was the editor of Wikileaks. This is tantamount to criticising Katherine Viner for not writing every single article in the Guardian personally.

The extradition hearing of Julian Assange heard numerous highly professional and respected journalists testify to the rigorous nature of Wikileaks’ editing process to remove names. Here is one extract from my reporting of the trial:

John Goetz was the first witness this morning. Senior Investigations Editor at NDR since 2011, he was at Der Spiegel from 2007-11. He had published a series of articles on German involvement in the Afghan War, including one on a bombing raid on Kunduz which massacred civilians, for which he had won Germany’s highest journalism award. In June 2010 he went to London to meet with Wikileaks and the Guardian to work on the Afghan War Logs.

In a series of meetings in “the bunker” at the Guardian with the NYT and the other major media partners, the partnership was formed whereby all would pool effort in researching the Afghan War Logs but each party would choose and publish his own stories. This cooperative venture between five major news organisations – normally rivals – was unique at the time.

Goetz had been struck by what seemed to him Julian Assange’s obsession with the security of the material. He insisted everything was encrypted and strict protocols were in place for handling the material. This had been new territory for the journalists. The New York Times was tasked with liaison with the White House, the Department of Defence and State Department on questions of handling the material.

Asked by Mark Summers to characterise the Afghan War Logs, Goetz said that they were fascinating first-hand material giving low level reports on actual operations. This was eye witness material which sometimes lacked the larger view. There was abundant first-hand evidence of war crimes. He had worked with Nick Davies of the Guardian on the Task Force 373 story.

Julian Assange had been most concerned to find the names in the papers. He spent a lot of time working out technical ways to identify names in the tens of thousands of documents. Mark Summers asked f he had been looking for the names for the purpose of redaction, and Goetz confirmed it was for redaction. He had interviewed Assange on the harm minimisation programme of the operation.

On behalf of the group Eric Schmitt of the NYT had been speaking to the White House and he had sent an email identifying 15,000 documents the White House did not want published to prevent harm to individuals or to American interests. It was agreed not to publish these documents and they were not published. Summers asked Goetz if he was aware of any names that slipped through, and he replied not.

Goetz was not so involved for family reasons when the consortium went through the same process with the Iraq war logs. But he knew that when a large number of these were released in the USA under a FOIA request, it was seen that Wikileaks had redacted those they released more heavily than the Department of Defense did. Goetz recalled an email from David Leigh of the Guardian stating that publication of some stories was delayed because of the amount of time Wikileaks were devoting to the redaction process to get rid of the “bad stuff”.

Further very detailed evidence on this point was given by Professor John Sloboda, by Nicky Hager and by Professor Christian Grothoff.

Yet there is no public awareness that this careful editing and redaction process took at all. That is plain from those comments under the Guardian article. This is because people are simply regurgitating the propaganda that the media has given them. My blog was effectively the only source for detailed reporting of the Assange hearings, which were almost ignored by the mainstream media.

This was deliberate choice – the information was freely available to the mainstream media. This is what the Reuters News Agency, to which they all subscribe, produced on Dr Goetz’s evidence, for example:

WikiLeaks’ Assange was careful to protect informants, court hears
By Reuters Staff

LONDON, Sept 16 (Reuters) – WikiLeaks’ founder Julian Assange was careful to ensure that the names of informants in hundreds of thousands of leaked secret U.S. government documents were never published, his London extradition hearing was told on Wednesday.

Australian-born Assange, 49, is fighting against being sent to the United States, where he is charged with conspiring to hack government computers and violating an espionage law over the release of confidential cables by WikiLeaks in 2010-2011.

A lawyer for the United States told the court last week that it was requesting Assange’s extradition over the publication of informants’ names, and not for handling leaked documents.

John Goetz, an investigative reporter who worked for Germany’s Spiegel magazine on the first publication of the documents, said the U.S. State Department had been involved in a conference call suggesting redactions, and WikiLeaks had agreed to hold back about 15,000 documents for publication.

“There was sensitivity and it was one of the things that was talked about all the time,” Goetz told the court. Assange was concerned that the media should take measures “so no one would be harmed”, he said.

Goetz said WikiLeaks was later frustrated when a password that allowed access to the full, unredacted material was published in a book by Guardian reporters in February 2011.

Assange made international headlines in 2010 when WikiLeaks published a U.S. military video showing a 2007 attack by Apache helicopters in Baghdad that killed a dozen people, including two Reuters news staff.

I can find no evidence that any mainstream media used this report from Reuters, or indeed any of Reuters’ daily news feed that covered the major points for the defence. The BBC managed to report prominently the false claim that has entered public consciousness:

But could not find space for any of the witnesses who contradicted this claim.

It is of course a very delicate subject for the Guardian, whose journalists David Leigh and Luke Harding were in fact responsible for the dumping of unredacted material on the net. The court heard evidence of this from numerous witnesses, of whom Professor Christian Grothoff gave the most detail:

Summers then asked Professor Grothoff whether David Leigh released the password. Grothoff replied that yes, Luke Harding and David Leigh had revealed the encryption key in their book on Wikileaks published February 2011. They had used it as a chapter heading, and the text explicitly set out what it was. The copies of the encrypted file on some mirrors were useless until David Leigh posted that key.
Summers So once David Leigh released the encryption key, was it in Wikileaks’ power to take down the mirrors?
Grothoff No.
Summers Could they change the encryption key on those copies?
Grothoff No.
Summers Was there anything they could do?
Grothoff Nothing but distract and delay.

Grothoff continued to explain that on 25 August 2011 the magazine Der Freitag had published the story explaining what had happened. It did not itself give out the password or location of the cache, but it made plain to people that it could be done, particularly to those who had already identified either the key or a copy of the file. The next link in the chain of events was that nigelparry.com published a blog article which identified the location of a copy of the encrypted file. With the key being in David Leigh’s book, the material was now effectively out. This resulted within hours in the creation of torrents and then publication of the full archive, unencrypted and unredacted, on Cryptome.org.

Summers asked whether Cryptome was a minor website. Grothoff replied not at all, it was a long established platform for leaked or confidential material and was especially used by journalists.

It is telling that in the Guardian itself, scores of commenters on Peter Oborne’s article reference the release of unredacted files, but nobody seems to know that it was the Guardian that was actually responsible, or rather, massively irresponsible. The gulf between public perception and the truth is deeply troubling.

In a related matter, the Editorial Board of the Wall Street Journal has published an article with that attribution, about the “russiagate” hoax around the 2016 election, which is stunning:

“The Russia-Trump narrative that Clinton sanctioned did enormous harm to the country. It disgraced the FBI, humiliated the press, and sent the country on a three year investigation to nowhere. Putin never came close to doing as much disinformation damage.”

The problem is the Wall Street Journal has one thing wrong. The press is not humiliated – like Boris Johnson it is entirely brazen and has no capacity for humiliation. The press has not been found out, because most of the country still believes the lies they were told and have not seen corrected.

Hillary’s 2016 campaign manager has stated “Russiagate” was a lie knowingly planted by Hillary. Mueller could find no firm evidence of Russian hacking, and the CEO of Crowdstrike, the Clinton appointed firm who made the original claim, testified to congress there was “no hard evidence”. The FBI nor Mueller ever even inspected the DNC servers. The Christopher Steele “peegate” dossier has fallen apart and is now a thing of ridicule. Roger Stone was jailed for false evidence to the FBI – which consisted of him inventing a Wikileaks-Trump link for purposes of self-aggrandisement. The Manafort/Assange story was the most egregious press fabrication since the Zinoviev letter.

But the media who pushed all these false narratives have never backed away from them.

My favourite example ever of almost entirely unreported news was the dismissal by New York federal judge John Koeltl of the Democratic National Committee’s lawsuit against Trump and the state of Russia over the 2016 elections. Judge Koeltl rules that nothing whatsoever had been produced which met the bar of evidence.

There is plainly a crisis in western neo-liberal societies. The wealth gap between rich and poor has become so extreme as to be insupportable, and even in the wealthiest countries in the world, people in employment are struggling to achieve decent accommodation, heating and food. The billionaire controlled state and media systems contrived to neuter both Corbyn and Sanders, who sought to restore some social justice.

In consequence, inevitable public discontent has been channelled into populist courses – Brexit, Trump, Johnson – which themselves alarm the establishment, though less than Sanders and Corbyn did. There is a space for comforting fiction to explain the social shock. Therefore the populist wave is explained, not as a result of popular discontent at the extreme economic imbalance of modern neo-liberalism, but by the Deus Ex Machina of hacking or Cambridge Analytica, all of which is then itself sourced back to the designated devil Putin.

Modern society is not really much more rational than the Middle Ages. Myth is still extremely potent; only the means of myth dissemination are more sophisticated.

*

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 Lawyers for Assange

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, Twitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

In a recent editorial, I discussed a new Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) that was introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives on May 1, 2022, by Adam Kinzinger (R-IL).

The proposed AUMF, if passed, would allow President Biden to deploy American forces to restore “the territorial integrity of Ukraine” in the event that Russia uses chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons.

Thankfully, as Antiwar.com news editor Dave DeCamp writes, Kinzinger’s AUMF has failed to gain traction. This may seem like a bright spot in an otherwise apocalyptically bad news cycle, but not to worry! Antiwar.com Opinion Editor Kyle Anzalone noted in his recent interview of me, Kinzinger’s proposed AUMF will likely sit on the House Floor until the necessary political capital appears.

It probably will when Russia (or anyone really) uses the above-described weapons.

Although Kinzinger’s proposed AUMF asserts the moral high ground by threatening war against Russia, it can claim none. The United States itself has deployed all three types of weapons against its enemies—in the recent past, if not sooner.

As for nuclear weapons—the United States is the only country in world history to have used nuclear weapons against an enemy during wartime. Their use is even more abhorrent considering Hiroshima and Nagasaki held no strategic military value and the ordinance overwhelmingly killed civilians.

As if obliterating two major Japanese cities wasn’t enough, the Manhattan Project’s test detonations in the New Mexico desert exposed nearby farmers and their families to dangerous levels of radiation. Although the family members did not exhibit external symptoms, much of their livestock died.

In tune with their character, between 1945 and 1947 Manhattan Project scientists purposely injected30 Americans with plutonium just to see what would happen. These injections were administered without the subjects’ knowledge or consent.

As for biological warfare, the United States’ military has tested biological weapons against its own citizens on several occasions.

In 1949, the Army Chemical Corps secretly released a harmless bacteria into the Pentagon’s air conditioning system to see how it spread through the building.

In April of 1950 and September of 1950, the Army Chemical Corps sprayed the coasts of Norfolk, Virginia and San Francisco, California, respectively, with two types of bacteria.

The types of bacteria that were released, Bacillus globigii and Serratia marcesens were believed to be harmless at the time. However,

Bacillus globigii is now [considered] to be a pathogen, causes food poisoning, and can hurt anyone with a weak immune system. As for Serratia marcesens, 11 people were admitted to a hospital with serious bacterial infections after the San Francisco test. One of them–Edward Nevin–died three weeks later.

In a previous editorial, I wrote about how the U.S. Army Chemical Corps sprayed several cities in the United States and Canada with zinc cadmium sulfide. At the time, zinc cadmium sulfide was considered to be harmless, but a large class of victims brought a federal lawsuit claiming the exposure caused myriad ailments. The lawsuit was dismissed, in part because the U.S. Government cannot be sued without its consent.

In the 1980s, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) provided Iraq with pathogens, which were ostensibly used against Iran in the Iraq-Iran War. In fact, the United States supported both sides of the war.

In September 2002, West Virginia Senator Robert C. Byrd entered the CDC’s own documents into the Congressional Record during a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing. The documents showed that

the CDC and a biological sample company, American Type Culture Collection, sent strains of all the germs Iraq used to make weapons, including anthrax, the bacteria that make botulinum toxin and the germs that cause gas gangrene…Iraq also got samples of other deadly pathogens, including West Nile virus.

A few years later, the United States invaded Iraq under the pretext of destroying the above weapons. In the largest battle of said invasion, the Second Battle of Fallujah, the United States used white phosphorous against insurgents.

White phosphorous is a chemical compound that burns intensely when exposed to oxygen. When it contacts the human body, it burns to the bone, causing horrific injuries.

Although the legality of using white phosphorous against combatants is debatable, and beyond the scope of this piece, the use of white phosphorus against civilians is a war crime.

There is evidence that the United States’ use of white phosphorous in Fallujah harmed civilians. It is also confirmed that the United States used white phosphorous in Iraq and Syria in its ostensible fight against the Islamic State. Human Rights Watch could not confirm several allegations that the white phosphorous harmed civilians, but it noted that the allegations exist and are supported by at least some evidence.

U.S. partners Israel and Turkey have been accused of using white phosphorous. Israel admitted it.

One of the most grievous and well-documented cases of the United States’ use of chemical weapons occurred during the Vietnam War.

While working on solutions to its counterinsurgency problem in Vietnam, the Pentagon, through ARPA, created a defoliant that gained international notoriety under the name “Agent Orange.”

Agent Orange was supposed to combat the Vietcong insurgency by denying it “protective cover from the jungle canopy.” Its second purpose was to starve the enemy “by poisoning their primary food crop, a jungle root called manioc.” Lyndon B. Johnson’s National Security Advisor Walt Rostow called the defoliant program “a type of chemical warfare.”

By the end of the war, the United States had sprayed 19 million gallons of Agent Orange on Vietnam’s jungles. “A 2012 congressional report determined that over the course of the war, between 2.1 million and 4.8 million Vietnamese were directly exposed[.]”

In addition to destroying its natural resources, Agent Orange caused abhorrent health defects in the Vietnamese population.

Ninety-eight refugees who had been exposed to chemical sprays in South Vietnam were interviewed in Hanoi. Most reported effects on eyes and skin and gastrointestinal upsets. Ninety-two percent suffered fatigue, prolonged or indefinite in 17 percent of cases. Reports of abortions and monstrous births in sprayed humans and animals and of substantial numbers of deaths among fish, fowl, and pigs were also given.

A 2006 meta-analysis found a very high correlation between exposure to Agent Orange and birth defects:

Results In total, 22 studies including 13 Vietnamese and nine non-Vietnamese studies were identified. The summary relative risk (RR) of birth defects associated with exposure to Agent Orange was 1.95 [95% confidence interval (95% CI) 1.59–2.39], with substantial heterogeneity across studies. Vietnamese studies showed a higher summary RR (RR = 3.00; 95% CI 2.19–4.12) than non-Vietnamese studies (RR = 1.29; 95% CI 1.04–1.59). Sub-group analyses found that the magnitude of association tended to increase with greater degrees of exposure to Agent Orange, rated on intensity and duration of exposure and dioxin concentrations measured in affected populations. Conclusion Parental exposure to Agent Orange appears to be associated with an increased risk of birth defects.

The United States constantly grandstands about enforcing the “international rules-based order,” but what does that order stand for? If its own conduct is the measure, then the United States should have no quarrel with Russia for using chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons.

*

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.

Patrick MacFarlane is the Justin Raimondo Fellow at the Libertarian Institute where he advocates a noninterventionist foreign policy. He is a Wisconsin attorney in private practice. He is the host of the Liberty Weekly Podcast at www.libertyweekly.net, where he seeks to expose establishment narratives with well researched documentary-style content and insightful guest interviews. His work has appeared on antiwar.com and Zerohedge. He may be reached at [email protected]

All images in this article are from TLI

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, Twitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

Scott and I focused initially on President Biden’s just-completed Excellent Adventure in the Far East and the U.S. effort to woo countries away from China or, at least, pre-empt closer bilateral ties.

I again posed the question (see my brief talk Thursday, embedded here), Why must China’s “win-win” approach be dismissed out of hand — especially when it was so mutually beneficial 50 years ago in reducing tension and keeping the peace?

Recent developments, including talks with Chinese officials, have fortified Scott’s view that China remains extremely reluctant to go to war over Taiwan. Nevertheless, China will do so “in a heartbeat” if Taiwan declares independence and develops a more substantial military relationship with the U.S.

Bottom line: Scott predicts that the U.S. will be at war with China within six months to a year — and will lose. This could be avoided if the U.S. takes the military aspect out of the equation in confronting China and does the sensible thing in limiting the competition to the economic sphere.

Ray discussed the lemming-like bloc heads now leading the NATO bloc and compared them to statesmen and stateswomen of the past — the German Social Democratic Party’s Willy Brandt and Egon Bahr, for example; and Angela Merkel (no Socialist she), who told President Obama to his face that Germany would not join any effort to send offensive arms to Ukraine. Sadly, serious leaders of the past, experienced in foreign affairs as well as politics, have been replaced by political hacks with little or no experience (or even interest) in Ostpolitik, which yielded a peaceful, mutually beneficial detente in the 1970-80s.

The economic sanctions are already making themselves felt, however, in Germany and elsewhere. And there are preliminary signs that even some bloc-head lemmings may be having serious second thoughts. Fissures are cracking open and expanding among the NATO countries — particularly among those most affected by the sanctions.

Scott reiterated his longstanding view that Russian forces will prevail on the ground in Ukraine, adding that recently they have been performing in a very impressive, professional way. This, despite what the NY Times and Washington Post has been saying, (and even their narrative of Russian “blundering” has begun to change under the force of circumstances). One major question: If Establishment media find themselves forced to acknowledge strong Russian advances in the coming weeks, will they turn on the Biden administration as the mid-term November elections draw near? Snippets of truth have begun to appear in the likes of the NY Times and Washington Post.

The way things have evolved on the ground, serious embarrassment may be unavoidable. Will Biden cut his loses? I suggest the answer to that is No. Rather, with no adults in the room, Biden may instead be persuaded to up the ante (see below). I do hope someone tells the president that the Russians will not back down in the face of escalatory steps they are capable of neutralizing, and that this includes what they call “offensive strike missiles” capable of reaching Russia.

Update

In this context, the trial-balloon-type media reports yesterday afternoon, after our interview, that the U.S. is preparing to send long-range rocket systems to Ukraine, takes on added importance. A final decision by the White House is expected as early as next week. (See this)

One key weapons system under discussion is the U.S.-made Multiple Launch Rocket System (MLRS) capable of firing a torrent of rockets 180 miles or more. This is much farther than the systems currently in Ukraine’s inventory, and could put Russia itself within range. This system has been sitting atop the long list of requests from Ukrainian officials, who say it is needed to curb advancing Russian forces in the Donbas. U.S. officials reportedly “have concerns” that Ukrainian forces might end up firing into Russian territory, causing major escalation.

Meanwhile, CNN reports (See this) that Democratic Rep. Jason Crow of Colorado, who was part of a congressional delegation trip to Kyiv earlier this month, told CNN he believes the systems could help Ukraine gain significant momentum against Russia.

Crowing About the MLRS

“I think it could be a game-changer”, Crow[1] said, not only for offensive attacks but also for defense. He explained that Russian conventional artillery, which has a range of about 50km, “would not get close” to Ukrainian urban centers if MLRS systems were positioned there. “So it would take away their siege tactics,” he said of the Russians.

The Kremlin has warned that any country providing advanced weaponry to Ukraine will face harsh repercussions. Yesterday Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said the West has “declared total war” against Russia. The Russians would see any attempt to provide MLRS to Ukraine as additional proof of the West’s intent.

I would expect any MLRS that make it into Ukraine to be neutralized as soon as they are detected.  And then Lockheed Martin (poor thing) would have to manufacture and sell still more! The money is there; the only problem is how fast it can be spent down.  And so it goes.

*

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.

Note

[1] Jason Crow styles himself as something of a specialist on Russia. He has asserted that: “Vladimir Putin wakes up every morning and goes to bed every night trying to figure out how to destroy American democracy.”

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 Instagram, Twitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

Adam Smith wrote that the efficiency of markets relies on the free movement of goods. What happens when governments seize property in order to exert political pressure — or out of greed?

A major, arguably the primary, incentive of the capitalist system is that it offers the potential of accruing wealth. Individuals and companies rely on government to maintain order, keep conditions like interest rates stable, and protect accumulated assets from bank failures, devaluation, fraud and theft, without regard for the political orientation of their owner. In recent years, however, the United States has increasingly been putting its thumb on the scale for ideological reasons, taking assets by ethically and legally dubious means, and imperiling its reputation as a safe haven for deposits and investments.

From the 62-years-and-counting trade embargo against Cuba to the severing of ties with Iran following the hostage crisis to the isolation of South Africa to punish apartheid, the U.S. has repeatedly turned to economic sanctions in the postwar era. The outright seizure of foreign assets held in the U.S. has increasingly become a part of the mix of pressure tactics.

President George W. Bush took $1.7 billion from Iraq’s foreign reserves in 2003 and transferred an additional $600 million to a slush fund to finance anti-Saddam Hussein factions.

Shortly before the 2011 overthrow and killing of  Moammar Gadhafi, President Barack Obama ordered that U.S. banks freeze $30 billion held by the Central Bank of Libya and the Libya Investment Authority, a sovereign wealth fund, and use some of the money to fund Benghazi-based anti-Gadhafi rebel groups, some of which morphed into radical jihadi terrorist organizations.

Obama signed a 2012 law allowing frozen Iranian assets to be made available to settle claims by families of Hezbollah victims in Lebanon.

“It is theft … it is like stealing Iran’s money and we condemn it,” an Iranian spokesman said.

Refusing to accept the legitimacy of the country’s sitting president, President Donald Trump attempted a backdoor economic coup in Venezuela with a 2019 order granting opposition leader Juan Guaido — even though he wasn’t a government official — authorization to dispose of assets and property in U.S. bank accounts under the name of the government of Venezuela.

The Biden administration recently grabbed $7 billion in deposits at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York in the name of the central bank of Afghanistan, Da Afghanistan Bank. The Taliban, who seized power in late August, claim they are the new government and that the money should be sent to them so they can, among other things, address mass starvation resulting from the post-U.S.-withdrawal economic collapse. The U.S., however, refuses to recognize the Taliban (or the former regime led by Ashraf Ghani) as the government of Afghanistan.

In February, President Joe Biden signed an executive order transferring $3.5 billion to a trust fund that may be used to settle civil claims by the families of 9/11 victims and the remaining $3.5 billion to a second fund that might eventually be drawn down upon by humanitarian aid organizations. China’s reaction received widespread, approving news coverage.

“This is flagrant robbery and shameless moral decline. The U.S. should immediately return the stolen money back to the Afghan people, and compensate people in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and more who died or suffered losses from the U.S. military invasions,” said Foreign Ministry spokesperson Hua Chunying.

As part of its sanctions against Russia to punish it for invading Ukraine, the U.S. has frozen $100 billion in Russian foreign-exchange reserves held at the Fed and moved to seize superyachts, luxury apartments and bank accounts held by oligarchs close to Russian President Vladimir Putin. Rep. Tom Malinowski, D-N.J., co-sponsor of a House resolution urging the sale of frozen Russian assets to benefit Ukraine that passed by an overwhelming majority, said that Russia should never get them back: “Can we imagine giving all of Russia’s wealth — the yachts, the bank accounts, the villas, the planes — back to Putin and his cronies as Ukraine lies in ruin, as the Ukrainians bury their dead? We cannot imagine doing that. We will not do that.”

Russia, however, has long anticipated American sanctions and has engaged in a policy of “de-dollarization” of its foreign currency reserves to soften the blow. “Crucially, the once-dominant dollar now accounts for only 16% of Russia’s currency reserves, which Moscow has replaced with euros, China’s renminbi, and gold,” reports The New York Times.

Other countries with less-than-perfect relationships with the United States are searching for ways to keep their assets out of our clutches. Brazil and India are worried about being targeted over their environmental policies. Do we really want to solidify our reputation as a place where your bank account and even your home can be taken by the U.S. government because you are friends with the president of your country at a time when the U.S. and your country aren’t getting along?

Kleptomaniacal economic warfare has also become pervasive within our borders. Police agencies routinely use civil asset forfeiture to take the cars, houses, boats, cash and other property of people they suspect of involvement with crime or illegal activity. More than $68 billion worth of personal property has been seized by cops over the last 20 years within the United States, all without due process. Incredibly, property is not returned even when no charges are filed or a trial ends with a not-guilty verdict.

We may not have much sympathy for Russian oligarchs or people whose flashy lifestyles attract the wrong kind of attention from the police. But it’s not hard to imagine a not-distant future when the government might seize an average law-abiding citizen’s middle-class house because they espouse the wrong politics. The way things are going, we may soon see an ill-considered tweet lead to someone’s bank account being frozen and the assets redirected to some bureaucrat’s favorite cause.

*

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.

Ted Rall (Twitter: @tedrall), political cartoonist, columnist and graphic novelist, is the author of the biography “Bernie.” You can support Ted’s hard-hitting political cartoons and columns by sponsoring his work on Patreon.

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, Twitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

U.S. plans to host a Summit of the Americas in Los Angeles in June have been upended by several countries dropping out.

Why? They are boycotting our mean spirited decision to not invite Cuba, Venezuela and Nicaragua. Seems these poor, small countries don’t bend to America’s demanding they kowtow to U.S. unipolar dominance of the world, especially in America’s backyard.

Mexican president Andres Lopez Obrador, Bolivian president Luis Arce, Argentine president Alberto Fernandez have all called for the U.S. to invite the 3 targets of U.S. hatred or they won’t attend. That poses a huge dilemma for President Biden who claims he’s re-instituting sensible diplomacy to U.S. foreign policy after 4 years of Trump mismanagement and bungling.

In 1933 newbie president FDR announced the Good Neighbor policy with Latin America reversing decades of economic exploitation and military intervention. That policy worked for a time but was jettisoned during the Cold War. America viewed every progressive movement there as communist influenced that had to be reversed, the people be damned.

The main targets were the Big 3: Venezuela, Nicaragua and Cuba. We’ve been interfering in the socialist government of Venezuela since early this century. Our war against Nicaragua goes back to the Reagan 80’s which inspired his treacherous Iran Contra scandal which should have gotten Reagan impeached. But for U.S. skullduggery, nothing compares to Cuba, who have been sanctioned unmercifully now for 62 years.

Unfortunately, America continues to be a terrible neighbor to Latin America, causing many invitees to the Summit of the Americas next month to tell Uncle Sam, ‘Stuff it.’

*

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 Silent Crow News

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, Twitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

The United States is an unfortunate outlier.

As citizens around the country beg for gun reform — a recent poll from YouGov and Yahoo News said just under half of all Americans believe Congress should “make gun laws more strict” — mass shootings keep on occurring.

According to the Gun Violence Archive, a nonprofit that tracks shootings in the US, there have been 214 mass shootings in 2022 alone.

The United States has far more lax firearm laws and policies compared to other countries — the federal right to own a firearm is even baked into the United States’ constitution via the Second Amendment. Gun laws and regulations also vary from state to state: some states have more restrictive laws, while some allow for much greater firearm ownership rates for protection and hunting.

But America’s fascination with guns has taken a turn: firearms have since become one of the leading causes of death for Americans of any age, and, according to the Giffords Law Center, they’re also the leading cause of death for children below the age of 18.

Different sources differ on the definition of a mass shooting, but the Gun Violence Archive and the Congressional Research Service define it as an incident where four or more people were shot, excluding the shooter from being counted as a victim.

This table includes the names, locations, and casualty information from each mass shooting in the US in 2022:

You can view a report of any incident by visiting the list on the Gun Violence Archive’s website.

*

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 Instagram, Twitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

Just as hysteria about COVID-19 is winding down, another “pandemic” is poised to take its place. This time, it’s monkeypox, a typically mild infection that often resolves in three to four weeks without treatment

The first European case of monkeypox was confirmed May 7, 2022, in the U.K. Then, seemingly overnight, cases were being reported across the world. May 20, 2022, the World Health Organization held an emergency meeting to discuss reports of more than 100 suspected or confirmed cases in at least nine countries

A tabletop simulation exercise of a monkeypox outbreak took place in March 2021, and in this fictional scenario, the first European case of monkeypox was also identified on May 7, 2022

The first case in the U.S. was reported May 18, 2022. By May 23, suspected monkeypox cases were reported in three additional states: New York, Florida and Utah

President Joe Biden has stated that strict quarantine protocols are not likely to be implemented in the U.S. He has, however, already placed a $119 million order for a monkeypox vaccine. Belgium, meanwhile, has introduced a 21-day quarantine for anyone who tests positive, and the U.K. is urging anyone who has had direct contact with a confirmed case to voluntarily isolate for 21 days

*

As predicted, just as hysteria about COVID-19 is winding down, another “pandemic” is poised to take its place. This time, it’s monkeypox, an infection that just so happens to mimic many of the symptoms of COVID jab-induced shingles — so much so, the Department of Health in Queensland, Australia, used the same photo to illustrate both infections (the photos have since been removed or updated¹).

The first European case of monkeypox was confirmed May 7, 2022, in the U.K.² Then, seemingly overnight, cases were being reported across the world.³ May 20, 2022, the World Health Organization held an emergency meeting to discuss reports of more than 100 suspected or confirmed cases in at least nine countries, including Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, the U.K., the U.S., Canada and Australia.⁴

By the time this article goes to print, the number of countries affected and the case load totals are likely going to be significantly higher. The first case in the U.S. was reported May 18, 2022.⁵

By May 23, suspected monkeypox cases were reported in three additional states: New York, Florida and Utah.⁶ All of the patients were said to be in good condition and state health departments were in agreement that the cases posed no serious risk to the public.

President Joe Biden has stated that strict quarantine protocols are not likely to be implemented in the U.S. He has, however, already placed a $119 million order for a monkeypox vaccine.^7,8

Belgium, meanwhile, has introduced a 21-day quarantine for anyone who tests positive, and the U.K. is urging anyone who has had direct contact with a confirmed case to voluntarily isolate for 21 days.⁹

As noted by Jimmy Dore in the video above, the worldwide monkeypox outbreak seems perfectly timed to pressure countries to relinquish health care authority to the WHO.

The World Health Assembly was voting on amendments to the International Health Regulations (IHR)¹⁰ as the first cases were being identified. I discussed the implications of these amendments in a recent article. As noted by Dore, a pandemic rehearsal conducted just last year also featured monkeypox specifically. I’ll review that further below.

What Is Monkeypox?

Monkeypox, a relative of the smallpox virus, is a typically mild viral illness, characterized by fever, headache, muscle aches, exhaustion, swollen lymph nodes and a bumpy rash that tends to start on the face before spreading to other parts of the body.

The pus-filled lesions are known as “pox.” The lesions eventually scab over and fall off after three to four weeks. The infection is not readily transmissible, as it requires direct contact with bodily fluids.

While there’s no known effective treatment, most patients recover without any treatment whatsoever. Historically, the infection has primarily plagued the African continent, where a few thousand cases are reported each year. However, many of the current cases are not linked to travel, making the outbreak in so many different areas a rare oddity. As noted by Nature magazine:¹¹

“On 19 May, researchers in Portugal uploaded the first draft genome¹² of the monkeypox virus that was detected there, but Gustavo Palacios, a virologist at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York City, emphasizes that it’s still a very early draft, and more work needs to be done before any definitive conclusions can be drawn.

What researchers can tell from this preliminary genetic data is that the strain of the monkeypox virus found in Portugal is related to a viral strain predominantly found in West Africa. This strain causes milder disease and has a lower death rate — about 1% in poor rural populations — compared with the one that circulates in Central Africa.

But exactly how much the strain causing the current outbreaks differs from the one in West Africa — and whether the cases popping up in various countries are linked to one another — remains unknown.”

Outbreaks Blamed on Gay Sex

Several of the Spanish cases were linked to a “superspreader event at an adult sauna” in Madrid, at least three Belgian cases were linked to a gay fetish festival in Antwerp,¹³ and cases in Italy and Tenerife have been linked to a gay pride festival on the Canary Islands.¹⁴ Health officials also claim a “notable proportion” of British cases are in the gay and bisexual community.^15,16

Is the singling out of gays another ploy in the totalitarian takeover plan? Totalitarian regimes always need an enemy onto which the fear and irrational aggression of the hypnotized masses can be directed, and since the hatred against those refusing the COVID jab has significantly abated, they clearly need a new scapegoat.

It would not surprise me if, after two years of promoting the gay and trans community, the far Left will now begin to incite anger and fear against it. Why? Because it causes confusion and uncertainty. People who once showed allegiance with this group will now be splintered against them. At the end of the day, it’s all about psychological splintering and pitting various groups against each other.

It appears the monkeypox outbreak is also being used to promote The Great Reset in other ways. Already, U.K. health officials are warning the monkeypox virus may spread through consumption of infected meat,¹⁷ and we already know that eliminating meat consumption is part of the globalist agenda.

Monkeypox Simulation in 2021

Making the monkeypox outbreaks all the more suspicious is the fact that a tabletop simulation exercise of a monkeypox outbreak took place in March 2021,¹⁸ and the start date of this fictional scenario was mid-May 2022. Coincidence?

In the video above, AmazingPolly reviews the details of this simulation. She also reminds us how Event 201 ended up “predicting” the COVID pandemic to a tee, and shows how we’re now seeing a replay of “coincidences” between the monkeypox simulation and real-world events.

The monkeypox exercise was held by the Nuclear Threat Initiative (NTI), which is funded by Bill Gates. NTI was founded to assess and reduce threats associated with the proliferation of nuclear weapons,¹⁹ but they’ve since expanded to include biological threats.²⁰ Gates has not only funded NTI pandemic simulations but has also given grants to the NTI for vaccine development in relation to biological threats.²¹

The final report^22,23 from this event was funded by the Open Philanthropy project, which in turn is funded by Facebook cofounder Dustin Moscowitz. As reported by The Defender:²⁴

“This ‘fictional exercise scenario’ involved the simulation of ‘a deadly, global pandemic involving an unusual strain of monkeypox virus that first emerged in the fictional nation of Brinia and spread globally over 18 months’ …

The outcome of this ‘exercise scenario’ found the fictional pandemic, ‘caused by a terrorist attack using a pathogen engineered in a laboratory with inadequate biosafety and biosecurity provisions and weak oversight,’ led to ‘more than three billion cases and 270 million fatalities worldwide.’

The fictional start date of the monkeypox pandemic in this exercise was May 15, 2022. The first European case of monkeypox was identified on May 7, 2022.”

As mentioned, the first European case of monkeypox was in fact confirmed May 7, 2022, in the U.K.²⁵ Not only is the date identical to that in this supposedly fictional scenario, but the country of emergence, “Brinia,” even sounds very much like “Britannica,” or “Great Britain.” Coincidence?

Key Recommendations From the Pandemic Exercise

As reported by The Defender, among the key recommendations from this monkeypox simulation were recommendations that clearly support the WHO’s takeover of pandemic preparedness and response, and the implementation of Gates’ “Global Epidemic Response & Mobilization” (GERM²⁶) Team:²⁷

• Bolstering international systems “for pandemic risk assessment, warning, and investigating outbreak origins,” calling upon the WHO to “establish a graded, transparent, international public health alert system” and the United Nations system to “establish a new mechanism for investigating high-consequence biological events of unknown origin.”
• The development and implementation of “national-level triggers for early, proactive pandemic response,” including the adaptation of the “no-regrets” approach to responding to pandemics via “anticipatory action” based on “triggers” that would automatically generate a response to “high-consequence biological events.”
• The establishment of “an international entity dedicated to reducing emerging biological risks associated with rapid technology advances,” that would “support interventions throughout the bioscience and biotechnology research and development life cycle — from funding, through execution, and on to publication or commercialization.”

Anticipatory action based on triggers include everything we’ve saw during the COVID pandemic, such as mask mandates, the banning of mass gatherings, travel health screening and vaccine passports. This despite overwhelming evidence showing these strategies are ineffective at best, while being devastating to public health and economies.

Why Does Fiction so Often Turn Into Reality?

As noted by The Defender,²⁸ Michael P. Sanger²⁹ and Tim Hinchliffe,³⁰ among others, fictional tabletop exercises have had an uncanny ability to predict details of near-future events. Event 201 accurately “predicted” the COVID pandemic and its focus on censorship and lockdowns.

In June 2001, Operation Dark Winter examined “the national security, intergovernmental, and information challenges of a biological attack on the American homeland,” and less than three months later, the 9/11 attacks and subsequent anthrax scare occurred. In January 2005, Operation Atlantic Storm involved the fictional scenario of a transatlantic bioterrorist attack and that same month we had the bird flu pandemic. The Defender continues:³¹

“Predictions for the future don’t end there, however. For instance, in September 2017, NTI and the WEF organized a roundtable discussion on the current state of biological risks presented by technology advancement in light of the Fourth Industrial Revolution.

And in January 2020, NTI and the WEF again joined forces, issuing a report titled ‘Biosecurity Innovation and Risk Reduction: A Global Framework for Accessible, Safe and Secure DNA Synthesis.’ According to the report:

‘Rapid advancements in commercially available DNA synthesis technologies — used for example to artificially create gene sequences for clinical diagnosis and treatment — pose growing risks, with the potential to cause a catastrophic biological security threat if accidentally or deliberately misused.’

Merck, whose head of corporate affairs participated in the monkeypox simulation, was the subject of an FBI and CDC investigation in November 2021 regarding 15 suspicious vials labeled “smallpox” at a Merck facility in Philadelphia.”

In a National Pulse exclusive,³² Natalie Winters also summarizes research by the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV), in which they “assembled monkeypox strains using methods flagged for creating ‘contagious pathogens.’”

“Are we here because of China’s experiments again?” she asks, referring to the apparent monkeypox outbreaks. The research paper³³ in question was published at the end of February 2022, just a few months before the first cases suddenly appeared outside of Africa.

What Do We Know About the Monkeypox Vaccine?

Click image to watch the video

The monkeypox vaccine currently being stockpiled by the U.S. and Europe is not specific for the monkeypox. It’s actually a smallpox vaccine, claimed to be 85% effective at stopping monkeypox. In the U.K., close contacts of those infected with monkeypox have reportedly already been given the smallpox vaccine — a strategy known as “ring vaccination.”³⁴ In the U.S., there are currently two smallpox vaccines available:

The U.S. Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA) has also signed a contract with Bavarian Nordic for a freeze-dried version of the Jynneos smallpox vaccine, which will give it longer shelf-life.³⁶ Moderna already has a monkeypox vaccine in pre-clinical trials.³⁷ It’s unclear when those trials began.

As noted by independent journalist Whitney Webb, Emergent BioSolutions and SIGA Technologies — both of which have been struggling recently — will be cashing in on the monkeypox scare:³⁸

“Regardless of how the monkeypox situation plays out, two companies are already cashing in. As concern over monkeypox has risen, so too have the shares of Emergent BioSolutions and SIGA Technologies.

Both companies essentially have monopolies in the U.S. market, and other markets as well, on smallpox vaccines and treatments. Their main smallpox-focused products are, conveniently, also used to protect against or treat monkeypox as well. As a result, the shares of Emergent BioSolutions climbed 12% on Thursday, while those of SIGA soared 17.1%.

For these companies, the monkeypox fears are a godsend, specifically for SIGA, which produces a smallpox treatment, known by its brand name TPOXX. It is SIGA’s only product.

While some outlets have noted that the rise in the valuation of SIGA Technologies has coincided with recent concerns about monkeypox, essentially no attention has been given to the fact that the company is apparently the only piece of a powerful billionaire’s empire that isn’t currently crumbling.

That billionaire, ‘corporate raider’ Ron Perelman, has deep and controversial ties to the Clinton family and the Democratic party as well as troubling ties to Jeffery Epstein. Aside from his controlling stake in SIGA, Perelman has recently made headlines for rapidly liquidating many of his assets in a desperate bid for cash.

Similarly, Emergent BioSolutions has also been in hot water. The company, which has troubling ties to the 2001 Anthrax attacks, came under fire just under two weeks ago for engaging in a ‘cover-up’ over quality control issues relating to their production of COVID-19 vaccines.

A Congressional investigation found that quality control concerns at an Emergent-run facility led to more than 400 million doses of COVID-19 vaccines being discarded.

The Emergent factory in question had been shut down by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in April 2021. They were allowed to reopen last August before the government terminated the contract.”

What’s the Truth of the Matter?

In addition to Webb’s article above, which dissects the sordid histories of Emergent and SIGA, another early analysis of the new monkeypox scare that is well worth reading is Dr. Robert Malone’s Substack article,³⁹ “Monkey Pox — Truth Versus Fearporn.” In it, he reviews what monkeypox actually is, where it came from, how it’s related to smallpox, it’s signs and symptoms, how disease spread is effectively controlled and much more.

Key take-home’s are that monkeypox is not a particularly deadly disease and one that can be readily controlled without reverting back to COVID restrictions. To quote Malone:⁴⁰

“So, is the biothreat real? Is it imminent? Does it justify the global media hype? As I was waiting in an airport lounge to travel from USA to the UK two days ago, I saw a newsreel from CNN which was breathlessly reporting on this ‘threat’ while displaying historic images of patients suffering from Smallpox disease.

This provides a classical example of public health fearporn, in my opinion, and CNN should be reprimanded for broadcasting irresponsible propaganda — misinformation and disinformation — under the guise of journalism.

In my opinion, based on currently available information, Monkeypox is a virus and disease which is endemic in Africa, emerges sporadically after transmission into humans from animal hosts, and is typically spread by close human contact. It is readily controlled by classical public health measures.

It does not have a high mortality rate. 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. So, stop the fear mongering, misinformation and disinformation.”

The way it looks right now, it appears the monkeypox outbreaks are intended to rile the public into another fear-fueled frenzy in order to justify the WHO’s takeover of public health globally, usher in those reviled health passports and everything else that goes along with The Great Reset. As noted by Hinchliffe in a 2020 Sociable article:⁴¹

“If you are World Economic Forum (WEF) Founder Klaus Schwab, you attempt to sell your vision of a global Utopia via a great reset of the world order in three simple steps:

The so-called ‘great reset’ promises to build ‘a more secure, more equal, and more stable world’ if everyone on the planet agrees to ‘act jointly and swiftly to revamp all aspects of our societies and economies, from education to social contracts and working conditions.’

But it wouldn’t have been possible to contemplate materializing such an all-encompassing plan for a new world order without a global crisis, be it manufactured or of unfortunate happenstance, that shocked society to its core.”

COVID simply didn’t take the globalist cabal far enough. So, here comes global pandemic No. 2 — be it real or mostly fabricated — which will be rapidly followed by renewed calls for a New World Order and a Great Reset. Essentially, we can expect a repeat of the insanity we just lived through, which means we must also repeat our response, and reject the fearmongering and the global power grab.

*

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 Politifact May 23, 2022

^2, 4, 25 Reuters May 20, 2022

³ Cidrap May 23, 2022

⁵ ABC News May 19, 2022

⁶ Epoch Times May 23, 2022 (Archived)

^{7, 24, 27, 28, 31} The Defender May 23, 2022

^8, 36 Endpoints May 18, 2022

⁹ BBC May 23, 2022

¹⁰ CDC International Health Regulations

¹¹ Nature May 20, 2022

¹² First Draft Genome Sequence of Monkeypox Virus May 2022

^13, 15 The Telegraph May 20, 2022 (Archived)

¹⁴ Daily Mail May 21, 2022

¹⁶ Drugs.com May 23, 2022

¹⁷ The York Press May 24, 2022

^18, 22 NTI.org November 23, 2021

¹⁹ NTI Nuclear Threats

²⁰ NTI Biological Threats

²¹ Gates Foundation National Threat Initiative

²³ NTI.org November 2021 Summary

²⁶ The Counter Signal May 2, 2022

²⁹ Michael P Sanger Substack May 20, 2022

^30, 41 The Sociable November 17, 2020

³² National Pulse May 22, 2022

³³ Viroliga Sinica February 28, 2022 DOI: 10.1016/j.virs.2022.02.009

³⁴ Daily Mail May 23, 2022

³⁵ CDC.gov Smallpox Vaccines

³⁷ Reuters May 24, 2022

³⁸ The Defender May 24, 2022

^39, 40 Robert Malone Substack May 21, 2022

Featured image: Close-up of monkeypox lesions on the arm and leg of a female child in Bondua, Grand Gedeh County, Liberia. http://phil.cdc.gov (CDC’s Public Health Image Library)

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, Twitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

If you had millions of pounds of cheese—along with butter and dry-milk powders—where would you keep it? If you’re the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), the answer is obvious: in a series of caves outside underneath Springfield, Missouri. 

It’s not as wacky as it sounds. The USDA has a large presence in Kansas City, Missouri, and when it found itself with millions of pounds of surplus dairy and needed a safe, climate-controlled place to put it all, it started to search locally. A set of caves along Interstate 435 offered a convenient cold-storage option.

But still, caves aside, why is the government in the decades-long habit of hoarding cheese in the first place?

The answer to that question has two parts: why it started; and why it’s still doing it.

Because of the War in Ukraine, We Are Heading for a Global Food Catastrophe

By Marc Vandepitte, May 29, 2022

The invasion of Ukraine is a horror and has already cost thousands of lives. But this conflict may also destroy millions of lives far from the battlefield. The war is particularly detrimental to the global food system, which has already been weakened by Covid-19, by climate change and by high energy prices. If this war continues, we will be heading for a real food catastrophe.

NRA Convenes in Texas as Gun Stocks Soar on Wall Street

By C.J. Atkins, May 30, 2022

Though some politicians and singers pulled out of the NRA’s Houston confab, Trump will be the headline speaker. He’ll be joined by other darlings of the far right, such as Sen. Ted Cruz and South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem. Texas Gov. Gregg Abbott—who said a few years ago that he was “embarrassed” his state wasn’t number one in the nation for gun purchases—won’t be showing up. Instead, he’ll address the meeting via video.

Argentine Minister: ‘We can’t be sure there aren’t nuclear weapons in the Falklands.’

By Matt Kennard, May 30, 2022

On the 40th anniversary of the Falklands War, Declassified sits down with Argentina’s minister responsible for the disputed islands at his office inside the Foreign Ministry in Buenos Aires. Carmona found out about Declassified after we discovered a document at the National Archives in January showing that the UK had deployed 31 nuclear weapons to the South Atlantic during the 1982 war.

Retired US General Calls for “Coalition of the Willing” for Naval Conflict with Russia

By Andre Damon, May 30, 2022

The governments of the United States, the United Kingdom and other NATO members are preparing a major new stage of the US-NATO war against Russia by using their warships to break the Russian blockade of Ukrainian ports, creating the conditions for a direct shooting war between NATO and Russian naval forces.

Huawei Ban Undermines Canadian and World Security

By Prof. John Price, May 30, 2022

On May 19, the Canadian government formally announced that it would prohibit products and services of Chinese corporations Huawei and ZTE from being used in Canadian high-speed telecommunications systems.

Rand Paul: ‘Elitists want a One World Government; It’s not a conspiracy theory’

By Steve Watson, May 30, 2022

Senator Rand Paul appeared on Fox News Thursday and discussed the ongoing World Economic Forum gathering in Davos Switzerland, remarking that it is not a conspiracy theory to suggest the organisation is seeking a one world government, rather it is “in their mission statement.”

An Upbringing According to Strict Religious and Military Principles – And the Reflex of Absolute Spiritual Obedience: The Example of Auschwitz Commander Rudolf Höß

By Dr. Rudolf Hänsel, May 29, 2022

Religion and any other kind of occultism are a private matter for parents and their children; they must therefore be rejected as a special subject at school. The school must be non-denominational. The Bible – like any other faith programme of a superstitious nature – also does not belong in school.

What Does 5G Sound Like? Expert Investigation

By Matt Cossey, May 29, 2022

5G is now installed and switched on across millions of sites all over the world and so my testing has begun. Many are wondering: what does 5G sound like? Today I’ll share with you the radiation levels plus the eerie sound of 5G radiation coming off the transmitters.

Western Civilization at a Crossroads: Mythical Hegemony or Win-Win Paradigm?

By Matthew Ehret-Kump and Edward Lozansky, May 29, 2022

Of course, the West blames all the problems of the world on the East, particularly Russia and China but there are some “dissident” voices that need to be heard at least for the sake of those who are interested in searching for ideas that might avoid Armageddon.

The Eurasian Economic Union Steps Up

By Pepe Escobar, May 29, 2022

The Eurasian Economic Forum was established by the Supreme Eurasian Economic Council explicitly to further deepen economic cooperation between EAEU members. No wonder the official theme of the forum was Eurasian Economic Integration in the Era of Global Shifts: New Investment Opportunities, focusing on strategic development in the industrial, energy, transport, financial, and digital areas.

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, Twitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

The funerals haven’t even been held yet in Texas for the 19 schoolchildren and two teachers murdered at Robb Elementary School on Tuesday. Families remain grief-stricken, pleading for information about why law enforcement reportedly dithered as their loved ones were being gunned down.

But that’s not stopping former President Donald Trump, other Republican lawmakers, and firearms marketers from descending on Houston this weekend for a three-day celebration of guns at the National Rifle Association’s annual convention.

Meanwhile on Wall Street, the country’s biggest gun and ammunition manufacturers are also having a party—because their stock prices are swelling. Smith & Wesson added 8.4% in the days immediately after the massacre. Sturm, Ruger, & Co. tacked on 5.7%. For bullet maker Olin, the gain was 3.8%. The biggest winner was Ammo Inc., an Arizona-based manufacturer of ammunition and owner of GunBroker.com, billed as the largest online marketplace for guns. Its share price jumped more than 12%.

By now it’s all a familiar story. After a mass shooting, the NRA rushes to deflect blame from itself for promoting the culture of violence, all the while encouraging more gun purchases in the name of safety. In Washington and in state capitals around the country, the gun lobby’s political arm—the Republican Party—does its utmost to sabotage any possible firearms regulation. And the gun companies reward them both for the effort spent to protect their profits.

The whole affair is premised on transforming fear into votes for the GOP and into dollars for shareholders.

Gun party met with protests

Though some politicians and singers pulled out of the NRA’s Houston confab, Trump will be the headline speaker. He’ll be joined by other darlings of the far right, such as Sen. Ted Cruz and South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem. Texas Gov. Gregg Abbott—who said a few years ago that he was “embarrassed” his state wasn’t number one in the nation for gun purchases—won’t be showing up. Instead, he’ll address the meeting via video.

Comments from Rocky Marshall, a former NRA board member, previewed what’s expected to be the message from the organization. Marshall said that the Uvalde massacre “does put the meeting in a bad light,” but said that the free and easy availability of military-grade assault rifles is not the problem. Instead, he shifted the blame to mental illness and inadequate school security.

The nation certainly faces a crisis of mental health care accessibility, but the NRA’s attempt to deflect from its role in blocking common sense gun regulation like stronger background checks and limits on semi-automatic weapons sales isn’t fooling public safety activists.

They’re organizing massive protests to greet convention-goers and keeping tabs on which political leaders show up to pledge their fealty to the gun lobby.

“The real question now is which elected officials will choose to side with violence and go kiss the ring in Houston this weekend instead of siding with communities crying out for public safety,” Shannon Watts, founder of Moms Demand Action, told the press.

Cesar Espinosa is executive director of the Houston-based immigrant rights group FIEL (Familias Inmigrantes y Estudiantes en la Lucha / Immigrant Families and Students in the Struggle). FIEL is among the organizations leading the protests this weekend.

“This is not the time or place to have this convention,” Espinosa said. “We must not just have thoughts and prayers from legislators, but rather we need action to address this public health crisis that is affecting our communities.”

Houston Mayor Sylvester Turner had a similar message for the Republicans converging on his city.

“You can’t pray and send condolences on one day and then be going and championing guns on the next,” he said. “That’s wrong.”

The NRA isn’t listening, though. In 1999, immediately after the school shooting at Columbine High School in Colorado, the group invaded Denver to hold a big gun meeting. In Houston this weekend, they’re just following the same pattern of spitting in the faces of victims’ families.

Making a killing off of killing

When it comes to the political economy of mass shootings, the pattern at work is really quite simple. Once a mass shooting occurs, there is inevitably talk of stricter gun control legislation. This comes from activists and Democrats determined to do something about automated murder, as well as from right-wingers who want to exploit the situation for the sake of selling more guns.

“Why are we willing to live with this carnage?” President Joe Biden, a longtime crusader for gun control when he was in the Senate, asked after Uvalde. “Why do we keep letting this happen? Where in God’s name is our backbone?”

The answer, of course, is to be found in Congress and on Wall Street.

The Democratic-run House has passed several gun control measures, but the guarantee of a filibuster in the split Senate means that, once again, nothing will be done immediately to respond to this crisis. Senate GOP leader Mitch McConnell has signaled he has no intention of giving gun legislation any hearing.

Same old, same old.

As soon as legislative proposals are made, the NRA and its allies are up in arms—figuratively and literally—about attacks on the Second Amendment. Americans are told that the government is plotting to take away all their guns.

Then what happens? Gun and ammunition manufacturers and retailers watch as sales soar. They, in turn, continue funding the operations of the NRA, which is a multimillion-dollar operation itself. Panic buying ensues, donations for the NRA pour in, and gun company shareholders cash in. (It’s worth noting that the only recent mass shooting which did not see an immediate jump in gun company share prices was the Buffalo grocery store massacre, where most of the victims were Black.)

Of course, the other beneficiaries of this cycle can’t be forgotten—McConnell and the Republican Party. The NRA, which is little more these days than the political arm of the gun industry, can be counted on to deliver its members’ votes and dollars into the GOP fold at every election. Republicans in Congress reciprocate by ensuring that no serious piece of gun legislation ever becomes law. And in the state legislatures they control, Republicans typically weaken existing gun laws after a mass shooting.

It is a mutually beneficial relationship that ties the gun industry, the gun lobby, and the Republican Party together.

The important role that mass shootings and the political machinations of the NRA-GOP alliance play in driving gun profits has been frankly admitted by many top executives in the industry.

At a global conference for retailers hosted by Goldman Sachs in 2015, the CEO of Dick’s Sporting Goods, Ed Stack, announced that “The gun business was very much accelerated based on what happened after the [2012] election and then the tragedy that happened at Sandy Hook.” He was referring to the massacre of schoolchildren at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., in 2012.

A year earlier, James Debney, the chief executive of Smith & Wesson, told an investor’s meeting that “the tragedy in Newtown and the legislative landscape” had driven sales up “significantly.” He commented that “fear and uncertainty that there might be increased gun control drove many people to buy firearms for the first time. You can see after a tragedy, there’s also a lot of buying.”

But Tommy Milner, the head of Cabela’s, one of the leading gun retailers, was even more blunt. Before a group of investors in Nebraska in 2015, he stated that his company’s business “went vertical…I mean it just went crazy.” The transcript from the conference says that Milner explained to shareholders that his company “didn’t blink as others did to stop selling the AR-15.”

The AR-15 is a semi-automatic rifle based on the U.S. military’s M-16 and was the type of gun used at Sandy Hook, at Uvalde, and at so many other mass shootings. The decision to continue selling this particular gun was a competitive advantage for Cabela’s against other retailers and brought in “a lot of new customers.” Milner said the company benefitted from the “tailwinds of profitability.”

Breaking the GOP Senate blockade

Reversing the country’s crisis of gun violence is a long-term task that will take many different forms—political, cultural, and economic. There are already some measures that could be taken right away, though, if it wasn’t for Republican intransigence.

In March of last year, the House passed two different bills aimed at expanding and strengthening background checks for anyone trying to buy a gun.

One of them would eliminate the so-called “Charleston loophole,” named after the 2015 massacre in South Carolina, which allows a person to buy a gun if their background check is not complete within three days. The other targets the “gun show loophole,” which lets private sales of firearms to go on totally unregulated, with no background checks at all, at gun shows or online.

Neither bill has been brought forward for a vote in the Senate because of McConnell and the GOP. With the chamber split almost evenly between Democrats and Republicans, the mere threat of a filibuster by the right-wing minority is enough to sink legislation before it even gets a hearing.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren, who introduced her own far-reaching but similarly doomed gun control package in 2019, expressed the frustration of the moment after Uvalde. “The breakdown of the political process has never been clearer. We can’t even act to keep our own children safe,” she said on Tuesday.

Senate Democratic Whip Dick Durbin similarly placed the blame directly where it belongs: “We can’t budge the Republicans an inch on this issue of gun safety.”

With the Democratic Party unable to rally recalcitrant lawmakers in its own right-wing faction like Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema to eliminate the filibuster, it falls to voters and the people’s organizations to change the makeup of the Senate in the elections this fall.

Shrinking the GOP’s hold in the Senate below 40 seats to block their filibuster power and keeping them in the minority in the House are key to winning progress on gun legislation—as well as every other pro-people priority, from labor law reform to voting rights protections to COVID relief and more.

The right wing’s bullets and political dollars must be countered with our votes.

*

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.

C.J. Atkins is the managing editor at People’s World. He holds a Ph.D. in political science from York University in Toronto and has a research and teaching background in political economy and the politics and ideas of the American left. In addition to his work at People’s World, C.J. currently serves as the Deputy Executive Director of ProudPolitics.

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, Twitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

On the 40th anniversary of the Falklands War, Declassified sits down with Argentina’s minister responsible for the disputed islands at his office inside the Foreign Ministry in Buenos Aires.

“Let me be very clear,” Guillermo Carmona says, pointing at a map of the South Atlantic sea hanging on his wall. “Las Malvinas, Sandwich and Georgia islands…these are Argentinian, they are occupied by a foreign power.”

The foreign power he is talking about is Britain.

Carmona, Argentina’s minister responsible for the South Atlantic, is talking from his office at the top of the Foreign Ministry in Buenos Aires. The floor-to-ceiling windows give panoramic views of the attractive city dubbed the Paris of South America.

The offices are a stone’s throw from the Casa Rosada (Pink House), the palatial presidential mansion from which Eva “Evita” Peron famously spoke from the balcony.

Carmona is speaking exclusively to Declassified as Argentina and Britain mark the 40th anniversary of the war over the Falklands in 1982 (in Argentina the islands are called “las Malvinas”).

“We don’t say that they will be Argentine someday,” he continues. “Ever since Argentina existed as an independent state, these territories were always claimed as Argentina.”

A map of British Overseas Territories in the South Atlantic claimed by Argentina. (Photo: UK government)

Nuclear weapons

Carmona found out about Declassified after we discovered a document at the National Archives in January showing that the UK had deployed 31 nuclear weapons to the South Atlantic during the 1982 war.

In the aftermath, the Argentine Foreign Ministry released a statement saying it was planning “to raise this situation before the relevant international organisations”.

“Your publication about the nuclear weapons in the Malvinas war was very important for us,” Carmona tells me. “The files are not recent, they were published during the Macri days, and it’s remarkable how the diplomats in London did not take note of the declassification.”

Mauricio Macri, a right-wing businessman, was president from 2015-19 and oversaw an improvement in relations with Britain (Carmona contends this is mainly because he eased Argentine opposition to UK sovereignty in the South Atlantic).

Carmona adds that Declassified’s discovery was “very serious, it confirmed what we have known since 2003” when the UK Ministry of Defence first admitted it had brought nuclear weapons to the 1982 war.

“But from Declassified we learnt of the amazing number of weapons that were brought,” he says. “This confirms how untransparent and lacking in good faith UK actions after the war were.”

Carmona continues:

“It also shows the lack of transparency currently. We can’t be sure that there are no nuclear weapons in the Malvinas now. The UK hasn’t been transparent.” He pauses.

“If something like that happened during the war how can we assume it didn’t happen after the war, especially considering the militarisation process, which is ongoing?”

Strategy

Forty years on from the Falklands war, the UK still refuses to negotiate with Argentina as it is obliged to do by the UN. In the face of this intransigence on the British side, how does Carmona hope to make a breakthrough on the issue?

Carmona tells me there are four planks to his strategy.

“The first is persisting with the claim of sovereignty with the UK. The second is to keep gathering international support. We are not only protected by international law and history, but also almost all countries worldwide stand by Argentina in its claim for abiding by international law.”

He adds:

“Thirdly Argentina, in areas that are not under dispute with the UK, needs to effectively exercise sovereignty. For example, in our sea, we are fighting illegal fishing with policies for the preservation of maritime environments, developing hydrocarbon and mining resources in a sustainable way, and strengthening our Antarctic logistics. That is showing that we care for what belongs to us.”

The first three strategies rely on Argentina. But, Carmona says, the last one doesn’t.

“That is to make the most of any opportunities the international scenario can provide. I always use two examples in this respect. Panama did those three things I mentioned persistently, and when there was an opening, a window of opening with Carter, it was ready to take the opportunity.”

In 1977, President Jimmy Carter signed the Panama Canal Treaty, which ceded US control of the canal beginning in 2000 and guaranteed the neutrality of the waterway thereafter.

Carmona continues:

“Something similar is what happened with China with Hong Kong, which persisted in showing it exercises sovereignty, garnered international support and… the end of the Cold War was the window and opportunity which they grabbed.”

Carmona takes time to think through his methodical answers. He comes across as an unusually serious politician, well drilled on the minutiae of his brief and not prone to grandstanding.

Penguins on the Falkland Islands. (Photo: Creative Commons)

‘Second class citizens’

The population living on the Falklands voted overwhelmingly to remain part of the UK in 2013. How would Carmona assure them that Argentinian rule would protect them?

“We have to bear in mind that the islanders, the people living on the islands, have been very badly treated by UK governments for a long time,” he says. “As sort of second-class citizens, and this is very clear when you analyse the history of the families living on the islands since the occupation in 1833 [the year the islands were formally annexed by Britain].”

But, Carmona says, this poor treatment continues up to the present.

“The UK government did nothing about those who were locked down on the islands during the pandemic. There are residents especially of Chilean origin who for the last two years haven’t been able to go back to where they are from, because the UK lacked the commitment to finding a solution.”

Carmona adds that

“Argentina is committed to respect the interests of the people on the Islands…any islander born on the islands will be considered an Argentine citizen.”

The British position, however, is clear: “The people of the Falklands are British and have chosen to be so. They have the right to self-determination as set out in the UN Charter.”

But Carmona says “within the UN scope this self determination right is not applicable because there is a pre-existing colonial situation.”

He adds:

“We should not lose track of the fact that the population in the islands, though its composition has changed in time, were planted in Malvinas in 1833 after a military invasion, which displaced the Argentine authorities and also displaced the inhabitants.”

“That’s why when we look at the inhabitants’ issue in Malvinas it is sort of similar with the Chagos case where the original population was displaced by a military UK action,” he adds.

The UK forcibly depopulated the Chagos Islands in the Indian Ocean in the 1960s, in order to establish a military base there.

‘Totally anachronistic’

Carmona concludes:

“I am absolutely sure that if we moved on in the negotiations over sovereignty the islanders would have a better life.” But he admits “it is pretty clear the UK is reluctant to go back to the negotiating table.”

According to Carmona

“there was a period of time from 1965 to 1982 when there were negotiations, there was dialogue and talks. This was a fruitful period of time in the relationship between both countries.”

Shortly before the 1982 war, the UK had announced that negotiations would be frozen for a ten year period.

“It’s been 40 years since then, not ten as they announced,” Carmona tells me. “So we believe it’s about time to go back to talking, to honour the UN General Assembly resolutions.”

“The UK’s reluctance stems from them comparing the Argentine democratic governments with the military regimes,” he adds. “Next year will be 40 years of democracy in Argentina. We believe Argentina deserves different treatment by the UK government.”

I finish by asking if Carmona has a message to the British people. He gives a wry smile then says,

“Colonisation was typical of the days of the British Empire, but now it’s totally anachronistic. Maintaining that anachronism has costs for the reputation of the UK government and the UK in general. It also has costs for British taxpayers.”

He pauses before continuing:

“In the 21st century, our expectation is to do away with these colonial situations, which were typical of a world defined by the empire. Global Britain, as proposed by the Conservative UK government, moves us all back in time.”

*

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.

Matt Kennard is chief investigator at Declassified UK. He was a fellow and then director at the Centre for Investigative Journalism in London. Follow him on Twitter @kennardmatt

Featured image: Guillermo Carmona, Argentina’s minister for the Malvinas (Falklands), Antarctic and South Atlantic. (Photo: Matt Kennard/DCUK)

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, Twitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

The governments of the United States, the United Kingdom and other NATO members are preparing a major new stage of the US-NATO war against Russia by using their warships to break the Russian blockade of Ukrainian ports, creating the conditions for a direct shooting war between NATO and Russian naval forces.

This massive escalation by the US and NATO is being billed as a “coalition of the willing,” echoing the words used by the Bush administration to describe the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

Retired four-star General Jack Keane, chairman of the Institute for the Study of War and chairman of AM General, the maker of the Humvee military vehicle, called on Wednesday for the creation of an “international coalition of warships led by the United States” to secure control over the Black Sea.

General Jack Keane calls for a “coalition of the willing”

“We… go to the port of Odessa and let the ships… pick up the grain that needs to be picked up and escort them out,” Keane told Fox News.

“The other risk is the Russian Navy is there. They could see this as a provocation, and we could have a prospective confrontation.”

He said it was “well within the risk profile to get this done.”

Keane developed the comments of Admiral James Stavridis, who earlier this month said that the Black Sea would be “the next major front in the Ukraine war.”

Responding to an earlier version of Keane’s remarks, the Wall Street Journalpublished an editorial entitled “Breaking Russia’s Ukrainian Grain Blockade.” It declared, “A Black Sea mission to escort commercial ships may be needed to prevent a global food shortage.”

The Journal enthusiastically agreed with Keane’s proposal and wrote:

The mission would be to form an international coalition of warships to escort commercial vessels safely out of Odessa and the Black Sea. This would work as a coalition of the willing, and not a North Atlantic Treaty Organization project that would let Mr. Putin claim it is another NATO provocation.

The Journal continued:

There are military risks… Some critics will claim an escort mission would be too risky as a naval version of a “no-fly zone.” But it is much different… No military engagement would be needed if Russia doesn’t interfere.

Technically, this could be said about any military conflict. If the opposing army simply lays down its arms, no fighting will be necessary.

Of course, despite the optimistic assurances of Keane about the “risk profile,” the idea that Russia would simply stand by while US and UK ships break its blockade is highly unlikely.

In almost any conceivable scenario, this operation could rapidly turn into a major naval battle, just like “no-fly zone” is a synonym for open and direct war between Russia and NATO.

Not even bothering to hide its cynicism, the Journal made clear that this major escalation would be “best planned and pitched as a humanitarian operation.” That is, a direct shooting war between the two largest nuclear powers would be “pitched” as a way to end world hunger.

The language of Keane and the Wall Street Journal dovetails perfectly with the rhetoric of US officials and those of its imperialist allies.

Speaking at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland on Tuesday, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen accused Russia of bombing Ukrainian food infrastructure and “hoarding its own food exports as a form of blackmail.” She said, “holding back supplies to increase global prices, or trading wheat in exchange for political support. This is using hunger and grain to wield power.”

Secretary of State Antony Blinken accused Russia of carrying out “a deliberate effort” to undermine global food supplies.

Blinken stated,

“[T]he Russian military has repeatedly blocked safe passage to and from Ukraine by closing the Kerch Strait, tightening its control over the Sea of Azov, stationing warships off Ukrainian ports. And Russia has struck Ukrainian ports multiple times.”

He added,

“The food supply for millions of Ukrainians—and millions more around the world—has quite literally been held hostage by the Russian military.”

Earlier this week, US Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin announced that the US would provide Ukraine with Harpoon anti-ship missiles via an intermediary, Denmark. The Harpoon is the standard anti-ship armament of the US Navy, capable of sinking large warships.

On Friday, Ukrainian Ministry of Internal Affairs adviser Anton Gerashchenko tweeted that

“The US is preparing a plan to destroy the [Russian] Black Sea Fleet” as part of a “plan to unblock the ports.” He continued, “Deliveries of powerful anti-ship weapons (Harpoon and Naval Strike Missile with a range of 250–300 km) are being discussed.”

Last month, the United States provided intelligence to Ukraine that allowed it to attack and sink the Russian missile cruiser Moskva, the flagship of Russia’s Black Sea Fleet.

The first countries to officially endorse the NATO-led naval operation in the Black Sea were Lithuania and the United Kingdom. On Monday, Lithuanian Foreign Minister Gabrielius Landsbergis called for a plan to break the blockade, declaring, “We would need a coalition of the willing—countries with significant naval power to protect the shipping lanes and countries that are affected by this.”

The Guardian reported that UK Foreign Secretary Liz Truss agreed with the proposal, including “demining the harbour and providing Ukraine with longer-range weapons to defend the harbour from Russian attack.”

The plans now being discussed would mark a significant new escalation of the war, raising the prospect of NATO and Russian warships firing on each other, the potential invocation of NATO Article 5 and the abandonment of all restraints on the conflict, with catastrophic consequences for all humanity.

*

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

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, Twitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

On May 19, the Canadian government formally announced that it would prohibit products and services of Chinese corporations Huawei and ZTE from being used in Canadian high-speed telecommunications systems.

The long-anticipated ban is far reaching. According to the government’s policy statement released last week, all Huawei and ZTE equipment are prohibited from use in the 5G network and previously installed work has to be removed by 2024. The same applies to the 4G network. Telecommunications companies must cease purchasing Huawei and ZTE equipment by September 1, 2022. During the transition periods, Canada’s spy agency, the Communications Security Establishment (CSE) will monitor any use of Huawei or ZTE equipment or services.

The government further intends to impose restrictions on Gigabit Passive Optical Network (GPON) equipment used in fibre-optic networks. According to the policy statement, “During these transition periods, telecommunications service providers that use this equipment and managed services would be required to comply with any assurance requirements prescribed by the government, building from the CSE’s Security Review Program.”

“Our government will always protect the safety and security of Canadians and will take any actions necessary to safeguard our critical telecommunications infrastructure,” stated Liberal minister François-Philippe Champagne in announcing the ban.

But do such measures really protect Canadians?

Far from it. In fact, the ban on Huawei actually imperils Canadians, not to mention the rest of the world, for a number of reasons.

Reinforcing the Five Eyes, global settler-colonialism

Joining Champagne in announcing the government’s ban on Huawei was Public Safety Minister Marco Mendicino. He stated the prohibition was the result of an extensive review by the government, but declined to make the review public.

Instead, Mendicino simply asserted the “decision reflects the values of Canadians and is in line with our closest allies, including our Five Eyes Partners,” referring to the spy alliance comprising Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and the United States.

After an extensive review, we are taking the necessary steps to protect Canadians and our telecommunications infrastructure.

This decision reflects the values of Canadians and is in line with our closest allies, including our Five Eyes partners.

— Marco Mendicino (@marcomendicino) May 19, 2022

The values of this coalition include the illegal hacking of anyone, or any corporation, they fear, from former German Chancellor Angela Merkel to the headquarters of Huawei itself, as Edward Snowden exposed in his 2013 revelations regarding the National Security Agency (NSA) global spy network to filmmaker Laura Poitras, columnist Glenn Greenwald, and The Guardian intelligence reporter Ewen MacAskill.

The Snowden revelations about STELLARWIND and other spy programs remain significant. Films such as Laura Poitras’ Oscar-winning Citizenfour (available on Prime) and Oliver Stone’s Snowden (available on Netflix) help capture the scale and scope of global surveillance.

Snowden’s whistleblowing also exposed extensive Canadian involvement in the global spy ring. The leaked materials showed that Canada’s CSE used airport wi-fi to track Canadian travellers; that Canada set up spy posts at the request of the NSA; that Canada allowed the NSA to spy on the G8 and G20 summits held in this country, and used its embassies to eavesdrop on citizens abroad.

In reporting the Huawei decision, however, the mainstream media completely ignores this history of Five Eyes spying, that included breaking into Huawei headquarters in China nearly a decade ago. Instead the media simply parrots government statements, even though the Huawei decision is nothing more than mimicry of a US report issued ten years ago that stated Huawei and ZTE “provision of equipment to US critical infrastructure could undermine core US national security interests.” That report provided no evidence either, but the report was at least made public.

In this light, Huawei Vice President Alykhan Velshi’s statement in response to the Canadian prohibition rings true:

“This is a political decision,” he stated in an interview, “It’s for the government to provide evidence that Huawei is a national security threat as they claim. They have not done so.”

Far from ensuring the safety of Canadians, the government’s prohibition against Huawei and ZTE dangerously aligns Canada with the NSA and other members of the Five Eyes spy network. This coalition of settler-colonial states—which arose out of the ashes of the Second World War—may parade as the epitome of liberal democracy, but in fact it is based on the ongoing sagas of Indigenous dispossession and the imposition of empire on subject peoples in the Global South.[1]

Targeting Asian Canadians, restricting research

As reported previously, Canada’s spy agencies are known as havens of Islamophobia and racism and have illegally spied on Indigenous groups and environmentalists opposing pipeline expansion in British Columbia.

The government’s anti-China campaign has resulted in further repressive activities. Last year the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) imposed self-screening for researchers who want to apply for research grants under the NSERC alliance program. The government prohibition against Huawei can only intensify surveillance regarding cybersecurity, measures that in fact date back to 2018.

That’s when the CSE first targeted Huawei as part of its “Security Review Program.” This program, like CSIS’s national research guidelines, affects telecommunications providers but also wields the real threat of cyber-attacks to impose its agenda: “CSE, through its Canadian Centre for Cyber Security, will continue to work in collaboration with all relevant TSPs vendors, service providers, laboratories, and allies to help deliver secure and resilient Canadian systems.”

Now the government wants to ramp up surveillance to “build on the success of the Security Review Program, led by the CSE in partnership with Canadian telecommunications service providers.” The Huawei policy statement states the government plans to expand the program “to consider risks from all key suppliers and apply more broadly to help industry improve the cyber security and resilience in Canada’s telecommunications networks.”

Researchers of Chinese or Asian heritage in Canada are increasingly standing up and speaking out against the racial profiling and unjustifiable surveillance associated with such programs.

In support, UBC professor Paul Evans and Senator Yuen Pau Woo spoke out a year ago in an article that illustrated the close tie between anti-China propaganda and racial profiling. Victor Ramraj, director of the Centre for Asia-Pacific Initiatives at the University of Victoria, has also highlighted the dangers of racial profiling, as have UBC law professors s Carol Liao and Jie Cheng.

Local groups in Ottawa, Toronto and other cities have sponsored numerous sessions highlighting the dangers of racial profiling. And last year, UBC and Toronto Metropolitan University (formerly Ryerson) sponsored two national forums on anti-Asian racism.

Instead of heeding these warnings, however, the Canadian government is doubling down, intensifying its anti-China policies, extending its surveillance powers, and further aligning Canada with the United States. The fear that CSIS’s national security guidelines were but the thin edge of a wedge is becoming a reality.

Emboldening US aggression

The Trudeau government would have Canadians believe that closer ties with the United States and other Five Eyes countries will increase Canadian security, but in fact the opposite is true—the more that Canada endorses the Five Eyes, the more aggressive the US and its allies are becoming.

For example, in his recent visit to Asia, US President Joe Biden boldly declared that the US would go to war in support of Taiwan’s independence, repudiating its previous approach of ‘strategic ambiguity.’ This, even though most countries of the world, including India and Canada, affirmed that Taiwan was part of China at the end of the Second World War and have embraced a “one China” policy.

Biden went on to state that “he does not expect China will use force to attempt to take Taiwan, especially if the world stands up to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.” In this, Biden has revealed how it is using the Russian invasion of Ukraine to justify its increased military posture not only in Europe through NATO but also in the Asia Pacific.

US national security advisor Jake Sullivan carefully explained how the US administration viewed global strategy in a recent White House briefing prior to Biden’s departure for Asia: “We actually don’t regard this as a tension between investing time, energy, and attention in Europe and time, energy, and attention in the Indo-Pacific. We regard this as mutually reinforcing.”

Sullivan pointed to how US allies in Asia were supporting sanctions against Russia, how Europeans were increasingly investing in Asia, how the UK, Australia and the US had formed AUKUS, and how the European Union had adopted an “Indo-Pacific strategy, Sullivan concluded: “So, for us, there is a certain level of integration and a symbiosis in the strategy we are pursuing in Europe and the strategy we’re pursuing in the Indo-Pacific. And President Biden’s unique capacity to actually stitch those two together is, I think, going to be a hallmark of his foreign policy presidency.”

Biden’s meetings with South Korea and Japan aimed to reinforce those countries role as cannon fodder in a confrontation with China. So too, the meetings of the Quad (US, Japan, Australia, and India) at the end of his visit, aimed to tighten the screws against China.

Biden’s visit to Asia represents sabre-rattling of the highest order, provoking China and Russia to send out strategic bombers in response. This type of brinksmanship points to the extreme danger the world now faces.

The US, with the support of its Five Eyes partners and others, is increasingly “trapped in the death spiral of unchecked militarism,” as Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Chris Hedges puts it in a recent article. The US ambition to “cripple Russia” and curb the growing economic and military clout of China amount to “demented and dangerous fantasies, perpetrated by a ruling class that has severed itself from reality. No longer able to salvage their own society and economy, they seek to destroy those of their global competitors, especially Russia and China.”

Abandoning any pretence of Canada as a peacekeeper or honest broker, the Trudeau government has now become a full-fledged member of the fantasy club, embracing the Five Eyes, opening negotiations with Lockheed Martin to purchase the once-spurned F-35, bolstering NATO, and banning Huawei.

The last piece of this dangerous game will be the enunciation of Canada’s own “Indo-Pacific” strategy, anticipated in the coming months after Trudeau defined it as a priority for Foreign Affairs Minister Mélanie Joly last fall.

Where will it end?

Enveloped in the Eurocentric cocoon of Canadian news, the power of the Five Eyes can seem insurmountable. Indeed, the danger of war, including nuclear war, is becoming frighteningly real.

But as the Global North continues to beat the drums of war, many in the world see this for what it really is: the dying throws of an outdated settler empire.

As Aanu Adeoye, a specialist in Africa-Russia relations, reports no African country has joined the sanctions regime being pushed by the Five Eyes. This is reinforced in Stephen Kinzer’s recent global round-up published in iAffairs.

Health officials around the world are astounded and deeply concerned about the Biden administration’s reported vetoing of a global plan to allow countries to ignore patents unless China is excluded from the plan.

“Given a choice between prolonging the pandemic and the possibility that it might get easier to cure diseases in China, the US government chooses to side with death,” said Tobita Chow, Chicago-based director of Justice is Global.

And around the world, Indigenous peoples continue to fight to regain their lands and prevent the climate disaster associated with environmental racism.

*

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.

John Price is professor emeritus at the University of Victoria, author of Orienting Canada, and a member of the Advisory Board of the newly formed Canada-China Focus, a project of the Canadian Foreign Policy Institute and the Centre for Global Studies (University of Victoria).

Note

[1] Sources on the role of the settler-colonial states included the research by Australian authors Marilyn Lake and Henry Reynolds, Drawing the Global Colour Line, my Orienting Canada: Race, Empire and the Transpacific, and, more recently, David R. Thomas and Veldon Coburn, Capitalism and Dispossession, and Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz’s Not a Nation of Immigrants.

Featured image is from Shutterstock

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, Twitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

Senator Rand Paul appeared on Fox News Thursday and discussed the ongoing World Economic Forum gathering in Davos Switzerland, remarking that it is not a conspiracy theory to suggest the organisation is seeking a one world government, rather it is “in their mission statement.”

Paul urged that

“The real danger here that’s even more dangerous than all their phony caring about carbon footprint, the real danger is this; look how bad your government is in a country where you get to vote for these people.”

“This would be a government, a world government where you don’t get to vote on anybody. This is everybody’s worst nightmare,” Paul asserted, referring to the ‘penetration’ of the WEF, to quote its head Klaus Schwab, into national governments.

“The bureaucracy that we have trouble in our United States because we don’t get to vote on them, we vote indirectly,” Paul said, adding “Can you imagine the one-world bureaucracy of all these elitists and their private jets that would rule our country and we wouldn’t get to vote?”

The Senator continued,

“So I’m dead set against this and they used to call people that talked about one-world government used to say it’s a conspiracy. We would always say no, it’s in their mission statement.”

“They say it at every meeting. That’s what they’re for,” Paul proclaimed, adding “lack of sovereignty means lack of freedom, it means lack of responsiveness and it’s completely antithetical to everything our country stands for.”

Watch video by clicking the image below.

*

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 Summit News

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, Twitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

Marking its 20th year of transformation from Organisation of AfricanUnity (OAU) to African Union (AU), the 54-member continental organisation, said in an official message circulated to all Heads of State and Government that Russia-Ukraine crisis is eroding economic achievements that have accumulated down the years throughout Africa.

Russia-Ukraine crisis has considerably changed the existing geopolitical, state and institutional order, and making it more difficult for the collective capacity and parameters toward building Africa. The Russia-Ukraine crisis poses numerous complex challenges in many African countries.

“More recently, Africa has become the collateral victim of a distant conflict, that between Russia and Ukraine. By profoundly upsetting the fragile global geopolitical and geostrategic balance, it has also cast a harsh light on the structural fragility of our economies,” the statement said.

“The most emblematic sign of these fragilities is the food crisis following the climatic disorders, the health crisis of COVID-19, amplified today by the conflict in Ukraine. This crisis is characterised by a shrinking world supply of agricultural products and a soaring inflation of food prices. So, what to do in the face of all these challenges?” it further emphasised.

In the light of the seemingly endless Russia-Ukraine crisis and global instability, Africa is particularly confronted with massive youth unemployment and the persistent precariousness of the women of the continent are other challenges that call for urgent responses, because this category of the African population no longer accepts to be a passive spectator of its destiny.

In addition, to all these constraints, the current economic crisis which is burdened by the debt, the climate and energy crisis, in turn, affects food prices through the exorbitant cost of transport, while the health crisis following the outbreak of COVID-19, weakens the production capacities of the various economic sectors.

The African Union statement has also acknowledged the challenges posed by all-year round terrorism, violent extremism and transnational crime (human trafficking, drug trafficking, arms trafficking). Terrorism, in particular, is constantly gaining ground. Today, many States devote a good part of their resources and energies to fighting or protecting themselves against this phenomenon, thus depriving vital sectors such as health and education of the resources they need.

“The continent is also faced with the disasters generated by bad governance, which can no longer be concealed by the demand for transparency imposed by a population that is increasingly open to the world through the new information and communication technologies,” it further said.

The African Union, however, expresses hope that through a series of actions and strategic mechanisms, African countries world be able to overcome development difficulties and defficiencies.

Then there is the African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA), which entered into force in 2021, making Africa the largest common market in the world and accelerating continental integration. It reinforces the measures taken in terms of free movement of persons and goods.

But much depends on the collective determination and solidarity demonstrated, to face the challenges in a united and resolute manner, by the African leaders. It depends on the strong mobilisation of African leaders and the effective coordination provided by the African Union.

Reports show that the Russia-Ukraine crisis has twisted the situation in many African countries and are now among the most vulnerable in terms of ensuring food security. In response to the food crisis, it hopes to achieve by building resilience in food security on the African continent – strengthening agri-food systems and health and social production systems to accelerate socio-economic and human capital development.

As far as the resources allow, the African Union will continue addressing health, education, infrastructure, energy, science and research, the sectors whose promotion and realisation are necessary conditions for the development of Africa.

The results have not always matched the targetted ambitions. From the focussed pooling of all energies and geographically dispersed resources will emerge a new Africa, “the Africa we want” which has understandably become the resounding guiding slogan.

There is only one condition: to identify and point out, without complacency, the evils that plague current actions and hinder the effective implementation of decisions, treaties, conventions and strategies in order to provide them with the appropriate treatment.

*

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.

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

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, Twitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

 

 

 

 

 

***

Read Part I and II:

Wissenschaftliche Psychologie fordert neue „Aufklärung“

By Dr. Rudolf Hänsel, May 24, 2022

Gesunder Menschenverstand versus magische Weltanschauung

By Dr. Rudolf Hänsel, May 26, 2022

---

Die handschriftlichen Aufzeichnungen von Rudolf Höß (1901-1947) „Meine Psyche. Werden, Leben und Vorleben“ (14) – niedergeschrieben während der Krakauer Untersuchungshaft 1946 – ermöglichen dem Leser einen Blick in die Abgründe menschlichen Verhaltens. Höß erlebte in seiner Kindheit eine Erziehung nach streng religiösen und militärischen Grundsätzen und reagierte als Erwachsener mit einem „Kadavergehorsam“. Der Herausgeber der Autobiographie, Martin Broszat, schreibt in der Einleitung:

„Die im Sinne des Nationalsozialismus ‚idealen‘ Kommandanten der Konzentrationslager waren letztlich nicht die persönlich brutalen, ausschweifenden und heruntergekommenen Kreaturen in der SS, sondern Höß und seinesgleichen. Ihre ‚aufopfernde Hingabe‘ an den Dienst im Konzentrationslager und ihre nie rastende Tätigkeit machten das System der Lager funktionsfähig, dank ihrer ‚Gewissenhaftigkeit‘ konnte als eine Einrichtung der Ordnung und Erziehung erscheinen, was ein Instrument des Terrors war. Und sie waren die geeigneten Exekutionsbeamten jener Form des hygienischen Massenmordes, die es erlaubte, Tausende von Menschen zu töten, ohne das Gefühl des Mordes zu haben.“ (Buch, S. 43)

Höß sei beseelt gewesen von ‚roboterhafter Pflichterfüllung‘ an den Dienst im Konzentrationslager und jemand, der sich rücksichtslos durchsetzt, vor keinem Befehl zurückschreckt, aber dabei persönlich ‚anständig‘ bleibt (S. 20 f.). Er sei der im Kadavergehorsam Erzogene gewesen, der sich in langjährigen Schulungen durch seine Vorgesetzten einreden ließ, dass die Liquidierung Hunderttausender von Menschen beziehungsweise die Ausmerzung „rassisch-biologischer Fremdkörper und Volksschädlinge“ ein Dienst für Volk und Vaterland beziehungsweise ein notwendiger Akt völkisch-nationaler „Schädlingsbekämpfung“ sei (S. 22).

Als Heinrich Himmler, Reichsführer der Schutzstaffel (SS) Höß 1941 den Befehl gab, „in Auschwitz einen Platz zur Massenvernichtung vorzubereiten und diese Vernichtung durchzuführen“, reagierte Höß so, wie er es in der Kinderstube beim Vater gelernt hat:

„Ich stellte damals keine Überlegungen an – ich hatte den Befehl bekommen – und hatte ihn durchzuführen. Ob diese Massenvernichtung der Juden notwendig war oder nicht, darüber konnte ich mir kein Urteil erlauben, soweit konnte ich nicht sehen: Wenn der Führer selbst die ‚Endlösung der Judenfrage‘ befohlen hatte, gab es für einen Nationalsozialisten keine Überlegungen, noch weniger für einen SS-Führer. ‚Führer befiel, wir folgen‘ – war keinesfalls eine Phrase, kein Schlagwort für uns. Es war bitter ernst gemeint.“ (S. 186)

Als ihm nach seiner Verhaftung wiederholt gesagt wurde, er hätte ja diesen Befehl ablehnen oder Himmler „über den Haufen schießen“ können, widersprach Höß und meinte:

„Seine Person als RFSS (Reichsführer der SS) war unantastbar. Seine grundsätzlichen Befehle im Namen des Führers waren heilig. An denen gab es keine Überlegungen, keine Auslegungen, keine Deutungen. Bis zur letzten Konsequenz wurden sie durchgeführt und sei es auch durch bewusste Hingabe des Lebens, wie es nicht wenige SS-Führer im Krieg taten.“ (S. 187)

Rudolf Höß war ein netter Mensch, ein anständiger Kleinbürger. Er schildert, dass er selbstverständlich gehorcht hat. Er sei ja Soldat, ein gut erzogener Mensch, der auf Hitler gehört hat. Er zählte ruhig auf: Also, was weiß ich, 20.000 Russen vergast, dann die Juden, dann die Sozis und die anderen, die Freimaurer. Er hat fleißig gearbeitet und alles war in Ordnung, weil er die Höchstzahl an Vergasungen erreicht hat und das Lager zur Zufriedenheit Hitlers und seiner Generäle gut geführt hat.

Vor Gericht in Nürnberg hat man ihm den Vorwurf gemacht, dass er in der Ukraine ganze Distrikte hätte ausrotten lassen. Darauf antwortete er: Ja, damit Platz frei wird für die Deutsche Nation. Hitler sei doch ausgezogen, um Platz zu machen. Wenn Deutschland sich entwickelt, werden die Deutschen in der Ukraine angesiedelt. Nun meinte der Richter, warum er nicht dagegen protestiert habe. Daraufhin Höß empört: „Ich bin doch kein Meuterer. Ich bin ja Soldat!“ (S. 19)

Das war seine Gesinnung: er ist Soldat und kein Meuterer. Das ist Rudolf Höß – und das sind auch wir. Wenn wir uns mit dem Lagerleiter identifizieren und vorsichtig sind, weil wir eine ähnliche Erziehung erlebt haben wie er und deshalb eine ähnliche Gesinnung in unserer Seele, in unserem Gemüt haben, dann fangen wir an, uns selbst zu erkennen, werden ruhiger und kommen in unserer Persönlichkeitsentwicklung voran.

Die Atmosphäre im Elternhaus empfand Höß als tief religiös. Sein Vater sei ein fanatischer Katholik gewesen, der das Gelübde ablegte, seinen Sohn durch große Strenge zu einem Geistlichen zu erziehen (S. 33). Aufgrund seiner religiösen Überzeugung sei der Vater ein entschiedener Gegner der Reichsregierung und deren Politik gewesen, war aber dennoch der Meinung, dass trotz aller Gegnerschaft die Gesetze und Anordnungen des Staates unbedingt zu befolgen wären (S. 35).

Nun ist es eine Erkenntnis der wissenschaftlichen Psychologie, dass wir Menschen als Erwachsene im Großen und Ganzen nur das zur Verfügung haben, was wir im Laufe unserer Kindheit von den Erziehungspersonen mitbekommen haben. Bei Höß waren das religiöse und soldatische „Tugenden“ wie blinder Gehorsam, Pflichterfüllung und das Nichthinterfragen von „höheren“ Anordnungen.

Höß selbst erinnerte sich: „Ich wurde von meinem Vater nach strengen militärischen Grundsätzen erzogen.“ (S. 33) Diese Erziehungsgrundsätze – davon war er überzeugt – seien ihm in „Fleisch und Blut“ übergegangen. Wünsche und Anordnungen der Eltern, Lehrer und Pfarrer hatte der kleine Rudolf unverzüglich zu befolgen. Was die Erwachsenen sagten, war immer richtig und nicht in Frage zu stellen. Alle Aufträge der Eltern waren genau und gewissenhaft auszuführen, die Anordnungen und Wünsche des Vaters waren peinlichst zu befolgen (S. 34 f.).

So eine autoritäre Erziehung verunmöglicht es dem Kind, echte Elternliebe und Vertrauen zum Mitmenschen zu entwickeln. Es kapselt sich innerlich ab und bleibt mit seinen Sorgen allein. So erging es auch Höß:

„Obwohl mir doch beide Eltern sehr zugetan waren, konnte ich nie den Weg zu ihnen finden in all dem großen und kleinen Kummer, der so ein Jungenherz ab und zu mal bedrückt. Ich machte dies alles mit mir selbst ab. Mein einziger Vertrauter war mein Hans (Pony) – und der verstand mich, nach meiner Ansicht.“ (S. 36)

Auch wenn er seine Eltern sehr achtete und mit Verehrung zu ihnen aufsah, so brachte er doch keine echte Elternliebe für sie auf. Schon von frühester Jugend an lehnte er deshalb jeden Zärtlichkeitsbeweis ab – ganz zum Bedauern seiner Mutter (S. 35). Er wurde Einzelgänger und Tierfreund. Seine zwei älteren Schwestern beschreibt Höß dagegen als sehr anschmiegsam und stets um die Mutter. Diese Schwestern seien ihm jedoch immer fremd geblieben, nie hätte er ein warmes Gefühl für sie aufbringen können (S. 36).

Der Einfluss der Gesellschaft auf die religiöse Einstellung des Menschen

Der Mensch ist nicht nur ein Naturwesen, sondern auch ein vergesellschaftetes Wesen. Das heißt, sein sogenanntes metaphysisches Bedürfnis, an ein übersinnliches Wesen zu glauben, wird auch von gesellschaftlichen Faktoren beeinflusst und dirigiert: Von klassenmäßigen, insbesondere wirtschaftlichen Faktoren. Die Religion wird deshalb so lange bestehen, wie materielle und damit seelische und geistige Not existiert.

Bereits Ludwig Feuerbach (1804-1872), deutscher Philosoph, Anthropologe und Religionskritiker, dessen Erkenntnisstandpunkt für die modernen Humanwissenschaften wie Psychologie und Ethnologie grundlegend geworden sind, fordert, dass der Mensch endlich damit aufhören müsse, ein Spielball der menschenfeindlichen Mächte zu sein, die sich der Religion zur Unterdrückung bedienen:

„Wir sehen den Menschen gebeugt unter der Last von Geschöpfen, welche nur Erzeugnisse seines eigenen unfreien und furchtsamen Gemütes, unwissenden und ungebildeten Verstandes sind. Setzen wir an die Stelle der Gottesliebe die Menschenliebe, an die Stelle des Gottesglaubens den Glauben des Menschen an sich, an seine Kraft, werden wir aus Gläubigen zu Denkern, aus Betern zu Arbeitern, aus Kandidaten des Jenseits zu Studenten des Diesseits, und wir werden endlich ganze Menschen werden können.“ (15)

Karl Marx (1818-1883) durchschaute das Getriebe der Gesellschaft und kam zu der Erkenntnis, dass der Mensch sich nicht ändern könne, bevor sich nicht die Struktur der Gesellschaft geändert hat. Solange im Diesseits nicht jeder menschenwürdig und ohne Furcht leben könne, werde es den Glauben an ein besseres Jenseits, an eine ausgleichende Gerechtigkeit geben. Deshalb meinte er:

„Die Religion ist das Streben nach illusorischem Glück des Volkes, das einen Zustand der Gesellschaft entspringt, welcher der Illusion bedarf.“ (16)

Marx hat die Analyse des „Diesseits“ klar umrissen er erkannte die Bedeutung der Gespaltenheit der Gesellschaft in Klassen. Erst im Abbau der kapitalistischen Gesellschaftsordnung erblickte er die Möglichkeit eines daraus folgenden Abbaus der religiösen Bedürfnisse und der Entmachtung der Kirchen. Einfluss und Gewalt haben diese Kirchen nach Marx vor allem wegen ihres materiellen Besitzes, der ihnen von der feudalistischen und kapitalistischen Gesellschaftsordnung garantiert werde.

Forderungen an Schule und Universität als öffentliche Einrichtungen

Religion und jede andere Art von Okkultismus sind Privatsache der Eltern und ihrer Kinder, sie sind deshalb als Sonderfach der Schule abzulehnen. Die Schule muss konfessionsfrei sein. Auch die Bibel – wie jedes andere Glaubensprogramm abergläubischer Art – gehört nicht in die Schule. Wenn überhaupt, dann nur als Kulturdokument, dessen Kenntnis zur Allgemeinbildung notwendig ist, aber nicht als Dogma, als grundlegende normative Lehraussage, deren Wahrheitsanspruch als unumstößlich gilt. Die Schule hat in erster Linie die Überzeugung zu vermitteln, dass erfahrungsgemäßes Wissen, Verstand und Vernunft immer und überall Vorrang haben.

Die Kirchen begründen die christliche Schule unter anderem mit der „religiösen Anlage“ des Kindes und laufen gegen eine wissenschaftliche Schule Sturm. Die Kirche weiß genau, dass sie die Seele des Kindes in die Bahn der jeweiligen Konfession pressen muss, um auf Lebenszeit der Seele des Menschen habhaft zu werden.

Eine weitere berechtigte Forderung ist die Beschränkung der Theologie auf Priesterseminare. An Universitäten sollte nur eine religionswissenschaftliche Fakultät zugelassen werden. Die Theologie hat nicht den Rang einer Wissenschaft. Ein Theologe, der erst einmal wissenschaftlich zu erforschen sucht, ob sein Gott und die Dogmen wirklich zu Recht bestehen, würde den Ast absägen, auf dem er sitzt, und kein Theologe mehr sein, sondern Religionswissenschaftler.

Ausblick

Der erwachsene Mensch ist oft in seiner Ich-Entfaltung gehemmt, doch den Priestern gegenüber hörig und suggestibel. Wenn der gläubige Erwachsene meint, seine religiösen Überzeugungen mit seinem „gesunden Menschenverstand“ vereinbaren zu können, dann irrt er. Was er unter einem „gesunden Menschenverstand“ versteht, ist nichts weiter als eine verhärtete Masse toter Metaphysik.

Vielen Erwachsenen fehlt also nicht nur der „gesunde Menschenverstand“, sie müssen in weltanschaulichen Gesprächen sogar die Reste ihres Verstandes ständig niederkämpfen und sich selbst gegenüber unehrlich sein. Und das deshalb, weil nicht der geringste Beweis für die Existenz eines außerweltlichen Wesens erbracht ist, das am Schicksal des Menschen teilnimmt.

Die kirchliche Religionslehre setzt eben das Weltbild des primitiven Menschen voraus. Diese Voraussetzung ist heute durch die moderne Wissenschaft nicht mehr gegeben. Wir suchen und finden das „Göttliche“, das Ideale in der Natur, im Gesetzmäßigen, nicht mehr im Mystischen. Wir dürfen uns nicht mehr durch wunderbare Fabeln von einem vagen Transzendenten ablenken lassen und sollten für das reale Diesseits arbeiten.

Wir müssen der Jugend in der Erziehung von Anfang an Werte vermitteln, die unserem Heute entsprechen und die auch im Erwachsenenalter noch Gültigkeit haben. Wir dürfen die Jugend nicht mit Mystizismen belasten, die sie später oft über Bord wirft. Vor allem müssen wir uns immer wieder die Tatsache vor Augen halten, dass zahlreiche Religiöse keine wissenschaftlichen Interessen mehr zeigen, dass ihr natürlicher Wissensdurst durch die Religion bereits gelöscht wurde und dass die religiöse Erziehung manche Menschen und ganz Völker stumpf machte für die Schönheiten der Natur und Kunst.

Außerdem muss ein gesetzlicher Schutz der Gesundheit von Seele und Geist gefordert werden. Das Interesse des Staates hat nicht nur in der körperlichen, sondern auch in der seelisch-geistigen Hygiene seiner Bürgerinnen und Bürger zu liegen. Ein Gesetzesparagraph ist zu verlangen, der die Kinderseele vor den Vergewaltigungen verängstigender oder die logische Denkfähigkeit schädigender Okkult-Lehren schützt.

Vertreter der Okkult-Lehren, die auf die Einschüchterung der Vernunft ihre Existenz gründen, mögen dagegen protestieren und sich auf die Meinungsfreiheit und Demokratie berufen. Was als volksschädlich erkannt ist, kann aber nicht demokratisch sein. Der Kampf zwischen Wahrheit und Wahn ist „todernst“.

Die Schule, die den Schülern den unbedingten Zusammenhang von religiösen Dogmen und Moral lehrt, hat die Aufgabe, die Moral auch auf eine irdische Grundlage zu stellen. Dem Schüler muss gezeigt werden, dass es eine hochstehende Ethik auch ohne Glaubensvorstellungen gibt und in verschiedenen Ländern schon vor Jahrtausenden gegeben hat. Ihm muss gezeigt werden, dass die Begründung der ethischen Lehren aus einem inneren Trieb und dem sozialen Zusammenleben der Menschen zumindest so verständlich und zwingend ist wie die religiöse Begründung. Nicht jeder religiöse Mensch ist auch ein moralisch hochstehender.

Wir sollen dem jungen Menschen dazu verhelfen, sein eigens Wesen ohne Einschnürung durch eine Konfession auszuprägen. Dieser Mensch wird im Allgemeinen auch moralisch sein, denn da er im Einklang mit sich selbst lebt, lebt er auch im Einklang mit seiner Umgebung.

Auch die Schule hat die eigene Kraft und das Selbstbewusstsein zu stärken, vom eigenen geliebten Seelenheil abzulenken auf das Heil der Allgemeinheit, auf die Notwendigkeit der Hilfsbereitschaft, auf ein Ideal, das die höchste sittliche Kraft nicht mehr in der religiösen, sondern in der sozialen Idee sieht, in der Schaffung eines „Paradieses“ der Humanität auf Erden.

*

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.

Noten

(14) Broszat, Martin (Hrsg.). (1963). Kommandant in Auschwitz. Autobiographische Aufzeichnungen des Rudolf Höß. München

(15) https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig…Feuerbach

(16) https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Die…deutsche…Ideologie

Featured image: Höss at trial before the Polish Supreme National Tribunal, 1947 (Licensed under public domain)

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, Twitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

 

 

 

 

 

***

Read Part I and II:

The Agony of a Totalitarian “New World Order” (NWO) and A Different “Being Human”: Scientific Psychology Demands New “Enlightenment”

By Dr. Rudolf Hänsel, May 24, 2022

Common Sense Versus “A Magical Worldview”

By Dr. Rudolf Hänsel, May 26, 2022

---

The handwritten notes of Rudolf Höß (1901-1947) “Meine Psyche. Becoming, Life and Past Life” (14) – written down during his imprisonment in Krakow in 1946 – give the reader an insight into the abysses of human behaviour. Höß experienced an upbringing according to strict religious and military principles in his childhood and reacted as an adult with “cadaver obedience”. The editor of the autobiography, Martin Broszat, writes in the introduction:

“The ‘ideal’ commanders of the concentration camps in the sense of National Socialism were ultimately not the personally brutal, dissolute and derelict creatures in the SS, but Höß and his ilk. Their ‘self-sacrificing devotion’ to concentration camp service and their never-resting activity made the camp system workable, thanks to their ‘conscientiousness’ could appear as an institution of order and education, which was an instrument of terror. And they were the suitable executioners of that form of hygienic mass murder which allowed thousands of people to be killed without the feeling of murder.” (Book, p. 43)

Höß had been animated by ‘robotic devotion to duty’ to the service in the concentration camp and someone who ruthlessly asserted himself, did not shy away from any order, but remained personally ‘decent’ (p. 20 f.). He had been brought up in cadaver obedience, who had allowed himself to be persuaded by his superiors during many years of training that the liquidation of hundreds of thousands of people or the extermination of “racial-biological foreign bodies and pests of the people” was a service to the people and the fatherland or a necessary act of völkisch-national “pest control” (p. 22).

When Heinrich Himmler, Reichsführer of the Schutzstaffel (SS) gave Höß the order in 1941 “to prepare a place for mass extermination in Auschwitz and to carry out this extermination”, Höß reacted in the same way as he had learned in childhood with his father:

“I did not make any considerations at that time – I had received the order – and had to carry it out. Whether this mass extermination of the Jews was necessary or not, I could not allow myself to judge, I could not see that far: If the Führer himself had ordered the ‘Final Solution of the Jewish Question’, there were no considerations for a National Socialist, even less for an SS leader. ‘Führer commanded, we follow’ – was by no means a phrase, not a slogan for us. It was bitterly serious.” (S. 186)

When he was repeatedly told after his arrest that he could have refused this order or “shot Himmler over the head”, Höß contradicted himself and said:

“His person as RFSS (Reichsführer der SS) was untouchable. His fundamental orders in the name of the Führer were sacred. There were no considerations, no interpretations, no interpretations of them. They were carried out to the last consequence, even if it was by deliberate surrender of life, as not a few SS leaders did during the war.” (S. 187)

Rudolf Höß was a nice person, a decent petit bourgeois. He describes that he obeyed as a matter of course. He was, after all, a soldier, a well-bred person who listened to Hitler. He calmly enumerated: So, what do I know, 20,000 Russians gassed, then the Jews, then the Socialists and the others, the Freemasons. He worked diligently and everything was in order because he reached the maximum number of gassings and ran the camp well to the satisfaction of Hitler and his generals.

In court in Nuremberg he was accused of having had whole districts in the Ukraine exterminated. He replied: Yes, so that there would be room for the German nation. Hitler had gone out to make room, he said. When Germany develops, the Germans will be settled in the Ukraine. Now the judge asked why he had not protested against this. Höß responded indignantly: “I’m not a mutineer. I am a soldier!” (S. 19)

That was his attitude: he is a soldier and not a mutineer. That is Rudolf Höß – and so are we. If we identify with the camp leader and are careful because we experienced a similar upbringing as he did and therefore have a similar mindset in our soul, in our mind, then we begin to recognise ourselves, become calmer and make progress in our personality development.

Höß found the atmosphere in his parental home deeply religious. His father had been a fanatical Catholic who took a vow to raise his son to be a clergyman through great strictness (p. 33). Because of his religious convictions, his father was a staunch opponent of the imperial government and its policies, but nevertheless believed that, despite all opposition, the laws and orders of the state had to be obeyed at all costs (p. 35).

Now, it is an insight of scientific psychology that we humans as adults by and large only have at our disposal what we have received from our educators in the course of our childhood. In Höß’s case, these were religious and soldierly “virtues” such as blind obedience, fulfilment of duty and not questioning “higher” orders.

Höß himself recalled: “I was brought up by my father according to strict military principles.” (p. 33) He was convinced that these educational principles had become second nature to him. Little Rudolf had to obey the wishes and orders of parents, teachers and priests without delay. What the adults said was always right and not to be questioned. All orders from the parents were to be carried out precisely and conscientiously, the orders and wishes of the father were to be followed scrupulously (p. 34 f.).

Such an authoritarian upbringing makes it impossible for the child to develop genuine parental love and trust in fellow human beings. It isolates itself internally and remains alone with its worries. This is what happened to Höß:

“Although both parents were very devoted to me, I could never find my way to them in all the big and small sorrows that occasionally weigh down a boy’s heart. I dealt with all this on my own. My only confidant was my Hans (Pony) – and he understood me, according to me.” (S. 36)

Even though he respected his parents very much and looked up to them with adoration, he did not muster any genuine parental love for them. From an early age, therefore, he rejected any show of affection – much to his mother’s regret (p. 35). He became a loner and an animal lover. In contrast, Höß describes his two older sisters as very cuddly and always around their mother. These sisters, however, had always remained strangers to him, he had never been able to muster a warm feeling for them (p. 36).

The Influence of Society on the Religious Attitude of Man

Man is not only a natural being, but also a socialised being. This means that his so-called metaphysical need to believe in a supersensible being is also influenced and directed by social factors: By class factors, especially economic factors. Religion will therefore exist as long as material and thus mental and spiritual need exists.

Already Ludwig Feuerbach (1804-1872), German philosopher, anthropologist and critic of religion, whose epistemological standpoint has become fundamental for modern human sciences such as psychology and ethnology, demands that man must finally stop being a plaything of the anti-human powers that use religion for oppression:

“We see man bent under the burden of creatures which are but products of his own unfree and fearful mind, ignorant and uneducated intellect. If we replace the love of God with the love of man, if we replace the faith in God with the faith of man in himself, in his own power, we shall turn believers into thinkers, prayers into workers, candidates of the hereafter into students of the hereafter, and we shall at last be able to become whole men.” (15)

Karl Marx (1818-1883) saw through the gears of society and came to the conclusion that man could not change until the structure of society changed. As long as everyone could not live humanely and without fear in this world, there would be a belief in a better hereafter, in a compensatory justice. Therefore, he opined:

“Religion is the pursuit of illusory happiness of the people, springing from a state of society which needs illusion.” (16)

Marx clearly outlined the analysis of “this world” and recognised the significance of the division of society into classes. Only in the dismantling of the capitalist social order did he see the possibility of a consequent dismantling of religious needs and the disempowerment of the churches. According to Marx, these churches have influence and power primarily because of their material possessions, which are guaranteed to them by the feudalist and capitalist social order.

Demands on schools and universities as public institutions

Religion and any other kind of occultism are a private matter for parents and their children; they must therefore be rejected as a special subject at school. The school must be non-denominational. The Bible – like any other faith programme of a superstitious nature – also does not belong in school. If at all, then only as a cultural document, knowledge of which is necessary for general education, but not as a dogma, as a fundamental normative doctrinal statement whose claim to truth is considered irrefutable. The school must first and foremost convey the conviction that experiential knowledge, understanding and reason always and everywhere have priority.

The churches justify the Christian school, among other things, with the “religious disposition” of the child and run up a storm against a scientific school. The church knows very well that it has to press the child’s soul into the orbit of the respective denomination in order to get hold of the soul of the human being for life.

Another justified demand is the restriction of theology to seminaries. Only a faculty of religious studies should be allowed at universities. Theology does not have the rank of a science. A theologian who first tries to scientifically investigate whether his God and dogmas really exist rightly would saw off the branch he is sitting on and would no longer be a theologian, but a religious scientist.

Outlook

The adult human being is often inhibited in his ego development, but is in bondage to the priests and suggestible. If the believing adult thinks he can reconcile his religious convictions with his “common sense”, he is mistaken. What he understands by “common sense” is nothing more than a hardened mass of dead metaphysics.

So many adults not only lack “common sense”, they even have to constantly fight down the remnants of their intellect in worldview discussions and be dishonest with themselves. And this is because not the slightest proof has been produced for the existence of an extra-worldly being that participates in man’s destiny.

The religious teachings of the Church presuppose the world view of primitive man. This prerequisite is no longer given today by modern science. We seek and find the “divine”, the ideal in nature, in the lawful, no longer in the mystical. We must no longer allow ourselves to be distracted from a vague transcendent by wonderful fables and should work for the real this world.

In education, we must impart values to the youth from the very beginning that correspond to our present day and are still valid in adulthood. We must not burden the youth with mysticism, which they often throw overboard later. Above all, we must always bear in mind the fact that many religious people no longer show any scientific interest, that their natural thirst for knowledge has already been quenched by religion, and that religious education has dulled some people and whole nations to the beauties of nature and art.

Moreover, legal protection of the health of soul and spirit must be demanded. The interest of the state has to lie not only in the physical but also in the mental-spiritual hygiene of its citizens. A paragraph in the law is to be demanded which protects the child’s soul from the rape of frightening occult teachings or those which damage the ability to think logically.

Representatives of occult teachings who base their existence on the intimidation of reason may protest against this and invoke freedom of speech and democracy. But what is recognised as harmful to the people cannot be democratic. The struggle between truth and delusion is “deadly serious”.

The school that teaches pupils the unconditional connection between religious dogma and morality has the task of also placing morality on an earthly basis. The pupil must be shown that high ethics also exist without beliefs and existed in various countries thousands of years ago. He must be shown that the justification of ethical teachings from an inner drive and the social coexistence of people is at least as understandable and compelling as the religious justification. Not every religious person is also a moral person.

We should help the young person to develop his own nature without being constricted by a denomination. This person will generally also be moral, because since he lives in harmony with himself, he also lives in harmony with his environment.

The school, too, has to strengthen one’s own strength and self-confidence, to divert attention from one’s own beloved salvation to the salvation of the general public, to the necessity of helpfulness, to an ideal which no longer sees the highest moral force in the religious but in the social idea, in the creation of a “paradise” of humanity on earth.

*

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 values education and an education for public spirit and peace. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Notes

(14) Broszat, Martin (ed.). (1963). Commandant at Auschwitz. Autobiographical notes of Rudolf Höß. Munich

(15) https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig…Feuerbach

(16) https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Die…deutsche…Ideologie

Featured image: Höss at trial before the Polish Supreme National Tribunal, 1947 (Licensed under public domain)

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, Twitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

The invasion of Ukraine is a horror and has already cost thousands of lives. But this conflict may also destroy millions of lives far from the battlefield. The war is particularly detrimental to the global food system, which has already been weakened by Covid-19, by climate change and by high energy prices. If this war continues, we will be heading for a real food catastrophe.

How serious the situation is

On May 18, António Guterres, the UN Secretary General, sounded the alarm. For him “the spectre of a global food shortage” looms and he fears “this dangerous situation could tip into catastrophe”.

“It threatens to tip tens of millions of people over the edge into food insecurity, followed by malnutrition, mass hunger and famine, in a crisis that could last for years.”

Six days before the raid, David Beasley, director of the World Food Program (WPF), had warned of an impending food disaster:

“If we do not address the situation immediately over the next 9 months we will see famine, we will see destabilization of nations and we will see mass migration. If we don’t do something we are going to pay a mighty big price.”

At the time, he was talking about 45 million people teetering on the brink of famine. The war could add tens of millions more. As in 2011, this situation will cause political unrest in many countries. “If we don’t feed people, we feed conflict,” Guterres said.

Pandemic and Climate

Before the invasion, the food situation in the world was already precarious. Climate change has a lot to do with that. The increasing number of extreme weather phenomena is detrimental to agriculture and food production. In the past decade, 1.7 billion people have been affected by extreme weather events and climate-related disasters.

Some examples.

Last year’s floods could make the yield of China’s winter wheat harvest the lowest in history.

The recent heat wave in India will also be very detrimental to the wheat harvest there.

Due to a drought in the US grain belt, 40 percent of wheat is in bad or very bad shape (normally only 15 to 20 percent). In Europe, the yield will almost certainly be alarmingly low due to low rainfall.

Covid-19 was and remains also a major disrupting factor. The pandemic caused an economic shock. This has reduced the purchasing power of the populations in many countries and disrupted supply chains.

Many countries of the South are on the brink of bankruptcy and their access to the financial markets is limited, look at Sri Lanka as an example.

There have been other consequences. The revival of the economy after the pandemic caused soaring energy and transport prices. The energy bill is also rising due to increasing CO2 taxes. These price increases make food products a lot more expensive.

All these factors undermine food security for large parts of the world’s population. This is especially the case in the Global South, but also for us, just think of the unprecedented number of people who rely on food banks. Before the pandemic, there were 135 million people worldwide suffering from severe food insecurity. In the past two years, that number has doubled to 276 million.

The War and the Sanctions

Russia and Ukraine play a leading role in global food production. Together they account for more than a third of the world’s grain exports and just over half of the sunflower oil exports. Russia is also the largest producer of fertilizers.

Nearly 50 countries depend on Russia and Ukraine for at least 30 percent of their wheat imports. In 26 countries this is even more than 50 percent. Together, the two countries provide 12 percent of the calories traded worldwide and in total about 800 million people depend on them for their food.

The war itself and the sanctions against Russia are having a detrimental effect on both food production and export in both countries. This is especially the case in Ukraine.

Due to military violence, a lack of fertilizers and pesticides and higher diesel prices, there is a risk that it will be impossible to plant 30 to 50 percent of the spring wheat fields in Ukraine.

But especially exports have nearly completely stopped. Until recently, 98 percent of Ukrainian grain was transported via the Black Sea. Those exports have come to a complete standstill however, because Ukraine has laid naval mines and Russia has blocked all Ukrainian ports. Due to a number of problems,[i] rail or freight transport is not a real alternative.

Escorted naval convoys could be a solution, but the Ukrainian navy is too small for that and so it would need the support of NATO countries. Given the strength of the Russian fleet, that would be a more than risky undertaking and could lead to another dangerous escalation of the conflict.

Whatever the case, unless Black Sea exports pick up again, millions of tons of grain will simply rot in Ukraine’s silos.

With Russia, the problems lie elsewhere. Due to the sanctions, Russian farmers or farms may be short of seeds and pesticides.[ii] That will have an important impact on the next harvest.

Disrupted World Market

Farmers elsewhere in the world will unlikely be able to compensate for declining grain exports from Ukraine and Russia. For farmers who grow grain, fertilizers and energy are the main expenses. Both markets have been disrupted by sanctions and the natural gas rush.

If farmers cut back on fertilizers, the yields will be lower. In addition, instead of planting grain or maize, farmers will consider switching to crops with lower input costs.[iii]

The market has been further disrupted because in recent months no fewer than 35 countries have imposed strict restrictions on food exports, out of fear for their own food security. In many cases those are even total bans.

Such a disruption of the global market drives food prices up sharply. As a result of the war, food prices have reached the highest level ever recorded by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Today food prices are on average 34 percent higher than a year ago. For grain, the increase is even 81 percent.

This is becoming more and more unaffordable for many communities, especially in the countries of the South. There, families spend up to a quarter of their income on food. In Sub-Saharan Africa that is even 40 percent. Moreover, grain makes up a larger part of the budget there than in richer regions.

And then there’s another perverse effect for those countries. Inflation causes interest rates to rise. This makes the dollar and the euro more attractive, causing their exchange rate to rise. But that makes food imports (often in dollars) more expensive for the countries of the South, as well as paying off foreign debts.

What is to be Done?

The longer the war drags on, the greater the food shortage, the higher the prices and the worse the food crisis will be.

The US strategic option to “fight to the last Ukrainian” will not only increase the number of casualties on the battlefield. Far away, hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions of people will die of famine as a result.

What must be done to avoid that catastrophe?

First of all, the blockade of the Black Sea must be undone as soon as possible. This is only possible in the context of peace negotiations and a ceasefire. That presupposes a de-escalation of the war effort instead of the warmongering that we see now. In any case, according to Western diplomats, we should not expect Ukrainian ports to be opened in the coming six months.

In addition, all economic sanctions against Russia related to food production must be lifted.

Third, food protectionism must stop. In the words of António Guterres:

“There should be no restrictions on exports, and surpluses must be made available to those most in need.”

Finally, financial aid is urgently needed for the countries of the South, both to ensure food security and to avert an impending debt crisis. In October, the World Food Program estimated that it would take $6.6 billion annually to solve world hunger.[iv]

That’s not even a huge sum of money. For this war alone, Biden has committed an additional $24 billion in armaments and military support. The military budget of the European countries will also increase by tens of billions in the coming years. Apparently, there is always money for waging war, but for fighting hunger… It shows the madness of the world in which we live.

*

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.

Translated by Dirk Nimmegeers

Marc Vandepitte is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Notes

[i] There are serious bottlenecks at the borders because Ukraine’s EU neighbours use different track gauges. Road transport is hampered by shortages of trucks, drivers, fuel and customs officials.

[ii] Russia buys both seeds and pesticides mainly from the European Union. The sanctions have made bank financing difficult and fewer European companies are willing to supply those goods. In addition, most major Western seed and chemical companies have withdrawn or are in the process of withdrawing from Russia.

[iii] In March, for example, a study by the US Department of Agriculture found that farmers in that country plan to switch from corn to soybeans this season.

[iv] This is the amount calculated as needed for saving 45 million people from starvation. With the current war, that cost will of course rise, but it will never exceed twice this amount.

Featured image is from NaturalNews.com

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, Twitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

5G is now installed and switched on across millions of sites all over the world and so my testing has begun. Many are wondering: what does 5G sound like?

Today I’ll share with you the radiation levels plus the eerie sound of 5G radiation coming off the transmitters.

The radiation from 5G (RF/microwaves) is an invisible environmental pollutant, beyond our awareness.

My goal – using specialized equipment, is to reveal both what 5G beam forming radiation sounds like and how much radiation I’m being exposed to 600 meters away from the 5G transmitters.

Location of tested 5G installation

The 5G site tested was in Kings Cross, Sydney and goes by RFNSA ID number 2011007. I set up 615 meters away from the 5G transmitters with an unobstructed view of the entire installation.

The testing equipment used was some of the best available in the world. The Gigahertz Solutions HFW59D + HP33 filter and directional antenna to measure only the 5G radiation at a frequency of 3.5 GHz.

High radiation levels 600m (2,000ft) away

A maximum power density of 12,600 uW/m2 (crest factor applied) was detected from 615 meters away (2,018 ft) – that’s 12 times the IBN extreme level. This is also from the 5G transmitters alone, not including 3/4G which is also present at the site.

This is a concern, especially since almost no one is using 5G phones (when I conducted this test in December 2019). Meaning that the radiation from 5G transmitters is likely to power up even more as people start using 5G enabled devices.

Radiation level as compared to IBN guidelines from Germany

5G is dramatically increasing exposures

Since the early 1900s, our exposure to non-native EMFs has been creeping up slowly. However, it’s only been in the last 25 years or so that our exposures have exploded beyond belief.

This is thanks mainly due to the increased cell tower density (demand for high bandwidth data on mobile devices) and the wireless technology we’re bringing into our homes (Wi-Fi, cell phones etc).

However, in early 2019 as 5G was being installed around the globe, most people were very unaware of something of great significance. A major escalation of our exposure to radio frequency / microwave radiation – specifically from 5G.

A small study I conducted proved that once 5G was installed at cellular base station sites – there was almost always a significant increase in radiation.

From the graph below, you can very easily see the radiation levels before and after 5G was installed.

Those affected most will not only be those living in direct line of sight to a cell tower. It’s going to impact all of us when just simply driving around.

When driving (or walking around for that matter) you’re getting significant exposures as you pass the 4 / 5G transmitters. Which are now basically everywhere.

Often, 5G (and 4G) transmitters are placed hanging off highway signage, rooftops, cell tower structures – even inside tunnels and right above their entrance / exits.

What does 5G sound like?

During my investigation I also managed to capture the sound of 5G which is something else! It has no resemblance to the smooth high pitch sound of 3 / 4G transmitters. It’s highly erratic and almost sounds like static electricity.

One can only imagine what kind of biological harm this kind of field has. Just listening to its erratic sound speaks for itself – listen below!

Sound of 5G coming off the transmitters

I’ve been getting a lot of people experiencing symptoms, not only from 5G but from all 4 EMFs of concern in general. Very common is headaches, ringing in the ears or feeling a vibration in the head.

This has me concerned… It would be interesting to hear what others are feeling around 5G towers, especially those suffering from electro-hypersensitivity (EHS).

Remember to keep your distance and limit exposure!

*

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.

Matt Cossey is a certified electromagnetic radiation specialist from Australia. He’s helped protect thousands world-wide from EMFs.

Featured image is from Children’s Health Defense

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, Twitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

As the world is moving slowly but surely to the edge of the abyss, there is a parallel crisis going within the nations that claim to exemplify the best of “western values” while undermining and violating them at every point.

Of course, the West blames all the problems of the world on the East, particularly Russia and China but there are some “dissident” voices that need to be heard at least for the sake of those who are interested in searching for ideas that might avoid Armageddon.

Rudyard Kipling once wrote:

“East is East, and West is West, and never the twain shall meet, Till Earth and Sky stand presently at God’s great Judgment Seat.”

In his poem, Kipling was expressing his belief that cultures of the East and West were so intrinsically different that any hope for harmony or mutual interest was little more than a delusion.

How could such a worldview possibly mesh with the cultures of Orthodox Russia, Confucian China, or the Islamic world? To the degree that those cultures maintained their ancient traditions and values, it obviously could not, as only total submission to a hegemon could resolve the conflict.

However, instead of looking to those modern heirs of Kipling’s vision based in Washington D.C. as the role models for ‘western civilization’, it would be much more appropriate to look instead to the much more dignified example of the founding fathers of America. Benjamin Franklin, George Washington, John Jay and John Quincy Adams were men who believed in peaceful conflict resolutions, promoted diplomacy over war, and sought solutions based in mutual self-interest for all parties.

Those were also the days when Russia helped the newborn nation to withstand the pressure of the colonial British Empire. This spirit of friendship was rekindled when Russia saved the union during the Civil War, and again as both nations fought to put down fascism in WW2.

The 1991 collapse of the USSR presented a unique chance for America to return the favor and exercise a geostrategic vision by sharing its best accomplishments in a win-win paradigm.

Russia and even the USSR under the late Gorbachev time frame were ready for the full integration with the West but instead, she was hollowed out under the dark age of looting overseen by the administration of Bill Clinton and IMF-imposed regime. They ensured that Russia’s industries were crushed, new oligarchs were built up on the riches of privatized state assets, which lead to the 1998 default of its economy.

At the same time, instead of dissolving itself as the Warsaw military block did, NATO continued its “drang nach Osten” with a broader ‘full spectrum dominance’ agenda encircling Russia with a missile shield that countless experts have warned can be made offensive in short notice.

At the same time another most visible destruction took place in Ukraine which today has become the sparkplug for a potential thermonuclear WW3.

This country that enjoyed one of the highest per capita economies of Europe in 1990 could have prospered by choosing neutral military status, while taking the best that the West and East could offer. Instead the West decided to turn it into anti-Russia strategic beachhead.

As a result, the Ukrainian economy has been devastated. It has lost its once powerful rocket/aviation/space/automotive industries, and is now ranked among the poorest in Europe and most corrupt states on Earth.

Along with the destruction of industry came the collapse of the population that has fallen from 52 million in 1990 to 37 million today. Outraged by the continuing resistance of the Ukrainian people to join NATO, the West orchestrated the 2014 regime change coup that resulted in the current military collision with Russia.

At the beginning of this war, it looked like Kyiv was ready to reach a compromise with Moscow, but Washington said NO. Instead, the USA, and NATO countries pour billions of dollars and huge numbers of the most sophisticated weapons to Ukraine urging it to continue the fighting that now threatens all of humankind with a nuclear catastrophe.

These are the gifts of the ugly counterfeit of ‘western values’ which proclaimed its absolute victory in the Cold War as ‘an end of history’. Then-senator Joe Biden in his 1992 ‘How I learned to love the New World Order’ embodied this arrogant paradigm stating: “Having contained Soviet Communism until it dissolved, we need a new strategy of ‘containment’ based, like NATO, on collective action”.

These champions of western values don’t mind Ukraine’s glorification of WW2 Nazi collaborators and modern day neo-Nazis. They pretend not to notice the elimination of Ukrainian political opposition parties, nor the destruction of the free media. These pretenders of western values even look the other way when the water supplies are cut off to the people of Crimea.

Back in 2015, the US Congress banned the Pentagon from training and equipping the Azov Battalion. Congressional representatives called it a “disgusting Nazi formation”. Now its members are presented as valiant heroes, the “defenders of Mariupol”.

This and the horrifying results of the western wars in the Middle East with hundreds of thousand killed, millions wounded, and tens of millions war refuges prove that those who keep speaking  about western values, are like Kipling, merely Utopians ideologically committed to an age of total world’s domination under a modern remix of ‘the white man’s burden’.

This ideology underlies the downfall of every major empire throughout history, as it is only capable of destroying the diversity, and creative vitality so necessary for humanity to thrive and progress. It is a culture of dark ages, war and ignorance and it is everything that those leading figures of the renaissance and American Revolution sought to extinguish forever from the face of the Earth.

When the very thing which both Reagan and Gorbachev ruled out now presses ominously upon our future, it is worth asking if the West has lost the moral fitness to survive, or is there the power to restore the true heritage of 1776 with a look towards cooperating with nations of Eurasia before we light the world on fire?

*

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 first published on American Committee for US-Russia Accord.

Matthew Ehret is Vice President of the Rising Tide Foundation and author of The Clash of the Two Americas. He is a regular contributor to Global Research

Edward Lozansky is Founder and President of the American University in Moscow, and Editor-in Chief of the online magazine New Kontinent.

Featured image is from Global Times

Featured image is from TCP

---

The Clash of the Two Americas

Vol. 1 & 2

by Matthew Ehret

In his new two volume series The Clash of the Two Americas, Matthew Ehret introduces a new analysis of American history from the vantage point that the globally-extended supranational shadow government that managed the British Empire was never fully defeated and has acted within the USA itself since 1776 as a continuous multi-generational fifth column managing every significant event and assassination of American presidents for the next 250 years.

Click here to order.

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, Twitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

The first Eurasian Economic Forum, in Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan, took place this week at a very sensitive geopolitical juncture, as Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov keeps stressing that,

“the West has declared total war against us, against the entire Russian world. Nobody even hides this now.”

It’s always important to remember that before Maidan in 2014, Ukraine had the option to become a full member of the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU), and even balance it with a loose association with the EU.

The EAEU comprises five full members – Russia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Belarus and Armenia – yet 14 nations sent delegations to the forum, including China, Vietnam and Latin American nations.

There was much rumbling that the proceedings would be jeopardized by the serial sanctions packages imposed on Russia by the collective West. There’s no question that some EAEU members – such as Kazakhstan – seem to be more worried about the effects of the sanctions than about fine-tuning business with Russia. Yet that’s not the point.

The crucial point is that by 2025 they have to harmonize their legislation concerning financial markets. And that’s directly connected to what the executive body of the EAEU, led by Sergey Glazyev, is working on, extensively: designing the lineaments of an alternative financial/economic system  to what the West would rather coin as Bretton Woods 3.

The Eurasian Economic Forum was established by the Supreme Eurasian Economic Council explicitly to further deepen economic cooperation between EAEU members. No wonder the official theme of the forum was Eurasian Economic Integration in the Era of Global Shifts: New Investment Opportunities, focusing on strategic development in the industrial, energy, transport, financial, and digital areas.

So Many Converging Strategies

President Putin’s speech to the plenary session was quite revealing. To really appreciate the scope of what’s implied, it’s important to remember that the Greater Eurasian Partnership concept was presented by Putin in 2016 at the St. Petersburg Economic Forum, focused on a “more extensive Eurasian partnership involving the Eurasian Economic Union” and including China, Pakistan, Iran and India.

Putin stressed how the drive for developing ties “within the framework of the Greater Eurasian Partnership” (…) “was not the political situation but global economic trends, because the centre of economic development is gradually – we are aware of this, and our businesspeople are aware of this – is gradually moving, continues to move into the Asia-Pacific Region.”

He added, “in the current international conditions when, unfortunately, traditional trade and economic links and supply chains are being disrupted”, the Greater Eurasian Partnership “is gaining a special meaning.”

Putin established a direct connection not only between the Greater Eurasian Partnership and EAEU members but also “BRICS members such as China and India”, “the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, ASEAN and other organizations.”

And that’s the core of the whole, ongoing, multi-layered process of Eurasia integration, with the China-led New Silk Roads intersecting with the Eurasia Economic Union, the SCO, BRICS+, and other converging strategies.

Lavrov this week said that Argentina and Saudi Arabia want to join BRICS, whose next summer in China is being meticulously prepared. Not only that: Lavrov mentioned how quite a few Arab nations want to join the SCO. He was careful to describe this process of converging alliances as “not antagonistic”.

Putin for his part was careful to define the Greater Eurasian Partnership as “a big civilizational project. The main idea is to create a common space for equitable cooperation for regional organizations”, changing “the political and economic architecture on the entire continent.”

Thus, the necessity to “draft a comprehensive strategy for developing large-scale Eurasian partnership”, including “a roadmap for industrialization”. That translates in practice as developing “engineering centers and research centers. This is inevitable for any country that wants to increase its economic, financial, and ultimately political sovereignty. It is inevitable.”

Yaroslav Lissovolik at the Valdai Club is one of the top analysts tracking how this convergence may profit the whole Global South. He stresses that among the “variability and diversity in the platforms that may be launched by Global South economies, the most sizeable and comprehensive of which could include the aggregation of CELAC (Latin America), African Union (Africa)”, and the SCO in Eurasia.

And an even more diverse set of “regional blocs that targets deeper integration could feature a BRICS+ platform that comprises the South African Development Community (SADC), MERCOSUR, BIMSTEC”, the China-ASEAN free trade agreement, and the EAEU.

The Eurasian Economic Forum has shown once again that this high-speed – economic integration – train has already left the station. It’s quite enlightening to notice the sharp contrast with the endless doom and gloom afflicting a collective West prone to inflation, energy shortages, food shortages, fictional “narratives” and the defense of neo-Nazis under the banner of liberal “democracy”.

*

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.

Pepe Escobar, born in Brazil, is a correspondent and editor-at-large at Asia Times and columnist for Consortium News and Strategic Culture in Moscow. Since the mid-1980s he’s lived and worked as a foreign correspondent in London, Paris, Milan, Los Angeles, Singapore, Bangkok. He has extensively covered Pakistan, Afghanistan and Central Asia to China, Iran, Iraq and the wider Middle East. Pepe is the author of Globalistan – How the Globalized World is Dissolving into Liquid War; Red Zone Blues: A Snapshot of Baghdad during the Surge. He was contributing editor to The Empire and The Crescent and Tutto in Vendita in Italy. His last two books are Empire of Chaos and 2030. Pepe is also associated with the Paris-based European Academy of Geopolitics. When not on the road he lives between Paris and Bangkok.

He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is licensed under public domain

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, Twitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

With great fanfare, Sweden has now (May 15) officially announced it seeks to apply for formal NATO membership.

The Ukraine War has provided the pretext for this announcement which has long been in the making and has been widely supported in the Swedish mainstream.

The kind of rhetoric associated with the decision was epitomized by that of a leading political commentator and a former government minister who said it is “miraculous how the world’s democracies magnetically gather around the values of the free world,” namely, “democracy and the respect for national sovereignty”—Yemenis and Palestinians not included, plainly. Finally we can rejoice in the “alliance of world democracies” with “giants such as the U.S.” leading us toward “freedom, democracy and peace.”^[1]

“In Sweden, the unanimity is so compact that one is almost moved,” as one of the most respected literary figures, Alex Schulman, cheered in his trance.^[2]

The most respected liberal paper explained that “Western democracy stands against Putin’s neo-Stalinism,” and “there is no middle way, no compromise between these two worldviews.”^[3] Or the leading business analyst, Peter Nilsson, who is revered by everyone: “The production in the American, British, French and Swedish weapons industries need to continue booming” since “there is now no middle way. The world is…black-and-white”—just to quote some of the more moderate ones.^[4]

About two weeks later, after a propaganda campaign which probably would have made even Stalin cringe, the moment to bring up the question of joining NATO was ripe; after all, NATO “doesn’t seek more territory…doesn’t seek territorial disputes [and] doesn’t threaten the territorial sovereignty of other states…and is supremely resourceful when trying to avoid conflicts,” as one of the leading liberal commentators schooled “the most useful of useful idiots for peace”—namely, most of the general population before the war, and half of it now. “The West and NATO are willing to fold over three times in order to avoid fighting over any territory, except its own,” he further explained, which is “a fact so obvious that it needs no proof”—such as Libya, Yemen, Afghanistan, Iraq and so on.^[5]

Or to quote perhaps the leading voice of the social democratic “left,” Anders Lindberg, who is constantly criticized for being a leftist extremist: Since Putin is “a contemporary Hitler”—as well as since Russians hate “our ideas about freedom”—it is beyond question that we immediately “need to join NATO.”^[6] Again: I am quoting the dovish end, and so the tune goes virtually without exception.

(Right) Anders Lindberg, editor-in-chief of Aftonbladet, Sweden’s daily newspaper. [Source: tellerreport.com]

Funneling arms to the “defense” sector and formally joining NATO became indisputable gospel, needing no credible argument whatsoever, and making any independent criticism psychologically impossible (especially for the critics—who in fact unanimously accept the government propaganda lines, as I will explain below). These “requirements are enormous.” “It is important that this process is not prolonged by vain attempts at estimating its costs,” and the “Government and Parliament [should] accept the judgment without any objections,” as two of the country’s most respected security analysts noted, knowing that would in fact be more or less the case.^[7]

With at least 70% of the corporations being for NATO membership, and barely 50% of the population (DI, April 19), it was as indisputable as a mathematical proof that Swedish membership in NATO was “of existential nature for our country’s freedom and sovereignty.”^[8]

All of this, needless to say, systematically suppresses the fact that there have been diplomatic proposals put forth by Russia for years, which have been unilaterally rejected by the Western governments, and that this has overwhelmingly caused this conflict. Or that NATO provocations and incursions into Russian territory are constantly taking place, which by far outnumber anything carried out by the Russians toward us. (These last two sentences may surprise you. And if so, just look at the deluge of detailed studies presented constantly in the technical diplomatic press, which provide ample evidence reaching a burden of proof expected only in chemistry or physics, however, never presented to the general public for obvious reasons.)^[9]

Or the fact that even those most loyal to the Party line, including the awed and constantly cited Lt. Col. Joakim Paasikivi—who practically sets the entire military analytic agenda in the country—regularly concede that the Russian military “capability is not at all impressive,” failing to take control over cities just across its own border.^[10]

That is unsurprising, since we are dealing with a country whose GDP ranks far below countries like Italy. Or the fact that the Estonian Foreign Minister, Eva-Maria Liimets, openly stated that the Baltics “see no direct [Russian] military threat.”^[11]

But somehow the far more powerful Sweden and its “existential nature” is under Russian threat. That is an impressive achievement, even for the “free” press. Why Russia would invade Sweden, and us needing to formally join NATO, has not once been argued (except through the constant reference to “the changing security climate in the world,” a phrase repeated with the same fervor and lack of meaning as “God is great”). No proof reaching the minimal level of credibility or honesty is ever presented, nor needed, which is standard when you specialize in regurgitating official Party dogma.

However, I do not mean to say that everybody in the media and academia is happy with the near 100% consensus, and do not critique it. One of the most well known and respected journalists complained that those who “opposed” NATO—while still remaining well within the ideological framework established by government propaganda—and who are now “being very late” in joining the chorus for the offensive alliance, “don’t seem to be punished for it.”

In typical Communist Party style, he went on to lament that the pro-NATO side is unfortunately cheering “without enthusiasm”—a total lie, but a neat one when enforcing the required Party discipline.^[12]

Reviewing the literally thousands of articles which strictly abide by the required doctrinal Truth is not so interesting. The commentary is more or less totally predictable and expected. Rather, in looking at what the dovish extreme ends of dissent say (they are so small in numbers that you can practically count them), we will find where the outermost limits of acceptable thought go, and thus we will behold the spectacular feat of the propaganda system.

First, the critic will argue that NATO membership could compromise our prospects for “autonomous foreign policy,” and that sufficient discussion and “serious thought” has not gone into all of this, making this a too hasty decision, to quote the “extremist” Mattias Gardell, who has been accused of being the slave of Hamas and Jihadists, an extreme hater of the West and so on.^[13]

Maybe NATO is not all that good an idea since “37 Danish NATO soldiers died in Afghanistan under the first years of the 2000s,” wrote Arne Larsson, who went as far out as you can go when chastising the lack of counter-arguments put forth by the press.^[14]

Sven-Eric Liedman, the most respected intellectual historian in the country, repeats the revered staples of anti-arguments, citing the possibility of a Trump presidency and NATO’s undemocratic members—which never cause a problem to our sensibilities otherwise, of course. “One of NATO’s most powerful members is Turkey,” and the next “Donald Trump as president” thinks “that NATO is useless”—which is total nonsense when you look at irrelevant things such as facts, but anything goes as long as you defend the Holy State from serious critique.^[15] Or: we will become “less safe,” as our “dissident” Left party put it.

Our own National radical, Göran Greider, noted, “Swedish membership in NATO would mean larger investments in the military, when the climate and the public sector” needs the money.^[16] It is completely uniform among “dissidents” to stick to the above, since these points are considered to be the “most powerful arguments,” to use the phrase of a journalist who has been the target of constant attack for his “pro-Russian” stance.^[17]

All of this could be perfectly true, and in fact mostly is. But it is all beside the point. No one in the press could think of something different, which happens to be ten times more obvious. Namely, that NATO has been carrying out aggression against Russia (constantly, up until the very present), and has been unilaterally rejecting a peace settlement .^[18]

Source: twitter.com

And in the same sense, a true Belarusian dissident would not use the counter-argument that it would be costly for Belarus, dangerous or divert its resources, when arguing against Belarus joining a military pact with Russia; rather, that it would mean joining an aggressive criminal organization—that is the problem. But naturally, stating this will elicit a stream of attacks and accusations in the West, and the argument itself causes only mental short circuit; it is psychologically impossible to comprehend, which is why the banal truism cannot be uttered even by the most radical critics. This is the ultimate achievement of thought control. I guess some just keep quiet, too, which all makes a good deal of sense. When the Party even hints at it, all must obey and join in the parades, or remain silent. Anything else is not worth it, or is simply too dangerous.

Others have other things to say, however. The CEO of Sweden’s largest polling company triumphed that “The discussion about the pros and cons of Membership has been lively.” True, there has been a lively debate, but all within Party doctrine.

It is also obvious that the whole question of formal NATO membership is more or less a PR-charade, but which is zealously debated, giving the required democratic guise of passionate and open discussion. The real world relationship between Swedish neutrality and the U.S./NATO was eloquently described by one of our most influential diplomats, Östen Undén, just two months before the creation of NATO in 1949: namely, he described “neutrality as a flawed and passé policy.” Furthermore, he went on to describe in a confidential meeting in September 1949 that this secret relation between Sweden and NATO “can’t be allowed to be expressed in public.”^[19]

These “direct contacts…with the heart of the Pentagon” (as one of the top military chiefs put it) were highly developed and systematic, and it was “therefore important that the knowledge about this partnership would be kept known only to a group as small as possible,” to quote one of the chiefs in the General Staff.^[20]Naturally, all of this had to be concealed and diverted from with a “religion” of neutrality, as former Prime Minister Ola Ullsten put it—which of course amounts to “a democratic catastrophe,” to use the words of political scientist Kjell Goldmann.^[21]

That continues up to the very present, in which “Sweden’s neutrality is more fiction than fact,” as Professor Emeritus in history, Harald Gustafsson, recently put it. The fact that Sweden “is more NATO than most NATO members” (The Economist, 2007), and that Sweden’s ties to NATO “on areas of defense and security never before has been stronger” as well as that “Sweden is a closer partner to NATO than even some of our NATO members are’” (as U.S. ambassador Ken Howery said over a year ago), have all had some obvious implications:^[22] Namely, that we have served as a NATO outpost, an “unsinkable aircraft carrier” as an American general once put it.^[23]

Thus, Sweden has for years enthusiastically been part of the rejectionist Western camp, explicitly participating in blocking a diplomatic settlement with Russia. The same goes for the constant participation in NATO war games next to Russia’s territory, receiving minimal reporting in the West—which is expected, since keeping to minimal honesty would give the entire game away.

I do not, however, insinuate that large-scale incursions do not occur—as opposed to the constant small-scale ones conducted with NATO attack and spy planes, or military ships, which “dwarf” those carried out by Russia toward the West, to quote the findings of a detailed report by ABC News.^[24] Just to name one example: During the summer of last year, Sweden participated in Operation Sea Breeze (one of NATO’s innumerable war games for 2021) together with 35 other countries from five different continents.

The warships were a couple of kilometers inside of Russian waters, and we know from leaked internal British documents that it was all planned and that they in fact expected a Russian “welcome party,” as they frankly and proudly put it—all while American military planes were “operating in and watching everything in the Black Sea region, as we always do,” which Navy Captain Wendy Snyder boasted.^[25] In short, we were behaving as an obedient satellite before any NATO formalisms.

This is the real issue: We are—and have been for a while—acting within an aggressive anti-diplomatic organization, and that can simply never be discussed. Now, however, the diversion of simply formalizing and ratifying previous policy, is being used as a remarkable tool of distraction and deceit, thus ignoring the central problem itself, even by those who should know better.

We do, however, get a more honest picture as to why we are formalizing the role of an “unsinkable aircraft carrier” in the elite business press—as is quite typical. Euphoric headlines read: “CEO sees opportunities in NATO membership”; “It is now booming” for the military industry; “To be part of NATO absolutely opens up a larger market to the NATO countries…where we can work together on sensitive stuff”, the country’s top military CEO pointed out. We should join NATO formally “with enthusiasm,” “enough talking,” since we will have “the biggest economy, defense industry,” etc., in northern Europe, as the leading national business guru cheers.^[26] “It’s time for victory” for the Industry after formal membership, reads another ecstatic headline.^[27]

The leading Finnish businessman, Mika Ihamuotila, told our business paper that “enormous costs would occur for Swedish investors and corporations if Sweden would not join NATO now,” and we would lose “hundreds of deals” if we “stayed outside of NATO” formally. He did not want to make it all too obvious what all the fuss is actually about, why he as a safety measure added at the very end that Putin “is like Hitler” and so on.^[28] To put it plainly: “There is a before and after February 24th for Swedish business.” “That Sweden joins NATO is attractive for business,” and not joining would mean that “Sweden risks losing direct investments and deals”—so let’s seize the opportunity that we now have.^[29]

Hence the enormous propaganda.

*

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.

Andi Olluri lives in western Sweden. He just turned 20 and is studying dietetics. Andi has been an activist since he was a young teenager. He can be reached at [email protected].

Notes

1. Dagens Industri, Maria Borelius, March 3. 

2. Dagens Nyheter, Alex Schulman, March 14. 
3. Ibid, Op-ed, March 17. 
4. Dagens Industri, P M Nilsson, March 25. 
5. Fokus, Johan Hakelius, March 7. 
6. Aftonbladet, Anders Lindberg, April 20;30. 
7. Dagens Industri, march 22. Quoting former ambassadeur Daine Janse and Gen. Maj. and former principal at the College of Defence, Karlis Neretnieks. 
8. Affärsvärlden, nr. 15-16, p. 19. 
9. As far as I’m aware, I am the only one who has covered this in detail in the Swedish press, and to some degree even so in comparison to the English-speaking press – Consortium News, Antiwar, QIRS, Counterpunch, Mint Press News etc. The overwhelming aggression carried out by NATO towards (for a short summary, see for example T. G. Carpenter’s text in Responsible Statecraft, December 14 2020), the outright rejection of multiple Russian peace offers, up until the present, which explicitly refer to adhering to “the UN charter” as well as appealing to “the UNSC” and calling on the West and Russia to “not regard each other as opponents” (the proposal from December 17:th last year) – all of this and other matters are discussed in detail in the texts I’ve published in Globalpolitics.se, between December last year and February this year. Also in my coming review of the current crisis. They are all written in Swedish, but I draw from English sources. 
10. Svenska Dagbladet, May 13. 
11. Dagens Industri, March 29. 
12. Dagens Nyheter, Niklas Ekdal, April 21. 
13. ETC, May 6. 
14. Svenska Dagbladet, Arne Larsson, April 14. 
15. Dagens Nyheter, S-E Liedman, April 20. For discussion, see footnote 9. 
16. Dala-Demokraten, Göran Greider, March 5. 
17. Dagens Nyheter, Björn Wiman, March 4. 
18. Once again, see footnote 9. 
19. Mikael Holmström, Den Dolda Alliansen, Atlantis (2011), p. 70f, 100. This 600-page book is the most authoritative scholarly work on the subject. 
20. Ibid, p. 220, 226. 
21. Ibid, p. 424, 432f. 
22. Svenska Dagbladet, Harald Gustafsson, May 4; Dagens Nyheter, December 23 2020. 
23. Holmström op. cit., p. 447. 
24. Carpenter op.cit. 
25. See for instance BBC, June 27 2021; Antiwar, June 30 2021 and Responsible Statecraft, Kellet Beaucar, June 27 2021. 
26. Dagens Industri, April 25 (P M Nilsson). 
27. Ibid, Torun Nilsson, May 6. 
28. Ibid, May 9. 

29. Ibid, Henrik Westman, May 13. 

Featured image is from azernews.a

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, Twitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

Death, remarked Gore Vidal about Truman Capote’s passing, was a good career move.  The novelist Saki also considered the good qualities of shuffling off the mortal coil.  “Waldo,” he writes in “The Feast of Nemesis”, “is one of those people who would be enormously improved by death.”  But what of those instances when death is foiled, the Grim Reaper cheated? 

Former US President George W. Bush has had the good fortune of facing such a foiling, though the claims remain fresh.  On May 24, Shihab Ahmed Shihab Shihab, an Iraqi national living in Columbus, Ohio, was arrested and charged with aiding and abetting the attempted murder of a former US official and charges of attempting to bring foreign nationals to the US.  The nationals in question are said to be affiliated with the Islamic State group.

According to court documents, the FBI foiled the alleged plot through using informants.  In November last year, Shihab is said to have told one of them that he “wished to kill former President Bush because they felt that he was responsible for killing many Iraqis and breaking apart the entire country of Iraq.”

In subsequent discussions with the informants, Shihab is alleged to have said how he “wanted to be involved in the actual attack and assassination of former President Bush and did not care if he died as he would be proud to have been involved in killing former President Bush.”  One may fault the intended outcome, but the historical reasoning behind the motive is hard to rebut.

A statement from Bush’s chief of staff Freddy Ford had the former president expressing “all the confidence in the world in the United States Secret Service and our law enforcement and intelligence communities.”

This would have caused a gasp from those in the intelligence community so wilfully maligned in the lead-up to the Iraq War in 2003.  The issue again surfaced in March 2019, when former White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer took to Twitter to wash his hands while dumping on those who had supplied the intelligence.  “There is a myth about the war that I have been meaning to set straight for years,” he began.  “After no WMDs [weapons of mass destruction] were found, the left claimed ‘Bush lied.  People died.’  This accusation is a lie.  It’s time to put it to rest.”

Unconvincingly, Fleischer proceeded to shift and spread blame, claiming both he and Bush “faithfully and accurately reported to the public what the intelligence community concluded.” He implicated the CIA and other intelligence services, including those of Egypt, France and Israel.  “We all turned out to be wrong.  That is very different from lying.”

Bush’s role in the Iraq War was again appraised in his May 19 speech on election integrity, when he enlivened his gaffe-strewn legacy with a momentous Freudian slip or, as John Fugelsang described it, “a Freudian confession”.  In referring to Vladimir Putin and Russia’s “absence of checks and balances”, Bush had something of a coming out moment: “the decision of one man to launch a wholly unjustified and brutal invasion of Iraq … I mean, of Ukraine.”  On realising his error, and no doubt hoping to strike a note of levity, he suggested, “Iraq, too” and pointing to age as an excuse (“Anyway, 75!”).

Guffawing followed and could only come across as ghoulishly telling about the predations of power and cant.  It was reminiscent of the light-hearted response to his cringeworthy performance at the 2004 White House Correspondents’ Dinner.  While narrating a slideshow featuring a picture of himself peering under furniture in the Oval Office, Bush could not resist quipping: “Those weapons of mass destruction have got to be here somewhere.”

David Corn, writing at the time for The Nation, found little reason to be amused.  “Before an audience of people who supposedly spend their days pursuing the truth, Bush joked about misstatements (if not lies) he had used to persuade (if not hornswoggle) the American people and the media.”

The same could be said about the Iraqi poet Sinan Antoon, who refused to partake in the merriment, however nervously expressed, by the audience gathered at the Southern Methodist University.  “Freudian slip about past massacres (of other barbarians) amuses audience,” he tweeted gloomily.  “All is well in the settler colony.”

All is certainly well for Bush, who, as absent-minded dauber, has undergone a rapid rehabilitation as elder statesman.  Little is mentioned these days of his culpable role in leading an invasion of a sovereign state that saw the deaths and maiming of hundreds of thousands, displacements, poisonings, and the destabilisation of the Middle East.  “When your guilty consciousness catch [sic] up with you and you end up confessing but no one cares to hold you to account,” observed Representative Ilhan Omar.

The Trump era aided the process of revision and cleansing, with traumatised Democrats and some notional progressives longing to return to the good times of the Bush imperium marked by illegal wars, warrantless surveillance and state sanctioned torture.

In 2019, Yale University, via a delegation of students who might have known better, bestowed upon Bush the Yale Undergraduate Lifetime Achievement Award.  The decision to select the former president as the recipient was drawn from a vote by over 1,000 students, suggesting that collective amnesia is rife.  In a statement, Bush acknowledged the role played by the university in shaping him, expressing pride in joining the ranks of Anderson Cooper, Maya Lin and Jodie Foster, concluding with the triumphant, “Boola Boola!”

With Shihab’s arrest, Bush can draw upon a well of sympathy by claiming that Freedom’s Land had, at the very least, a president worthy of being the target of an alleged assassination plot.  But in prosecuting a man nursing a grievance over the role played by Bush in perpetrating the destruction of his homeland, another brutal invasion will receive some renewed attention, if only briefly.

*

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: George W. Bush declares victory in Iraq War, USS Abraham Lincoln, San Diego, May 1, 2003

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, Twitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

This Zoom call with Dr David E Martin and a group of Canadian scientists and activists was uploaded to Rumble on May 17, 2022 and it is a hard-hitting and concise summary of the legal tack that he’s taking against the COVID Genocide and of the status of Dr Martin’s lawsuits against the primary individuals responsible.

I’ve made numerous hyperlinks to the entities and the legal filings that he describes.

Transcript

“For those not familiar with the work, you can go to ProsecuteNow.com and…you will see the Utah Federal Case that we have filed against the President, against CMS and against the Department of Health and Human Services.

“If you want to understand why we refuse to use the term, ‘vaccination’, that’s the reason why, so go to ProsecuteNow.com. There, you’ll also see the summary of litigation and you’ll also see the draft indictment.

What I can say is that we have three different law enforcement agencies who, in fact are working with us right now on the development of the very first criminal indictment against one of the sociopaths that architected this global campaign of terror and you will be hearing more about that between now and the 22nd of May. The crime is coming.

“And if you haven’t read the Utah filing, please do, it is extremely, extremely important and obviously, some of you are aware that… Leslie Manookian hired me and George [Wentz] – to build the case that ultimately led to the Florida decision that removed masks from airplanes.

“So we have the first win, which obviously, is now benefitting everybody who ever has to be in a plane and we are now in the middle of the preliminary injunction phase of the Utah case against CMS.

“I wanted to lean heavily into the Canadian side of this question – but I want to make sure that we stipulate something out of the gate:

“This is not a public health situation, this is not even a science situation. And while I appreciate the public health people and the scientists who love to talk about the nuance of this, it is like commenting on the merits of firearms at a shooting.

“This is a case of murder. It is not a case of disease, it is not a case of pandemic, this is a case of murder and the people currently doing delivery of the agent of that murder are, in fact, people who wear lab coats. If they wore anything else, if they wore hoodies, if they wore anything else, we’d call them ‘murderers’. Right now, we call them ‘doctors’.

“The fact of the matter is, this is premeditated global terrorism. This is premeditated domestic terrorism and this is premeditated racketeering.

“And the reason why I say that is because the evidence is that Canada and the United States collaborated – and specifically, during the gain-of-function moratorium.

“So for those of you who actually don’t understand the dynamics of this, the weaponization of the spike protein associated with WIV1, which is the Wuhan Institute of Virology Virus 1, which was sampled from China, reportedly between 2011 and 2013, which was replicated at the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill in 2013 and ’14, which was the subject of the moratorium on the gain-of-function research, where Anthony Fauci said to Ralph Baric at the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill in October of 2014, that while, in fact there was a gain-of-function moratorium, his work on the weaponization of the Wuhan Institute of Virology virus spike protein was able to go on because, I quote, ‘He had already been funded,’ end quote.

“And this study, which was done in vivo, resulted in two papers: One, in 2015 and one, in 2016, both stating that the Wuhan Institute of Virology Virus 1 [WIV1] spike protein, targeting endothelial tissue, targeting lung tissue, targeting kidney tissue; he stated that it was – and I’m quoting: ‘Poised for human emergence.’

“So anyone who wants to sit here and pretend like this is anything other than premeditated murder is actually watching freight cars roll across Germany and wondering where neighbors are going.

“The fact is that there is no question, whatsoever that this was a premeditated act of murder.

“And for those of you that have not heard it, I will not get on a show without reciting the evidence: In March of 2015, Peter Daszak, the chief architect of the deployment of this particular campaign of terror, along with Anthony Fauci and Ralph Baric, Peter Daszak made the following statement:

‘To sustain the funding base beyond the crisis, we need to increase the public understanding of the need for medical countermeasures, such as a pan-influenza or a pan-coronavirus vaccine. A key driver is the media and the economics will follow the hype.

‘We need to use that hype to our advantage to get to the real issues. Investors will respond if they see profit at the end of the process.’

“If you think this is an issue that has anything to do with a virus spreading in a pandemic, you are delusional. This is a premeditated crime. They announced the crime in 2015 and conveniently, the Government of Canada entered into an agreement with the distribution of the lethal agent in 2015.

“And specifically, that was Thomas Madden, that was Pieter Cullisand Ian MacLachlan, who at the University of British Columbia developed a lipid nanoparticle that was required to first, demonstrate the ability to actually do what was called ‘gene silencing’ in monkeys and then, took that technology, after a lawsuit, which was a $65 million lawsuit – the settlement of that lawsuit in 2012 – and for those in Canada, look up that lawsuit – it was the lawsuit between Protiva, Tekmira, AlCana Therapeutics and the University of British Columbia.

“After the $65 million settlement was paid in that particular case in 2015, AlCana Therapeutics, owned by Thomas Madden and Pieter Cullis sub-licensed the lipid nanoparticle technology to Moderna for the development of an mRNA vaccine during the gain-of-function moratorium, in violation of US and Canadian law.

“Because it’s illegal in Canada to support and make an agent which enables the delivery of a biological weapon. That’s actually illegal in Canada and it’s illegal to develop and aid in the development of a biological weapon in the United States.

“Those are Felony Violations of two parts of the Criminal Code of the United States: 18 US Code §2339, which is conspiring to commit acts of terrorism and 18 US Code §175, funding and creating a biological weapon.

“The fact of the matter is AlCana, Acuitas and the University of British Columbia, together with Moderna are, in fact guilty of Felony Violations of 18 US Code §175 and that Felony Violation took place in 2015 – specifically, during the gain-of-function moratorium.

“Any law enforcement official who is actually doing anything in support of Trudeau is aiding and abetting the criminal acts of the Government Canada, the criminal acts of the University of British Columbia and the criminal acts of Acuitas, AlCana and its principals, Thomas Madden and Pieter Cullis.

“So, lest we sit here and pretend to stand on ceremony, the fact of the matter is, it does not matter what clinical trials have or haven’t been done. That’s like debating the merits of copper when a bullet is in a corpse. That is a foolish exercise.

“What we need to be doing is focusing all of our efforts single-handedly and directly on the criminal prosecution of terrorists who have now aided and abetted in the murder of millions.

“And just to put a fine point on this thing: Ralph Baric at the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill, in addition to being the architect of the spike protein weaponized to destroy humanity also holds patent interest in the invention of Remdesivir, which was known in its clinical trials in the early 2000s to be lethal when used in patients for a number of other pathogens.

“And willfully and knowingly distributing an agent that is, in fact known to be harmful and fatal to humans is Premeditated Murder.

“And the fact that all of the governments inside the earshot of who’s listening right now have adopted the Remdesivir protocol and have adopted the acceptance of the narrative that this is, in fact some sort of variation of coronavirus, the fact of the matter is neither are the case.

“This is, in fact a bioweapon delivered by a carrier agent developed by the Government of Canada – and given that Pfizer-Biontech and Moderna both pay royalties to Canadian interests, every single shot administered from Pfizer or from Moderna involve license fees that flow back to the Government of Canada.

“So this is racketeering at the highest level and the Canadian government is complicit and guilty of racketeering and conspiring to fund the commission of acts of terror…

“We have to focus on the crime that’s being committed, we have to put our efforts on that crime and 100% of what I’m doing is making sure that the entire world knows that anybody who actually promotes a narrative that says that there is a novel disease, anyone who promotes the narrative that says there’s a novel pathogen – and any lawyer who stipulates that there are either of those things – is as complicit as Trudeau and Fauci.

“It’s time that we draw a line in the sand and say, ‘We the People will not stand for the domestic and international terrorism that is being done in the name of health.’”

*

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

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, Twitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

President Recep Tayyip Erdogan announced on May 23 a new military operation in northern Syria to establish a 30-kilometer-wide zone of Turkish occupation.  Erdogan terms the proposed action as a counterterrorism operation, with details to be announced in the next National Security Council meeting. Turkey views the US-sponsored Kurdish People’s Defense Units (YPG) and their allied militia, Syrian Defense Forces (SDF), as brother-in-arms with the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK).  The US sponsorship and support of the SDF and YPG has angered Turkey for years and has created tension between Washington and Ankara who were at one time seen as close allies, and both are members of NATO.

Turkey has for years targeted Kurdish militias in Syria and northern Iraq.  The US is also occupying parts of northeast Syria, which they characterize as anti-ISIS operations, but in reality, are anti-Turkish and anti-Syrian operations in support of the US-sponsored Kurdish militias.

Ankara has conducted three military incursions into northern Syria since 2016, seizing hundreds of kilometers of land and pushing some 30 deep into the country.  During the US-NATO attack on Syria beginning in March 2011, Turkey along with the US, UK, France, Germany, and the oil-rich monarchies of the Gulf supported and financed the Radical Islamic terrorists used as foot-soldiers in Syria during the Obama administration.

The conflict in Syria has died out since 2019 into the current stalemate with only Idlib under Al Qaeda control and protected by Turkish military outposts.

The US warns Turkey

Ned Price, the US State Department spokesperson, came out strongly against Erdogan’s proposed new military operation on May 24, saying any new offensive in northern Syria would undermine regional stability and put US troops at risk.

“We are deeply concerned about reports and discussions of potential increased military activity in northern Syria, and in particular, its impact on the civilian population there,” Price said, and added, “We condemn any escalation. We support the maintenance of the current ceasefire lines.”

The Biden administration wants to maintain the stalemate in Syria, which prevents the Syrian population from recovering or rebuilding after 11 years of armed conflict.  The US policy is to keep Syria and Lebanon in chaos to weaken their resistance to the Israeli occupation.

The Syrian government’s response

On May 25, the foreign ministry of Syria stated that it would consider any Turkish military incursions into its territory as “war crimes and crimes against humanity.”

Damascus sees the incursions as a violation of the country’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, and sent a letter to the United Nations secretary-general and the Security Council, describing Turkey’s actions as illegitimate.

Before the 2011 conflict began, Syria and Turkey were close allies and had a free-trade and visa-free travel policy between the two neighbors which share a huge border.  Turkey signed on to a US-NATO-directed attack for regime change which failed.  During the conflict, Turkey hosted terrorists from around the world as a transit hub for terrorists arriving on their way by land into Syria from the Turkish border.  The international terrorists were from the US, Western Europe, and Australia as well as from Arab nations.  Most were followers of Al Qaeda and ISIS.

Syria is in economic collapse, as US-EU sanctions have destroyed the economy, and have thrown the population into poverty, but the sanctions have not affected the Syrian government, causing economists to question the role of US Congressional approved sanctions.

Who are the PKK, SDF, and YPG?

The US and NATO view the PKK as a terrorist group but support the SDF and YPG.  This has caused friction between the US and EU with Turkey.

The PKK has killed thousands of people in Turkey over decades of terrorism.  The PKK is a communist armed terrorist group that is aligned with the US-sponsored SDF and YPG.

Amid the chaos of conflict in Syria, the Kurds took up arms and cleared the northeast of Syria of Arabs in an ethnic cleansing operation at gun point.  Hundreds of thousands of Syrian Arabs were made homeless in the process, which set up a socialist administration in the northeast.  When the US decided to militarily invade Syria to fight ISIS and put US soldiers on the ground, the Pentagon aligned with the socialist SDF and YPG, who are aligned with the PKK communists. The Pentagon was willing to support and defend those terrorists because they were acting as mercenaries for the US.

Domestically, the US labels communists and socialists as un-American, but the US government will freely align with them as long as it serves the American military interest.

New houses for Syrian refugees

Speaking by video link at the inauguration of new cement block homes in northern Syria, Erdogan announced his plan to remove Syrian refugees from inside Turkey, and settle them on Turkish-occupied lands in northern Syria.  More than 57,000 out of 77,000 planned homes in Idlib Province have been completed and now house 50,000 families, he said.  Erdogan’s proposed safe zone is to feature 100,000 homes, and ultimately have enough homes to house all the millions of Syrian refugees in Turkey.

The occupation settlement will have schools and hospitals administered by Turkey on Syrian land. Turkey took in more Syrian refugees than any other country and has reported that about 500,000 Syria have returned to Syria since 2016, with some voluntary, and some through forced deportations.

Turkish hatred against Syrian refugees

Turkey is experiencing a serious economic crisis which has seen its currency devalued and high inflation.  In response to their domestic troubles, the Turkish people have collectively pointed an accusing finger at the Syrian refugees. Widespread anger has been directed at Syrian refugees who are being used as scapegoats.

Turkish social media has gone viral with hate-filled posts, and a recent video developed by Umit OzDag, a far-right member of Parliament, has been viewed by millions.  A growing segment of the Turkish population blames all their woes on the Syrian refugees and wants them gone.

The Turkish Ottoman administration carried out the very first genocide in history against the Armenians and Christians.  The Turkish are not Arabs and have a culture of deep-seated racial prejudice against all who are not ethnically Turks.

The EU paid billions of dollars to Erdogan to keep the Syrian refugees and prevent them from migrating to Europe to seek asylum.

Turkey and NATO

Erdogan holds the decision to allow or disbar, Finland and Sweden’s application for NATO membership.  Both countries have harbored and protected Kurdish activists, who Turkey deems terrorists linked to the PKK and other extremist groups.  To the west in general, the Kurdish issue, and their struggle to establish a homeland on stolen land  has been favorably regarded and terrorists are often called ‘freedom fighters’ by the west.

With the NATO enlargement in the hands of Erdogan, he sees his opportunity to demand Finland and Sweden stop their support of the Kurdish activists and those connected to SDF, YPG, and PKK.

Turkey is demanding that NATO stop supporting terrorists while claiming to provide security for member states.  This will be a departure from past support of Radical Islamic terrorists who were the US-NATO’s boots on the ground in Syria.  The question will be, can NATO stop supporting Kurdish terrorists while the US is partnered with them in Syria?  Is NATO a group representing all members, or only a puppet in the hands of the US?

*

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 Mideast Discourse.

Steven Sahiounie is a two-time award-winning journalist. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from MD

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate 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, Twitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

Millions of Palestinians live under Israel’s system of apartheid. At the heart of this violently racist system, is the Palestinian experience of being denied a home.

For over 73 years, Israel has forcibly displaced entire Palestinian communities and demolished hundreds of thousands of Palestinians’ homes, causing terrible trauma and suffering. Over six million Palestinians remain as refugees and, as you are reading this email, at least another 150,000 are at risk of losing their homes.

“My plan was for [my children] to have a warm family home close to their loved ones and family members. Now I’m passing on the memories of their first childhood home being destroyed” – Mohammed Al-Rajabi, a resident of Al-Bustan area in Silwan

Israel created and maintains laws, policies, and practices that deliberately oppress Palestinians and enforce Jewish Israeli domination across Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories (OPT). These laws, policies and practices include racist seizures of property and rules about planning that make it impossible for many Palestinians to build homes.

Palestinians are caught in a Catch-22 situation. Israel requires them to obtain a permit to build or even erect a structure such as a tent, but rarely issues them a permit. Many Palestinians are forced to build without permits. Israel then demolishes Palestinian homes on the basis that they were built “illegally”.

Take action against demolitions and forced evictions now by writing to Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett. Click here.

Apartheid is a crime against humanity and is committed with the specific intent of maintaining a cruel system of control by one racial group over another. Every week, the Israeli authorities displace Palestinians through demolitions or forced evictions, which demonstrates how Israel deliberately disadvantages Palestinians, giving them inferior status to Israeli Jews.

In March – one month after Amnesty’s ground breaking report Israel’s Apartheid against Palestinians: Cruel System of Domination and Crime against Humanity — the United Nations Special Rapporteur on human rights in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, Michael Lynk, submitted a report to the Human Rights Council also concluding that the situation in the OPT amounts to apartheid.

With more stories coming to light and more people around the world mobilizing against these injustices, now is the time for us to work together. As a first step, we must speak out for Palestinians living under Israel’s apartheid. We have the power to demolish this system, one pillar at a time.

*

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 Palestinian Information Center

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, Twitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

“There is really no true solution to the problem of global food security without bringing back the agriculture production of Ukraine and the food and fertilizer production of Russia and Belarus into world markets despite the war.” These blunt words by UN Secretary-General António Guterres accurately describe the present global food crisis.

As the U.S. and the G7 (comprising Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom, and the United States) insist that cutting off food exports from Ukraine poses the biggest threat to world food security, rather than admitting the far more powerful negative effect of Western sanctions against Russia, their propaganda does immense damage to the world’s understanding and capability of avoiding a looming global food disaster.

The G7 and the Approaching Food Disaster

Looking at the world food supply situation, many experts see an imminent threat of “human catastrophe,” as World Bank President David Malpass put it. Andrew Bailey, the governor of the Bank of England, characterized his outlook on global food supply problems as “apocalyptic” when discussing increasing food prices. This rise has led to the unfolding of two issues simultaneously: creating the threat of hunger and famine in parts of the Global South, and hitting living standards in every country across the globe.

Even before rapid price rises surrounding the Ukraine war, more than 800 million people were suffering from chronic food insecurity—around 10 percent of the world’s population. U.S. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen cited this fact while speaking to the participants of an April 2022 event, “Tackling Food Insecurity: The Challenge and Call to Action,” whose participants included the heads of international financial institutions such as the World Bank’s Malpass. Yellen also noted, “Early estimates suggest that at least 10 million more people could be pushed into poverty in Sub-Saharan Africa due to higher food prices alone.” The World Food Program (WFP) plans “to feed a record 140 million people this year,” and it reports that “at least 44 million people in 38 countries are teetering on the edge of famine,” an increase from 27 million in 2019.

In countries facing other problems, like climate change, food price increases have been catastrophic. For example, in Lebanon, “the cost of a basic food basket—the minimum food needs per family per month—[rose]… by 351 percent” in 2021 compared to 2020, according to the WFP.

In the Global North, famine is not a threat, but the populations of these countries face a sharp squeeze on their living standards as the global food crisis also raises the prices people in wealthy countries have to pay and budget for. In the United States, for example, the combination of high inflation and economic slowdown led to a 3.4 percent reduction in real average weekly earnings in the last year, as per data provided by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Fake Analysis by the G7 About the Reasons for the Food Crisis

Faced with this rapidly rising threat of the deepening food crisis, the G7 foreign ministers met from May 12 to May 14 to finally focus their attention on this pressing matter. They issued a statement on May 13 expressing “deep concern” about the growing food insecurity, while pointing out the next day that “the world is now facing a worsening state of food insecurity and malnutrition… at a time when 43 million people were already one step away from famine.”

But the G7 falsely claimed that the reason for this food crisis was primarily due to “Russia blocking the exit routes for Ukraine’s grain.” According to Canada’s foreign minister, Mélanie Joly: “We need to make sure that these cereals are sent to the world. If not, millions of people will be facing famine.”

Sanctions and the Global Food Crisis

This G7 statement deliberately misrepresented the present global food crisis. Instead of attempting to solve this crisis, the U.S. and the rest of the G7 used this opportunity to further their propaganda on the Ukraine war.

Certainly, Ukraine’s export restrictions make the global food problem worse. But it is not the main cause of the deteriorating situation. A much more powerful cause is Western sanctions imposed on Russia’s exports.

The first reason for this is that Russia is a far bigger exporter of essential food items and other products in comparison to Ukraine. Russia is the world’s largest wheat exporter, accounting for almost three times as much of world exports as Ukraine, 18 percent compared to 7 percent.

Second, and even more important, is the situation with fertilizers. Russia is the world’s largest fertilizer exporter, and Belarus, which is also facing Western sanctions, is also a major supplier—together they account for more than 20 percent of the global supply. Fertilizer prices were already rising before the Ukraine war due to high fuel prices—fertilizer production relies heavily on natural gas—but sanctions by the West, which prevent Russia from exporting fertilizers, have made the situation worse.

David Laborde, a senior research fellow at the International Food Policy Research Institute, pointed out that “the biggest threat the food system is facing is the disruption of the fertilizer trade.” This is because, he said: “Wheat will impact a few countries. The fertilizer issue can impact every farmer everywhere in the world, and cause declines in the production of all food, not just wheat.”

The threat to global fertilizer supply illustrates how energy products are an essential input into virtually all economic sectors. As Russia is one of the world’s largest exporters not only of food but also of energy, sanctions against the country have a knock-on inflationary effect across the entire world economy.

Response in the Global South

This world food supply situation worsened further after the G7 meeting when on May 14, India, the world’s second-largest wheat producer, announced that it was halting wheat exports due to crop losses caused by an intense heat wave. Already in April Indonesia had announced that it was ending palm oil exports—Indonesia accounts for 60 percent of the world supply.

India’s halt of wheat exports will be a further severe blow to countries in the Global South, where its exports are mostly focused. In 2021-2022, India exported 7 million metric tons of wheat, primarily to Asian Global South countries such as Sri Lanka, Indonesia, Yemen, Nepal, Malaysia, the Philippines, and Bangladesh. But India had earlier set a target of expanding wheat exports to 10 million tons in 2022-2023, including supplying 3 million tons of wheat to Egypt for the first time.

Ending Sanctions to Prevent Worsening of the Food Crisis

The unfolding situation makes clear that António Guterres’ words were indeed accurate—the world food crisis cannot be solved without both Ukraine’s exports and Russia’s exports of food and fertilizer. Without the latter, humanity does indeed face a “catastrophe”—billions of people will have to lower their living standards, and hundreds of millions of people in the Global South will face great hardship like hunger or worse. Almost every Global South country rightly refused to support the unilateral U.S. sanctions against Russia. This refusal needs to be extended to the whole world to prevent further devastation.

*

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 Globetrotter.

John Ross is a senior fellow at Chongyang Institute for Financial Studies, Renmin University of China. He is also a member of the international No Cold War campaign organizing committee. His writing on the Chinese and U.S. economies and geopolitics has been published widely online, and he is the author of two books published in China, Don’t Misunderstand China’s Economy and The Great Chess Game. His most recent book is China’s Great Road: Lessons for Marxist Theory and Socialist Practices(1804 Books, 2021). He was previously director of economic policy for the mayor of London.

Featured image is Stock File/Pressenza

Elon Musk, l’uomo più ricco del mondo il cui patrimonio si è quasi decuplicato nei due anni di pandemia, ha offerto 44 miliardi di dollari per acquistare Twitter che, a quanto dice, diverrebbe “la piattaforna per la libertà di parola in tutto il mondo”. Elon Musk possiede la SpaceX, azienda aerospaziale con sede in California. 

La SpaceX costruisce razzi e satelliti per realizzare Starlink, sistema Internet a banda larga che, una volta ultimato, coprirà il mondo intero. SpaceX, che ha finora messo in orbita 2.500 satelliti con razzi che ne trasportano 50 alla volta, ha in programma di collocare 42.000 satelliti Starlink in orbita bassa, occupando l’80% di questo spazio. 

Starlink, presentato quale sistema satellitare commerciale, ha fondamentali applicazioni militari. I satelliti in orbita bassa trasmettono infatti i segnali a velocità molto maggiore di quelli in orbita geosincrona attorno all’Equatore. L’esercito e l’aeronautica statunitensi finanziano e testano Starlink per usarne le capacità militari. Ad esempio, lo scorso marzo, la US Air Force ha comunicato che i caccia F-35A a duplice capacità convenzionale e nucleare avevano effettuato la trasmissione di dati utilizzando i satelliti Startlink con velocità 30 volte più veloci delle connessioni tradizionali.

I satelliti Starlink della SpaceX vengono già usati dall’esercito ucraino per guidare droni, proiettili di artiglieria e missili contro le postazioni russe.  Lo conferma il generale Dickinson, capo del Comando spaziale USA, il quale ha dichiarato al Senato che “la Starlink di Elon Musk dimostra in Ucraina cosa possono fare le megacostellazioni di satelliti”. La SpaceX di Elon Musk fa parte del gruppo dei dieci maggiori operatori satellitari commerciali che collaborano col Comando spaziale USA nella base spaziale militare di Vandenberg in California. 

Manlio Dinucci 

 

LIBRO

LA GUERRA    

E’ IN GIOCO LA NOSTRA VITA

https://store.byoblu.com/prodotto/la-guerra-e-in-gioco-la-nostra-vita/

 

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, Twitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

First published on May 24, 2022

The Davos World Economic Forum (WEF) opened officially its 51^st Forum today, 23 May 2022. Klaus Schwab invited Ukraine’s President, Volodymyr Zelenskyy to give the opening speech. The Key Note for the WEF, so to speak. Zelenskyy spoke on video from somewhere in Ukraine, in his traditional military green brown shirt. He spoke with his by now well-known demanding, rather than asking, in rather shrewd language.

First, the west received a little-bit of Zelenskyy’s praise for supporting Ukraine with money, weapons and NATO advisors to fight Russia, in most everybody’s Davos-mind, the aggressor. But that’s not enough. Then came the hammer, Zelenskyy asked for more. For much more, money, weapons – sophisticated weapons – billions and billions more. To fight Russia.

One wonders, how a country like Ukraine can absorb all the billions – they already received or will receive, say the US$ 40 billion additional Biden-allocated funds, plus all the billions and billions from others, from the European Union, and from individual EU members. Who keeps counting?

And what with the sophisticated weapons, for which Ukraine doesn’t even have trained military specialists who know how to use and operate them? No matter. Nobody asks, nobody counts. Nobody cares.

This man, Zelenskyy, after begging, no – requesting – more money and more killing instruments, he demanded more sanctions on Russia, total oil-gas embargoes, cutting off Russia totally from the international payment system.

Aside from the West’s starving and freezing and economically breaking down which is already in the cards with the current sanctions, if the West would comply with the SWIFT cut-off demand (SWIFT = international payment system) – they would forego payments of Russian debt and outstanding bills, more shooting themselves in their own feet, or worse.

Zelenskyy presented an aggressive wish-list, that only spoke of more violence, more death, more misery, more killing, not a single word of Peace, of mediation, of seeking an armistice agreement, of asking for WEF’s help with Peace Negotiations.

Nothing. Zilch. Zero wish reconciliation. Just more war, more destruction. More poverty and we know, more often than not behind the scene, or not even so much covered-up CORRUPTION. Sorry, it has to be said: Ukraine is known, has been known way before the war for corruption, as well as trading in children, women, organs and drugs.

Where do you think all the billions go?

The country has an economy so weak, so destroyed – even long before the war – that cannot even constructively absorb one billion – dollars or euros, doesn’t matter.

But now comes another hammer. Once Zelenskyy finished his “plaidoyer”, he got a standing ovation.

I repeat – a pure, open, totally undisguised war-monger receives from the WEF-elite crowd a standing ovation. It can’t be blindness by these luminaries. It must be political. It must be the underlaying tenets of political and physical destruction – of diving further into darkness to destroy life as we know it – to destroy our very civilization.

That’s the goal of the few, who believe they will live luxuriously, when everything is digitized, including the human brain of the surviving masses; they dream living in more luxury, in more abundance — no words are strong enough to describe this self-styled elite crowd’s arrogance, private-jet climate change fraudsters, so-called 4^th Revolutionaries.

Wouldn’t you think, that the WEF’s wealth-celebrities, these enormous power brokers who control conservatively estimated some US$ 25 trillion of the world’s assets and literally about 90% of the world’s industry and food manufacturers, not to speak about weapons, both, in the form of guns and pharmaceuticals, would be interested in ending this war for the sake of preventing it becoming an all-destructive nuclear confrontation, a potential annihilation of civilization, as we know it?

If Zelenskyy wanted peace, peace and reconstruction of his country for the people of Ukraine, wouldn’t he ask the WEF and its illustrious attendants for help in establishing Peace?

Or, if Zelenskyy does not have a spirit of Peace, wouldn’t you expect that the inventor and eternal Chairman of the WEF, Professor Dr. Klaus Schwab, would have the inspiration to suggest Peace, to his scholar, Zelenskyy, as well as the WEF’s followers, the richest of the rich?

The WEF and its associates would have the power – the money power, the political power and the sheer lime-light power to achieve Peace, to help moderate between Russia and Ukraine, to recognize Russia’s worries, to admit to the west’s broken Minsk II Agreement, the promises vis-à-vis Russia, at least since 1991 – and even before, during the time of the Soviet Union – of no NATO expansion east of Berlin.

All with the foresight of PEACE. The WEF could do it.

Why does the WEF not lead such an initiative, bringing along all its wealthy and influential supporters to make the world a Place of Peace — to finish wars, this Ukraine war and all future wars?

This would be clearly in the power of influence of the WEF.

Instead, they give Zelenskyy, who seeks weapons instead of peace, a standing ovation.

What does that say for the WEF, for its members, for the entire western world – and for the WEF’s own stated objectives: To Make the World a Better Place?

Indeed, after Zelenskyy’s demands, already the EU, plus 20 countries have committed themselves to deliver more weapons, more money to Ukraine. In other words, to prolong the war, the misery the destruction, the floods of refugees. A lot of that money goes into private pockets.

The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) estimates that by now some 6.4 million Ukrainians fled their country. But not all to the West. Some actually to Russia. But they are not counted. Not by the west.

*

Back to the WEF – wouldn’t it be a reasonable appeal to the WEF, the self-proclaimed “good-doer” of the world, to do good for humanity, stop this war, stop all wars, stop digitizing the globe and people into humanoids, or transhumans?

With all the financial resources you control, Dr. Professor Klaus Schwab, and all your wealthy WEF supporters – not least your host country, Switzerland, a peace-loving country, that spends hundreds of millions in helping you organize and police-and-militarily protect your Davos events year-after-year-after-year – you could help make the world a peaceful place.

Something to think about, while your “partner-in-crime”, the World Health Organization (WHO), has started almost at the same time – on 22 May – there are no coincidences, its 75^th World Health Assembly to debate making WHO the World Health Tyrant, overruling all 194 member countries national sovereignties, with a so-called “Pandemic Treaty” that would bestow WHO with absolute powers to decide over the definition of pandemics, on behalf of Big Pharma and Big Money.

WHO could literally declare wantonly pandemics when it suits the world elite. They would have the power to decide, where what type of pandemic has broken out, what measures need to be taken, and for how long.

They would have unilateral power to declare lockdowns, forced vaxxes, travel bans, mandatory vaxx certificates – the entire package.

This they could all do in close collaboration with GAVI, the Gates created Vaxx Alliance, housed just next door to WHO in Geneva.

And all based on total, absolute control, à la Bill Gates’ ID2020, using as instrument the infamous QR code (QR =Quick response), a Trojan horse, that has already infiltrated every corner of our lives for absolute control of each one of the surviving populations, today some 7.9 billion.

To expand on Henry Kissinger’s infamous statements: “Who controls the food supply controls the people; who controls the energy can control whole continents; who controls money can control the world;” you may add: “Who controls health, decides over Life and Death”. It perfectly fits the elite’s eugenist agenda.

More than 100 years ago, the visionary Rudolf Steiner (1861–1925) has already hinted at what evil will beset the world, and our spirits.

The philosopher, Rudolf Steiner, had foreseen the “vaxx craze” that people would be subjected to, so as to demolish our soul, soon after we were born, so as to overrule our natural immune system, so that we will depend on a soulless pharma culture, so as to be unable to develop a conscience and “to make the etheric body loose in the physical body” – see insert.

After implementation of UN Agenda 2030, and / or the WEF’s Great Reset, and the 4^th Industrial Revolution – all synonymous – committed to depopulation, We, the People, must crawl out from under our “cognitive dissonance”, wake up and stop it, stopping it in Solidarity is the only way.

Freedom doesn’t come for free.

We have to fight for it.

What does it take to get the WEF on the peoples’ side?

We the people have the power to abandon the world of the WEF, to develop alternative methods of living, outside of the Globalist Matrix.

We might jump forward into the past, when many of societies favored economic models according to “local production for local consumption, with local sovereign, economy-backed money, while trading according to the principles of comparative advantage – aiming at win-win situations for all partners.”

A vast majority of the populations around the globe would favor national political sovereignty and cultural and economic independence over a Globalist world, over a One World Governance, or what that may become a One World Tyranny.

This shall not happen.

Just believe in, and meditate:

We the People want Peace.

We the People, are of the Light.

We the People, shall overcome!

*

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.

Peter Koenig is a geopolitical analyst and a former Senior Economist at the World Bank and the World Health Organization (WHO), where he worked for over 30 years around the world. He lectures at universities in the US, Europe and South America. He writes regularly for online journals and is the author of Implosion – An Economic Thriller about War, Environmental Destruction and Corporate Greed; and  co-author of Cynthia McKinney’s book “When China Sneezes: From the Coronavirus Lockdown to the Global Politico-Economic Crisis” (Clarity Press – November 1, 2020).

Peter is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG). He is also is a non-resident Senior Fellow of the Chongyang Institute of Renmin University, Beijing.

Featured image is a screenshot from the video

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, 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 Instagram, Twitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

First published on May 26, 2022

***

When a disturbed teenager or adult commits mass murder it has nothing to do with liberty. Yet, since the weapon is usually a gun, many people in the US essentially respond that the freedom to be armed is more important that the right to be safe. In fact, millions claim that being armed is the only way to be safe. Like most arguments against gun control, it’s cruel and illogical.

For decades now, leaders of gun rights groups have made the same case. They claim, for example, that the only thing separating Americans from people living in dictatorships is their unrestricted access to weapons. If the government has all the guns, they say, attacks against defenseless citizens will become as common in the US as they are in oppressed countries. This is one of the reasons why gun owners oppose the banning of so-called assault rifles.

Does this sound familiar? It certainly should. The same argument is still being made today by those who say nothing can be done to stop mass shootings like the recent ones in Texas and upstate New York. They also warn that only way to prevent a police state here, which many people claim is on the verge of happening, is to allow the wide and unregulated distribution of all sorts of weapons.

This idea, which assumes that any regulation is the first step toward confiscation, represents a paranoid and individualist mentality that for decades has dominated debate about gun violence in the US. We are free, the argument goes, only as long as we can defend ourselves with guns, not only against criminals but also against the law and the State.

A related argument is that the federal government should not be allowed to regulate guns; this is a matter best left to states. And if a state wants to do nothing, perhaps because the gun lobby can defeat candidates who back even modest reforms, or because the crime rate isn’t soaring or no mass shootings have recently occurred, people in neighboring states must simply spend more money to crack down on crime and violence. It’s just the price of freedom.

Such positions are based on the notion that government should not meddle in the affairs of individuals. Guns aren’t the problem, opponents add, it’s people — in other words, human nature. But most homicides in the US are committed with guns; in other words, people with guns kill more people than those without them.

There are 393 million privately owned firearms in this country — up almost 100 million in the last ten years. Use by children has also increased, as has the stockpiling of exotic weapons by extreme groups and criminal organizations. Three-in-ten American adults say they currently own a gun, and another 11 percent say they don’t personally own a gun but live with someone who does.

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

a

***

“For me it was never about money, but solving problems for the future of humanity.”

– Elon Musk [1]

LISTEN TO THE SHOW

Click to download the audio (MP3 format)

On May 23, Oxfam International released the latest study examining how the COVID-19 pandemic affected the distribution of wealth worldwide. The results were alarming, and for people with any sense of fairness, out and out infuriating:

• Billionaires increased their wealth as much in the last 24 months as it normally does in 23 years!
• As many as 263 million people could be pushed into extreme poverty this year.
• The world’s billionaires saw their collective wealth increase by $12.7 trillion (42%) during the pandemic.
• The richest 10 men possess more wealth than the poorest 40% of humanity combined.
• Elon Musk could lose 99% of his wealth and would still be among the top 0.0001% of the world’s richest people. Since 2019, his wealth increased by 699%.
• The incomes of 99% of humanity fell because of the pandemic, with 125 full-time jobs lost in 2021.
• total billionaire wealth currently stands at 13.9% of Global Gross Domestic Product, up from 4.4% in 2020. [2]

With the event recently passed known as May Day, the International Workers’ Day, commemorating the efforts and victories of the working class and the labour movement, and celebrated in over 80 countries around the world, these developments in recent years is hardly cause to gloat!

Moreover, new struggles have confronted the workers while the elites are dominating the gains. The fourth industrial revolution, artificial intelligence, ad a whole gamut of new technologies seem to have given the tech lords an edge.

In a March 2021 Global Research News Hour interview, Catherine Austin Fitts explained how the decision by the G7 banks to re-organize the financial systems under the plan ‘Going Direct Reset’ allowed COVID to be a cover for a major thrust of wealth toward the wealthy and allow new technologies to once again return to them control of the mass population.

In a statement on what labour would be facing she said the following:

“If I can insert things into your body, if I can mind-control you, if I can turn off your ability to transact, that’s a slavery system…and you’re looking at a leadership who thinks they can do almost everything with software and AI and robotics, and they don’t need people.” [3]

These threats are no longer science fiction. For any serious person with a quest for worker solidarity, it is imperative that we not only remember with fondness the past glories of our collective triumphs, but muster like there’s no tomorrow against the scourge of the clear and present threat to our gains and possibly even our existence. The anthem of The Internationale will underscore this week’s episode of the Global Research News Hour.

Our first half hour features an interview with Professor Anthony Hall, a man who has been skeptical of many of the assertions of the COVID-19 pandemic. He shares with us his assessment of the lost freedoms the working man and woman are forced to reckon with, and also takes on the left and organized labour who, given their stand on the freedom convoy, are hurting rather than helping those they claim to protect.

This is then followed by a panel who will discuss the road ahead for labour given the sobering facts available at present. Professor Richard Wolff, Nora Loreto and Paul Moist all compare notes on the path forward, including where labour is and should be at, what the role of the freedom convoy might have been able to show us, and what lessons might have presented itself in the wake of the Indian General Strike.

Professor Anthony J Hall is Emeritus Professor of Liberal Education and Globalization Studies at the University of Lethbridge in Alberta, Canada. He is a regular contributor to Global Research, and has written a great deal on COVID-19 and “The Great Reset.”

Professor Richard Wolff is an American Marxian economist. He is Professor Emeritus of Economics at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, and currently a Visiting Professor in the Graduate Program in International Affairs of the New School in New York. He is host, creator and writer of Economic Update with Richard D. Wolff. He is also a frequent lecturer at community and academic institutions across the country.

Nora Loreto is an activist based in Quebec City and editor of the Canadian Association of Labour Media and a much sought-after facilitator. She presents regularly on media relations, writing, editing, social media and online security and privacy. She authored Take Back the Fight, Organizing Feminism in the Digital Age (2020) and her latest from November 2021,  Spin Doctors: How Media and Politicians Misdiagnosed the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Paul Moist has been a member of the Canadian Union of Public Employees for 40 years, serving 6 years as president of the CUPE local in Manitoba and 10 years as national president. He also got a bachelor’s degree in history and politics at the University of Manitoba. He is also active with the New Democratic Party.

(Global Research News Hour Episode 357)

LISTEN TO THE SHOW

Click to download the audio (MP3 format)

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

Other stations airing the show:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Notes:

1. Alex Davies (March 13, 2013), “How Elon Musk Is Revolutionizing Two Major Industries At The Same Time”, Business Insider;  https://www.businessinsider.in/How-Elon-Musk-Is-Revolutionizing-Two-Major-Industries-At-The-Same-Time/articleshow/21261518.cms#:~:text=His%20intense%20ambition%20and%20self-confidence%20enable%20him%20to,that%20have%20made%20Musk%20what%20he%20is%20today.
2. OXFAM Media Briefing (23 May, 2022), “Profiting from Pain: The urgency of taxing the rich amid a surge in billionaire wealth and a global cost-of-living crisis”; https://oi-files-d8-prod.s3.eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/s3fs-public/2022-05/Oxfam%20Media%20Brief%20-%20EN%20-%20Profiting%20From%20Pain%2C%20Davos%202022%20Part%202.pdf
3. https://www.globalresearch.ca/unmasking-covid-what-purpose-does-it-serve-and-for-whom/5739062