Creating Cold War Conditions in Asia Isn’t Easy

June 10th, 2022 by M. K. Bhadrakumar

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

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

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

***

Only three weeks remain for the summit meeting of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) in Madrid, which is expected to unveil a new Strategic Concept aimed at redefining “the security challenges facing the Alliance and outline the political and military tasks that NATO will carry out to address them.”

The NATO and the European Union are in unison that the world has fundamentally changed in the past decade and strategic competition is rising, and security threats in Europe and Asia are now so deeply connected that the two continents become a “single operating system”. 

The past week saw some “finishing touches” to the new cold war agenda — the US President Joe Biden hosting Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern of New Zealand; three tiny NATO countries in the Balkans blocking their air space to Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov to visit Serbia; and, Japan hosting the NATO Military Committee chief Rob Bauer. 

The first one was about Washington stepping in to draw New Zealand, the reluctant Pacific partner standing in the shade, towards the Indo-Pacific centre stage. (Biden actually invoked memories of the landing of US troops in World War II in New Zealand.) The second was an unprecedented act of diplomatic taboo, like dogs marking territory — “Serbia belongs to the West.” And Japan and NATO have messaged a new level of cooperation. 

To be sure, in the US’ struggle with China and Russia, Japan is emerging as the anchor sheet of its strategy in Asia. An agreement was reached in Tokyo on Tuesday during Bauer’s visit that Japan and NATO will step up military cooperation and joint exercises. (In May, Japanese Military Chief of Staff Koji Yamazaki had joined a meeting of NATO counterparts in Belgium for the first time.) 

The Japanese Defense Minister Nobuo Kishi said after meeting with Bauer that Japan welcomed NATO’s expanded involvement in the Indo-Pacific region. He said, “The security of Europe and Asia are closely intertwined, especially now with the international community facing serious challenges.” Bauer also spoke of “shared security challenges” for the NATO and Japan. Prime Minister Fumio Kishida has been invited to the NATO summit in Madrid, which would make him the first Japanese leader to do so. 

Japan’s case is that Russia’s special operation in Ukraine distracts the US, which may embolden China to unify Taiwan with military force. In reality, though, the Biden Administration does not seem to share Japan’s paranoia. The defence ministers of the US and China are slated to meet in Singapore on the sidelines of the annual Shangri-La conference. The US defence secretary Lloyd Austin has expressed cautious optimism that his forthcoming meeting will contribute to regional stability. Reportedly, the US State Department changed its Fact Sheet over Taiwan this week, reinserting a line “We do not support Taiwan independence,” which had been removed a month earlier.  

Japan’s eagerness to play an important symbolic and practical role in the West’s struggle with Russia stems from a complex set of motives. The alacrity with which Japan became one of the most active countries in implementing strong sanctions against Russia in support of Ukraine is striking. Almost overnight, Prime Minister Kishida swung to an openly negative stance towards Russia. 

Within a fortnight of the Russian operation in Ukraine on February 24, Kishida stated that the “Northern Territories (Kuril Islands) are inherent territories of Japan” and on 8th March, Foreign Minister Hayashi followed up that the territories are “unlawfully occupied by Russia.” On 9th March, Kishida already referred Russia to the International Criminal Court. And on 16th March, Japan revoked Russia’s status as a “most-favoured trading nation”, froze Russian assets and excluded selected Russian banks from the SWIFT bank messaging system. Since the end of World War II, Japan had not sent military matériel to another country in the midst of fighting a war, but in in early March, the country’s Self-Defense Forces loaded up a Boeing KC-767 tanker aircraft with materials bound for the battlefields of Ukraine. 

In sum, Japan eagerly demonstrated its willingness to become a proactive partner in the US–Japanese alliance. Japan discarded the equity painstakingly garnered through the past four decades of negotiations to settle the territorial issue and negotiate a post-World War II peace treaty with Russia. In effect, Japan–Russia relationship has been turned into a potential flashpoint in Northeast Asia. 

The US-Japan mutual apprehension over the economic and military rise of China and North Korea’s increasingly capable missile and nuclear capabilities could be a motivating factor for both Washington and Tokyo, who no longer regard a split between Russia and China, as happened in the 1970s, to be a plausible near-term prospect. But, fundamentally, there is a shift in Japanese foreign policy.

Japan’s alliance with the US and the emergent coupling with the NATO go far beyond a focus merely on the country’s survival, but offers vistas for Japan to transform as a leader in the Indo-Pacific region. No doubt, the understanding with the US on the latter’s support in the long-standing dispute over Kuril has emboldened Japan. 

Suffice to say, the Ukraine crisis has revealed that Asian states have much more diverse interests than many had been prepared to recognise. Now, this would act as a breaking mechanism on the path of the new cold war proponents in Asia. While the US, Australia and Japan have been at the forefront of countries opposing Russia, others have more mixed views.

A large bloc of non-aligned countries in Asia, including India and Indonesia, insist that Ukraine is quintessentially a regional conflict, notwithstanding its fallouts exacerbating global energy and food supplies. Basically, the vision of the Asian countries is of regional integration and modernisation and only a handful agreed to impose sanctions against Russia, while several — indeed, the big majority — have either openly opposed the sanctions regime or have refrained from sanctioning Russia. 

The point is, Russia is a resident power in Asia and is a member of all the key bodies that constitute the region’s multilateral architecture — APEC, ASEAN Regional Forum, ASEAN Defence Ministers Meeting,  East Asia Summit, etc., apart from being a Dialogue Partner of the ASEAN since 1996. Russia has had an uneven engagement with Asia’s institutions, but most of the region’s participants prioritise their relations with Moscow.  Unless Russia were to reduce its presence voluntarily, which is inconceivable, Asia’s multilateral architecture remains a hurdle for the US’ efforts to assemble a “coalition of democracies” to isolate Russia.

The Achilles heel of the US’ cold war strategy is that it lacks an inspiring economic agenda. The Biden administration dare not contemplate a return to free trade, given the entrenched protectionist sentiments  in the domestic politics. Even the tariff waivers issued by the Biden Administration on Monday on some solar panels for a 2-year period from four ASEAN countries — Cambodia, Malaysia, Thailand and Vietnam — needed to be carefully couched as part of efforts to address “the urgent crisis of a changing climate… to ensure the US has access to a sufficient supply of solar modules to meet electricity generation needs while domestic manufacturing scales up.” Herein lies the contradiction: US’ cold war strategy is primarily in military terms, whereas, what impresses Asian countries is economic clout.

Meanwhile, while many in the West tend to see China as firmly in Russia’s corner, the reality is more nuanced. China has sought to position itself as neither critic nor supporter of Russia, which, arguably, in the given circumstances, favours Russia, and has shown no signs of shifting its position in the face of Western criticism. Without doubt, China finds itself in an advantageous geopolitical situation. 

That said, will China’s current stance hold the duration of the war in Ukraine which some predict could spill over to next year? The Russian military operation has not proceeded as successfully as Moscow would have wanted or expected. Yet, the military operation will not end without achieving the Russian objectives. And those objectives contain variables. On balance, Beijing would weigh in what the US’ international standing is going to be at the end of it all, which would, of course, have great bearing on China’s future position in the world. 

*

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: Military equipment given by Japan to Ukraine being loaded in an aircraft at Yokota US Air Force Base, Japan (File photo) 

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Creating Cold War Conditions in Asia Isn’t Easy
  • Tags: ,

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

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

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

***

With The Destiny of Civilization: Finance Capitalism, Industrial Capitalism or Socialism, Michael Hudson, one of the world’s leading independent economists, has given us arguably the ultimate handbook on where we’re at, who’s in charge, and whether we can bypass them.

Let’s jump straight into the fray. Hudson begins with an analysis of the “take the money and run” ethos, complete with de-industrialization, as 90 percent of US corporate revenue is “used to share buybacks and dividend payouts to support company stock prices.”

That represents the apex of “Finance Capitalism’s” political strategy: to “capture the public sector and shift monetary and banking power” to Wall Street, the City of London and other western financial centers.

The whole Global South will easily recognize the imperial modus operandi: “The strategy of US military and financial imperialism is to install client oligarchies and dictatorships, and arm-twist allies to join the fight against designated adversaries by subsidizing not only the empire’s costs of war-making (“defense”) but even the imperial nation’s domestic spending programs.” This is the antithesis of the multipolar world advocated by Russia and China.

In short, our current Cold War 2.0 “is basically being waged by US-centered finance capitalism backing rentier oligarchies against nations seeking to build up more widespread self-reliance and domestic prosperity.”

Hudson presciently reminds us of Aristotle, who would say that it is in the interest of financiers to wield their power against society at large: “The financial class historically has been the major beneficiary of empires by acting as collection agents.”

So inevitably the major imperial leverage over the world, a true “strategy of underdevelopment,” had to be financial: instrumentalizing IMF pressure to “turn public infrastructure into privatized monopolies, and reversing 20th century pro-labor reforms” via those notorious ‘conditionalities’ for loans.

No wonder the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM), established in Belgrade in 1961 with 120 nations and 27 observers, became such a threat to US global strategy. The latter predictably fought back with a slew of ethnic wars and the earliest incarnations of color revolution – fabricating dictatorships on an industrial scale, from Suharto to Pinochet.

The culmination was a cataclysmic Houston get-together in December 19, 1990 “celebrating” the dissolution of the USSR, as Hudson reminds us how the IMF and the World Bank “laid out a blueprint for Russia’s leaders to impose austerity and give away its assets – it didn’t matter to whom – in a wave of ‘shock therapy’ to let the alleged magic of free enterprise create a neoliberal free-for-all.”

Lost in a Roman wilderness of debt

To a large extent, nostalgia for the rape-and-pillaging of 1990s-era Russia fuels what Hudson defines as the New Cold War, where Dollar Diplomacy must assert its control over every foreign economy. The New Cold War is not waged only against Russia and China, “but against any countries resisting privatization and financialization under US sponsorship.”

Image on the right is from Amazon

Hudson reminds us how China’s policy “followed almost the same path that American protectionism did from 1865 though 1914 – state subsidy for industry, heavy public-sector capital investment…and social spending on education and health care to upgrade the quality and productivity of labor. This was not called Marxism in the United States; it was simply the logical way to look at industrialization, as part of a broad economic and social system.”

But then, finance – or casino – capitalism gained steam, and left the US economy mainly with “agribusiness farm surpluses, and monopolies in information technology (largely developed as a by-product of military research), military hardware, and pharmaceutical patents (based on public seed-money to fund research) able to extract monopoly rent while making themselves largely tax-exempt by using offshore banking centers.”

That’s the current State of Empire: relying only “on its rentier class and Dollar Diplomacy,” with prosperity concentrated in the top one percent of establishment elites. The inevitable corollary is US diplomacy imposing illegal, unilateral sanctions on Russia, China and anyone else who defies its diktats.

The US economy is indeed a lame post-modern remake of the late Roman empire: “dependent on foreign tribute for its survival in today’s global rentier economy.” Enter the correlation between a dwindling free lunch and utter fear: “That is why the United States has surrounded Eurasia with 750 military bases.”

Delightfully, Hudson goes back to Lactantius, in the late 3rd century, describing the Roman empire on Divine Institutes, to stress the parallels with the American version:

“In order to enslave the many, the greedy began to appropriate and accumulate the necessities of life and keep them tightly closed up, so that they might keep these bounties for themselves. They did this not for humanity’s sake (which was not in them at all), but to rake up all things as products of their greed and avarice. In the name of justice they made unfair and unjust laws to sanction their thefts and avarice against the power of the multitude. In this way they availed as much by authority as by strength of arms or overt evil.”

Socialism or barbarism

Hudson succinctly frames the central issue facing the world today: whether “money and credit, land, natural resources and monopolies will be privatized and concentrated in the hands of a rentier oligarchy or used to promote general prosperity and growth. This is basically a conflict between finance capitalism vs. socialism as economic systems.”

To advance the struggle, Hudson proposes a counter-rentier program which should be the Global South’s ultimate Blueprint for responsible development: public ownership of natural monopolies; key basic infrastructure in public hands; national self-sufficiency – crucially, in money and credit creation; consumer and labor protection; capital controls – to prevent borrowing or denominating debts in foreign currency; taxes on unearned income such as economic rent; progressive taxation; a land tax (“will prevent land’s rising rental value from being pledged to banks for credit to bid up real estate prices”); use of the economic surplus for tangible capital investment; and national self-sufficiency in food.

As Hudson seems to have covered all the bases, at the end of the book I was left with only one overarching question. I asked him how he analyzed the current discussions between the Eurasia Economic Union (EAEU) and the Chinese – and between Russia and China, further on down the road – as being able to deliver an alternative financial/monetary system. Can they sell the alternative system to most of the planet, all while dodging imperial financial harassment?

Hudson was gracious enough to reply with what could be regarded as the summary of a whole book chapter: “To be successful, any reform has to be system-wide, not merely a single part. Today’s western economies have become financialized, leaving credit creation in private hands – to be used to make financial gains at the expense of the industrial economy… This aim has spread like leprosy throughout entire economies – their trade patterns (dependency on US agricultural and oil exports, and IT technology), labor relations (anti-unionism and austerity), land tenure (foreign-owned plantation agriculture instead of domestic self-reliance and self-sufficiency in food grains), and economic theory itself (treating finance as part of GDP, not as an overhead siphoning off income from labor and industry alike).”

Hudson cautions that “in order to break free of the dynamic of predatory finance-capitalism sponsored by the United States and its satellites, foreign countries need to be self-sufficient in food production, energy, technology and other basic needs. This requires an alternative to US ‘free trade’ and its even more nationalistic ‘fair trade’ (deeming any foreign competition to US-owned industry ‘unfair’). That requires an alternative to the IMF, World Bank and ITO (from which Russia has just withdrawn). And alas, an alternative also requires military coordination such as the SCO [the Shanghai Cooperation Organization] to defend against the militarization of US-centered finance capitalism.”

Hudson does see some sunlight ahead: “As to your question of whether Russia and China can ‘sell’ this vision of the future to the Global South and Eurasian countries, that should become much easier by the end of this summer. A major byproduct (not unintended) of the NATO war in Ukraine is to sharply raise energy and food prices (and shipping prices). This will throw the balance of payments of many Global South and other countries into sharp deficit, creating a crisis as their dollar-denominated debt to bondholders and banks falls due.”

The key challenge for most of the Global South is to avoid default:

“The US raise in interest rates has increased the dollar’s exchange rate not only against the euro and Japanese yen, but against the Global South and other countries. This means that much more of their income and export revenue must be paid to service their foreign debt – and they can avoid default only by going without food and oil. So what will they choose? The IMF may offer to create SDRs to enable them to pay – by running even further into dollarized debt, subject to IMF austerity plans and demands that they sell off even more of their natural resources, forests and water.”

So how to break free from dollarized debt? “They need a critical mass. That was not available in the 1970s when a New International Economic Order was first discussed. But today it is becoming a viable alternative, thanks to the power of China, the resources of Russia and those of allied countries such as Iran, India and other East Asian and Central Asian countries. So I suspect that a new world economic system is emerging. If it succeeds, the last century – since the end of World War I and the mess it left – will seem like a long detour of history, now returning to what seemed to be the basic social ideals of classical economics – a market free from rent-seeking landlords, monopolies and predatory finance.”

Hudson concludes by reiterating what the New Cold War is really all about:

“In short, it is a conflict between two different social systems, each with their own philosophy of how societies work. Will they be planned by neoliberal financial centers centered in New York, supported by Washington’s neo-cons, or will they be the kind of socialism that the late 19th century and early 20th century envisioned – a ‘market’ and, indeed, society free from rentiers? Will natural monopolies such as land and natural resources be socialized and used to finance domestic growth and housing, or left to financial interests to turn rent into interest payments eating into consumer and business income? And most of all, will governments create their own money and steer banking to promote domestic prosperity, or will they let private banks (whose financial interests are represented by central banks) take control away from national treasuries?”

*

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 Cradle.

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 from The Cradle

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

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

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

***

Do you remember the iconic Union Carbide image from the 1950s or early 1960s? The one with the giant hand coming from the sky, pouring pesticides onto Indian soil.       

The blurb below the image includes the following:

“Science helps build a new India – India has developed bold new plans to build its economy and bring the promise of a bright future to its more than 400 million people. But India needs the technical knowledge of the western world. For example working with Indian engineers and technicians, Union Carbide recently made available its fast scientific resource to help build a chemicals and plastics plant near Bombay. Throughout the free world, Union Carbide has been actively engaged in building plants for the manufacture of chemicals, plastics, carbons, gases and metals.”

In the bottom corner is the Union Carbide logo and the statement ‘A HAND IN THINGS TO COME’.

This ‘hand of god’ image has become infamous. Union Carbide’s ‘hand in things to come’ includes the gas leak at its pesticides plant in Bhopal in 1984. It resulted in around 560,000 injured (respiratory problems, eye irritation, etc), 4,000 severely disabled and 20,000 dead.

As for the chemical-intensive agriculture it promoted, we can now see the impacts: degraded soils, polluted water, illness, farmer debt and suicides (by drinking pesticides!), nutrient-dense crops/varieties being side-lined, a narrower range of crops, no increase in food production per capita (in India at least), the corporate commodification of knowledge and seeds, the erosion of farmers’ environmental learning, the undermining of traditional knowledge systems and farmers’ dependency on corporations.

Whether it involves the type of ecological devastation activist-farmer Bhaskar Save outlined for policy makers in his 2006 open letter or the social upheaval documented by Vandana Shiva in the book The Violence of the Green Revolution, the consequences have been far-reaching.

And yet – whether it involves new genetic engineering techniques or more pesticides –  there is a relentless drive by the agritech conglomerates to further entrench their model of agriculture by destroying traditional farming practices with the aim of placing more farmers on corporate seed and chemical treadmills.

These corporations have been pushing for the European Commission to remove any labelling and safety checks for new genomic techniques. The European Court of Justice ruled in 2018 that organisms obtained with new genetic modification techniques must be regulated under the EU’s existing GMO laws. However, there has been intense lobbying from the agriculture biotech industry to weaken the legislation, aided financially by the Gates Foundation.

Since 2018, top agribusiness and biotech corporations have spent almost €37 million lobbying the European Union. They have had 182 meetings with European Commissioners, their cabinets and director generals. More than one meeting a week.

In recent weeks, Syngenta (a subsidiary of ChemChina) CEO Erik Fyrwald has come to the fore to cynically lobby for these techniques.

But before discussing Fyrwald, let us turn to another key agribusiness figure who has been in the news. Former Monsanto chairman and CEO Hugh Grant recently appeared in court to be questioned by lawyers on behalf of a cancer patient in the case of Allan Shelton v Monsanto.

Shelton has non-Hodgkin lymphoma and is one of the 100,000-plus people in the US claiming in lawsuits that exposure to Monsanto’s Roundup weedkiller and its other brands containing the chemical glyphosate caused their cancer.

His lawyers argued that Grant was an active participant and decision maker in the company’s Roundup business and should be made to testify at the trial.

Why not? After all, he did make a financial killing from peddling poison.

Bayer acquired Monsanto in 2018 and Grant received an estimated $77 million post-sale payoff. Bloomberg reported in 2017 that Monsanto had increased Grant’s salary to $19.5 million.

By 2009, Roundup-related products, which include genetically modified seeds developed to withstand glyphosate-based applications, represented about half of Monsanto’s gross margin.

Roundup was integral to Monsanto’s business model and Grant’s enormous income and final payoff.

Consider the following quote from a piece that appeared on the Bloomberg website in 2014:

“Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Hugh Grant is focused on selling more genetically modified seeds in Latin America to drive earnings growth outside the core US market. Sales of soybean seeds and genetic licenses climbed 16%, and revenue in the unit that makes glyphosate weed killer, sold as Roundup, rose 24%.”

In the same piece, Chris Shaw, a New York-based analyst at Monness Crespi Hardt & Co, is reported as saying “Glyphosate really crushed it” – meaning the sales of glyphosate were a major boost.

All fine for Grant and Monsanto. But this has had devastating effects on human health. ‘The Human Cost of Agrotoxins. How Glyphosate is killing Argentina’, which appeared on the Lifegate website in November 2015, serves as a damning indictment of the drive for “earnings growth” by Monsanto. Moreover, in the same year, some 30,000 doctors in that country demanded a ban on glyphosate.

The bottom line for Grant was sales and profit maximisation and the unflinching defence of glyphosate, no matter how carcinogenic to humans it is and, more to the point, how much Monsanto knew it was.

Noam Chomsky underlines the commercial imperative:

” … the CEO of a corporation has actually a legal obligation to maximize profit and market share. Beyond that legal obligation, if the CEO doesn’t do it, and, let’s say, decides to do something that will, say, benefit the population and not increase profit, he or she is not going to be CEO much longer –  they’ll be replaced by somebody who does do it.”

Syngenta’s CEO is cut from the same cloth as Grant. While Monsanto’s crimes are well documented, Syngenta’s transgressions are less well publicised.

In 2006, writer and campaigner Dr Brian John claimed:

“GM Free Cymru has discovered that Syngenta, in its promotion of GM crops and foods, has been involved in a web of lies, deceptions and obstructive corporate behaviour that would have done credit to its competitor Monsanto.”

Some weeks ago, Fyrwald called for organic farming to be abandoned. In view of the food crisis, brought on by the war in Ukraine, he claimed rich countries had to increase their crop production – but organic farming led to lower yields. Fyrwald also called for gene editing to be at the heart of the food agenda in order to increase food production.

He stated:

“The indirect consequence is that people are starving in Africa because we are eating more and more organic products.”

In response, Kilian Baumann, a Bernese organic farmer and president of the Swiss Small Farmers’ Association, called Fyrwald’s arguments “grotesque”. He claimed Fyrwald was “fighting for sales”.

Writing on the GMWatch website, Jonathan Matthews says the Russian invasion of Ukraine seems to have emboldened Fyrwald’s scaremongering.

Matthews states:

“Fyrwald’s comments reflect the industry’s determination to undermine the European Union’s Farm to Fork strategy, which aims by 2030 not just to slash pesticide use by 50% and fertilizer use by 20% but to more than triple the percentage of EU farmland under organic management (from 8.1% to 25%), as part of the transition towards a ‘more sustainable food system’ within the EU’s Green Deal.”

He adds:

“Syngenta view[s] these goals as an almost existential threat. This has led to a carefully orchestrated attack on the EU strategy.”

The details of this PR offensive have been laid out in a report by the Brussels-based lobby watchdog Corporate Europe Observatory (CEO): A loud lobby for a silent spring: The pesticide industry’s toxic lobbying tactics against Farm to Fork.

Mathews quotes research that shows GM crops have no yield benefit. He also refers to a newly published report that draws together research clearly showing GM crops have driven substantial increases – not decreases – in pesticide use. The newer and much-hyped gene-edited crops look set to do the same.

Syngenta is among the corporations criticised by a report from the UN for “systematic denial of harms” and “unethical marketing tactics”. Matthews notes that selling highly hazardous pesticides is actually at the core of Syngenta’s business model.

According to Matthews, even with the logistical disruptions to maize and wheat crops caused by the war in Ukraine, there is still enough grain available to the world market to meet existing needs. He says the current price crisis (not food crisis) is a product of fear and speculation.

Matthews concludes:

“If Erik Fyrwald is really so concerned about hunger, why isn’t he attacking the boondoggle that is biofuels, rather than going after organic farming? The obvious answer is that the farmers being subsidised to grow biofuels are big consumers of agrichemicals and, in the US case, GMO seeds – unlike organic farmers, who buy neither.”

Fyrwald has a financial imperative to lobby for particular strategies and technologies. He is far from an objective observer. And he is far from honest in his appraisal – using fear of a food crisis to push his agenda.

Meanwhile, the sustained attacks on organic agriculture have become an industry mainstay, despite numerous high-level reports and projects indicating it could feed the world, mitigate climate change, improve farmers’ situations, lead to better soil, create employment and provide healthier and more diverse diets.

There is a food crisis but not the one alluded to by Fyrwald –  denutrified food and unhealthy diets that are at the centre of a major public health crisis, a loss of biodiversity which threatens food security, degraded soils, polluted and depleted water sources and smallholder farmers, so vital to global food production (especially in the Global South), squeezed off their land and out of farming.

Transnational agribusiness has lobbied for, directed and profited from policies that have caused much of the above. And what we now see is these corporations and their lobbyists espousing (fake) concern (a cynical lobbying tactic) for the plight of the poor and hungry while attempting to purchase EU democracy to the tune of €37 million. Cheap at the price considering the financial bonanza that its new patented genetic engineering technologies and seeds could reap.

Various scientific publications show these new techniques allow developers to make significant genetic changes, which can be very different from those that happen in nature. These new GMOs pose similar or greater risks than older-style GMOs.

By attempting to dodge regulation as well as avoid economic, social, environmental and health impact assessments, it is clear were the industry’s priorities lie.

Unfortunately, Fyrwald, Bill Gates, Hugh Grant and their ilk are unwilling and too often incapable of viewing the world beyond their reductionist mindsets that merely regard seed/chemical sales, output-yield and corporate profit as the measuring stick of success.

What is required is an approach that sustains indigenous knowledge, local food security, better nutrition per acre, clean and stable water tables and good soil structure. An approach that places food sovereignty, local ownership, rural communities and rural economies at the centre of policy and which nurtures biodiversity, boosts human health and works with nature rather than destroying these.

Fyrwald’s scaremongering is par for the course – the world will starve without corporate chemicals and (GM) seeds, especially if organics takes hold. This type of stuff has been standard fare from the industry and its lobbyists and bought career scientists for many years.

It flies in the face of reality, not least how certain agribusiness concerns have been part of a US geopolitical strategy that undermines food security in regions across the world. These concerns have thrived on the creation of dependency and profited from conflict. Moreover, there is the success of agroecological approaches to farming that have no need for what Fyrwald is hawking.

Instead, the industry continues to promote itself as the saviour of humanity – a hand of god powered by a brave new techno-utopian world of corporate science, pouring poison and planting seeds of corporate dependency with the missionary zeal of Western saviourism.

*

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.

Renowned author Colin Todhunter specialises in development, food and agriculture. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG) in Montreal.

The author receives no payment from any media outlet or organization for his work. If you appreciated this article, consider sending a few coins his way: [email protected] 


Read Colin Todhunter’s e-Book entitled

Food, Dispossession and Dependency. Resisting the New World Order

We are currently seeing an acceleration of the corporate consolidation of the entire global agri-food chain. The high-tech/big data conglomerates, including Amazon, Microsoft, Facebook and Google, have joined traditional agribusiness giants, such as Corteva, Bayer, Cargill and Syngenta, in a quest to impose their model of food and agriculture on the world.

The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is also involved (documented in ‘Gates to a Global Empire‘ by Navdanya International), whether through buying up huge tracts of farmland, promoting a much-heralded (but failed) ‘green revolution’ for Africa, pushing biosynthetic food and genetic engineering technologies or more generally facilitating the aims of the mega agri-food corporations.

Click here to read.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Pouring Poison and Planting Seeds of Dependency. Big Agriculture Destroys Organic Farming
  • Tags:

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

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

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

***

From the US-Canadian bilateral statements in 2021 and 2022 leading up to the Summit, to the role of Canada in the last 2021 United Nations vote on the US blockade against Cuba, to the June 6, 2022, visit by Chilean President Gabriel Boric to Ottawa and his meeting with Justin Trudeau: What does all this tell us about the Summit and the importance of CELAC, which provides a clear alternative?

On February 26, 2021, then Canadian foreign affairs minister Marc Garneau’s readout of his virtual meeting with US counterpart Antony Blinken, declared that “both reaffirmed a commitment to address human rights and needed reforms in Cuba… The two discussed the dire situation in Venezuela and agreed to work together alongside the international community supporting Venezuelans to address this crisis and the human suffering it is causing. Minister Garneau and Secretary Blinken look forward to the next Summit of the Americas.”

However, on April 25, 2022, one of Canada’s foremost dailies, the National Post reported that Cuban Foreign Minister Rodríguez said “that the United States had decided to exclude Cuba from preparations for a summit of regional leaders.” The National Post is certainly on the desks of Justin Trudeau and Canadian foreign ministry staff. In response, on May 11, Mexican president Andrés Manuel López Obrador, also known as AMLO, announced that he would not be attending the Los Angeles Summit as a result of Biden’s exclusionary policy. And AMLO has made it plain that he sees future CELAC summits as the alternative.

On the road to the Los Angeles Summit

Whereas AMLO’s decision was a definite game changer, the Trudeau government’s news release of June 5, 2022, simply announced that Foreign Affairs Minister Mélanie Joly would be in Los Angeles from June 6 to 10. She would be joining Prime Minister Trudeau at the 9th Summit of the Americas, but holding meetings with key stakeholders. There is no mention of the revolt by AMLO and leaders of a number of other key Latin American and Caribbean states against the US policy of exclusion. But the Trudeau government’s quiet introduction of the term “key stakeholders” was apparently meant to replace missing presidents or prime ministers who would normally be attending, with lower-level representatives. Not to mention certain dissidents from countries such as Cuba, Venezuela and Nicaragua, who might replace the formal delegations altogether.

It seems that this provocative option to meet with “regime change” activists, known as mercenaries in Cuba, may already be in the Trudeau game plan: the press release vaguely suggests that “Minister Joly will meet with her counterparts from the region, government officials, civil society representatives.” This latter term, “civil society representatives,” can be seen as a euphemism for mercenaries or dissidents seeking regime change. 

Cuban mercenaries in Los Angeles

As might be expected, in a June 6 tweet, Ambassador Brian A. Nichols, Assistant Secretary for Western Hemisphere Affairs, U.S. Department of State, appeared in a photo from Los Angeles with one of the main Cuban mercenaries. The caption read “…Cubans must have the chance to tell their stories. Today I had the pleasure of meeting the inspirational @YoTuel007 at the #SummitAmericas civil society forum. We stand with Yotuel and all Cubans that continue to stand up bravely for “homeland and life.”

The June 5 Canadian news release goes on to state that “on the margins of the Summit, Minister Joly will hold a North American Foreign Ministers’ Trilateral Meeting with U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken, and Mexico’s Foreign Secretary Marcelo Ebrard…” Of course, there is no mention that Trudeau will be meeting with his Mexican counterpart AMLO, since he has publicly stated that he will not attend the Summit as a gesture of support for the excluded states and a snub to Biden.

The conclusion one may draw is that, despite its much-vaunted pretence of being a “friend of Cuba,” the Trudeau government is fully complicit with Biden’s exclusionary policy against Cuba, Venezuela and Nicaragua. Thus, both North American white supremacist and settler-colonial states are once again firmly pitted against nation states of the Global South. Should this characterization of Trudeau, in particular, come as a surprise?

The Trudeau government’s UN performance regarding Cuba

Let us examine Trudeau’s track record on the US blockade against Cuba. On June 23 and 24, 2021, the Cuban resolution in favour of lifting the blockade was presented once more to the United Nations General Assembly. Yet again, the overwhelming majority of countries voted in favour of the resolution by a vote of 184 in favour to 2 against (Israel, United States), with 3 abstentions (Brazil, Colombia, Ukraine.)

Although Canada did vote in favour, it did not dare to take the floor to speak out, like numerous other member states. The following compilation of speakers is based on the United Nations official report on the over the two days of debate. It includes those who spoke before the vote as well as those who spoke after the vote explaining why they voted as they did .

Representatives spoke on behalf of various Global South organizations, including the Non-Aligned Movement (120 members), the Caribbean Community (CARICOM, 20 members), Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC, 57 members), the Group of 77 (the United Nations’ biggest intergovernmental group of emerging countries, 134 members), the African Group at the UN (54 members), and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN, 10 members), with various states being members of several groups.

Also delivering general statements were representatives of Vietnam, the Russian Federation, Venezuela, Mexico, Algeria, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, China, South Africa, Antigua and Barbuda, Philippines, Namibia, Egypt, India, Bolivia and Nicaragua, with the representative of Cuba speaking by right to reply.

From the non-Global South (aside from the Eurasian Russian Federation), only Portugal spoke timidly in the name of the European Union. Why timidly? It was the only country among the European Union members to speak (and just once), while in comparison, a number of countries from the Global South spoke multiple times, while also associating them themselves with one or more Global South organizations. Even the United Kingdom spoke. However, Justin Trudeau’s government did not rise to speak.

The liberal poster boy Trudeau, using dog-whistle diplomacy, made a move at the UN appealing to the world and especially the Global South, by voting in favour of the Cuban resolution and thus striving to maintain its dubious reputation as a “friend of Cuba.” Yet, by failing to speak in the General Assembly, in contrast to the multiple interventions of the entire Global South, he sent another signal, one clearly intended for Washington: the Trudeau regime stood clearly beside its US partner by intimating… “that we do not strongly oppose the blockade of Cuba,” thus emboldening the US to pursue its Cuba policy. Thus, it is a confrontation between the Global South versus the West.

Chilean President Boric and Trudeau in Ottawa: A preview of the Summit?

The superficiality of Trudeau as a “friend of Cuba” came to the fore once again. A meeting between Chilean President Gabriel Boric and Prime Minister Trudeau took place in Ottawa on June 6 as the Chilean leader was headed to Los Angeles. The readout did not mention the exclusionary nature of Biden’s Summit. However in the press conference following the meeting, one reporter asked Trudeau about Cuba’s exclusion. In typical Trudeau fashion, he avoided giving an answer, only saying that they are looking forward to dealing with all participants. The US News outlet got the picture, by gloating that “Trudeau did not say whether or not he disagreed with the exclusion, but said Canada looked forward to participating fully in the summit.” This constitutes yet further proof that Trudeau is complicit with Biden’s policy.

On the Summit, Trudeau’s imperialist policy toward Latin America has gone even further down the road of hitching itself to US imperialist ambitions, by not exhibiting any opposition to Biden’s exclusionary meeting in Los Angeles.

In a June 7 Press TV interview, I participated with Kawsachun News reporter Camila Escalante Camila, who was speaking from Cochabamba, Bolivia.

Camila Escalante provided the context: the desperate 11th hour attempt by Biden to salvage his collapsing Summit, the Mexican stand to boycott on the presidential level and the significance of the recent Nicolás Maduro-Alberto Fernández phone call. Escalante went further on the context, touching on the stand that Argentina will take at the Summit against exclusion and the suggestion by Maduro to Argentina that in its current role as pro tempore president of CELAC, it should call a CELAC meeting as soon as possible to deal with issues the countries in the South are facing.

For my part, I highlighted the principled stand of Argentina and other countries that are attending but intend to speak out unconditionally against exclusion. In addition, I further elaborated on the Boric-Trudeau Ottawa press conference and the two leaders’ cowardly responses to a question on exclusion. I also expanded on the fact that having certain “regime-change” elements from Cuba already in Los Angeles is also symptomatic of what to expect. View the 10-minute TV video here.

Colonialism at home, imperialism abroad

Is there a link between Canada’s foreign and domestic policy? Indeed, Canada learned its first baby steps about imperialism via its ongoing colonial genocide against the Indigenous Nations. This is why the description of Canada as “colonialism at home and imperialism abroad” is so popular and so pertinent. For example, the RCMP has had a continuous presence on the Wet’suwet’en (Yintah territory) in British Colombia since late 2018, after Coastal Gaslink obtained an injunction against land defenders blocking the right of way for a liquified natural gas pipeline the company is constructing through approximately 190 kilometres of Wet’suwet’en territory. While the US-Canada-Latin America discussions were taking place in 2021-22 as outlined above, the Trudeau government  was carrying out round-the-clock surveillance and harassment by Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) and pipeline security personnel against the Wet’suwet’en First Nation in British Columbia. Thus, the Canadian imperialist attitude toward Latin America and the Caribbean is steeped in its centuries-long heritage of colonialism.

Therefore, any apparent differences between Canada and the US regarding Cuba and Latin America should be taken with a grain of salt. Canada is imperialist through and through. Nobody in Canada or the rest of the hemisphere should entertain any illusions about the fact. The worn-out liberal poster boy image of Trudeau is intentionally designed to camouflage this reality, as laid out among other points in the June 7 Press TV interview.

 Given the Trudeau policy alone, not to mention that of the US, history may very well show that a complete boycott by the South would have been the only appropriate response. We shall see. How a self-respecting Latin American/Caribbean country can sit side by side with Trudeau in this hemispheric meeting is just unbelievable. Black Agenda Report pointed out on June 8: “A boycott is only the minimum that should be done. However, we understand it will be difficult because we know the vindictiveness of the gringo hegemon and the lengths it will go to assert its vicious domination.”

The Global South states of Latin America and the Caribbean on the one hand, and North America on the other, are clearly at loggerheads as never before. As with the other North American white supremacist, settler-colonial and imperialist regime, Canada deserves no place in any association in the Hemisphere. Thus, the alternative is CELAC, which includes all countries south of the Rio Grande and excludes Canada and 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 The Canada Files.

Arnold August is an award-winning journalist and author of three acclaimed books. His three books on Cuba-US-Latin America have been acclaimed by experts in the field. In 2013, he was awarded the Félix Elmuza Award by the Association of Cuban Journalists and contributes to outlets in English, Spanish and French in many parts of the world. He serves as a Contributing Editor for The Canada Files.

Featured image is from Tribune

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

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

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

***

The social and economic crisis in the US seems really serious and far from over. The government tries to implement a series of measures in order to contain the disastrous effects of uncontrolled inflation, but each action has strong impacts in other areas, generating absolute instability. On June 5 Washington’s officials reported that President Joe Biden plans to begin a gradual easing of some sanctions on Chinese goods, with the aim of increasing economic fluidity and reducing inflation. However, the project strongly disappointed the country’s entrepreneurial community.

Last Sunday, US Secretary of Commerce Gina Raimondo said that lowering tariffs on Chinese goods “makes sense” in the current context of the US economy – which is why Biden is allegedly looking at the possibility. According to her, nothing has yet been decided, and President Biden should make the decision on the topic soon, but it is a viable possibility to contain the general increase in prices, at a time when inflation is at its highest level in 40 years.

“We are looking at it. In fact, the president has asked us to analyze that. And so we are in the process of doing that for him and he will have to make that decision”, she said during a recent interview to CNN.

Raimondo also stated that the government will keep intact the sanctions considered strategically interesting, such as the special tariffs on steel and aluminum, which more effectively protect the American heavy industry against foreign emerging powers. However, in a situation of internal crisis, it would make sense to reduce the prices of more elementary products, such as household utensils, clothes, bicycles, and basic Chinese imported items, which would allow greater market fluidity and free circulation of products, without great damage to the American industrial structures.

But even under these conditions, American trade organizations are furious at the government’s move to consider easing tariffs. For domestic commercial organizations, lowering the price of Chinese products would automatically mean harming the growth of small and medium-sized American companies, which would have to deal with cheap foreign products, having losses in sales to the consumer middle classes.

In the days following Raimondo’s statement, main US trade unions launched protests and notes of repudiation, urging Biden to ignore any possibility of lowering tariffs on Chinese imports. For example, the Labor Advisory Committee for Trade Negotiations and Trade Policy published a letter signed by its leader, Thomas Conway, in which American business urges the president to act “in the national interest to strengthen [American] economy for the future”.

It is important to note that these special tariffs on Chinese products were implemented not by Biden but by his predecessor, Donald Trump, whose geopolitical tactic of starting a “trade war” against China resulted in the implementation of a massive tariff sanctions package, undermining economic fluidity in the US. With the crisis generated by the pandemic and the conflict in Ukraine adding to this, everything became even worse.

One of Biden’s most criticized points by some analysts was precisely the continuation of the trade war with China. To maintain a healthy foreign policy in crisis scenarios, the most strategic thing to do is to choose between a military or economic confrontation against the main US rivals – Russia and China. Trump, for example, improved relations with Russia while maintaining his anti-China trade strategy. Biden, however, did not choose a specific target or strategy, but confronted all US enemies in the most radical way possible, maintaining Trump’s sanctions on China and initiating military programs in the zone of Chinese influence, while resuming the NATO military presence on the Russian border and lately initiating the biggest package of sanctions ever seen against a country, after the start of Moscow’s special operation in Ukraine.

This absence of a strategic mentality is due to the ideological and anti-pragmatic aspect that has characterized the Biden administration until now, generating this crisis scenario. If the Democrat had not increased Ukraine’s aggressiveness towards Russia, the special operation would not have been launched and the world would not be dealing with the economic effects of a military conflict. Likewise, if he had previously eased sanctions on China, the impacts on American small and medium business would be smaller and, consequently, it would be easier for the White House to negotiate with trade unions, as the scenario would not be the same as the current crisis situation.

Now, however, there is not much to be done. If Biden does not ease sanctions, he will be increasing inflation because there will be fewer products circulating on the market; but if he does, he will actually be harming the interests of the domestic business community, which will have enormous difficulties in competing with the cheaper prices of Chinese goods. Whatever Biden chooses, it will be insufficient either to remedy the crisis or to regain his popularity, as he will improve in one area to harm in another.

*

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. You can follow Lucas on Twitter.

Featured image is from InfoBrics

The Food Shortage Solution in Your Own Backyard

June 10th, 2022 by Ellen Brown

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

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

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

***

While the global food systems we depend on come under increasing strain, there’s a solution to the growing crisis that most Americans can find in their own backyards–or front lawns.

A confluence of crises—lockdowns and business closures, mandates and worker shortages, supply chain disruptions and inflation, sanctions and war—have compounded to trigger food shortages; and we have been warned that they may last longer than the food stored in our pantries. What to do?

Jim Gale, founder of Food Forest Abundance, pointed out in a recent interview with Del Bigtree that in the United States there are 40 million acres of lawn. Lawns are the most destructive monoculture on the planet, absorbing more resources and pesticides than any other crop, without providing any yield. If we were to turn 30% of that lawn into permaculture-based food gardens, says Gale, we could be food self-sufficient without relying on imports or chemicals.

Permaculture is a gardening technique that “uses the inherent qualities of plants and animals combined with the natural characteristics of landscapes and structures to produce a life-supporting system for city and country, using the smallest practical area.”

Russian families have shown the possibilities, using permaculture methods on simple cottage gardens or allotments called dachas. As Dr. Leon Sharashkin, a Russian translator and editor with a PhD in forestry from the University of Missouri, explains:

Essentially, what Russian gardeners do is demonstrate that gardeners can feed the world – and you do not need any GMOs, industrial farms, or any other technological gimmicks to guarantee everybody’s got enough food to eat. Bear in mind that Russia only has 110 days of growing season per year – so in the US, for example, gardeners’ output could be substantially greater. Today, however, the area taken up by lawns in the US is two times greater than that of Russia’s gardens – and it produces nothing but a multi-billion-dollar lawn care industry.

The Dacha Model

Dachas are small wooden houses on a small plot of land, typically just 600 meters (656 yards) in size. In Soviet Russia, they were allocated free of charge on the theory that the land belonged to the people. They were given to many public servants; and families not given a dacha could get access to a plot of land in an allotment association, where they could grow vegetables, visit regularly to tend their kitchen gardens and gather crops.

Dachas were originally used mainly as country vacation getaways. But in the 1990s, they evolved from a place of rest into a major means of survival. That was when the Russian economy suffered from what journalist Anne Williamson called in congressional testimony the “rape of Russia.” The economy was destroyed and then plundered by financial oligarchs, who swooped in to buy assets at fire sale prices.

Stripped of other resources, Russian families turned to their dachas to grow food. Dr. Sharaskin observed that the share of food gardening in national agriculture increased from 32% in 1990 to over 50% by 2000. In 2004, food gardens accounted for 51% of the total agricultural output of the Russian Federation – greater than the contribution of the whole electric power generation industry; greater than all of the forestry, wood-processing and pulp and paper industries; and significantly greater than the coal, natural gas and oil refining industries taken together.

Dachas are now a codified right of Russian citizens. In 2003, the government signed the Private Garden Plot Act into law, granting citizens free plots of land ranging from 1 to 3 hectares each. (A hectare is about 2.5 acres.) Dr. Sharaskin opined in 2009 that “with 35 million families (70% of Russia’s population) … producing more than 40% of Russia’s agricultural output, this is in all likelihood the most extensive microscale food production practice in any industrially developed nation.”

In a 2014 article titled “Dacha Gardens—Russia’s Amazing Model for Urban Agriculture”, Sara Pool wrote that Russia obtains “over 50% agricultural products from family garden plots. The backyard gardening model uses around 3% arable land, and accounts for roughly 92% of all Russian potatoes, 87% of all fruit, 77% vegetables, and 59% all Russian meat according to the Russian Federal State Statistic Service.”

Our Beautiful but Toxic and Wasteful Green Lawns

Rather than dachas, we in the West have pristine green lawns, which not only produce no food but involve chemical and mechanical maintenance that is a major contributor to water and air pollution. Lawns are the single largest irrigated crop in the U.S., covering nearly 32 million acres. This is a problem particularly in the western U.S. states, which are currently suffering from reduced food production due to drought. Data compiled by Urban Plantations from the EPA, the Public Policy Institute of California, and the Alliance for Water Efficiency suggests that gardens use 66% less water than lawns. In the U.S., fruits and vegetables are grown  on only about 10 million acres. In theory, then, if the space occupied by American lawns were converted to food gardens, the country could produce four times as many fruits and vegetables as it does now.

study from NASA scientists in collaboration with researchers in the Mountain West estimated that American lawns cover an area that is about the size of Texas and is three times larger than that used for any other irrigated crop in the United States.  The study was not, however, about the growth of lawns but about their impact on the environment and water resources. It found that “maintaining a well-manicured lawn uses up to 900 liters of water per person per day and reduces [carbon] sequestration effectiveness by up to 35 percent by adding emissions from fertilization and the operation of mowing equipment.” To combat water and pollution problems, some cities have advocated abandoning the great green lawn in favor of vegetable gardens, local native plants, meadows or just letting the grass die. But well-manicured lawns are an established U.S. cultural tradition; and some municipalities have banned front-yard gardens as not meeting neighborhood standards of aesthetics.  Some homeowners, however, have fought back. Florida ended up passing a law in July 2019 that prohibits towns from banning edible gardens for aesthetic reasons; and in California, a bill was passed in 2014 that allows yard use for “personal agriculture” (defined as “use of land where an individual cultivates edible plant crops for personal use or donation”). As noted in a Los Angeles Times op-ed:

“The Legislature recognized that lawn care is resource intensive, with lawns being the largest irrigated crop in the United States offering no nutritional gain. Finding that 30% to 60% of residential water is used for watering lawns, the Legislature believes these resources could be allocated to more productive activities, including growing food, thus increasing access to healthy options for low-income individuals.”

Despite how large they loom in the American imagination, immaculate green lawns maintained by pesticides, herbicides and electric lawnmowers are a relatively recent cultural phenomenon in the United States. In the 1930s, chemicals were not recommended. Weeds were controlled either by pulling them by hand or by keeping chickens. Chemical use became popular only after World War II, and it has grown significantly since. According to the EPA, close to 80 million U.S. households spray 90 million pounds of pesticides and herbicides on their lawns each year. A 1999 study by the United States Geological Survey found that 99% of urban water streams contain pesticides, which pollute our drinking water and create serious health risks for wildlife, pets, and humans. Among other disorders, these chemicals are correlated with an increased risk of cancers, nervous system disorders, and a seven-fold increased risk of childhood leukemia.

That’s just the pollution in our water supply. Other problems with our lawn fetish are air and noise pollution generated by gas-powered lawn and garden equipment. The Environmental Protection Agency estimates that this equipment is responsible for 5% of U.S. air pollution. Americans use about 800 million gallons of gas per year just mowing their lawns.

Yet even people who recognize the downsides of lawnmowers and chemicals continue to use them, under pressure to keep up appearances for the sake of the neighborhood. That cultural bias could change, however, in the face of serious food shortages. And while yards left to dirt and weeds may be unsightly, well-maintained permaculture gardens are aesthetically appealing without the use of chemicals or mowing. Here are a couple of examples, the first of a dacha and the second of a Pennsylvania community garden:

Stephen Scott / Small Farmers’ Journal

Neighborhood Gardens Trust

Homegrown Food: Organic, Non-GMO, and No Fossil Fuels Required

Local garden farming does not need chemical fertilizers or gas-guzzling machinery to thrive, as the Russian dacha farmers demonstrated.  Dr. Sharashkin wrote in his 2008 doctoral thesis:

[T]he Soviet government had the policy of allowing dacha gardening only on marginal, unproductive, or overexploited lands that could not be used in state-run agriculture. And it is on exactly these lands that gardeners have consistently been producing large crops of vegetables and fruits ever since private gardens were re-authorized in 1941.… [M]ost of the gardeners grow their produce without chemical fertilizers.

When the practice [of industrial chemical use] subsided in the 1990s as the output of collective farming dwindled and was replaced by household production, significant abatement of environmental pollution with agrochemicals (especially that of watersheds) was observed. [Emphasis added.]

Most of Russia’s garden produce is grown not only without agrochemicals but without genetically modified seeds, which were banned in Russia in 2016. As Mitchel Cohen reports in Covert Action Magazine, some GMO use has crept back in, but a bill for a full ban on the cultivation of genetically modified crops is currently making its way through the Duma (the ruling Russian assembly).

Growing your own food conserves petroleum resources not only because it requires no tractors or other machinery but because it needn’t be hauled over long distances in trucks, trains or ships. Food travels 1,500 miles on average before it gets to your dinner table, and nutrients are lost in the process. Families who cannot afford the healthy but pricey organic food in the supermarket can grow their own.

Prof. Sharaskin noted that gardens also have psychological benefits. He cited studies showing that personal interaction with plants can reduce stress, fear and fatigue, and can lower blood pressure and muscle tension. Gardening also reconnects us with our neighbors and the earth. Sharaskin quotes Leo Tolstoy:

“One of the first and universally acknowledged preconditions for happiness is living in close contact with nature, i.e., living under the open sky, in the light of the sun, in the fresh air; interacting with the earth, plants, and animals.”

From Crisis to Opportunity

Today, people in the West are undergoing something similar to the “rape of Russia” at the hands of financial oligarchs. Oligarchical giants like BlackRock and Blackstone come to mind, along with “the Davos crowd” – that exclusive cartel of international bankers, big businessmen, media, and politicians meeting annually at the World Economic Forum (WEF) in Davos, Switzerland.

WEF founder Klaus Schwab has declared the current confluence of crises to be “a rare but narrow window of opportunity to reflect, reimagine, and reset our world.” It is also a rare but narrow opportunity for us, the disenfranchised, to reclaim our plundered assets and the power to issue our own money, upgrading the economy in the service of the people and reimagining food systems and our own patches of land, however small.

For food sustainability, we can take a lesson from the successful Russian dachas by forming our own family and community food gardens. Russia has also seen the burgeoning growth of eco-villages – subsistence communities made up of multiple family cottages, typically including community areas with a school, clinic, theater, and festival grounds. Forming self-sufficient communities and “going local” is a popular movement in the West today as well.

A corollary is the independent cryptocurrency movement. We can combine these two movements to fund our local food gardens with food-backed community currencies or cryptocurrencies. Crypto “coins” bought now would act like forward contracts, serving as an advance against future productivity, redeemable at harvest time in agricultural produce. That subject will be explored in a follow-up article, coming shortly.

*

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 posted on ScheerPost.

Ellen Brown is an attorney, chair of the Public Banking Institute, and author of thirteen books including Web of DebtThe Public Bank Solution, and Banking on the People: Democratizing Money in the Digital Age. She also co-hosts a radio program on PRN.FM called “It’s Our Money.” Her 300+ blog articles are posted at EllenBrown.com

She is a regular contributor to Global Research.

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

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

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

***

The top Ukrainian official who was fired for spreading misinformation has admitted that she lied about Russians committing mass rape in order to convince western countries to send more weapons to Ukraine.

Lyudmila Denisova, the former Ukrainian Parliamentary Commissioner for Human Rights, was removed from her position following a vote of no confidence in the Ukrainian parliament which passed by a margin of 234-to-9.

Parliament member Pavlo Frolov specifically accused Denisova of pushing misinformation that “only harmed Ukraine” in relation to “the numerous details of ‘unnatural sexual offenses’ and child sexual abuses in the occupied territories, which were unsupported by evidence.”

In an interview published by a Ukrainian news outlet, Denisova admitted that her falsehoods had achieved their intended goal.

“When, for example, I spoke in the Italian parliament at the Committee on International Affairs, I heard and saw such fatigue from Ukraine, you know? I talked about terrible things in order to somehow push them to make the decisions that Ukraine and the Ukrainian people need,” she said.

Denisova noted that Italy’s Five Star Movement was originally “against the provision of weapons to us, but after [her] speech, one of the party leaders… said that they will support [us], including by the provision of weapons.”

Despite the fact that her claims about mass rape were false, they were repeatedly amplified by legacy media outlets like CNN and the Washington Post.

“The media was quick to put this woman’s BS claims out but couldn’t care less about correcting the record,” writes Chris Menahan.

Indeed, there have been innumerable outright hoaxes and falsehoods throughout the war where so-called ‘fact checkers’ have been noticeable by their absence.

These include radiation leaks at besieged nuclear plants which turned out not to have occurred, the media’s complete misinformation about what happened on Snake Island, the ‘Ghost of Kiev Hoax, as well as the ‘attack’ on a Holocaust memorial that never happened.

*

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 a video above/via Summit News

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Ukrainian Official Admits She Lied About Russians Committing Mass Rape to Convince Countries to Send More Weapons
  • Tags: , ,

The War in Ukraine Marks the End of the American Century. “What’s Left is a Steaming Pile of Dollar Denominated Debt”

By Mike Whitney, June 09, 2022

It’s true. The “full faith and credit” of the US Treasury is largely a myth held together by an institutional framework that rests on a foundation of pure sand. In fact, the USD is not worth the paper it is printed on; it is an IOU flailing in an ocean of red ink.

The 2020 U.S Elections: Zuckerberg, Rockefeller, Google and the Privatization of Election Integrity

By F. William Engdahl, June 09, 2022

Through deceit and capitalizing on loopholes in US law for non-profit entities, private corporate and foundation interests have and are pouring vast sums of money to corrupt the US election process in the interest of a dystopian Green Agenda and worse.

Ortega Links Non-invitation to the Summit of Americas to Nicaragua’s Close Ties with Russia

By Paul Antonopoulos, June 09, 2022

Ortega also linked Washington’s non-invitation for Nicaragua, Venezuela and Cuba to the summit as a foreign policy strategy intended to weaken Russia.

Scientism, Not Science, Rules the Roost

By Dr. Joseph Mercola, June 09, 2022

Science has long been regarded as a stronghold of logic and reason. Scientists don’t draw conclusions based on emotions, feelings or sheer faith. It’s all about building a body of reproducible evidence. Well, that’s what it used to be, but as technocracy and transhumanism have risen to the fore, it has brought with it its own form of science — “scientism” — which is basically the religion of science.

The Dangers of Regime Change: After Putin

By Ted Snider, June 09, 2022

The comparison between the crisis in Ukraine and the Cuban missile crisis has occasionally been made. With an honest look at that crisis, history has two lessons to offer for the crisis of today.

Biden Works to Prolong Ukraine War: Craig Murray

By Craig Murray, June 09, 2022

I was in Turkey to try to further peace talks, as an experienced diplomat with good contacts there, and as a peace activist. I was not there as a journalist and much of what I discussed was with the understanding of confidence. It will probably be some years before I judge it reasonable and fair to reveal all that I know. But I can give some outline.

Video: Epstein’s “Black Book”

By Kristina Borjesson and Nick Bryant, June 09, 2022

Investigative reporter Nick Bryant (who was the first to get Epstein’s black book) and I introduce ourselves to Elon Musk as reporters who do care about investigating all things Epstein, including his clients, and explain why he thinks journalists like us do not exist.

Everything Is a Weapon: The U.S. Government Is Waging Psychological Warfare on the Nation

By John W. Whitehead and Nisha Whitehead, June 09, 2022

The U.S. government is waging psychological warfare on the American people. No, this is not a conspiracy theory. Psychological warfare, according to the Rand Corporation, “involves the planned use of propaganda and other psychological operations to influence the opinions, emotions, attitudes, and behavior of opposition groups.”

For the Peoples of Our Region, the Failure of Biden’s Summit of the Americas Would be a Welcome Event

By Ajamu Baraka, June 09, 2022

The Summit of the Americas is not the property of the host nation. The U.S. has no right to exclude, Cuba, Nicaragua and Venezuela, but has done so in disregard of their sovereignty. The U.S. is not fit to judge others or to be responsible for bringing nations together. Every leader in the hemisphere should boycott what has become a farcical event.

The US Is at War with Itself

By Michael Jansen, June 09, 2022

US citizens will not come to grips with the growing epidemic of mass shootings, almost all by young men wielding assault rifles. Self-interest prompts US politicians to refuse to address mass and multiple shootings while the public is divided by conflicting, politically-motivated narratives. Last weekend, there were 17 fatalities in 10 multiple shootings across the country.

  • Posted in NO READ MORE LINK
  • Comments Off on Selected Articles: The War in Ukraine Marks the End of the American Century. “What’s Left is a Steaming Pile of Dollar Denominated Debt”

This Week’s Most Popular Articles

June 10th, 2022 by Global Research News

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

Dr. Naomi Wolf, June 4, 2022

Bayer Head Admits COVID-19 Vaccine Is Gene Therapy

Martin Armstrong, June 5, 2022

Black Sea Geopolitics and Russia’s Control of Strategic Waterways: The Kerch Strait and the Sea of Azov

Prof Michel Chossudovsky, June 8, 2022

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

Stop World Control, June 1, 2022

We’re Now in the Last Stage of a Tyrannical Takeover

Dr. Joseph Mercola, June 6, 2022

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

Prof Michel Chossudovsky, June 8, 2022

Kissinger Nails It. For Once.

Mike Whitney, June 3, 2022

The Devastating Impacts of the COVID-19 Vaccine Confirmed: We Were Lied to: Game Over, We Won. Steve Kirsch

Steve Kirsch, June 8, 2022

Study Finds Athlete Deaths Are 1,700% Higher Than Expected Since COVID-19 Vaccination Began

The Daily Expose, June 6, 2022

The Top Ten Creepiest and Most Dystopian Things Pushed by the World Economic Forum (WEF)

Vigilant Citizen, June 6, 2022

Bilderberg Meets in Washington: Bilderberg Does China. An Economic Hurricane is Coming

Pepe Escobar, June 7, 2022

New Zealand Doctors Speaking Out on Deaths Following Vaccination – “Let’s make our police and MPs put a stop to this now!”

The Daily Expose, June 3, 2022

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

Dr. Russell Blaylock, May 27, 2022

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

Dustin Broadbery, June 3, 2022

Why America Needs War

Dr. Jacques R. Pauwels, June 5, 2022

Monkey Pox Update: “War Game” Scenario Planning. “The Controlled Media Have No Shame”. Dr. Robert Malone

Dr. Robert Malone, June 2, 2022

The Pandemic Treaty: WHO Suffers Defeat as Countries Massively Oppose Globalist Plans

Free West Media, June 6, 2022

Video: Digital Tyranny and the QR Code. The WHO Pandemic Treaty is the Back Door to “Global Governance”

Peter Koenig, June 2, 2022

The Links Between Jeffrey Epstein and Bill Gates Explained

The Week, June 7, 2022

A New War in the Middle East? Israel Military Exercises Simulates Invasion of Lebanon, War with Hezbollah, and Iran

Timothy Alexander Guzman, June 4, 2022

The Mysterious Death of Osama bin Laden

Prof Michel Chossudovsky, June 5, 2022

Rethinking the Second Amendment. “Those Lost to Gun Violence”: Dr. Naomi Wolf

Dr. Naomi Wolf, June 6, 2022

Scott Ritter: Phase Three in Ukraine

Scott Ritter, June 4, 2022

Study Finds Latest Monkeypox Outbreak Is Result of Biolab-manipulated Virus Possibly Released Intentionally

The Daily Expose, June 3, 2022

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

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

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

***

Through deceit and capitalizing on loopholes in US law for non-profit entities, private corporate and foundation interests have and are pouring vast sums of money to corrupt the US election process in the interest of a dystopian Green Agenda and worse. It consists of a complex network of interests including Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg, Google, Rockefeller funds. The evidence is that this is all being covertly orchestrated by US intelligence agencies to impose a destructive economic and social agenda on the US tied to the Davos Great Reset and UN Agenda 2030.

Increasing evidence is coming to light detailing the hijacking of the core of the American elections system that not only sheds light on the 2020 US elections, but also on private financing the very infrastructure of local election clerks and election procedures including drop-box mail-in balloting and expenses of city and county election offices.

The room for abuse is staggering as the process is not transparent. At the heart of this is a little-known “non-profit” known as the oddly-named Center for Tech and Civic Life or CTCL. The alleged creator of CTCL and current head is a former Obama Foundation Fellow, Tiana Epps-Johnson. A close scrutiny of her CTCL funders and operations suggest she was simply chosen as a convenient vehicle by very powerful foundations and Big Tech companies to transform the very structure and control of the American elections process.

Center for Tech and Civic Life

Epps-Johnson founded CTCL in 2012. By 2019 she was in the big leagues when Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg and his wife Priscilla Chan gave CTCL several donations totaling over $419 million to influence the 2020 US elections. How this was done is a study in sophisticated and patently illegal election manipulation.

Stalin once said

“Those who vote decide nothing. Those who count the vote decide everything.”

Today he might add, “Who controls the Ballot Drop Boxes also controls the vote.” This is the focus of Zuckerberg and the CTLC.

In the US political system each state is responsible for the conduct of election laws. In the run-up to the 2020 elections, following irregularities in the 2018 mid-term Congress elections where Democrats took majority in both houses, Republicans began pointing to a move by radical Democrat states like California, New York, Illinois or Michigan to open the floodgates to potential fraud by not requiring voter photo ID photo, or even standard restrictions on mail-in voting such as postmark or signature. Presently no proof of photo ID is required to cast a vote in 15 states including the most populous states of California, Illinois, New York, Pennsylvania, Arizona and Minnesota.

Follow the Money

In the crucial November 2020 US election, CTLC played an unprecedented, highly-sophisticated and clearly highly corrupt role to influence the outcome in favor of Democratic candidates, especially Joe Biden as President. It was thanks to donations totaling $419 million, nearly half a billion dollars, from Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg and his wife, through their $86 billion tax-exempt foundation. The crucial point was how and where the money was given out.

According to the CTLC website, they opened applications to any local election commission requesting funds, allegedly on a non-partisan basis. The money went direct and state legislatures or government had no control over it, contrary to what is written into the US Constitution. The grants or free funds were officially “TO SUPPORT THE SAFE ADMINISTRATION OF PUBLIC ELECTIONS DURING THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC.” Here is where it gets interesting.

The states where covid lockdowns and social measures were most severe were precisely the key Democratic-run states asking no voter ID and imposing massive mail-in voting “because of covid restrictions” as noted above, like California, Illinois, Pennsylvania or New York. CTCL announced grants to support unprecedented mail-in voting, including special drop-boxes in key locations to make voting by mail easier, and vote fraud as well.

The grant monies could finance vast networks of drop boxes in key Democrat neighborhoods such as Philadelphia, where Democratic Party corrupt machines were in control. Money also might be spent in local election districts to “educate” poll watchers or “train” election officials. Oh, how could this go wrong?

By law, tax-exempt organizations are required to file detailed expenditure statements to the IRS tax department. The CTLC tax form for the crucial 2020 election year was filed on January 22, 2022. For the first time since the November 2020 elections, it gives a detailed picture of what Zuckerberg’s huge donations to CTCL bought. On the surface it appears that grants were indeed given to election commissions requesting regardless of whether it was a known democratic district or Republican.

However, a detailed city or county breakdown shows the deception. In many states minimal grants of $5000 were doled out. Many of those went to known Republican areas. Not enough to do much of anything significant. But it allowed CTLC to claim non-partisanship.

But in the most notoriously corrupt democratic cities or counties the story was very different. For example the highly-populated Dallas County Texas where 65% voted Democrat, the County Election Commission got an eye-watering $15,130,433 from CTCL to spend as they saw fit. No details required. Neighboring Tarrant County where Fort Worth is, and 49% Democrat, was given $1,678,523, and Harris County where Houston is, and 56% Democratic, got a generous $9,663,446. Laredo Texas, a small town on the Mexican border got a juicy $2,435,169.

In Democratic-run Pennsylvania where major legal challenges of significant Democrat vote fraud in Philadelphia and Pittsburg were made, the CTLC nonprofit gave $2,052,251 to Allegheny County (Pittsburg) and a generous $10,016,070 to Philadelphia, the “City of Brotherly Love.” That $10 million was granted even as the former Philadelphia Judge of Elections was convicted for his role in accepting bribes to cast fraudulent ballots and certifying false voting results during the 2014, 2015, and 2016 primary elections in Philadelphia. Keep in mind neither CTLC nor Zuckerberg nor any government, required any accountability for their generosity.

New York City Board of Elections, under then notoriously corrupt Democrat Mayor Bill DeBlasio (born Warren Wilhelm Jr), got a CTLC contribution of $19,294,627. In Democrat-run Michigan the notoriously corrupt Democrat-run Detroit election officials got $7,436,450 to organize the vote as they saw fit. All told, in the State of Michigan, where significant 2020 vote fraud was claimed and even documented before corrupt judges threw the evidence, CTLC gave an estimated $24 million to some 420 towns and county election commissions. In Democratic Illinois, notoriously corrupt Chicago, home of CTLC, was given $2,269,663 to play with.

In the hotly-contested state of Georgia where both Republicans and Democrats were accused of fraud and refusal to legally prosecute it, tens of millions of dollars flowed from CTLC to key Democratic areas such as Dekalb County (83% Democrat) which got $9,625,041. Fulton County (Atlanta) which got some $10.7 million. Gwinnett County Georgia by Atlanta got $6.4 million of a total for Georgia in 2020 of $40 million! Biden “won” the pivotal swing state by a mere 0.2% of a percent. A corrupt Republican Secretary of State refused to challenge the result despite ample evidence of fraud. Another hotly-contested “Swing State” in 2020, Arizona, also got millions for key counties from CTLC including fraud-documented Maricopa County which got $1,840,345. And Democrat-run California, got some $18 million in a state asking no voter ID.

Non-partisan’ CTLC

What is exactly the Center for Tech and Civic Life whose website claims to be about “working to foster a more informed and engaged democracy, and helping to modernize US elections,”? Tiana Epps-Johnson in her own website modestly claims she is doing, “groundbreaking work to make US elections more inclusive and secure.” Bizarrely, she calls herself a “civic technologist,” whatever that is. Leave aside the fact that the most secure elections today are the classical in-person, ID verified paper ballot voting and not hackable Internet-accessible computer voting machines or mail-in or absentee ballots, which are banned in most developed countries. Outdoor Ballot Drop Boxes make vote fraud simple. This was the key to the Zuckerberg CTLC strategy

Tiana calls herself the founder and executive director of CTCL. Her Wikipedia bio reads like that of a typical spook, with no personal data such as family, birth. Her stated history begins with her as an undergraduate at Stanford where she allegedly got a BA. Quoting further from her website where she speaks of herself in third person,

“Prior to CTCL, she was the New Organizing Institute’s Election Administration Director from 2012 to 2015. She previously worked on the Voting Rights Project for the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights. Tiana… was selected to join the inaugural cohorts of Obama Foundation Fellows (2018) and Harvard Ash Center Technology and Democracy Fellows (2015). Tiana earned a MSc in Politics and Communication from the London School of Economics and a BA in Political Science from Stanford University.”

That’s it, that is all the world knows about her background. Yet she is entrusted to dole out nearly half a billion dollars to influence the 2020 US elections? Her ties to Obama are so close such that she introduced the Democratic former President in April 2022 to a Stanford student audience for a speech on “disinformation,” for which Obama is clearly world-class expert.

Things become clearer when we look at the funders of this formerly obscure non-profit. In addition to Zuckerberg’s Facebook (meta), CTLC’s website lists Google, The Rockefeller Brothers Fund, eBay billionaire founder Pierre Omidyar’s Democracy Fund, the Knight Foundation, most notably. Clearly Tiana, the mysterious young “civic technologist” travels in very high-powered circles.

Google-YouTube Censors

In a May, 2022 journalist Dinesh D’Souza released a documentary detailing actual CCTV video footage of ballot drop box fraud across key states in the 2020 elections. It’s titled ‘2000 Mules’, a reference to some 2,000 paid vote fraudsters documented on surveillance CCTV video cameras.

They are shown illegally delivering multiple votes to the special ballot drop boxes in key swing state cities like Philadelphia, drop boxes paid for by Zuckerberg’s CTLC election largesse. Without the special election temporary drop boxes, allegedly to accommodate the huge increase in mail-in voting in 2020 due to “covid,” the ballot stuffing in the key states would not have been possible.

The “mules” were allegedly paid $10 per vote stuffed, and identified mules were filmed driving to several drop boxes in the dead of night wearing gloves to avoid fingerprint traces. D’Souza’s video has been banned on YouTube, a company owned by Google, the same Google which also donated to CTLC. Google enjoys close ties to the CIA as do most key Silicon Valley giants, allegedly also Zuckerberg. It is a spider’s web of Democrat NGO’s and tax-exempt foundations like Zuckerberg’s, who have de facto privatized American elections in a covert way Stalin could only have dreamed of.

Since 2020, some 14 states have passed laws forbidding private funding of elections. Similar bills have passed the legislature in another five states, including Pennsylvania, but have been blocked by Democratic governors.

*

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.

F. William Engdahl is strategic risk consultant and lecturer, he holds a degree in politics from Princeton University and is a best-selling author on oil and geopolitics.

He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG).

Featured image is from NEO


Seeds of Destruction: Hidden Agenda of Genetic Manipulation

Author Name: F. William Engdahl
ISBN Number: 978-0-9879389-2-3
Year: 2007
Product Type: PDF File

Price: $9.50

This skilfully researched book focuses on how a small socio-political American elite seeks to establish control over the very basis of human survival: the provision of our daily bread. “Control the food and you control the people.”

This is no ordinary book about the perils of GMO. Engdahl takes the reader inside the corridors of power, into the backrooms of the science labs, behind closed doors in the corporate boardrooms.

The author cogently reveals a diabolical world of profit-driven political intrigue, government corruption and coercion, where genetic manipulation and the patenting of life forms are used to gain worldwide control over food production. If the book often reads as a crime story, that should come as no surprise. For that is what it is.

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

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

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

***

The continued occupation by Israel of Palestinian territory and discrimination against Palestinians are the key root causes of the recurrent tensions, instability and protraction of conflict in the region, according to the first report by the new United Nations Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and Israel, issued today.

The Commission also noted that impunity is feeding increased resentment among the Palestinian people. It identified forced displacement, threats of forced displacement, demolitions, settlement construction and expansion, settler violence, and the blockade of Gaza as contributing factors to recurring cycles of violence.

“The findings and recommendations relevant to the underlying root causes were overwhelmingly directed towards Israel, which we have taken as an indicator of the asymmetrical nature of the conflict and the reality of one State occupying the other,” Navanethem Pillay, chair of the Commission, said.

The Commission released its 18-page report after conducting an assessment of recommendations made by previous Commissions of Inquiry and Fact-Finding Missions, as well as other United Nations mechanisms and its own hearings.

The Commission undertook two missions to Geneva and one to Jordan, and held consultations with various stakeholders, including Israeli and Palestinian civil society organizations.

“We also found that these recommendations have overwhelmingly not been implemented, including calls to ensure accountability for Israel’s violations of international humanitarian and human rights law and the indiscriminate firing of rockets fire by Palestinian armed groups into Israel. It is this lack of implementation coupled with a sense of impunity, clear evidence that Israel has no intention of ending the occupation, and the persistent discrimination against Palestinians that lies at the heart of the systematic recurrence of violations in both the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and Israel,” Ms. Pillay added.

In its report, the Commission focused on the findings and recommendations directly related to underlying root causes of recurrent tensions, instability and protraction of conflict. In its assessment, key recommendations have not been implemented and this lies at the heart of the conflict. The Commission identified several overarching issues that lay at the core of most recommendations, including Israel’s failure to uphold the laws and customs of war, including those of belligerent occupation, violations and abuses of individual and collective rights, and a lack of accountability.

“Our review of the findings and recommendations of previous UN mechanisms and bodies clearly indicates that ending Israel’s occupation, in full conformity with Security Council resolutions, remains essential in stopping the persistent cycle of violence. It is only with the ending of occupation that the world can begin to reverse historical injustices and move towards self-determination of the Palestinian peoples,” Commissioner Miloon Kothari noted.

Commissioner Chris Sidoti added:

“Israel clearly has no intention of ending the occupation. In fact, it has established clear policies to ensure complete permanent control over the Occupied Palestinian Territory. This includes altering the demography of these territories through the maintenance of a repressive environment for Palestinians and a favourable environment for Israeli settlers. Israel’s policies and actions build Palestinian frustration and lead to a sense of despair. They fuel the cycle of violence and the protraction of conflict.”

The report also noted that the Palestinian Authority frequently uses the occupation as a justification for its own human rights violations and as the core reason for its failure to hold legislative and presidential elections. At the same time, the de facto authorities in Gaza have shown little commitment to upholding human rights, and no adherence to international humanitarian law.

The report, which will be presented to the 50th session of the Human Rights Council on 13 June 2022, concludes by laying out that the Commission will conduct investigations and legal analysis into alleged violations and abuses, and will work with judicial accountability mechanisms toward ensuring individual, State and corporate accountability. It will also carefully assess the responsibilities of third States and those of private actors in the continued policies of occupation.

Background

The UN Human Rights Council mandated the Commission on 27 May 2021 to “investigate, in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and in Israel, all alleged violations of international humanitarian law and all alleged violations and abuses of international human rights law leading up and since 13 April 2021”. In July 2021, the President of the Human Rights Council announced the appointment of Navanethem Pillay (South Africa), Miloon Kothari (India) and Christopher Sidoti (Australia) to serve as the three members of the Commission and indicated that Ms. Pillay would serve as Chair. Resolution A/HRC/RES/S-30/1 further requested the commission of inquiry to “investigate all underlying root causes of recurrent tensions, instability and protraction of conflict, including systematic discrimination and repression based on national, ethnic, racial or religious identity.” The Commission of Inquiry was mandated to report to the Human Rights Council and the General Assembly annually from June 2022 and September 2022, respectively.

*

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: Graffiti on the Israeli separation wall dividing the East Jerusalem neighborhood of Abu Dis (Photo: Ryan Rodrick Beiler via shutterstock.com)

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Including East Jerusalem, and Israel, Issues First Report
  • Tags: , ,

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

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

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

***

Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega permitted the entry of foreign troops, ships and aircraft into the country for humanitarian purposes from the second half of 2022. According to the official government gazette, ships, aircraft and military personnel from the US, Russia, Mexico, Cuba, Venezuela, Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras and Dominican Republic are authorized to “participate in exercises and exchanges in humanitarian aid operations and search and rescue missions in emergency situations or natural disasters.”

However, why is Russia the only state outside of the Americas in the agreement, especially amid tensions with the US?

The Nicaraguan government believes that the exchange between military forces will be of “mutual benefit in emergency situations” between nations. The gazette also says that the entry of foreign troops was previously planned and coordinated with the Nicaraguan Army, whose members were also allowed to travel to these countries to carry out humanitarian activities.

What makes this allowance all the more interesting is the participation of Russia, signifying just how important Moscow is for Nicaragua, especially as it is the only country from outside the Americas in the agreement.

Recently, Ortega criticized the holding of the Summit of the Americas in Los Angeles (June 6-10), recalling that Cuba, Nicaragua and Venezuela were not invited to event by the Joe Biden administration.

“I say from here to the Yankee: forget it, we are not interested in being in that Summit, we are not interested (…) that summit does not exalt anyone,” Ortega said. “We have to make ourselves respected, we cannot be asking the Yankee, begging him that we want to go to his Summit. We are not encouraged by their summit.”

Ortega also linked Washington’s non-invitation for Nicaragua, Venezuela and Cuba to the summit as a foreign policy strategy intended to weaken Russia.

“They want to subdue Russia. They want to subjugate China […] [they’re] thinking the time has come for them to take over the entire planet. And they didn’t realize that’s not possible anymore,” he said.

Nicaragua is currently hosting an elaborate celebration to commemorate the June 12, 1990 declaration of the Russian Federation following the dissolution of the Soviet Union. The event celebrates the close ties the two countries have enjoyed since 1979 when the Sandinista Popular Revolution came to power. Since then, Nicaragua has been a key and strategic ally of Moscow.

This is especially the case since the political ideology of Nicaragua is related to the Soviet position of anti-imperialism and anti-Americanism. Although the governments and presidents of Nicaragua and Russia have changed, support between the two countries remain close and nearly unabated for over 40 years.

Buses in Managua are Russian, for example, as well as agricultural machinery, fertilizers, medicine and wheat. In addition, the two countries are often supporting each other when facing pressure from the US and its allies.

It is recalled that on January 18, Russian President Vladimir Putin expressed his “unwavering support” for the re-election of Ortega and his willingness to contribute to Nicaragua’s economic development. Managua has not hesitated in supporting Moscow’s position on the war in Ukraine, especially as both countries are subject to financial, immigration and political sanctions imposed by the US and the European Union.

According to Nicaraguan Finance and Public Credit Minister Iván Acosta, the West’s policy of sanctions against Russia is causing a “strong” blow to the global economy, with the aggravation of the crisis due to high fuel, fertilizer and energy prices.

“The erroneous, aggressive, sanctions policies [are] affecting major oil producers, in this case Russia, and has caused a very strong impact on one of the leading price products. When we talk about oil, we are talking about diesel, gasoline, fertilizers and other petroleum derivatives, which has a lot of impact on industry, and those prices are transferred to the economy,” he said.

Nicaragua, despite its close ties with Russia, has not escaped the impact of rising oil prices, even though the Ortega government has attempted to contain price inflation aggravated by the West’s anti-Russia sanctions.

Acosta explained that Nicaragua established a strategy to avoid the inflationary impact on the local economy by applying four measures aimed at freezing fuel prices. In this way, a rise in the cost of food, transportation, industry and production has mostly been avoided. The strategy is aimed at stabilizing the price of electricity and for now the Central American country has managed to keep fuel prices frozen for twelve consecutive weeks.

One of the measures is focused on incentivizing production for the increase in exports, which in 2022 could reach $4 billion dollars given the increase in the prices of Nicaragua’s main export products, such as gold, beef and coffee. Ortega said on May 4 that Nicaragua is making “enormous efforts” to contain the rise in fuels, mobilizing millions of dollars in resources that could be used in social programs.

Although Washington is attempting to isolate Nicaragua from the rest of the Americas, other states are wondering what the benefits are since they too are suffering from economic crises and high prices instigated by US-led sanctions against Russia. The Biden-organized Summit has proven to be nothing more but an opportunity for the US and its closest allies to denounce Nicaragua, Venezuela and Cuba rather than dealing with real issues such as poverty, economic stagnation and inflation. In this way, Nicaragua will continue to maintain extremely close relations with Russia.

*

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

Paul Antonopoulos is an independent geopolitical analyst.

Featured image is from InfoBrics

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

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

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

***

A few weeks ago, I wrote about attempts by Karl Lauterbach to delay the work of an expert committee with a mandate from the Bundestag to evaluate the effectiveness of lockdowns and other containment measures in Germany. Christian Drosten went so far as to resign from the committee, and gave a rambling radio interview in which he complained that the evaluative body hadn’t been granted enough time and that it had been staffed with the wrong people.

The whole controversy struck me as strange. Surely this was going to be some milquetoast whitewash of the lockdowns, and so you had to wonder why Drosten and Lauterbach were even bothering.

Well, I was wrong: The committee aren’t preparing a whitewash at all. They are poised, instead, to issue a mostly honest report admitting that there is no evidence that German containment has achieved anything. The Süddeutsche Zeitung has obtained a draft of their report, which is set to be released towards the end of this month. Their crack Corona reporter, renowned hypochondriac schoolmarm and go-to eugyppius villain Christina Berndt, is not pleased.

Image on the right: The hypervaccinated Christina Berndt, in a rare maskless appearance. (Source: eugyppius)

It’s fairly clear that the conclusions of the committee represent the quiet consensus of the post-Merkel German political establishment. Its experts were appointed by the government and the Bundestag, with each political party being permitted a number of nominations proportional to their share of electoral representation. Politicians were given every opportunity, in other words, to ensure that the committee didn’t arrive at any undesirable conclusions.

What we’re looking at here, is a surreptitious effort by the political arm to close the door on mass containment, which explains the opposition from Lauterbach and Drosten. These men are merely the leading edge of the public health dictatorship in Germany, which has its deepest roots in academia, the permanent bureaucracy and the press. They will now strike back, and do everything in their power to avoid having their signature policies discredited.

*

There are important scraps of information to be gleaned from Berndt’s anathema:

The chapter on the Corona measures is poorly crafted, the selection and commentary of the scientific literature is one-sided, the negative consequences of the measures are overemphasised, important aspects are simply omitted; only a preconceived negative opinion of the Corona measures will find confirmation here, various virological and epidemiological experts told the SZ.

According to the chapter’s authors, there is in the end little evidence for the benefit of many measures, from contact restrictions to 3G rules – with the exception of wearing masks indoors.

From the beginning of this year, as country after country dropped all containment measures, politicians like Markus Söder began hawking a political compromise –vestigial mask mandates to appease the hystericists, and otherwise no restrictions. This is the vision that ultimately won out, and it just can’t be a coincidence that this is exactly what the expert committee ended up supporting.

The chapter is being drafted under the leadership of virologist Hendrik Streeck from the University of Bonn, who was originally supposed to share this task with Christian Drosten from the Charité in Berlin. But Drosten left the committee because, in his view, a sound scientific evaluation wasn’t possible in the allotted time and with the personnel available to the committee …

Streeck has had a more balanced view of containment and the risk posed by SARS-2 from the very beginning. Drosten obviously dropped out, calculating that it would be better to discredit the report from the outside, than lend the authority of his name to its contents.

[M]any important details in the draft report are surprising. It opens with the statement that Germany did not do well during the pandemic. For example, it claims that life expectancy in Germany for 2021 has fallen “by about half a year compared to the pre-Covid year 2019,” while people in Sweden, which critics of the measures regard as a positive example, are living longer. The comparison of 2021 with 2019 seems strange, though, because Sweden experienced massive deaths in 2020, and then imposed stricter measures later.

The selection of studies moreover seems arbitrary. For example, relevant studies that give a good rating to Germany’s handling of the pandemic during the first wave are not mentioned, such as a high-ranking paper by Max Planck researcher Viola Priesemann published in the journal Science. …

Image below: Viola Priesemann is a frightening person. (Source: eugyppius)

Viola Priesemann im Porträt

Here we learn that the report is a not-so-subtle rebuke of the Merkel government specifically: It rates Germany’s pandemic performance poorly, snubs Merkel-adjacent modellers like the forever-wrong Viola Priesemann, and compares German outcomes unfavourably to Sweden, which took the opposite path of minimal mitigation.

Sometimes, studies that evaluate interventions as effective are cast into doubt with succinct statements that they have been “critically received”, without providing a reference. And in numerous places there is no reference at all, only the deliberate insertion of “REF” to suggest that there is something more to come here. An expert who, like other critics of the study, does not want to named, says: “It looks like they’re still looking for the right literature reference, because studies that support an opinion can always be found.”

Or, it’s, you know, a draft, but by all means, get your science friends to provide baseless anonymous criticism of conclusions you don’t like.

The dishonesty continues:

[L]iterature references are sometimes misrepresented in the report. For example, it is claimed that even the WHO, in a report from March 2019, “did not recommend broad contact and movement restrictions for the population in the event of an influenza pandemic due to a lack of scientific evidence.” Yet the report says the opposite. The WHO explicitly recommends avoiding crowds even in the case of a “moderate” influenza pandemic, school closures and masks from the next severity level (“severe”), and closing workplaces and travel restrictions from the “extraordinary” severity level, which probably applies to Covid-19.

This is more evidence that the report is trying to drive a stake through the heart of the lockdown regime. In addition to relying on modellers and avoiding international comparisons, the lockdowners like to elide the crucial distinction between mitigation and containment. Mitigation measures to “slow the spread,” including temporary regional closures, are categorically not the same as “broad restrictions on contact and movement” like lockdowns, border closures and mandatory quarantines of the healthy. Mitigation is when your schools close; containment is when your kids can’t play with their friends. Thus the WHO report, which Berndt misrepresents, says that “Contact tracing,” “quarantine of exposed individuals,” “entry and exit screening” and “border closure” are “not recommended in any circumstances” (p. 3) – to say nothing of lockdowns.

*

Mass containment depends upon a whole tapestry of convenient lies and fictions. The middle path would have been to say that the measures are no longer necessary or cost-effective, given the widespread availability of vaccines and the immune resistance the German population has cultivated, while otherwise affirming the theoretical validity of the doctrinal system. Apparently, the report leaked to Christina Berndt doesn’t do that. It’s instead an effort to sink mass containment as a viable policy now and for all time, orchestrated by politicians desperate to end the closures.

For much of 2021, official messaging was dominated by two rival discourses, that I nicknamed Team Lockdown and Team Vaccine. Some limited vaccine scepticism was possible, so long as you expressed deep fanatical devotion to repressive non-pharmaceutical interventions. Conversely, you were allowed to demand an end to lockdowns and other measures, so long as you sang the praises of the vaccines. In 2022, with the rise of Omicron, we have seen the total rout of Team Lockdown and the ascendancy of Team Vaccine everywhere but China.

I expect the Bundestag report to be thoroughly trashed by the German press and academic establishment, but as a sign of some opposition, finally, somewhere, it’s encouraging.

*

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: Protest against Corona measures in Berlin on August 1, 2020: Leonhard Lenz, Wikimedia Commons, CCO

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Germany’s Bundestag Expert Committee Draft Report Finds No Evidence that Lockdowns Did Anything
  • Tags: ,

Scientism, Not Science, Rules the Roost

June 9th, 2022 by Dr. Joseph Mercola

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

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

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

***

As technocracy and transhumanism have risen to the fore, they have brought with them their own form of science — “scientism” — which is basically the religion of science. In other words, it’s a belief even in the absence of evidence, or in the face of contrary evidence, and this is a very serious problem

The clearest problem with the admonition to “believe the science” is that bona fide experts are found on all sides of any given empirical question

The scientific priesthood is intolerant to new ideas while, simultaneously, search engines and digitization of scientific literature have eroded their authority as gatekeepers of knowledge

The way things look right now, the gatekeepers to the scientific priesthood don’t seem to have any intention to open its doors to outsiders and independent thinkers. If anything, they’re trying to massively increase their control over the information we’re allowed to see and share, even to the point of proposing the creation of certifying boards to police physicians’ sharing of medical opinions

The idea that a group of people can be the sole arbiters of “truth” is irrational. Individual biases always creep in, and the greater the influence of such a group, the more ingrained and dogmatic those biases will become, until the system is corrupted to the core. One could argue that dogmatic faith in nonexistent scientific consensuses is the reason for why we are where we are today

*

Science has long been regarded as a stronghold of logic and reason. Scientists don’t draw conclusions based on emotions, feelings or sheer faith. It’s all about building a body of reproducible evidence. Well, that’s what it used to be, but as technocracy and transhumanism have risen to the fore, it has brought with it its own form of science — “scientism” — which is basically the religion of science. Sheldon Richman with The Libertarian Institute writes:1

“The popular slogan today is ‘Believe in science.’ It’s often used as a weapon against people who reject not science in principle but rather one or another prominent scientific proposition, whether it be about the COVID-19 vaccine, climate change … to mention a few …

The clearest problem with the admonition to ‘believe in science’ is that … well-credentialed scientists — that is, bona fide experts — are found on both (or all) sides of a given empirical question … Moreover, no one, not even scientists, are immune from group-think and confirmation bias …

Apparently, under the believers’ model of science, truth comes down from a secular Mount Sinai (Mount Science?) thanks to a set of anointed scientists, and those declarations are not to be questioned. The dissenters can be ignored because they are outside the elect. How did the elect achieve its exalted station? Often, but not always, it was through the political process …

But that’s not science; it’s religion, or at least it’s the stereotype of religion that the ‘science believers’ oppose in the name of enlightenment. What it yields is dogma and, in effect, accusations of heresy. In real science, no elect and no Mount Science exists.

Real science is a rough-and-tumble process of hypothesizing, public testing, attempted replication, theory formation, dissent and rebuttal, refutation (perhaps), revision (perhaps), and confirmation (perhaps). It’s an unending process, as it obviously must be …

The institutional power to declare matters settled by consensus opens the door to all kinds of mischief that violate the spirit of science and potentially harm the public financially and otherwise.”

Technocracy News also added a comment2 to Richman’s article, noting that “Scientism is at the root of both technocracy and transhumanism, indicating that the revolution waged against the world is religious in nature.”

Whether the war against humanity is truly underpinned by religion or not is open for debate and interpretation. But what is clear is that something has shifted science away from its conventional foundation into something that very much resembles religious faith. In other words, it’s a belief even in the absence of evidence, or in the face of contrary evidence, and this is a very serious problem.

Scientific Gatekeeping as a Priesthood

In “Against Scientific Gatekeeping,”3 published in the May 2022 issue of Reason magazine, Dr. Jeffrey Singer argues that “science should be a profession, not a priesthood.” Indeed, yet that’s basically what it has become. Singer starts out by reviewing the early discovery of hydroxychloroquine as a treatment against COVID-19, and the subsequent demonization of anyone who supported its off-label use.

He then goes on to discuss the scientific priesthood’s intolerance to new ideas while, simultaneously, “search engines and the digitization of scientific literature have forever eroded their authority as gatekeepers of knowledge.” He writes:4

“Most people prefer experts, of course, especially when it comes to health care … But a problem arises when some of those experts exert outsized influence over the opinions of other experts and thereby establish an orthodoxy enforced by a priesthood. If anyone, expert or otherwise, questions the orthodoxy, they commit heresy. The result is groupthink, which undermines the scientific process.

The COVID-19 pandemic provided many examples. Most medical scientists, for instance, uncritically accepted the epidemiological pronouncements of government-affiliated physicians who were not epidemiologists. At the same time, they dismissed epidemiologists as ‘fringe’ when those specialists dared to question the conventional wisdom …

The deference to government-endorsed positions is probably related to funding … President Dwight Eisenhower … warned that ‘we should be alert to the … danger that public policy could itself become captive of a scientific technological elite.’ Today we face both problems …

It is easy to understand why the scientific priesthood views the democratization of health care opinions as a threat to its authority and influence. In response, medical experts typically wave the flag of credentialism: If you don’t have an M.D. or another relevant advanced degree, they suggest, you should shut up and do as you’re told.

But credentials are not always proof of competence, and relying on them can lead to the automatic rejection of valuable insights … Scott Atlas, a former chief of neuroradiology at Stanford Medical School, has published and critically reviewed hundreds of medical research papers. He is a member of the Nominating Committee for the Nobel Prize in Medicine and Physiology.

Yet when Atlas commented on COVID-19 issues, the priesthood and its journalistic entourage derided him because he is ‘not an infectious disease expert’ — as if a 30-year career in academic medicine does not provide enough background to understand and analyze public health data. Why? Because this physician had the temerity to contradict the public health establishment.”

The Need to Reassess Dogmatic Thinking

Singer reviews several other examples of bonafide experts who got thrown under the proverbial bus by the medical priesthood during the years of COVID, and highlights instances where we can now, rather conclusively, prove that public health officials made bad calls.

Several studies have concluded that lockdowns had no beneficial impact on infection rates and COVID deaths, for example, while disproportionally harming the young and the poor. Yet no one has publicly admitted this strategy was an unwise one that should be permanently abandoned and never repeated.

Many studies have also demonstrated that natural immunity is better than the COVID jab, yet no changes have been made to the official recommendation to inject everyone, whether COVID recovered or not.

“Just as public health officials must abandon a ‘zero COVID’ strategy and accept that the virus will be endemic, the science priesthood must adapt to a world where specialized knowledge has been democratized,” Singer writes.5

“For scientific knowledge to advance, scientists must reach a rapprochement with the uncredentialed. They must not dismiss lay hypotheses or observations out of hand. They must fight against the understandable desire to avoid any hypothesis that might upset the health bureaucrats who control billions of research grant dollars.

It is always useful to challenge and reassess long-held premises and dogmas. People outside of a field might provide valuable perspectives that can be missed by those within it.”

Effort to Muzzle Doctors Continues

The way things look right now, the gatekeepers to the scientific priesthood don’t seem to have any intention to open its doors to outsiders and independent thinkers.

If anything, they’re trying to massively increase their control over the information we’re allowed to see and share, even to the point of proposing the creation of private medical certifying boards to police physicians’ sharing of medical opinions online and elsewhere. In a May 31, 2022, Substack article, independent medical journalist Paul Thacker writes:6

“This of course, is laughable. We have plenty of evidence that medical boards are incapable of regulating physician behavior simply by looking at the history of drug scandals in America, none of which could have occurred without the complicity of corrupt doctors — few if any of whom were later sanctioned by their own profession.

Anyone notice a medical board going after Duke University’s Dr. Ralph Snyderman for aiding the Sacklers’ opioid scheme and helping spread disinformation that these highly addictive drugs are NOT … highly addictive?

Of course not. Snyderman built up Duke University into the 3rd most prestigious medical school in the States. Despite spreading disinformation about opioids that killed tens of thousands of Americans, he’s obviously a great doctor …

Oddly enough, one of the most prolific tweeters on COVID-19 vaccines is Baylor University’s Dr. Peter Hotez. And while Hotez has spread disinformation about vaccines — in one example, stating that vaccines mandates were never going to happen and were just a dog whistle by anti-vaccine groups — don’t expect any state medical board to come after him.

The reality is that, during the pandemic, the medical profession has become cheerleaders for vaccines, not skeptics. So when a couple MDs write an essay in the NEJM saying we need to confront COVID-19 vaccine misinformation, you automatically know they don’t mean someone like Hotez who has tweeted vaccine misinformation, but who has also religiously promoted COVID-19 vaccines.”

Thacker goes on to detail the history of Dr. Edward Michna, who has spent a large portion of his career promoting and defending the use of opioids for several different drug companies. He’s also conducted several pain trials involving opioids, and despite having received many tens of thousands of dollars from opioid makers, he didn’t disclose those competing interests.

“In coming months, documents will be released, further explaining what the opioid manufacturers did. But nothing … NOTHING will happen to Dr. Edward Michna for defending these companies,” Thacker writes.7 “That’s why nobody should believe … the idea that doctors can regulate doctors. Doctors have had forever to do this, and they continually fail.”

Without Free Discourse, Science Dies

It seems the moral of all these stories is that without free discourse, science cannot flourish and falsehoods become harder to weed out. Free speech is a requirement for any well-functioning system, whether we’re talking about politics, medicine, science or anything else.

The idea that a group of people, no matter how well-intended, can be the sole arbiters of “truth” is irrational on its face, because who among us can claim to know all there is to know? Individual biases always creep in, and the greater the influence of such a group, the more ingrained and dogmatic those biases will become, until the system is corrupted to the core.

One could argue that dogmatic faith in nonexistent scientific consensuses is the reason for why we are where we are today. Gatekeepers to the scientific priesthood have already allowed science to be corrupted to the point its barely recognizable. The answer, then, is not more of the same, but less. We need less censorship and more open-minded sharing of viewpoints, opinions and interpretations.

And when it comes to creating medical boards to police medical “misinformation” shared by doctors, we already know how that would work out. While Thacker doesn’t mention this, many doctors have been targeted by various professional boards, including state medical boards, for publicly opposing COVID measures such as mask and COVID shot mandates. I discussed this in “Medical Boards Hunting Down Doctors Over Mask Mandates.”

Transforming the Health Care System

In his book, “Curable: How an Unlikely Group of Radical Innovators Is Trying to Transform Our Health Care System,” Travis Christofferson addresses questions such as: “What has happened to American health care?” and “What are the foundational disruptions or corruptions in the system?”

His book, in some ways, is based on the theory promoted in Michael Lewis’ book and subsequent film, “Moneyball.” It describes how you can use statistics to massively improve a flawed system.

“Moneyball” showed how, within a simple game of baseball, you can have massive inefficiencies, and by taking away the human biases and just applying statistics to find what is undervalued, you can massively boost the performance of a team.

When I interviewed Christofferson about his book, he offered several examples of how statistics and removal of human biases can be used in the same way to improve inefficiencies within the medical system. For example, the diabetic drug metformin has “massive repositories of data” suggesting it can be useful against a plethora of chronic diseases, including cancer, and it’s extremely affordable.

The reason it’s rarely prescribed for any of these other indications is because there’s a financial motivation to capitalize on more expensive treatments, even if they don’t work well. By focusing on undervalued treatments and low-cost prevention, health care costs could be driven way down, while simultaneously improving patient outcomes.

Another example comes from Geisinger Health in Pennsylvania. By introducing a Fresh Food Farmacy for Type 2 diabetics, Geisinger Health was able to reduce its per-year outlays and cost for Type 2 diabetics by a whopping 80%. Patients with prediabetes or Type 2 diabetes are given a prescription for fresh, whole foods, and allowed two free meals a day from the Farmacy, along with intensive care and educational support.

A third example is Intermountain Health. In addition to paying its doctors a fixed salary plus bonuses based on patients’ health outcomes, they also assess differences between treatments to see which works best.

For example, patients are always given antibiotics before surgery, but it’s never been established when the optimal time to administer the drugs is. Intermountain compared medical records, finding the optimal time was two hours before surgery, which cut their surgical infection rate by more than half.

Bias Corrupts and Corruption Is Inherently Destructive

These are all examples of how we can effectively and efficiently move medicine forward. By silencing debate and discussion, and by ignoring data and statistics, which has become the norm in this COVID era, the conventional health care system is headed for collapse.

This seems particularly true when you consider hospitals have, over the past two years, completely shredded patients’ trust by mistreating and outright killing COVID-19 patients with the most dangerous treatments available. Rather than collaborating with peers, most doctors have blindly followed financially-driven and politically biased protocols handed down from the reigning “priesthood,” and the results have been nothing short of disastrous.

Speaking of disastrous, California has introduced a bill8 that will strip doctors of their medical licenses if they express medical views that the state does not agree with, basically reducing medicine to a state-sanctioned one-size-fits-all endeavor. Absolutely nothing good can come of such a plan. I discussed this in “Bill Seeks to Muzzle Doctors Who Tell the Truth About COVID.”

This bill, AB-2098, was passed by House vote (53 to 20), May 26, 2022, and is currently in the Senate.9 If this law is passed in California, we will probably begin to see similar or identical bills introduced in other states as well.

If your trust in doctors has already waned, implementation of such a law is sure to carpet bomb whatever trust is left into oblivion, because all you’ll be able to get, no matter who you go to, is the state-sponsored opinion. What happens then? How do we care for our health if our doctors are legally prevented from giving us their best advice? This is such a radical departure from sanity and sound practice that it’s hard to even imagine what medicine will look like at that point.

The answer, I believe, will be for good, caring medical professionals to start building parallel health care systems, such as those detailed in Christofferson’s book, “Curable.” We may also have to take on greater responsibility for finding solutions to our own health problems. “Take control of your health” has been my motto and tagline since I started this website, but it’s more important now than ever.

In years past, one of the greatest risks a patient faced was a doctor lacking nutritional know-how. In the future, the greatest risk could be doctors outright lying to you, even to the point of sending you to a more or less certain death, just to stay in practice. I hope it won’t come to that. But prevent it, we must resist and oppose these kinds of treacherous plots wherever and whenever they crop up.

*

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 Libertarian Institute July 30, 2021

2 Technocracy News August 2, 2021

3, 4, 5 Reason May 2022

6, 7 Disinformation Chronicle Substack May 31, 2022

8 California Assembly Bill AB-2098

9 California Assembly Bill AB-2098, History

Featured image is from Mercola

The US Is at War with Itself

June 9th, 2022 by Michael Jansen

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

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

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

***

US citizens will not come to grips with the growing epidemic of mass shootings, almost all by young men wielding assault rifles. Self-interest prompts US politicians to refuse to address mass and multiple shootings while the public is divided by conflicting, politically-motivated narratives. Last weekend, there were 17 fatalities in 10 multiple shootings across the country. 

Foreign obsevers of the US scene have no problem understanding this unique phenomenon and lay the blame on omnipresent weaponry, particularly AR-15-type long guns. In the US, there are 400 million guns, 20 million of which are assault weapons.  This means 120.5 guns for every 100 residents, an increase from 88 per 100 in 2011. The next highest ratio is 53 per 100 in war-ravaged Yemen.

While US suicides by gun account for 54 per cent of deaths, 43 per cent are homicides, 79 per cent of which are murders committed with guns.

Revolvers and semi-automatic hand guns account for 62 per cent of murders. However, over the past three years assault rifles have been used for 67 per cent of massacres involving the deaths of six or more people, reported Louis Klarevas, a research professor at Columbia University.

Of the 50 US states, only seven plus Washington DC ban assault weapons while just two regulate but do not ban such weapons. A ten-year federal ban enacted in 1994 was successfully negotiated by President Joe Biden when he was a senator. At that time, he made an impassioned plea for adoption of the measure by the Senate. But when the law expired, the ban was not renewed because of the deep divisions within both houses of the US legislature.

In response to the murder of two teachers and 19 elementary school children in Uvalde, Texas, Biden stated, “When we passed the assault weapons ban, mass shootings went down. When the law expired, mass shootings tripled.”

However, that law was deeply flawed because it did not mandate the collection and destruction of assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. Unfortunately, the impact of the ban was limited since there were 1.5 million assualt weapons owned privately and some 25 million weapons were equipped with large magazines.

It is significant that in the aftermath of the Uvalde massacre, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau tabled a bill in parliament for a ban on the sale, transfer and importation of hand-guns and the reconfiguring of rifle magazines so they can hold only five bullets. Canada already has stronger gun regulation than the US.

However, Trudeau did not dare to emulate New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern, who met Biden the day after the Uvalde shootings, and proffered advice on how to deal with gun violence. Following the 2019 massacre of 21 worshippers at two mosques in Christchurch, Ardern rammed through her country’s parliament a ban on and buy of assault weapons and set the end of that year as the deadline for the hand-over.

Nowhere in world other than the US are so many innocent civilians being slaughtered by civilians in schools, shops, and other public places. The US is at war with itself. Banning or curbing guns is vehemently opposed by gun manufacturers, lobbyists and millions of owners. They consistently win when challenged.

Consequently, psychologists study the shooters involved and gun-rights activists argue that the problem is the mental health of perpetrators, not possession of weapons of war. They do not accept that putting the two together creates the motivation and urge to use guns to express rage and frustration and provide the satisfaction of revenge for real or perceived slights, insults and abuses.

It is significant that males commit 98 per cent of mass shootings although females also experience major physical and psychological changes during their teens and young adulthood.

The latest fashion is to blame the traumas of male puberty rather than the shooters themselves. Writing in The New York Times on June 2nd, Glenn Thrush and Matt Richtel report that investigators and researchers dealing with the recent shootings in New York state and Texas say “the age of the accused has emerged as a key factor in understanding how two teenagers became driven to acquire such deadly firepower and how it led them to mass shootings.

“They fit in a critical age range, roughly 15 to 25, that law enforcement officials, researchers and policy experts consider a hazardous crossroads for young men, a period when they are in the throes of developmental changes and societal pressures that can turn them toward violence in general, and, in the rarest cases, mass shootings.”

The article goes on to state:

“Six of the nine deadliest mass shootings in the United States since 2018 were by males who were 21 or younger, representing a shift for mass casualty shootings, which before 2000 were most often initiated by men in their mid-20s, 30s and 40s.”

The blame is placed on an increasingly serious mental health crisis which preceded but was worsened by COVID. Online bullying, widespread marketing of guns by manufacturers, weak state laws and sales to boys 18 and above contribute to the dire situation.

Alabama Republican Congressman Mo Brooks invented a new sexist/racist notion to add to the list of why young men become mass killers: Moral decline caused by single-parent families. He argued on right-wing Fox news that children living in such families are more likely to be on welfare, do poorly in school, and involved in drugs and criminal activity. His remarks were sexist because the majority of single parent families are headed by women and racist because a large proportion of these women are black.

US-centric analysts seeking to excuse the omnipresence of guns do not take into consideration that young males in the same age range in other countries do not engage in mass shootings. They are not driven to ease puberty pain by engaging in senseless, largely suicidal shootings and do not strive to get their hands on guns.

*

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The US Is at War with Itself
  • Tags:

The Dangers of Regime Change: After Putin

June 9th, 2022 by Ted Snider

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

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

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

***

The comparison between the crisis in Ukraine and the Cuban missile crisis has occasionally been made. With an honest look at that crisis, history has two lessons to offer for the crisis of today.

The first is that the Cuban missile crisis demonstrates clearly how the US would respond to Russia encroaching on its sphere of influence and how it would respond to Russian weapons on its borders. The response is enshrined in the two century old Monroe Doctrine that bars the door from any European power encroaching on the American continents and that declares “any attempt on their part to extend their system to any portion of this hemisphere” to be “dangerous to our peace and safety.” It promises that any alliance between a European nation and a nation in the Western hemisphere would be seen as “the manifestation of an unfriendly disposition toward the United States.”

Kennedy specifically invoked the Monroe Doctrine to justify intervening in Cuba, saying that “The Monroe Doctrine means . . . that we would oppose a foreign power extending its power to the Western Hemisphere.” At around the same time, in April 1961, he would invoke the doctrine more generally. While acknowledging that “any unilateral American intervention, in the absence of an external attack upon ourselves or an ally, would be contrary to . . . our international obligations,” he, nonetheless, said that “If the nations of this hemisphere should fail to meet their commitments against outside Communist penetration then I want it clearly understood that this government will not hesitate in meeting its primary obligations which are to the security of our nation.”

Given its own commitment to the Monroe Doctrine, the US might have anticipated and understood Russian concerns and warnings not to encroach on its borders by moving weapons into Ukraine and Ukraine into NATO.

The second lesson is that the Cuban missile crisis demonstrates how such a crisis can be solved and war avoided. Though American mythology tells a story of the Cuban missile crisis being resolved by Kennedy coldly staring down Khrushchev and forcing a withdrawal, the historical record shows something different. The crisis was resolved when Kennedy negotiated with Khrushchev and promised to remove the US Jupiter missiles that were threatening Russia from their positions in Turkey – and possibly Italy – if Khrushchev would remove the Russian missiles that were threatening the US from Cuba.

It was a quid pro quo agreement that brought the crisis in Cuba under control. Upon Khrushchev’s offer, Kennedy knew that the US would be in an “insupportable position” were he not to accept because “to any man at the United Nations or any other rational man, it will look like a very fair trade.”

The historical lesson was clear as Russian troops moved into Ukraine from the east, and the US and NATO moved into Ukraine from the west.

But there is another crisis from the same period that also offers important historical lessons. In the early days of the Vietnam War, US officials were talking about, as they are hopefully talking about now, “frustrating Soviet ambitions without provoking conflict.” Those were the words of CIA Station Chief in Saigon William Colby. US planners at the time were very cognizant, in the words of Lindsey O’Rourke in Covert Regime Change, that actions could be “potentially costly – especially if [they] escalated to involve the USSR or China.”

In those early days of the Vietnam conflict, the US actively considered solving its problem with North Korea by removing Ho Chi Minh by covert regime change. President Johnson eventually backed away from those coup plans because of the risk of bringing China into the war but also because, as US ambassador to Vietnam Henry Cabot Lodge Jr. warned, “I do not think it profitable to try to overthrow Ho Chi Minh, as his successor would undoubtedly be tougher than he is.”

The US faced a similar problem in the south. As confidence in President Diem waned, US officials began to talk about a coup. Secretary of State Dulles worried, however, that “no substitute for him has yet been proposed.” A fact finding mission led by Secretary of Defense McNamara similarly warned that “The prospects that a replacement regime would be an improvement appear to be about 50-50.”

The US would, eventually, cooperate in a coup against Diem. It backfired by destabilizing Vietnam even more and, ultimately, contributed to bringing America into war in Vietnam.

In both North and South Vietnam, before engaging in regime change, the US considered the alternative leader that could follow the removal of the regime. Though the US has too many times failed in its care or its calculations, it has long been a crucial part of the coup calculus to identify an acceptable alternative to the government you are taking out.

Though the calls are growing for a coup in Moscow, it is not clear that US planners have careful done their calculations.

On March 26, President Joe Biden clearly called for a coup in Russia. Before he ended a speech delivered in Poland, Biden added the call that “For God’s sake, this man cannot remain in power.”

Biden’s fixers struggled to retranslate the potentially dangerous comment. He “was not discussing Putin’s power in Russia, or regime change,” the White House translated. “The President’s point was that Putin cannot be allowed to exercise power over his neighbors or the region.” But Biden spurned their awkward attempt to walk back his call for a coup. While saying that he wasn’t “articulating a policy change,” Biden insisted, “I’m not walking anything back.  The fact of the matter is I was expressing the moral outrage I felt toward the way Putin is dealing, and the actions of this man – just – just the brutality of it.” Two months later, in an opinion piece in The New York Times, Biden did walk it back, saying “the United States will not try to bring about his ouster in Moscow.”

But if Biden’s two month call for a coup was off the official script, then it was an unofficial script that was widely distributed. On May 11, British Prime Minister Boris Johnson, the US’s most loyal Western European ally, would repeat the call. Following discussions in Sweden with Swedish Prime Minister Magdalena Andersson, a spokesperson for Johnson said that “relations with Putin could never be normalized.” Andersson, whose country is applying for membership in NATO, joined Johnson in his statement.

Canada’s Deputy Prime Minister, Chrystia Freeland, also seemed to call for regime change when she said in a speech that “Putin’s assault has been so vicious that we all now understand that the world’s democracies – including our own – can be safe only once the Russian tyrant and his armies are entirely vanquished.”

The call for regime change in Moscow has been heard in Eastern Europe as well. On May 9, Lithuanian Foreign Minister Gabrielius Landsbergis said“From our standpoint, up until the point the current regime is not in power, the countries surrounding it will be, to some extent, in danger. Not just Putin but the whole regime because, you know, one might change Putin and might change his inner circle but another Putin might rise into his place.”

Of course, Zelensky has also hinted at regime change, hoping that, before the eventual peace process and the eventual talks, “we would be discussing the issues of who Ukraine will negotiate, with what president of the Russia Federation,” adding that, “I hope that will be a different president in the Russian Federation.”

But in the calculus of coups, there are many ways in which removing Putin could lead to a worse alternative for the West. A little discussed one is that the removal of Putin could lead to an alternative with a more hardline foreign policy toward the West.

Richard Sakwa, Professor of Russian and European Politics at Kent, who has written extensively on Putin, says that Putin has never subscribed to a “virulent anti-Westernism.” He has called Putin “the most European leader Russia has ever had.” During his first several years in office, Sakwa says Putin attempted “to forge a closer relationship with the European Union” and that he “envisaged Russia joining NATO” to form a “greater West” and “even suggested membership [in] NATO.” Putin did not formally ally with the West, not because of a lack of willingness, but because Washington vetoed the idea of Russia’s membership in NATO.

Stephen Cohen, who was Professor Emeritus of Russian studies and politics at Princeton, has pointed out that Putin “long pursued negotiations with the West over the objections of his own hardliners.” Though the West has portrayed Putin’s foreign policy as aggressive toward the West, Cohen says that the historical record points more to a past of US instigations and provocations to which Putin did not react until compelled to. “As a result of this history,” Cohen says, “Putin is often seen in Russia as a belatedly reactive leader abroad, as a not sufficiently ‘aggressive’ one.”

These are the forces that could fill the void left by Western removal of the Putin regime. These forces, this “influential faction in Kremlin politics,” as Cohen calls them “has long insisted . . . that the US-led West is preparing an actual hot war against Russia, and that Putin has not prepared the country adequately,” a warning that may sound more real than it did when first articulated.

Though Putin has now surely given up on relations with the West and has moved to a position of extreme hostility, that was not always so. As recently as the Minsk agreements, and even as late as December, 2021, when Putin sent the US a proposal on mutual security guarantees and requested immediate negotiations, he was still willing to work with the West.

Putin began his presidential career pursuing, like Gorbachev and Yeltsin, partnership with the US, holding back harder line forces in Russia that could be the alternative after regime change. Alexander Lukin, Professor of International Relations at HSE University in Moscow, has argued that the West has had “a fundamentally incorrect understanding” of Putin’s foreign policy. The “main driving force” behind Putin’s foreign policy is domestic policy, “namely, a desire to maintain stability.” For that reason, Putin has avoided expansionism in order to avoid confrontation with the West until Russia “was forced to respond” to the “strategic threat” of “Western encroachments on its traditional sphere of influence and threats to its security.” Hence the hardline criticism that Putin is “belatedly reactive.”

But Putin has been a restrainer not only on expansionism and foreign policy. He has also restrained the Russian nationalists who “believe in creating the ‘Russian world’ by annexing the territories of the neighboring countries populated by ethnic Russians.” Like the political forces that are less reactive and more aggressive, Putin restrains these political forces because they, too, risk confrontation with the West and threaten hard won domestic stability, reacting only when forced to respond with the aim of “neutralizing Western encroachments on its traditional sphere of influence and threats to its security.”

The hardliners in line behind Putin have been critical of this reluctance to confront the West and annex ethnic Russian territories in neighboring countries when they have requested it. Russian hardliners today blame Putin for not going further than the annexation of Crimea following the coup in 2014 by annexing the Donbas as well. Anatol Lieven, senior research fellow on Russia and Europe at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, told me that the hardliners criticize Putin for trusting Germany and France’s promise to ensure the implementation of the Minsk Agreement. The Minsk agreement met Putin’s goal of autonomy for the Donbas. But Minks never happened because Germany and France failed to keep their promise, refusing to break with the US or pressure Ukraine into implementing the agreement. Putin had the cases belli and the military ability at the time to annex the Donbas, and Russian hardliners are angry with Putin for his restraint.

Still today, there are, according to Sakwa, “domestic pressures” on Putin to respond more assertively to Western efforts to isolate Russia economically and politically, by, for example, nationalizing Western assets in Russia. “So far,” Sakwa says, consistent with concerns about regime change, “Putin is holding the line, but he is being pushed to be more radical.”

Western calls for regime change in Russia ignore the coup calculus of the “plausible domestic political alternative.” The only other interpretation is even more reckless. The other possible alternative, Lieven suggests, is that the US is willing to allow hardliners to fill the void left by the removal of Putin both because of the weakened Russia that the coup would escort in and because a new hardline government, more manifestly hostile to the West, would provide the justification for the isolation and subordination of Russia that the US seeks.

Either way, the risk is great and ominous. Removal of Putin through regime change could at last open the door for the hardliners in Russia who are willing to prepare for and to risk greater confrontation with the West. And it is dangerous to assume, history has shown, that a post regime change Russia would remain weak.

*

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 Snider has a graduate degree in philosophy and writes on analyzing patterns in US foreign policy and history.

Featured image is from The Last Refuge

Biden Works to Prolong Ukraine War: Craig Murray

June 9th, 2022 by Craig Murray

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

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

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

***

I was in Turkey to try to further peace talks, as an experienced diplomat with good contacts there, and as a peace activist. I was not there as a journalist and much of what I discussed was with the understanding of confidence. It will probably be some years before I judge it reasonable and fair to reveal all that I know. But I can give some outline.

Turkey continues to be the centre of diplomatic activity on resolving the Ukraine war. It is therefore particularly revealing, and a sign of Western priorities, that I did not come across a single western journalist there trying to follow and cover the diplomatic process. There are hundreds of Western journalists in Ukraine, effectively embedded with the Ukrainian authorities, producing war porn. There appear to be none seriously covering attempts to make peace.

There was a sea change two weeks ago when Ukraine shifted to a public stance that it would cede no territory at all in a peace deal. On 21 May, Zelensky’s office stated that “The war must end with the complete restoration of Ukraine’s territorial integrity and sovereignty.” Previously while they had been emphatic that no territory in “the East” would be ceded, there had been studied ambiguity about whether that referred to Donbass alone or also the Crimea.

The new Ukrainian stance, that there will be no peace deal without recovering the Crimea, has ended for now any hopes of an early ceasefire. It appears to be a militarily unachievable objective – I cannot think of any scenario in which Russia de facto loses Crimea, without the serious possibility of worldwide nuclear war.

This blow to the peace process was a setback in Ankara, and I should say that every source I spoke with believed the Ukrainians were acting on instructions conveyed from Washington to Zelensky by Defence Secretary Lloyd Austin, who openly stated he wanted the war to wear down Russian defence capabilities.

A long war in Ukraine is of course massively in the interest of the US military industrial complex, whose dripping roasts in Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria have gone rather off the heat. It also forwards the strategic objective of severely damaging the Russian economy, although much of that damage is mutual. Why we live in a world where the goal of nations is to damage the lives of inhabitants of other nations is a question which continues to puzzle me.

Turkey has for now turned towards the more limited goal of ensuring that grain supplies can be shipped out from the Black Sea through the Bosphorus. This is essential for developing nations and essential for world food supplies, which were already under pressure before this war began. Turkey is offering to clear sea lanes of mines and to police the ships carrying grain from the port of Odessa, which is still under Ukrainian control. Russia has agreed to the deal.

Ukraine is objecting to this plan to export its own wheat, because it objects to the removal of the mines, which I should be clear were put down in the sea lanes by Ukraine to prevent amphibious attack on Odessa. There is monumental hypocrisy by the West on this, blaming Russia for preventing the export of the grain while it is actually blocked in by Ukraine’s own mines, which they currently refuse to allow Turkey to remove.

On 19 May this was the headline of a UN press release:

Lack of Grain Exports Driving Global Hunger to Famine Levels, as War in Ukraine Continues, Speakers Warn Security Council

As it states, Ukraine and Russia together account for one third of world grain exports and two thirds of world sunflower oil exports. Many of those who die from this war are likely to do so in developing countries, from hunger. The decision of the EU and US to target Russian and Belarussian agricultural exports for sanctions displays an extraordinary callousness towards the very poorest human beings on the globe, who cannot afford rising food prices.

Well, the headline here is that the USA and EU are pushing Ukraine to block any food deal, based on a number of objections including the reduction in the security of Odessa and the claim that Russia will sell looted Ukrainian grain. The view in both Ankara and the developing world is that the big picture, of millions facing starvation, is being lost.

The experience has made me so cynical that I am left wondering if the interests of the powerful agricultural lobbies in both the EU and USA are influencing policy. High world food prices benefit some powerful interests.

I blame Putin for starting a war that does nothing to redress Russian long term security concerns. But the truth is that politicians in the West are equally keen on this war. Boris Johnson yesterday was blatantly promoting it for his own survival. Anybody who makes any effort to stop the killing – Presidents Macron and Erdogan in particular – are immediately and universally denounced by the “liberal” media.

Yet what is the end result that the liberal warmongers wish to achieve? When we reach the stage that Henry Kissinger is a comparative voice of sanity, the political situation is indeed dire.

*

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 Stop the War

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

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

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

***

When U.S. President Joe Biden speaks about war and peace, we have to listen carefully whether we like it or not. Regarding Taiwan, when asked in Tokyo on May 23 if he was “willing to get involved militarily to defend Taiwan,” Biden said without hesitation, “yes, that’s the commitment we made.” White House staff rushed to say “our policy has not changed,” but others found it part of escalating Cold War chatter.

The U.S. does not have a security alliance with Taiwan. Rather, it officially recognizes it as part of China. The U.S. State Department website says

“The United States has a long-standing one China policy… We oppose any unilateral changes to the status quo from either side; we do not support Taiwan independence; and we expect cross-Strait differences to be resolved by peaceful means.”

But the “no change” claim contrasts with Biden’s meeting with Quad Alliance members, two of whom are equipped with nuclear weapons, U.S. warships passing through the Taiwan Straits and non-stop anti-China rhetoric from Washington. “War Games: The Battle for Taiwan,” a 27–minute segment ran recently on NBC’s Meet the Press—quite likely a co-production with the State and Defense departments, according to columnist Patrick Lawrence.

Meet the Press on Twitter: "WATCH TONIGHT: After Russia invaded Ukraine, it raised an important question: How might the U.S. respond if China were to invade Taiwan? We staged a war game

May 13, 2022. [Source: twitter.com]

China reacted predictably to the Biden statements. “On issues that bear on China’s sovereignty, territorial integrity, and other core interests,” Wang Wenbin, a foreign ministry spokesman, said “no one shall expect China to make any compromise or trade-offs.”

“Defending Taiwan Would Be a Mistake,” was the headline of a May 27 New York Times op-ed by China expert Oriana Skylar Mastro of Stanford University. “Simply put,” she wrote, “the United States is outgunned. At the very least a confrontation with China would be an enormous drain on the U.S. military without any assured outcome that America could repel all of China’s forces.” She highlighted a 2018 assessment warning that the U.S. could face a “decisive military defeat” in a war over Taiwan, citing China’s increasingly advanced capabilities and myriad U.S. logistical difficulties. “Several top former U.S. defense officials have reached similar conclusions,” she wrote.

CGTN, China’s Global TV Network, gave another answer. “The Warmonger’s Legacy” appeared on YouTube on May 27. Starting with the Gulf of Tonkin episode of August 1964 off the coast of North Vietnam, then cycling through the endless U.S. wars in the second half of the 20th century, it lets a parade of U.S. presidents make the case. Jimmy Carter comes off best, stating “we know which is the most warlike country on earth—my country, the United States.”

It shows LBJ’s defense secretary, Robert McNamara, admitted to dishonesty about the Gulf of Tonkin—where the U.S. had provoked the North Vietnamese into attacking the U.S.S. Maddox—saying “our judgment that we’d been attacked…was wrong.” George W. Bush’s defense secretary, Colin Powell, is heard testifying at the UN about “weapons of mass destruction” in Iraq, and Bush himself declaring that “Saddam Hussein…must leave Iraq within 48 hours.”

Barack Obama shows up to say “the Gaddafi regime is coming to an end.” Trump appears announcing a bombing of Syria, claiming “chemical weapons.” Papa Bush says “air attacks are under way in Iraq” to take out “Saddam Hussein’s nuclear bomb potential.” Bill Clinton declares military victory in Yugoslavia, while two super-imposed screens state that, “In 78 days of bombing, NATO dropped approximately 20 kilograms of explosives for every person in the targeted areas,” and “By supporting Kosovan separatism, NATO showed scant concern for national sovereignty and territorial integrity.”

Harry Truman appears to say “We’re fighting in Korea for our own nation’s security and survival.” (This one is of special interest to the Chinese, who recently celebrated their role in the Korean War with the blockbuster hit, “The Battle of Lake Changjin.”)

Tricky Dick Nixon shows up declaring that the 1970 invasion of Cambodia was “for the purpose of ending the war in Vietnam.” The movie doesn’t show the killings of anti-war students at Kent State and Jackson State universities, but it does show several protests, with the familiar slogans “Money for Jobs Not War,” and “No Blood for Oil.”

How Nixon's Invasion of Cambodia Triggered a Check on Presidential Power - HISTORY

Dick Nixon pointing to Cambodia on a map while announcing U.S. invasion of Cambodia. [Source: history.com]

Saving the best for last, Joe Biden is presented at a recent NATO conference proclaiming “quite frankly that America is back.” Russian President Vladimir Putin appears, stating “The People’s Republics of Donbas asked for help from Russia.” And European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen heroically declares “our airspace will be closed to every Russian plane.” Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov appears calmly affirming that the Ukrainian government’s war policy “is determined in Washington and London.”

The basic message of this CGTN feature is that China should not be expected to “play nice” in the face of U.S. efforts to extend its war with Russia to include all of Eurasia.

Biden: “What America Will and Will Not Do in Ukraine”

To deal with the recently changed situation in Ukraine—where Scott Ritter says “Russia is achieving its military objective of liberating the entire territories of both Lugansk and Donetsk”—Biden issued a carefully crafted message as an op-ed in the June 1 New York Times.

The message appears to reflect a new policy, focusing on potential negotiations. “We do not want to prolong the war just to inflict pain on Russia,” he insists. And “we do not seek a war between NATO and Russia.” Whether this can be believed or not, Biden says the flood of new weapons, ammunition, and billions of dollars, is meant to help Ukraine “be in the strongest possible position at the negotiating table.”

This reflects a new reality both on the ground and in the economic war against Russia. As the Guardian’s economics editor Larry Elliott wrote on June 2, things are not “going according to plan. On the contrary, things are going very badly indeed.” His conclusion is that “sooner or later, a deal will be struck.”

Guardian columnist Simon Jenkins adds that the sanctions policy “has blatantly failed… sanctions are clearly hurting countries in western and central Europe who are imposing them.” A major recession threatens in both Europe and the U.S., as prices for fuel and food skyrocket. “The victims are overwhelmingly the poor,” Jenkins says.

African Union leader Macky Sall, President of Senegal, met with Russian President Putin in Russia on June 3. After talks on food shortages allegedly caused by the war, the leader said “I found Vladimir Putin committed and aware that the crisis and sanctions create serious problems for weak economies, such as African economies.” He said he was leaving Russia “very reassured and very happy with our exchanges.”

President Putin said Russia is “always on Africa’s side,” and is now keen to ramp up cooperation. He said Russia is ready to look for ways to ship grain stuck at Ukrainian ports, which western media falsely claims that Russia is blocking, but demanded the West lift sanctions. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov expects to visit Turkey June 8 for talks on creating a “security corridor” to unblock grain exports from Ukraine.

A June 2 New York Times report said “Western nations like the United States, as well as Ukraine, oppose lifting sanctions imposed on Russia.” A UN report says around 25 million tons of grain from last year’s Ukraine harvest are stranded in silos, and another 50 million tons are expected to be harvested in coming months. David Beasley, executive director of the World Food Programme, said: “Right now, Ukraine’s grain silos are full. At the same time, 44 million people around the world are marching towards starvation.” The Timesreport said Turkey has proposed using its ships to transport grain from Odessa which, in addition to getting Ukraine to demine the port, would require an agreement from Russia.

In a June 3 interview, President Putin said Ukraine “must clear the mines and raise the ships they sunk on purpose in the Black Sea to make it difficult to enter the ports to the south of Ukraine… we will not use the demining process to initiate an attack from the sea.” He added there are numerous ways grains from Ukraine could be exported by rail or by sea, with full Russian cooperation.[1]

On June 6 the New York Times lead front-page headline was “Putin Peddles Stolen Grain To Needy World, U.S. says.” The “stolen” grain comes mainly from the Donbas and regions of Kherson and Zaporizhzhia, which are occupied by Russian forces, the Times article says. There is no mention of Russia itself as a possible source. According to UC Davis professor Aaron Smith’s Ag Data News, Russia produces 11% of the world’s wheat and Ukraine produces 3%. Russia accounts for 19% of the global wheat export market and Ukraine 9%. Africans and Russians have a shared interest in moving the wheat.

African countries are unlikely to hesitate before buying Russian-supplied grain, no matter where it comes from, said Hassan Khannenje, director of Kenya’s HORN International Institute for Strategic Studies, according to the Times report. Any Western pressure over Russian supplied grain is likely to backfire, he said. A Kenyan Foreign Affairs ministry spokesperson asked “Why would they need to warn us in the first place? This sounds like a propaganda ploy.” Which is clearly what it is given that the population in Donbas and in Kherson and Zaporizhzhia largely welcomes integration with Russia and does not consider its grain to have been stolen.

Negotiations?

All this underscores the urgency for negotiations to end the current war. But whether Washington and its NATO allies on the one hand, and Russia on the other, will decide to talk is an open question. Biden wrote in The New York Times op-ed: “I will not pressure the Ukrainian government—in private or public—to make any territorial concessions.”

He did not say if the U.S. would exert pressure against such concessions, which would surely be required for talks to start. Most recently, Ukrainian President Zelensky has continued to insist on a status quo ante, meaning Russian troops leaving all the areas they have occupied. Neither the Russian government nor the people of the Donbas, Crimea and nearby areas can be expected to give up the gains achieved in the war.

Map Description automatically generated

Map of Ukraine with Russian gains in red. [Source: cnn.com]

Biden said “Ukraine’s talks with Russia are not stalled because Ukraine has turned its back on diplomacy.” He said, instead, that it is Russia’s fault. He may actually believe that.

On June 4, the same week Biden’s op-ed appeared, the Times ran a lead editorial by Christopher Caldwell saying “the administration is closing off avenues of negotiation and working to intensify the war.” It also said the U.S. “is trying to maintain the fiction that arming one’s allies is not the same thing as participating in combat,” adding that the massive U.S. and NATO support is “a powerful incentive not to end the war anytime soon.”

Scott Ritter wrote May 30 that Russia’s recent major battlefield successes in the Donbas “will leave Russia with a number of unfulfilled political objectives”—including denazification, demilitarization, permanent Ukrainian neutrality, and western acceptance of a new European security framework. Whether these objectives can be achieved in negotiation or only continued war is an open question.

Ritter emphasizes that Russia linked its special military operation to Article 51 of the UN Charter, claiming “preemptive, collective self-defense.”

This claim is supported by Ellen Taylor, daughter of Nuremberg prosecutor Telford Taylor, who wrote recently that “Russia, convinced that an attack was imminent, despairing of negotiations, persuaded by information contained in a hacked email, and aware of the danger of waiting any longer, launched its ‘special operation.’”

Taylor cites reports from the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) that from February 15 to 24, Ukrainian army shellings in the Donbas increased daily from 41 to more than 2,000 on successive days. Taylor says “NATO’s intention was to precipitate an attack. From a legal perspective it was imperative not to be identified as the aggressor. Russia was aware of this too.” She adds that Russian leadership had “the responsibility to protect” its people.

Taylor concludes that “the crime of conspiracy to commit a war of aggression… has to be laid at the feet of NATO and the U.S.” She adds that “the often-repeated claim that Russia’s aggression was unprovoked, is preposterous.”

“Stay the Course”

Biden’s essay ends with some pontification, saying the U.S. will “stay the course with the Ukrainian people because we understand that freedom is not free. That’s what we have always done whenever the enemies of freedom seek to bully and oppress innocent people.”

In some parts of the world—like Africa, Asia, the Middle East and Latin America—it has been the United States that has sought to bully and oppress innocent people. It is happening now, in Yemen and Somalia, and continues in Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan. Many Latin American governments claim it is also happening in their region. Some in Western Europe feel their governments have been bullied by the U.S. to go along with the self-destructive economic war of attrition there. In the second half of the 20th century U.S. interventions in Asia, Africa, the Middle East and Latin America have caused millions of deaths, and condemned millions more to extreme poverty and misery, according to The Jakarta Method, by Vincent Bevins.

The U.S., especially the CIA, has teamed up with local oligarchies to suppress democratic initiatives across Latin America: an attempted coup against Venezuela’s Hugo Chávez in 2002, and against his successor Maduro in 2020; successful coups in Haiti in 2004 and Honduras in 2009; “lawfare” (fake legal scandals) leading to impeachments in Paraguay in 2012 and Brazil in 2016; a “self-coup” in Ecuador by President Lenin Moreno in 2017; and a temporarily successful coup against Bolivia’s President Evo Morales in 2019. It is a pattern dating from the 1960s.

This lived experience by the peoples who live outside the NATO alliance makes it increasingly difficult for Biden and his neocon advisers to make credible claims about protecting innocent people from the enemies of freedom. The question is: Who will protect us from Biden and the neocons?

In a recent Black Agenda Report article, contributing editor Danny Haiphong says “Joe Biden is in trouble. The crisis of legitimacy afflicting his administration continues to worsen.” A new AP-NORC poll pegs Biden’s approval rating at 39%. Rising inflation and shortages in basic needs, such as baby formula, have played a major role in Biden’s declining popularity, as has an undue focus on prolonging the Russia-Ukraine conflict. The Biden administration is set to send $40 billion in military aid to Ukraine despite the fact that the war does not make the list of major issues of concern  for voters, let alone the general population.

It may be pressure from below—from ordinary people in the U.S., Europe, and the countries of the global South—that will finally bring enough pressure to achieve a durable peace—one which recognizes the sovereignty of Donbas and the post-2014 status of Crimea, and demilitarization and denazification of a new Ukraine.

*

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.

Dee Knight is a member of the DSA International Committee’s Anti-War Subcommittee. He is the author of My Whirlwind Lives: Navigating Decades of Storms, soon to be published by Guernica World Editions. Dee can be reached at: [email protected].

Note

1. In a June 3 interview broadcast on Russia’s Rossiya 1 television network, Russian president Vladimir Putin responded to the accusations that Russia’s actions in Ukraine are worsening the world food and fertilizer price squeezes. He said: “I have already said to all our colleagues many times – let them [Ukraine] demine the ports and let the vessels loaded with grain leave. We will guarantee their peaceful passage to international waters without any problems. There are no problems at all. Go ahead. “They must clear the mines and raise the ships they sunk on purpose in the Black Sea to make it difficult to enter the ports to the south of Ukraine. We are ready to do this; we will not use the demining process to initiate an attack from the sea. I have already said this. This is the first point.” He went on to list other points, notably the numerous ways in which grains from Ukraine could be exported by rail or by sea, with full Russian cooperation

Featured image is from globaltimes.cn

Video: Epstein’s “Black Book”

June 9th, 2022 by Kristina Borjesson

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

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

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

***

Investigative reporter Nick Bryant (who was the first to get Epstein’s black book) and I introduce ourselves to Elon Musk as reporters who do care about investigating all things Epstein, including his clients, and explain why he thinks journalists like us do not exist.

*

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 video was originally published on The Whistleblower Newsroom.

Featured image is from Another Day in the Empire

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

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

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

***

The Summit of the Americas is not the property of the host nation. The U.S. has no right to exclude, Cuba, Nicaragua and Venezuela, but has done so in disregard of their sovereignty. The U.S. is not fit to judge others or to be responsible for bringing nations together. Every leader in the hemisphere should boycott what has become a farcical event.

I applaud the decision by Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador not to attend this week’s so-called Summit of the Americas in Los Angeles and hope that by Wednesday a majority of the nations in our region would have joined him. However, I am hoping that unlike President Lopez Obrador who is still sending the Mexican foreign minister, other nations demonstrate that their dignity cannot be coerced and stay away completely. Why do I take this position?

If the threat by the Biden Administration as host of the Summit not to invite Cuba, Nicaragua and Venezuela, all sovereign nations in the Americas’ region, was not outrageous enough, the announced rationale that the administration did not invite these nations because of their human rights record and authoritarian governance is an absurd indignity that cannot be ignored.

I firmly believe that the U.S. should not be allowed to subvert, degrade, and humiliate nations and the peoples of our region with impunity! A line of demarcation must be drawn between the nations and peoples who represent democracy and life and the parasitic hegemon to the North which can only offer dependence and death. The U.S. has made its choice that is reflected in its public documents. “Full spectrum dominance,” is its stated goal. In other words – waging war against the peoples of our regions and, indeed, the world to maintain global hegemony. It has chosen war, we must choose resistance – on that, there can be no compromise!

The peoples of our region understand that. It is historically imperative that the representatives of the states in our region come to terms with that and commit to resistance and solidarity with the states that are experiencing the most intense pressure from empire. The rhetorical commitment to Cuba, Nicaragua and Venezuela is not enough. The people want actions that go beyond mere denunciations of imperialism. The people are ready to fight.

And part of this fight includes the ideological war of position. We cannot allow the U.S. to obscure its murderous history by dressing that history up in pretty language about human rights.

The idea that the U.S., or any Western nation for that matter, involved in the ongoing imperialist project, could seriously see itself as a protector of human rights is bizarre and dangerous, and must be countered. The fact that the U.S. will still attempt to advance this fiction reflects either the height of arrogance or a society and administration caught in the grip of a collective national psychosis. I am convinced it is both, but more on that later.

A cognitive rupture from objective reality, the inability to locate oneself in relationship to other human beings individually and collectively in the material world are all symptoms of severe mental derangement. Yet, it appears that this is the condition that structures the psychic make-up of all of the leaders of the U.S. and the collective West.

It is what I have referred to as the psychopathology of white supremacy:

A racialized narcissistic cognitive disorder that centers so-called white people’s and European civilization and renders the afflicted with an inability to perceive objective reality in the same way as others. This affliction is not reducible to the race of so-called whites but can affect all those who have come in contact with the ideological and cultural mechanisms of the Pan-European colonial project.

How else can you explain the self-perceptions of the U.S. and West, responsible for the most horrific crimes against humanity in the annuals of human history from genocide, slavery, world wars, the European, African and Indigenous holocausts, wars and subversion since 1945 that have resulted in over 30 million lives lost – but then assert their innocence, moral superiority and right to define the content and range of human rights?

Aileen Teague of the Quincy Institute points out that the U.S. position on disinviting nations to the Summit of the Americas because of their alleged “authoritarian governance,” is “hypocritical” and “inconsistent,” noting the U.S. historical support for Latin American dictators when convenient for US policy.

Yet is it really hypothetical or inconsistent? I think not. U.S. policymakers are operating from an ethical and philosophical framework that informed Western colonial practice in which racialized humanity became divided between those who were placed into the category of “humans” which was constitutive of the historically expanded category of “white” in relationship to everyone else who was “not white,” and therefore, not fully human.

The “others” during the colonial conquest literally did not have any rights that Europeans were bound to recognize and respect from land rights to their very lives. Consequently, for European colonialists they did not perceive any ethical contradictions in their treatment of the “others” and did not judge themselves as deviating from their principles and values. This is what so many non-Europeans do not understand. When Europeans speak to their “traditional values,” it must be understood that those values mean we – the colonized and exploited non-Europeans are not recognized in our full humanity.

Is there any other way to explain the impressive solidarity among “white peoples” on Ukraine in contrast to the tragedies of Yemen, the six million dead in the Congo, Iraq – the list goes on.

That is why it was so correct for the Black Alliance for Peace (BAP) to call for a boycott of the Summit of the Americas by all of the states in our region. BAP argued that the U.S. had no moral or political standing to host this gathering because it has consistently demonstrated that it did not respect the principles of self-determination and national sovereignty in the region. But even more importantly, it did not respect the lives of the people of this region.

A boycott is only the minimum that should be done. However, we understand it will be difficult because we know the vindictiveness of the gringo hegemon and the lengths it will go to assert its vicious domination. In the arrogance that is typical of the colonial white supremacist mindset, the Biden White House asserts that the “summit will be successful no matter who attends.”

Yet, if Biden is sitting there by himself, no manner of will or the power to define, will avoid the obvious conclusion that the world had changed, and with that change, the balance of power away from the U.S.

And the people say – let it be done!

*

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 Black Agenda Report.

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

He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

The Devastating Impacts of the COVID-19 Vaccine Confirmed: We Were Lied to: Game Over, We Won. Steve Kirsch

By Steve Kirsch, June 08, 2022

I now have a survey question that, when tested against a neutral audience, gives a very strong signal. Turns out that most people think that the COVID vaccines have killed more people in just 1.5 years than all 70+ vaccines combined over the past 32 years. The more unvaccinated you are, the more likely you are to notice this. If you’ve had four doses, it was nearly tied.

A New Generation of US-trained Extremists Is Fighting Russia. Are We Prepared for the Blowback?

By T.J. Coles, June 08, 2022

US agencies have directly and indirectly trained and empowered Nazis and ultra-nationalists at home and abroad to fight Russians in Ukraine. This program follows the blueprint established by Western intelligence agencies in Afghanistan and Syria.

“The Terrarium Economy” Amidst an Accelerating Concentration of Wealth. The Rise of Corporate Governance

By Emanuel Pastreich, June 08, 2022

We, the vast majority of humanity, and especially the citizens of the United States, live in a terrarium economy. The accelerating concentration of wealth over the past decades, and the resulting control of agriculture, manufacturing, distribution, information and communication by a handful of multinational corporations means that the ultimate decisions of consequence are made by powers beyond our ken and our control.

What Are the Prospects for Peace?

By Dr. Paul Craig Roberts, June 08, 2022

The US and UK are now equipping Ukraine with missiles that can be used for attacks on Russia’s Black Sea naval base in Crimea. Once such an attack occurs, the US and NATO will be at war with Russia, a situation China could take advantage of by occupying Taiwan.

The Shelling of Donbass Civilians: Two French Journalists Under Ukrainian Artillery Fire for Five Hours

By Laurent Brayard, June 08, 2022

Yesterday 4 June, Christelle and I were waiting for confirmation of a mission to the front line, with the intention of going to the scene of the shelling of civilians by Ukrainian artillery. This kind of mission aims to show the general public that civilians are priority targets of the Ukrainian army and the Kiev regime.

Washington’s Shifting Taiwan Policy Aims for an Asian “Ukraine”

By Brian Berletic, June 08, 2022

The United States is openly talking about its arming of Taiwan no longer in general terms of ensuring “sufficient self-defense,” but rather specifically to “win against China,” thus confirming Beijing’s longstanding claims that Washington has been provoking conflict in what is China’s internal political affairs recognized as such by even the US and its official recognition of the One China Policy.

US Government’s Summit of the Americas Fails: Boycott by Presidents of Mexico, Bolivia, Honduras, Guatemala

By Ben Norton, June 08, 2022

As the US government’s Summit of the Americas opens in Los Angeles, California, the presidents of Mexico, Bolivia, Honduras, and Guatemala have refused to attend, protesting the exclusion of Cuba, Venezuela, and Nicaragua. The US government’s Summit of the Americas started on June 6 in Los Angeles, California. And the event proved to be a major diplomatic failure for the Joe Biden administration.

WHO and WEF Globalists Coordinate Their Global ‘Reset’

By Dr. Joseph Mercola, June 08, 2022

Each year, the world’s elite hop into their private jets and descend upon Davos, Switzerland, the location of the World Economic Forum’s (WEF) annual Davos Forum. Here, the self-proclaimed ruling class spend the week discussing their visions of the future and how to impose their ambitions on the rest of the world.

Canadian Immigration Policy and the Toronto Lobby’s ‘Century Initiative’ Project

By Prof Rodrigue Tremblay, June 08, 2022

Few people know that an obscure political organization, founded in 2011 by a small lobby of businessmen and journalists from Toronto, and bearing the name ‘Century Initiative‘, has proposed to triple the Canadian population by the year 2100.

An Appalling Slur on the Civilisation State That Is India

By M. K. Bhadrakumar, June 08, 2022

The outrage in the Muslim world over the transgression of the red line in anti-Muslim politics in India is understandable, although the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party acted swiftly for damage control. The point is, the world has taken note that anti-Muslim politics has reached a crescendo in India and is undermining the country’s democratic foundations.

  • Posted in NO READ MORE LINK
  • Comments Off on Selected Articles: The Devastating Impacts of the COVID-19 Vaccine Confirmed: We Were Lied to: Game Over, We Won.

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

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

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

***

The week-long IAEA Board of Governors meeting moved into its second day, with continued focus on Iran, and the US and European allies offering a draft resolution to the body condemning Iran.

The resolution takes aim at the least substantial and most widely discussed issue, the discovery of uranium traces at undeclared sites in Iran. The resolution echoes IAEA position that Iran has not satisfied their questions about the traces.

The uranium traces have been an IAEA topic for years, and Iran very recently turned over what they say were all the documents explaining it. The US was very keen to continue the IAEA inquiry, and subsequently the IAEA was not satisfied with what they were given.

Iran’s nuclear chief Mohammed Eslami issued a statement today questioningthe IAEA’s impartiality, saying they need to stop the infiltration of IAEA operations by Iran’s enemies.

Speaking of Israel, Prime Minister Naftali Bennett demanded Iran be sent a clear warning and threatened with a “heavy price” during the IAEA meeting. This is roughly in line with what Israel expects of most meetings.

Iran has expressed concern about IAEA monitoring amounting to de facto spying by Israel and others for years, and with Israel coming up with Iranian documents from spying operations. The undeclared sites themselves had their origin in Israel’s spying.

How much of a “price” the IAEA can inflict at this point is unclear, as the US seems to be backing away from Iran talks on its own, and absent a nuclear deal from those talks, Iran’s obligations are far more limited than the West hoped.

If anything this underscores what Israeli officials have been saying recently, that a nuclear deal with Iran, even a “bad” one, would be more desirable than no deal at all.

*

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.

Jason Ditz is senior editor of Antiwar.com.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on US, Europeans Submit Anti-Iran Resolution to IAEA Board
  • Tags: ,

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

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

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

***

Spread the word. Confront the US and Canadian governments.

Act in solidarity with Eva Bartlett. Confront the mainstream media.

Video

READ MORE:

Canadan Journalist Added to List of Proclaimed ‘Enemies of Ukraine’

On Ukraine’s war on Donbass, Russia’s denazification operation, and being on Ukraine’s Kill List

Read Eva Bartlett’s article on Mariupol:

Here’s What I Found at the Reported ‘Mass Grave’ Near Mariupol

By Eva Bartlett, April 29, 2022

*

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

  • Posted in English, Mobile, NO READ MORE LINK
  • Comments Off on Video: Award-Winning Canadian Journalist Eva Bartlett on Ukraine “Kill List” as Canadian Government Does Nothing

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

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

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

***

US agencies have directly and indirectly trained and empowered Nazis and ultra-nationalists at home and abroad to fight Russians in Ukraine. This program follows the blueprint established by Western intelligence agencies in Afghanistan and Syria.

From 1978 (not ’79 as many believe), the administration of Jimmy Carter decided to “draw the Russians into the Afghan trap,” in the words of the President’s National Security Advisor, Zbigniew Brzezinski. US intelligence called on its British counterparts to activate networks of Afghan fighters. New generations of extremists joined the fight. Aid, arms, and training poured into Afghanistan. Support increased following the Soviet invasion in December 1979.

Throughout the 1980s, tens of thousands of jihadis from dozens of Muslim-majority countries were flown into the US, Britain, and Pakistan to receive training from the CIA, Green Berets, US Marines, and British SAS and MI6. The foreign extremists later rebranded themselves “al-Qaeda” and launched a series of spectacularly bloody attacks on strategically significant targets that provided justification for a global “war on terror” that continues to serve as ideological cover for contemporary US hegemony.

The multi-billion dollar CIA operation to arm and train the so-called freedom fighters, or Afghan mujahedin, was known as Operation Cyclone. Successive administrations repeated the pattern in the 2010s, initiating Operation Timber Sycamore in a failed effort to depose Bashar al-Assad in Syria and Operation Mermaid Dawn before it in a successful effort to remove Muammar Gaddafi and destabilize Libya.

Today, the CIA, US Special Forces, and other branches of government are training regular units in Ukraine. With US support, far-right elements of those units go on to train and recruit for Nazi paramilitary units and gangs. White nationalist Americans are allowed to travel to Ukraine and train paramilitaries and/or receive training, depending on the individual or group. State-corporate media have confirmed the existence of a major CIA training program involving “irregular” (i.e., terrorist) warfare, but we do not yet know the name of the operation.

As Alex Rubinstein reported for The Grayzone, corporate US media has promoted known US white nationalists fighting in Ukraine as heroes, while whitewashing their records of murder and political violence. And while the Department of Homeland Security expresses “concern” over potential blowback when these openly fascist combat veterans return to the US, the administration of Joseph Biden appears to be doing nothing to stop them from making their way to the battlefield.

The US program in Ukraine bears such striking similarities to Operation Cyclone it could be dubbed “Cyclone 2.0”. The nature of the proxy war has all but been admitted by former US Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, and the endgame of regime change in nuclear-armed Russia has been acknowledged by President Joe Biden.

In pursuing these objectives, US and British elites are taking a nuclear gamble. As even the DHS has warned, their empowerment of neo-Nazis could open a new chapter in the “war on terror” in which civilians will suffer blowback from battle-hardened extremists – imagine the Buffalo shooter with advanced tactical training. Millions will be considered by authorities to be potential white supremacists, ultranationalists, and Nazis. And under the pretext of fighting white extremism, a new phase of total surveillance and foreign “intervention” might begin in the Caucasus and Baltic regions.

Running the ratline to Ukraine behind volunteer non-profit cover

Typical of the kind of operations taking place, former US Marine Benjamin Busch, ex-Infantry Officer Adrian Bonenberger, and Iraq War veteran Matt Gallagher, traveled to Lviv in Western Ukraine to train dozens of what are described by US media as Ukrainian civilians. Gallagher revealed that US intelligence agents were facilitating travel. Border and justice agencies were not obstructing departures and returns.

“(I reached out to) some friends who work in various government jobs, not so much asking them for permission in any kind of official capacity,” Gallagher stated, “but just wanting to know if there were any potential consequences. The almost universal response to that was, as long as they (the people he was training) are actual citizens, as long as this is focused on self-defense, as long as this is not some covert military, paramilitary operation, you’ll be fine. Some fellow Wake Forest [University] graduates [in North Carolina], who I won’t name because they do work for Uncle Sam, were very helpful in collecting information.”

Operations of this sort laid the groundwork for a mass “volunteer” scheme. The creation of an international volunteer force reflects the interests of the Azov Battalion — the Nazi-linked paramilitary unit that has undergone through several name changes (e.g., Azov Movement, Azov Regiment), reportedly de-Nazified, and has supposedly integrated into regular Ukrainian armed units. In reality, the Azov’s political wing, the National Corps (formerly the Patriots of Ukraine), is described as neo-Nazi by contemporary Western experts and even the US Department of Justice.

In February 2018, Azov stated on Discord: “[We] will have the foreign legion set up within the next 18 months or so.” Chiding the Ukrainian government for blocking their efforts, the National Corps’ young leader, Olena Semenyaka, said: “we hope to create a foreign legion. There we could announce loud and clear when we seek volunteers.” If the far-right Ukrainian puppet government was too soft, Azov leadership did not need to worry because Uncle Sam was there to facilitate the creation of an international volunteer league.

Describing itself as a 501(C)3 non-profit pending (hence no info shows up on the IRS website at the time of writing), Volunteers for Ukraine (VFU) has no overt connections to Azov. It was founded in February 2022 as “United Peacekeepers for Ukraine.” The original website was an extension of the Ukrainian Ministry of Foreign Affairs’ International Legion of Ukraine website.

The public relations-minded operatives behind the site evidently decided that the dovish name of the organization (“Peacekeepers”) was not likely to encourage anti-Russian fighters to volunteer, so they changed it to Volunteers for Ukraine. At the time of writing, the VFU website features images of protestors holding signs that include “Kill Putin…” and “Putin = Hitler”—a rather stark departure from peacekeeping.

The new site puts names and faces to the organization, including the professed founder, David Ribardo; a former US Infantry Officer and Afghanistan War veteran. Despite the imagery and recent references to combat, Ribardo claims that VFU is a “humanitarian aid organization.”

VFU’s Chief Operations Officer is combat veteran Phillip Chatham, a former Diplomatic Security Missions leader for numerous US lawmakers. “As an In-Country Operations Manager he maintained facility clearances with multiple intelligence agencies,” says the site. The organization is also run by numerous veterans and PR specialists. Promoting VFU on CNN, another veteran, “Seth,” described working with refugees in Poland thanks to “some very gracious donations from some sponsors.”

This offers insight into how such operations are run: anonymous major donors operate veteran pipelines to Ukraine in neighboring countries. Ribardo says that his job includes vetting volunteers to weed out fantasists, “combat tourists,” and extremists, ensuring that only well-trained US veterans enlist.

The number of veterans who have volunteered is not disclosed, but Ribardo says that the figures are unlike anything seen “since World War Two.”

Extremists and accelerationists: “We’re gonna send home a lot of bodybags”

Other Americans fighting in Ukraine’s regular units included: Dalton Kennedy, a member of North Carolina’s branch of the white supremacist Patriot Front; David Kleman of Georgia who has been photographed sporting Nazi imagery; and Army veteran David Plaster of Missouri. According to British press reports, Plaster has trained “thousands of Ukrainians in tactical medicine,” and headed a team that included even elderly veterans, like former Marine Dave Eggen, who said of Russians: “We are going to send home a lot of bodybags.”

One such figure told Buzzfeed that they were questioned by federal agencies but still allowed to travel. “I tell them I don’t have anything to hide. Then they let me go. Every time.” In addition to the above fighters, known fascists are signing up to fight.

By March this year, at least 3000 US citizens were allegedly on the Ukrainian battlefield. In April, John T. Godfrey, the State Department’s Acting Coordinator for Counterterrorism, said of American extremists going to fight: “when they return, they have skill – they typically come back more radicalized than when they left … [T]hey do have hard skills that they are able to, in some cases, use in attacking targets domestically.” In intelligence circles, this is called “blowback.”

In April, I filed a freedom of information request with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to obtain documents on travelers to Ukraine and its neighbors, including Georgia and Poland, from 2014 to the present. The aim was to measure the size of “Cyclone 2.” From logs and incident reports that had come to the attention of the DHS, I wanted to know how many people had been stopped and questioned about their trips by federal or local authorities. The DHS unlawfully ignored my request, as they have a habit of doing: no acknowledgement, no delayed response, nothing.

Had the department answered, it might have confirmed the story of people like “Alex”: a US armed forces veteran who was connected to Ukraine by an anonymous online account. “Alex” ended up in the extremist-heavy Shyrokyne (near Mariupol), fought with Ukraine’s openly fascist party the Right Sector, and ended up recruiting other Americans for the Azov Battalion. (The source is the US and British intelligence cut-out, Bellingcat.)

Newsweek encountered similar obstructions. It noted that Azov’s political wing, the National Corps, has been connected to the US white supremacist Rise Above Movement, Germany’s Third Path, Italy’s Casa Pound, and other extremist groups. In their efforts to assess the scale of such connections in the US, Newsweek reporters approached the Department of Justice, FBI, and DHS for comment. Silence was the answer.

Newsweek pointed to Cossack House in Kiev as the main Azov recruiting center. Loaned to the Azov Battalion by the Ukrainian Ministry of Defense, the center’s library includes Nazi literature and is described by the Azov National Corps leader Semenyaka as “a small state within a state.” The number of Americans currently there is not known.

In addition to white supremacists, members of accelerationist groups — those that want to hasten society’s collapse in order to remold it in their image — are also present in Ukraine.

Former Marine Mike Dunn from Virginia is an informant and once-influential figure in the politically fluid Boogaloo Bois, having commanded its Last Sons of Liberty Faction. “There hasn’t been much activity in the Boogaloo movement since I walked away,” he says. After being exposed as an informant, Dunn disappeared from the scene only to reappear in February this year announcing his intention to fight in Ukraine via Poland by signing up to an undisclosed recruiting station.

“I wouldn’t say that I am necessarily trying to advance the cause of the Boogaloo movement … But I will say that the Boogaloo movement is going to be represented over there.”

But this makes little sense. Who would follow a fink to Ukraine, except for mercenaries and fellow feds? Also, didn’t Dunn leave the movement, so how could he represent it in Ukraine? “I have a few that are following me there, I have one going with me there,” he says.

Henry Hoeft, a former US Army Infantryman and Boogaloo Boy from Ohio, was cautioned by the FBI against fighting in Ukraine, but was simultaneously advised by the Bureau to call the US Embassy if he got into trouble. Hoeft says:

“I get it. They don’t want to be implicated if Russia harms any of us, and they don’t want to escalate the conflict by saying that they’re sending American soldiers over.” (See also Hoeft’s Grayzone interview.)

Dunn, the Boogaloo former leader and informant, confirmed his presence in Washington DC during the January 6 “Stop the Steal” rally, but claims that he arrived late and did not participate in storming the Capitol. The Ukrainian Right Sector’s Serhiy Dubynin, an influential media figure working for the major Ukrainian channel, Inter, was also at the Capitol that day, signifying that the DHS-FBI “open-door” policy included Ukrainian extremists who would network in the US and vice versa. Dubynin was photographed with Jake Chansley; the highly-decorated US Navy veteran and self-styled “QAnon Shaman.” Dubynin was heard urging the Stop the Steal demonstrators to escalate from peaceful protest to violence: “Come on! … Do it!”

Fascists and Satanists bring their “fetish for death” to Ukraine

Between 2015 and ‘16, several American extremists went to Ukraine to enlist in regular units. Others formed a Right Sector paramilitary spinoff which according to colleagues “had a fetish for death and torture.” Pluto being the Roman god of hell. Their unit was called Task Force Pluto (TFP), named for the Roman god of death, and was led by a US Army deserter-turned-mercenary, Craig Lang, who had also worked as a contractor for the Ukrainian military. Lang operated alongside Brian Boyenger, an Iraq War veteran who served as a sniper in Ukraine. Lang recruited Americans for Ukraine and Boyenger vetted them.

Other TFP members included former Marines Quinn Rickert and Santi Pirtle. The two compiled video evidence of Lang torturing and murdering a local man as well as beating and drowning a young female (age unknown), as an Austrian called Benjamin Fischer — nicknamed “Bin Laden” — allegedly administered adrenaline injections to keep her conscious during the torture. The Department of Justice requested the evidence from their Ukrainian counterparts.

By 2017, a US military deserter, Alex Zwiefelhofer, had joined Lang via the Right Sector in Ukraine. The pair had planned to fight al-Shabaab in Sudan and the Venezuelan military. Upon questioning Zwiefelhofer, North Carolinian authorities discovered child porn on his phone. (The UK-based satanic group, the Order of Nine Angles and its Tempel ov Blood (sic, ToB) offshoot in the US infiltrate secular far-right groups and encourage child rape, possibly as a honeytrap on behalf of the security services).

Influenced by the SIEGE philosophies of the elderly Nazi pedophile James Mason (not to be confused with the late actor), the Atomwaffen Division (AWD, now called the National Socialist Order) was an apocalyptic-accelerationist group founded in 2015 and disbanded five years later. Mason bragged of there being “a lot of action in Ukraine … That’s pretty impressive.”

Private First Class Jarrett Smith, stationed at Fort Riley, Kansas, was a fan of Atomwaffen and a member of the Feuerkrieg Division, founded in the Baltics in late-2018. Smith was also a self-proclaimed satanist, likely connected to the ToB. That group’s leader, Joshua Caleb Sutter, was an FBI informant whose seemed determined to infiltrate and “satanize” Nazi groups with the aim of destroying them from within.

Before joining the Army, Smith was planning to go to Ukraine to fight with the Azov Battalion via his connections to Craig Lang. Before he could go, Smith was set up by an undercover FBI agent and a third party (either an informant or another agent) who put them in touch. The undercover agent contacted Smith through chat forums to ask how to make bombs. In an illustration of how the feds set up fanatical dupes, the agent also said: “Got a liberal texas mayor in my sights (sic)! Boom with that IED [improvised explosive device] and that dude’s dead.”

Via a far-right entity called the Military Order of Centuria, the newly rebranded Azov Movement has been trained by the militaries of America, Britain, Canada, and France.

DHS incident logs note that in December 2018, AWD member Kaleb Cole returned from London with fellow neo-Nazis, Aidan Bruce Umbaugh and Edie Allison Moore. They had visited, among other countries, Ukraine. The DHS log is heavily redacted. Andrew Dymock (alias Blitz), the leader of Britain’s Sonnenkrieg Division (a unit of the AWD), was a member of the occultist Order of Nine Angles and has been pictured wearing an Azov Battalion t-shirt.

Neo-Nazi Andrew Dymock (left), sporting an Azov Battalion t-shirt, with a fellow member of Atomwaffen’s UK chapter

The Rise Above Movement (RAM) is a network of American fascists, some of whom have been convicted of using violence against leftist demonstrators. In 2018, a leading Azov fascist and killer, Sergey Korotkikh, hosted RAM members in Kyiv. National Corps leader Semenyaka also hosted RAM members Michael Miselis of Lawndale, Benjamin Drake Daley of Redondo Beach, and Robert Rundo of Huntington (Calif.). Later that year as RAM members were charged with violence in the US. FBI Special Agent Scott J. Bierwirth said: “the Azov Battalion … is believed to have participated in training and radicalizing United States-based white supremacy organizations.”

According to Time magazine, after the white supremacist Brenton Tarrant murdered 51 people in Christchurch, NZ in 2019, “an arm of the Azov movement helped distribute the terrorist’s raving manifesto.” Among the many countries he reportedly visited was Ukraine.

Today, the neo-Nazi Wotanjugend (Wotan Youth) praises Tarrant as a hero and has distributed his manifesto. Indicative of their sympathies, in April 2020 the Azov National Militia leader Cherkas Mykhailenko conducted an interview with Wotanjugend’s Alexei Levkin. The Azov’s Nazi recruiting station, Cossack House, has also sold Wotanjugend merchandise.

Dire predictions of Ukraine blowback

US intelligence agencies have allowed an open-door policy for veterans, militia, and fascists to travel to Ukraine and its neighbors to kill as many Russian soldiers as possible. The FBI monitors some of the combatants, intervenes in some cases, but typically does nothing. The DHS allows the foreign fighters to travel and return with minimal obstruction. The US charity, Volunteers for Ukraine, is one of the organizations that provides a veneer of legitimacy for the operations that otherwise include extremists.

In Ukraine, meanwhile, US Special Forces are training the National Guard and other regular units, thereby providing a further layer of professional cover. However, with US training, some of these regulars go on to train far-right and Nazi paramilitaries; some Ukrainian, some American. The American fascists return home with the potential to use that training against domestic targets.

Former FBI agent turned consultant, Ali Soufan, notes that in the 1990s, the Afghan Taliban took advantage of constant conflict in the Central Asian country. “Pretty soon the extremists took over. The Taliban was in charge. And we did not wake up until 9/11. This is the parallel now with Ukraine,” Soufan said.

A 2021 report by the Military Academy West Point’s Combating Terrorism Center reinforced his point, stating that the Ukraine conflict “served as a powerful accelerator” for global white supremacy.

Also that year, Elissa Slotkin, chair of the Subcommittee on Intelligence and Counterterrorism declared: “As a former CIA officer who has looked at foreign terrorist organizations in the Middle East most of my career, I was struck by the threat these white supremacist groups pose, the amount of contact they have with extremists in the U.S., the minimal intelligence and diplomatic reporting we have on these groups, and the relative lack of review taken by the U.S. Government.”

Slotkin recommended thirteen white supremacist-extremist organizations including the Azov Battalion be banned. Today, Azov earns gushing praise in Western media and Slotkin is an ardent proponent of massive arms shipments to the Ukrainian military that hosts 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.

T.J. Coles is a postdoctoral researcher at Plymouth University’s Cognition Institute and the author of several books, the latest being We’ll Tell You What to Think: Wikipedia, Propaganda and the Making of Liberal Consensus.

Featured image is from The Grayzone

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on A New Generation of US-trained Extremists Is Fighting Russia. Are We Prepared for the Blowback?
  • Tags: ,

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

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

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

***

We, the vast majority of humanity, and especially the citizens of the United States, live in a terrarium economy. The accelerating concentration of wealth over the past decades, and the resulting control of agriculture, manufacturing, distribution, information and communication by a handful of multinational corporations means that the ultimate decisions of consequence are made by powers beyond our ken and our control.

The terrarium is a self-contained ecosystem within a glass bottle. It may maintain the humidity of the tropics conducive to the growth of ferns and mosses, or orchids and heliconia. It may serve as the home for rare frogs and salamanders, exquisite butterflies and jeweled beetles, or tropical fish and shrimp. It may contain within it a food chain ranging from algae up to iguanas.

But the terrarium’s fragile ecosystem is completely under the control of invisible powers far beyond the ken of the flora and fauna within its glass walls. The denizens of the delicate rain forest have no idea that invisible hands determine the temperature and the moisture, and provide the fertilizer and nutrients essential for their survival. If the masters outside of the terrarium fail to keep up that routine, for even a few days, no one will survive.

Today, citizens find themselves in a similar fix. They inhabit an economy that appears to be functional, that keeps them fed and with a roof over their head, if they are lucky, and the economy makes sense to them on a daily basis.

The terrarium economy from Emanuel Pastreich on Vimeo.

This seemingly complete ecosystem includes the homeless, the middle class, lawyers and doctors, and even the wealthy with assets of up to 50 million dollars. Those little rich men take great pride that they are somehow the equivalents of Jeff Bezos or Bill Gates, and so they lord over the little people.

The inequities and contradictions of human society are replicated perfectly in this terrarium economy. It has its rich and its poor, its good guys and its bad guys.

But that economy and that political process is enclosed in a hermetically sealed bottle. It is a closed system into which the billionaires pour a bit of financial liquidity here, a bit of inflation there, a bit of positive news when appropriate, and some ominous signs when required.

The owners of the terrarium can manipulate and modify the system without the consent, or even the knowledge, of its citizens. Citizens, by contrast, like Amazon tree frogs, are blithely unaware of their dependency on this contrived hidden hand.

If, suddenly, petroleum and liquid natural gas stop flowing, if, suddenly, corn, wheat, and rice stop traversing the waves in container ships, if, suddenly, accurate information stops circulating in the newspapers, and, if, following a Gresham’s law for the aristocracy, reliable currency dries up, we will be helpless and doomed.

The vast majority will be unable to ascertain the source of the sudden changes and will no doubt attack the politicians and CEOs who occupy the upper stories of the food chain within the visible economy, the economy of the terrarium.

The powers that hide behind comical politicians, however, will watch the show with detached amusement.

Digital Share Cropping 

The residents of the terrarium pay a hidden price in every transaction and in every interaction. They are subject to digital share cropping whereby the invisible master get a pound of flesh every time money, products, or services are exchanged. The launch of digital currencies will make that prison into a living hell.

The distributers in the supply chain, the retailers, the marketing and advertising firms, the manufactures of unnecessary plastic and paper wrappings, the hospitals, the insurance companies, the lawyers, and of course the private equity firms that lurk behind them, all of them, and more, take their generous bite from the breakfast cereal that you buy at the supermarket, or the gallon of gas that you put in your automobile.

You are free to work, but the hidden hand decides what kinds of jobs are available, what the salaries will be, and what the requirements for employment are.

The banks provide endless loans to massive corporations outside of the terrarium, much of which is never paid back, but they show extreme reticence to offer even paltry loans to us.

Intellectuals of all shapes and sizes crawl around in the terrarium proclaiming that this is the best of all possible worlds and praising the market economy, and the genius entrepreneurs who have risen to the top.

The public intellectuals get extra grubs from the masters for their arguments in best seller books that the only solutions are money solutions, and not cooperatives, or barter systems, that offer citizens economic independence.

Democracy and the Republic

The terrarium economy became possible because the term “democracy” was purposely misinterpreted.

We were told over and over that there are “democracies” and that they are superior, but we almost never heard the word “republic.” Yet if a democracy, a government system in which citizens vote for candidates running for public office, loses the administrative infrastructure of a republic, it will become like a tiger without bones.

If there is no functional constitution that regulates the republic, defines the administration of the system, and describes the means for resolving conflicts, then democratic processes like voting for candidates, or passing laws, degenerate into superficial rituals.

A republic is essential to protect the minority against the wrath of a deluded and misguided majority. That threat is all too real. The desires of the citizens are easily fanned, and misdirected, by the few and will not correspond with the long-term interests of the citizens.

These days, that is the norm.

A smaller group of those informed on policy, and on the state of the world, people who are committed to ethical principles, must serve as a regulator, to assure that the system functions ethically.

After all, the truth is by its very nature undemocratic.

A great ocean liner can include thousands of devices maintained by hundreds of sailors. Yet the compass is a unique device that only a limited number of people can create and employ effectively.

If we are voting on the truth, or if we think that the truth is a matter of opinion, then there is no longer a republic, and therefore no democracy either. That, sadly, is precisely the current situation within our terrarium.

The terrarium economy resulted from the transfer of massive parts of the economy, and of the administration of daily life, to the control of accountable third parties. An abominable fourth branch of government, beyond the executive, the legislative and the judicial, slouches towards the desert.

The rise of Corporate governance

That rotten twisted branch, covered in horrific thorns, is neither government as defined by the constitution, nor the small stores, family farms, and local manufacturing that made up traditional society.

A new player, described nowhere in the Constitution, has weaseled its way in through back door to play the central role in governance.

Who might that be? None other than massive, multinational corporations and their evil twins, investment banks. Both are awash in free money printed up for their use by the prostrate Federal Reserve.

They have seized control of much of the economy, and of much of daily life, over the past 40 years in a gradual process invisible to the naked eye. They have lulled us to sleep with a culture of narcissism and indulgence that keeps citizens from focusing on the covert takeover.

These corporations generously sprinkled money on their intellectuals to cook up arguments justifying this new tyranny.

Those experts argued that “the private sector” could handle the tasks of government more efficiently than the wasteful federal government of the United States of America.

But when they said, “Let the private sector do what the bumbling bureaucrats can’t,” what they really meant was, “Let us take authority away from a poorly run and demoralized government and give it to a totalitarian and cynical new government.”

Corporations are government, in every sense of the word, but are far more dangerous in that they have no constitutions to define their administration, they are opaque and unaccountable, and they are run for the benefit of stockholders; not for their employees, and most certainly not for the public.

The experts, conjured up by the rich, ran seminars, wrote books, and set up graduate programs in government in which they argued that government must be run efficiently like corporations. They have privatized huge chucks of government and created habits and policies within the fragments of government that remain that are modelled on the ruthless administration of corporations.

The truth is that the alternative to unaccountable and unresponsive government (something guaranteed to appear in due course in any system) is not private corporations run for profit, but rather local cooperatives run by citizens in a participatory manner.

Corporations and billionaires seized control of journalism and employed donations to universities and research institutes that rendered those sources of authority as their play toys.

The result was a politics of the self, of the incident, and of the scandal that occluded discussion of the republic, of the constitution, or of due process.

The Constitution is treated today as just one more voice in the wilderness, a quiet voice of reason drowned out by the screams and howls of pundits, politicians and plutocrats. Government no longer has the foundations of legitimacy provided by the Constitution is no longer the foundation that gives government legitimacy.

Rather than engaging in a serious discussion about how decisions are made in a republic, those in search of a more just society have been dragged down into endless debates on cultural identity, complaining about injustice without taking action.

There are plenty of voices out there that limn real conspiracies with varied degrees of accuracy. In most cases, however, the forces putting forth that information also are run in a totalitarian manner.

Sadly, the opposition to the cancerous combination of government and corporations that runs the United States does not invite you to join local organizational meetings, does not offer you a role to play in pushing for change, and is not interested in your opinion.

The result?

The United States has lost its compass and is increasing jerked back and forth by obscure battles between tyrannical monsters. The “conservatives” on the one side denounce the COVID-19 fraud, but never demand that the assets of the rich who created it be seized.

These conservatives lead the citizen back to ineffective and deeply compromised figures like Donald Trump or Rand Paul. The “progressives,” on the other hand, take the destruction of the ecosystem seriously, criticize the ruthless domination of corporations, but are silent on the 9.11 fraud and the COVID-19 scam—the two catastrophic attacks that broke the back of our republic. The progressives are happy to feed us slop about cultural identity that obscures real class warfare.

In effect, those conservatives and progressives are but colorful fauna of the terrarium, amusing and intriguing, but incapable of effecting anything on the outside.

The population has dumbed down. Minds have been destroyed by newspapers and schools whose agendas are set by billionaires. Many citizens are no longer capable of even conceiving of world outside of the terrarium.

On the inside, the walls of the terrarium reflect back to its inhabitant his or her own image.

We have no choice but to seize the largest stones in the terrarium and smash those glass walls until they shatter and freedom is possible again. Then, and only then, will we polish and arrange those fragments to form a more perfect republic for all.

*

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.

Emanuel Pastreich served as the president of the Asia Institute, a think tank with offices in Washington DC, Seoul, Tokyo and Hanoi. Pastreich also serves as director general of the Institute for Future Urban Environments. Pastreich declared his candidacy for president of the United States as an independent in February, 2020.

He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

What Are the Prospects for Peace?

June 8th, 2022 by Dr. Paul Craig Roberts

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

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

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

***

The American war machine consists of the economic and power interests of the US military/security complex and the hegemonic ideology of the neoconservatives.

The former requires an enemy in order to justify the unaccountable power of the security agencies and the $1,000 billion annual budget of the complex.

The latter believes in an exceptional and indispensable United States entitled to hegemonic power over the world.

As armaments industry political campaign donations exercise control over elected officials and as the neoconservatives with their Wolfowitz doctrine are the main shapers of US foreign policy, there are no interest groups or political leaders capable of challenging their dominance.

This means that the chances for peace are zero.

We are being led into nuclear war.

Having provoked a Russian military intervention in Ukraine, the US and its NATO puppets have become combatants in the conflict by their provision of Ukraine with weapons, training, and diplomatic support.

The US and UK are now equipping Ukraine with missiles that can be used for attacks on Russia’s Black Sea naval base in Crimea. Once such an attack occurs, the US and NATO will be at war with Russia, a situation China could take advantage of by occupying Taiwan.

Peace requires an event or events that shake the neoconservatives confidence in their ideology of hegemony and the willingness of elected officials to continue to accommodate the interests of the military security complex, or it requires Russian and Chinese acceptance of US hegemony, an unlikely prospect.

Had the Kremlin responded to the Ukrainian provocation with a blitzkrieg conquest of all of Ukraine, a stunned Europe and Washington would have opened to voices other than the neoconservative ones, and elected officials would have been more mindful of the threat posed by an unbridled military/security complex.

But the limited, drawn out Russian intervention reinforced the West’s view that there was not much fight in the Kremlin. The Kremlin’s toleration for many years of continuous provocations and its toleration of Western-financed subversion inside Russia has conditioned the West to disregard Russian declaration of red lines.

For example, at the initiation of the Russian limited intervention in Ukraine, the Kremlin said that all who intervened in behalf of Ukraine would be treated as combatants. But no Western government paid any heed. Even militarily impotent Denmark sends weapon systems to Ukraine.

It was a strategic blunder for the Kremlin to suppose its operation could be limited. The US and most of Europe are now involved. The limited and time-consuming Russian intervention provided time for the West to fashion a narrative of Russian defeat and to organize weapons shipments.

Once the Russians complete the task of driving the Ukrainians out of the Donbass region, the Russians are likely to confront a new Ukrainian army raised in Western Ukraine. In other words, the Kremlin’s goal of demilitarizing Ukraine is unlikely to result from partial conquest.

It seems clear that the situation is set for a wider war. As Dmitry Medvedev, deputy chairman of the Security Council of Russia, said: “The Horsemen of the Apocalypse are galloping ahead.”

The Kremlin Continues to Inform the West that the West is Courting Nuclear War. But No One Listens.

Excerpt from Lavrov UK press conference

Question:

Britain has said it is giving Ukraine multiple rocket launchers to help it defend itself against Russian forces. The U.S. is doing the same thing. You called it a risky path. But if Russia had not attacked Ukraine and there had been no Russian invasion, there would have been no transfer of weapon systems. Do you agree?

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov:

You don’t even want to hear our arguments. It’s not about “if we hadn’t attacked, you wouldn’t have sent weapons.” The point is that for twenty years, in fact, you (the British), the Americans, all other NATO member countries have been urged by us to do what everyone signed up to in 1999: no one will strengthen their security at the expense of the security of others. Why can’t you do that? Why did what your prime minister, presidents and prime ministers of all other OSCE countries signed turn out to be a lie? Instead, you tell us that NATO membership is “none of your business” – whoever you want in NATO, you accept. Five times you approached our borders. When the Warsaw Pact and the USSR disappeared, who were you defending against? This is megalomania.

Now Jens Stoltenberg says that it is necessary to globally ensure NATO’s responsibility in the Indo-Pacific region. So your next line of defense will be in the South China Sea. If you look at what is happening, it becomes completely clear: you considered yourself entitled all these years to commit lawlessness far from your borders. I understand that nostalgically this is the British Empire, you have left there thrown “seeds”. You have such nostalgia. They declare areas across the ocean from the United States, where there is allegedly a threat to Washington. Then Iraqi Mosul, then Syrian Raqqa, then Belgrade. In Libya, lawlessness is happening, states have been destroyed.

Imagine for a moment if, in neighboring Ireland, which occupies half of the island concerned, English was abolished, or Belgium, say, abolished French, Switzerland abolished French, German or Italian. How would Europe look at this? I won’t even elaborate on that thought. Europe looked calmly at how the Russian language was banned. It happened in Ukraine. Education, the media, daily communication – all this was forbidden to the Russian language. At the same time, the Russians in Donbass were bombed for eight years by a regime that openly professed and glorified Nazism.

I understand that you need to drill your “truth” into the heads of your audience with “chopped phrases”: “if you had not attacked, we would not have delivered MLRS.” Vladimir Putin commented on the situation that will develop in connection with the arrival of new weapons. I can only add that the more long-range weapons you supply, the further we will move westward from our territory the line from which neo-Nazis threaten the Russian Federation.

In other words, as neo-Nazis sit in Brussels, London and Washington as well as in Kiev, the protection of Russia expands the targets far beyond Donbass.

*

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 South Front

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

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

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

***

Yesterday 4 June, Christelle and I were waiting for confirmation of a mission to the front line, with the intention of going to the scene of the shelling of civilians by Ukrainian artillery.

This kind of mission aims to show the general public that civilians are priority targets of the Ukrainian army and the Kiev regime.  Not long ago, almost without hiding, the Ukrainian president announced that Donbass would be razed to the ground and that after the war the region would be a real desert, meaning that they would have killed most of the Russian population of Eastern Ukraine before the Maidan.

At around 10.00 am, the Korpus, the press organisation of the Ministry of Defence of the Republic of Donetsk, announced a first bombardment in the always very targeted district of Petrovski, in the west of the city. The Ukrainian artillery had opened fire on the active Chelyuskintsev mine, so we jumped into our car, accompanied by a fixer and Korpus soldier, whom we like very much, as a person and a professional: Kostia.

A great arrival. What we didn’t know was that this first bombardment, which took place at around 8.30 a.m., continued in this civilian area.

What was targeted here was the mine and its infrastructure, while many miners were at work in the depths of the galleries. As soon as we parked, the first shell fell not far from us with a tremendous crash. On Kostia’s orders, we immediately evacuated the vehicle, a Renault Kangoo, but immediately a second shell hit our area. Leaping behind Kostia’s footsteps, we took refuge next to a building that looked solid, but we did not stay on the ground for long, the danger was too great. In a few steps we had the presence of mind to enter the building where we discovered about fifteen people.

It was in fact a food and bazaar shop, called Soyuz, run by a woman of unfailing courage called Raissa. A few saleswomen, a grandfather who had come to buy water with his 14-year-old grandson, other retired men, two mobilized soldiers on rest, other women who had also come to do some shopping, not to mention a 45-year-old man who was a former soldier in the Donbass militia, these were the people we met in this circumstance. Mixing with them, we soon found places to sit, protected by the thick walls of this solid building. Built during the Soviet Union, with thick walls, a very large cellar and a structure supported by large steel beams, we were now in relative safety.

Five hours of heavy shelling. We couldn’t imagine that we would be here for five hours, four of which were spent under heavy shelling from the unleashed Ukrainian artillery. 122 mm shells, multiple Grad rocket launchers, Ouragan missiles loaded with submunitions and even 152 mm shells, the infernal dance of Ukrainian shells was just beginning. The nervousness was palpable in two men, who were almost distilling panic to those around us, constantly asking us not to film them, getting up, pacing the shop, going outside to pick up debris from previous shells, the situation was critical.

Following the example of Christelle and Kostia, as well as myself, the group seemed to have calmed down, I was sitting next to a young 21 year old soldier, on leave, simply wearing a military cap and a tank top. Regularly, he would point out the start of the shooting, which would then come at us a few seconds later. To the right, to the left, much further away, or very close, shells and rockets kept falling everywhere. After a few long minutes of this treatment, an elderly man lost his patience and went outside under fire, to go home, immediately overpowered by the other men.

It was time, for the shells kept coming. Our retreat looked more and more precarious, with rubble falling from the ceiling onto our heads. It was clear that we were being targeted and we knew that the car we had left outside would be in pieces by the time we got out of this hellhole. A lesser evil, especially as we had not suffered any casualties up to that point. Then a 122 shell hit five meters from where I was sitting, shattering not only the wrought iron door of the main entrance but also the second wooden door of the entrance hatch. Covered in rubble, an elderly man hit in the eyes by the flying stones and plaster shouting amidst the shards of voices, an authoritative female voice said: “Go down to the cellar! To the left, to the left! We had just met the courageous and admirable owner of the place, Raissa.

A grandfather dies in our arms. In single file, with our ears ringing from the impact, we made our way towards the friendly voice. Under our steps crunched many pieces of glass, shop windows and rubble, as we all managed to descend into the bowels of the building. It was a very solid and large cellar, running under the whole building, which also had a second floor. Groping around, some with the light of their phones, others with torches, we found several women and a child. His name was Roman, while a woman started to cry.

Christelle immediately took care of her, she was a shop assistant, whose two children were not far from there at their grandparents’. They, too, had to suffer from the bombing. She said she was not afraid for herself, but for them, it was two girls, 14 and 8 years old. Other civilians were here, a couple in their late sixties, other shop assistants and several elderly grandfathers. In spite of our calmness, and in particular the very reassuring presence of Kostia, the feverishness and a small wind of panic were palpable among these people.

Everything finally seemed to stabilize, especially thanks to Raissa, a woman mistress, who encouraged these people with a strong voice. She was busy with a large multi-flashlight, bringing water and cups, offering food. We noticed that one of the grandfathers had been hit on the hand and forehead by stone chips and was bleeding. Kostia, who had a first aid kit, assisted by Christelle and Raissa, treated his wounds.  Two men, however, could not get used to this cellar, while shells continued to fall here and there, sometimes hitting the building. The 45-year-old former militiaman might have been claustrophobic, he offered vodka which was upstairs, we flatly refused. When a grandfather, without us paying any attention, sneaked up the stairs to the upper floor.

Kostia understood the danger and went upstairs, but another shell was already exploding in the courtyard. This time it was a tragedy. Grabbing his first aid kit, he leapt to his aid, calling the men to the rescue. There were three of us around the old man. He was lying on his back in the middle of the shop. Cane and glasses lay next to him, he was hit very badly, especially in the left lung. The man was trying to catch his breath, we leaned his head on a paltry bottle. Soon the blood was pouring out, his right side was also riddled with shrapnel, he had several broken ribs. We tried to wash his gaping wound, hiding behind two glass refrigerators, illusory protections. We should have carried him to the cellar, but the shells kept falling. At the slightest attempt, we would be mown down and there were only two of us with bulletproof vests and helmets. He died in our arms, and we were powerless to do anything but acknowledge his death.

The relentlessness of the Ukrainian artillery. We all went down into the cellar, the old man covered by a cloth, we could do nothing more for him, we had to take care of the living. As we went down first, our other companions in distress looked at us, worried.

I didn’t dare announce the death of the grandfather, which I finally reported in a whisper. The audience was stunned, as young Roman had just lost his grandfather. We did not know the family relationship he had with the deceased. I spent a lot of time talking to him afterwards. To keep his spirits up, I asked him what he liked, who his family was, what he did at school, his hopes and dreams. He told me he liked to play Minecraft and walk his young dog in the surrounding countryside, or spend time at his grandparents’ house, which just happened to be very close to the place.

I showed him pictures of my own life, talked about my childhood and the discussion spread to other people. Confidence grew, then calm, as shells fell again and again all around. We already knew that we no longer had a car, which had been blown to bits by Ukrainian fire, and following the example of Raissa, whose shop was ravaged by shrapnel as the hours passed, we prayed that there would be no more victims. Material goods were nothing. Christelle told of her six-year commitment, her experiences at the front, what we were doing. They quickly understood that we could not stand Macron’s irresponsible policy, not to mention Zelensky.

The minutes went by like that, very long, the women jumping at each impact, but the saleswoman and mother of the family then found the strength to joke with the militiaman who replied: “I will never again go to buy bread in the early morning, I swear it! Everyone laughed, as after four hours, the boy’s family arrived at our shelter breathless, looking for young Roman.

The reunion was both terrible and joyful, everyone was crying and laughing, but they had taken a huge risk in coming here. When they arrived, they saw the grandfather’s corpse, the shock was enormous, although they already knew the situation, thanks to the young boy’s telephone and to Raissa who had contacted the family to warn them of the events and of Roman’s location. They decided to evacuate the place immediately, their car was waiting outside.

Everyone ran up and into the car, this time luck was with them and they were able to get away at full speed. After four hours of bombardment, which some in the cellar had been enduring for seven hours, the shells began to thin out. However, salvos were still falling, about every 10 minutes. It was necessary to be firm to prevent several of them from getting out of the rubble too quickly, others were already talking about spending the night here.

Open fire on the rescue. At last the firing ceased, but we waited a good hour longer, and then we were able to get out. People ran out of the ruined shop.

Outside our car no longer existed, a shell had fallen very close, it had been destroyed, a huge puddle of drain oil had formed around it. We found an intact camera tripod, glasses and a scarf, all that was left in the scrap heap.

When we came out, the landscape appeared cataclysmic: electric cables chopped up and lying on the ground, branches, debris of all kinds, Grad rockets embedded in the ground, shell holes, burnt-out cars…

The infrastructure and buildings of the mine were in ruins, the fire having caught and ravaged everything. In the courtyard, the miners were coming out in turn. Almost all the cars were destroyed. One lucky miner left with a motorbike, whose tyres were punctured. Cars were popping up everywhere, people were leaving, others were coming to pick up their friends or relatives, an ambulance was rushing by.

The ground was covered with large shrapnel, smoke was coming out of the ruins of the mine. All around was a residential area. Over there was a dovecote and cages that had been destroyed in a courtyard, a large shell hole standing in the middle of the courtyard.

Elsewhere there was Hurricane missile debris, pulverised roofs and more or less dazed people coming out of their houses. Without a car, we waited for a Korpus vehicle to evacuate us, and we took the opportunity to film and photograph.

We were not at ease, we knew that the Ukrainians did not hesitate to open fire on the rescue team. As the rescue vehicle approached the area, suddenly the shooting started again. A first shell and then a second hit the mine, we were very close and in the open.

We were very close and in the open. We ran out of breath to reach the vehicle and jumped into it, which started up with a bang. We were saved. Half an hour later we reached the Korpus, already the news had gone round that we had come under Ukrainian artillery fire.

We were very lucky today. Our reflexes, especially those of Kostia, had saved our lives, we couldn’t help but think that we had good guardian angels too! It was the mine that was targeted by the fire and the surroundings of this civilian area.

This bombardment was designed to destroy and kill.

The debauchery of ammunition on civilian and non-military targets left us pensive… We felt angry, once again, what were the objectives of the Ukraine in this bombing and this destruction?

The Russians do not have fun shooting at areas not occupied by enemies or military equipment. The general impression left by this hot day was that the Ukrainians were reduced to impotence and to expedients of revenge.

Reduced to muddled strategies, punctuated by bloody failures such as the offensives near Kharkov or Kherson, suicide attacks, useless bombing of civilians and infrastructure in the Donbass, it was indeed despair and hatred that prevailed and still prevail in the Ukrainian staffs. They are reduced, before withdrawing sooner or later, to destroying and killing, again and again, in a madness that has already lasted eight years.

Eight years of absurd killing and destruction, in the name of what?

*

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 Donbass Insider

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The Shelling of Donbass Civilians: Two French Journalists Under Ukrainian Artillery Fire for Five Hours
  • Tags:

Boris Johnson: The Billionaires’ Useful Idiot

June 8th, 2022 by Peter Oborne

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

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

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

***

Welcome to British politics this overcast summer day. 

A broken prime minister still in occupation of Downing Street and determined to stay there. This is a recipe for – at best – paralysis, at worst chaos.

More likely both. It’s hard to see what will make Boris Johnson quit.

The prime minister, remember, has powerful allies. Tuesday’s Daily Mail – Britain’s most well-drilled and powerful popular paper – is an essential read for anyone wishing to understand the near-term trajectory of British politics

It contains a series of brutal hatchet jobs on former foreign secretary Jeremy Hunt – “Theresa May in trousers” – who the Mail accuses of leading the plotters. On its front page, the Mail lacerates the 148 Tory rebels for pressing the “self-destruct button by opening the door to Smirking Starmer’s coalition of chaos”.

The big newspaper proprietors – Murdoch, Rothermere and the Barclay family – remain loyal to Johnson. Admittedly The Times and the Telegraph are tougher than usual on Johnson this morning, but crucially there are no calls for him to quit.

Murdoch, Mail Newspapers and the Barclays are part of Johnson’s core political base. They all backed him to be Tory leader, all backed him in the 2019 general election, and all have protected Johnson during the harrowing political scandals that have dogged his premiership.

These newspaper magnates are still behind the prime minister today. While this remains the case, Johnson can hope to survive.

Unconditional support

The second half of the coalition backing Johnson are the billionaire Tory donors, who funded Brexit and now – in a mutation of democratic politics – effectively own Johnson’s Conservative Party. In an unprecedented direct intervention by the super-rich in British public life, these donors came together in defence of Johnson yesterday.

They wrote a letter, significantly given as an exclusive to Rupert Murdoch’s Sun newspaper, awarding their unconditional support to Boris Johnson.

As the Sun emphasised, this letter was signed by some of the richest men in Britain including “billionaire JCB boss Lord Bamford, property magnate Sir Tony Gallagher and Carphone Warehouse founder David Ross.”

Other names, reported the Sun, “include multimillionaire financier Howard Shore and mega-rich Simon Reuben – who alongside brother David is worth £16bn.”

The letter, which emphasised the talking points of the Johnson political campaign, announced that Johnson enjoyed the “unwavering support” of the billionaires who signed it.

The authors of the letter seem to have felt no need to say out loud the unspoken threat that they would withhold funds from any Tory leader who dared to supplant Johnson.

But the Johnson campaign team felt no such inhibitions.

Johnson loyalist Nadine Dorries, secretary of state for culture, media and sport, went straight onto national TV and in a remarkable statement told Sky political editor Beth Rigby this: “The Conservative Party donors have said themselves that they aren’t going to support the party if the PM is removed. I think a number of MPs in marginal seats need to hear that, and need to understand what they’re doing: £80 million those donors have donated to the Conservative Party over recent times.”

We can only guess how many Tory MPs were terrified into supporting Johnson by this stark warning, amounting to an attempt at financial blackmail, that Tory donors would stop issuing cheques if they voted the wrong way last night.

But we can say for certain this was a dark moment in modern British democratic politics.

A misleading claim

A Tory cabinet minister setting out in stark terms that billionaires hold a stranglehold over the governing political party. I have never seen this openly stated by a senior, active Tory politician before.

This means it was a revelatory moment that ought, I believe, to redefine the way in which the Johnson premiership should be framed.

So far Johnson’s many media allies have presented the prime minister as a cheekie chappie with the common touch fighting a popular campaign against a distant liberal “elite”. Flawed for certain, a liar and a cheat, but always fighting for ordinary people.

That claim has always been misleading. From the start of his premiership, ex-journalist Johnson has been the creature of the big media owners acting in alliance with deracinated financial capital.

For all of his incompetence, falsehoods and lack of vision, Boris Johnson still has their support today. Over the coming weeks the British media will paint Britain’s ongoing political crisis as the story of an embattled prime minister fighting a desperate struggle for survival.

There’s some truth in that dramatic, easily comprehensible narrative. But much greater forces are at work.

The real enablers

Structural forces. Economic interests which Karl Marx, writing away in the library of the British Museum 150 years ago, would recognise. Or George Orwell writing about class conflict in the 1930s.

The billionaire class put their man, Boris Johnson, in Downing Street three years ago. He suits them well because he does what they want. Johnson is at the apex of a system of government that hands out contracts, supplies favours, slashes regulation, attacks the rule of law, reduces the rights of working people, and favours the marketplace above the state.

The brilliance of Boris Johnson is that he does all of this while pretending to be on the side of ordinary working people. That’s why the super-rich love Boris, the billionaire’s useful idiot.

For all his faults – let’s face it – Johnson was a shambles when he appeared on late-night British TV to declare victory after yesterday’s Tory leadership vote. Dishevelled. Gibbering. Incoherent.

This wounded prime minister blamed the media, shamelessly linked his fortunes to Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky, and nonsensically claimed he had more supporters than when elected Tory leader three years.

It made for painful viewing. Johnson has not simply lost the support of more than one third of his parliamentary party.

He’s lost contact with reality, but not with the billionaires.

The real story of the next few desperate months is not whether Boris Johnson, a truly wretched and discredited political figure, can survive. It’s about whether the system of government in the interests of the super-rich he has come to represent can be overturned.

*

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 Oborne won best commentary/blogging in both 2022 and 2017, and was also named freelancer of the year in 2016 at the Drum Online Media Awards for articles he wrote for Middle East Eye. He was also named as British Press Awards Columnist of the Year in 2013. He resigned as chief political columnist of the Daily Telegraph in 2015. His latest book, The Assault on Truth: Boris Johnson, Donald Trump and the Emergence of a New Moral Barbarism, was published in February 2021 and was a Sunday Times Top Ten Bestseller. His previous books include The Triumph of the Political Class, The Rise of Political Lying, and Why the West is Wrong about Nuclear Iran.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Boris Johnson: The Billionaires’ Useful Idiot
  • Tags:

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

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

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

***

Plastic particles smaller than 5mm (known as microplastics) are well-documented pollutants in ocean and freshwater habitats. The discovery of microplastics in the most remote rivers of the Himalayas and the deepest trenches of the Pacific Ocean has sparked widespread concern. But how much microplastic lies closer to home – buried in the soil where food is grown?

Our latest study estimated that between 31,000 and 42,000 tonnes of microplastics (or 86 trillion – 710 trillion microplastic particles) are spread on European farmland soils each year, mirroring the concentration of microplastics in ocean surface waters.

The cause is microplastic-laden fertilisers derived from sewage sludge diverted from wastewater treatment plants. These are commonly spread on farmland as a renewable source of fertiliser throughout European countries, in part due to EU directives that aim to promote a circular waste economy.

As well as creating a massive reservoir of environmental microplastics, this practice is effectively undoing the benefit of removing these particles from wastewater. Spreading microplastics onto farmland will eventually return them to natural watercourses, as rain washes water on the surface of soil into rivers, or it eventually infiltrates groundwater.

Wastewater treatment plants remove solid contaminants (such as plastics and other large particles) from raw sewage and drain water using a series of settling tanks. This produces an effluent of clean water that can be released to the environment. The floating material and settled particles from these tanks are combined to form the sludge used as fertiliser.

We found that up to 650 million microplastic particles between 1mm and 5mm in size entered a wastewater treatment plant in south Wales, UK, every day. All of these particles were separated from the incoming sewage and diverted into the sludge rather than being released with the clean effluent. This demonstrates how effective default wastewater treatment can be for removing microplastics.

At this facility, each gram of sewage sludge contained up to 24 microplastic particles, which was roughly 1% of its weight. In Europe, an estimated 8 million to 10 million tonnes of sewage sludge is generated each year, with around 40% sent to farmland. The spreading of sewage sludge on agricultural soil is widely practised across Europe, owing to the nitrogen and phosphorus it offers crops.

UK farms also use sewage sludge as fertiliser. In our study, the UK had the highest amount of microplastic pollution within its soils across all European nations (followed by Spain, Portugal and Germany). Between 500 and 1,000 microplastic particles are applied to each square metre of agricultural land in the UK every year.

A map of Europe with the farm soil microplastic concentrations highlighted in shades of blue.

The relative microplastic burden on European farm soil from direct recycling of sewage sludge. James Lofty, Author provided

A poisoned circular waste economy

At present, there are no adequate solutions to the release of microplastics into the environment from wastewater treatment plants.

Microplastics removed from wastewater are effectively transported to the land, where they reside until being returned to waterways. According to a study conducted in Ontario, Canada, 99% of microplastics in agricultural soil were transported away from where the sludge was initially applied.

Until then, they have the potential to harm life in the soil. As well as being easily consumed and absorbed by animals and plants, microplastics pose a serious threat to the soil ecosystem because they leach toxic chemicals and transport hazardous pathogens. Experiments have shown that the presence of microplastics can stunt earthworm growth and cause them to lose weight.

Microplastics can also change the acidity, water holding capacity and porosity of soil. This affects plant growth and performance by altering the way roots bury into the soil and take up nutrients.

There is currently no European legislation to limit the amount of microplastics embedded in sewage sludge used as fertiliser. Germany has set upper limits for impurities like glass and plastic, allowing up to 0.1% of wet fertiliser weight to constitute plastics larger than 2mm in size. According to the results from the wastewater treatment plant in south Wales, applying sewage sludge would be prohibited if similar legislation were in place in the UK.

For the time being, landowners are likely to continue recycling sewage sludge as sustainable fertiliser, despite the risk of contaminating soils and eventually rivers and the ocean with microplastics.

*

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.

PhD Candidate in Hydrodynamics, Cardiff University

Dame Kathleen Ollerenshaw Fellow in Marine Engineering, University of Manchester

Postdoctoral Research Associate in Environmental Engineering, Cardiff University

Featured image is from Dylan de Jonge/Unsplash, CC BY-SA

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

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

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

***

One of my surveys had a strong signal. So I had a third party polling firm run it against a neutral audience. The results are devastating. It shows we were lied to. Big time. No other way to spin it.

I now have a survey question that, when tested against a neutral audience, gives a very strong signal. Turns out that most people think that the COVID vaccines have killed more people in just 1.5 years than all 70+ vaccines combined over the past 32 years. The more unvaccinated you are, the more likely you are to notice this. If you’ve had four doses, it was nearly tied.

Here is the pivot table of the Pollfish results so you can see the votes vs. vaccine status:

Here is the underlying data so you can verify the result. And here’s the summary PDFthey provided.

What this means is we’ve won. There is no way to defend this.

Unless I missed something, they are totally screwed. There is simply no way to “spin this” in your favor. This survey is simple to replicate and it completely destroys the “safe and effective” narrative because there is no way to “spin” the results in your favor. It’s devastating.

The CDC would argue, “You are asking the public to make a non-professional judgment on causality. We at the CDC have determined no causal link. All these deaths are simply coincidences!”

The fact checkers will then agree with them!

OK, fine.

Simply explain why there are more 1.7X as many “coincidences” happening with the COVID vaccines than all 70+ vaccines over the past 32 years? Make my day. Back it up with actual data proving your point, not a hand-waving argument.

Or, show me your survey. And explain why, in the 18 months the vaccine has been on the market, you never reached out to find the incidence rate of adverse events and deaths in a pro-active survey rather than sitting back with a passive surveillance system. And explain to us why you never revealed to anyone the Medicare mortality data? What was the reason for keeping that a secret? Explain that one for us.

Sadly, the press will simply accept any hand-waving argument from the CDC no matter how idiotic it is. That’s how they will defend it. They will never ask the questions in my previous paragraph.

So it’s not over yet, but we are getting close.

Confirmation of the poll in the VAERS system

This isn’t a fluke.

The VAERS system essentially is throwing the same safety signal with a ratio that is pretty close to what our survey found.

It turns out that 69% of all deaths in VAERS (limiting ourselves to US only deaths) are from the COVID vaccines.

So this means that the COVID vaccines have killed 2.3X as many people as all the 70+ other vaccines over the past 32 years.

How do you explain that? It can’t be over-reporting of background deaths because the adverse event profile of the COVID deaths doesn’t match “natural causes.” So these stupid hand-waving arguments don’t fly.

Here are the queries I used and the results.

Deaths from the COVID vaccines only, limited to US States. There are more than 2.3X as many deaths from the COVID vaccines than for all the other vaccines put together since the start of the VAERS system 32 years ago. That’s an impressive kill rate.

Deaths from ALL vaccines over 32 years in US States only

Other troubling surveys for the mainstream narrative

The survey above is just the beginning.

Neutral audience validation of the following polls coming shortly as well.

Injuries

The vaccines are harming more people than COVID is. Hospital treatment protocols are #2. Why can’t we let doctors be doctors?

The COVID vaccine is the biggest source of injuries, followed by hospital COVID protocols, followed by the virus itself in last place. The government dictated “cures” are far more likely to injure you than the virus itself.

Deaths

The big killer: the vaccine. Hospital treatment protocols are #2. Why can’t we let doctors be doctors?

The COVID vaccine is the biggest killer, followed by hospital COVID protocols, followed by the virus itself in last place. The government dictated “cures” are far more likely to kill you than the virus itself.

Myocarditis rates

Doctors say that myocarditis from COVID is greater than from the vaccine. Funny thing though…. I couldn’t find any cardiologists who have seen more myocarditis rates before the vaccines rolled out. Looks like I’m not alone.

“The Elephant in the Room” presentation has more examples

Want more evidence that you’ve been misled? Check out my Elephant in the Roomslide deck and you’ll very quickly discover why nobody wants to talk about the elephant in the room: that the CDC, medical community, Congress, state and local health officials, mainstream media, and mainstream social media companies are responsible for killing over 500,000 Americans by enticing them to take a vaccine that was far more likely to kill them than save them.

None of the interventions was needed. We had an effective early treatment protocol in March of 2020, but the NIH and CDC ignored it and still do to this day. There are no deaths or long-haul COVID if people are given that protocol. Over 10,000 people were treated without a death or hospitalization if the patient starts treatment promptly after first symptoms. The reason it is ignored is simple: Tony Fauci says that such protocols don’t work, even though they do. It’s not like they looked at the protocol and rejected it. It’s like they never even looked at the protocol.

You’ll also understand why nobody wants to debate me.

Summary

This survey is devastating because it is confirmed with a neutral audience. The survey and several more will now be repeated by an internationally famous polling firm.

So you now know who is going to win the game: the truth.

And it’s now just a matter of time. It will be fun to see people try to attack me in the meantime.

My advice to them is simple: if you find yourself in a hole, stop digging.

Next step: wait for the new famous pollster to release this poll plus several others. They are highly respected.

*

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

Featured image is from Children’s Health Defense

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The Devastating Impacts of the COVID-19 Vaccine Confirmed: We Were Lied to: Game Over, We Won. Steve Kirsch
  • Tags: ,

An Appalling Slur on the Civilisation State That Is India

June 8th, 2022 by M. K. Bhadrakumar

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on An Appalling Slur on the Civilisation State That Is India
  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Filipino President-elect Bongbong Marcos Unlikely to Ignore Territorial Dispute with China
  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Washington’s Shifting Taiwan Policy Aims for an Asian “Ukraine”
  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Will Australia’s New Prime Minister Anthony Albanese Embrace or Rebuff the Quad?

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

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

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

***

‘Global Nato’. Help Taiwan ‘defend itself’. Recover the ‘whole’ of Ukraine. Promote ‘the free world’ – UK foreign policy under Liz Truss has become a series of empty slogans from a declining power desperate to remain a major one.

Since Russia invaded Ukraine, foreign secretary Liz Truss has given at least three speeches saying the UK must enable Taiwan to “defend itself” against possible Chinese aggression.

Clearly, China and the island of 24 million Taiwanese lying 100 miles off its shore, is very much on the minds of British officials as they aid Ukraine’s military efforts against Moscow.

Maybe it’s China, the world’s coming superpower, they’re really wanting to deter in their determination to be seen to stop Russia.

Last November, in his first ever public speech, MI6 chief Richard Moore said: “Beijing’s growing military strength and the [Communist] Party’s desire to resolve the Taiwan issue, by force if necessary … pose a serious challenge to global stability and peace”.

But how far would or could the UK really go to “defend” Taiwan? The UK’s Attorney General, Suella Braverman, implies the UK will help it counter “hostile cyber activity” by China.

But a military threat is of a different order. The UK doesn’t recognise Taiwan as a state. Just 13 countries recognise Taiwan as a sovereign country for fear of upsetting relations with Beijing and its “One China” policy.

Like most countries, Whitehall has no formal diplomatic relations with Taiwan and has no plans to recognise it. The Foreign Office says it has an “unofficial relationship, based on dynamic commercial, educational and cultural ties”.

The UK also has no formal defence ties with Taiwan. When asked over the years if the UK would consider lending military support to it, UK governments have repeated the position that UK policy backs a peaceful resolution between China and Taiwan.

‘Global Nato’

Truss’s bullish statements about defending Taiwan are as vacuous as those coming from Washington.

US President Biden warned in Tokyo last month that if China invaded Taiwan, the US would intervene militarily. This was an apparent departure from Washington’s traditional policy of “strategic ambiguity” and implicit recognition of Beijing’s policy towards the island.

His intervention was welcomed in Taiwan until the State Department quickly insisted that Biden’s unscripted comment in answer to a journalist’s question did not signify any change in US policy.

But when Liz Truss spoke in April about Taiwan being able to “defend itself” she invoked a new concept – a “Global Nato”.

“By that”, Truss said, “I don’t mean extending the membership to those from other regions. I mean that Nato must have a global outlook, ready to tackle global threats”. She could only have meant China.

The UK has been keen to display its military power to the Chinese. Last September, the UK sent a warship that was part of the Royal Navy’s aircraft carrier strike group, HMS Richmond, through the Taiwan strait for the first time since 2008.

In response, China accused Britain of having “evil intentions”.

The British government had already seized the opportunity presented by increased Chinese naval activity in the South China Sea to justify the £7.6 billion spent on building two aircraft carriers – the largest ships ever commissioned by the Royal Navy.

It sent one of them, HMS Queen Elizabeth, to the Pacific. Yet the UK’s aircraft carrier, like all large warships, is extremely vulnerable to attack, especially from Chinese missiles.

A provocative naval show of force in the Pacific may make UK officials feel important. It may also make Beijing think again about the timing and nature of any attack on Taiwan, but in the end would surely make no difference to China’s commitment to achieve its objectives.

Ukraine

It’s not only on Taiwan but also on Ukraine that comments by Truss and other British ministers are empty rhetoric, counter-productive, and also dangerous.

To ingratiate themselves with Washington, take a sideswipe at the EU, and as a diversion from domestic crises, Boris Johnson and his foreign and defence secretaries are keen to be at the forefront of giving military support to Ukraine. They’ve been plying Ukraine with missiles and organising international arms shipments to Kyiv.

But while Ukraine needs arms to defend itself, it also needs progress towards implementing a peace agreement. Britain’s demand that Russia must withdraw from the whole of Ukraine – which by implication includes Crimea – slams the door on any peace settlement.

Even some former British military chiefs recognise Putin is never going to allow Ukraine to regain Crimea, which historically was part of Russia until a Soviet president gifted it to Ukraine in 1954.

An obvious outcome might be that the Donbas region remain in Ukraine but its people enjoy a wide degree of devolved power – something that might have been attainable before the invasion.

Then there are Truss’s seemingly endless comments about her foreign policy promoting the “free world”, “freedom and democracy” and “network of liberty”.

The claims are ludicrous as the UK deepens relations with the tyrannical Gulf states and, as Declassified has shown, backs most of the world’s repressive regimes.

Arms market

Taiwan has the advantage for Whitehall of being a burgeoning market for UK arms exports. These have taken off in the last five years: since 2017, Britain has sold £338m worth of military equipment to the island.

Perhaps the UK’s military-industrial complex, backed by officials, is more hopeful than fearful of increasing Chinese belligerency.

The US is also increasing its supplies of arms to Taiwan, albeit not on the scale it has to Ukraine following Russia’s invasion. Yet western arms are unlikely to deter President Xi if he decided to attack Taiwan.

Taiwan’s military chiefs are following the war in Ukraine extremely closely, learning lessons. So, too, is Beijing.

The Taiwanese have seen how ambushes by small groups of militia and drones can destroy large military formations. Beijing has seen how vulnerable a ground invasion can be, with clear implications for amphibious operations.

The message is that an attack on Taiwan would require coordinated airborne and amphibious forces, accompanied by precise bombing.

Nato members, including the US, have so far shown they are unwilling to provoke Moscow into an even wider military conflict, and the US is likely not willing to intervene directly in a conflict with a nuclear power.

In any war over Taiwan, western warships would have to engage directly with the Chinese navy to prevent the island from being cut off and blockaded by China.

Sanctions

Europe is suffering an energy crisis partly because of sanctions imposed on Russian oil and gas and there are already cracks in the EU’s response to Putin’s invasion of Ukraine. Sanctions take a long time and need to be well targeted to be effective.

Sanctions against China would have a much greater impact on the west’s economy given the importance of China in the market for rare earth products, electronics and consumer goods and more generally, global finance and investments.

A conflict involving Taiwan could have a devastating impact on the world’s supply of microchips.

Rather than bellicose belligerency, the UK Foreign Office should begin to understand what it can really achieve on the international stage, and who and what it can deter. It should give up its grandstanding claims and match policy to its rhetoric.

It should stop telling others to promote peace when it’s plainly more interested in war, and stop pretending it’s supporting human rights when it’s backing those repressing them.

What the public needs is for the West and the East to cooperate and confront such impending crises as climate change. What it doesn’t need is for pretentious great powers to strut the world stage bereft of real policies.

*

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.

Mark Curtis is the editor of Declassified UK, and the author of five books and many articles on UK foreign policy.

Richard is a British editor, journalist and playwright, and the doyen of British national security reporting. He wrote for the Guardian on defence and security matters and was the newspaper’s security editor for three decades.

Featured image: HMS Richmond fires a missile on exercise in the Atlantic. (Photo: US Navy)

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

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

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

***

As the US government’s Summit of the Americas opens in Los Angeles, California, the presidents of Mexico, Bolivia, Honduras, and Guatemala have refused to attend, protesting the exclusion of Cuba, Venezuela, and Nicaragua.

The US government’s Summit of the Americas started on June 6 in Los Angeles, California. And the event proved to be a major diplomatic failure for the Joe Biden administration.

Washington refused to invite the socialist governments of Cuba, Venezuela, and Nicaragua.

So to protest this exclusion, the presidents of Mexico, Bolivia, and Honduras boycotted the summit. Guatemala’s president also chose to skip the conference.

This means heads of state representing Latin American countries with a total population of more than 200 million people – a significant percentage of the Americas – refused to attend Washington’s Summit of the Americas.

Mexico’s President AMLO boycotts the summit

The most significant absence was Mexico’s left-wing president, Andrés Manuel López Obrador, known popularly by the acronym AMLO.

“I am not going to the summit because not all of the countries of the Americas were invited,” AMLO explained in his morning press conference on June 6.

“I believe in the need to change the policy that has been imposed for centuries, the exclusion, the desire to dominate, the lack of respect for the sovereignty of the countries and the independence of every country,” the Mexican president explained.

“There cannot be a Summit of the Americas if all of the countries of the American continent do not participate,” López Obrador continued. “We consider that to be the old policy of interventionism, of a lack of respect for nations and their peoples.”

AMLO criticized the US Republican Party for its “extremist” positions against Cuba and racist policies against immigrants. But he also pointed out that some prominent figures in the Democratic Party, such as New Jersey Senator Bob Menendez, have also contributed to “hate” against Cuba and hawkish meddling in Latin America’s sovereign affairs.

“I don’t accept hegemonies,” AMLO added. “Not of China, not of Russia, not of the United States. All countries, no matter how small they are, are free and are independent.”

López Obrador said that Mexico’s foreign minister, Marcelo Ebrard, would instead attend the Summit of the Americas.

AMLO’s absence is especially significant given that, in addition to being neighbors with a 3,000-kilometer border, the United States and Mexico’s are each other’s top trading partners.

Mexico is the second-largest country in Latin America, in terms of population. It also has the second-biggest economy in the region.

Bolivia’s President Luis Arce boycotts the summit

Joining AMLO in condemning the US government’s policy of exclusion was Bolivia’s socialist President Luis Arce.

Bolivia’s foreign ministry confirmed on June 6 that Arce is not joining the summit either. Instead, the country’s ambassador to the Organization of American States (OAS), Héctor Arce, is attending.

In a Twitter thread the week before, Arce insisted that

“it is time for the government of the United States to put an end to the senseless and criminal economic, commercial, and financial blockade that weighs on Cuba, as well as the more than 500 unilateral coercive sanctions imposed on Venezuela and Nicaragua.”

The Bolivian leader added,

“With blockades and sanctions, a sustainable, resilient, and equitable future will never be able to be built in the hemisphere, as the next Summit of the Americas is proposing.”

Honduras’ President Xiomara Castro boycotts the summit

Honduras’ new left-wing President Xiomara Castro is boycotting the Summit of the Americas as well.

On May 28, Castro tweeted,

“I will only attend the summit if all of the countries of America are invited without exception.”

On June 6, the Honduran president made good on her promise, and her government confirmed that Foreign Minister Eduardo Enrique Reina would attend instead.

Guatemala’s President Alejandro Giammattei boycotts the summit

While the majority of the leaders not attending the Summit of the Americas are left-wing, even Guatemala’s right-wing president, Alejandro Giammattei, announced that he will not be present.

Several officials from Giammattei’s government have been sanctioned by the United States, and he is protesting the Biden administration’s policies with his absence.

Protests planned against summit

The Caribbean Community (CARICOM), which represents 15 states, similarly threatened to boycott the summit if Cuba, Venezuela, and Nicaragua were excluded.

Several countries in the Caribbean did confirm they are attending, however. It is not clear how many are boycotting.

Brazil’s far-right leader, Jair Bolsonaro, had initially threatened not to attend the summit. Washington responded by promising Bolsonaro that it would welcome him to the White House and give him one-on-one meetings with Biden.

The far-right Brazilian autocrat thus changed his mind and decided to attend.

Bolsonaro is joined by the right-wing leaders of Colombia and Ecuador, as well as the centrist leaders of Chile and Argentina. (The conservative president of Uruguay, Luis Lacalle Pou, had planned to join, but was ultimately unable to do so because he got Covid-19.)

The Summit of the Americas was first convened by the United States in 1994, after the end of the first cold war, as a way for Washington to expand its hegemony in Latin America and the Caribbean.

That same year, the US government signed the North Atlantic Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), a neoliberal deal with Mexico and Canada, which devastated Mexico’s local economy and fueled a wave of mass migration.

Numerous grassroots organizations, left-wing social movements, and labor unions have organized an alternative People’s Summit for Democracy to protest the US government’s Summit of the Americas.

The People’s Summit is hosting a series of demonstrations, panels, concerts, and cultural activities in California from June 8 to 10.

*

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 Multipolarista

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on US Government’s Summit of the Americas Fails: Boycott by Presidents of Mexico, Bolivia, Honduras, Guatemala
  • Tags: ,

WHO and WEF Globalists Coordinate Their Global ‘Reset’

June 8th, 2022 by Dr. Joseph Mercola

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

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

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

***

Each year, the self-proclaimed ruling class spend a week in Davos, Switzerland, discussing their visions of the future and how to impose their ambitions on the rest of the world

They believe the future is theirs to create. They believe they, the attendees in that room, have all the power. And. by extension, they think that the rest of the world, those unfit to wear a Davos Forum badge, have no say in the matter

Among their plans is to track your carbon footprint. They want to track where you travel, how you travel, what you eat and any other resources you might use in your day-to-day life

To start, individual carbon footprint tracking will be sold to you as a way for you to be a responsible citizen and track your own carbon footprint. In time, your carbon footprint will be part and parcel of your social credit score, and used to place restrictions on your way of life

They also openly admit that their plans will cause pain for the populace. We have to expect shortages of food and energy, for example, because they’ve decided societal changes need to occur faster than what the “green” technology sector can keep up with

*

Each year, the world’s elite hop into their private jets and descend upon Davos, Switzerland, the location of the World Economic Forum’s (WEF) annual Davos Forum. Here, the self-proclaimed ruling class spend the week discussing their visions of the future and how to impose their ambitions on the rest of the world.1

As explained by Fox News anchor Jesse Watters, participants are divided into clear classes even there. Not only must you receive a personal invitation to attend, but once you’re there, your name badge will clearly illustrate which “elite class” or “subclass” you belong to.

If you’re a sufficiently wealthy VIP, you get a white badge with a blue line. If you’re married to a VIP, you get a plain white badge. If you’re just part of someone’s entourage, you get a green badge (wouldn’t want the true elite braintrust WEF’s planners and strategists — to accidentally mingle with and swap ideas with the servants).

The Future Is To Be Built by Them, Not Us

If you have any doubt that these individuals believe they have the right to own the world and make decisions for all mankind, just listen to WEF founder Klaus Schwab’s opening remarks:

“The future is not just happening. The future is BUILT, by US. By a powerful community, as you here, in this room.”

These three short sentences tell us a lot. They believe the future is theirs to create. They believe they, the attendees in that room, have all the power. And, by extension, they think that the rest of the world, those unfit to wear a Davos Forum badge, have no say in the matter.

We’re not powerful enough, or smart enough, or wealthy enough to be part of the planning. The people in that room, they are the ones responsible for making the decisions for everyone else.

They Want to Track Your Carbon Footprint

As noted by Watters, “They’re openly scheming up some of the craziest plans you’ll ever hear of, like tracking your carbon footprint.” In other words, they want to track where you travel, how you travel, what you eat and any other resources you might use in your day-to-day life.

This technology isn’t commercially available yet, but we’re told it’s coming. To start, it’ll be sold to you as a way for you to be a responsible citizen and track your own carbon footprint. Eventually, your carbon footprint will be part and parcel of your social credit score, and used against you in every conceivable and inconceivable way.

Make no mistake, the so-called “manmade climate change crisis” is a ploy to entice the world population into giving up the lifestyle we’ve become used to, no matter how modest.

You’re supposed to track and limit your carbon footprint, while these self-proclaimed elitists have no qualms about hopping on their private jets. At bare minimum, you’d think they’d humble themselves enough to fly commercially, but no. They’re too important for that. They’re the builders of the future, after all.

Failed Planners Continue Planning

Of course, the meeting also included discussion about pandemic response. Despite having utterly failed to prevent any of their previously predicted pandemics — and there have been several — they still believe they’re the only ones who can get it done.

They also openly admit that their plans will cause pain for the populace. We have to expect shortages of food and energy, for example. And why? Because they’ve decided societal changes need to occur faster than what technological advancement can keep up with.

As just one example, we currently don’t have viable alternatives to diesel-driven machinery used in construction and farming, but they’re not going to let that stop them from implementing their “green” agenda.

Do you want to know what their solution is? They continue their lifestyle, while demanding that you give up creature comforts like air conditioning and heating, or like driving your car and flying overseas, until the green energy sector catches up. Never mind the fact that by the time that happens, many millions will have died from starvation and society as we know it will have crumbled.

They also stressed that “inflationary pressures” are “worth it.” Worth it for whom? Themselves, of course, because the average person who can’t afford to drive to work and whose children cry from hunger is hardly going to agree that premature implementation of the green agenda is worth that kind of suffering. It’s tone-deaf in the extreme, really.

Watters asks Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul for comment on what’s happening in Davos, and as noted by Paul, one of the greatest dangers of a One World Government is that it will be unelected.

Just look at how bad government performs when you’re allowed to vote for the representatives you actually want, he says. This Davos crowd, which wants and fully intends to form their own global government, doesn’t represent anyone but themselves. You can’t vote them in. You can’t vote them out. And they’re accountable to no one.

Elitists Clueless About Basic Economy

Living in an insulated bubble is also, apparently, hazardous to your intellect. As noted by Paul, these elitists actually blame inflation on greed, which is dangerously ignorant, and proves they’re really not qualified to manage anything, let alone a global economy.

“If you were in a third-grade class, I’d give you a failing grade if you told me inflation was caused by greed,” Paul says. “That is the dumbest explanation, the most implausible, lacking all facts, that someone could put forward.

Inflation is caused by an increase in the money supply … The Federal Reserve prints it up to borrow it; it floods the economy and drives prices up. If you don’t understand that, it’ll never get any better. My prediction is it’ll get a lot worse before November.”

World Health Organization Vies for Global Health Monopoly

Of course, global economies are not the only thing being destroyed by these billionaire parasites. They also want to be in charge of global health care, and to that end, the World Health Organization is now trying to get member states to agree to a Pandemic Treaty that will give the WHO complete authority over pandemic planning and response, even if its decisions violate national laws and civil rights.

It’s fitting then, that China was recently elected to the WHO’s executive board.2 Not a single member nation objected to the appointment. As noted by Spectator columnist Ross Clark,3 the election of China is further evidence WHO has “lost all credibility.” What’s more, Clark points out that the only European country on the WHO’s executive board is Slovakia, which also had one of the highest COVID-19 death rates.

‘Sustainable Financing’ of the WHO May Be Pure Fiction

Directing and coordinating international health is expensive, as you might imagine, so the World Health Assembly, the governing body for the WHO, has approved a draft decision, A75/9, which lays out the plan for “sustainable financing” of the WHO.

According to a supporting document titled “A Healthy Return — Investment Case for a Sustainably Financed WHO,”4 investing in the WHO “provides a return of at least U.S. $35 for every U.S. $1 invested.”

As noted by a Twitter user called Critical Sway,5 this return on investment claim is based on “complex economic calculations” involving “enormous sums of money, projects running worldwide over the next decade,” and factors in “an incalculable number of unknown and unknowable variables.” The models for these calculations were done by staff at the Victoria University in Melbourne, Australia, and were funded by the WHO itself.

In other words, the return on investment claim could be completely fictitious, especially when you consider that “This lot couldn’t accurately model one virus over the course of two years.”6 But they’ll use these fantasy calculations to milk governments for more money, and government can then tell the people that their money (because all government money comes from your tax dollars) is being “securely invested” and “well spent.”

Update on International Health Regulation Amendments

In addition to the WHO’s pandemic treaty, the World Health Assembly recently voted on a set of amendments7 to the International Health Regulations proposed by the Biden administration. These amendments would have stripped member nations of their sovereignty and given the WHO unprecedented power to restrict your medical freedoms and civil liberties in the name of biosecurity.8

The WHO, however, temporarily withdrew 12 of the 13 proposed amendments, May 25, 2022. That doesn’t mean they’re off the table, though. Another hearing on these amendments has been scheduled for June 16 and 17, 2022. According to the Liberty Counsel,9 a number of African nations, Iran, Malaysia and Brazil objected to the amendments, for a variety of reasons.

The African nations reportedly want the proposed IHR amendments to be consolidated into the Pandemic Treaty rather than being done piecemeal separately.

So, we’re not out of the woods yet. We must continue to pressure the U.S. delegation to the World Health Assembly to oppose these amendments. Some nations have expressed support for giving the WHO the power to mandate global universal health care as well, and this is yet another reason to push for national sovereignty and oppose the WHO’s Pandemic Treaty.

Take Action Today to Preserve Freedom for Tomorrow!

As reported by the Organic Consumers Association:10

“Lockdowns and mandates are bad enough when they’re imposed by local officials. At least, they can’t hide from our protests. We can show up where they work and live, and we can vote them out in the next election.

Things would be much worse if lockdowns and mandates were imposed from Geneva, Switzerland, by an unelected, corporate-controlled bureaucracy … and that’s exactly what the pharmaceutical companies are working on now.

TAKE ACTION! Tell the U.S. delegation to the World Health Assembly that you oppose their amendments to the International Health Regulations!

According to the World Council for Health, these amendments would give control over the declaration of a public health emergency in any member state to the WHO Director-General — even over the objection of the member state …

Under the amendments they’ve proposed, the U.S. would have just 48-hours to respond to a WHO risk assessment and accept or reject on-site assistance, forcing it to comply or face condemnation from the WHO and, potentially, sanctions from unfriendly nations.

Even worse than that, under the amendments, the WHO could declare their public health emergency based on secret information from anonymous sources …

Corruption at the WHO was already the ‘biggest threat to the world’s public health of our time’ according to a 2015 investigation.11 We don’t need U.S. amendments to the International Health Regulations making it any easier for the pharmaceutical companies to wield their influence.

‘Put simply, the proposed IHR amendments are directed towards establishing a globalist architecture of worldwide health surveillance, reporting, and management,’ says the World Council for Health.12 ‘Consistent with a top-down view of governance, the public will not have opportunities to provide input or criticism concerning the amendments. This, of course, is a direct violation of the basic tenets of democracy.’

The anti-corporate-globalization movement killed the World Trade Organization’s attempt to establish a global dictatorship where a bureaucracy run by the world’s largest corporations could override local democracy.

Now, like the regional trade agreements that replaced the WTO, the World Health Organization is trying to become a mini WTO just for the pharmaceutical industry to override national laws on the safety-testing and regulation of drugs and vaccines–via pandemic Emergency Use Authorizations. We must act now!”

The World Council for Health has facilitated this process by creating a form letter that you can easily modify if you want. You can find the form letter here. Once you’ve filled in the blanks and modified it to your liking, the letter will automatically be emailed to the U.S. Health and Human Services of Global Affairs with the push of a button.

How to Become Ungovernable

While the Schwabs and Gateses of the world may appear invincible and too powerful to knock down, we should not give in to such mental traps. Always remember that there are literally many millions of us for each and every one of them.

They can’t impose their ambitions on us unless we let them. They need our permission and cooperation to rule over us. So, part of the answer is to become ungovernable. I’m not talking about anarchy, violence or acting “out of control.” I mean forming parallel systems that operate completely outside of their control grid.

For example, a society that primarily relies on physical cash is ungovernable by technocrats because they can’t track everyone’s earning and spending. A society that refuses to carry geolocation trackers is ungovernable by technocrats because they don’t know where you are or what you’re doing.

They need all those data points in order to profile you, to create a digital identity of you. And without that digital identity, artificial intelligence cannot predict what you’re thinking or how you’ll respond to a given stimuli. The less data they have on us, the less governable we become.

Top-Down Rule Is a Failed Model of Governance

In a May 2, 2022, article, Michael Driver highlighted some of the global cabal’s apparent weaknesses, noting we actually have a lot to be optimistic about. Here’s a longer than usual excerpt from this worthwhile read:13

“I don’t worry about the World Economic Forum achieving their stated goals for 2030 … If history rhymes, it positively sings with the failure of such grandiose projects. The history books are littered with the corpses of centralized top-down ideas.

The reason why we are not talking enough about the impossibility of Klaus Schwab’s Great Leap Forward is because the opposition are guilty of the same failure of basic understanding. The opposition is making the flawed assumption that this project is doable.

In fact, the future is resistant to shaping. What we should all be preparing for is the failure of the WEF’s program. This should be a cause of profound optimism. Put simply the universe works against centralized top-down systemization.

‘They’ are swimming against the teleological tide of creation — an impenetrable future, the inevitability of the new, while we are surfing the wave of ontological emergence with decentralization as the key to developing solutions via free and open debate.

‘Mann Tracht, Un Gott Lacht’ — man plans and God laughs — is a Yiddish proverb. Well, she must be positively ROFL at the collection of billionaires and world leaders gathered in a fake village in Switzerland busily stitching together their own petards.

As David says in Psalm 59:8, ‘But you, O Lord, shall laugh at them: You shall have all the nations in derision.’ Derision and ridicule are the correct responses here, not abject panic. They are not going to succeed; Iron Mike got it right when he said ‘Everyone has a plan till they get punched in the face’ …

Schwab and his collection of command and control technocrats have taken the ideas of Stalin, Chairman Mao, Pol Pot and whoever wrote WeWork’s business plan and dressed them in new clothes.

These threadbare robes are camouflaged with words such as ‘stewardship,’ which actually means the absence of democracy; ‘sustainability,’ roughly translated as ‘you eat bugs while we flambé the wagyu’; ‘inclusivity,’ which is a big club and you ain’t in it, and ‘equity’ which redistributes assets to billionaires and associated parasites …

Every plan falls apart when you pull on its assumptions. The Great Reset sits on the implicit assumption that everything in nature can be known, ordered and controlled via technology. Some twisted fantasy they call artificial intelligence. A general theory that they claim applies to everyone and everything everywhere.

Globalism from above is just another in a long line of narrative fantasies stretching all the way back through the failed ideologies of the last century — communism, fascism, religious fundamentalism and so on. Our vital objective should be to avoid the fate of the victims of these failures …

Get angry, then get with the repudiation. Get with the presentation and promotion of decentralized, ground up, emergent philosophies. Get with the optimism. We are on the right side of history; they are on the precipice.”

*

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 WinterOak.org May 26, 2022

2 WND May 31, 2022

3 Spectator May 28, 2022

4 WHO, A Healthy Return May 17, 2022

5, 6 Twitter Critical Sway Thread

7 Health Policy Watch February 23, 2022

8 RW Malone Substack May 17, 2022

9 Liberty Counsel May 25, 2022

10 OCA Stop WHO’s Global Pharmagarchy

11 Journal of Integrative Medicine & Therapy January 2015; 2(1)

12 World Council for Health Comment Submission

13 Conservative Woman May 24, 2022

Featured image is from Dreamstime

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

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

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

***

Studies suggest a link between an incurable and fatal prion disease known as Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease (CJD) and COVID-19 vaccines.

Researchers believe the prion region from the original Wuhan COVID-19 variant’s spike protein was incorporated into mRNA vaccines and adenovirus vector vaccines — given to hundreds of millions of humans — and that it can cause a new type of rapidly progressing sporadic CJD.

According to Mayo Clinic, CJD is a degenerative brain disorder that leads to dementia and, ultimately, death.

Although the Omicron variant does not have a prion region on its spike protein, current COVID-19 vaccines still use the genetic material — including the prion region — of the parent Wuhan strain.

A French pre-print paper published in May on CJD and COVID-19 vaccination identified a new form of sporadic CJD that occurred within days of receiving a first or second dose of Pfizer or Moderna COVID-19 vaccines.

Researchers analyzed 26 cases of CJD and found the first symptoms appeared on average 11.38 days after injection with a COVID-19 vaccine.

Of the 26 cases, 20 had died by the time the study was published and six were still alive.

“The 20 deaths occurred only 4.76 months after the injection. Among them, 8 of them lead to a sudden death (2.5 months),” researchers wrote.

“This confirms the radically different nature of this new form of CJD, whereas the classic form requires several decades,” wrote the researchers.

Dr. Jean-Claude Perez, lead author of the French study, on June 6 told The Epoch Times that all 26 cases resulted in death.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), prion diseases are a family of rare progressive neurodegenerative disorders that affect humans and animals. Prion diseases are usually rapidly progressive and always fatal.

Although prions occur naturally in the brain and are usually harmless, they can become diseased or misfolded, affecting nearby prions and causing them to become misshapen.

The abnormal folding of the prion proteins “leads to brain damage and the characteristic signs and symptoms of the disease,” the CDC’s website states.

Sporadic CJD occurs when a person becomes infected for no apparent reason. Once a single prion becomes infected, it will progress to other prions, and there is no treatment capable of stopping it.

Prion area of original Wuhan strain spike protein present in all COVID vaccines can interact with human cells

Although the Omicron variant does not have a prion region on its spike protein, French researchers said other COVID-19 variants, including the parent Wuhan strain used in currently administered vaccines, do.

“We are now studying the very first cases of patients with Omicron, in South Africa, Europe and the USA and Canada in particular,” the researchers wrote. “In ALL of these cases, the Prion region has disappeared.”

However, the Wuhan variant’s spike protein gene information — including its prion region — was integrated into the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA vaccines and the AstraZeneca and Johnson & Johnson adenovirus vector vaccines.

“We have also demonstrated […] that the Spikes of the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA injections also contain this same Prion region,” the researchers wrote. “The same is true of ALL the other SARS-CoV2 vaccines since ALL are made from the Spike sequence of SARS-CoV2 from Wuhan, which we have demonstrated contains the Prion region.”

With mRNA vaccines, once mRNA is incorporated into the cells, the cell turns mRNA instructions into a COVID-19 spike protein that tricks the cells into believing it has been infected so the body will create an immunological memory against a piece of the virus.

With adenovirus vector vaccines, the DNA of the spike protein is carried into the cell through an adenovirus vector and then into the nucleus where all human DNA is stored. Once there, DNA is transcribed into mRNA and made into the spike protein.

A U.S. study published in Microorganisms in January 2022 showed the prion area of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein incorporated into COVID-19 vaccines is able to interact with human cells.

Although the CDC says COVID-19 vaccines cannot “alter your DNA,” studies show mRNA can be changed into DNA and incorporated into the human genome.

A U.S. study speculated that a misfolded spike protein could create a misfolded prion region that may be able to interact with healthy prions to cause damage, leading to CJD disease.

A peer-reviewed case report published in Turkey and the French preprint identified sudden CJD cases appearing following vaccination with the Pfizer, Moderna and AstraZeneca vaccines, suggesting links between getting vaccinated and the disease.

A study published last year in Microbiology & Infectious Diseases found a potential link between Pfizer’s vaccine and prion disease in humans.

Despite the existence of new SARS-COV-2 variants, people are still receiving the original COVID-19 vaccines developed with the parent Wuhan variant’s spike protein.

Numerous cases of CJD reported in the U.S.

A U.S. case report in March highlighted 64-year-old Cheryl Cohen’s battle with CJD, which developed within days of her second dose of Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine.

The report stated:

“Here, we highlight a case of a 64-year-old woman who presents with rapidly declining memory loss, behavior changes, headaches and gait disturbance approximately one week following administration of the second dose of the novel Pfizer-BioNTech messenger ribonucleic acid (mRNA) COVID-19 vaccine.

“After extensive investigation, conclusive evidence identified the fatal diagnosis of sporadic Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease.”

In an exclusive interview with The Defender in Aug. 2021, Cohen’s daughter, Gianni, said her mother’s regression was “mind-blowing, confusing and truly heartbreaking.”

She went from being able to work and do normal everyday activities to being unable to walk, speak or control her body’s movement, Gianni said. Cohen felt as if her head was “going to explode” and died within three months of receiving her second dose of Pfizer.

In a written statement to The Defender, her physician said:

“This case identifies potential adverse events that could occur with the administration of the novel COVID-19 vaccine. Moreover, clinicians need to consider neurodegenerative diseasessuch as prion disease (e.g. sporadic Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease), autoimmune encephalitis, infection, non-epileptic seizure, toxic-metabolic disorders, etc. in their differential diagnoses when a patient presents with rapidly progressive dementia, particularly in the setting of recent vaccination.

“Although there is currently no cure for sporadic Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (sCJD), early diagnosis is crucial to avoid the unnecessary administration of empiric medications for suspected psychological or neurological disorders.

“Furthermore, tracking adverse events could potentially lead to further characterization and understanding of both the novel COVID-19 messenger ribonucleic nucleic acid (mRNA) vaccine as well as the etiology of sCJD.

“More importantly, recognizing adverse effects provides individuals with vital information to make a more educated decision regarding their health.”

In another exclusive interview with The Defender, Jeffrey Beauchine said his mother, Carol, knew her Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease was related to the Moderna shot. Watching her death was like “something you see out of a movie,” he said.

Beauchine said his mother received her first dose of Moderna on Feb. 16, 2021, and didn’t report any complaints. After getting the second dose on March 17, Carol immediately said she “felt different.”

Carol’s symptoms began with numbness that spread from the arm in which she received her injection to the entire left side of her body.

She complained that something was wrong with her brain, couldn’t put thoughts together or make sense of things, developed double vision and blindness and began to experience hallucinations.

Doctors initially thought Carol had suffered a stroke or anxiety. Scans later showed there were abnormalities with her cerebellum.

Carol’s condition progressed rapidly and she was eventually diagnosed with CJD and given days to live. She died within months of receiving her second dose of Moderna.

Carol’s doctors filed a report with the CDC’s Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS I.D. 2180699).

To date, the CDC has not reached out to the family despite an autopsy confirming her death was caused by CJD — a condition she did not have prior to receiving her COVID-19 vaccine.

In another exclusive interview with The Defender, Richard Sprague said his wife, Jennifer, developed CJD after the Pfizer COVID-19 shot and died within five months of the second dose.

Jennifer received the first dose of Pfizer on Aug. 29, 2021, and her second dose on Sept. 21, 2021. Although her husband remained unvaccinated, Jennifer was required to get vaccinated as part of her employment.

Four days after the second dose, Jennifer experienced her first episode of a “sudden strange event she couldn’t explain.”

Jennifer started having more episodes and her left hand and side began to tremble. On Oct. 13, 2021, Jennifer went back to the doctor, who prescribed Xanax for anxiety.

Jennifer’s disease progressed rapidly until she was unable to sit up and walk independently. Scans confirmed Jennifer had significant changes on the right side of her brain. A new medical team performed a spinal tab and confirmed Jennifer had CJD. By this time, Jennifer was unable to get out of bed.

“Your brain is just disappearing. It’s crazy,” Sprague said. “You’re in this perfect healthy body and your brain just dies within the course of a few months.”

After Jennifer was diagnosed with CJD on Feb. 12, her insurance company said it would no longer pay for her care and Sprague was told his wife would not recover.

Jennifer died on Feb. 21 — five months after receiving her second dose of Pfizer.

According to the latest data from VAERS, 56 cases of rapid-onset CJD have been reported following COVID-19 vaccines since Dec. 14, 2021.

Historically, VAERS has been shown to report only 1% of actual vaccine adverse events.

*

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.

Megan Redshaw is a staff attorney for Children’s Health Defense and a reporter for The Defender.

Featured image is from CHD

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on COVID Vaccines Linked to New Type of Incurable, Fatal Degenerative Brain Disorder
  • Tags:

Propaganda in Academia

June 8th, 2022 by Tim Hayward

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

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

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

***

Introduction

What does propaganda have to do with academic research and teaching? Citizens can reasonably expect the academic community to generate scholarly understanding and public awareness of what propaganda is and how propaganda operates. Academics should certainly aim to ensure their own research and teaching are not influenced by it. But how well does the academic community actually deal with propaganda? Addressing this question means considering both how propaganda should be dealt with and how academics actually deal with it.

Given the distinctive social role of academics, there are five general responsibilities that it is reasonable to expect them to fulfil in relation to propaganda. The most basic is to engage in research and teaching with methods of developing and communicating knowledge quite different from those that constitute propaganda. Whereas propaganda involves strategically communicating information selected on the basis of a prior agenda, the methods of science and scholarship involve collaborative deliberation and openness to new discoveries. A second general responsibility directly follows: academics should endeavour not to succumb to the influence of propaganda in their teaching and research. While seemingly a negligible risk in some fields of inquiry, something to be alert to regarding topics of public controversy is how an academic may, unaware, have passively absorbed assumptions and framings of propagandistic genesis. A third responsibility is to avoid reproducing propaganda, even inadvertently, in teaching and written works. A fourth, more imperative still, is the responsibility not to engage in the active (re)production of propaganda.

The four responsibilities just referred to do come with certain caveats: not all forms of propaganda are necessarily pernicious; perhaps not all instances of it will ever be fully identified; and academics are not necessarily less vulnerable to being deceived by propaganda than are their fellow citizens. But while there is scope for discussion of caveats, the important point is to be clear about the responsibilities themselves. While recognizing a place for reasoned critiques of particular studies of propaganda, in fact, we need also to be aware of one further general responsibility, namely, to ensure that the critical study of propaganda is not actively obstructed or attacked. This distinct fifth responsibility unfortunately needs mentioning because, as we will see, the active discouragement of critical study of certain cases of propaganda comes not only from representatives of vested interests outside academia but even sometimes from people who hold positions within.

The purpose of this article is to heighten awareness of why a conscious commitment to fulfilling those responsibilities is important for the academic community and the wider society it serves. Illustrations will generally be drawn from cases I happen to have some familiarity with, but the aim is to discern certain patterns of propaganda at work that others will be able to trace across a wider range of topics of public interest.

Propaganda as a subject matter of academic study

The first thing to be aware of is that effective propaganda exercises its influence largely unnoticed. Any of us, including those who happen to be academics, may not necessarily recognize it in practice, because it can be designed to work by eliciting psychological and emotional responses that bypass the more rational faculties involved in conscious deliberations such as are honed through academic study. Propaganda involves forms of communication that can be described as strategic because their purpose is to promote certain beliefs regardless of how well these are supported by evidence or dispassionate reasoning. Contemporary methods of strategic communications – often branded as ‘public relations’ – have been honed in the business world, but they are also deployed by governments and other state and non-state actors, including as a ‘soft’, or ‘non-kinetic’, aspect of military operations. They can involve complex and extensive organisation.

Strategic communication contrasts quite starkly with a model of communicative action describable as deliberative, which is what scholars and scientists aim to engage in. Academic methods and procedures, which are intended to make reliable knowledge and understanding possible, involve promoting the values of careful and thorough investigation of evidence combined with intellectual integrity in the application of reason and argument. Thus the deliberative communication of ideal academic inquiry stands opposed to the aims and methods of strategic communication.

Insofar as strategic communication is the antithesis of what academic inquiry ideally involves, there should in principle be no place for it in the practices of scholarship and science other than as an object of study. Study of it should also be suitably critical. For although there is much to be learned from the writings of practitioners – such as the seminal study, Propaganda, by Edward Bernays in 1928 or the more recent NATO Handbook of Strategic Communication – academic study of its use requires the application also of epistemological and ethical judgement in assessing the status of its truth claims and its wider socio-political impacts. The need for critical attention is accentuated by the fact – emphasised by practitioners themselves – that the most effective propaganda is not readily noticed as such. Yet, despite some notable contributions (from e.g. Bakir et al, Herman and Chomsky, Miller and Dinan), critical scholarship regarding propaganda remains a marginal activity within academia. As for the idea that propaganda could be a problem in academia, this is little discussed.

So having set out a clear contrast between the deliberative communication of academic work and the strategic communication of propaganda operations, it has to be acknowledged that how things ideally should be is not always how they are. In reality, the influence of strategic communications can affect academic research in a variety of ways.

Passive absorption of assumptions from propaganda

Although academics characteristically have epistemological capabilities that can help them resist propagandistic claims, some potential vulnerabilities to deception are attendant on those epistemological advantages.

For one thing, because academic research develops in depth as a result of specialisation, researchers can sometimes become ‘siloed’ in their narrow field, and some kinds of cross-disciplinary expertise needed for the identification of propaganda may simply not be well-developed by any particular grouping of academics.

A second disadvantage is attendant on the virtue of academic research in creating authoritative bodies of knowledge and procedures for validating them. For the academic requirement of duly acknowledging the accumulated knowledge on a given topic of inquiry, before presuming to innovate on it, can sometimes trap researchers in ways of thinking that are not well-suited to a discerning analysis of novel problems. They may find themselves at an epistemic disadvantage – i.e. liable to deception – in relation to strategic communications, particularly innovative forms of these, since, unlike academic communications, these are not constrained to observe principles of what we might call ‘epistemic due process’.

A third disadvantage attends academics’ professional freedom to pursue the ‘life of the mind’ in their highly focused endeavours, for this can mean being to some extent cloistered from the wider gamut of human affairs. Certain kinds of naivety can prevail. In the context of propaganda, an illustration would be a degree of reliance on the accuracy and good faith of reports published in the established press, with the media being considered ‘a properly constituted epistemic authority’ and, ‘in the main, trustworthy’. Of course, by no means all academics are naïve or cloistered, and not all cite non-academic publications in their work, at least uncritically, but it is not hard to find examples of academic writings influenced by assumptions generated through strategic communications that are relayed through mainstream or corporate media. In fact, this can even happen when a researcher’s actual aim is to diagnose the propaganda of a disinformation campaign, as the following case illustrates.

In a 2017 Guardian article, Olivia Solon presented what she called ‘a neat case study in the prevailing information wars’. She identified what she claimed was a Russia-backed disinformation campaign deploying a ‘network of anti-imperialist activists, conspiracy theorists and trolls’ whose purpose was ‘to discredit the White Helmets rescue workers in Syria’. The article has since been cited in dozens of academic discussions. What many of these have not noted, however, is the fact that regardless of how reliable the information promoted by the White Helmets and supporters may be, it was conveyed as part of a demonstrable propaganda campaign: the White Helmets were founded under the auspices of a UK-funded strategic communications operation; they were funded by Western governments, including the UK which expressly acknowledged the value of their testimony in providing confidence to its statements made in condemnation of Russian. Furthermore, although Solon alleges that criticism of the White Helmets stems from a Russian disinformation campaign, the earliest sceptical publications actually came from independent journalists in Canada (Cory Morningstar) and the US (Rick Sterling). Solon ignores these and also dismisses the influential work of independent journalist Vanessa Beeley, on the advice of James Sadri, Director of the organisation responsible for the White Helmets’ public relations campaign in the West. All of the other sources that Solon cites in support of her argument also have traceable connections to NATO strategic communications operations. Neither she nor The Guardian would respond to questions about the article, which was closed to readers’ comments.

So an academic who has not independently researched the matter, but cites claims from Solon’s article as established findings, can be said to have passively absorbed propaganda. They may do this because the focus of their own work is on a different subject, and they mean simply to offer an indicative reference standing for a more generic phenomenon (e.g. Bunce 2019, Clay 2021). They may also appeal to the general defence that we all have to take some things on trust, for reasons Neil Levy has examined. Yet it is still objectively problematic, since even offhand references do help sediment propaganda claims in the academic literature.

Uncritical reproduction of propaganda claims

More problematic, nevertheless, is when a researcher does not merely cite a propaganda claim inadvertently when writing about something else but actively reproduces one by taking it as a substantive premise of their own work. With regard to the Solon article, for example, we find several academics have advanced their own research contributions on the premise of a disinformation campaign with the features and protagonists Solon claimed (e.g., Brandt 2021; Cosentino and Alikasifoglu 2019; Freeman 2019; Hernandez et al 2020; Horawalavithana et al 2020); Lester 2018; Levinger 2018; Martin and Shapiro 2019; Merlan 2019; O’Shaughnessy 2020; Pacheco et al 2020; Starbird et al 2019; Vilmer et al 2018; Wilson and Starbird 2020).

More problematically still, some academics have uncritically reproduced specific claims about important matters of fact – even serious crimes – that have been recorded in the literature on the basis of propaganda rather than as a result of good faith investigation.

An example concerns an event in Douma, Syria, in 2018, where 43 civilians were found dead. The Western media reproduced the claim that the deaths were a result of a chemical attack by the Syrian government – a claim cited as justification for US, UK, and France firing missiles into Syria a week later. Yet the evidence appealed to in the allegations was found by inspectors from the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) not to support them. However, the OPCW’s management excluded the inconvenient evidence in their official report which was then seized upon by the Western powers as confirmation of their claimed justification for their missile attack. Whatever is the truth of the matter, any academic researcher would know, especially since the inspectors’ original report and documented misgivings came to light, to be cautious about accepting the official version and would certainly not uncritically reproduce it. Thus, several authors do treat the matter in an academically responsible fashion (e.g. Al-Kassimi 2021; Beal 2020; de Beer and Tladi 2019; de Lint 2021; Gray 2019; Kleczkowska 2020; Olsen 2019; Portela and Moret 2020; Tomić 2020; van der Pijl 2020; Yue and Zhu 2020), and some are quite thoroughly critical (see in particular publications by members and associates of the Working Group on Syria, Propaganda and Media). Yet we find a number of articles in academic publications that do insufficient epistemic diligence. This might be because the focus of discussion is elsewhere and reference to the event simply reproduces the assumption that the official Western version of it is authoritative (e.g. Ekzayez and Sabouni 2020; Orchard 2020 and Watkin 2020). Some authors are one-sided in selecting sources, but without necessarily making specific controversial claims (e.g. Notte 2020; Van Schaack 2020). Some do explicitly uncritically affirm the West’s version (e.g. Anthony 2020, Mitton 2019, Newlee 2020), or confusedly do so (Reynolds 2020). Some who follow these matters closely are aware of critical questions yet ignore them (e.g. Koblentz 2019). Some choose even to disparage the critical questions and those asking them, as is the case with authors from the Bellingcat organisation (Fiorella et al 2021).

A more general kind of problem is that whole research programmes can sometimes become skewed in favouring one view of the world over another. Indeed, ideologies are sometimes nurtured within academia that can have significant propaganda value. For instance, Inderjeet Parmar suggests that some social sciences, including the discipline of International Relations (IR), developed as ‘products of Anglo-American early twentieth-century hegemonic elite knowledge networks aimed at securing elite and imperial-state interests’. Relatedly, critics of the way Economics is taught in universities complain that the dominant neoclassical paradigm enjoys a virtual monopoly from which it promotes ‘free-market propaganda’. Indeed, Peter Söderbaum has lamented that universities’ economics departments have become ‘political propaganda centers not very different from the think tanks that we see these days in the USA and Europe.’

When the activities of a university are not clearly distinguishable from those of a think tank, there is a heightened risk of not only reproducing but actually producing propaganda.

Production of propaganda

Although the rigours of academic procedures provide reasonable safeguards against the production of propaganda within universities, more insidious opportunities for it arise in what we might call the ‘para-academic’ sphere. Here the reputation of universities is in one way or another leveraged to give credibility to communications that have not been subjected to the rigours of good faith peer review and would not necessarily have survived them. This sphere notably includes think tanks and NGOs with campaigning agendas and influential backers. When such organisations promote research dedicated to the pursuit of specific objectives, the publications they authorize will not necessarily disseminate the best available knowledge on a subject but may instead present claims that fit with their particular agenda. In this respect, their approach differs decisively from that of independent academic working groups, and the same is true of their preparedness to suppress knowledge found inconvenient for their purposes. (Strategic omission of information is itself an important part of propaganda.) Yet such organisations might employ academically qualified researchers – who may also hold or have held university positions – and thus lay claim to academic credibility in virtue of those credentials.

The blurring of boundaries between universities and think tanks can undermine the academic community’s fulfilment of responsibilities regarding propaganda in several ways. As well as leveraging the academic reputations of individual researchers to the purposes of special interests, para-academic activities can also involve leveraging the reputation of a university itself. For instance, individuals whose principal employment is in journalism, or at a think tank or NGO, may take visiting or honorary fellowships at universities and enjoy the reputational benefit of the association without necessarily making a commensurate academic contribution. Or they may publish working papers or blogs under a university’s banner whereby a veneer of credibility is lent to material that independent academic reviewers might have regarded as partisan polemics. It is also possible for businesses to leverage university connections so as to imply academic respectability for activities that might be regarded as propagandistic. An example is the teaming up of a business ‘based at’ Goldsmiths, University of London, with Bellingcat to produce a reconstruction of the Douma ‘chemical attack’ that supports OPCW management’s official version against that of the OPCW’s actual inspectors. This involved ‘modelling’ of a situation that failed to accord with the actual records and measurements gathered by inspectors on the ground, or even with visual evidence incidentally broadcast by the BBC (Hayward 2019a; Watson 2020a, 2020b). Yet the piece, published in the New York Times, has been approvingly cited in academic literature.

The use of modelling in place of real-world evidence is more generally a versatile tool for propaganda. This was illustrated by the UK’s response to Covid-19, which relied on modelling by Neil Ferguson, the Imperial College professor with a track record of over-estimating the threat to life posed by new pathogens. Simon Ruda, one of the government’s leading behavioural scientists involved in generating public fear on the basis of Ferguson’s projections, conceded in retrospect that there had been an overemphasis on modelling and data that was ‘propagandistic’. Ruda had come to regret how the ‘nudges’ instigated by the behavioural scientists ‘inadvertently sanctioned state propaganda’. This was ‘unethical and undemocratic’ according to a group of healthcare professionals led by Gary Sidley.

In general, a degree of intellectual humility would be an appropriate element of academic diligence on the part of the media-promoted experts. It would have been helpful, for instance, in the case of a high profile academic claiming on a BBC programme shown in UK schools that ‘Covid-19 vaccines are 100% safechildren should get the vaccine to protect their parents, and the benefits to children outweigh any risks.’ According to a complaint made on behalf of independent medics, ‘such a simplified and biased message’ was ‘deeply irresponsible’ and ‘amounts to propaganda’. Even assuming academics who promote one side of a debate do so in good faith, the point is that scholarship and science develop by means of debate and disagreement, which does not happen if only one side of an argument is heard.

This issue is all the more significant with matters attended unavoidably by a degree of secrecy, as when they concern national security or intelligence. Given this is the situation for some of the most momentous decisions that elected representatives must decide on – such as going to war – there is a need for scrupulous alertness to the possibility of being swayed by propaganda. This was made very clear in the wake of the 2003 Iraq war.

Nevertheless, some academics appear to have been drawn into propaganda operations that serve to heighten geopolitical tensions. For instance, we are aware, thanks to leaked documents, of the so-called Integrity Initiative, supported by the Institute for Statecraft, that has involved academics as well as journalists in clusters engaged in covert operations to present a one-sided view of relations with Russia (Hayward 2018, Klarenberg 2019, King and Miller 2020). Nor is the problem simply with covertly directed activities. There is a university research centre overtly funded by UK security and intelligence agencies whose publications ‘are subject to review by the Security and Intelligence Agencies’. This means their readers cannot be sure there are no ‘key omissions in data, analysis or argumentation’. Such concerns are intensified when researchers find themselves obliged to sign the Official Secrets Act. This, as Massoumi and colleagues observe, ‘opens up the possibility for secret or covert research’, which ‘cannot be properly tested by others since none of the data from the research is available.’

Another use of social science for potentially propagandised ends is in manipulating online discourse and activism to generate outcomes congenial to its sponsors. The tactics deployed by a formerly secret British propaganda unit called the Joint Threat Research Intelligence Group (JTRIG) aimed to ‘“discredit”, promote “distrust,” “dissuade,” “deceive,” “disrupt,” “delay,” “deny,” “denigrate/degrade,” and “deter”’. Although criticised by other psychologists, a psychologist involved in this work defended it on the speculative grounds that the harm it would do might be outweighed by harms it could help avert. Such tactics have received academic support also from other quarters. The case for governments intervening in citizens’ conversations – through ‘cognitive infiltration’ – has not only been approved but even positively advocated by certain academics with government connections, notably the US legal scholar and government advisor Cass Sunstein.

Sunstein has specifically developed such an argument in response to what he claims is the danger of conspiracy theories. Critics of this view, such as Kurtis Hagen and myself, highlight how the use of the term ‘conspiracy theory’ as a slur is used to discourage critical discussion of public malfeasance by implicitly branding critics as delusional. The effect of labelling certain concerns as ‘conspiracy theories’ is effectively to make discussion of them taboo, which is the antithesis of a scientific or scholarly approach and can allow propaganda a free pass. Arguably, a greater threat to democracy than conspiracy theories is the pre-emption of dissenting views and the suppression of free speech this involves.

Certainly, the logic of Sunstein’s approach tends to undermine the possibility of a critical study of propaganda. That is why, I argue, there is also a responsibility of academics to defend such study against its attackers, within and beyond academia.

Attacks on scholars of propaganda

Mutual criticism is at the heart of academic activity and crucial to its advancement. In the rigorous testing of ideas, new insights emerge and old illusions get laid to rest. Exchanges can be robust, but good faith criticisms of an idea are not the same as attempts to discredit those who advance it. Yet when one side of a controversy is actively promoted by the dominant media, those who articulate principled concerns about it may come under personal attack.

I learned this first hand doing epistemic diligence on media reports relating to the war in Syria. On one early occasion, academic members of the Working Group on Syria, Propaganda and Media (WGSPM), including myself, were subjected to an onslaught of smears in The Times newspaper, on both front and inner pages. The attacks did not mention anything we had published, but aimed simply to undermine our reputations. These attacks were lent a veneer of apparent academic support by citing opinions of certain individuals with academic credentials known for a willingness to engage in ad hominem abuse in defence of official narratives.

This propaganda tactic has been conspicuous in Covid-19 communications, where highly respected epidemiologists, doctors and other relevantly qualified scientists have been vilified for articulating views contrary to those being promoted in the mainstream media (Broudy and Hoop 2021; Cáceres 2022; Hughes 2021). One instance was the campaign against the concerned scientists who issued the Great Barrington Declaration. They had argued, ‘in view of a thousand-fold difference in COVID mortality risk between the old and the young’, for a policy of ‘focussed protection’. But the media were ‘working 24/7 to say that lockdowns were the only option, so anyone against them was a “Covid denier.” It was brutal.’ We now know from leaked emails that Dr Anthony Fauci, the US president’s Chief Medical Advisor, responded to a colleague’s call for ‘a quick and devastating published take down’ of the dissenters’ premises by pointing to an available example: an article by Gregg Gonsalves, an academic at Yale. This was not so much a reasoned critique as the manifestation of an approach the author summed up in a tweet: ‘This f*****g Great Barrington Declaration is like a bad rash that won’t go away’.

Attacks on academics by academics generally take the form of op-eds, letters or tweets – forms of communication not subject to peer review. Smears can gain considerable public traction without peer scrutiny and without the targets having any meaningful right of reply. Academics subjected to smears can even find that their own universities are swayed by them. There have been disturbing cases of universities disciplining their own academics on the basis of externally-driven smear campaigns.

Campaigns can also target publishers who are pressured to retract items that go against official claims. For instance, when David Hughes published an article on the silence of the IR discipline about unresolved controversies concerning events of 9/11, this was the subject of extraordinary vitriol on the part of certain other academics. Fortunately, editor and publisher held firm in this case, but other publishers have yielded to pressures. A striking example came to light as I was writing this article. The publisher Edward Elgar announced it was removing a chapter by Piers Robinson from its recently published Research Handbook on Political Propaganda. Since the chapter in question documents campaigns to silence academics who present inconvenient truths, this occurrence is a clear case of Quod Erat Demonstrandum! [Happily, the text of Robinson’s chapter, together with notes on the story of its removal, is now freely available.]

A particularly sickening instrumentalization of universities in the service of propaganda involves the coaxing of students with journalistic ambitions to write attacks on academics – regardless of whether they have even had any dealings with the academic targeted. An egregious example of this resulted in David Miller’s recent sacking by Bristol University. That case involved a particularly sustained and coordinated campaign, but I am personally aware of other, lower level, attacks, including several on myself. One student at Sheffield collaborated with HuffPost senior editor Chris York – himself author of more than a dozen attacks on WGSPM – in attacking Piers Robinson, and then attempted to do the same to me. Fortunately, that attack was aborted when a student at my university, contacted for negative comment, instead alerted me.

Then another student journalist approached me at the instigation of producers working for the BBC on its Mayday podcast series – itself the subject of a rare rebuke from the BBC’s own complaints unit – but, investigating the story independently, opted to decline the producers’ suggestion. A less principled student, however, did publish an attack on me for the Murdoch publication The Tab – without contacting me or verifying its defamatory accusations. Notwithstanding this lack of journalistic ethics, her attack was praised and amplified on Twitter by Oliver Kamm of The Times, to whom she replied ‘Thank you so much Oliver! Always available for work experience at The Times! [“Wink” emoji]’. Kamm has since deleted his tweets, but the sort of example he sets to aspiring journalists has already been noted by others (Leiter 2005, Peterson and Herman 2010, Robinson 2022, Sayeed 2016).

Academics who are not as aware as they could be of how propaganda operates in practice may not appreciate the degree of epistemic diligence that ought to be applied to mainstream narratives. A telling illustration was provided by the student who chose to speak to me rather than the HuffPost. This Syrian student spoke of cognitive unease at ‘the overwhelming outlook of those around me in Scotland and at the university,’ feeling implicit pressure to conform to a view that conflicted with personal understanding of the situation in Syria. The student avoided writing essays on Syria. The fact that academics can contribute to demoralising experiences like that, for want of awareness of how their own assumptions can have origin in highly coordinated propaganda operations, should be a concern to anyone working in education. When the media single out for attack those of us making this very point it shows how their values and ethos are fundamentally at odds with the very vocation of academics.

Attacks on academics who challenge official orthodoxies are launched under the guise of combatting disinformation, and general concerns about disinformation are certainly now widespread. But before presuming to combat disinformation, one needs to reliably identify it, which means understanding the ways in which it can be purveyed and also having a robust epistemic account of what one takes to be reliable information. These are essential responsibilities of academics and need to be applied no less to orthodox views than to those that challenge them.

Conclusion

Academics have unique skills and an important social role to play in maintaining open and honest communications. This article has argued that there are significant responsibilities they should acknowledge and, collectively, work to fulfil. The wider public has reasonable expectations that universities are able to assure the integrity of knowledge available for public discussion – which, in practice, means also being ready, when necessary, to help cut through propaganda claims or hold officials to account.

Even if these expectations are not always fully met, they should still guide what academics aspire to. This article has acknowledged that to engage critically with the strategic communications of powerful actors can be difficult in itself and can even encounter active resistance. That engagement can require a certain resolve, particularly when, as Bertrand Russell many years ago observed, it means taking a stand against ‘the powerful organizations which control most of human activity’. But if academics cannot hold the line against the propagandising of information in public debate, it is not clear who else will be able to do 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.

Tim Hayward is a social and political philosopher whose books include Ecological Thought: an introduction (Polity, 1995), Constitutional Environmental Rights (OUP 2005) and Global Justice & Finance (OUP 2019). His current work examines the influence of strategic communications on the development of norms of international justice. As a founding member of the Working Group on Syria, Propaganda and Media, his studies of propaganda in action have led to academic publications on ‘conspiracy theory’, ‘disinformation’, and academic duties of due epistemic diligence. Tim maintains a personal blog and Twitter account. He is Professor of Environmental Political Theory at the University of Edinburgh.

Sources

Al-Kassimi, Khaled (2021) ‘ The Legal Principles of Bethlehem & Operation Timber Sycamore: The “Islamist Winter” Pre-Emptively Targets “Arab Life” by Hiring “Arab Barbarians”’. Laws10: 69. https://doi.org/10.3390/laws10030069

Allan, James (2021) ‘Covid hysteria based on lies, propaganda and ignorance’, On Line Opinion 7 October: https://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=21662

Anthony, Ian (2020) Strengthening Global Regimes: Addressing the Threat Posed by Chemical Weapons, Stockholm International Peace Research Institute: https://www.jstor.org/stable/resrep26981.8

Bakir V, Herring E, Miller D, Robinson P. (2019) Organized Persuasive Communication: A new conceptual framework for research on public relations, propaganda and promotional culture. Critical Sociology. 2019;45(3):311-328. doi:10.1177/0896920518764586

Barrows-Friedman, Nora (2022) ‘Palestinian teacher reinstated after UK Israel lobby attacks’, Electronic Intifada, 28 January: https://electronicintifada.net/blogs/nora-barrows-friedman/palestinian-teacher-reinstated-after-uk-israel-lobby-attacks

Beal, Tim (2020) ‘US Imperialism, the Korean Peninsula and Trumpian Disruption’, International Critical Thought, 10:1, 89-112, DOI: 10.1080/21598282.2020.1741961

Bernays, Edward (1928) Propaganda, New York: Liveright.

Blumenthal, Max (2016) **Blumenthal, Max (2016) ‘**Inside the Syria Campaign, the shadowy PR firm lobbying for regime change’. The Grayzone, 2 October: https://thegrayzone.com/2016/10/02/syria-campaign-pr-firm-lobbying-regime-change/

Brandt, Jessica (2021) ‘How Autocrats Manipulate Online Information: Putin’s and Xi’s Playbooks’. The Washington Quarterly 44, no. 3: 127–54. https://doi.org/10.1080/0163660X.2021.1970902.

Broudy, Daniel and Hoop, Darwin (2021) ‘Messianic Mad Men, Medicine, and the Media War on Empirical Reality: Discourse Analysis of Mainstream Covid-19 Propaganda’. International Journal of Vaccine Theory, Practice, and Research 2, no. 1: 1–24. https://ijvtpr.com/index.php/IJVTPR/article/view/22.

Bunce, Mel (2019) ‘Humanitarian Communication in a Post-Truth World’. Journal of Humanitarian Affairs 1, no. 1: 49–55. https://doi.org/10.7227/JHA.007.

Cáceres, Carlos F. ‘Unresolved COVID Controversies: “Normal Science” and Potential Non-Scientific Influences’. Global Public Health 0, no. 0 (15 February 2022): 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/17441692.2022.2036219.

Clay, Dean (2021) ‘David vs Goliath’: The Congo Free State Propaganda War, 1890–1909’. The International History Review 439(3): 457-474. https://doi.org/10.1080/07075332.2020.1814841.

Cook, Jonathan (2021) ‘After Success against Corbyn, Israel Lobby Ousts UK Scholar’. https://www.jonathan-cook.net/2021-10-07/israel-lobby-david-miller/.

Cosentino, Gabriele and Alikasifoglu, Berke (2019) ‘Post-truth politics in the Middle East: the case studies of Syria and Turkey’. Artnodes 24: 91-100. https://doi.org/10.7238/a.v0i24.3284.

De Beer, Aniel Caro, and Tladi, Dire (2019) ‘The Use of Force against Syria in Response to Alleged Use of Chemical Weapons by Syria: A Return to Humanitarian Intervention?’ Zeitschrift für Auslandisches Offentliches Recht Und Volkerrecht 79, no. 2: 205–39. https://www.zaoerv.de/79_2019/79_2019_2_a_205_239.pdf

de Lint, Willem (2021) Blurring Intelligence Crime. Singapore: Springer.

Dhami, Mandeep (2011) ‘Military Social Influence’. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy11 (1 December 2011). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1530-2415.2011.01239.x.

Ekzayez, Abdulkarim and Sabouni, Ammar (2020) ‘Targeting Healthcare in Syria: A Military Tactic or Collateral Damage?’ Journal of Humanitarian Affairs, 2(2): 3–12http://dx.doi.org/10.7227/JHA.038

Fiorella, Giancarlo, Godart, C. and Waters, N. (2021) ‘Digital Integrity: Exploring Digital Evidence Vulnerabilities and Mitigation Strategies for Open Source Researchers’. Journal of International Criminal Justice 19, no. 1 (1 March 2021): 147–61. https://doi.org/10.1093/jicj/mqab022.

Fishman, Andrew (2015) ‘Psychologist’s Work for GCHQ Deception Unit Inflames Debate Among Peers’, 2015. https://theintercept.com/2015/08/07/psychologists-work-gchq-deception-unit-inflames-debate-among-peers/.

Flanagan, Padraic (2021) ‘BBC Admits Syria Gas Attack Report Had Serious Flaws after Complaint by Peter Hitchens’  Daily Mail Online. Accessed 22 February 2022. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9958679/BBC-admits-Syria-gas-attack-report-flaws-complaint-Peter-Hitchens.html.

Freeman, Lindsay (2019) “Law in Conflict: The Technological Transformation of War and Its Consequences for the International Criminal Court,” New York University Journal of International Law and Politics 51, no. 3: 807-870 https://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/nyuilp51&id=821&div=&collection=.

Gonsalves, Gregg (2020) ‘Focused Protection, Herd Immunity, and Other Deadly Delusions’, 8 October 2020. https://www.thenation.com/article/society/covid-jacobin-herd-immunity/.

Graupe, Silja, and Steffestun, Theresa (2018) ‘“The Market Deals out Profits and Losses” – How Standard Economic Textbooks Promote Uncritical Thinking in Metaphors’. JSSE – Journal of Social Science Education 17, no. 3 (5 November 2018): 5–18. https://doi.org/10.4119/jsse-877.

Gray, Gavan Patrick (2019) ‘Evidentiary Thresholds for Unilateral Aggression: Douma, Skripal and Media Analysis of Chemical Weapon Attacks as a Casus Belli’. Central European Journal of International and Security Studies 13, no. 3 (25 September 2019): 133–65. https://doi.org/10.51870/CEJISS.A130307.

Greenwald, Glenn (2014) ‘How Covert Agents Infiltrate the Internet to Manipulate, Deceive, and Destroy Reputations’. Accessed 22 February 2022. https://theintercept.com/2014/02/24/jtrig-manipulation/.

Hagen, Kurtis (2022) Conspiracy Theories and the Failure of Intellectual Critique. https://www.press.umich.edu/12089559/conspiracy_theories_and_the_failure_of_intellectual_critique.

Hayward, Tim (2019a) ‘Should Universities Care about the Truth? | MR Online’. Accessed 22 February 2022. https://mronline.org/2019/07/09/should-universities-care-about-the-truth/.

Hayward, Tim (2019b) ‘Media Coverage of OPCW Whistleblower Revelations’, Tim Hayward’s Blog. Accessed 22 February 2022. https://timhayward.wordpress.com/2019/10/24/media-coverage-of-opcw-whistleblower-revelations/.

Hayward, Tim (2019c) ‘Three Duties of Epistemic Diligence’. Journal of Social Philosophy 50(4): 536-561. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/josp.12319

Hayward, Tim (2020) ‘Peer Review Vs Trial By Twitter’. Tim Hayward (blog), 8 March 2020. https://timhayward.wordpress.com/2020/03/08/peer-review-vs-trial-by-twitter/.

Hayward, Tim (2021) ‘“Conspiracy Theory”: the case for being critically receptive’. Journal of Social Philosophy. Early view: https://doi.org/10.1111/josp.12432.

Hayward, Tim (2018) ‘Integrity: Grasping the Initiative’, WordPress blog: https://timhayward.wordpress.com/2018/12/15/integrity-grasping-the-initiative/ [accessed 22 February 2022]

Hayward, Tim (2019d) ‘A Syrian Student Writes’. Accessed 22 February 2022. https://timhayward.wordpress.com/2019/09/08/a-syrian-student-writes/.

Hayward, Tim et al (2018) ‘Response to the Guardian Article by Olivia Solon’, Working Group on Syria, Propaganda and Media: http://syriapropagandamedia.org/public-statements-and-media-appearances/response-to-the-guardian-article-by-olivia-solon [accessed 10 July 2021]

Herman, Edward S. and Chomsky, Noam (1988) Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media. New York: Pantheon.

Hernandez, Anthony et al (2020) ‘Using Deep Learning for Temporal Forecasting of User Activity on Social Media: Challenges and Limitations’, Companion Proceedings of the Web Conference 2020, Taipei: 331-336. https://doi.org/10.1145/3366424.3382184.

Horawalavithana, Sameera et al (2020) ‘Twitter Is the Megaphone of Cross-platform Messaging on the White Helmets’, pp.235-244 in Social, Cultural, and Behavioral Modeling, edited by Robert Thomson, Halil Bisgin, Christopher Dancy, Ayaz Hyder, and Muhammad Hussain, 12268:235–44. Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-61255-9_23.

Hughes, David A. (2020) ‘9/11 Truth and the Silence of the IR Discipline’. Alternatives 45, no. 2 (1 May 2020): 55–82. https://doi.org/10.1177/0304375419898334.

Hughes, David A. (2021) Covid-19 Vaccines” for Children in the UK: A Tale of Establishment Corruption’. International Journal of Vaccine Theory, Practice, and Research 2, no. 1: 209–47. https://ijvtpr.com/index.php/IJVTPR/article/view/35.

Johnstone, Caitlin (2020) ‘Nobody Sets Out To Become A War Propagandist. It Just Sort Of Happens’. Consortium News, 31 January: https://consortiumnews.com/2020/01/31/nobody-sets-out-to-become-a-war-propagandist-it-just-sort-of-happens/ [accessed 22 February 2022

King, Chris, and David Miller (2020) ‘Declassified UK: UK Information Operations in the Time of Coronavirus’. Daily Maverick, 30 September 2020. https://www.dailymaverick.co.za/article/2020-09-30-uk-information-operations-in-the-time-of-coronavirus/.

Klarenberg, Kit (2019) ‘Close Associate: The Integrity Initiative’s Intimate Connections to “RussiaGate”’. Sputnik International. https://sputniknews.com/20190118/russiagate-integrity-initiative-wood-1071610324.html.

Kleczkowska, Agata (2020) ‘The Illegality of Humanitarian Intervention: The Case of the UK’s Legal Position Concerning the 2018 Strikes in Syria’. Utrecht Journal of International and European Law 35, no. 1 (30 September 2020): 35–49. https://doi.org/10.5334/ujiel.483.

Koblentz, Gregory D. ‘Chemical-Weapon Use in Syria: Atrocities, Attribution, and Accountability’. The Nonproliferation Review 26, no. 5–6 (2 September 2019): 575–98. https://doi.org/10.1080/10736700.2019.1718336.

Kulldorf, Martin, and Jay Bhattacharya (2021) ‘It’s Mad That “herd Immunity” Was Ever a Taboo Phrase’. Accessed 22 February 2022. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/05/27/mad-herd-immunity-ever-taboo-phrase/.

Leiter, Brian (2005) ‘Oliver Kamm, Marko Attila Hoare, and the Importance of Being Able to Read’. Leiter Reports:  A Philosophy Blog. Accessed 22 February 2022. https://leiterreports.typepad.com/blog/2005/11/oliver_kamm_mar_1.html.

Lester, Nicola (2018) ‘Introducing a Trauma-Informed Practice Framework to Provide Support in Conflict-Affected Countries’. The RUSI Journal 163, no. 6 (2 November 2018): 28–41. https://doi.org/10.1080/03071847.2018.1562016.

Levinger, Matthew (2018) ‘Master Narratives of Disinformation Campaigns’. Journal of International Affairs, 71(1.5): 125-134. https://jia.sipa.columbia.edu/master-narratives-disinformation-campaigns.

Levy, Neil (2007) ‘Radically Socialized Knowledge and Conspiracy Theories’, Episteme 4(2): 181-192. https://doi.org/10.3366/epi.2007.4.2.181.

Magness, Phillip, and James Harrigan (2021) ‘Fauci, Emails, and Some Alleged Science | AIER’. Accessed 22 February 2022. https://www.aier.org/article/fauci-emails-and-some-alleged-science/.

Martin, Diego A. and Shapiro, Jacob N. (2019) ‘Trends in Online Foreign Influence Efforts’ (Version 1.2): https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/jns/files/trends_in_foreign_influence_efforts_2019jul08_0.pdf

Massoumi, Narzanin, Tom Mills, and David Miller (2019) ‘Security and Intelligence Incursions in Academic Research: A Threat to All of Social Science’. Discover Society (blog), 2 October 2019. https://archive.discoversociety.org/2019/10/02/security-and-intelligence-incursions-in-academic-research-a-threat-to-all-of-social-science/.

Massoumi, Narzanin, Tom Mills, and David Miller (2020) ‘Secrecy, Coercion and Deception in Research on “Terrorism” and “Extremism”’. Contemporary Social Science 15, no. 2 (2 April 2020): 134–52. https://doi.org/10.1080/21582041.2019.1616107.

Merlan, Anna (2019) Republic of Lies: American Conspiracy Theorists and Their Surprising Rise to Power. Random House. https://us.macmillan.com/books/9781250159052/republicoflies.

Miller, David and Dinan, William (2008) A Century of Spin. London: Pluto Press. Accessed 22 February 2022. https://www.plutobooks.com/9781783710737/a-century-of-spin.

Mitton, John Logan (2019) ‘Lessons in deterrence: Evaluating coercive diplomacy in Syria, 2012–2019’, Journal of Strategic Studies 0, no. 0 (11 December 2019): 1–28. https://doi.org/10.1080/01402390.2019.1692659.

Morningstar, Cory (2014) ‘Syria: Avaaz, Purpose & The Art Of Selling Hate For Empire’ Wrong Kind of Green website: https://www.wrongkindofgreen.org/2014/09/17/syria-avaaz-purpose-the-art-of-selling-hate-for-empire/

NATO (2015) NATO Strategic Communications Handbook (draft for use): https://vdocuments.mx/nato-strategic-communications-handbook-draft-for-nato-is-operating-in-an-era-where.html?page=2

Newlee, Danika (2020) ‘The Punishment Campaign’. In Seth G. Jones (ed) Moscow’s War in Syria. Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS). https://www.jstor.org/stable/resrep24835.7.

Notte, Hannah (2020) ‘The United States, Russia, and Syria’s chemical weapons: a tale of cooperation and its unravelling’, The Nonproliferation Review 27, no. 1–3 (2 January 2020): 201–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/10736700.2020.1766226.

O’Shaughnessy, Nicholas (2020) ‘From Disinformation to Fake News: Forwards into the Past’, pp.55-70 in P. Baines et al (eds), The SAGE Handbook of Propaganda. Sage.

Olsen, Frances (2019) ‘Law, Language and Justice’. In Legal Linguistics Beyond Borders: Language and Law in a World of Media, Globalisation and Social Conflicts., edited by Friedemann Vogel, 2:253–88. Relaunching the International Language and Law Association (ILLA). Duncker & Humblot GmbH, 2019. http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctv1q69j9f.16.

Orchard, Phil (2020) ‘Contestation, Norms and the Responsibility to Protect as a Regime’. In Charles T Hunt and Phil Orchard, Constructing the Responsibility to Protect. Routledge.

Pacheco, Diogo, Alessandro Flammini, and Filippo Menczer (2020) ‘Unveiling Coordinated Groups Behind White Helmets Disinformation’, 3 March 2020. https://doi.org/10.1145/3366424.3385775.

Parmar, Inderjeet (2017) ‘How Elite Networks Shape the Contours of the Discipline of International Relations’, in Jan Selby, Rorden Wilkinson, Synne L. Dyvik (eds), What’s the Point of International Relations? Taylor and Francis.

Peterson, David, and Edward S. Herman (2010) ‘The Oliver Kamm School of Falsification: Imperial Truth-Enforcement, British Branch’, MR Online, 22 January 2010. https://mronline.org/2010/01/22/the-oliver-kamm-school-of-falsification-imperial-truth-enforcement-british-branch/.

Portela, Clara, and Erica Moret (2020) ‘The EU’s Chemical Weapons Sanctions Regime: Upholding a Taboo under Attack’. European Union Institute for Security Studies (EUISS), 2020. http://www.jstor.org/stable/resrep26015.

Räikkä, Juha and Ritola, Juho (2020) ‘Philosophy and Conspiracy Theories’, in Michael Butter and Peter Knight (eds.), Routledge Handbook of Conspiracy Theories, New York: Routledge. https://www.academia.edu/42584152/Philosophy_and_Conspiracy_Theories.

Reynolds Chris (2020) Global Health Security and Weapons of Mass Destruction Chapter. In: Masys A., Izurieta R., Reina Ortiz M. (eds) Global Health Security: Advanced Sciences and Technologies for Security Applications. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-23491-1_9

Robinson, Piers (2017) Learning from the Chilcot Report: Propaganda, Deception and the “War on Terror”’. International Journal of Contemporary Iraqi Studies 11, no. 1–2: 47–73. https://doi.org/10.1386/ijcis.11.1-2.47_1.

Robinson, Piers (2019) ‘Expanding the Field of Political Communication: Making the Case for a Fresh Perspective Through “Propaganda Studies”’. Frontiers in Communication 4 (2019). https://www.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fcomm.2019.00026.

Robinson, Piers (2022) ‘Democracies and War Propaganda in the 21st Century’, Working Group on Syria, Propaganda and Media. https://syriapropagandamedia.org/working-papers-2/democracies-and-war-propaganda-in-the-21st-century

Ruda, Simon (2022) ‘Will Nudge Theory Survive the Pandemic?’ UnHerd, 13 January 2022. https://unherd.com/2022/01/how-the-government-abused-nudge-theory/.

Russell, Bertrand (1960) ‘The Social Responsibilities of Scientists’, Science, Vol. 131, Issue 3398: 391-392.

Sayeed, Theodore (2016) ‘Chomsky and His Critics’. Mondoweiss, 19 February 2016. https://mondoweiss.net/2016/02/chomsky-and-his-critics/.

Sidley, Gary (2022) ‘Britain’s Unethical Covid Messaging Must Never Be Repeated | The Spectator’. Accessed 23 February 2022. https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/britain-s-unethical-covid-messaging-must-never-be-repeated.

Söderbaum, Peter (2002) ‘Democracy and the Need for Pluralism in Economics’, Post-Autistic Economics Review, issue no. 11, January, article 4. Accessed 23 February 2022. http://www.paecon.net/PAEReview/wholeissues/issue11.htm.

Solon, Olivia (2017) ‘How Syria’s White Helmets became victims of an online propaganda machine’. The Guardian, 18 December: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/dec/18/syria-white-helmets-conspiracy-theories

Starbird, Kate et al (2019) ‘Disinformation as Collaborative Work: Surfacing the Participatory Nature of Strategic Information Operations’. PACMHCI. Vol: CSCW, Article 127: https://doi.org/10.1145/3359229

Sterling, Rick (2015) ‘Seven Steps of Highly Effective Manipulators’, Dissident Voice: a Radical Newsletter in the Struggle for Peace and Social Justice (blog), 10 April 2015. https://dissidentvoice.org/2015/04/seven-steps-of-highly-effective-manipulators/.

Sunstein, Cass R. and Vermeule, Adrian (2009) ‘Conspiracy Theories: Causes and Cures’. The Journal of Political Philosophy 17(2): 202–27.

Tomić, Nikola (2020) ‘Global Justice and Its Challenges: The Case of the EU’s Approach to Syria – GLOBUS’. Accessed 23 February 2022. https://www.globus.uio.no/publications/globus-research-papers/2020/2020-12-globus-research-paper-tomic.html.

Tucker, Jeffrey A. (2021) ‘A Short History of the Great Barrington Declaration ⋆ Brownstone Institute’. Brownstone Institute (blog), 17 July 2021. https://brownstone.org/articles/a-short-history-of-the-great-barrington-declaration/.

UK Medical Freedom Alliance 2021

UK Medical Freedom Alliance (2021) ‘Open Letter to Professor Devi Sridhar Re BBC Newsround Episode on Children’s Vaccines’. Accessed 23 February 2022. https://www.ukmedfreedom.org/open-letters/open-letter-to-professor-devi-sridhar-re-bbc-newsround-episode-on-childrens-vaccines.

Van der Pijl, Kees (2020)‘The Coming Trial of the MH17 Suspects. A Piece of Political Theatre?’ Accessed 23 February 2022. https://www.academia.edu/41166182/The_Coming_Trial_of_the_MH17_Suspects_A_Piece_of_Political_Theatre.

Van Schaack, Beth (2020) ‘Innovations in ICL Documentation Methodologies and Institutions’. In Imagining Justice for Syria. New York: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190055967.003.0009.

Vilmer, J.-B. Jeangène et al (2018) ‘Information Manipulation: A Challenge for Our Democracies’. Media Freedom Resource Centre OBCT. Accessed 23 February 2022. https://www.rcmediafreedom.eu/Publications/Reports/Information-Manipulation-A-Challenge-for-Our-Democracies.

Watkin Kenneth (2020) ‘Humanitarian Intervention and the Responsibility to Protect: Where it Stands in 2020’, Southwestern Journal of International Law 26(2): 213-240. https://www.swlaw.edu/sites/default/files/2020-12/Watkin_213-240_v26n2.pdf

Watson, Philip (2020a) ‘Two Buildings – Two Cylinders: Part 1’. Hiddensyria (blog), 5 January 2020. https://hiddensyria.com/2020/01/05/two-buildings-two-cylinders-part-1/.

Watson, Philip (2020b) ‘Douma Incident and Forensic Architecture – The Emails’. OffGuardian(blog), 7 March 2020. https://off-guardian.org/2020/03/07/douma-incident-and-forensic-architecture-the-emails/.

Wilson, Tom and Starbird, Kate (2020) ‘Cross-platform disinformation campaigns: lessons learned and next steps’. Misinformation Review, 14 January: https://misinforeview.hks.harvard.edu/article/cross-platform-disinformation-campaigns/

Yue Hanjing and Zhu Ying (2020) ‘Great Power Game around the Chemical Weapons Attacks in Syria and the New Norm on Banning Chemical Weapons’, Scholars Journal of Economics, Business and Management, 7(9): 304-312. https://saspublishers.com/media/articles/SJEBM_79_304-312.pdf

Featured Image: “Stuart Six” by Accretion Disc is marked with CC BY 2.0.

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

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

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

***

“The best way to resolve the opposition of both French and English groups [in Canada] is to swamp the French population under the steady stream of a methodically organized immigration, controlled initially, greeted on arrival and ensured of a privileged position in the colony.” Lord Durham (John Lambton), (1792-1840), in ‘Report on the Affairs of British North America’, Jan. 31, 1839, (mainly written by Charles Buller).”

“Economic thinking about immigration is generally quite superficial. It is a fact that in different [rich] countries, reproducible national capital is on the order of four times yearly national income. As a result, when an additional immigrant worker arrives, in order to build the necessary infrastructure (housing, hospitals, schools, universities, infrastructure of all kinds, industrial facilities, etc.), additional savings equal to four times the annual salary of this worker will be needed. If this worker arrives with a wife and three children, the additional savings required will represent, depending on the case, ten to twenty times the annual salary of this worker, which obviously represents a very heavy burden for the economy to bear.” Maurice Allais (1911-2010), 1988 Nobel Prize in economics, 2002.

“A people who is not master of its fate should limit its level of immigration to its capacity of integration. It is on this condition that cultural diversity can be positive. Otherwise, our roots and our identity are in danger.” Rosaire Morin (1923-1999), Quebec journalist, 1966.

During the last federal election campaign in Canada, the issue of mass immigration for decades to come received virtually no attention.

Let us recall that during this election, the Liberal Party of Canada (LPC) obtained 32.6 percent of the vote. Moreover, since the voter turnout was only 62.9 percent, the direct popular support the LPC received from all Canadian voters was only 20,3 percent.

Under such circumstances, it is difficult to arrive at the conclusion that the current Liberal minority government in Ottawa has received a clear and legitimate mandate from the people of Canada to substantially change the demographic composition of the country, for decades to come. This would surely be the result if a mass immigration policy is implemented over the long run.

The Proposal of the Toronto lobby ‘Century Initiative’

Few people know that an obscure political organization, founded in 2011 by a small lobby of businessmen and journalists from Toronto, and bearing the name ‘Century Initiative‘, has proposed to triple the Canadian population by the year 2100.

Indeed, the Toronto group ‘Century Initiative’ asserts that Canada—which counted 37  million inhabitants at the last census in 2021, and which normally, according to official projections, should have 53 million in the year 2100, (with a natural population growth rate and an average immigration policy)—should aim instead at having 100 million inhabitants by the year 2100, and not 53 million, and that the Canadian federal governments should, for this purpose, adopt a very aggressive immigration policy.

At this extreme migratory rate, already one of the highest in the world, if not the highest, Canada would no longer be recognizable, demographically speaking, in less than one generation or two. A major population replacement policy would have been implemented, almost on the sly, without public debate, without a general consultation and without in-depth studies on the probable consequences of such a project.

According to the plan designed by the Toronto lobby, within barely 78 years, Canada would have several mega urban agglomerations of more than ten million inhabitants, a bit like China today. Indeed, it is forecast that metropolitan Toronto would increase its population from 8.8 to 33.5 million inhabitants; that metropolitan Montreal would expand from 4.4 to 12.2 million inhabitants; that metropolitan Vancouver would grow from 3.3 to 11.9 million inhabitants, etc. Several Canadian megacities would each have about the same population as some medium-sized independent countries.

[N.B.: On October 23, 2016, one of the co-founders of the ‘Century Initiative’ lobby, Toronto businessman Dominic Barton (1962-), gave an interview to Global News in which he said: “It’s a big number [100 million]—for me it’s more than an ambitious number”… “It would obviously change the country considerably. It’s a different vision… But I don’t think it’s madness!”]. Is this a hoax?

Drawbacks and consequences of the ‘Century Initiative’ project

The implementation of the ‘Century Initiative’ project to triple the population of Canada in less than a century would result in numerous drawbacks and consequences, whether economic, political, social, cultural, linguistic, geographical or environmental.

Canada would suffer much more than a demographic shock. Indeed, besides profoundly upending the Canadian population, other impacts could be expected: more congestion more pollution, increased diseconomies of scale with the overload of public services in health, education and transportation facilities, more ghettoization, more language conflicts, more crime, more insecurity, etc.

Weaknesses in the main arguments of the ‘Century Initiative’ to triple the Canadian population

The two main arguments advanced by the lobby behind the ‘Century Initiative’ to triple the population of Canada in less than a century are:

1. Increase the political importance of Canada on the international scene, by ensuring that Canada is among the 45 most populous countries on the planet, by the year 2100;

2. Increase Canada’s economic growth rate. This would be attained mainly through bloating the number of domestic consumers and workers through a program of mass immigration.

A question begs to be asked: Is ‘bigness for bigness sake’ a relevant reason to transform the demographic picture of Canada? Indeed, such an argument essentially rests on the dubious idea that the level of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and its bulimic growth should be front and center in matters of public policy. What about the quality of life, living standards of the population and their happiness?

There are several countries with a large population in the world, but they are often relatively poor, and their demographic weight does not necessarily translate into an enviable position on the international scene.

Short of wishing to become a heavily militarized empire, Canada already plays a relatively large role internationally. However, over the years, this role has been somewhat diminished from what it was under the government of Lester B. Pearson (1897-1972), the winner of the 1957 Nobel Peace Prize. It is not because of Canada’s lack of demographic weight, but because the Canadian politicians who succeeded Pearson have not measured up.

With free trade, Canada does not need a very large population

Since January 1, 1989, Canada is in a position of free trade with the United States. Moreover, that agreement was enlarged to include Mexico in 1994.

In such a commercial environment, Canadian producers are by no means limited to the Canadian market to sell their products. They are able to reach high output levels, which generate economies of scale, by exporting part of their production to the American market. Similarly, Canadian consumers have access to imports from the United States, which increases the diversity of supplies and stabilizes prices.

Living standards in the world are not linked to the demographic size of countries

A country’s standard of living (GDP per capita) is hardly related to its demographic size. Rather, it would seem to be the opposite. This is clearly shown in the publications of the United Nations Development Program (UNDP).

The UNDP publishes the Human Development Index (HDI), a global index ranking of countries according to the standard of living and quality of life of their inhabitants. This index shows the level of qualitative development (life expectancy, education, standard of living) of each country.

Barring exceptions, it is inevitably the small or medium-sized countries that occupy the first ranks, regarding the standard of living and the quality of life of the inhabitants, and not the most populated countries. In most cases, there is a negative relationship between the large demographic size of a country and their population’s standard of living.

In 2019, for example, the top three countries for standard of living and quality of life all had less than 10 million inhabitants: Norway (pop. 5.3 million), Ireland (pop. 5.0 million) and Switzerland (pop. 8.5 million).

Arguments related to the aging of the population and labor shortages

The ‘Century Initiative’ invokes two other arguments in favor of very high immigration levels. One is supposedly to compensate for the aging of the population (caused by a drop in the fertility rate and an increase in life expectancy). Another is to prevent a possible labor shortage cased partly by the retirement of the ‘baby-boomers’, that is, the population cohort born between 1945 and 1965 in Canada.

It is true that these two phenomena will require adjustments and complementary policies in the short and medium term, that is to say until around the year 2050, when the ‘baby-boomer’ cohort will have largely disappeared, but not necessarily in the very long term, stretched over a whole century.

For example, studies show that immigration as such does not substantially modify the age structure of a population, essentially because the majority of immigrants arrive in the country as adults and the family reunification program contributes by bringing in immigrants who are already elderly (spouses, parents, grand-parents, etc.).

On this topic, the demographic studies of Benoît Dubreuil and Guillaume Marois (‘Le remède imaginaire‘/The imaginary remedy) indicate that the contribution of immigration on a large scale is not necessarily a panacea for rejuvenating a population, and that it can sometimes accentuate its aging problem. Other studies come to the same conclusions, namely that it is impossible to reverse the aging of populations through a high level of immigration of foreign adults and elderly dependents.

Means of mitigating the economic impact of an aging population through the year 2050

Other industrialized countries are facing the same problem of a demographic shock, and they resort to different means than relying on mass international immigration to deal with it.

For example, Japan is a prosperous industrial nation with an even older population than Canada, but it does not rely on international immigration to address the phenomenon.

Indeed, a country can instead put forward policies aimed at raising the fertility rate and the birth rate. Other policies may delay the retirement age in view of the increase in life expectancy. The same applies to measures to facilitate and increase the role of women in the labor force.

A government can encourage training in basic trades (computer specialists, plumbers, electricians, carpenters, technicians, etc.). In addition, as several companies are already doing, there is an opportunity to make greater use of robotics to perform labor-intensive tasks and raise productivity levels. And, ultimately, a selective immigration policy, based on identified economic needs, can rely on temporary foreign workers.

Regarding labor shortages, it is important to situate the issue in its overall economic context.

In theory, if a particular industry has a need for skilled workers, it is possible to adopt a temporary program to attract such workers from abroad. However, if one is talking about a generalized shortage of labor in the whole economy, which cannot be corrected through higher wages and training programs, that is quite another matter. On the one hand, if the rate of population growth naturally slows, consumption will also slow. The same would apply to some industries, which must adapt to a fluctuating demand or face increased competition with imports.

Moreover, as we saw earlier with the family reunification program, Canada imports many more consumers than workers with its mass immigration program. There is a danger of solving the problem of a labor shortage in one industry in particular, but simultaneously creating labor shortages in other industries, particularly in education and health sectors, in housing, in transport facilities and in private and public services and infrastructures in general. The economy could then face an endless spiral of labor shortages, with permanent tight labor markets that are created artificially and are inflated by a population that is growing too quickly through immigration.

Political, linguistic and cultural impact on French-Canadians and on French Quebec

The ‘Century Initiative’ lobby seems unconcerned about the consequences of its extreme immigration project on French-Canadians in general, and on their status as a political majority in Quebec. If the Canadian government were to continue on the path of a “Canada of 100 million inhabitants” by resorting to an ultra-mass immigration policy, the place of French-Canadians in Canada could only decline dramatically over the coming decades.

It is a fact that during the 20th century, Canadian immigration policy has resulted in a continuous decline in the demographic and political weight of the French-speaking population. In 1941, the first language of 29.3 percent of the population was French. However, by 2016, it had fallen to 21 percent, a drop of more than eight percentage points in 75 years. If the ‘Century Initiative’ project is implemented, it is possible to foresee a fall at least as important during the next 75 years. The result would be a situation that would threaten the very viability and durability of the French language in Canada in the next century.

As far as Quebec is concerned (one of the four founding provinces of Canada in 1867), its demographic weight in Canada as a whole could fall to as low as 10 percent by the end of the century. And in Quebec itself, francophones could find themselves in a minority on the territory of their ancestors, for the first time in 500 years.

If the federal government under J. Trudeau continues to implicitly endorse the ‘Century Initiative’ project, such an extreme immigration policy is bound to de facto“marginalize” French-speaking Quebec and to weaken the place of French-Canadians in Canada.

[N.B.: Regarding the daily scandal of ‘Chemin Roxham‘ (Roxham Road), the illegal border crossing in Quebec for tens of thousands of illegal immigrants and bogus refugees, with the help of professional smugglers—the only one of this nature in Canada—a solution must be found. In a democracy, if a government is unable to enforce the country’s borders, its primary responsibility is to resign.]

Conclusion

When all is taken into consideration, the Canadian federal government should publicly reject the project of ‘Century Initiative’. If, instead, it persists in finding inspiration for its immigration policy in the proposal of the Toronto group, the Canadian population will have to deal with a planned immigration tsunami in the future.

In a true democracy, the adoption of such a long-term public policy should be submitted to the people for approval. However, neither the proposal of Canada’s 100 million inhabitants by the ‘Century Initiative’ lobby, nor the extreme immigration policy inspired by it, have been the subject of public debates or have been submitted to the population, either in a referendum or in a general election. This is a major breach of 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.

This article was originally published on the author’s blog site, Dr. Rodrigue Tremblay.

International economist Dr. Rodrigue Tremblay is the author of the book about morals “The code for Global Ethics, Ten Humanist Principles” of the book about geopolitics “The New American Empire“, and the recent book, in French, “La régression tranquille du Québec, 1980-2018“. He holds a Ph.D. in international finance from Stanford University. 

He is a Research Associate of  the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG)

Featured image is from Toronto Star

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

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

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

***

On May 21, Australians elected as their new prime minister Anthony Albanese of the Labor Party, who defeated conservative Scott Morrison. CNN reported that Australians had delivered a strong verdict on the need to act against climate change.

Unfortunately, there is no reason to believe that Anthony Albanese’s government will be any different when it comes to foreign policy than Scott Morrison’s.

Albanese has said explicitly that he is committed to AUKUS, the Australia-United Kingdom-United States strategic partnership against China.

During the election campaign, Albanese attacked the Morrison government for what he called a “massive foreign policy failure” vis-à-vis the Solomons/China agreement—a bilateral security cooperation agreement granting China access to the Solomon Islands’ ports.

Albanese has further promised to create a training school in Australia to train the militaries from various Pacific nations.

During the election campaign, he and Morrison competed on who would be tougher toward China.

Colour photo of middle-aged man in suit sitting behind desk with UN symbol in background. - click to view larger image

The last time that an Australian Labor government offered a markedly different foreign policy was the 1972-75 government led by Gough Whitlam—which was overthrown in a CIA-backed coup.

Image on the right: Gough Whitlam in 1974. [Source: nma.gov.au]

Both Whitlam and Albanese had themselves sworn in as Prime Minister immediately after their respective election wins, but the contrast could not be starker.

Whereas Whitlam rejected alliances with imperialist powers, Albanese wanted to immediately scurry off to Tokyo to meet Joe Biden and reassure him of Australia’s continued loyalty as a good and obedient servant.

The Australian Labor Party has not questioned the American alliance since Whitlam. Its current policies fit a long tradition in the Australasia region of whipping up alarm about “outsiders” muscling into “its backyard.”

At the end of the Vietnam War, New Zealand’s Prime Minister Rob Muldoon (1975-1984) used to commandeer prime time on the country’s solitary TV network to issue dire warnings about the Soviet Union being able to move its Pacific Fleet thousands of kilometers south from Vladivostok to Vietnam’s Cam Ranh Bay and, hence, that much closer to “us.” Didn’t happen.

There were some beat-up stories about Soviet submarines in “our” Pacific. A few years later there was preposterous alarm about Gaddafi’s Libya getting a toe hold in the Pacific. Nothing came of that, either.

Indeed, the only Pacific military power to attack New Zealand in the second half of the 20th century was not Russia or China or Vietnam. No, it was France, which bombed the Rainbow Warrior in Auckland, killing one crew member, getting most of the killers out of the Pacific by submarine, and bullying NZ to release the two killers imprisoned here. That’s right, the only actual violence—an act of terrorism, if not war—came from “our side” in the Pacific, one which maintains a considerable military presence in the Pacific to this day. Oh dear, how embarrassing. But let’s not let the facts get in the way of a good story.

The bombed Rainbow Warrior is in Marsden Wharf in Auckland Harbour after the bombing of the Greenpeace flagship by French secret service agents.

Source: greenpeace.org

Solomons: Same Old Yellow Peril Script

Now it is happening again, except that the villain in the script has changed. China has started throwing its weight around in the South China Sea, bullying neighbors like the Philippines (which calls it the West Philippines Sea). In 2022 China has been portrayed as suddenly leapfrogging so much closer to home (stop me if this sounds familiar) by signing a security agreement with the Solomon Islands. This has sent Australia, New Zealand and the U.S. into a frenzy about China getting a military base in the Solomons (despite the assurances of that country’s prime minister that no such thing will happen).

Relations with China are a controversial subject within the Solomons, which established ties with China in 2019, leading to Taiwan severing diplomatic relations after decades. This did not go down well with one particular province, which wanted ties to continue with Taiwan and which has separatist yearnings. This all culminated in major riots in late 2021 in the Solomons’ capital, Honiara—riots featuring people from that province and aimed at the city’s Chinatown.

There was major property damage, the local cops couldn’t handle it, and Australia and New Zealand sent police and troops (aided by Papua New Guinea and Fiji). This was the most recent iteration of the 2003-17 Australian and NZ security presence in the Solomons to deal with long-term and serious internal unrest. The regional assumption had always been—if the natives get restless, send in the soldiers and cops from the white countries because it is, after all, “our backyard.”

But the 2022 China/Solomons security agreement puts a cat among those colonial pigeons. Prime Minister Manasseh Sogavare said that his government preferred that Chinese police take over that Australasian role of training the local cops and providing an on-the-ground security presence in the event of an emergency, including protecting Chinese citizens and assets (who were targeted in the 2021 riots). The white big boys were not taking this lying down—much spleen was vented by media, “experts” and politicians in Australia, NZ and the U.S. The U.S. warned of a “response” if China built a base in the Solomons; Australia sent its two top spy chiefs to lean on Sogavare.

AUKUS

That had the entirely predictable result of getting his back up. “We find it very insulting to be branded as unfit to manage our sovereign affairs, or (to) have other motives in pursuing our national interests” (ABC News, March 29, 2022). Sogavare had the bad manners to remind Australia of its own deception when, in 2021, it broke a contract to buy French submarines and, instead, signed up with the U.S. and UK to form the AUKUS Treaty, which will build eight nuclear-powered (but not nuclear-armed) submarines for Australia.

Sogavare said the ‘Western media’ had accused Solomon Islands and China of showing a lack of transparency about the agreement. But Sogavare said he had first ‘learned of the AUKUS Treaty in the media.’ “One would expect that as a member of the Pacific family, Solomon Islands and members of the Pacific should have been consulted to ensure that this AUKUS Treaty is transparent, since it will affect the Pacific family by allowing nuclear submarines in Pacific waters,” Sogavare said.

“Oh, but I realise … that Australia is a sovereign country, and that it can enter into any treaty that it wants to, transparently or not—which is exactly what they did with (the) AUKUS Treaty.” Sogavare added: “When Australia signed up to AUKUS we did not become theatrical and hysterical on the implications this would have for us. We respected Australia’s decision. And I’m glad to say that Australia, United States of America and Japan respected our sovereignty to enter into this security agreement with China as well, based on trust and mutual respect.”[1]

Precisely. I couldn’t have put it better myself. Australia is the last country to be lecturing anyone about honesty and honorable behavior. Prime Minister Scott Morrison went behind the backs of the French in order to instead do a deal with the U.S. and UK. It led to the most extraordinary diplomatic bust up between those countries—France recalled its ambassadors from both Australia and the U.S. (it is America’s oldest ally, dating back to the American Revolution); President Macron called Morrison a “liar.” When Morrison was voted out a few months later, France’s outgoing foreign minister said: “I can’t stop myself from saying that the defeat of Morrison suits me very well.”

Nuclear-free New Zealand was not invited to join AUKUS (nor was fellow Five Eyes member Canada) but the Jacinda Ardern government has had a FOMO (fear of missing out) reaction and said that New Zealand would like to get involved with other aspects of AUKUS, such as artificial intelligence. AUKUS is rapidly proving it is about much more than a few nuclear subs: In April 2022 it announced that its three members would work together to develop hypersonic missiles to counter Russia and China, which already have them.

In early June, Jacinda Ardern met Joe Biden in the White House to strengthen the U.S./New Zealand relationship and to accept membership of Biden’s new Indo-Pacific Economic Framework for Prosperity. Whilst at the White House, Ardern also met Kamala Harris, where one of the key topics discussed was U.S./New Zealand space cooperation, which revolves around the now U.S.-owned, New Zealand-founded company Rocket Lab, which launches payloads for the U.S. military and spy agencies from launch sites in both New Zealand and the U.S.

Drop the “Our Backyard” Colonial Crap

In a biting column in New Zealand’s Stuff magazine, Josie Pagani, a former Labor Party candidate in Rangitikei wrote:

“We are ‘gravely concerned’ about the Solomon Islands’ security deal with China. How about we offer something better. We say we’re worried because the Pacific is our own ‘backyard.’

The phrase is meant to signal a shared Pacific identity but, to the Pacific, the expression sounds colonial. Russia calls Ukraine its ‘backyard.’ If you are opposed to Russia meddling in Ukraine, where Russia spuriously claims a ‘security concern’ about Ukraine joining NATO, then consistency demands you must also respect the Solomons’ right to make its own decisions. We’re not invading the country—but we are trying to boss it around.

We didn’t like it when the Five Eyes intelligence network demanded we sign its statement condemning China for human rights abuses. Since the network attacked our independence from China for refusing to sign, our diplomatic ties to the U.S. and Australia have weakened, not strengthened. Likewise, our public condemnation of the Solomons’ deal with China will push the Solomons further away, not bring it closer…We would be more effective if we asked why the Solomons would do a security deal with China in the first place.

If we listened, it would be clear that what’s important to Solomon Islands is security, not geopolitics. Recent riots in Honiara were about jobs. Too many unemployed young people with nothing to do, sick of watching imported Chinese workers get the jobs. The Royal Solomon Islands Police Force couldn’t cope, despite support from New Zealand and Australian police. So, the Government turned to China.

Security matters in the Pacific. Transnational crime, such as drug production and people trafficking, is serious in the region. Trafficking of methamphetamine, heroin, and cocaine is on the rise. Why doesn’t New Zealand double its aid to the Solomons to grow new businesses, and more jobs in legitimate industries? Why not help the country negotiate better contracts with China that insist on local labour instead of shipping in Chinese workers? We need to out-compete China. Not just yell ‘Get Off My Lawn’ at them.”[2]

Foreign Bases and Wars: The U.S. Is the Undisputed Champ

The hypocrisy of Australia, New Zealand and the U.S. is quite breathtaking. I am not going to argue any case for China to have a base in the Solomons, or anywhere else in the Pacific for that matter. The Pacific should be true to its name and be pacific, with no foreign bases.

But let’s do some basic fact-checking—China has one foreign military base in the world (in Djibouti, in the Horn of Africa). The U.S. has nearly 800 bases in 70 foreign countries and territories (including Djibouti).

The Pacific is full of U.S. bases, from South Korea and Japan to Australia, which, for example, hosts U.S. Marines in Darwin and the vital war-fighting spy base at Pine Gap, near Alice Springs. That is not counting the bases on U.S. Pacific soil like Hawaii, Guam, and California. It no longer has bases in the Philippines but has the run of the place.

U.S. military presence in the Asia Pacific 2020. Map: basenation.us

Map of U.S. military bases. [Source: womenagainstmilitarymadness.org]

Australia is spending hundreds of millions of dollars to upgrade Papua New Guinea’s main Navy base on Manus Island, which will then be used by the Australian and U.S. navies.

Map Description automatically generated

Source: usni.org

On Anzac Day 2022 Australia’s then-Defense Minister, Peter Dutton, said, “The only way you can preserve peace is to prepare for war, and be strong as a country. Not to cower, not to be on bended knee and be weak. That’s the reality.”

Dutton, who has since replaced Scott Morrison as leader of the Liberal Party, continued: “The Chinese, through their actions, through their words, are on a very deliberate course at the moment, and we have to stand up with countries to stare down any act of aggression…to make sure we can keep peace in our region and for our country.”[3]

How’s that for Warmongering 101?

I haven’t mentioned actual wars, because it is such a blindingly obvious fact. The U.S. has been involved in wars continuously in the 21st century (Iraq and Afghanistan being only the most spectacular examples). That carries on an unbroken tradition dating back to World War II, when it succeeded Britain as the world’s pre-eminent white, Western empire.

And how many wars has China fought in the 21st century? I can only think of a few deadly fisticuffs on the contested border with India. In the 20th century, it fought wars in Korea and Vietnam and subjugated Tibet. The Chinese security apparatus is used for internal repression in places from Hong Kong to Xinjiang. The U.S. security apparatus is, likewise, used for internal repression across the whole country. Ask any young Black male motorist.

What’s Good for the Goose Is Good for the Gander

Let’s look at a comparative example much closer to home. In 2011 Christchurch was flattened by a killer earthquake, one of a sequence of 18,000 that shook the city for years. In the immediate aftermath of that killer quake, hundreds of Australian cops were flown to Christchurch and patrolled the streets (minus their usual guns) for weeks. It was the first deployment of Aussie cops to NZ in the history of the two countries.

It was a huge emergency and my stricken home town needed as much help as it could get (there was also a huge NZ military mobilization, with help from the militaries of other countries, such as Australia and Singapore). It was a disaster on a global scale and NZ exercised its sovereign right to ask its friends for help, for which we were truly grateful. It was all hands to the pump.

Now, imagine if China, or the Solomons for that matter, had objected to NZ inviting Australian cops to help in our emergency. They would have been told to mind their own bloody business. We could have justifiably called such a response “hysterical and hypocritical.” What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.

*

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. Daniel Hurst, “Solomon Islands PM suggests Australia’s reaction to China security deal is hysterical and hypocritical,” The Guardian, April 29, 2022. 

  2. Josie Pagani, “Stop Telling Pacific Countries What to Do,” Stuff, January 4, 2022, https://www.stuff.co.nz/opinion/128224030/stop-telling-pacific-countries-what-to-do
  3. Angus Thompson, “Reality of Our Time: Dutton Warns Australians to Prepare for War,” Sydney Morning Herald, April 25, 2022, https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/reality-of-our-time-dutton-warns-australians-to-prepare-for-war-20220425-p5afuy.html). 

Featured image: Anthony Albanese of the Australian Labor Party celebrates election victory. [Source: scmp.com]

A Spanish Court Calls: Mike Pompeo, We Want You

June 8th, 2022 by Dr. Binoy Kampmark

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

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

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

***

On June 3, Judge Santiago Pedraz of Spain’s national court, the Audienca Nacional, issued a summons for former CIA director and US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo to testify in an ongoing investigation into the conduct of private security firm UC Global and its founder, David Morales.

The security firm is said to have been hired by US intelligence operatives to monitor Julian Assange and his associates during his time in the Ecuadorian embassy in London.  In all likelihood, if we are to take the evidence of UC Global’s former head of operations, Michel Wallemacq, seriously, Ecuador’s intelligence services were also involved.

The allegations were given a very dramatic airing in the initial extradition trial of Assange at the Old Bailey in London, when two former UC Global employees were called to testify for the defence.  One of the two gave testimony on the rather seedy task of pilfering “a nappy of a baby which according to the company’s security personnel deployed at the embassy, regularly visited Mr Assange”.

The witness also revealed that Assange’s seemingly interminable stay had, by December 2017, caused nerves to fray.  The “Americans … had even suggested that more extreme measures should be deployed against the ‘guest’ to put an end to the situation”.  This might involve staging an “accident” that “would allow persons to enter from outside the embassy and kidnap the asylee”.

The move against Pompeo comes as part of a petition filed by Aitor Martínez, one of the lawyers representing Assange in the proceedings against UC Global.  In addition to summoning Pompeo, Judge Pedraz is also seeking to question William Evanina, a former US counterintelligence official who is said to have confessed to viewing security camera footage and audio recordings from inside the Ecuadorian Embassy.

Pompeo has had a rather fickle relationship with WikiLeaks, an addling mixture of opportunistic appreciation and loathing.  As House Representative from Kansas, he drew much upon the organisation’s published emails as evidence of the DNC’s rigging proclivities in selecting candidates for the 2016 election.  “Need further proof that the fix was from Pres. Obama on down?  BUSTED: 19,252 Emails from DNC Leaked by WikiLeaks,” tweeted Pompeo in July 2016.

When questioned about the tweet during his confirmation hearings for the post of CIA Director, selective amnesia gripped.  Asked by Maine Senator Angus King whether he felt that WikiLeaks was “a reliable source of information”, Pompeo replied in the negative, adding that he had “never believed” the publishing entity to be “a credible source of information”.  He had a “deep understanding of WikiLeaks” (evidence of that knowledge was not forthcoming) and had never seen it as having credible information “for the United States or for anyone else.”

Instead of making an issue of this, Senator King felt less than combative, appreciating the “candour” shown by Pompeo, with a recommendation that he “speak truth to the highest level of power in this country”.  King merely hoped “that you will hold onto the commitment that you made today, because it’s not going to be easy.”

On becoming director, WikiLeaks became an object of mania for Pompeo, suggesting that his views on the outfit’s credibility had been rather short on candour.  Their publishing feats, in other words, were simply too credible.  The disruptive role played by the publishing organisation in the 2016 election through publishing leaked emails from Hillary Clinton’s campaign was filed away to gather dust.  “It’s time to call out WikiLeaks for what it really is,” he told an audience at the Center for Strategic and international Studies (CSIS) on April 13, 2017, “a non-state hostile intelligence service often abetted by state actors like Russia.”

This was aided, in no small part, by the release by WikiLeaks of the CIA’s own crown jewels – or at the very least a good smattering of them.  The publication of the Vault 7 files, detailing hacking tools developed by the intelligence organisation, unleashed a storm within the organisation.  “This extraordinary collection, which amounts to more than several hundred million lines of code,” WikiLeaks declared in a press release, “gives its possessor the entire hacking capacity of the CIA.”

According to the report from Yahoo!News last September, a former Trump national security official claimed that the administration saw “blood” in the aftermath of the release.  Ideas and plans were exchanged among various officials to abduct Assange, and even, given the chance, assassinate him.

Pompeo, again showing himself to be a man of brimming candour, refused to confirm the veracity of the details in the report.  “I can’t say much about this other than whoever those 30 people who allegedly spoke to one of these [Yahoo News] reporters – they should all be prosecuted for speaking about classified activity inside the Central Intelligence Agency.”

Neither Pompeo nor Evanina are at risk of facing any charges in Spain, however richly deserved. Judge Pedraz has made it clear that the Spanish courts have no jurisdiction to try them.  At the very least, these summonses have caused a flutter, mocking the politicised process that has characterised the vengeful, Kafkaesque effort against Assange.

*

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]

Bilderberg Meets in Washington: Bilderberg Does China. An Economic Hurricane is Coming

By Pepe Escobar, June 07, 2022

As Bilderberg follows Chatham House Rules, mere mortals won’t have a clue of what they actually “proposed” or approved, and none of the participants will be allowed to talk about it with anyone else. One of my top New York sources, with direct access to most of the Masters of the Universe, loves to quip that Davos and Bilderberg are just for the messenger boys: the guys who really run the show don’t even bother to show up, ensconced in their uber-private meetings in uber-private clubs, where the real decisions are made.

The Links Between Jeffrey Epstein and Bill Gates Explained

By The Week, June 07, 2022

Discussing the role that his relationship with Epstein played in his divorce from Melinda Gates, the Microsoft billionaire told The Sunday Times that “at the time” he “didn’t realise that by having those meetings it would be seen as giving [Epstein] credibility”.

Day 100 of the Russia-Ukraine War

By William Walter Kay, June 07, 2022

Historians will agonize over when the Russia-Ukrainin War actually started; but as Russia’s February 24 breach of Ukraine’s borders has been deemed by our media as Day One, let’s run with that. This makes June 4, Day 100.

“US Imperialism is the Greatest Threat to Life on Our Planet”: Mapping US Imperialism

By Mapping Project, June 07, 2022

This article is a snapshot from the Mapping Project: a project created by activists and organizers in eastern Massachusetts, investigating local links between entities responsible for the colonization of Palestine, for colonialism and dispossession here where we live, and for the economy of imperialism and war.

Credit Unions and Banking Groups Warn of “Devastating Consequences” of a US Central Bank Digital Currency

By Pam Martens and Russ Martens, June 07, 2022

Credit union and banking trade groups have released a joint letter to the chair and ranking member of the House Financial Services Committee, warning of “devastating consequences” if the Federal Reserve moves forward with a Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC).

Kiev’s Forces Attack Civilians in Donbass Using Long-range Artillery

By Lucas Leiroz de Almeida, June 07, 2022

In a statement on June 6 the Russian ambassador to the UN, Vassily Nebenzia, reported that Western long-range weapons in Ukraine have been used in recent days to attack civilian targets in the Donbass.

Gina Haspel Watched the Waterboarding at CIA ‘Black Site’: Ray MCGovern

By Ray McGovern, June 07, 2022

It still makes me sick to my stomach — this time the sworn testimony of CIA contract psychologist/torturer James Mitchell that Gina Haspel was watching as he and psychologist/torturer colleague John Bruce Jessen waterboarded Saudi captive Ab al-Rahim al-Nashiri in Thailand.

Biden Rocks the Middle East. Partitioning Syria May be on the Way

By Philip Giraldi, June 07, 2022

Last week the Pentagon announced that it had completed its investigation into an attack in Syria on March 18, 2019 that killed some presumed ISIS guerrillas as well as four civilians while wounding fifteen others. The Pentagon press secretary John Kirby said the Defense Department had determined that that the airstrike “did not violate the laws of warfare or the rules of engagement.

US Wants to Surround China with Missiles – But Can’t Find Asian Country to Host Them

By Ben Norton, June 07, 2022

The United States plans to spend billions of dollars to surround China with missiles. But a US military-sponsored study concluded its Pacific allies South Korea, Japan, the Philippines, Thailand, and Australia are unlikely to host the offensive weapons.

The Death of the Ministry of Truth — What Will They Do Next?

By Dr. Joseph Mercola, June 07, 2022

The Biden administration’s “Ministry of Truth” has, for the time being, been put on hold, and its chief, Nina Jankowicz, has resigned.

  • Posted in NO READ MORE LINK
  • Comments Off on Selected Articles: Bilderberg Meets in Washington: Bilderberg Does China. An Economic Hurricane Is Coming

We bring to the attention of our readers this essay by  the late Professor André Gunder Frank, one of the World’s leading and most distinguished political economists. First published by Global Research in 2004.

From the very outset in 2001, André Gunder Frank was a firm supporter of the Global Research Project. He was a lifelong friend and mentor. He passed away in 2005. His legacy will live. 

Frank analyzed the broad relationship between militarisation and the crisis of the US dollar as a World currency, a key relationship which characterizes today’s global crisis.

Published 18 years ago, this  incisive essay provides a perspective on the evolving New World Order, its structural weaknesses and contradictions.

Prof André Gunder Frank

This essay consists of the following parts:

Coup d’ État in Washington

Paper Tiger – The United States and the World

Fiery Dragon: China in East Asia

Michel Chossudovsky, May 4,  2018, June 7, 2022

***

Political Background

Recent events in Iraq that require no further elucidation here make this essay now more timely than when it was written.

For this essay is a combination of two related articles:

First, my earlier paper focusing on the 2000 [Election] Coup d’Etat. This paper related to the illegitimacy of the Bush government and the long standing agenda of the Cheney group which has made another Coup within the Bush Coup.

Secondly, my paper on the paper tiger, concerning the underlying Achilles heels vulnerability of American power that rests only on the paper dollar and the military Pentagon.

Vice President Gore’s major speech damning the policy of the Bush administration and calling the President himself incompetent, as he surely is, nonetheless judiciously avoided any direct mention of the illegitimacy of the president and his administration.

Bush’s presidency was derived from a veritable coup d’ Etat, not in having lost the popular vote, but first in having also lost the vote in the key state of Florida and “won” it through fraud and violence.

And then they violated the fourteenth amendment of due process through the stacked vote in the Supreme Court and its refusal to let anybody abide by due process.

Moreover, not only did Dick Cheney manage the entire transition to and construction of the Bush administration, but as Vice President he has continued to run the President’s show from behind the scenes.

That is so much so that after their joint three hour testimony to the 9/11 commission about their Iraqi malfeasance, the New York Times was moved to editorialize that it made evident that the President is no more than a puppet managed by the Vice-President.

And as we know and the coup part of this essay further documents, the Vice-President himself was captured and molded to its own ends of long standing by a team of the PNAC – Program for the New American Century – maniacal adventurers, led by “Wolfowitz of Arabia.”

This illegitimacy of the President and his administration’s inauguration now takes further significance with the revelations that after having lied to the electorate, they have continued to lie and mislead the American public and the world regarding the State of the Nation and that of the world, as well as with regard to the devastating impacts of their foreign and domestic policies.

The documentation is overwhelming, but not even the tip of the iceberg is yet emerging that the Administration and President Bush himself have consistently lied and covered up about September 11, 2001.

They have lied about security and have deliberately weakened it and have themselves terrorized the American public, not to mention that they have torn the Bill of Rights to shreds and otherwise have violated the Constitution.

By sending the machine gun toting National Guard into every airport in the country, they are every day violating the Posse Comitatus Act that prohibits military participation in domestic civilian affairs that has stood since 1878. They have also violated a more recent law prohibiting the CIA from doing so as well. All this only to scare the public and Congress into accepting their unconstitutional Patriot Acts and other measures from the agenda of a small right minority.

And of course they have perpetrated monstrous lies about their war against Afghanistan and now against Iraq.

Thus, an illegitimate president who promised “gentle conservatism” has instead taken the most radical departure of militarizing American society at home, privatizing the US Military abroad, and antagonizing the rest of the world by his unilateral militarism and anti-environmentalism, not to mention his administration’s befuddled ‘’justification.”

His and his government’s verbal denunciation combined with de facto generation and sponsorship of terrorism is wearing thin and has in a totally irresponsible fashion led them and us into a Catch 22 damned if you do, damned if you don’t debacle.

The one in Iraq demonstrates one of several underlying vulnerabilities of American reliance on the Pentagon.

The Paper Tiger Dollar

As this essay argues, this military Achilles heel also further weakens the other one, which is based on the paper tiger dollar. That has declined in value against the Euro and the Yen since I first wrote about this threat and how it in turn would weaken the Pentagon that must be financed by devalued dollars, especially in its increasing ventures abroad.

At the same time, while the revelations and soul searching about American torture in Iraq – and now we know long since also in Afghanistan and Guantanamo – the US occupation in Iraq is proceeding relentlessly with its major agenda there: OIL and the economy.

The Cheney sponsored oil pipeline through Afghanistan that the Taliban was supposed to implement but was unable to guarantee, thus converting it from friend to enemy, is now in the hands of the new American appointed government in Kabul.

In Iraq, it is yet difficult to tell WHAT the US occupation is doing – nobody even bothers to look beyond the torture any more – about the oil and the economy, other than that they are being privatized and sold off at bargain basement prices to big American companies, with Vice President Cheney’s Haliburton in the lead. He still derives income from it, although his super-hawk friend Richard Perle resigned his high Defense Dept position so that his conflict of interest would ‘’not hurt the President’s re-election chances.’’

Meanwhile President Bush himself defends giving a near monopoly of contracts for ‘’re-building Iraq’’ to US near monopolies on the grounds that ‘’WE’’ put our lives on the line and so are we legitimately entitled to the economic rewards there from.

But more important, with the region’s second largest oil deposits in Iraq , what is the US really doing there on the world oil market and its efforts to control or break OPEC?

One thing is sure, and the oil section of the paper tiger part of this essay speaks to this issue:

Iraqi oil is again being priced in US dollars and no longer in Euros as under Saddam Hussein.

In the meantime also, the dollar has indeed fallen significantly against the Euro and the Yen. This devaluation of the dollar would at least make US industrial and agricultural products more salable on the world market – if they were otherwise competitive. But the industrial ones are not and the agricultural ones thrive only thanks to the huge government subsidy, the same as in Western Europe and Japan.

On the other hand, a devalued dollar makes the US less attractive for the continued inflow of foreign capital from overseas savings on which the US economy and the American standard of living and way of life is so vitally dependent.

All presidential administrations have lied to the American public about the sources of their well being that are allegedly based on American efforts and skills promoted by healthy government domestic and foreign economic policies. But nothing could be further from the truth.

The Clinton boom years of the 1990s – after the 1989-92 recession – were based entirely on the suction and flight of capital first from the former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe who were forced into a depression far deeper than that of the 1930s and after the financial crisis of 1997 in Southeast Asia that was deliberately sponsored by Larry Summers, now President of Harvard but then at the World Bank and the US Treasury.

That resulted in declines of income by 40 and 50 percent and the deliberately managed misery and death of millions in East Asia – and the flight of their own and foreign speculative capital to the US safe haven of Treasury certificates (where it permitted a sudden but temporary balanced budget) and into Wall Street. There it fired the bull market that attracted Main Street to invest in Wall Street and made Mr. And Mrs. America feel rich and able to spend – also on $ 100 billion of excess imports of textiles and gadgets from China.

The Chinese in turn also sent the dollars they earned thereby back to Washington to buy Treasury certificates, so that the poor Chinese are by now the world’s largest creditors to the rich Americans.

More recently however, China has begun to import more itself, in particular from Southeast Asia and using it’s American earned US dollars to get at least something more that worthless Treasury certificates on which the US is bound to default, because it will be neither able nor willing to make good.

All depends on how long the rest of the world is still willing to put up with the US dollar as the world currency and what alternatives thereto there are. And this brings us back to the Pentagon as a shaky support for the dollar and the Iraq debacle as yet another chink in the rusty armor of confidence in the US in general and its money in particular.

And it leads us forward to examine the expanding role in the world of China, whose ten percent annual economic growth has been duplicating income every six years and making it a, and soon perhaps the, major player in the world economy.

What is the basis and security of the United States position and power in the world? The answer is the twin pillars of the Dollar and the Pentagon.

The dollar is a paper tiger – literally so, much more than when Mao applied this term to the US. The Pentagon’s strength and mobility is dependent on the dollar, which in turn is supported by US military might. But these two supporting towers of the US are also its two Achilles heels. Through them, like the twin towers of the World Trade Center in New York, the entire US edifice can come crashing down in one morning – not by terrorism but through the operation of the world market economy and the foolish policies of the United States government itself.

With the end of the cold war in 1989 and the subsequent decline of Russia as a serious immediate contender, as well as the decline during the 1990s of the hype of JAPAN AS # 1 [Vogel 1979] two other regions, states and powers came into contention.

They are the United States whose fortunes and prospects seemed to have declined after 1970 but recovered in the 1990s; and yet it is a paper tiger.

The other is the rising Fiery Chinese Dragon In global terms, we could regard this as a process of continued shift of the world center of gravity west-ward around the globe, from East Asia/China to Western Europe, then across the Atlantic to the United States, and there then from the eastern to the western seaboard, and now onwards across the Pacific back to East Asia, as observed in my “Around the World in Eighty Years” [Frank 2000]. Let us inquire further into the so far last part of this historical process.

Coup d’Etat in Washington

Be wary of conspiracy theories, beware of real conspiracies, and be aware of a grab of power.

It has happened in Washington and its instigators are pursuing a policy of (several) faits accomplis that attracts ever more people to jump on the band wagon. The Busch administration has made a real Coup d’Etat and achieved its apparently unknowing acceptance by America and the World. Even Hitler and Mussolini came to power by electoral routes and Stalin and Latin American dictators had to resort to violence to make their coups d’etat. Bush and his small coterie required none of these to get to the seat of power.

“The Coup”: Bush’s Accession to the Presidency

To begin with, Bush’s accession to the Presidency was in violation to the Constitution. It is not that he received a minority of the popular vote, because the Constitution provides for the President’s election by the Electoral College. But Bush received the Electoral College vote by fraud, for he lost the decisive popular and thereby electoral vote in Florida. His brother Jeb as Governor of Florida with the help of Mrs Harris as Secretary of State first deprived hundreds of thousands of African American and presumably Democratic voters of the vote through incarceration, intimidation, and other means.

The Republican Cuban Mafia sent its goon squads physically to prevent a recount in Broward County. Mrs. Harris did all she could, which was plenty, to interfere with recounts in other counties in Florida. The alleged recounts that were made were a sham. They only recounted votes that were NOT counted in the first count by voters who had been unable to punch holes all the way through the voting cards without leaving the infamous hanging chads.

Yet much more importantly one either before the decision or afterwards when the newspapers did it again, NO one ever recounted the votes that HAD been for the Democrats but were discounted because voter mistakenly also punched a second hole on a confusing ballot. Yet even the third and most conservative candidate Pat Buchanon declared publicly that these duplicate votes in heavily Jewish and Democratic counties were surely not for him but for the Democratic Party candidate. These votes [or even half of them if they had been allotted also to other candidates] would have given a decisive majority of the popular vote and therefore of the Electoral College votes in Florida to the Democrats. Yet they were never counted or recounted for the Democrats.

In the end Bush was not elected, but was SElected in the Supreme Court by the decisive political swing vote of Justice Kennedy. The Supreme Court’s appeal to the 14th amendment, which guarantees due process of Law to all, was ironically biased. For it was selectively applied without due process to squash the popular vote in Florida, but the same due process procedures were not applied to challenged votes in any other State. That in itself was already a de facto coup d’ Etat.

Then, several members of the House of Representatives called for a challenge of the Electoral College under Constitutional provisions that permit the Congress to do so if the challenge has the support of at least one member of both houses. Yet they were not joined by even a single Senator, who would have made the challenge legally effective. In other words, the Congress simply acquiesced to this power grab by the Bush administration through a Coup d’eat with the help of the Supreme Court but in clear violation to the Constitution.

That was the beginning of the violation of the Constitutional separation of powers and checks and balances. Since then, the Bush administration has carried these violations farther than any previous one in the history of the United States. Not even President Lincoln in the Civil War, nor President Roosevelt in the Second World War nor his previous attempt to stack the Supreme Court, ever grabbed and concentrated as much power for the executive branch while marginalizing the Legislative branch and the Judiciary.

Beware of Conspiracy Theories. But be aware that it was really Vice-President elect Dick Cheney who then put together the Bush Administration, selecting whom to place in which positions of power, especially in defense affairs.

The PNAC

And beware of PNAC, the Project for a New American Century, which was already lobbying Washington with their plans for a “Pax Americana” in 1992, 1997, and 2000 among other notable dates.

PNAC issued a long report in September of 2000 entitled “Rebuilding America’s Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources for a New Century.”

Its statement of principles calls for a massive increase in military power, U.S. military domination of Eurasia to prevent the rise of hostile powers; and pre-emptive [not just pre-ventive] military action against states suspected of developing weapons of mass destruction.

PNAC’s prescriptions have been converted into official US policy and praxis by the Bush Administration.

PNAC founding members and signatories of its statements include;

  • Cheney himself,
  • Lewis Libby, Cheney’s top national security assistant and now the Vice-President’s chief-of-staff
  • Donald Rumsfeld, also a founding member, now Secretary of Defense
  • Paul Wolfowitz [of Arabia], now Deputy Defense Secretary and arguably the groups ideologue
  • Eliot Abrams, pardoned by Bush Sr. in the Iran/Contra scandal and now member of the National Security Council
  • John Bolton, Undersecretary for Arms Control and International Security
  • Richard Perle, the most outspoken hawk in the Reagan administration who advocates dumping the United Nations, then chairman of the powerful Defense Policy Board, who was forced to resign one of his positions over a conflict of interest scandal,
  • Randy Scheunemann, President of the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq, who was Trent Lott’s national security aide and who served as an advisor to Rumsfeld on Iraq in 2001
  • Bruce Jackson, now Chairman of PNAC and former vice president of weapons manufacturer Lockheed-Martin who headed the Republican Party Platform subcommittee for National Security where he called for – as had Wolfowitz for some years – the removal of Saddam Hussein
  • William Kristol, noted conservative writer for the Weekly Standard, a magazine owned along with the most hawkish Fox News Network owned by Ruppert Murdoch
  • Norman Podhoretz, editor of the right wing New Republic
  • and others, like Norman Kaplan and Douglas Feith.

The core group of the PNAC now hold the highest positions of policy making power in the Pentagon and much of it in the White House.

They have also planted one of their group in the State Department to keep an eye and check on Colin Powell who is the only major foreign policy player who is not a member of this inner sanctum.

An interesting sidelight is that Wolfowitz, Perle and Feith also went to Israel to serve as advisors to Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, for whom they drew up a battle plan against the Palestinians. Behind them lies the strange ideological bed-fellow political alliance of two of the most powerful lobbies in the United States: Organized Zionism and Christian Fundamentalism. For good measure, throw in the Cuban Mafia as well.

Another matter to consider are some of the connections of these same people with the private sector. Two examples should suffice to give a general idea. Cheney was chairman of Halliburton Inc., which in turn owns Brown & Root and other habitual contractors of the Defense Department for major construction and/or petroleum projects around the world.

One of these companies was awarded a 1 Billion dollar contract to re-build the Iraqi oil fields in case they should be damaged in the war. Another, of which the now “Prime Minister” of Afghanistan was a former employee, namely UNOCAL, is first in line to build the proposed oil and gas pipeline across Afghanistan from Central Asia to the Indian Ocean. The Bush family and George W. Bush himself have long standing business relations with the Carlyle Group, which also represents the Bin Laden family (including Osama), with whom they have also maintained direct relations.

The White House and the Executive Branch generally has made full use of its new power to serve its economic and political allies.

Those who made the largest campaign contributions have been handsomely rewarded with government hand-outs and regulations, or rather de-regulation. The Bush administration has issued at least 200 separate executive orders to roll back regulations enacted by previous administrations, even Republican ones, to protect the environment and/or Public Health and Safety. Executive Order has received a whole new meaning: Special interests write an order that is passed to the President for his signature, whereby mostly without knowing what he is doing he converts it into an Executive Order.

The Pentagon has petitioned the White House to exempt it from existing environmental protection regulations that hamper their disposal of spent munitions and other hardware and thereby interfere with ‘’national security. ” The President deliberately appointed as Secretary of the Interior a person known for her ties to the timber and oil industries to whose exploitation she seeks to open thousands of acres of federally owned lands as well as the Alaska Wilderness for the construction of a new pipe-line – all in the interest of course of ‘’national security.”

The Bill Of Rights and the Constitution

More serious still, the Bush administration has shredded the Bill of Rights, abrogated the Constitution, and even violated the age – old common law of Habeus Corpus, which prohibits the detention and holding of anybody against his will without due process of law.

Elsewhere in the Executive Branch, President Bush appointed and lent full support to Attorney General John Ashcroft who was already known for his racist and authoritarian inclinations. Although many Senators had doubts about his appointment, the Senate ratified it anyway. Since then, Attorney General Ashcroft and his staff have converted several arms of the Department of Justice into those of a police state. The Executive has encouraged and permitted the Attorney General and the Department of Justice Judiciary Branch to violate the Bill of Rights and the Constitution on multiple counts. For instance, the US Government already claims the right to monitor all e-mail and to bug telephone conversations without specific judicial permission.

The Bush Administration brought Admiral Pointdexter back into government after his participation in the Iran-Contra Scandal and lyiung about it to Congress. His new mission is a project, called Total Information Awareness Project (TIAP): to develop computers to monitor “vast quantities of data generated by US civilians in their daily lives: Academic transcripts, ATM receipts, prescription drugs, telephone calls, driving licences, airline tickets, parking permits, mortgage payments, banking records, emails, website visits and credit card slips” [The Guardian November 23, 2002].

In critique of all this and the Patriot Act, only the lone voice in Congress of Representative and presidential candidate Dennis J. Kucinich (D-Ohio) has asked

“How can we justify in effect canceling

  • the First Amendment and the right of free speech, the right to peaceably assemble?
  • the Fourth Amendment, probable cause, the prohibitions against unreasonable search and seizure?
  • the Fifth Amendment, nullifying due process, and allowing for indefinite incarceration without a trial?
  • the Sixth Amendment, the right to prompt and public trial?
  • the Eighth Amendment, which protects against cruel and unusual punishment?
  • And Justice for All?”

The Constitution makes all the rights it guarantees extensive to anybody in the US, but the Attorney General has declared that non- citizens are not worthy of protection by the Constitution.

We do not know yet how much of a loss that is because the Department of Justice and its Immigration and Naturalization Service[INS] have also taken it upon themselves also to divest naturalized and even native-born American Citizens of their citizenship, again in clear violation of the Constitution.

And even those who remain citizens are under constant threat to have their rights violated without due process under the fourteenth amendment, or to be detained in violation of Habeus Corpus.

They are denied representation by legal counsel and trial in civil courts, as provided for by the Constitution. In particular, hundreds of thousands of American residents and Citizens of Arab descent or even of features that appear to individual agents of the Department of Justice or the police’s racial profiling as perhaps being Arab, or Muslim, or who knows what else have been called in for questioning. When they appeared in Los Angles, they were detained without charge. They now live in constant fear of the infamous knock on the door at 3AM that was made infamous by Hitler’s Gestapo and Stalin’s GPU. That is so if they are even favored by a knock on the door before a blast of gunfire of shooting first and asking questions later.

So far as we know of over 700 people who have remained in detention since September 2001; though there may be many more, since nobody knows or says where they are, or who they are, or what they are accused of. Indeed, only a dozen of these have ever been charged with anything. The others remain out of sight and out of mind except for their families who are not allowed even to secure legal representation for them. So do the innocent Afghani prisoners the US keeps in in Guantanamo and the countless ones still detained under horrible conditions in Afghanistan. How come there is no public outcry about any of these?

On the other hand, the same Executive Branch has divested the Judiciary of powers and the citizenry of judicial protection by illegally transferring powers of the Judiciary to itself. Perhaps only the most visible tip of the iceberg of this process is the Bush Administration and Pentagon declaration that it will bring normal civil suits before military tribunals that operate under rules of court marshal and other procedures of Military “Justice” that can order death sentences without appeal. Moreover, the accused do not know whereof, cannot chose legal counsel, and their conversation with whom can be overheard by the authorities. The prestigious very conservative publicist William Saffire refers to them as ‘’kangaroo courts” and observes that “no longer does the judicial branch and an independent jury stand between the government and the accused.

In lieu of those checks and balances central to our legal system, non-citizens face an executive that is now investigator, prosecutor, judge, jury and jailer or executioner. In an Orwellian twist, Bush’s order calls this Soviet-style abomination “a full and fair trial.”

The Land of the Free?

John Ashcroft has also issued instructions to the Department of Justice to resist as far as possible the delivery of documents under the Freedom of Information Act.

And the Executive itself has severely restricted the kind and number of documents of its own that it is prepared to make public. In other words, transparency and therefore control or even critique of the ever widening powers and their use by the Executive Branch is itself being severely restricted.

On the other hand, the Executive Branch has multiplied its own access to information. During the congressional debate on John Ashcroft’s USA Patriot Act, an American Civil Liberties Union fact sheet on the bill’s assaults on the Bill of Rights revealed that Section 215 of the act “would grant FBI agents across the country breathtaking authority to obtain an order from the FISA [Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act] court . . . requiring any person or business to produce any books, records, documents, or items.” That includes bookstores and public libraries being obliged to divulge who is reading what. This is now the law,

Alas, the Congress has been intimidated into passive acceptance of virtually everything and anything the Executive proposes and demands. It passed the Patriot Act that severely restricts civil liberties virtually without reading it.

The proposed Patriot Act # 2 has not even bee submitted to the Congress for study and yet the version leaked by the Press suggests that it proposes even more of a police state than the first one. When the Leader of the Democratic Majority in the Senate voiced only the mildest doubts about Bush’s military moves, he was immediately reprimanded by his Republican Majority Leader counterpart Lott, for ‘’how dare he criticize the President in time of war!” Both have been forced to resign since then, but for scandals unconnected to that one.

Moreover, the Executive has been more than secretive about the events and circumstances of September 11, 2001; and the Congress has not launched any serious inquiry of its own. Neither have the Media. There has not even been any public inquiry or disclosure into the failure of the Air Force or National Guard to scramble fighter aircraft to investigate the airliners that had clearly gone off course. That is every day routine standard operating procedure, but it was called off or at least not enacted during the 90 minutes that elapsed between the crash into the first World Trade Tower and the one into the Pentagon – that is IF the Pentagon was damaged by an aircraft which has been seriously questioned if only because no evidence has ever been made public for such an occurrence.

Nor has the government given any account of its receipt and disregard of multiple forewarnings from intelligence agencies among its allies in Pakistan, Russia, Germany, France, Israel. In other words, the very circumstances that allegedly require all these domestic and foreign responses by the Bush Administration are themselves wrapped in a shroud of self-imposed secrecy.

The violation of the Constitutional provisions for the separation of powers is particularly flagrant regarding the powers reserved to the Legislative Branch of the Congress and the Constitutional prohibition against military action in domestic civil affairs.

Bush also disregards the Constitutional provision that only Congress may declare war, and it violates the 1976 War Powers act that Congress passed to regulate that Constitutional provision after it had been grossly violated in the Vietnam War. The Bush administration has de facto-also abrogated the 1878 Posse Comitatus Act that prohibits military participation in the enforcement of civil law, and it violates the general Constitutional provision against the military action in domestic affairs.

A US tank convoy during the Vietnam War (Source: Wikimedia Commons)

Instead, the Bush Administration has visibly mobilized the Armed Forces and National Guard around all US airports and elsewhere, and the Pentagon is drawing up plans for its intervention in endless domestic affairs. It stands to reason that the machine gun toting military presence in the passenger areas of airports has not added one iota to security but serves only to terrorize the public into blind and passive acceptance of the violation of their civil rights there and elsewhere.

Even the government has stated repeatedly that any other terrorist attack on the US is not likely to copy that of September 11, 2001 but to take totally different forms against which this military presence would offer no defense. Indeed, it would not have prevented that of September 11 either. The pretext that the country is at war is being used as cover for US government terror of its own at home and abroad; and the country is being militarized as never before, not even in war time.

The Pentagon is extending its actions in American Civil Affairs ever more, also by establishing a new office of Under Secretary of Defense for Homeland Security, which then created a northern command to coordinate military response to domestic threats. The Pentagon also has a new Under Secretary for Intelligence,

Stephen Cambone, who said the existing agencies will continue with their work but that his unit will ensure that they are meeting the intelligence needs and priorities laid out by the Pentagon, also at home. [Boston Globe June 8, 2003].

Pax Americana

The Pentagon is also expanding into previously unimagined places and roles overseas. There are now well over 100 US military bases around the world. and current US military operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, the Horn of Africa, Colombia, the former Yugoslavia, South Korea, the Philippines, and former Soviet states such as Georgia.

The latest details, disclosed by the Wall Street Journal on June 10th 2003, include plans to increase U.S. forces in Djibouti on the Horn of Africa across the Red Sea from Yemen, setting up semi-permanent “forward bases” in Algeria, Morocco, and possibly Tunisia, and smaller facilities in Senegal, Ghana, and Mali that could be used to intervene in oil-rich West African countries, particularly Nigeria.

Similar bases–or what some call lily pads–are now being sought or expanded in northern Australia, Thailand, Singapore, the Philippines, Kenya, Georgia, Azerbaijan, throughout Central Asia, Poland, Romania, Bulgaria, Qatar, even Vietnam, and Iraq. [Needless to say that the construction of these military bases constitute lucrative multimillion contracts for US corporations including Bechtel and Halliburton. (Edtor)]

The new republics in former Soviet Central Asia and the former Soviet satellite states in Eastern Europe are a particularly strong magnets for U.S. military presence, and a glance at the map will show that the US is systematically encircling China. Moreover, the Pentagon military missions are marginalizing the State Department diplomatic ones, with the senior military officer having more resources and greater influence than the US ambassador [Boston Globe, June 8 2003].

Even so, the Associated Press reports on February 24 that

” senior U.S. officials have been quietly dispatched in recent days to the capitals of key Security Council countries where they are warning leaders to vote with the United States on Iraq or risk “paying a heavy price.”

Although this kind of blackmail has been SOP in all American administrations, the Bush Administration has carried the threat and practice to previously unheard of new heights. As President Bush declared in his State of the Union address “Those who are not with us, are against us” – and will pay a heavy price.

“We are in the process of taking a fundamental look at our military posture worldwide, including in the United States,” said Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz on a recent visit to Singapore, where he met with military chiefs and defense ministers from throughout East Asia about U.S. plans there. “We’re facing a very different threat than any one we’ve faced historically.” But recall that this is the same Wolfowitz of Arabia talking who drew up his and PNAC’s plans to face this different threat already in his memos of 1992, 1997 and 2000.

The Law of the West

The Bush administration has also set aside centuries of International law. It wages illegal war, prohibited by numerous international treaties and by the United Nations Charter. Indeed it makes war without even declaring it, which even Hitler took the trouble to do.

The US armed forces wantonly violate Geneva conventions of crimes against humanity, genocide, weapons of mass destruction such as depleted uranium, cluster bombs, massive ‘’Daisy Cutter” bombs, destruction of civilian facilities to provide as power, water, and sanitation, and even neutral international waterways as when it deliberately blocked shipping on the Danube.

The Bush Administration (though Presidents Clinton and Bush Sr. also already earlier) have completely emasculated the United Nations instruments and procedures set up by the US and its allies after World War II to preserve the peace. Bush even had the gall to go to the UN and charge it with dereliction of duty and of its reputation by failing to give its stamp of approval for his War against Iraq – when the clear duty of the UN and especially of its Security Council is not to make war but to keep the peace.

His government and his lackey press mislead the public into believing that a Security Council resolution could legalize his war. The fact is that even with a SC resolution, his father’s War against Iraq in 1991 was in clear violation of Articles 2, 27, 41, 42, 43 and 53 of the UN Charter, among others.

The NATO states and President Clinton failed even to consult the UN before going to War against Yugoslavia. Then the present President waged War against Afghanistan without the slightest provocation from its government, without UN approval. And then it made War on Iraq in clear violation of the expressed desires of the UN membership. What this illustrates is the total abandonment of the UN as an institution and instrument for peace.

The demise of the UN as an International Body

After the US bombs a country into shambles, it then goes to the UN to ask it to pick up the pieces, or in plain English allegedly to legitimize the US military occupation of the country it had just destroyed.

But not only that, the violation of international law also constitutes ipso facto a violation of national law, because Senate ratification of an international treaty converts it into US law as well. Moreover, domestic democracy has been sacrificed to waging international war as well, as when NATO did so against Yugoslavia without even a single member country government troubling itself to ask its parliament or Congress for authorization to do so.

In a word, the US has replaced existing International law by new Law IN the West on the model of its own old Law OF the West. Then in the 19th century, vigilante lynch mobs formed ad hoc to go hang whomever they wanted; and now the US is imposing this Vigilante “Law” on the rest of the world by force. And as the vigilantes bought off or terrorized the sheriff and the judge to ‘’legitimize” themselves, so is the US, doing the same world wide in the real world, following the scripts of fictitious Spaghetti Western movies.

The Media

And what of the Fourth Estate – the Media?

They are strictly the mouthpiece of the Administration.

Note their behavior at White House, State Department, or Pentagon news conferences. All their questions are limited to technicalities about the implementation of Administration policies that are themselves accepted as cartes blanches.

Never ever has any representative of the US media posed a question that challenges the basis of the official policy in even the most timid way.

Indeed, not only what the press says or does not say reflects the policy and press- releases of the Administration. The very Media selection of what is or is not ‘’news,’’ e.g on the 6.30 pm Evening News of ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, Fox, and shame on PPS for carrying the just as bad Jim Lehrer News Hour, is a simple reflection of what the White House or the State Department have declared to be ‘’news’’ that morning.

No matter how world shaking an event, if it has not shaken the piper, it does not merit mention by the media. But whatever the White House or the State Department declares to be news IS news. And even they have been obliged to make an agonizing reappraisal , albeit still only partial, of their own, after the revelations of torture of Iraqis has cast a shadow on their previous glowing reports about bringing democracy to them.

Their pieces in the press are little better. In a survey of op-eds in the Washington POST over four months, Russell Mokhiber and Robert Weissman found twice as many columns for as against the war, and in February 2003 the count was 24 in favor and 10 against, while the POST itself brought 9 editorials of its own to support the war. And that was regarding a war that had the highest popular opposition ever.The TV and radio talk shows are even more dominated by defenders of Administration policy. No matter that the Administration cooks, blends, massages and even simply invents the news; as is finally emerging regarding the non-existent weapons of mass destruction, which were the alleged reason for waging War against Iraq.

The Home of the Brave from 1984 to 2003

George Orwell would have to regard his dire predictions of Big Brother for 1984 as a benign Alice in a charming Wonderland version of Animal Farm. The latter is to be compared to the 2003 Bush and Ashcroft reality of double-think and new-speak in which, however, some are no longer equal than others, either at home or abroad, but still WAR IS PEACE – really – the President said so.

But the capacity of the United States to rule the world is more than questionable, especially after its 2003 debacle in Iraq.

Paper Tiger – The United States and the World

The US still has the world’s largest economy, which saw boom times during much of the 1990s, and it has unrivalled military power exceeding the total of the next dozen or more military powers combined. Moreover, the present Bush administration makes use of both of them in unilateral policies to impose its will on the rest of the world, friend and foe alike, to all of which Bush threw down the gauntlet of ‘’you are either with us or against us.”

With means you do as we say, and against means you are under threat to be destroyed economically and politically, as well as militarily if we wish.

In case there be any doubt about our intentions and capabilities, Russia and Argentina are prime examples on the economic front as are Iraq through the boycott, Serbia and Afghanistan are so on the military front as well. The latter – but really both – are what President Bush father called THE NEW WORLD ORDER when he bombed Iraq in 1991. I termed it THIRD WORLD WAR in two senses, one that it takes place in THE THIRD WORLD and secondly that this war against the Third World constitutes a THIRD World War [Frank 1991].

The prosperity and welfare of the American people rests primarily on its position in the world today as Britain’s did in the nineteenth century. That observation is fundamentally different from the political and media hype about the sources of American exceptionalism that are supposedly in its genius, morality, productivity, and other characteristics that allegedly differentiate America from the rest of the world. On the contrary, America rests on two – maybe three- pillars:

1.The DOLLAR as the world currency whose monopoly privilege the US has to print at will, and

2. The PENTAGON with its unrivalled military capacities.

3. A third pillar perhaps is the government, educational and media fed IDEOLOGY that obscures these simple facts from public view. Moreover each supports the other: It costs dollars to maintain the Pentagon, its bases in 80 countries around the world, and the deployment of its military forces around the globe. Military expenditures are the prime causes of the twin American deficits, in the federal budget and in the balance of trade. Conversely, Pentagon strength helps sustain global confidence in the dollar.

The Dollar is Literally a Paper Tiger

But this same mutual reliance for strength, therefore, also constitutes two mutually related American Achilles heels.

The dollar is literally a Paper Tiger in that it is printed on paper whose value is based only on its acceptance and confidence in the same around the world.

That confidence can decline or be withdrawn altogether almost from one day to the next and cause the dollar to lose half or more of its value.

Apart from cutting American consumption and investment as well as dollar-denominated wealth, any decline in the value of the dollar would also compromise US ability to maintain and deploy its military apparatus.

Conversely, any military disaster would weaken confidence in and thereby the value of the dollar. Indeed, at the 2003 World Economic Forum in Davos, the assembled world political and business elites expressed very serious fears that the mere deployment of the US military, e.g. against Iraq, would bring on a world depression. TIME Magazine this week reports on a comprehensive study of the US airline industry, which concludes that a war against Iraq would drive half of it into immediate bankruptcy. If so, what of still weaker non-American airlines? The insecurity that comes with military saber rattling and threats undermine confidence in the dollar and put brakes on investment. And no amount of ideology is sufficient completely to obscure that economic situation.

In fact, the world already is in depression, from which so far only the United States, Canada and Western Europe are partially exempt.

And the latter is so, because of the privileged position of the American economy within the global one, from whose mis-fortune Americans have been deriving the benefits of that position, which to repeat is essentially derived from the privilege of printing the world currency with which Americans can first buy up the production of the rest of the world at depressed prices and then have the same dollars be returned from abroad to be invested in Wall Street and US Treasury certificates for safe-keeping and/or higher earnings than are available elsewhere.

In the mid 1980s James Tobin [the inventor of the Tobin tax on financial transactions] and I were to my knowledge the only ones already to published predictions of DE-flation as the coming world economic danger. Economic policy makers however ignored these warnings and this risk [not really risk, but necessary consequence] while continuing their policies designed to fight IN-flation.

Nonetheless, since then commodity prices have fallen sharply and consistently and more recently industrial prices have fallen as well. Moreover in WORLD economic terms, high inflation in terms of their national currencies [pesos, rubles, etc.] and their sharp DEVALUATION against the DOLLAR world currency has been an effective de facto major DE-flation in the rest of the world. That has reduced their prices and made their exports cheaper to those who buy their currencies with dollars, primarily of course consumers, producers and investors in – and from ! – the United States. These additionally, which is hardly ever mentioned!, can and do buy up the rest of the world with dollars that ”cost” only their printing and distribution, which for Americans have virtually no cost. [The $ 100 dollar bill is the world’s most used cash currency on which runs the entire Russian economy, and there are two to now three times as many of them circulating outside as inside the US].

The American boom and welfare and then ”balanced” federal budget 1992-2000 Clinton administration, contrary to its populist claims, only happened to coincide with this boom. The also same 8 year long prosperity of the United States was entirely built on the backs of the terrible depression, deflation and thus generated marked increase in poverty in the rest of the world. During this one decade, production declined by over half in Russia and Eastern Europe and life expectancy in Russia declined by 10 – ten – years, infant mortality, drunkenness, crime and suicide increased as never before in peacetime. Since 1997, income in Indonesia declined by half and generated its ongoing political crisis. That is dissipation of entropy generated in the US and its export abroad to those who are obliged to absorb it in ever greater DISorder. It would be difficult to find better examples – except the destruction of the entire society in Argentina, Rwanda, Congo, Sierra Leone, previously prosperous and stable Ivory Coast – not to mention the countries that have been visited by destruction through American military power

All this has among others the following consequences: in the US. it can export inflation that would otherwise be generated by this high supply of currency at home, whose low rate of inflation in the 1990s was therefore no miracle result of domestic ”appropriate” Fed monetary policy.

The US has been able to cover its twin balance of trade and budget deficits with cheap money and goods from abroad. The US trade deficit is now running at over 500 billion dollars a year and still growing. Of that, 100 billion are covered by Japanese investment of their own savings in the US that saves nothing and which the Japanese may soon have to repatriate to manage their own banking and economic crisis – especially if an American war against Iraq causes a n even temporary spike the price of oil on whose import Japan is so dependent.

Another $ 100 billion comes from Europe in the form of various kinds of investment, including direct real investment, which could dry up as the European recession continues, the Europeans become exasperated with American policy, or they have any number of other reasons to reduce their dollar reserves and put them into their own Euro currency instead.

A third 100 billion is supplied by China, which first sells the US its cheap manufactures for dollars and then accumulates those dollars as foreign exchange reserves – thus in effect giving away its poor producers’ goods to rich Americans. China does this to keep its exports flowing and its industries going, but if it decided to devote these goods to expanding its own internal market more, its people would gain in income and wealth, and the United States would be out of luck. The remaining $ 200 billion of deficit are covered by other capital flows, including debt service from the poor Latin Americans and Africans who have paid off the principal of their debts already several times over and yet keep increasing the total amount owed by rolling it over at higher rates of interest. The idea of declaring US chapter 11 or 9 type insolvency is however finally catching on.

Thus, deflation / devaluation elsewhere in the world has like a magnet attracted speculative financial capital from the rest of the world – both American owned and foreign owned – into US Treasury certificates [ stopping up the US budget deficit] and into Wall Street. That is what fed and supported its 1990s bull market, which in turn has increased, supported and spread wider a speculative and illusory in increase in wealth for American and other stock holders and through this also illusory ”wealth effect” has supported higher consumption and investment. The subsequent and present bear market decline in stock prices nonetheless is a still a profit boon for enterprises who issued and sold their stocks at bull market high and rising stock prices. For they are now buying back their OWN stocks at what for them are bargain basement low prices, which represent an enormous profit for them at the expense of small stock holders who are now selling these stocks at low and declining prices. The US ”prosperity” now rests on the knife edge also of an unstable enormous domestic corporate and consumer [credit card, mortgage and other] debt.

Moreover, the US is also vastly over-indebted to foreign owners of US Treasury certificates, Wall Street stock and other assets, which can be called in by foreign central banks who have been keeping reserves in US dollars and other foreign owners of US debt. Indeed, it is the very US policy that has contributed so much to destabilization elsewhere in the world [e.g. through the destabilization of Southeast Asia that undermined the Japanese economy and financial system even more than it would otherwise have been] that now threatens and now soon makes much more likely that especially Japanese and European holders of US debt must cash it in to shore up their own ever more unstable instable economic and financial systems. The liabilities of the US to foreigners now equal two thirds of annual US GNP – and therefore can and will never be paid off. However any hick in rolling this debt over and over, can result in foreign attempts to get out as much money as they can – resulting in a crash of the dollar.

Another major consequence is that the US – and world! – economy is now in a bind from which it most probably can NOT extricate itself by resorting to Keynesian pump priming and much less to full scale macro-economic policy and support of the US and Western/Japanese economy, as the Carter and Reagan administrations did. Military Keynesianism, disguised as Friedman/Volker Monetarism and Laffer Curve Supply-Sideism, was begun by Carter in 1977 and put into high gear in 1979, when Carter the Fed was run by Carter appointee Paul Volker, who in October 1979 switched Fed monetary policy from high money creation / low interest price thereof to attempted low money creation / high interest [ to 20 percent monetary! ] to rescue the dollar from its 1970s tumble and attract foreign capital to the poor US. At the same time, Carter began Military Keynesianism in June 1979., which was then escalated further by President Reagan In that they then succeeded..

It is highly unlikely however that analogous policies could succeed again now. The US would need to invoke the same re-flationary policy again for itself and its allies, now. but it can not do so! The Fed has already lowered the interest rate so far that it cannot go much lower and is not likely to stimulate investment by doing so. On the other hand, raising the interest rate to continue to attract funds from abroad would risk choking off all domestic investment and working capital. Brazil tried that, admittedly with extravagant monetary interest rates at 60 percent to attract foreign capital, and ruined its domestic economy.

The US may [should? must ??] now attempt a repeat performance of the 1980s to spend itself and its allies [now minus Japan but plus Russia?] out of the present and much deeper world recession and threatening globe encompassing depression. The US would then again have to resort to massive Keynesian deficit [ using September 11 as a pretext for probably military] RE-flationary spending as the locomotive to pull the rest of the world out of its economic doldrums. However, the US is already the world consumer of last resort, but it can be so with the savings, investments and cheap imports from abroad, which themselves form part of the global economic problem.

Moreover, to settle its now enormous and ever growing foreign debt, the US may chose also to resort to IN-flationary reduction of the burden to itself of that debt and its also ever growing foreign debt service. But even the latter could – in contrast to the above summarized previous period- NOT avoid generating a further SUPER trade balance particularly if market demand falls further and pressure increases abroad to export to the US demand/er of last resort. But this time, there will be NO capital inflows from abroad to rescue the US economy. On the contrary, the now downward pressure to devalue the US dollar against other currencies would spark a

capital flight from the US, both from US Government bonds and from Wall Street where significant stock price declines generate further price declines and deflation in world terms even if the US attempts domestic inflation.

The price of oil is yet another fly in the political economic ointment, whose dimension and importance is inversely proportional to the health or illness of the ointment itself. And today that is quite sick and deteriorating already. The world price of oil has always been a two edged sword whose double cutting edges can be de-sharpened with the help of successful alternative economic and price policies. On the one hand, oil producing economies and states and their interests need a minimum price floor to produce and sell their oil instead of leaving it underground and also postponing further oil productive investment while waiting for better times. The US is a high cost oil producer. A high oil price is economically and politically essential also for important states like Russia, Iran and especially Saudi Arabia, as well as US oil interests.

On the other hand, a low price of oil is good for oil importing countries, their consumers including oil consuming producers of other products, and supports state macro economic policy, eg in the US, where low oil prices are both good politics and good for the economy. These days, the high/low price line between the two seems to be around US$ 20 a barrel – at the present value price of the dollar! But nobody seems to be able to rig the price of oil at that level. The present conflict, long since no longer within OPEC, is primarily between OPEC that now sells only about 30 to 40 percent of the world supply and other producers that supply 60 percent, today especially Russia but also including the US itself as both a significant producer and a major market, although that is increasingly shifting to East Asia. Recession in both and the resultant decline in demand for oil drags its price downward. US strategy and wars against Afghanistan and Iraq. is to gain as much CONTROL of oil as it can and for now to share as little of it as it must with Russia in Central Asia, Caspian Sea and Persian Gulf regions. And that control, even if it cannot control the price of oil, is to be used as an important geo-political economic lever to manipulate against US oil import dependent allies in Europe and Japan and ultimately its strategic enemy in China.

For US Keynesian spending re-flation as well as in-flation can no longer put the floor under the price of oil needed today and tomorrow. No policy, but only recovery generated world market demand I- and/or limitations in the supply of oil -can now provide a floor to and prevent a further fall in the price of oil – and its deflationary pull on other prices. And further deflation in turn will increase the burden of the already vastly over-indebted US, Russian and East Asian, not to mention some European and Third World, economies.

Thus the political economy of oil is likely to add to further deflationary pressure. That would – indeed already does – again significantly weaken oil export dependent Russia. But this time it would also weaken US oil interests and their partners abroad, especially in Saudi Arabia and the Persian Gulf. Indeed, the low price of oil during the 1990s has already transformed the Saudi economy from erstwhile boom to a bust. That has already generated middle class unemployment and a significant decline in income that has also already generated widespread dissatisfaction and now threatens to do so even more at precisely the time when the Saudi monarchy is already facing destabilizing generational transition problems of its own. Moreover a low oil price would also make new investment unattractive and postpone both new oil production and eliminate potential profits from laying new pipelines in Central Asia.

indeed, there is an even more immediate urgent need for the US to control Iraqi oil reserves, the second largest in the region and the most under-drilled with a large capacity to increase oil production and drive down prices. But that is not all or even the heart of the matter. Many people were surprised when President Bush added Iran and North Korea to his ‘’axis of evil.” Though they may not be so surprised at American efforts to promote a coup and change of regime in Venezuela, which supplies about 15 percent of US imports. So what do these countries have in common, many people ask. Well, three of them have oil, but not North Korea. So what is its threat that puts it in Bush’s axis. Surely not geography or alliances [Iraq and Iran were mortal enemies, and North Korea does not play ball in their league.

The answer is simple and resolves not only that puzzle but what could otherwise appear as a rather confused and confusing US foreign policy:

[1.] Iraq changed the pricing of its oil from dollars to Euros in 2000.

[2] Iran threatens to do so.

[3] North Korea has changed to deal only in Euros.

[4] Venezuela has withdrawn some of its oil from dollar pricing and is instead swapping it for goods with other third world countries. Besides an old friend of mine, Venezuela’s Fernando Mires at OPEC headquarters in Vienna, proposed that all of OPEC should switch from pricing its oil in dollars to pricing it in Euros!

OPEC has recently re-examined his possibility and now Russia has as well. Nothing else, no amount of terrorism, could be more threatening to the US; for any and all of that would pull all support out from under the dollar as oil importers would no longer buy dollars but instead Euros to buy their oil. Indeed they would want also to switch their reserves out of the dollar and into the Euro. Iraq, prior to the invasion, already gained about 15 percent with its switch as the Euro rose against the dollar.

And besides, the Arab oil states who now sell their oil for paper dollars would be unlikely to continue turning around and spending them again for US military hardware. It is this horrific scenario that US occupation of Iraq is designed to prevent, with Iran next in line. Curiously, this oil-dollar-euro ‘’detail’’ is never mentioned by the US government or media. No wonder that major European states are opposed to Bush’s Iraq policy, which is supported only by the UK, which is a North Sea oil producer itself. Simple how one little piece of incidental information can make the other pieces of the entire jig-saw puzzle fall into place!

All of these present problems and developments now threaten to [will?] pull the rug out from under US domestic and international political economy and finance. The only protection still available to the United States still derives from its long since and still only two pillars of the ”NEW WORLD ORDER” established by President Bush father after ”Bush’s Gulf War” against Iraq and the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991. President Bush son is now trying to consolidate his father’s new world order [no doubt with the latter still as a power behind the throne] beginning with the WAR AGAINST AFGHANISTAN and threatening once again against Iraq, and the Bush-Putin effort now also to construct a US-Russian Entente – or is it Axis.

The dollar pillar is now threatening to crumble, as it already did after the Vietnam War but has so far remained standing through three decades of remedial patch work.

But as we have seen, the US is now running out of further economic remedies to maintain the dollar pillar upright. It’s only protection would be to generate serious inflation in the short run by printing still more US dollars to service its debt, which would then undermine its strength and crack the dollar pillar and weaken the support it affords still more.

That would leave only the US military pillar to support US political economy and society.

But it and reliance on it also entails dangers of its own. Visibly, that is the case for such countries as Iraq, Yugoslavia, and Afghanistan and of course all others who are thereby deliberately put on notice to play ball by US rules in its new world order on pain of eliciting the same fate for themselves.

But the political blackmail to participate in the new world order on US terms also extends to US – especially NATO – allies and Japan. It was so exercised in the Gulf War [other states paid US expenses so that the US made a net profit from that war], the US war against Yugoslavia in which NATO and its member states were cajoled to participate, and then by the War against Afghanistan as part of President Bush’s new policy pronouncement. He used the early Cold WAR terminology of John Foster Dulles that ”You Are Either With Us Or Against Us”] But US reliance on this, the then only remaining, strategy of military political blackmail can also lead the US to bankruptcy as the failing dollar pillar fails to support it as well; and it can come also to entail US ”OVERSTRETCH” in Paul Kennedy terms and ”BLOWBACK’ in CIA and Chalmers Johnson terms.

In summary and plain English, the US has only two assets left to rely on, both admittedly of world importance, but perhaps even so insufficient. They are the dollar and its military political assets. For the first, the economic chickens in the US Ponzi scheme pyramid of cards are now coming home to roost even in the United States itself.

The second pillar is now in use to prop up the new order the world over. Most importantly perhaps is the now proposed US/Russia entente against China instead of [or to achieve?] a US defense against a Russia/China [and India?] entente. The NATO War against Yugoslavia generated moves toward the latter, and the US War against Afghanistan promotes the former]. God/Allah forbid that any of these nor their Holy War against Islam blow us all up or provoke others to do so.

However that may be, US imperial political military blackmail may still blowback on the United States also, thus not out of strength but out of the weakness of a true Paper Tiger.

So who shows any strength? The Chinese Dragon! And THAT is now the primary pre-occupation and preparation of the Pentagon and of far sighted American strategists like Zbigniew Brzezinski who has taken up the century old Huntington – not the clash of civilizations one but a previous one! – thesis about the geo/economic political need to control the Inner- Eurasian core.

Steps to that are not only the war against and control of Afghanistan and the string of military bases there and in a half dozen former Soviet Caucasus and Central Asian republics that are now converted into US client states under the Orwellian PfP rubric of “Partnership for Peace.”

Nor is it only controlling Central Asian oil and the pipelines for its export westward to Europe and southward to the Indian Ocean and Asia, but also precluding pipelines eastward in growing competition with China and its growing thirst for oil. It also includes maintaining military presence in the Korean Peninsula and Japan including especially Okinawa, and returning to the Philippines. All under the cover of fighting ‘’terrorism’’ and countering ‘’rouge’’ states, the overall U.S. strategy is to encircle China militarily and to straight jacket it economically as far as still possible. But how far is that?.

Fiery Dragon:- China in East Asia

A financial and economic crisis erupted in East Asia in 1997 and brought evident relief to many observers in the West. As a result and misled by day-to-day press media reports and short term business and government analysis and policy, even “informed” public opinion in the West has changed again. Now the former “East Asian Miracle” is said to have been no more than a mirage, a dream for some and a nightmare for others.

The previously supposed explanations and sure-fire strategies of success are being abandoned again as quickly as they had come into fashion. We hear less about Asian values or guarantees from the magic of the market and no more security from state capitalism . So much the better I would say, since these supposed explanations and correct policies were never more than ideological shams anyway.

The historical evidence presented here shows that no one particular institutional form or political economic policy offers or accounts for success [nor failure!] in the competitive and ever changing world market. The contemporary evidence shows the same. In that respect, Deng Xiao-ping’s famous aphorism is correct.

The question is not whether cats are institutionally, let alone ideologically, black or white; the real world issue is whether or not they catch economic mice in competition with others in the world market. And that depends much less on the institutional color of the cat than it does on its opportune position in the world economy at each particular place and time. And since the obstacles and opportunities in the competitive world market change over time and in place, to succeed the economic cat, no matter what its color, must adapt to these changes or fail to catch any mice at all. Among these different institutional forms including relations among state-finance- productive and sales organizations, perhaps the most attention and positive evaluation has been devoted abroad to those of Korea and then of Japan but also of Greater China including its vast network of overseas Chinese. But the very fact that they differ, and in Taiwan, Singapore, Malaysia, Indonesia and elsewhere as well, should already forewarn us against privileging one institutional form over all others.

At best and that is already very much, the evidence is that none of these institutional forms is necessarily an impediment or insurmountable obstacle to success on the domestic, regional and world market. Most noteworthy perhaps in view of the widespread Western propaganda about its own alleged virtues is the demonstrated fact that no Western model need or should be followed by Asians in Asia or even elsewhere.

The significance of position and flexible response in the world economy is particularly important during periods of economic crisis B phase that is in Chinese of [negative] danger and [positive] opportunity. In the present economic crisis so far, the focus has been far too predominantly on its undoubtedly serious negative consequences. But the opportunities it poses have received insufficient attention, except perhaps in the United States and China, both of which are seeking to reap competitive advantages from the political economic problems and alleged meltdown of Japan, Korea, and Southeast Asia.

But the dismissal of East Asian and particularly Chinese economic strengths and prospects may be premature and certainly is based on a shortsighted neglect of the historical evidence as presented in my 1998 book ReORIENT and further pursued in my present work on the 19th century, as well as on a serious misreading of the contemporary evidence.

I believe that this latest quick dismissal of Asia is mistaken for the following reasons among others:

1] Since Asia and especially China was economically powerful in the world until relatively recently, and new scholarship now dates the decline as really beginning only in the second half of the nineteenth century, it is quite possible that it may soon be so again. Contrary to the Western mythology of the past century, Asian dominance in the world has so far been interrupted by an only relatively short period of only a century or at most a century and a half. The oft-alleged half century or more decline of China is purely mythological.

2] Chinese and other Asian economic success in the past was not based on Western ways; and much recent Asian economic success was not based on the Western model. Therefore, there is also no good reason why Japanese or other Asians need or should copy any Western or other model. Asians can manage their own ways and have no good reason to now replace them by Western ones as the alleged only way to get out of the present economic crisis. On the contrary, Asian reliance on other ways is a strength and not a weakness.

3] The fact that the present crisis visibly spread from the financial sector to the productive one does not mean that the latter is fundamentally weak. On the contrary, the present crisis of overproduction and excess capacity is evidence of the underlying strength of the productive sector, which can recover. Indeed, it was excess capacity and productivity leading to over-production for the world market that initiated the financial crisis to begin with when Asian foreign exchange earnings on commercial account were no longer able to finance its service of the speculative short run debt.

4] Not that economic recessions will or can be prevented in the future. They never have been prevented in the past even under state planning in China or the Soviet Union. More significant is that this is the first time in over a century that a world recession started not in the West and then moved eastward, but that instead it started in the East and then moved around the world from there. And that was precisely because as per # 3 East Asian and particularly Japanese, Korean and then Chinese productive and export capacity had grown so MUCH. This recession can therefore be read as evidence not so much of the temporary weakness as of the growing basic economic strength of East Asia to which the center of gravity of the world economy is now shifting back to where it had been before the Rise of the West.

5] The recession in the productive sector was short, especially in Korea., and so far absent in China. But it was also severe, especially in Indonesia. And the shock-waves from the financial sector to the productive, consumer and political ones were visibly – and to all but the totally blind, intentionally – exacerbated by the economic shock policies imposed on Asian governments by the IMF as usual following the dictates of the U.S. Treasury, which systematically represents American financial interests at the expense of popular ones elsewhere around the world. The former World Bank Vice-President, member of the US President’s Council of Economic advisers and now Nobel Prize laureate in economics, Joseph Stiglitz [2002], has given us an insider’s view of these intentional events in his GLOBALIZATION AND ITS DISCONTENTS.

That also permitted Western interests to take advantage of declines in productive and financial strength in Korea and elsewhere to buy up assets at bargain-basement fire-sale prices. Even so the underlying strength of the Korean economy was such that the foreigners were even then unable to alter the financial, productive, ownership and state structure significantly to their favor. The Korean productive and financial machine soon recovered again to forge ahead, but now with a costly lesson well learned. The lesson must have been learned elsewhere as well by comparing how relatively unscathed China and Malaysia [and as already mentioned for different reasons Korea] emerged from the financial crisis. They maintained controls over capital exports, compared to those countries that succumbed to the IMF and its lethal medicine by permitting a speculative capital outflow, which destroyed their productive apparatus and multiplied unemployment into an unbearable economic, social, and political problem, especially in Indonesia.

6] That underlying political economic strength also puts East Asia, and especially China, Japan and Korea in a much more favorable position than the rest of the Third World and even Russia and Eastern Europe to resist Western blackmail as it is now exercised by the U.S. Treasury Department through the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, the World Trade Organization, Wall Street and other instruments.

7] The very act and cost of East Asian concessions to this Western pressure during the past recession makes it politically more likely, since it is economically possible, that East Asia will take measures, including especially a new financial bloc and banking institutions, that can prevent a recurrence of the present situation in the future by escaping from the strangle-hold of Western controlled capital markets. Stiglitz observes such efforts already in his recent private discussions with Asian officials as reported in his book.

8]. Indeed, one of the present battles, first by the Japanese and now also by the Chinese, is to remodel the world financial and trade institutions that were designed by the United States to work in its favor. Thus, Japan wanted to establish an Asian monetary fund to prevent the East Asian recession from deepening as it has thanks to the International Monetary Fund based in and subservient to Washington. And China wishes to join the World Trade Organization but also seeks to have this Western dominated institution reformed to its advantage.

9] A related political economic struggle is the competition between the United States and China to displace Japan, Korea and Southeast Asia in the market by taking advantage of their bankruptcies. American capital is buying up some East Asian productive facilities at bargain basement prices, while China is waiting for them either to be squeezed out of the competitive market altogether, and if not to engage in joint operations. Indeed it had been the devaluation of the Chinese currency before 1997 that reduced the world market share of other Asian economies and helped generate the financial crisis itself. Only time will tell which strategy will be more successful, but the Chinese and perhaps also some Southeast Asians seem like the better bet over the long term. Moreover, no matter how deep the recession in Japan; it is not for that eliminated as an economic power, especially in Asia. However, there is evidence that China is trying to reconstruct the East Asian trade and tribute system at whose center it was in the eighteenth and that the ern colonial powers dismantled in the nineteenth century.

10] Equally significant is that India and to recently to a lesser extent China have remained substantially immune from the present recession, thanks in part to the inconvertibility of their remin ribao and rupee currencies and the valve in their capital markets that permits the inflow but controls the outflow of capital. The currency devaluations of China’’s competitors elsewhere in East Asia and the reduced inflow into China of Overseas Chinese and Japanese capital that is negatively affected by the recession in East Asia may oblige China to devalue again as well to remain competitive. Nonetheless and despite their serious economic problems, the Chinese and Japanese economies appear already to have and to continue to be able to become sufficiently productively and competitively strong to resist and overcome these problems. In Southeast Asia, Malaysia has successfully followed the Chinese model of opening its capital market to inflows but restricting especially speculative capital outflows from the same. Korea did not need such emergency measures, since it had received relatively little foreign capital to begin with.

11] Regarding the mainland Chinese economy, the President of the Chinese Society of World Economy, Pu Shan, observed already the in the mid 1990s:

Results of the economic reform are remarkable. Real gross national product in 1995 increased 4 times that of 1980, with an average annual growth rate close to 10% during that period. Real income peer capita more than tripled. Exports and imports of merchandize trade in 1995 increased more than 7 times that of 1980 in terms of U.S. dollars, while China’s share in world trade more than tripled And China became the largest recipient lf foreign direct investment among developing countries. It is also noteworthy that the large scale transfer of agricultural labor to industry has been accomplished amind unprecedented prosperity in the rural economy, unlike many other countries that went through the painful process of widespread bankruptcy of farmers (Pu 2004: 174].

In the decade since then, most of these trends have still continued, though the rural economy and agricultural income have lagged. In particular however, the ten percent annual growth rate has still been maintained, which means doubling in size in six years, soon to become the world’s second largest after that of the United States.

But China now also holds the greatest single share of the huge and ever growing American foreign debt, although it is doubtful that anyone will ever be able to collect on any substantial part of it.

Nor does this mean that China’s growth does not also pose immense problems, from gaping inequality between the coast and the interior or urban and rural, or its growing demand and import of raw materials and especially oil and soon of foodstuffs, and the menacing shortage of water.

Japan’s major fiscal and economic crisis of the 1990s has abated and economic performance and prospects have improved again despite the continuing debt overlag. As to India, although its growth has been lagging behind, it has recently increased and shows promise or at least possibility of further acceleration: from 1.5 percent annually during the three decades following independence to 5.5 percent over all and 3.5 percent per capita in the 1980s, and 6 and 4 percent respectively in the 1990s. For the next half decade, projections range from 5 to 7.5 percent annually. That is still less than for East Asia, but sufficient to double in a decade or so. All of these Asian medium term growth rates exceed by far those ever previously achieved anywhere in the West.

It is noteworthy that the economically most dynamic regions of East Asia today are also still or again exactly the same ones as before 1800 and which survived into the nineteenth century.

1. In the South, Lingnan centered on the Hong Kong – Guangzhou corridor,

2. Fujian, still centered on Amoy/Xiamen and focusing on the Taiwan straits and all of Southeast Asia in the South China Sea; and between them,

– 3. the Yangtze Valley, centered on Shanghai and trade with Japan that is already taking the lead away again from the southern and northern regions.

– 4. But already then there was also a fourth economic region around the North China Sea, the quadrangular trade relations among Manchuria and elsewhere in Northeast China, Siberia/Russian Far East, [northern?] Japan, and Korea, but also including Mongolia..

Although the first three above-named regions are already again undergoing tremendous economic growth [and political power?] in the absolute sense, the fourth one around Korea seems to enjoy the greatest relative boom, and within it that of Korean capital as well. It is helping to develop resources in the Russian Far East and as far west as Central Asian Khazhakstan. The Chinese population on the Russian side of the Amur River has been estimated already to exceed 5 million people as a pool of cheap labor.

Probable political change in the DRNK may well add a new source of cheap labor for this growing pool of labor in the Northeast Asian Region and for its Far East Russian also cheap base of ample metallurgical, forestry, agricultural and even petroleum resources. Korean and Japanese capital could make that a very attractive regional growth pole in itself and a highly competitive region on the world market.

All of these in turn were and still or again increasingly are important segments of world trade and of the global economy.

In that sense also the examination of the world economy and of the predominant place in it of the East Asian including the Korean economies points to the most fundamental bases of contemporary economic developments in the region and also presages important world economic ones for the foreseeable future.

The late Prof. André Gunder Frank was an outstanding political economist and historian  He passed away in April 2005. His legacy will live. 

At the time of writing he was an Associate of the Luxembourg Institute for European and International Studies, Luxembourg and Senior Fellow, World History Center, Northeastern University, Boston, Mass.

For details on André Gunder Frank`s writings, see http://rrojasdatabank.info/agfrank/index.html

  • Posted in English, NO READ MORE LINK
  • Comments Off on Coup d’Etat in Washington and “The Dollar Paper Tiger”, Fiery Dragon in Asia and the Pacific: André Gunder Frank

Um novo estudo envolvendo 23 milhões de pessoas prova que um efeito colateral da vacina COVID-19 – uma vez rotulado como “desinformação” – é real.

Assim afirmou o comediante, escritor e comentarista político Jimmy Dore no episódio de segunda-feira do “The Jimmy Dore Show”.

Dore examinou um artigo de 21 de abril no Expresso do Reino Unido, “Estudo de vacinas de 23 milhões mostra risco de ‘problemas cardíacos’ das injeções Moderna ou Pfizer”.

O artigo relatou uma investigação publicada on-line no JAMA Cardiology em 20 de abril: “Vacinação e miocardite contra SARS-CoV-2 em um estudo de coorte nórdico de 23 milhões de residentes”.

O estudo do JAMA justifica comentaristas que discutiram conexões entre problemas cardíacos e as vacinas COVID-19 meses ou até anos atrás – e que foram demitidos ou difamados, disse Dore.

O podcaster Joe Rogan, por exemplo, foi duramente criticado e acusado de espalhar “desinformação” quando discutiu pela primeira vez a conexão vacina-miocardite.

Mas, de acordo com o estudo, “tanto a primeira quanto a segunda dose de vacinas de mRNA foram associadas ao aumento do risco de miocardite e pericardite. Para indivíduos que receberam 2 doses da mesma vacina, o risco de miocardite foi maior entre homens jovens (com idades entre 16 e 24 anos) após a segunda dose.”

Especificamente, entre os homens jovens que receberam duas doses da mesma vacina, entre quatro e sete eventos de excesso de miocardite e pericardite ocorreram em 28 dias por 100.000 vacinados após a segunda dose da vacina Pfizer, e entre nove e 28 eventos de excesso de miocardite e pericardite ocorreram por 100.000 vacinados após a segunda dose da vacina Moderna.

O estudo concluiu: “O risco de miocardite neste grande estudo de coorte foi maior em homens jovens após a segunda dose da vacina SARS-CoV-2” e recomendou que “esse risco deve ser equilibrado com os benefícios da proteção contra a doença grave de COVID-19.”

A miocardite é uma inflamação do músculo cardíaco que pode levar à arritmia cardíaca e à morte. A pericardite é a inflamação do tecido ao redor do coração que pode causar dor torácica aguda e outros sintomas. The Defender apresentou histórias de pessoas que desenvolveram miocardite e pericardite após a vacinação contra o COVID-19.

Dore destacou que a Dinamarca em outubro de 2021 suspendeu a administração da vacina Moderna para menores de 18 anos, enquanto a Suécia fez o mesmo para menores de 30 anos.

Dore também lembrou os dias em que Kamala Harris e Joe Biden expressaram hesitação sobre a vacinação quando o então presidente Donald Trump a endossou.

Quando as pessoas formam uma opinião sobre as vacinas com base no clima político, não em dados, isso mostra que elas estão presas ao medo ou são falsas, disse ele.

Assista ao trecho aqui:

  • Posted in Português
  • Comments Off on Estudo de 23 milhões de pessoas mostra risco de miocardite após vacinas COVID

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

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

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

***

Selected excerpts from article published by UK The Week, May 3, 2022.

Our thanks to The Week for bringing this text to our attention.

Click here to read the full article.

***

Bill Gates has admitted that fundraising meetings held with the late-billionaire paedophile Jeffrey Epstein were a “huge mistake”. 

Discussing the role that his relationship with Epstein played in his divorce from Melinda Gates, the Microsoft billionaire told The Sunday Times that “at the time” he “didn’t realise that by having those meetings it would be seen as giving [Epstein] credibility”. 

“You’re almost saying, ‘I forgive that type of behaviour’, or something,” he added. “So clearly the way it’s seen, I made a huge mistake not understanding that.”

Speaking publicly about her separation from Gates for the first time in March, Melinda told CBS News that although “many things” contributed to her decision to end the pair’s marriage, she “did not like that he’d had meetings with Jeffrey Epstein, no”.

She also told the broadcaster that journalists should ask Bill whether he had cheated on her during the course of their marriage. Asked by The Sunday Times’ associate editor Alice Thomson whether he would answer that question, he refused, saying: “No.”

>>>

According to The Daily Beast, Melinda was present for a meeting between her husband and Epstein at the latter’s Upper East Side mansion in September of that year, and afterwards told friends that “she was furious at the relationship between the two men”.

Melinda described “how uncomfortable she was in the company of the wealthy sex offender”, the site said, and “told friends she wanted nothing to do with him”.

“I had nightmares about it afterwards. So, you know, my heart breaks for these young women, because that’s how I felt and here I’m an older woman. My god, I feel terrible for those young women. It was awful,” she said.

….

Gates has “done his best to minimise his connections” with the disgraced billionaire, The New York Times (NYT) reported, telling The Wall Street Journal in April 2021: “I didn’t have any business relationship or friendship with him.”

However, the NYT found that “beginning in 2011”, he “met with Epstein on numerous occasions”, including “at least three times at Epstein’s palatial Manhattan townhouse, and at least once staying late into the night”.

Employees of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation “also paid multiple visits to Epstein’s mansion”, the paper added, while “Epstein spoke with the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and JPMorgan Chase about a proposed multibillion-dollar charitable fund”.

The Gates’ charitable foundation has “championed the well-being of young girls”, The New York Times said. But at the point at which the meetings began, Epstein had already served jail time for soliciting prostitution from a minor and was registered as a sex offender.

One former employee told the magazine that Gates would often leave the Microsoft headquarters just hours after arriving, saying: “We all assumed that it was when he was with women. I knew there were many off-site meetings that were not on his calendar.”

Others told Vanity Fair that allegations against Gates have been “largely suppressed by Gates’s liberal use of nondisclosure agreements, ostensibly to keep more damning details under wraps”.

Sources in the room said Quick did not raise his links to the late-billionare paedophile Jeffrey Epstein. A third attendee told the paper he appeared “agitated” during the appearance, adding: “Bill Gates was pretty much a total asshole.”

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 Unlimited Hangout

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

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

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

***

Discreetly, as under the radar as a looming virus, the 68th Bilderberg meeting is currently underway in Washington, D.C. Nothing to see here. No conspiracy theories about a “secret cabal”, please. This is just a docile, “diverse group of political leaders and experts” having a chat, a laugh, and a bubbly.

Still, one cannot but notice that the choice of venue speaks more volumes than the entire – burned to the ground – Library of Alexandria. In the year heralding the explosion of a much-awaited NATO vs. Russia proxy war, discussing its myriad ramifications does suit the capital of the Empire of Lies, much more than Davos a few weeks ago, where one Henry Kissinger sent them into a frenzy by advancing the necessity of a toxic compromise named “diplomacy”.

The list of Bilderberg 2022 participants is a joy to peruse. Here are just some of the stalwarts:

  • James Baker, Consigliere extraordinaire, now a mere Director of the Office of Net Assessment at the Pentagon.
  • José Manuel Barroso, former head of the European Commission, later the recipient of a golden parachute in the form of Chairman of Goldman Sachs International.
  • Albert Bourla, the Pfizer Big Guy.
  • William Burns, CIA director.
  • Kurt Campbell, the guy who invented the Obama/Hillary “pivot to Asia”, now White House Coordinator for Indo-Pacific.
  • Mark Carney, former Bank of England, one of the designers of the Great Reset, now Vice Chair of Brookfield Asset Management.
  • Henry Kissinger, The Establishment’s Voice (or a war criminal: take your pick).
  • Charles Michel, President of the European Council.
  • Minton Beddoes, Editor-in-Chief of The Economist, which will duly  relay all major Bilderberg directives in the magazine’s upcoming cover stories.
  • David Petraeus, certified loser of endless surges and Chairman of KKR Global Institute.
  • Mark Rutte, hawkish Prime Minister of the Netherlands.
  • Jens Stoltenberg, NATO top parrot, sorry, secretary-general.
  • Jake Sullivan, Director of the National Security Council.

The ideological and geopolitical affiliations of these members of the “diverse group” need no further elaboration. It gets positively sexier when we see what they will be discussing.

Among other issues we find

  • “NATO challenges”;
  • “Indo-Pacific realignment”;
  • “continuity of government and economy” (Conspirationists: continuity in case of nuclear war?);
  • “disruption of global financial system” (already on);
  • “post-pandemic health” (Conspirationists: how to engineer the next pandemic?);
  • “trade and deglobalization”;
  • and of course, the choice wagyu beef steaks: Russia and China.

As Bilderberg follows Chatham House Rules, mere mortals won’t have a clue of what they actually “proposed” or approved, and none of the participants will be allowed to talk about it with anyone else. One of my top New York sources, with direct access to most of the Masters of the Universe, loves to quip that Davos and Bilderberg are just for the messenger boys: the guys who really run the show don’t even bother to show up, ensconced in their uber-private meetings in uber-private clubs, where the real decisions are made.

Still, anyone following in some detail the rotten state of the “rules-based international order” will have a pretty good idea about the 2022 Bilderberg chatter.

What the Chinese say

Secretary of State Little Blinken – Sullivan’s sidekick in the ongoing Crash Test Dummy administration’s Dumb and Dumber remake – has recently claimed that China “supports” Russia on Ukraine instead of remaining neutral.

What really matters here is that Little Blinken is implying that Beijing wants to destabilize Asia-Pacific – which is a notorious absurdity. Yet that’s the master narrative that must pave the way for the US to muscle up its  “Indo-Pacific” concoction. And that’s the briefing Sullivan and Kurt Campbell will be delivering to the “diverse group”.

Davos – with its new self-billed mantra, “The Great Narrative” – completely excluded Russia. Bilderberg is mostly about containment of China – which after all is the number one existential threat to the Empire of Lies and its satrapies.

Rather than wait for Bilderberg morsels dispensed by The Economist, it’s much more productive to check out what a cross-section of fact-based Chinese intelligentsia thinks about the new “collective West” racket.

Let’s start with Justin Lin Yifu, former Chief Economist of the World Bank and now Dean of the Institute of New Structural Economics at Peking University, and Sheng Songcheng, former head of the Financial Survey and Statistic Dept. a the Bank of China.

They advance that if China achieves “dynamic zero infection” on Covid-19 by the end of May (that actually happened: see the end of the Shanghai lockdown), China’s economy may grow by 5.5% in 2022.

They dismiss the imperial attempt to establish an “Asian version of NATO”: “As long as China continues to grow at a higher rate and to open up, European and ASEAN countries would not participate in the US’s decoupling trap so as to ensure their economic growth and job creation.”

Three academics from the Shanghai Institute of International Studies and Fudan University touch on the same point: the American-announced “Indo-Pacific Economic Framework”, supposed to be the economic pillar of the Indo-Pacific strategy, is nothing but a cumbersome attempt to “weaken the internal cohesion and regional autonomy of ASEAN.”

Liu Zongyi stresses that China’s position at the heart of the vastly inter-connected Asian supply chains “has been consolidated”, especially now with the onset of the largest trade deal on the planet, the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP).

Chen Wengling, Chief Economist of a think tank under the key National Development and Reform Commission, notes  the “comprehensive ideological and technological war against China” launched by the Americans.

But he’s keen to stress how they are “not ready for a hot war as the US and Chinese economies are so closely linked.” The crucial vector is that “the US has not yet made substantial progress in strengthening its supply chain focusing on four key fields including semiconductors.”

Chen worries about “China’s energy security”; “China’s silence” on US sanctions on Russia, which “may result in US retaliation”; and crucially, how “China’s plan of building the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) with Ukraine and EU countries will be affected.” What will happen in practice is BRI will be privileging economic corridors across Iran and West Asia, as well as the Maritime Silk Road, instead of the Trans-Siberian corridor across Russia.

It’s up to Yu Yongding, from the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences (CASS) and a former member of the Monetary Policy Committee of the Central Bank, to go for the jugular, noting how” the global financial system and the US dollar have been weaponized into geopolitical tools. The nefarious behavior of the US in freezing foreign exchange reserves has not only seriously damaged the international credibility of the US but has also shaken the credit foundation of the dominant international financial system in the West.

He expresses the consensus among Chinese intel, that “if there is a geopolitical conflict between the US and China, then China’s overseas assets will be seriously threatened, especially its huge reserves. Therefore, the composition of China’s external financial assets and liabilities urgently needs to be adjusted and the portion of US dollar denominated assets in its reserves portfolio should be reduced.

This chessboard sucks

A serious debate is raging across virtually all sectors of Chinese society on the American weaponization of the world financial casino. The conclusions are inevitable: get rid of US Treasuries, fast, by any means necessary; more imports of commodities and strategic materials (thus the importance of the Russia-China strategic partnership); and firmly secure overseas assets, especially those foreign currency reserves.

Meanwhile Bilderberg’s “diverse group”, on the other side of the pond, is discussing, among other things, what will really happen in case they force the IMF racket to blow up (a key plan to implement The Great Reset, or “Great Narrative”).

They are starting to literally freak out with the slowly but surely emergence of an alternative, resource-based monetary/financial system: exactly what the Eurasia Economic Union (EAEU) is currently discussing and designing, with Chinese input.

Imagine a counter-Bilderberg system where a basket of Global South actors, resource-rich but economically poor, are able to issue their own currencies backed by commodities, and finally get rid of their status of IMF hostages. They are all paying close attention to the Russia gas-for-rubles experiment.

And in China’s particular case, what will always matter is loads of productive capital underpinning a massive, extremely deep industrial and civil infrastructure.

No wonder Davos and Bilderberg messenger boys, when they look at The Grand Chessboard, are filled with dread: their era of perpetual free lunch is over. What would delight cynics, skeptics, neoplatonists and Taoists galore is that it was Davos-Bilderberg Men (and Women) who actually boxed themselves into zugzwang.

All dressed up – with nowhere to go. Even JP Morgan’s Jamie Dimon – who didn’t even bother to go to Bilderberg – is scared, saying an economic “hurricane” is coming. And overturning the chessboard is no remedy: at best that may invite a ceremonious tuxedo visit by Mr. Sarmat and Mr. Zircon carrying some hypersonic bubbly.

*

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.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Bilderberg Meets in Washington: Bilderberg Does China. An Economic Hurricane is Coming
  • Tags: ,

Day 100 of the Russia-Ukraine War

June 7th, 2022 by William Walter Kay

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

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

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

***

Historians will agonize over when the Russia-Ukrainin War actually started; but as Russia’s February 24 breach of Ukraine’s borders has been deemed by our media as Day One, let’s run with that. This makes June 4, Day 100.  

Western war reportage can be predicted a week in advance by the simple expediency of reading Russian Ministry of Defence communiques. For instance, Russian news outlets detailed the demise of Ukrainian forces in Mariupol, complete with video of thousands of troops surrendering, a week before our media begrudgingly conceded this fact. This time lag repeats regularly, lending credence to Russian claims.

Conversely, Ukraine’s Centre for Information and Psychological Operations (the source of much media malarky) has been caught inserting video game clips into its pressers, and producing disinformation howlers like the ‘Ghost of Kiev’ fighter ace fables. They stage mock battles for propaganda.

Their most persistent myth has Ukrainian forces beating back Russian attempts to overrun Kiev and Kharkiv. In reality, Russian maneuverings around those cities were ruses. These feints superbly misdirected Ukrainian military assets at the expense of shoring-up forces along the eastern front.

How do we know this?

At no time did Russia have less than 15,000 crack troops enmeshed in the brutal 3-month Battle of Mariupol. At no time did Russia have as many as 15,000 troops in Kiev’s environs – a city 8 times Mariupol’s size. The Russians never assembled adequate forces to assault Kiev.

Circa Day 40, Russian forces north of Kiev and Kharkiv u-turned back to Belarus then wheeled around to flank Ukraine’s eastern front where Russia now enjoys a 7-to-1 troop advantage. Ukraine’s legendary re-capturing of territory north of Kiev and Kharkiv consisted of shotless excursions into vacated villages and farmland. Nevertheless, this nothing-burger is relentlessly mongered as Ukraine’s pivotal triumph.

How do we know the Ukrainians are preposterously lying and that Russian accounts are closer to the truth?

By every expert opinion the Russian Air Force is a modern, massive enterprise seconded only by their American counterpart. Ukraine’s air force barely ranked before February 24. Since then, 16 of its airfields, and 186 of its combat aircraft, have been destroyed. Ukraine has been effectively fighting without an air force throughout this entire conflict.

Moreover, unlike America’s foreign entanglements this war is not taking place on the other side of the planet from Russia. Its happening next door. Russia can concentrate vastly more air power onto Ukraine than the Americans could on Iraq.

Furthermore, the Russians have eliminated 329 Ukrainian anti-aircraft systems and scores of radar stations.

Finally, while Ukraine boasts a 2,700-kilometre coastline, their navy didn’t survive Day One.

The Russians have fired thousands of sea-launched and air-launched precision missiles at defenseless Ukrainian positions. This war is a turkey shoot.

After Day 40 the war became primarily an artillery dual with the Russians enjoying a massive firepower advantage. Said advantage has been multiplied by the destruction of 1,768 Ukrainian field artillery guns and 464 Ukrainian rocket launchers. These losses represent well over half of what Ukraine brought to this war, and virtually all of what they deployed along the eastern front.

NATO reinforcements arrive too little too late; if they arrive at all. They often get blasted before they reach the front. Warehouses storing western munitions, and barracks housing foreign mercs, have proven to be sitting ducks.

Russian Defence Minister, Sergei Shoigu, describes the war as an opportunity to perfect the nexus between surveillance drones and artillery batteries. Drone operators spot Ukrainian troop concentrations. They immediately communicate these coordinates to gunnery captains who, as soon as possible, hammer those spots. In one recent 24-hour period Russian artillery barraged 1,100 locations.

Russia claims to have destroyed 3,399 armoured vehicles; 3,402 non-armoured military vehicles; 1,091 drones and 129 helicopters.

On March 25 Russia estimated Ukrainian casualties at 14,000 dead, 16,000 wounded. On April 16 they upped fatalityestimates to 23,000. This body-count now likely exceeds 40,000!

Ukrainian “blocker battalions” lurk behind Ukrainian lines to prevent flight, surrender, or any other real or imagined disobedience. One such battalion is dominated by ‘The Punisher’ – a notoriously trigger-happy masked sniper who is probably not a Ukrainian national and who probably deserves a Russian medal for having shot more Ukrainian soldiers than any Russian has.

Despite Punisher’s best efforts 5,000 Ukrainians have surrendered. Rumours of mutinies and other indicia of discontent abound at all ranks of Ukraine’s army. Zelensky’s neck is on the block.

This isn’t Vlad Putin’s War. This is Whitey Biden’s War and it’s a monstrous fiasco. America’s historic party of slavery and war, the Democrats, have woefully mis-stepped and repercussions will be historic.

*

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: U.S. allies in Ukraine, with NATO, Azov Battalion and neo-Nazi flags. Photo by russia-insider.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 InstagramTwitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

This article is a snapshot from the Mapping Project: a project created by activists and organizers in eastern Massachusetts, investigating local links between entities responsible for the colonization of Palestine, for colonialism and dispossession here where we live, and for the economy of imperialism and war.

***

“The greatest threat looming over our planet, the hegemonistic pretentions of the American Empire are placing at risk the very survival of the human species. We continue to warn you about this danger, and we appeal to the people of the United States and the world to halt this threat, which is like a sword hanging over our heads.”  Hugo Chavez

“The United States Military is arguably the largest force of ecological devastation the world has ever known.”  Xoài Pham 

“Each generation must, out of relative obscurity, discover its mission, and fulfill it or betray it.” Frantz Fanon

US imperialism is the greatest threat to life on the planet, a force of ecological devastation and disaster impacting not only human beings, but also our non-human relatives.

How can we organize to dismantle the vast and complicated network of US imperialism which includes US war and militarism, CIA intervention, US weapons/technology/surveillance corporations, political and economic support for dictatorships, military juntas, death squads and US trained global police forces favorable to US geopolitical interests, US imposed sanctions, so-called “humanitarian interventions,” genetically modified grassroots organizations, corporate media’s manipulation of spontaneous protest, and US corporate sponsorship of political repression and regime change favorable to US corporate interests?

This article deals with US imperialism since World War 2. It is critical to acknowledge that US imperialism emanates both ideologically and materially from the crime of colonialism on this continent which has killed over 100 million indigenous people and approximately 150 million African people over the past 500 years

The exact death toll of US imperialism is both staggering and impossible to know. What we do know is that since World War 2, US imperialism has killed at least 36 million people globally in:

 Japan, Korea, Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Indonesia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Yemen, the Congo, Chile, El Salvador, Guatemala, Colombia, Haiti, Puerto Rico, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Nicaragua, Chad, Libya, East Timor, Grenada, Honduras, Iran, Pakistan, Panama, the Philippines, Sudan, Greece, Yugoslavia, Bosnia, Croatia, Kosovo, Somalia, Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Paraguay, Uruguay, and Palestine (see Appendix).

This list does not include other aspects of US imperialist aggression which have had a devastating and lasting impact on communities worldwide, including torture, imprisonment, rape, and the ecological devastation wrought by the US military through atomic bombs, toxic waste and untreated sewage dumping by over 750 military bases in over 80 countries. The US Department of Defense consumes more petroleum than any institution in the world.

In the year of 2017 alone, the US military emitted 59 million metric tons of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, a carbon footprint greater than that of most nations worldwide. This list also does not include the impact of US fossil fuel consumption and US corporate fossil fuel extraction, fracking, agribusiness, mining, and mono-cropping, all of which are part and parcel of the extractive economy of US imperialism.

US military bases around the world.

US military bases around the world (figure from Al Jazeera).

Dollar Hegemony

One central mechanism of US imperialism is “dollar hegemony” which forces countries around the world to conduct international trade in US dollars. US dollars are backed by US bonds (instead of gold or industrial stocks) which means a country can only cash in one American IOU for another. When the US offers military aid to friendly nations, this aid is circulated back to US weapons corporations and returns to US banks. In addition, US dollars are also backed by US bombs: any nation that threatens to nationalize resources or go off the dollar (i.e. Iraq or Libya) is threatened with a military invasion and/or a US backed coup.

US imperialism has also been built through “soft power” organizations like:

USAID, the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), World Bank, the World Trade Organization (WTO), and the Organization of American States (OAS).

These nominally international bodies are practically unilateral in their subservience to the interests of the US state and US corporations.

In the 1950s and ‘60s, USAID (and its precursor organizations) made “development aid” to Asian, African, and South American countries conditional on those countries’ legal formalization of capitalist property relations, and reorganization of their economies around homeownership debt.

The goal was to enclose Indigenous land, and land shared through alternate economic systems, as a method of “combatting Communism with homeownership” and creating dependency and buy-in to US capitalist hegemony (Nancy Kwak, A World of Homeowners). In order to retain access to desperately needed streams of resources (e.g. IMF “loans”), Global South governments are forced to accept resource-extraction by the US, while at the same time denying their own people popularly supported policies such as land reform, economic diversification, and food sovereignty. It is also important to note that Global South nations have never received reparations or compensation for the resources that have been stolen from them – this makes the idea of “loans” by global monetary institutions even more outrageous.

The US also uses USAID and other similarly functioning international bodies to suppress and to undermine anti-imperialist struggle inside “friendly” countries. Starting in the 1960s, USAID funded police training programs across the globe under a counterinsurgency model, training foreign police as a “first line of defense against subversion and insurgency.”

These USAID-funded police training programs involved surveillance and the creation of biometric databases to map entire populations, as well as programs of mass imprisonment, torture, and assassination. After experimenting with these methods in other countries, US police departments integrated many of them into US policing, especially the policing of BIPOC communities here (see our entry on the Boston Police Department). At the same time, the US uses USAID and other soft power funding bodies to undermine revolutionary, anti-colonial, anti-imperialist, and anti-capitalist movements, by funding “safe” reformist alternatives, including a global network of AFL-CIO managed “training centers” aimed at fostering a bureaucratic union culture similar to the one in the US, which keeps labor organizing loyal to capitalism and to US global dominance. (See our entries on the AFL-CIO and the Harvard Trade Union Program.)

US imperialism intentionally fosters divisions between different peoples and nations, offering (relative) rewards to those who choose to cooperate with US dictates (e.g. Saudi Arabia, Israel, and Colombia), while brutally punishing those who do not (e.g. Lebanon, Syria, Iran, Cuba, Nicaragua, and Venezuela). In this way, US imperialism creates material conditions in which peoples and governments face a choice: 1. accommodate the interests of US Empire and allow the US to develop your nation’s land and sovereign resources in ways which enrich the West; or, 2. attempt to use your land and your sovereign resources to meet the needs of your own people and suffer the brutality of US economic and military violence.

The Harvard Kennedy School: Training Ground for US Empire and the Security State

The Mapping Project set out to map local US imperialist actors (involved in both material and ideological support for US imperialism) on the land of Massachusett, Pawtucket, Naumkeag, and other tribal nations (Boston, Cambridge, and surrounding areas) and to analyze how these institutions interacted with other oppressive local and global institutions that are driving colonization of indigenous lands here and worldwide, local displacement/ethnic cleansing (“gentrification”), policing, and zionist imperialism.

A look at just one local institution on our map, the Harvard Kennedy School of Government, demonstrates the level of ideological and material cooperation required for the machinery of US imperialism to function. (All information outlined below is taken from The Mapping Project entries and links regarding the Harvard Kennedy School of Government. Please see this link for hyperlinked source material.)

The Harvard Kennedy School of Government and its historical precursors have hosted some of the most infamous war criminals and architects of empire: Henry Kissinger, Samuel Huntington, Susan Rice (an HKS fellow), Madeleine Albright, James Baker, Hillary Clinton, Colin Powell, Condoleeza Rice, and Larry Summers. HKS also currently hosts Ricardo Hausmann, founder and director of Harvard’s Growth Lab, the academic laboratory of the US backed Venezuelan coup.

In How Harvard Rules, John Trumpbour documents the central role Harvard played in the establishment of the Cold War academic-military-industrial complex and US imperialism post-WWII (How Harvard Rules, 51). Trumpbour highlights the role of the Harvard Kennedy School under Dean Graham Allison (1977-1989), in particular, recounting that Dean Allison ran an executive education program for Pentagon officials at Harvard Kennedy (HHR 68). Harvard Kennedy School’s support for the US military and US empire continues to this day. HKS states on its website:

Harvard Kennedy School, because of its mission to train public leaders and its depth of expertise in the study of defense and international security, has always had a particularly strong relationship with the U.S. Armed Forces. This relationship is mutually beneficial. The School has provided its expertise to branches of the US military, and it has given military personnel (active and veteran) access to Harvard’s education and training.

The same webpage further notes that after the removal of ROTC (Reserve Officers Training Corps) from Harvard Kennedy School in 1969, “under the leadership of Harvard President Drew Faust, the ROTC program was reinstated in 2011, and the Kennedy School’s relationship with the military continues to grow more robust each year.”

In particular, Harvard Kennedy School’s Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs provides broad support to the US military and the objectives of US empire. The Belfer Center is co-directed by former US Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter (a war hawk who has advocated for a US invasion of North Korea and US military build ups against Russia and Iran) and former Pentagon Chief of Staff Eric Rosenbach. Programs within HKS Belfer Center include the Center’s “Intelligence Program,” which boasts that it “acquaints students and Fellows with the intelligence community and its strengths and weaknesses for policy making,” further noting, “Discussions with active and retired intelligence practitioners, scholars of intelligence history, law, and other disciplines, help students and Fellows prepare to best use the information available through intelligence agencies.” Alongside HKS Belfer’s Intelligence Program, is the Belfer Center’s “Recanati-Kaplan Foundation Fellowship.” The Belfer Center claims that, under the direction of Belfer Center co-directors Ashton Carter and Eric Rosenbach, the Recanati-Kaplan Foundation Fellowship “educates the next generation of thought leaders in national and international intelligence.”

As noted above, the Harvard Kennedy School serves as an institutional training ground for future servants of US empire and the US national security state. HKS also maintains a close relationship with the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). As reported by Inside Higher Ed in their 2017 review of Spy Schools by Daniel Golden:

[Harvard Kennedy School] currently allows the agency [the CIA] to send officers to the midcareer program at the Kennedy School of Government while continuing to act undercover, with the school’s knowledge. When the officers apply – often with fudged credentials that are part of their CIA cover – the university doesn’t know they’re CIA agents, but once they’re in, Golden writes, Harvard allows them to tell the university that they’re undercover. Their fellow students, however – often high-profile or soon-to-be-high-profile actors in the world of international diplomacy — are kept in the dark.

Kenneth Moskow is one of a long line of CIA officers who have enrolled undercover at the Kennedy School, generally with Harvard’s knowledge and approval, gaining access to up-and-comers worldwide,” Golden writes. “For four decades the CIA and Harvard have concealed this practice, which raises larger questions about academic boundaries, the integrity of class discussions and student interactions, and whether an American university has a responsibility to accommodate U.S. intelligence.”

In addition to the CIA, HKS has direct relationships with the FBI, the US Pentagon, US Department of Homeland Security, NERAC, and numerous branches of the US Armed Forces:

  • Chris Combs, a Senior Fellow with HKS’s Program on Crisis Leadership has held numerous positions within the FBI;
  • Jeffrey A. Tricoli, who serves as Section Chief of the FBI’s Cyber Division since December 2016 (prior to which he held several other positions within the FBI) was a keynote speaker at “multiple sessions” of the HKS’s Cybersecurity Executive Education program;
  • Jeff Fields, who is Fellow at both the Cyber Project and the Intelligence Project of HKS’s Belfer Center currently serves as a Supervisory Special Agent within the National Security Division of the FBI;
  • HKS hosted former FBI director James Comey for a conversation with HKS Belfer Center’s Co-Director (and former Pentagon Chief of Staff) Eric Rosenbach in 2020;
  • Government spending records show yearly tuition payments from the US Department of Homeland Security (DHS) for Homeland Security personnel attending special HKS seminars on Homeland Security under HKS’s Program on Crisis Leadership;
  • Northeast Homeland Security Regional Advisory Council meeting minutes from February 2022 list “Edward Chao: Analyst, Harvard Kennedy School,” as a NERAC “Council Member”; and
  • Harvard Kennedy School and the US Air force have created multiple fellowships aimed at recruiting US Air Force service members to pursue degrees at HKS. The Air Force’s CSAF Scholars Master Fellowship, for example, aims to “prepare mid-career, experienced professionals to return to the Air Force ready to assume significant leadership positions in an increasingly complex environment.” In 2016, Harvard Kennedy School Dean Doug Elmendorf welcomed Air Force Secretary Deborah Lee James to Harvard Kennedy School, in a speech in which Elmendorf highlighted his satisfaction that the ROTC program, including Air Force ROTC, had been reinstated at Harvard (ROTC had been removed from campus following mass faculty protests in 1969).

Harvard Kennedy School's links (graph view).

Harvard Kennedy School’s web.

The Harvard Kennedy School and the War Economy

HKS’s direct support of US imperialism does not limit itself to ideological and educational support. It is deeply enmeshed in the war economy driven by the interests of the US weapons industry.

Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, Boeing, L3 Harris, General Dynamics, and Northrup Grumman are global corporations who supply the United States government with broad scale military weaponry and war and surveillance technologies. All these companies have corporate leadership who are either alumni of the Harvard Kennedy School of Government (HKS), who are currently contributing to HKS as lecturers/professors, and/or who have held leadership positions in US federal government.

Lockheed Martin Vice President for Corporate Business Development Leo Mackay is a Harvard Kennedy School alumnus (MPP ’91), was a Fellow in the HKS Belfer Center International Security Program (1991-92) and served as the “military assistant” to then US Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Policy Ashton Carter, who would soon go on to become co-director of the Harvard Kennedy School Belfer Center. Following this stint at the US Pentagon, Mackay landed in the US weapons industry at Lockheed Martin.

Lockheed Martin Vice President Marcel Lettre is an HKS alumni and prior to joining Lockheed Martin, Lettre spent eight years in the US Department of Defense (DoD). The US DoD has dished out a whopping $540.82 billion to date in contracts with Lockheed Martin for the provision of products and services to the US Army, Navy, Air Force, and other branches of the US military.

Lockheed Martin Board of Directors member Jeh Johnson has lectured at Harvard Kennedy School and is the former Secretary of the US Department of Homeland Security, the agency responsible for carrying out the US federal government’s regime of tracking, detentions, and deportations of Black and Brown migrants. (Retired) General Joseph F. Dunford is currently a member of two Lockheed Martin Board of Director Committees and a Senior Fellow with HKS’s Belfer Center.

Dunford was a US military leader, serving as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and Commander of all US and NATO Forces in Afghanistan. Dunford also serves on the board of the Atlantic Council, itself a cutout organization of NATO and the US security state which crassly promotes the interests of US empire. Mackay, Lettre, Johnson, and Dunford’s respective career trajectories provide an emblematic illustration of the grotesque revolving door which exists between elite institutions of knowledge production like the Harvard Kennedy School, the US security state (which feeds its people into those elite institutions and vice versa), and the US weapons industry (which seeks business from the US security state).

Similar revolving door phenomena are notable among the Harvard Kennedy School and Raytheon, Boeing, and Northrup Grumman. HKS Professor Meghan O’Sullivan currently serves on the board of Massachusetts-based weapons manufacturer Raytheon.

O’Sullivan is also deeply enmeshed within America’s security state, currently sitting on the Board of Directors of the Council on Foreign Relations and has served as “special assistant” to President George W. Bush (2004-07) where she was “Deputy National Security Advisor for Iraq and Afghanistan,” helping oversee the US invasions and occupations of these nations during the so-called “War on Terror.” O’Sullivan has openly attempted to leverage her position as Harvard Kennedy School to funnel US state dollars into Raytheon: In April 2021, O’Sullivan penned an article in the Washington Post entitled “It’s Wrong to Pull Troops Out of Afghanistan. But We Can Minimize the Damage.”

As reported in the Harvard Crimson, O’Sullivan’s author bio in this article highlighted her position as a faculty member of Harvard Kennedy (with the perceived “expertise” affiliation with HKS grants) but failed to acknowledge her position on the Board of Raytheon, a company which had “a $145 million contract to train Afghan Air Force pilots and is a major supplier of weapons to the U.S. military.”

Donn Yates who works in Domestic and International Business Development at Boeing’s T-7A Redhawk Program was a National Security Fellow at the Harvard Kennedy School in 2015-16. Don Yates also spent 23 years in the U.S. Air Force. Former Northrop Grumman Director for Strategy and Global Relations John Johns is a graduate of Harvard Kennedy’s National and International Security Program. Johns also spent “seven years as the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Maintenance establishing policy for, and leading oversight of the Department’s annual $80B weapon system maintenance program and deployed twice in support of security operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.”

The largest US oil firms are also closely interlocked with these top weapons companies, which have also diversified their technological production for the security industry – providing services for pipeline and energy facility security, as well as border security.

This means that the same companies are profiting at every stage in the cycle of climate devastation: they profit from wars for extraction; from extraction; and from the militarized policing of people forced to migrate by climate disaster. Exxon Mobil (the 4th largest fossil fuel firm) contracts with General Dynamics, L3 Harris, and Lockheed Martin. Lockheed Martin, the top weapons company in the world, shares board members with Chevron, and other global fossil fuel companies. (See Global Climate Wall: How the world’s wealthiest nations prioritise borders over climate action.)

The Harvard Kennedy School and US Support for Israel

US imperialist interests in West Asia are directly tied to US support of Israel. This support is not only expressed through tax dollars but through ideological and diplomatic support for Israel and advocacy for regional normalization with Israel.

Harvard Kennedy School is home to the Wexner Foundation. Through its “Israel Fellowship,” The Wexner Foundation awards ten scholarships annually to “outstanding public sector directors and leaders from Israel,” helping these individuals to pursue a Master’s in Public Administration at the Kennedy School. Past Wexner fellows include more than 25 Israeli generals and other high-ranking military and police officials. Among them is the Israeli Defense Force’s current chief of general staff, Aviv Kochavi, who is directly responsible for the bombardment of Gaza in May 2021. Kochavi also is believed to be one of the 200 to 300 Israeli officials identified by Tel Aviv as likely to be indicted by the International Criminal Court’s probe into alleged Israeli war crimes committed in Gaza in 2014. The Wexner Foundation also paid former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak — himself accused of war crimes in connection with Israel’s 2009 Operation Cast Lead that killed over 1,400 Palestinians in Gaza — $2.3 million for two studies, one of which he did not complete.

HKS’s Belfer Center has hosted Israeli generals, politicians, and other officials to give talks at Harvard Kennedy School. Ehud Barak, mentioned above, was himself a “Belfer fellow” at HKS in 2016. The Belfer Center also hosts crassly pro-Israel events for HKS students, such as: The Abraham Accords – A conversation on the historic normalization of relations between the UAE, Bahrain and Israel,” “A Discussion with Former Mossad Director Tamir Pardo,” “The Future of Modern Warfare” (which Belfer describes as “a lunch seminar with Yair Golan, former Deputy Chief of the General Staff for the Israel Defense Forces”), and “The Future of Israel’s National Security.”

As of 2022, Harvard Kennedy School’s Belfer Center is hosting former Israel military general and war criminal Amos Yadlin as a Senior Fellow at the Belfer’s Middle East Initiative. Furthermore, HKS is allowing Yadlin to lead a weekly study group of HKS students entitled “Israeli National Security in a Shifting Middle East: Historical and Strategic Perspectives for an Uncertain Future.” Harvard University students wrote an open letter demanding HKS “sever all association with Amos Yadlin and immediately suspend his study group.” Yadlin had defended Israel’s assassination policy through which the Israeli state has extrajudicially killed hundreds of Palestinians since 2000, writing that the “the laws and ethics of conventional war did not apply” vis-á-vis Palestinians under zionist occupation.

Harvard Kennedy School also plays host to the Harvard Kennedy School Israel Caucus. The HKS Israel Caucus coordinates “heavily subsidized” trips to Israel for 50 HKS students annually. According to HKS Israel Caucus’s website, students who attend these trips “meet the leading decision makers and influencers in Israeli politics, regional security and intelligence, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, [and] the next big Tech companies.” The HKS Israel Caucus also regularly hosts events which celebrate “Israel’s culture and history.” Like the trips to Israel they coordinate, HKS Israel Caucus events consistently whitewash over the reality of Israel’s colonial war against the Palestinian people through normalizing land theft, forced displacement, and resource theft.

Harvard Kennedy School also has numerous ties to local pro-Israel organizations: the ADL, the JCRC, and CJP.

The Harvard Kennedy School’s Support for Saudi Arabia

In 2017, Harvard Kennedy School’s Belfer Center announced the launch of “The Project on Saudi and Gulf Cooperation Council Security,” which Belfer stated was “made possible through a gift from HRH Prince Turki bin Abdullah bin Abdulaziz Al Saud of Saudi Arabia.” Through this project, Harvard Kennedy School and the HKS Belfer Center have hosted numerous events at HKS which have promoted Saudi Arabia as a liberalizing and positive force for security and stability in the region, whitewashing over the realities of the Saudi-led and US-backed campaign of airstrikes and blockade against Yemen which has precipitated conditions of mass starvation and an epidemic of cholera amongst the Yemeni people.

The Belfer Center’s Project on Saudi and Gulf Cooperation Council Security further normalizes and whitewashes Saudi Arabia’s crimes through its “HKS Student Delegation to Saudi Arabia.” This delegation brings 11 Harvard Kennedy School students annually on two-week trips to Saudi Arabia, where students “exchange research, engage in cultural dialogue, and witness the changes going on in the Kingdom firsthand.” Not unlike the student trips to Israel Harvard Kennedy School’s Israel Caucus coordinates, these trips to Saudi Arabia present HKS students with a crassly propagandized impression of Saudi Arabia, shoring up support for the “Kingdom” amongst the future leaders of the U.S. security state which HKS seeks to nurture.

Finding Our Mission

The vast network outlined above between the Harvard Kennedy School, the US federal government, the US Armed Forces, and the US weapons industry constitutes only a small portion of what is known about HKS and its role in US imperialism, but it is enough.

The Mapping Project demonstrates that the Harvard Kennedy School of Government is a nexus of US imperialist planning and cooperation, with an address. The Mapping Project also links HKS to harms locally, including, but not limited to colonialism, violence against migrants, ethnic cleansing/displacement of Black and Brown Boston area residents from their communities (“gentrification”), health harm, policing, the prison-industrial complex, zionism, and surveillance. The Harvard Kennedy School’s super-oppressor status – the sheer number of separate communities feeling its global impact in their daily lives through these multiple and various mechanisms of oppression and harm – as it turns out, is its greatest weakness.

A movement that can identify super-oppressors like the Harvard Kennedy School of Government can use this information to identify strategic vulnerabilities of key hubs of power and effectively organize different communities towards common purpose. This is what the Mapping Project aims to do – to move away from traditionally siloed work towards coordination across communities and struggles in order to build strategic oppositional community power.

*

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


Appendix: The Death Toll of US Imperialism Since World War 2

A critical disclaimer: Figures relating to the death toll of US Imperialism are often grossly underestimated due to the US government’s lack of transparency and often purposeful coverup and miscounts of death tolls. In some cases, this can lead to ranges of figures that include millions of human lives – as in the figure for Indonesia below with estimates of 500,000 to 3 million people. We have tried to provide the upward ranges in these cases since we suspect the upward ranges to be more accurate if not still significantly underestimated. These figures were obtained from multiple sources including but not limited to indigenous scholar Ward Churchill’s Pacifism as Pathology as well as Countercurrents’ article Deaths in Other Nations Since WWII Due to US Interventions (please note that my use of Countercurrents’ statistics isn’t an endorsement of the site’s politics).

  • Afghanistan: at least 176,000 people
  • Bosnia: 20,000 to 30,000 people
  • Bosnia and Krajina: 250,000 people
  • Cambodia: 2-3 million people
  • Chad: 40,000 people and as many as 200,000 tortured
  • Chile: 10,000 people (the US sponsored Pinochet coup in Chile)
  • Colombia: 60,000 people
  • Congo: 10 million people (Belgian imperialism supported by US corporations and the US sponsored assassination of Patrice Lumumba)
  • Croatia: 15,000 people
  • Cuba: 1,800 people
  • Dominican Republic: at least 3,000 people
  • East Timor: 200,000 people
  • El Salvador: More than 75,000 people (U.S. support of the Salvadoran oligarchy and death squads)
  • Greece: More than 50,000 people
  • Grenada: 277 people
  • Guatemala: 140,000 to 200,000 people killed or forcefully disappeared (U.S. support of the Guatemalan junta)
  • Haiti: 100,000 people
  • Honduras: hundreds of people (CIA supported Battalion kidnapped, tortured and killed at least 316 people)
  • Indonesia: Estimates of 500,000 to 3 million people
  • Iran: 262,000 people
  • Iraq: 2.4 million people in Iraq war, 576, 000 Iraqi children by US sanctions, and over 100,000 people in Gulf War
  • Japan: 2.6-3.1 million people
  • Korea: 5 million people
  • Kosovo: 500 to 5,000
  • Laos: 50,000 people
  • Libya: at least 2500 people
  • Nicaragua: at least 30,000 people (US backed Contras’ destabilization of the Sandinista government in Nicaragua)
  • Operation Condor: at least 10,000 people (By governments of Argentina, Chile, Uruguay, Paraguay, Bolivia, Brazil, Ecuador, and Peru. US govt/CIA coordinated training on torture, technical support, and supplied military aid to the Juntas)
  • Pakistan: at least 1.5 million people
  • Palestine: estimated more than 200,000 people killed by military but this does not include death from blockade/siege/settler violence
  • Panama: between 500 and 4000 people
  • Philippines: over 100,000 people executed or disappeared
  • Puerto Rico: 4,645-8,000 people
  • Somalia: at least 2,000 people
  • Sudan: 2 million people
  • Syria: at least 350,000 people
  • Vietnam: 3 million people
  • Yemen: over 377,000 people
  • Yugoslavia: 107,000 people
  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on “US Imperialism is the Greatest Threat to Life on Our Planet”: Mapping US Imperialism
  • Tags:

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

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

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

***

In the last week, the sending of Western heavy artillery to Ukraine, with long-range missile systems, was one of the most commented topics in newspapers around the world. After the announcement by the American government that such equipment would be placed on Ukrainian territory, many experts began to fiercely criticize the measure, considering it a threat of escalation of the conflict. And, as expected by analysts and Russian authorities, weapons immediately began to be used illegally, resulting in new war crimes.

In a statement on June 6 the Russian ambassador to the UN, Vassily Nebenzia, reported that Western long-range weapons in Ukraine have been used in recent days to attack civilian targets in the Donbass.

“We have taken note of the intention of the USA and the United Kingdom to supply long-range artillery and multiple launch rocket systems [MLRS] to Ukraine. …I would like to point out that the Kiev regime has already taken this as carte blanche to… intensify the shelling of civilian targets in Donbass, where after a number of recent defeats, the Ukrainian artillery was no longer able to reach”, said the ambassador.

According to him, therefore, since the long-range weapons were sent to Ukraine, Kiev’s artillery was able to hit certain regions of the Donbass over which they no longer had firepower until some days ago (before the arrival of the new weapons). Precisely in those regions where Ukrainian forces were no longer attacking, civilian life was returning to normal, which is why schools for children were operating again. And, among the targets attacked, according to Russian reports, the main ones would have been schools, with several occurrences of bombings against buildings during working hours in those regions. At least one child died in one of the bombed schools, in addition to an uncertain number of dead and wounded among the adults who were working in the facilities during the attacks.

Despite the gravity of the situation, this was an expected risk. The biggest fear, however, is that this Ukrainian ambition for new targets will reach the sovereign territory of the Russian Federation. On some previous occasions, civilian targets in Russian space were already attacked by Ukrainian artillery, which was not responded with full force by the Russian troops involved in the operation, as the situation in Ukraine was under control and in a short time Kiev would totally lose its long-range power. But as the West supplies Kiev with new long-range weapons whenever Russia neutralizes that power, the situation is starting to demand more incisive action.

Before authorizing the shipment of long-range missile systems to Ukraine, Joe Biden stated that the equipment would under no circumstances be used against Russian territory, but at all times Moscow’s authorities and experts around the world expressed skepticism about that. Now, this distrust only tends to increase, as the Kiev’s forces have already demonstrated that they have not changed their combat perspective, maintaining the strategy of attacking civilian targets and without involvement in the Russian operation, making it predictable that soon Russian citizens will be hit as an attempt to destabilize the troops.

Repeatedly, Moscow’s authorities have stated that further Ukrainian incursions into Russian territory will result in attacks against the decision-making centers. This would be a difficult step and would mean a dangerous international escalation (since many Western advisers are currently based in Kiev), but it would be the only possible response on the part of Moscow to counter Kiev’s successive attempts to expand the conflict to Russia using Western weapons. It is a scenario that Russian forces are visibly trying to avoid, but one that grows closer every day as Kiev continues to target civilians.

Worsening the situation, the UK announced that it will join Washington in sending heavy artillery to Kiev, promising to provide long-range M270 rocket systems to the Ukrainian forces as soon as possible. According to British Defense Secretary Ben Wallace, tactics in support of Ukraine must adapt in order to improve the country’s ability to “protect” itself against the Russians. He added that he believes in the possibility of a Ukrainian victory if the West continued to supply Kiev with weapons.

It is difficult to think what a “Ukrainian victory” would be when Kiev’s targets are almost always civilian installations, generating innocent victims, including children. These weapons do not have the ability to reverse the scenario of the conflict and prevent Russian victory, but they have the power to bring about more unnecessary victims, destruction and chaos to regions where peace had already been restored. The Russian limit is very clear: weapons cannot reach the sovereign space of the Federation. If that happens, there will be a strong response against Kiev.

*

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. You can follow Lucas on Twitter.

Featured image is from InfoBrics

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Kiev’s Forces Attack Civilians in Donbass Using Long-range Artillery
  • Tags: ,

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

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

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

***

In light of a well-earned Sinn Fein victory in a system set up to prevent republicans from winning, unity is on the cards — the left in Britain must now stand up for Ireland’s right to self-determination, writes KEN LIVINGSTONE

Throughout my time in politics, there have undoubtedly been some hugely significant changes. Whilst many of these have sadly been negative for the left (most notably the rise of neoliberalism and its attack on organised labour), it’s important to acknowledge and celebrate examples of real progress — and the situation in Ireland has undoubtedly been one of those in recent years.

Britain’s history in the country is a long and bloody one going back centuries, but even in the context of the last 40 years alone you can see just how significant recent developments are.

At the height of the Thatcher government’s vicious and jingoistic offensive, myself and a group of other figures on the Labour left who used our positions in public office to call for peace and justice in Ireland were decried as “terrorist sympathisers.” The MPs and newspapers denounced us for arguing in favour of dialogue to end the conflict.

At the same time, those who made these attacks on us were rather less concerned about revelations of collusion between the British state and loyalist paramilitaries in cases such as the assassination of human rights lawyer John Finucane at his family home and the Loughisland Massacre, where six people were murdered in a bar whilst watching the Republic of Ireland play at the 1994 World Cup.

It was as recently as the mid-1990s that the ban on Irish republican voices even being broadcast in Britain was still in place — creating the farcical situation where interviews with figures such as Gerry Adams had to be dubbed with the voice of an actor.

Even things which are now treated as mainstream cultural celebrations, such as the St Patrick’s Day parade in London, faced a huge amount of resistance when my administration proposed it.

As recently as 2012, whilst running for re-election as Mayor, Boris Johnson defended his decision to scrap the annual dinner we held for London’s Irish community by dismissing it as “lefty Sinn Fein crap” — although clearly his aversion to putting on big social events didn’t last over the subsequent decade!

Yet today, following recent elections, Sinn Fein now stands as the largest party across Ireland, a pro-reunification party topping the Assembly poll in the North for the first time in a state that was designed to prevent this ever occurring.

As with most elections, there are numerous factors that can be taken into account here — the disastrous approach of the DUP undoubtedly being one of them (the DUP clearly learned nothing from the famous words of unionist leader Edward Carson: “What a fool I was. I was only a puppet, and so was Ulster, and so was Ireland, in the political game that was to get the Conservative Party into power.”)

With the various constitutional ramifications of Britain’s departure from the European Union continuing to shape much of the political landscape, more and more people are questioning how having two different states, currencies and sets of public services on an island with a population of around 7 million people can be said to make any kind of sense — including no small number in Britain itself.

And as more and more members of a generation who have grown up with most or even all of their lives spent under the Good Friday Agreement reach voting age, reactionary divide-and-rule scaremongering simply no longer holds the same sway, with many young people from a Unionist family background choosing options such as the liberal Alliance Party instead of the established right-wing parties.

There can also be no honest account of this result which doesn’t take into account the bold and strategic leadership provided by the republican movement in recent years. Sinn Fein have embraced the peace process and been prepared to engage pragmatically with those from different political traditions whilst maintaining a clear commitment to their core objectives and throwing themselves into movements for change and equality.

As with numerous other issues lately, the leadership of the Labour Party has taken a disappointing stance on Ireland.

Comments from Keir Starmer and shadow foreign secretary Lisa Nandy claiming the party would campaign on the unionist side of any future border poll are not only wrong politically, but fly in the face of longstanding party policy; even under Neil Kinnock, hardly a champion of Bennism, the 1987 manifesto stated that “we believe in a united Ireland” and New Labour at least emphasised neutrality.

They also undermine Labour’s historic links with Irish communities in Britain — with YouGov finding that a plurality of Labour voters supported reunification. Groups such as Labour for Irish Unity are quite right to oppose this shift.

Progressives in Britain should embrace the opportunities for change that the current period in Irish politics offers — first and foremost by demanding our government respects the Good Friday Agreement and supporting the basic principle of self-determination in recognising the right to hold a border poll.

*

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.

You can follow Ken at www.facebook.com/KenLivingstoneOfficial and www.twitter.com/Ken4London.

Featured image: Ken Livingstone, pictured (left) with Gerry Adams in London in 1983, promoted dialogue with Sinn Fein during the Troubles (Source: Morning Star)

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Are We About to Witness the Reunification of Ireland? Ken Kivingstone
  • Tags:

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

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

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

***

It still makes me sick to my stomach — this time the sworn testimony of CIA contract psychologist/torturer James Mitchell that Gina Haspel was watching as he and psychologist/torturer colleague John Bruce Jessen waterboarded Saudi captive Ab al-Rahim al-Nashiri in Thailand. See this.

For services performed (and obfuscated), Haspel passed muster in the Senate and was confirmed as CIA Director on May 17, 2018. It was hard for me to believe she had been nominated, harder still to believe the Senate Intelligence Committee, knowing what they knew about Haspel, would give her a pass. So I went to the Committee hearing on May 9, 2018.

Letting Haspel Off the Hook

It was very difficult to watch some of my former colleagues file into the front rows in full support of the nomination of a torturer to head the CIA. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-California), who had published a damning report on CIA torture in Dec. 2014, lost her nerve and let Haspel off the hook when she asked her if she had overseen the interrogation of al-Nashiri. Haspel: it’s classified. And, in fact, the answer was successfully kept out of the media until now, with Mitchell’s testimony.

Intelligence Committee Chair, Sen. Richard Burr (R-NC) waxed eloquent, telling Haspel:

“You are without a doubt the most qualified person the president could choose to lead the CIA and the most prepared nominee in the 70-year history of the agency. You have acted morally, ethically and legally over a distinguished 30-year career.”

See what I mean by getting sick to my stomach?

Point of Order!

I interrupted the hearing to expose the farce, reminding the senators that they knew a boatload of disqualifying facts about Haspel — including the answer to Feinstein’s question; and that, yet, they were about to approve her nomination to be director of the CIA.

Burr had me seized. Joe Lauria described what happened next. The 24 hours I had to spend in a very small cell in a dank DC jail felt right — even at the time. Feels more so in retrospect.

I have this moral thing about torture; I had thought almost everyone did! It turns out that Pete Hoekstra, chair of the House Intelligence Committee (2004-2007), had a different view. On March 2, 2006. I visited Hoekstra’s office to return the Intelligence Commendation Medallion given me at retirement for “especially meritorious service,” explaining, “I do not want to be associated, however remotely, with an agency engaged in torture.” It was no secret he fully supported the CIA methods; I did not hear back from him.

Years later, however, I welcomed the chance to elicit from Hoekstra open acknowledgement that he knew of and condoned the abuses carried out by the CIA (over which his committee was supposed to exercise oversight). On Dec. 11, 2014, I confronted the former Congressman live on CCTV’s “The Heat”, while discussing the Senate Intelligence Committee findings released two days before damning CIA torture.  It was a unique chance to hold Hoekstra publicly accountable for condoning torture, and the Michigan congressman rose to the occasion better than I could have hoped. (See minutes 8:15 to 10:41 of video below.

Not Only Intrinsic Evil; Also Ineffective

For me torture belongs in the category of intrinsic evil — always wrong — in the same category as rape and slavery. Human beings simply do not do such things to other human beings. As an Army Combat Intelligence officer, I also knew that torture does not “work”. So, four months after I gave back my commendation medallion, I felt affirmed and gratified that the head of Army Intelligence, Lt. Gen. John Kimmons, conceding past “transgressions and mistakes”, insisted:

“No good intelligence is going to come from abusive practices. I think history tells us that. I think the empirical evidence of the last five years, hard years, tells us that.”

Gen. Kimmons’s integrity and guts also made me proud again of my parent service, the U.S. Army. And get this: Kimmons chose to say this at a Pentagon press conference he himself arranged for Sept. 6, 2006, the same day on which he knew President Bush would publicly advertise the efficacy of an “alternate set of procedures” for interrogation.  These were given the euphemism “Enhanced Interrogation Techniques.” They include, under the exact same title in German (verschaerfte Vernehmung), interrogation “techniques” listed in the Gestapo Handbuch.

The NY Times story reporting that Haspel watched the waterboarding, typically of such stories, was buried on page 17 in the Saturday edition. The good news, I suppose, is that the draft got past the NYT censors and (I’m guessing here) that those censors may have shunned the usual procedure of seeking a prior nihil obstat from Headquarters in Langley. Below is a trimmed-down version of Saturday’s article, which was written by Carol Rosenberg and Julian E. Barnes:

Gina Haspel Observed Waterboarding at C.I.A. Black Site, Psychologist Testifies

The testimony emerged in pretrial hearings in the Cole bombing case at Guantánamo Bay, where the war court is wrestling with the legacy of torture after 9/11.

By Carol Rosenberg and Julian E. Barnes

WASHINGTON — During Gina Haspel’s confirmation hearing to become director of the C.I.A. in 2018, Senator Dianne Feinstein asked her if she had overseen the interrogations of a Saudi prisoner, Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, which included the use of a waterboard.

Ms. Haspel declined to answer, saying it was part of her classified career.

While there has been reporting about her oversight of a C.I.A. black site in Thailand where Mr. Nashiri was waterboarded, and where Ms. Haspel wrote or authorized memos about his torture, the precise details of her work as the chief of base, the C.I.A. officer who oversaw the prison, have been shrouded in official secrecy.

But testimony at a hearing last month in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, included a revelation about the former C.I.A. director’s long and secretive career. James E. Mitchell, a psychologist who helped develop the agency’s torture program, testified that the chief of base at the time, whom he referred to as Z9A in accordance with court rules, watched while he and a teammate subjected Mr. Nashiri to “enhanced interrogation” that included waterboarding at the black site.

Z9A is the code name used in court for Ms. Haspel.

The C.I.A. has never acknowledged Ms. Haspel’s work at the black site, and the use of the code name represented the court’s acceptance of an agency policy of not acknowledging state secrets — even those that have already been spilled. Former officials long ago revealed that she ran the black site in Thailand from October 2002 until December 2002, during the time Mr. Nashiri was being tortured, which Dr. Mitchell described in his testimony.

Guantánamo Bay is one of the few places where America is still wrestling with the legacy of torture in the aftermath of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. Torture has loomed over the pretrial phase of the death penalty cases for years and is likely to continue to do so as hearings resume over the summer.

Defense teams have been asking military judges to exclude certain evidence from the war crimes trials of accused Qaeda operatives as tainted by not just torture but also cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment. In May, that meant revisiting what happened nearly 20 years ago at the secret prison in Thailand.

Dr. Mitchell described how in late 2002 he and another C.I.A. contract psychologist, John Bruce Jessen, waterboarded Mr. Nashiri, who is accused of orchestrating the bombing of the Navy destroyer Cole in 2000. Seventeen American sailors were killed in the attack.

During three separate sessions, Dr. Mitchell held a cloth over the man’s face and adjusted it to direct the water as Dr. Jessen poured. …

The interrogation team shifted to other “coercive techniques,” including forcing the prisoner to spend time in a small confinement box. Dr. Mitchell said he had a “general memory of what was done” — the detainee, who was nude and sometimes hooded, was probably slapped and had the back of his head slammed into a burlap-covered wall — but testified that he did not have a “blow-by-blow recollection of any of that stuff.”

It was previously known that by the time Mr. Nashiri was waterboarded in late 2002, Ms. Haspel had taken over as the chief of base at the secret prison in Thailand. It has also been reported that she drafted cables relating what happened to Mr. Nashiri and what was learned during his interrogations and debriefings.

But Dr. Mitchell’s testimony went further. He testified that the chief of base observed the sessions, though she did not participate in them. [Emphasis added.] …

The judge, Col. Lanny J. Acosta Jr., agreed to allow Dr. Mitchell to testify because the C.I.A. had destroyed videotapes that defense lawyers argue showed the psychologists torturing and interrogating Mr. Nashiri and another prisoner at the black site in Thailand. Defense lawyers said that deprived them of potential evidence, including something they might have wanted to show a military jury deciding whether to impose a death penalty.

The disclosure that the C.I.A. had destroyed the tapes — most of them showing Abu Zubaydah, the first detainee taken into custody and known to be tortured by the C.I.A. after the Sept. 11 attacks — prompted the Senate Intelligence Committee to investigate the black site program.

Ms. Haspel has acknowledged her role in the destruction of those tapes as a chief of staff to the operations chief, Jose A. Rodriguez Jr. At her confirmation hearing, she said, “I would also make clear that I did not appear on the tapes.”

Observers at the site in Thailand watched waterboarding and other interrogations via a closed-circuit video feed to a separate room. … The Senate Intelligence Committee study of the C.I.A. program, only a part of which is public, said that interrogators wanted to stop using “enhanced interrogation techniques” on Mr. Nashiri because he was answering direct questions, but they were overruled by headquarters.

Mr. Nashiri would also be tortured later, after Dr. Mitchell had taken him to a different C.I.A. black site. Another interrogator revved a drill next to the naked detainee’s hooded head, apparently to try to get him to divulge Qaeda plots. At another black site in 2004, the C.I.A. infused a dietary supplement into his rectum for refusing to eat. His Navy lawyer has called the procedure rape.

At her confirmation hearing, Ms. Haspel pledged not to set up any similar interrogation programs.

***

Anybody else sick to their stomach?

*

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 author

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

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

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

***

That dwindling band of observers that continues to express concern over the catastrophe that constitutes United States foreign policy under President Joe Biden have come to realize how the Ukraine situation is being used as cover for interventions and other similar mischief in other parts of the world. Recent reporting, for example, reveals that the Biden Administration has decided “to reestablish a persistent US military presence in Somalia to enable a more effective fight against al-Shabaab” in spite of the fact that “there is absolutely no constitutional authority for President Biden to send troops into Somalia or drop bombs on Somalia.” Nor does al-Shabaab represent a threat to Americans or American interests.

To be sure, the emphasis on Ukraine has a certain cogency as it is particularly dangerous and could lead to nuclear devastation in a situation where intervention by the United States was not only unwarranted but also unresponsive to any actual national interest of threat. And escalate it will if the White House continues on its current path. Ukrainian government sources are now stating that the United States is preparing to destroy the Russian Black Sea fleet to end the blockade of Ukraine’s ports. The commander of US forces in Europe General Christopher Cavoli seems to be confirming that report when he refers to the preparation of “military options” to help export Ukrainian grain.

One might suggest that such a move could just be enough to start World War III and World War III would almost certainly turn nuclear very quickly. Some might consider that taking a deliberate step that would inevitably escalate into destruction of the entire planet as we know it just might be a foreign policy mistake on the part of the President Joe Biden Administration but I’m sure the chairborne warriors down at Foggy Bottom would disagree, pointing out that nothing would make old Vladimir Putin run and hide faster than a barrage of harpoon missiles imbibed with his breakfast tea.

And, of course, there’s more. There’s always more. The focus on Ukraine in the US and international media combined with a stream of befuddling malapropisms coming out of the White House has obscured what is going on in other corners in the world, where Washington is also flexing its biceps in full knowledge that a manageable war or two will surely help one’s favorability rating come elections in November.

And there is always Israel. The Israeli army and police have recently been shooting dead Palestinian teenagers on a nearly daily basis, and that comes on top of the killing of Palestinian-American journalist Shireen Abu Akleh a month ago. Israel’s Defense Minister Benny Gantz was in Washington two weeks ago to meet and greet and one might suspect that he just might have been in town inter alia to express some apology for his army’s assassination of Abu Akleh, but that would be to misunderstand the bilateral relationship. In reality, when Israel shouts “jump” the Biden Administration responds “how high, sir?”

Also in the Middle East and also related to Israel, the US State Department has gone into a hissy fit over the May 26th Iraqi parliament’s unanimous vote to make illegal all “normalization” ties with Israel. State was quick to react, in contrast to its torpor dealing with most issues, but it was Israel involved, not just “most issues.” A statement was issued saying “The United States is deeply disturbed by the Iraqi Parliament’s passage of legislation that criminalizes normalization of relations with Israel [while also] jeopardizing freedom of expression and promoting an environment of antisemitism…” Ah yes, the old anti-semitism canard surfaces yet again!

There is also several interesting stories relating to Syria, which continues to be a hotspot because Israel wants to maintain its ability to freely bomb targets that it describes as “terroristic” or connected to arch enemy Iran. The bombing has continued regularly since the Ukraine situation started and has hardly ever been reported in the US media. And, yet again, there is more to the story in terms of US involvement. First of all, Russia reacted to the lukewarm Israeli support for its invasion of Ukraine. An Israeli attack on targets in Syria last week was met by a S-300 missile fired by Russian army manned air defenses. Up until now, Moscow has refrained from attempting to shoot down Israeli warplanes, but the missile was clearly a warning of what might be coming if Israel persists in its attacks.

Also relating to Syria, it is ironic that the US has accused Russia of war crimes over its intervention in Ukraine while at the same time continuing its own illegal occupation of Syria. And it has its own war crimes record. Last week the Pentagon announced that it had completed its investigation into an attack in Syria on March 18, 2019 that killed some presumed ISIS guerrillas as well as four civilians while wounding fifteen others. The Pentagon press secretary John Kirby said the Defense Department had determined that that the airstrike “did not violate the laws of warfare or the rules of engagement. Neither the ground forces commander nor anyone involved in carrying out the airstrike ‘acted inappropriately or acted with malicious intent’ or ‘deliberately wanted to and sought out to kill civilians.’” In an earlier investigation concluded last December, the Pentagon said “it would not hold anyone accountable for a drone strike also in Syria in late-August that killed 10 civilians, including seven children. A review of the strike concluded it was a ‘tragic mistake’ that was the result of ‘execution errors.’”

And there are also credible reports that the United States is preparing to de facto partition Syria, to create a separate state run by its Kurdish allies in the country’s northeast that would be under Washington’s protection and would include a garrison of American troops. Such a move would, of course, be completely illegal and is in fact eerily reminiscent of the alleged “war crimes” that the US is claiming regarding Russia for its attempted partition of Ukraine. Interestingly, the planning has not been reported in the mainstream media, yet another instance of the Ukraine crisis serving as cover to drown out all background noise and provide the US with opportunities to increase its meddling in places like the Middle East on behalf of feckless allies like Israel and Saudi Arabia.

Ironically, when the United States initially intervened in Syria, it claimed to do so to fight the terrorist group Islamic State in Syria (ISIS). Subsequently, it cooperated with an al-Qaeda affiliate while close ally Israel had a similar arrangement with ISIS itself. The Kurds and both ISIS and al-Qaeda are all believed to be involved in the theft and sale of Syrian oil. Now the US, which also has been stealing the oil, is seeking something like a permanent presence to solidify its control over Syrian resources.

Interestingly, the planning by Washington to create a sub-state or autonomous region in the north east of Syria was revealed by no less than State Department number three Victoria Nuland at a recent conference held in Morocco. Nuland, who was the driving force behind regime change in Ukraine in 2014, described the Syria development as a “stabilization” activity. The new entity would include Syria’s major oil producing region, which is currently being exploited by Washington and its “allies,” as well as much of the country’s arable land.

Washington has already applied unprecedented punitive sanctions on the parts of Syria controlled by the Russians and President Bashar al-Assad, to include the so-called Caesar Syrian Civil Protection Act’s secondary sanctions that punish anyone trying to avoid the restrictions placed by Washington. Former US Ambassador to Syria James Jeffrey put it this way “And of course, we’ve ratcheted up the isolation and sanctions pressure on Assad, we’ve held the line on no reconstruction assistance, and the country’s desperate for it. You see what’s happened to the Syrian pound, you see what’s happened to the entire economy. So, it’s been a very effective strategy….” He also added “My job is to make it a quagmire for the Russians.”

To circumvent the existing sanctions, the new mini-state would therefore be granted economic viability by making it sanction free as an inducement for foreign investment and development of settlements largely inhabited by Kurds associated with the United States. A “general license” will be issued to facilitate investment and other economic activity. The US will commit $350 million to the project, which is being carried out with the cooperation of the Turkish authorities controlling their own militias along the border. By securing the north east of Syria, Washington would also be able to maintain and protect the illegal US Al-Tanf military base in the south-east of the country bordering Jordan. Al-Tanf blocks the creation of a contiguous “Resistance Axis” from Iran to Lebanon and ultimately to Palestine, thereby maintaining “Israeli security” in the region. As is all too frequently the case, Israeli interests always come first in the minds of Washington politicians.

*

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


Order Mark Taliano’s Book “Voices from Syria” directly from Global Research.

Mark Taliano combines years of research with on-the-ground observations to present an informed and well-documented analysis that refutes  the mainstream media narratives on Syria. 

Voices from Syria 

ISBN: 978-0-9737147-9-1

Author: Mark Taliano

Year: 2017

Product Type: PDF File

List Price: $6.50

Special Price: $5.00

Click to order

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Biden Rocks the Middle East. Partitioning Syria May be on the Way

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

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

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

***

The United States plans to spend billions of dollars to surround China with missiles. But a US military-sponsored study concluded its Pacific allies South Korea, Japan, the Philippines, Thailand, and Australia are unlikely to host the offensive weapons.

The United States plans to spend tens of billions of dollars to surround China with missiles. But it’s having trouble finding an Asian country willing to host the offensive weapons.

The US military commissioned a study from the RAND Corporation, a Pentagon-backed research group, to assess the feasibility of deploying intermediate-range missiles to the Pacific.

The study closely analyzed the US government’s relations with its five treaty allies in the region: Australia, Japan, the Philippines, South Korea, and Thailand.

Citing “an inability to find a willing partner,” the RAND report concluded that the chance of these nations hosting US ground-based intermediate-range missiles “is very low as long as current domestic political conditions and regional security trends hold.”

The Donald Trump administration withdrew from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty in 2019. This means Washington can now deploy ground-based missiles with ranges between 500 and 5,500 kilometers, RAND noted.

The study refers to these weapons as ground-based intermediate-range missiles, using the acronym GBIRMs.

“Finding an ally willing to host GBIRMs is more challenging than finding allies willing to host other types of U.S. military forces, such as air bases,” RAND wrote.

RAND conceded that this opposition is logical:

“There are several reasons why U.S. allies could deny access to and use of their territories, including fears that hosting such systems could intensify a regional arms race with China; the risk of the deployment being seen as provocative, sparking harsh reactions from Beijing; and fears of entrapment in a conflict between the United States and China that does not directly involve the ally.”

Given this reality, the RAND report suggested other possibilities for the US to militarily encircle and threaten China, including by deploying ground-based intermediate-range missiles instead to Guam, which is a US colony in the Pacific.

RAND concluded that the most realistic approach would be for Washington to strengthen Japan’s military to counter China.

US military to spend $27.4 billion to surround China with missiles

The major Japanese media outlet Nikkei published an article on this RAND study. It noted,

“In a six-year investment plan submitted to Congress in February last year, the U.S. military’s Indo-Pacific Command made it clear that ground-based weapons will be crucial in breaking through China’s defense systems.”

In 2021, Nikkei exclusively obtained a copy of the “Pacific Deterrence Initiative” that US Indo-Pacific Command submitted to Congress.

The strategy revealed that the US military plans on spending $27.4 billion over six years to install precision-strike missiles on the first island chain – the first chain of islands off of the coast of East Asia, which includes Japan, Taiwan, and the Philippines.

The US military proposal lamented that Beijing is challenging Washington’s hegemony in the region, writing,

“Without a valid and convincing conventional deterrent, China is emboldened to take action in the region and globally to supplant U.S. interests.”

Donald Trump’s Secretary of Defense Mark Esper, a former vice president of and lobbyist for weapons corporation Raytheon, said in 2019 that the United States sought to deploy intermediate-range missiles to the Pacific region “sooner, rather than later.”

Acknowledging that the Joe Biden administration has continued Trump’s aggressive policies against China, the RAND report emphasized,

“The strategic logic that underlies this thinking did not change with the transition of administrations in Washington.”

Secretary of State Antony Blinken gave a historic speech on May 26 making it clear that the US government is waging a policy of containment and siege against China, similar to the one that Washington pursued against the Soviet Union in the first cold war.

Country by country

The RAND report, which is titled “Ground-Based Intermediate-Range Missiles in the Indo-Pacific Assessing the Positions of U.S. Allies,” was commissioned by the US military’s Pacific Air Forces, and was written by political scientist Jeffrey W. Hornung.

It analyzes Washington’s relations with its five treaty allies in the Pacific region, and explained why they are unlikely to host US ground-based intermediate-range missiles.

RAND wrote,

“It is highly unlikely that Thailand, the Philippines, or the Republic of Korea (ROK) would agree to host U.S. GBIRMs, and there is a small likelihood that Australia or Japan would do so, although the possibility that an agreement might be struck with Tokyo is only slightly greater.”

Thailand

“Thailand would be highly unlikely to accept,” the RAND study conceded. It noted that the Thai “government shows a propensity to pursue closer ties with China.”

Philippines

“The Philippines is extremely unlikely to accept the deployment of U.S. GBIRMs,” RAND wrote, adding that the “U.S. alliance with the Philippines is in a state of flux, although it is improving.”

RAND continued:

“While the Philippine public and elites generally support the United States and the alliance, President Rodrigo Duterte has pursued policies that negatively affect ties. Specifically, Duterte has advocated closer ties with Beijing while pursuing policies that weaken core pillars of the U.S.-Philippine alliance.”

South Korea

South Korea, officially known as the Republic of Korea (ROK), “retains a close relationship with China,” RAND cautioned.

The study concluded that

“a general deterioration of U.S.-ROK relations suggest that it is highly unlikely that the ROK would consent to host U.S. GBIRMs.”

Australia

“The U.S. alliance with Australia is strong. Australia also remains economically close to China, but their bilateral ties have been fraying,” RAND wrote.

Yet “Australia’s historical reluctance to host permanent foreign bases, combined with the geographical distance of Australia from continental Asia, makes this possibility unlikely.”

Japan

The RAND report assessed that

“Japan is the regional ally that appears most likely to host U.S. GBIRMs.”

It acknowledged, however, that this possibility “remains low, heavily caveated by the challenge of accepting any increase in U.S. presence and deploying weapons that are explicitly offensive in nature.”

*

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: US Army ballistic missiles (Source: Multipolarista)

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on US Wants to Surround China with Missiles – But Can’t Find Asian Country to Host Them
  • Tags: ,

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

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

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

***

President Joe Biden has unveiled a three-part plan to fight inflation — or at least make people think he is fighting inflation. One part of the plan involves having government agencies “fix” the supply chain problems that have led to shortages of numerous products. Of course, any attempt by the government to solve the supply chain problems (which were caused by prior government interventions such as shutting down the economy for over a year) will not just fail to solve the supply shortages but will create new problems.

Deficit reduction is another part of Biden’s anti-inflation plan. However, Biden is not proposing cutting welfare or warfare spending. Instead, his deficit reduction plan consists of “tax reforms to increase revenue,” which is DC-speak for tax increases. History shows that tax increases unaccompanied by spending cuts end up increasing the deficit.

The last and most important part of Biden’s inflation plan is recognizing that the Federal Reserve “has the primary responsibility to control inflation.” President Biden has pledged to “respect the Fed’s independence,” unlike former President Trump, who Biden accused of “demeaning the Fed” by subjecting the central bank to mean Tweets.

It is hard to believe that someone who has been in DC as long as Joe Biden really thinks Donald Trump was the first President to try to influence the Fed’s conduct of monetary policy. Since the Fed’s creation, Presidents have used public and private pressure to “convince” the Fed to tailor monetary policy to advance their policy and political goals. When it comes to “demeaning” the Fed, Trump has nothing on Lyndon Johnson, who, frustrated over the Fed’s refusal to tailor monetary policy to finance the Great Society and Vietnam war, threw the Fed chairman against a wall.

By “passing the buck” on inflation, Biden no doubt hopes to deflect blame from himself and his party before the midterm elections. Unlike Biden’s previous inflation scapegoats — greedy corporations and Vladimir Putin — the Fed actually is responsible for creating and controlling inflation.

Price increases in specific sectors of the economy may be caused by a variety of factors, but economy-wide price increases are always the result of the Federal Reserve’s easy money policies. Inflation is actually the act of money-creation by the central bank. Widespread price increases are a symptom, not a cause, of inflation.

Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell remains committed to more rate increases this year. However, even if the Fed follows through on all its projected rate increases, rates will still be at historic lows. While there are those on the Fed board who want more and bigger rate increases, others worry that going too far too fast in increasing rates will cause a recession. Already many economic experts are saying America should be prepared for increase in unemployment caused by the Fed’s efforts to vanquish inflation. This “tradeoff” between high prices and high unemployment illustrates the insanity of our monetary policy.

Treasury Secretary and former Fed Chair Janet Yellen and Chairman Powell have both admitted they were wrong to publicly dismiss inflation as “transitory.” The fact that the two most recent Fed chairs made such a huge blunder (or purposely refused to admit what was clear to many people for over a year), shows the folly of relying on a secretive central bank to manage monetary policy. Instead of “respecting the Fed’s independence,” President Biden should work with Congress to audit, then end the Fed.

*

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 Moneycontrol

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

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

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

***

Canada voted last week against a set of recommendations calling on the international community to support access to healthcare for Palestinians, Canadian media reported

The vote took place during a World Health Assembly (WHA) session on May 25. The WHA is a yearly meeting of World Health Organization (WHO) member states, held annually in Geneva to determine the policies of the WHO for the following year.

Delegations attending the WHA were asked to vote on the recommendations of a report on the state of Palestinian healthcare, which documented 235 attacks against health care workers and facilities in the occupied territories in 2021 that injured over 100 health workers. The WHO has already confirmed 58 attacks on health workers and facilities since the beginning of the year, which caused at least one death and 47 injuries.

In its final recommendations, the report called on Israel to end its denial of healthcare to Palestinians in occupied territories, to allow Palestinians to travel to seek healthcare, and to refrain from targeting healthcare workers.

Canada was in a group of 14 countries – including Israel and the US – that voted “no” to the recommendations. 83 states voted in favour, and 39 abstained. At the same meeting, Canada later co-sponsored a resolution condemning Russian attacks on healthcare in Ukraine.

The theme of this year’s WHA was “Health for peace, peace for 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.

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

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

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

***

Cyprus’ main opposition party has slammed a large Israeli military exercise which took place on the island recently, warning of the consequences of dragging Cyprus into any regional conflict.

The exercise, which ended last week and is believed to be one of Israel’s biggest, simulates a ground offensive deep inside Lebanon in a potential conflict with arch-rival Hezbollah.

Iran-backed Hezbollah and Israel have fought several wars before, and Lebanon and Israel are still enemy states.

The Progressive Party of Working People, or AKEL, blasted the government for hosting the drills, calling it “a dangerous development for Cyprus.”

According to the Cyprus Mail, AKEL compared the Israeli army to the Turkish military that occupies the northern half of divided Cyprus.

“Territories and cities of our country cannot be turned into training grounds for any foreign armies,” AKEL was quoted as saying.

“On top of that, Cyprus should avoid cooperating with a foreign army with a history of occupation, colonisation, war crimes and violation of international laws, all of which remind us of the Turkish occupation in the island,” the party added.

Cyprus was chosen for the drills due to its terrain’s similarity to slightly bigger Lebanon, reported the Times of Israel.

Mediterranean neighbours Lebanon and Cyprus share close and historic ties, which has raised questions about why the latter gave Israel the green light to carry out the large exercise.

Lebanese Foreign Minister Abdalla Bou Habib met with Cypriot Ambassador to Beirut Panayiotis Kyriacou earlier this month, who denied that the drills were aimed at Lebanon, in contrast to what was being said in Israeli media.

Cyprus did not participate in the exercise.

While Lebanese media spoke of the drills, the issue did not make major headlines.

The development takes place amid rising tensions between Lebanon and Israel over the latter’s plans to begin drilling for offshore gas in disputed maritime territory. Beirut has warned Tel Aviv of provocations, considering any plans to extract gas in a disputed zone was “an act of aggression.”

Israel said it was taking measures to protect its offshore drilling from potential Hezbollah strikes.

*

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Uproar in Cyprus After Israel Carries Out Military Exercise Aimed at Lebanon
  • Tags: , ,

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

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

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

 

 

 

 

 

***

April 6 through April 8, 2022, the University of Chicago’s Institute of Politics and The Atlantic magazine cohosted a conference titled “Disinformation and the Erosion of Democracy.” The event revealed mainstream media is so beholden to Washington Democrats, they’re incapable of reporting the news

UC freshman Christopher Phillips, a writer for the University of Chicago’s paper, the Chicago Thinker, confronted CNN about several instances where the outlet pushed proven hoaxes, misinformation and disinformation

The Atlantic editor-in-chief accused student reporters who asked probing questions of waging a “disinformation campaign” at the conference

All warfare is based on deception, and we are currently at war. This is why we’re constantly being bombarded with the idea that truth tellers are lying, and that liars are telling the truth

The Biden administration’s “Ministry of Truth” has, for the time being, been put on hold, and its chief, Nina Jankowicz, has resigned

*

April 6 through April 8, 2022, the University of Chicago’s Institute of Politics and The Atlantic magazine cohosted a conference titled “Disinformation and the Erosion of Democracy.”1

The three-day event explored “the organized spread of disinformation and strategies to respond to it.” Speakers included former President Barack Obama, columnist Jonah Goldberg, Marxist history expert Anne Elizabeth Applebaum and CNN anchor Brian Stelter, just to name a few.

But, as noted by Fox News anchor Tucker Carlson (video above), what they didn’t count on was the fact that not everyone has been brainwashed into oblivion. Some college students still have mental faculties operating at full speed. During one Q & A session, UC freshman Christopher Phillips, a writer for the University of Chicago’s paper, the Chicago Thinker,2 asked the following question:

“You’ve all spoken extensively about Fox News being a purveyor of disinformation, but CNN is right up there with them. They pushed the Russian collusion hoax, they pushed the Jussie Smollett hoax, they smeared Justice Kavanagh as a rapist, and they also smeared Nick Sandman as a white supremacist.

And yes, they dismissed the Hunter Biden laptop as pure Russian disinformation. The mistakes of the mainstream media, and CNN in particular, seem to magically all go in one direction. Are we expected to believe that this is all just some sort of random coincidence, or is there something else behind it?”

CNN — An Unrepentant Chronic Offender

Stelter responded, “I think you’re describing a different channel than the one that I watch. But I understand that that is a popular right-wing narrative about CNN.” So, first, he rejected the premise of the question in the first place, and then he discredited Phillips for asking the question.

April 8, 2022, Phillips appeared on Carlson’s show to discuss what prompted him to confront these self-proclaimed experts on disinformation. He pointed out that the conference was filled with legacy media personalities who have spent their entire careers spreading disinformation, and now they’re supposed to teach us about and protect us from disinformation?

Phillips said that while he didn’t expect Stelter to “hand over the keys” to CNN and admit they’re corrupt, he was hoping he’d admit that mistakes had been made and corrections had been issued. Alas, none of that happened. There was no remorse. No apology. No retractions.

Instead, Stelter gave a rambling non-answer defense that made little sense to anyone, basically proving CNN has no intention to live up to journalistic standards and expectations. Applebaum’s response to a question about the Hunter Biden laptop was perhaps even worse (below).

All Warfare Is Based on Deception

At this point, it should be clear to everyone that we are at war, albeit undeclared, and as noted by Sun Tzu in “The Art of War,” all warfare is based on deception. This is why we’re constantly being bombarded with the idea that truth tellers are lying, and that liars are telling the truth.

We’re living in an inverted reality, where up is down and left is right. Deception is the hallmark of the day, and the reason we’re bombarded with deception is because this is an information war. Instead of firing missiles at our heads, the attackers are firing missives into our brains.

But the end goal is the same as in any other war. The attacker always attacks with the intent of gaining something, and in this case, the technocratic transhumanist cabal hell-bent on world domination is intent on us surrendering to their ambitions.

Biden Administration’s Ministry of Truth

In late April 2022, we discovered that the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) had quietly, behind the scenes, created a Disinformation Governance Board.3,4 The backlash was immediate. The Orwellian connotations were just so blatant, few were able to dismiss them.

The woman chosen to lead this Ministry of Truth was Nina Jankowicz,5 a “Russian disinformation expert” best known for tweeting out now well-recognized lies and singing made-up show tunes about disinformation and erotic Harry Potter songs6 on TikTok.

In one instance, she claimed the Hunter Biden laptop story was “a Trump campaign product,”7 even though there’s not a shred of evidence to back up that claim. In another, she brushed it off as a “fairytale,”8 even though there’s plenty of evidence confirming its authenticity.

Jankowicz has also publicly opposed the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, saying free speech is bad for “marginalized communities.” Yet in the next breath, she insisted that “protecting free speech, privacy, civil rights and civil liberties” would be “a HUGE focus” of the new disinformation board.9

How can you protect free speech and simultaneously combat it? It doesn’t make sense, but then again, it’s not intended to make sense. People are more suggestible when confused, and irreconcilable double-speak is definitely confusing.

‘Anti-Disinformation Expert’ = Propagandist

Independent journalist Glen Greenwald highlighted Jankowicz’s obvious lack of real credentials in a May 4, 2022, Substack article, noting that:10

“The concept of ‘anti-disinformation expert’ is itself completely fraudulent. This is not a real expertise but rather a concocted title bestowed on propagandists to make them appear more scholarly and apolitical than they are …

There is no conceivable circumstance in which a domestic law enforcement agency like DHS should be claiming the power to decree truth and falsity … The purpose of Homeland Security agents is to propagandize and deceive, not enlighten and inform.

The level of historical ignorance and stupidity required to believe that U.S. Security State operatives are earnestly devoted to exposing and decreeing truth is off the charts … That nobody should want the U.S. Government let alone Homeland Security arrogating unto itself the power to declare truth and falsity seems self-evident.”

Ministry of Truth Hits a Roadblock

Fortunately, the public mockery turned out to be too great to bear, so the Ministry of Truth has, for the time being, been put on hold,11 and Jankowicz has resigned. According to a DHS spokesperson:12

“The Board’s purpose has been grossly and intentionally mischaracterized: it was never about censorship or policing speech in any manner … As its executive director, Nina Jankowicz was subjected to unjustified and vile personal attacks and physical threats …”

Threats against Jankowicz aside, the Board’s purpose was hardly mischaracterized, and clearly about censorship and policing speech on behalf of the government, in clear violation of the Constitution. The very title of the board clearly informs us that it was about the governance of disinformation.

“Governance” is defined as “the act or process of governing or overseeing the control and direction of something.” Synonyms include “authority, jurisdiction, regime” and “rule.”13 So, “Disinformation Governance” clearly means the board was intended to have the jurisdiction to rule over information deemed to be false.

Jankowicz has even asserted that “trustworthy, verified people,” such as herself, should have the authority to edit other people’s tweets and social media posts!14 “Verified people can essentially start to edit Twitter the same sort of way that Wikipedia is, so they can add context to certain tweets,” she said. How is that not censorship? How is that not policing speech?

Define ‘Governance’

Properly defining words and using them correctly have never been more important, because in many respects, the very sanity of our society hinges on it. Every day, it seems, the enemy is trying to redefine or muddle the definition of words that have very clear and specific meanings, because without clear definitions, we cannot have a rational conversation, and without rational conversation, they win.

A 1981 quote widely attributed to former CIA director William Casey that seems well worth reiterating here was, “We’ll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false.”15

While some doubt Casey ever said this, Barbara Honegger, who at the time was the assistant to the chief domestic policy adviser to President Ronald Reagan, has publicly confirmed she was present when he said it. According to Honegger, Reagan asked Casey what his goal was as director of the CIA, and that was his reply.

While the CIA, in 1981, was neck deep in a plot to overthrow the government in Libya, that same year, an investigative reporter named Jack Anderson also revealed the CIA was waging a disinformation war against the American public. According to Anderson, Casey argued for the government’s “right to mislead the public by planting phony stories in the press.” But as Thomas Jefferson noted, “the people’s right to know is more important than the officials’ right to govern.”

Casey was supposedly a patriot who saw lying as a means to gain the public’s support for political, economic and military measures. One could argue that little harm was done to the American public in the process, aside from breeding ignorance about geopolitical truths. The lies we’re being fed today, however, are in some cases a threat to life, and they’re most definitely a direct threat to liberty.

Liberal Obsession With Disinformation Is Backfiring

In a May 20, 2022 Intelligencer article, Sam Adler-Bell notes:16

“According to [Washington Post’s Taylor] Lorenz and her sources … Jankowicz was taken down ‘by the very forces she dedicated her career to combating’ … In other words, the Disinformation Governance Board was undone by a ‘textbook disinformation campaign.’

This version of the story is richly ironic and tragic … [F]rom another perspective, the right’s campaign against the Disinformation Board resembled any other successful advocacy effort to halt a government initiative …

I don’t see how a fully operational Disinformation Governance Board could have prevented this outcome — except via the very means conservatives (mistakenly?) feared it would possess.

If, as Lorenz is careful to note, ‘neither the board nor Jankowicz had any power or ability to declare what is true or false, or compel Internet providers, social media platforms or public schools to take action against certain types of speech,’ then how would it have prevented right-wingers from tweeting terrible, dishonest things about Jankowicz? …

[T]he other pernicious problem with liberals’ fixation on ‘disinformation’ is that it allows them to lie to themselves. Trump’s ascendance in 2016 posed a painful psychic challenge to liberal elites.

It suggested the possibility that many millions of Americans were motivated by deep, venomous dissatisfactions with the world they had helped create, that our cultural disagreements were profound, not superficial, and that our perspectives were practically irreconcilable inversions of each other …

‘Disinformation’ was the liberal Establishment’s traumatic reaction to the psychic wound of 2016. It provided an answer that evaded the question altogether, protecting them from the agony of self-reflection …

Like other pathological reactions to trauma, the disinformation neurosis tended to re-create the conditions that produced the affliction in the first place.”

Bell goes on to discuss the University of Chicago’s Disinformation and the Erosion of Democracy conference, noting that “gathering the leading lights of liberalism to an auditorium at the University of Chicago — so that they together can decide which information is true and safe to be consumed by the rabble outside — strikes me as a hollow exercise in self-soothing, more likely to aggravate the symptoms of our legitimacy crisis (distrust and cynicism) than resolve any of its impasses.”

Indeed, Stelter’s response to Phillips’ question about CNN’s disinformation record does nothing to improve trust in the mainstream media. What’s more, I believe most people instinctively sense that there’s something really fishy about the mis- and disinformation mania. As noted by Joseph Bernstein in his September 2021 article,17 “Bad News: Selling the Story of Disinformation”:

“A quick scan of the institutions that publish most frequently and influentially about disinformation: Harvard University, the New York Times, Stanford University, MIT, NBC, the Atlantic Council, the Council on Foreign Relations, etc.

That the most prestigious liberal institutions of the pre-digital age are the most invested in fighting disinformation reveals a lot about what they stand to lose, or hope to regain … However well-intentioned these professionals are, they don’t have special access to the fabric of reality.”

I think that explains why people instinctively don’t trust those who resort to screaming about “disinformation” at every turn. Universally, people understand that no one person, and certainly no government agency, has unfettered “special access to the fabric of reality,” as Bernstein puts it.

The Privatization of Censorship

Government officials realize that while they long for total information control, censorship is a bad look. This, I believe, is why the Biden administration pulled the plug on the Ministry of Truth. It wasn’t that the Disinformation Governance Board was being mischaracterized and unjustly opposed.

It was that too many people understood that the board was about unconstitutional government-sanctioned censorship. That widespread understanding has brought bad PR on top of already record-low popularity. That doesn’t mean the censorship effort won’t continue, however. So far, they’ve been exceptionally effective at outsourcing the censorship to private companies. Taking direct ownership of it with a government-run board was simply too big a step at this time.

So, without doubt, we can expect Facebook, Twitter and the rest to continue censoring on government’s behalf, until or unless the U.S. judicial branch proves it’s not entirely corrupt and does something about it. For the time being, we may have to look to other venues for that kind of justice.

Fact Checker on the Run

According to independent journalist Paul Thacker,18 Emmanuel Vincent, president of Science Feedback, a Facebook fact checking service, has been ordered to appear in court to answer for it’s deceptive fact check claims, and is now on the run.

In one so-called “fact check,” Science Feedback slapped a misinformation label on an essay by Johns Hopkins physician-researcher Marty Makary, in which he predicted that COVID-19 herd immunity was imminent. As noted by Thacker:19

“Here’s the thing, you don’t need a Ph.D. in epidemiology to understand that when experts analyze studies and make predictions they might be wrong. Duh. Predictions are opinions, not facts.

And while there’s nothing wrong with Science Feedback posting a contrary prediction, labeling their own opinion a ‘fact’ just proves they fail at logic.

This inability to grasp the difference between opinion and fact has made Science Feedback the butt of online scorn, but what landed Vincent in a police station and sent him fleeing from justice … is colluding with Facebook and the federal government to deny people their First Amendment rights.

All while pretending to be an ‘independent fact check’ … [T]he charge alone has sent Vincent running from address to address, all over Paris.”

Vincent apparently has been served multiple times, but has refused to sign for any of the documents, claiming it’s really a company called SciVerify, a Science Feedback subsidiary, that works in partnership with Facebook, not Science Feedback itself. What is he hiding from?

In short, he’s desperately trying to “avoid public accountability before a judicial system that is not (yet) rigged by Facebook,” Thacker writes. We now know Facebook and its outsourced fact checkers are colluding behind the scenes to censor on behalf of the government,20 and that is blatantly unlawful.

The Erosion of Democracy Is Real

Getting back to where we started, with the University of Chicago disinformation conference, one of the biggest revelations from it was that the mainstream media is so beholden to Washington Democrats, they’re incapable of reporting the news.

The Atlantic editor-in-chief even accused Phillips and other student reporters who asked probing questions of waging a “disinformation campaign” at the conference!21 That’s how vulnerable they are, and how one-note their defense. They really have no defense when faced with truth, so they yell “Disinformation!” As reported by American Thinker:22

“It is important to understand that when liberals use words such as bias, partisanship, disinformation, distortions, and spin, they are exclusively directed at right-leaning media.

Prominent members of conservative media such as Sean Hannity and Tucker Carlson and the late Rush Limbaugh have adjectives such as ‘right-wing’ … prefixed to their names. They are even called propagandists. However, the likes of Rachel Maddow and Anderson Cooper are called journalists; no adjectives are applied.

Fox News will be called a right-wing news network, whereas MSNBC or CNN is merely called a news outlet. For anybody who wishes to study liberal echo chambers, the Disinformation Conference is the ideal forum.

There was not even a pretense to conceal biases … The views expressed are not similar, but identical. Their sanctimony has caused such levels of delusions that they think of themselves as the sole custodians of facts, truths, and taste …

The forum and the utterances from Stelter and Applebaum prove what conservatives have known for a long [time]: the mainstream media are the propaganda wing of the Democrat party.

There are adept wordsmiths and disinformation strategists within the Democrat leadership who provides the media with buzzwords and talking points for the day which they meticulously follow. This explains why they have identical views and use identical words …

The Disinformation Conference demonstrates that there never will be any course correction simply because the propagandists do not think they have erred in any way. This truly is an erosion of 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.

Notes

1 University of Chicago, Disinformation and the Erosion of Democracy

2 The Chicago Thinker Christopher Phillips

3 The Postmillenial April 27, 2022

4, 7 Daily Mail April 27, 2022, Updated April 28, 2022

5, 9 Newsweek April 28, 2022

6, 8 The Post Millennial April 27, 2022

10 Glen Greenwald Substack May 4, 2022

11 McMorris.house.gov May 20, 2022

12 YouTube Breaking Points May 24, 2022, 0:44 minutes

13 Merriam-Webster, Governance

14 Fit News May 11, 2022

15 History Heist, William Casey Quote

16 Intelligencer May 20, 2022

17 Harpers September 2021

18, 19 Disinformation Chronicle Substack May 24, 2022

20 Yahoo July 15, 2021

21 Mediaite April 8, 2022

22 American Thinker April 8, 2022

Featured image: Official government portrait of Nina Jankowicz, appointed to serve as Executive Director of the new “Disinformation Board” to be housed within the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (posted by Jankowicz to Twitter)

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

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

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

***

Conservation groups joined the Havasupai Tribe today to denounce the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality’s approval of a key permit for a uranium mine near Grand Canyon’s South Rim. On Friday the Tribe sent a letter to Arizona officials reasserting its opposition to the mine and calling for new hydrological studies, regular meetings and monitoring data for the Pinyon Plain Mine.

“Our identity as a people is intrinsically intertwined with the health of Havasu Creek and the environment to which it gives life. We use this water for drinking, gardening and irrigating, municipal uses, and cultural and religious uses,” the Tribe’s letter said. “If the water source becomes contaminated like we have seen in other areas of Arizona due to uranium mining, we will no longer be able to live in our homes and Supai Village will become extinct.”

The mine, owned by Energy Fuels Resources, has a history of flooding as it drains shallow groundwater aquifers that flow into South Rim springs. The mine also threatens to contaminate deep aquifers that feed Havasu Creek and other Grand Canyon springs.

“State regulators are bowing to the uranium industry while risking irretrievable harm to groundwater feeding Havasu and other Grand Canyon springs,” said Taylor McKinnon at the Center for Biological Diversity. “Charging forward amidst dangerous scientific uncertainty threatens human rights and makes the Grand Canyon state the Grand Canyon’s worst enemy. Mine remediation and closure remains the only safe option.”

In April the state issued an aquifer protection permit for the mine, located in the Red Butte traditional cultural property on the Kaibab National Forest. For years the Tribe and conservation groups have urged the state to close the mine.

“Sierra Club continues to vociferously oppose this uranium mine as we have for several decades and will work with the Havasupai Tribe and our partners to do everything possible to keep it from harming the waters of Grand Canyon and Havasu Creek,” said Sandy Bahr, director of Sierra Club’s Grand Canyon Chapter. “Pinyon Plain Mine and this permit demonstrate that our state and federal laws need to be stronger to protect our waters and critically important cultural areas from harmful uranium mining. It is why we need mining law reform, the Grand Canyon Protection Act, and stronger state water protection policies.”

The agency’s permit downplays research from the U.S. Geological Survey showing “a hydrologic connection in the area of Canyon Mine” between the Coconino aquifer, which is flooding into the mine, and the deeper Redwall-Muav aquifer, which is the source of the largest springs in the Grand Canyon and Havasu Springs on the Havasupai Tribe’s land.

It also sidesteps federal research that “contaminants, either from land-surface or subsurface sources, are likely to be transported into the deep aquifer.”

“The Pinyon Plain Mine threatens groundwater and defaces an area of profound cultural significance to the Havasupai Tribe,” said Amber Reimondo, energy director for the Grand Canyon Trust. “By approving this permit, the state is gambling, but the Grand Canyon region’s water is too precious to risk. Uranium mining should be permanently banned near the Grand Canyon.”

In 2016 mineshaft drilling pierced shallow aquifers, causing water pumped from the mine to spike from 151,000 gallons in 2015 to 1.4 million gallons in 2016. In the years since then, inflow has ranged from 8.8 million gallons in 2017 to 10.76 million gallons in 2019; most recently, the mine took on 8,261,406 gallons of groundwater in 2021. Since 2016, dissolved uranium in that water has consistently exceeded federal drinking water toxicity limits by more than 300% and arsenic levels by more than 2,800%.

“Mining uranium in the Grand Canyon watershed threatens the landscape and jeopardizes the water supply of the Havasupai people,” said Michè Lozano, Arizona program manager for the National Parks Conservation Association. “The Pinyon mine should be closed and uranium mining near the Grand Canyon permanently banned. Passing the Grand Canyon Protection Act will provide lasting protection for the sacred sites and critical waterways in this region.”

As early as 1986 some state officials warned that mining could pierce and drain shallow aquifers into the mine and contaminate the regional groundwater that feeds seeps and springs in the Grand Canyon. Other hydrologists have since echoed that warning, pointing to more recent science suggesting that uranium mines could contaminate and deplete aquifers connected to Grand Canyon springs.

“In the face of millions of gallons of groundwater now pumping out of the Pinyon Plain mineshaft each year, the state still finds ‘no evidence’ of risk to aquifers from this uranium mine, and makes a glaring oxymoron of the aquifer protection permit,” said Wild Arizona’s Executive Director Kelly Burke. “The Havasupai people and Grand Canyon deserve far greater professionalism, and stronger, more enduring protections like the Grand Canyon Protection Act, to defend the Canyon’s life-giving waters.”

*

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: A spring near Grand Canyon contaminated by nearby uranium mining. Photo   Kristen M. Caldon 2015, www.kmcaldon.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 InstagramTwitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

As the US takes one step closer to crossing a Russian red line with approval of new, more sophisticated weaponry for Ukraine, the threat of a new class of armaments in the hands of the unstable Ukraine President Zelensky raises great cause for concern.  Protecting Russian sovereignty from NATO border provocations (including the breakaway Donetsk and Lugansk People’s Republics and the Crimean peninsula which both split from Ukraine and unified with Russia in 2014)  was the prime reason for February’s special military operation (SMO) in the first place.    

The Russians have reiterated  a dire warning about how it will further protect its own sovereignty:

That is, any attack by a US provided weapon or a US weapon operated by US personnel that strikes within Russia’s border will be interpreted by the Russians as crossing The Red Line, as an attack by the US on the Russian people; thereby ensuring a swift and significant military response directly to the US homeland.

US media outlets have confirmed that numbskulls in the Biden Admin have agreed to provide Ukraine with another $700 M in order to acquire the long range  Multiple Launch Rocket System (MLRS) which has a range of 186 miles, well within the Russian land mass and its more light weight companion, High Mobility Artillery Rocket System (HIMARS) which can be fired from a mobile vehicle at land targets within a range of 50 miles.  With multiple missile pods, both long range missiles need to be operational by highly trained personnel qualified to adapt to specific operational requirements who perhaps may be stationed at the Pentagon.

In  addition the US weapons package imminently on its way to Ukraine is said to include four armed MQ-1C Grey Eagle drones, as part of an advanced ‘killer’ drone system able to deliver a payload of hellfire missiles. While the Grey Eagle may still need legislative approval, that should be a slam-dunk for the Raytheon and Lockheed Martin clientele in Congress.  While its primary purpose is surveillance, the Grey Eagle can also provide  attack, assault and reconnaissance missions at 30,000 feet and function for up to 45 hours.  The drone would also need to be operated by trained personnel which would also presumably need to be American, perhaps located at the Pentagon.

In response to Ukraine’s new military escalations, the Jerusalem Post has reported that Russia has increased its naval presence in the Black Sea with a landing force ready to perform its ‘intended tasks’ as part of the SMO with a dozen landing ships participating in the flotilla; three from the Northern Sea fleet, three from the Baltic Sea fleet and six from the Black Sea fleet.  The ships are described as “large landing vessels capable of breaching and unloading soldiers and vehicles for an amphibious assault as well as transporting war materials to ports.”   A good guess would be that the flotilla will be focused on protecting Odessa and the Crimea, both Black Sea ports, from a Ukraine invasion.

Whether the Biden Administration, he who is clearly not in charge of the Ship of State, has totally lost control of the Ukraine conflict has been obvious since the outset in February.  Even as the conflict in Ukraine has never favored the Kiev government, compromised media sources have exaggerated and outright lied about the Ukraine Army trouncing the Russians creating the false narrative of a formidable Ukraine resistance while portraying Russia as fleeing from one defeat to another.

Now, after more than three months of conflict, the chickens are coming home to roost as the truth is undeniable.   It is the dire military circumstances that require The West to bring up new guns in the hopes of staunching the flow of Ukrainian blood and halting the Russian advance.   Even Zelensky has now agreed that Russia has ownership of 20% of Ukraine – the key 20% that Putin originally identified as needing to be ‘demilitarization’ and ‘denazification’ in addition to Zelensky’s admission of outside ‘pressure to seek a “peaceful resolution.”

Nevertheless,  the conflict continues.

In response, while the Biden Administration has ‘received assurances’ from Ukraine that the long term missiles will not be used to wage war against Russia’s territory; but then …

On June 1st, when the White House announced that it would be sending to Ukraine weapons that might be used for invading Russia, Jonathan Finer, deputy White House national security adviser, said Washington had asked Ukraine for assurances the missiles would not strike inside Russia. On June 3rd, Ukraine’s Government rejected that request.  

However, Ukrainian Presidential Adviser Alexey Arestovich claimed that “Crimea is ours. It belongs to Ukraine. And they [Russia] know it.”   Ukraine politician Egor Chernev, a Ukrainian MP, said on Wednesday that Russian aircraft and military stationed on Russia’s territory are legitimate targets” and in a frightening lack of conscience suggested “We have taken on certain obligations, but no one can guarantee where the missile will strike.”

Former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev explained the details of Russia’s proposed response:

 ‘If any weapon supplied by western nations hit Russian soil, we will hit the decision making center that sent the weapons.”  Russia will strike if these types of weapons are used against Russian territories, the armed forces of our country will have no choice but to act to defeat decision making centers. Everyone understands what kinds of center these are; they are not located on the territory of Kyiv.   This is certainly a threat that will need to be taken into account.” Medvedev went on to explain that “The Americans stipulate this by saying that these systems will only be used on the territory of Ukraine; but for obvious reasons they do not fully control these decisions, which are applied and adopted by the Ukrainian authorities.  Therefore, this is a threat of course that we must respond.”

And finally

“These are not forecasts.  This is what is already happening.  We can assume that the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse are on their way already.  All our hope is in Almighty God.”

*

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

Renee Parsons served on the ACLU’s Florida State Board of Directors and as president of the ACLU Treasure Coast Chapter. She has been an elected public official in Colorado, staff in the Office of the Colorado State Public Defender, an environmental lobbyist for Friends of the Earth and a staff member of the US House of Representatives in Washington DC. She can be found at [email protected]

She is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from Zero Hedge

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Biden’s Apocalyptic Attack Dares Russia to Respond