Global Research

First published on November 14, 2017.

In Commemoration: The 73d anniversary of the assassination of Mahatma Gandhi  on January 30th, 1948

***

The Gandhian strategy is the combination of truth, sacrifice, nonviolence, selfless service and cooperation. According to Gandhi one should be brave and not a coward and should present his views, suggestions and thoughts without being violent. One should fight a war with the weapons of truth and nonviolence. Gandhi said that “There is no god higher than truth.” According to his thoughts, nonviolence is ultimate solution of every kind of problem in the world.

In present scenario, Satyagraha is more than a political tool of resistance. It is a holistic approach towards life, based on the ideals of truth and moral courage. The similarities of the Satyagraha to some of the greatest philosophical and religious tenets of the world have been observed and much written about. Gandhi’s system of Satyagraha was based on nonviolence, non cooperation, truth and honesty. Gandhi used nonviolence in India’s freedom struggle as main weapon and India became independent from British rule.

In present times, there are some live examples which show the success of nonviolence resistance by using Gandhian strategy. Mahatma Gandhi was against any form of exploitation and injustice. According to him, evils must be opposed at any cost. But he insisted that the weapons must be non violent and moral ones. The adoption of peaceful method made one superior and put the enemy at a disadvantage but the condition is the opponent must be dealt with mutual respect and love. Gandhi believed that only through love an enemy could be permanently won.

Introduction

Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi was ‘a man of millennium’ who imparts the lesson of truth, Nonviolence and peace. The philosophy and ideology is relevant still today. The philosophy of Gandhi was based on truth, sacrifice, nonviolence selfless service and cooperation. In modern times, nonviolent methods of action have been a powerful tool for social protest. According to Gandhi one should be brave and not a coward. He should present his views, suggestions and thoughts without being violent. One should fight a war with the weapons of truth and nonviolence. Gandhi said that “There is no god higher than truth.” According to Gandhi’s thoughts nonviolence is ultimate solution of every kind of problem in the world. Gandhi was single person who fought against the British with the weapons of truth and Nonviolence by persuading countrymen to walk on the path of nonviolence. Gandhi leading a decades-long nonviolent struggle against British rule in India, which eventually helped India, wins its independence in 1947. By the efforts of Gandhi India became independent. Gandhi initiated nonviolence activities like Quit India movement and non-operation movement. Gandhi could never have done what he did alone – but with his ability to identify a seed here, a seed there and nurture it, he was able to create a forest of human change. He understood that it was not enough to be a leader, but to create leaders.

In quite simple and clear words, Gandhism consists of the ideas, which Mahatma Gandhi put forth before human world. Along with that, to the maximum possible extent, Mahatma Gandhi treated his individual life in accordance with these ideas. Clearly, Gandhism is a mixture of Gandhi’s concepts and practices. I do not hold merely his theory to be Gandhism. The basic ground ship of Gandhism happens to be nonviolence. The nonviolence is the most ancient eternal value. This nonviolence is the ground of ancient-most civilization and culture of India. Mahatma Gandhi said on this very account while making his concepts and practices based on nonviolence: “I have nothing new to teach you… Truth and nonviolence are as old as hill.” As we know, nonviolence and truth are two sides of the same coin. After knowing Gandhism, it is imperative for us to know clearly the concept of nonviolence also as it accords the ground for Gandhism. Gandhi’s importance in the political world scenario is twofold. First, he retrieved nonviolence as a powerful political tool and secondly manifestation of a higher spiritual goal, culmination in world peace. For Gandhi, means were as important as the end and there could be only one means – that of nonviolence.

As a situation opposite to violence is nonviolence, we can firmly state, “Total nonviolence consists in not hurting some other one’s intellect, speech or action per own thought, utterance or deeds and not to deprive some one of his life.” Mahatma Gandhi fully agrees with above-mentioned derivation of nonviolence. He himself has said, “Nonviolence is not a concrete thing as it has generally been enunciated. Undoubtedly, it is a part of nonviolence to abstain from hurting some living being, but it is only an iota pertaining to its identity. The principle of nonviolence is shattered by every evil thought, false utterance, hate or wishing something bad unto someone. It is also shattered per possession of necessary worldly things.” In this chain Mahatma Gandhi clarified in an edition of Young India: “…To hurt someone, to think of some evil unto someone or to snatch one’s life under anger or selfishness, is violence. In contrast, purest nonviolence involves a tendency and presuming towards spiritual or physical benefit unto every one without selfishness and with pure thought after cool and clear deliberations… The ultimate yardstick of violence or nonviolence is the spirit behind the action.” There are many examples of their use like resistance, non-violent resistance, and civil revolution. Mahatma Gandhi had to struggle in his whole life, but he never disappointed, he continued his innate faith in nonviolence and his belief in the methods of Satyagraha. The significance of Satyagraha was soon accepted worldwide. Martin Luther King adopted the methods of Satyagraha in his fight against the racial discrimination of the American authorities in 1950. Gandhism is very much contextual today on this accord. It is significant. We should grasp importance of Gandhism while analyzing it.

Presently a big portion of the world happens to be under Democratic system of Government. Theoretically, this system stands out to be the best up to now. This is a truth. It is the best because people are connected with it directly or indirectly at every level. Not only this, it is this very system, which provides maximum opportunities of public progress and development. People can themselves decide in this system the mode of their welfare. However, even though being theoretically the best system of government, if we peruse the democratic nations, we first of all find that there is non-equal development of the citizens. We subsequently find that these nations are more or less victimized by regionalism. They have problem relating to language. They are under clutches of terrorism and communalism. There is also the problem of negation of human rights in these nations. There are other vivid problems akin to mention above and peace is far away so long as these problems exist. All citizens must have equal development and they should have communal harmony towards making all citizens collective and unified partners in progress. But, in reality, it is not so. It is essential that the nations of democratic system of government should be free from above-mentioned problems, must be capable of ensuring equal development of their all citizens and the citizens concerned must march forward on path of progress in unified way along with rendering contribution to world peace.

Gandhi demonstrated to a world, weary with wars and continuing destruction that adherence to Truth and Nonviolence is not meant for individuals alone but can be applied in global affairs too. Gandhi’s vision for the country and his dreams for the community as a whole still hold good for India. He got the community to absorb and reflect true values of humanity and to participate in tasks that would promote the greater good. These issues are still relevant to what free India is and represents. The main cause of worry today is intolerance and hatred leading to violence and it is here the values of Gandhi need to be adhered to with more passion.

Gandhi and Nelson Mandela

Gandhian Strategy

Gandhian strategy is mainly comprised with:

1. Satyagraha
2. Truth and honesty
3. Nonviolence
4. Cooperation
5. Peace and love

Satyagraha -A holistic approach towards life, based on the ideals of truth and moral courage.

“Satyagraha’s goal is winning over people’s hearts, and this can be achieved only with tremendous patience,” Satyagraha is more than a political tool of resistance. The similarities of the Satyagraha to some of the greatest philosophical and religious tenets of the world have been observed and much written about. However, in the specific context of India, Satyagraha was an immense influence. It went a long way in instilling among the Indians a dignity for hard labor and mutual respect. In the traditional Indian society torn apart by caste and creed based discriminations, Satyagraha stated that no work was lowly. It championed secularism and went a long way in eradicating untouchability from the heart of India’s typically stratified society. Satyagraha glorified the role of women as an important member of the society. All in all, Satyagraha instilled in the Indian mind a dignity and a self respect that is yet unprecedented in its modern history.

Gandhi’s system of Satyagraha was based on nonviolence, non-cooperation, truth and honesty. Gandhi used nonviolence in India’s freedom struggle as main weapon and India became independent from British rule.

Truth – The Most Powerful Weapon

Gandhism is more about the spirit of Gandhi’s journey to discover the truth, than what he finally considered to be the truth. It is the foundation of Gandhi’s teachings, and the spirit of his whole life to examine and understand for oneself, and not take anybody or any ideology for granted. Gandhi said: “The Truth is far more powerful than any weapon of mass destruction.” Truth or ‘Satya’ was the sovereign principle of Mahatma Gandhi’s life. The Mahatma’s life was an eternal conquest to discover truth and his journey to that end was marked by experiments on himself and learning from his own mistakes. Fittingly his autobiography was titled ‘My Experiments with Truth.’ Gandhi strictly maintained that the concept of truth is above and beyond of all other considerations and one must unfailingly embrace truth throughout one’s life.

Gandhi pioneered the term Satyagraha which literally translates to ‘an endeavor for truth.’ In the context of Indian freedom movement, Satyagraha meant the resistance to the British oppression through mass civil obedience. The tenets of Truth or Satya and nonviolence were pivotal to the Satyagraha movement and Gandhi ensured that the millions of Indians seeking an end to British rule adhered to these basic principles steadfastly.

Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Jr

Nonviolence Is Everlasting

Gandhian strategy is the collection of inspirations, principles, beliefs and philosophy. The fundamentals of Gandhi’s nonviolence theory, Jainism and Buddhism were the most important influence. Both Jainism and Buddhism preached nonviolence as the basic principal of existence. Gandhi was also influenced by Bhagvad Gita with its stress on non attachment and selfless action, Christianity, along with its massage of love and compassion, extended even to one’s enemies, was another important influence on Gandhi’s life. Gandhi’s life was based on truth, honesty and moral courage.

Mahatma Gandhi was great national hero, who served the nation with truth and nonviolence. Gandhi was against violence. He always disliked war on the ground of its violent nature. That’s why when the Second World War began in 1939; he opposed the stand of British government dragging India into war without consulting Indian leaders. Gandhi was in favor of nonviolence; therefore he was against in any cooperation in war efforts. According to Gandhi the use of nonviolence consists of anger, selfishness, hatred and enmity. According to him violence cannot do anything good to human beings. A Gandhian strategy for confronting terrorism, therefore, would consist of the following:

Stop an act of violence in its tracks. The effort to do so should be nonviolent but forceful. To focus solely on acts of terrorism, Gandhi argued, would be like being concerned with weapons in an effort to stop the spread of racial hatred. Gandhi thought the sensible approach would be to confront the ideas and alleviate the conditions that motivated people to undertake such desperate operations in the first place.

As we know, nonviolence and truth go side by side. After knowing Gandhism, it is imperative for us to know clearly the concept of nonviolence also as it accords the ground for Gandhism.

For Gandhi, means were as important as the end and there could be only one means- that of nonviolence.

What is nonviolence? Ordinarily, we attribute nonviolence as a dictum that prescribes non-snatching of anyone’s life. Really, this is not complete derivation pertaining to the concept of nonviolence. Nonviolence is quite opposite to violence. As such, it would be better to know the position relating to violence in order to know nonviolence and to be in knowledge of its meaning. According to a Jain scholar:

“Whenever, we hurt some other living being through our thought, utterance or action under non-cordial stipulation and non-apt learning, such an impure spirit or act of destroying life of some other one, including the impure tendency, utterance or presuming, is taken to be full of vice of violence. In such a situation, even if there is no sort of violence externally, it intrinsically ipso facto remains a tendency of violence.”There are three categories of violence:

• When we hit physically anybody.
• When we think wrong and feel jealous with anybody.
• When we aggressively speak and abuse to anybody.

All these categories create negative energy in human body. The negative energy has adverse affect on human body. Gandhi criticized violence. It is a body of ideas and principles that describes the inspiration, vision and the life work of Gandhi. It is particularly associated with his contributions to the idea and practice of nonviolence resistance, sometimes also called civil resistance. The term “Gandhism” also encompasses what Gandhi’s ideas, words and actions mean to people around the world, and how they used them for guidance in building their own future. Gandhism also permeates into the realm of the individual human being, non-political and non-social. A Gandhian can mean either an individual who follows, or a specific philosophy which is attributed to, Gandhism.

In context of nonviolence being perpetual, Mahatma Gandhi states, “…When we peruse the era from beginning unto now relating to the period for which we gain historical evidence, we find that man has been ultimately treading path of nonviolence.” It is, as such, that nonviolence came into existence along with man. “In case it has not been with man from the very beginning, there might have been self-doom by man.” As Martin Luther King Jr. said: “The choice is not between violence and nonviolence but between nonviolence and non-existence.”
However, it has not been that and not only human race is alive in such a huge number but there has been gradual enhancement in development and nearness in spite of presence of various obstacles and nuisances. This could never have been, but because nonviolence is perpetual, it happened.

Mahatma Gandhi was against any form of exploitation and injustice. According to him, evils must be opposed at any cost. But he insisted that the weapons must be non violent and moral ones. The adoption of peaceful method made one superior and put the enemy at a disadvantage but the condition is the opponent must be dealt with mutual respect and love. Gandhi believed that only through love an enemy could be permanently won.

Nonviolence is not passive. It is active, creative, provocative and challenging. Gandhi described nonviolence as “A force more powerful than all the weapons of world combined.” “Nonviolence is the greatest and most active force in the world.” Gandhi wrote, “It is mightier than the mightiest weapon of destruction devised by the ingenuity of humanity. When we tap into the spirit of nonviolence, it becomes contagious and can topple empires.” In relation to violence, there are two options in the world. These options are, we fight –back or run away. Nonviolence gives us third option: creative active, peaceful resistance to injustice. Nonviolence means standing unmoving against injustice until injustice is transformed into justice. Nonviolence dose not harm to others and does not adversely affect other directly .but it works internally. Instead of killing others, we should do in the nonviolent struggle for justice and human rights. Nonviolence begins in the heart then it moves out to our families, local communities, cities, nation and world.

Gandhi thought, debased those who adopted it. A violent posture adopted by public authorities could lead to a civil order based on coercion. For this reason Gandhi insisted on means consistent with the moral goals of those engaged in the conflict.

Gandhi and Einstein

Relevance of Gandhian Strategy in Modern Context

In modern times, nonviolent methods of action have been a powerful tool for social protest. There are many examples of nonviolence like civil resistance, nonviolence resistance, and civil revolution. Here certain movements particularly influenced by a philosophy of nonviolence should be mentioned, including Mahatma Gandhi leading a decades-long nonviolent struggle against British rule in India, which eventually helped India win its independence in 1947, Gandhi had to pay for his ideals with his life, but he never veered from his innate faith in nonviolence and his belief in the methods of Satyagraha. The significance of Satyagraha was soon accepted worldwide. Martin Luther King adopted the methods of Satyagraha in his fight against the racial discrimination of the American authorities in 1950.

He dreamt that of ethics and values practiced in daily lives. But more than half a century after independence is it really so? But should we judge Gandhi and nonviolence only by the test of short-term success? If there lays inbound strength in truth that could free us from the chains of the British rule then why can’t it rid us of the corruption prevalent everywhere? It’s not the principles that have become irrelevant rather it is the impatient nature of today’s progress that has made “corruption” so popular. Violence is definitely not the answer to burning issues. The need for the day is to shut down the egoistic attitude and mutual distrust. Nonviolence can be a good force if practiced. If we “shoot the messenger” we can’t progress. There is no room for patronage among equals. M. N. Roy, who founded Radical Humanism, said: “When a man really wants freedom and to live in a democratic society he may not be able to free the whole world… but he can to a large extent at least free himself by behaving as a rational and moral being, and if he can do this, others around him can do the same, and these again will spread freedom by their example.” If that is the goal, then Gandhi is more relevant than ever. In present times, there are some live examples which show the success of Nonviolence resistance by using Gandhian strategy.

On 5 April 2011, a 73-year-old man in central Delhi stopped eating. The man in question was Kisan Baburao Hazare, and he was protesting the Congress-led central government’s lacka­daisical attempts to punish those guilty of large-scale corruption. His specific demand was that “civil society” should have a say in drafting a stringent anti-corruption law, the Lokpal Bill. The government draft was eyewash, he claimed; outside partici­pation was the only way to ensure an anti-corruption law with any teeth. Hazare, “Anna” to his followers, was by no means the only man on a hunger strike there. But he was onto something. While the government was drowning in a flood of corruption scandals – most prominently, the 2G spectrum allocation controversy and the Commonwealth Games fiasco – Anna Hazare’s perfectly timed protest managed to ride the wave. A throng of civic activists, movie stars, and well-heeled supporters from the urban middle classes took his side. Though estimates of its popularity are hard to gauge, it is fair to say that the Anna Hazare movement spread beyond Delhi and to the rest of urban India, which is why the Congress Party soon capitulated. On 8 April the govern­ment agreed that five members, chosen by Anna Hazare, would be part of the Lokpal Bill drafting committee. Neither Anna Hazare’s methods nor the cause were particularly original. Yoga guru Baba Ramdev had previously fasted on the corruption issue; he fasted again soon after Anna Hazare’s fast ended. The move to enact an effective anti-corruption bill also has an old genesis. In the 1960s itself, the idea of the Lokpal was suggested by the first Administrative Reforms Commission. Even before Anna Hazare’s fast, Aruna Roy and other civil society members had been Anna Hazare is one of India’s well-acclaimed social activists. A former soldier in the Indian army, Anna is well known and respected for upgrading the ecology and economy of the village of Ralegan Siddhi which is located in the drought prone Ahmednagar district of Maharashtra state.

On the extraordinary 12th day of Anna Hzare’s anti corruption fast, the parliament responded with extraordinary grace to show what it could do to honor a crusader’s urge. After over eight hours of debate around the structure of Lokpal Bill the Government and the opposition in both the Loksbha and Rajya Sabha came together to agree ”in-principal” to the three major demands the activist had raised in his letter to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh as a condition to end his protest. Anna Hazare’s previous achievements which are based on truth and Satyagrha are following:

The erstwhile barren village has metamorphosed into a unique model of rural development due to its effective water conservation methods, which made the villagers self-sufficient. Earlier, the same village witnessed alcoholism, utter poverty and migration to urban slums. Inspired by Hazare’s unique approach of salvaging a hopeless village, the state government has implemented the `Model Village’ scheme as part of its official strategy. Hazare is now synonymous with rural development in India. Integrated village Development Project as a part of Golden Jubilee celebration of Bharat Chhodo Andolan. Adarsh Gaon Yojna was started under his chairmanship – “Model Village “project. Watershed development is one of the key tools contributing towards the overall objective of reducing poverty through sustainable development.

The common man is put to lot of hardships and it has become difficult to make both ends meet as prices of essential commodities are rising constantly due to corruption. Hazare believes that our freedom is at the teeth of danger due to corruption and unless it is eliminated, the country will not be free in its true sense. Therefore, a peaceful war has been waged against corruption with the help of immense support from people.

Right to Information includes the citizens’ right to – inspect works, documents, and records, take notes, extracts or certified copies of documents or records, take certified samples of material, obtain information in form of printouts, diskettes, floppies, tapes, video cassettes or in any other electronic mode or through printouts. The citizens can obtain the above from all government departments to ensure transparency. All they need to do is to invoke the Right to Information (RTI) Act. The state of Maharashtra leads in RTI activism and use, thanks to Anna Hazare’s inspiring leadership.

Gandhigiri The public face of the movement, Anna Hazare, describes himself as a Gandhian. His social movement, centered in Ralegaon Siddhi in rural Maharashtra, harks back to Gandhi’s Phoenix farm and Sabarmati ashram. Many of his campaigns, against alcoholism or untouchability, make the Gandhian connect between social reform and political emancipation. His preaches nonviolence is comfortable with religious idioms (a portrait of Bharat Mata hung behind him while he fasted for the Jan Lokpal Bill), 14 and makes personal probity the centre piece of the campaign. Yet, while the movement claims Gandhi’s morals and employs his methods, its political vision is as far as can be from Gandhi himself. Ironically, this is what makes it so successful in21st century India. Understanding this neo-Gandhian activism, “Gandhigiri” is key to understanding the Anna Hazare movement. Two makers of modern India were quick to distance themselves from Gandhi’s idea of a state. As has been well chronicled, Jawaharlal Nehru’s vision of a modern, centralized, powerful Indian state that could bring about both economic prosperity as well as social justice was anathema to Gandhi’s union of village republics. Gandhi, an early critic of modernity, was disillusioned with the violence and illegitimacy of the State. Independent India is a testament to exactly the reverse impulse: of a centralized state driving large development projects in the name of the greater common good.

Gandhi and Tolstoy

Conclusion

Gandhi dreamed of a new world of nonviolence with overall peaceful environment. Nonviolence is a universal phenomenon and it has great relevance and significance. It is the ultimate solution of all kinds of problems and conflicts in the society, nation and world. However, its result depends upon its understanding and proper application. The present scenario of violence and exploitation all over the world has raised an important issue. Any nation which has been suffered with communalism, dictatorship, corruption and power games really needs to go back to Gandhi’s conviction of nonviolence and truth as his mission. By adopting nonviolence, social, political, economic and religious conflicts shall be removed. Undoubtedly, the social doctrine of nonviolence that has emerged from Gandhian ideas has now become the key to forge and sustain the new social and political order. Today, there is need to adopt Gandhian philosophy and ideology in overall world to remove all kind of problems and creating peaceful environment. Gandhi is not the past, he is the future. He is an early sign of what we can be.

Presently a big portion of the world happens to be under Democratic system of Government. Theoretically, this system stands out to be the best up to now. This is a truth. It is the best because people are connected with it directly or indirectly at every level. Not only this, it is this very system, which provides maximum opportunities of public progress and development. People can themselves decide in this system the mode of their welfare. However, even though being theoretically the best system of government, if we peruse the democratic nations, we first of all find that there is non-equal development of the citizens. We subsequently find that these nations are more or less victimized by regionalism. They have problem relating to language. They are under clutches of terrorism and communalism. There is also the problem of negation of human rights in these nations. There are other vivid problems akin to mention above and peace is far away so long as these problems exist. These nations should get themselves rid of these problems, all citizens of them must have equal development and they should have communal harmony towards making all citizens collective and unified partners in progress. But, in reality, it is not so.

It is essential that the nations of democratic system of government should be free from above-mentioned problems, must be capable of ensuring equal development of their all citizens and the citizens concerned must march forward on path of progress in unified way along with rendering contribution to world peace. Gandhism is very much contextual today on this accord. It is significant. Let us grasp importance of Gandhism while analyzing it in brief.

Gandhi inspires an alternative vision of politics and resistance at a time when oppression is not only getting more overt and physical but also more insidious. His ideology of nonviolence is a good point to start from. It may not succeed, but it opens a world of possibilities and encourages us to think outside the box. His life also illustrates how radical ideas are first dismissed, only to be tested and embraced later. Gandhi demonstrated to a World, weary with wars and continuing destruction that adherence to Truth and Nonviolence is not meant for individuals alone but can be applied in global affairs too. Gandhi’s vision for the country and his dreams for the community as a whole still hold good for India. He got the community to assimilate and reflect true values of humanity and to participate in tasks that would promote the greater good. These issues are still relevant to what free India is and represents. The main cause of worry today is intolerance and hatred leading to violence and it is here the values of Gandhi need to be adhered to with more passion. He is relevant not yesterday or today but forever!

Sunanda Sharma is Assist. Prof. Dept. of Commerce JCDAV College, Dasuya, Punjab, India.

Sources

Chand Hukam, History of modern India, Anmol Publication Pvt. Ltd (2005)

Chand Hukam, History of Modern India, Anmol Publication, 2003.

Nanda B.R, Mahatma Gandhi-A Biography, OXFORD University Press, Calcutta, Chennai, Mumbai.

Jai Narain Sharma, “Indian society of Gandhian studies”, Journal of Gandhian studies, Vol. 5, 2007.

Jain, N.K., WTO Concept Challenges and Global development.

Kapur, Devesh (2010): “The Middle Class in India: A Social Formation or Political Actor” in Julian Go

Pati, Biswamoy (2004): “BJP’s ‘Stumbling Blocks’: The Voter, Pluralism and Democracy”, Economic & Political Weekly, 39(21).

Rudolph, Lloyd I and Susanne Hoeber Rudolph (1981): “Judicial Review versus Parliamentary Sovereignty: The Struggle over Stateness in India”, 19, J Commonwealth and Comparative Politics.

Sitapati, Vinay (2009): “Right to Education Bill Ignoring Disabled, Pass only After Changes: Disability Activists”, The Indian Express, 3 August.

Sridharan, E (2008): “The Political Economy of the Middle Classes in Liberalizing India”, ISAS Working Paper.

Vanaik, Achin (2002): “Consumerism and New Classes in India” in Sujata Patel, Jasodhara Bagchi and Krishna Raj (ed.), Thinking Social Science in India: Essays in Honor of Alice Thorner (New Delhi).

All images in this article are from Transcend Media Service.

First published on January 28, 2020

This incisive article focusses on Mohandas Gandhi‘s call for non-violence, while underscoring today’s instruments of violence –including economic violence– exerted with impunity by the upper echelons of the financial establishment.

Robert J. Burrowes describes the complexities of the World prior to the onset of the Corona Crisis (in late January) as:

“an interrelated series of military, nuclear, ecological, economic, geoengineering, 5G, biodiversity and climate crises”

“The World Economic Forum gathering in Davos, which had no problem co-opting the usual range of concerned high-profile individuals to participate in (and thus add a veneer of legitimacy to) its annual forum [January 2020] despite its extensively documented role in killing and exploiting fellow human beings and plundering the Earth while obscuring and ‘greenwashing’ its violence using the corporate media.”

And these are the Davos people committed to enforcing a “New Normal” of  engineered unemployment and poverty, which is presented to public opinion as a humanitarian public health endeavour.

We refer you to an extensive archive of articles by Robert J. Burrowes on conflict, non violence and international solidarity.

Michel Chossudovsky, January 30, 2021,  on the 73d commemoration of Mohandas Gandhi’s assassination

***

As we approach the 73^d anniversary of the assassination of Mohandas K. Gandhi on 30 January 1948, it is worth reflecting on one simple fact that he did not realize. His efforts to teach humanity that conflict, including violent conflict, could be resolved without violence were based on one fundamentally flawed assumption: that at least some humans were interested in, and committed to, seeking out and using nonviolent strategies for dealing with conflict in each and every context.

Unfortunately, as his own experience taught him and he showed clear signs of realizing towards the end of his life, the fundamental truth is that humans love violence and it is this love of violence that will ensure the extinction of Homo sapiens in the near term absent a profound response that shows no sign of emerging yet. See ‘Human Extinction Now Imminent and Inevitable? A Report on the State of Planet Earth’.

This love of violence, reinforced by the enormous fear associated with resisting it, is generated by the violent parenting and education models that we have long been using and which inflict enormous ‘visible’, ‘invisible’ and ‘utterly invisible’ violence on all young people throughout their childhood and adolescence in the name of ‘socialization’. See ‘Why Violence?’, ‘Fearless Psychology and Fearful Psychology: Principles and Practice’ and ‘Do We Want School or Education?’

These violently dysfunctional parenting and education models ensure that virtually every child emerges into adulthood as an unconsciously terrified, self-hating and powerless individual. This individual has been terrorized into surrendering their unique Self and accepting the ‘socially constructed delusional identity’ they have been given to participate in society as a submissive student, worker/soldier and citizen. ‘Powerful’ is not a word that can be used to describe the typical human being.

This ‘individual’, among a vast range of other violent and dysfunctional behaviors, chronically over-consumes (as they have been taught to do) to compensate for their inability to feel their deeply suppressed feelings including their fear, (emotional) pain, anger, sadness, love and joy. Unfortunately, of course, this over-consumption cannot make someone psychologically whole and that is why virtually all humans who are in the circumstances to do so, chronically over-consume and chronically accumulate in an endless but futile attempt to satisfy deep but unmet emotional needs. See ‘Love Denied: The Psychology of Materialism, Violence and War’.

As a result of this socially-approved psychological dysfunctionality, we are now confronted with an interrelated series of military, nuclear, ecological, economic, geoengineering, 5G, biodiversity and climate crises that are not being contained in any way because virtually everyone is deluding themselves about the drivers of these interrelated crises – on two distinct levels – and what must be done about them.

Most fundamentally, as briefly identified above and elaborated in the references cited, to the extent that some humans are even interested in tackling this multifaceted crisis in our biosphere, they are failing to identify their own psychological dysfunctionality and its causes as the primary driver of this crisis. And secondly, therefore, they are attempting to resolve the crisis without understanding its cause.

As a result, virtually all people end up powerlessly begging the insane global elite – see ‘The Global Elite is Insane Revisited’– or its compliant government agents, to fix this crisis for them rather than taking the necessary strategic action (in one or more of a range of ways) themselves.

This was classically illustrated at the recent World Economic Forum gathering in Davos, which had no problem co-opting the usual range of concerned high-profile individuals to participate in (and thus add a veneer of legitimacy to) its annual forum despite its extensively documented role in killing and exploiting fellow human beings and plundering the Earth while obscuring and ‘greenwashing’ its violence using the corporate media.

See the WEF’s delusional ‘How to Save the Planet’ which obviously does not even mention the wars, grotesque inequality – see ‘5 shocking facts about extreme global inequality and how to even it up’ – and other violence it helps to generate and maintain, let alone mention what is actually necessary if we are to tackle this multifaceted crisis and avert human extinction. For one brief exposé of the World Economic Forum’s central role in elite violence, exploitation and destruction, see ‘Exposing the Giants: The Global Power Elite’. For more detail, see Giants: The Global Power Elite.

Needless to say, the co-opted individuals are politically naïve, to put it mildly, and have no understanding of how the world actually works. For a brief outline of this latter point, see ‘Why Activists Fail’.

So what are the functions of elite-sponsored gatherings such as the World Economic Forum in Davos?

In essence, its functions are to deflect attention from elite violence, exploitation and destruction and to delude people into believing that its intention is to act in the best interests of humanity and the biosphere. This is done so that people continue to focus their efforts on lobbying the elite (and their government agents) rather than taking effective action themselves. How is this done?

At elite fora of this nature, there are always two agendas. The public agenda is designed to delude the gullible public: it is designed to pay lip service to selected problems at a superficial level using a panel of high profile speakers to distract our attention. But the deep agenda is undeclared and is only discussed by key groups of elite individuals who meet secretly to plan, organize and strike deals regarding their ongoing violence, exploitation and destruction. Some of these individuals might even appear at the public forum so that their presence is noted; many will not be seen at all. But none of them is paying attention to what is spoken at the public gatherings because it is irrelevant to them.

Of course, the elite-owned and controlled corporate media will dutifully report the public gatherings with high profile speakers begging the elite to take some form of action to address one or other of our crises. But the corporate media well understands that it must make no reference to the many secretive gatherings held throughout the forum where the real action takes place. A fine outcome for everyone involved: the concerned public is deluded into believing that because its spokespeople have spoken (and been given prominent media attention) that their concerns have been heard, and the elite has deflected all attention from the further violence, exploitation and destruction it has planned.

So this charade, played out routinely throughout the year in a variety of elite-controlled fora where it is intended – but in stark contrast to the strict secrecy surrounding other elite gatherings such as those involving the Group of Thirty and the extended executive committee of the Trilateral Commission which perform the core policy-planning for the global elite – masks the most fundamental problem of all.

Which, in essence, is this: Who wants to address their own psychological dysfunctionalities and/or who wants to reduce their own consumption? It is far easier to delude oneself about the cause (anything but our own psychological dysfunctionalities and over-consumption), blame someone or something else (such as capitalism) and beg someone else (such as elites and their governments) to fix it. And then powerlessly complain when nothing happens.

This is why the obvious lack of interest in even understanding, fundamentally, what is driving violence in each and every context is such a glaring omission from the scholarly literature. Of course, there are plenty of attempts to explain violence in particular contexts, ranging from those supposedly explaining the cause of domestic violence to those supposedly explaining the cause of war or the climate catastrophe, but these are always incredibly simplistic because they do not understand what is causing violence per se (and hence driving it in each and every context). And if we do not understand the fundamental cause of violence – see ‘Why Violence?’ – then it cannot be addressed, as our incredibly violent world – with humans now on the brink of precipitating their own extinction – clearly demonstrates. (Of course, as more than 50 years of experience has taught me, there is no funding to undertake research to understand violence nor any funding to work to end it: Obvious symptoms of our love of violence.)

So let me illustrate just some of the ways, apart from chronic overconsumption and chronic accumulation, in which this human love of violence manifests.

Most obviously, humans love profiting from violence and the larger the scale at which the violence is conducted the better. So, for example, the shareholders, executives and staff of weapons corporations – particularly Lockheed Martin (USA), Boeing (USA), BAE Systems (UK), Raytheon (USA), Northrop Grumman (USA), General Dynamics (USA), Airbus Group (Europe), United Technologies Corporation (USA), Leonardo (Italy), Thales (France), Almaz-Antey (Russia) – make enormous profits or simply earn a salary/wage by manufacturing and selling weapons to kill people all over the world whom they do not even know.

Needless to say, these shareholders, executives and staff are devoid of a conscience or moral compass in any form, as well as the capacities for love, empathy and compassion in any meaningful way. ‘We make weapons to defend our country’, they might claim. Which only proves they are devoid of the capacity for critical analysis as well, given the real reason that military violence is inflicted around the world – see Dirty Wars: The World is a Battlefield and ‘Understanding NATO, Ending War’– and the myriad ways that conflict can be resolved without violence provided one has the intellectual, emotional and moral capacities to do so. See ‘Human Intelligence or Human Awareness?’ and ‘Challenges for Resolving Complex Conflicts’.

Similarly, shareholders, executives and staff of fossil fuel corporations – see a long list of key corporations in ‘Strategic Aims’– love profiting from the exploitation of resources that, when burnt, are destroying Earth’s climate. Like their counterparts in the weapons industry, these people are so psychologically damaged that they are simply devoid of capacities such as conscience, love and compassion as well as that for critical analysis too.

But the list of humans who simply love profiting from violence is endless. Consider those involved, from politicians and bureaucrats to military officers and soldiers, who authorize, organize, plan and conduct war as well. Not to mention taxpayers, of course, who happily (or fearfully) pay for it all.

Or consider those in the psychiatric and pharmaceutical industries who are intent on destroying our damaged minds even more completely – see ‘Defeating the Violence of Psychiatry’– or those involved in the many other industries that also profit from inflicting, financing and/or promoting violence in one or more of its myriad forms, whether against humans or the biosphere.

These industries include the following: the major asset management corporations (such as BlackRock and J.P. Morgan Chase), the major banks and their ‘industry groups’ like the International Monetary Conference, the large investment firms, the major financial services companies, the big technology corporations, the major media corporations particularly including the three global news agencies (Associated Press, Agence France-Presse and Thomson Reuters), the large marketing and public relations corporations, the major agrochemical giants, the huge biotechnology (genetic mutilation) corporations, the major mining corporations, the nuclear power corporations, the major food multinationals (selling processed, poisoned, genetically mutilated and/or junk food) and water corporations. For the names of key corporations in each of these industries, see ‘The Global Elite is Insane Revisited’.

Of course, there are many other industries which do nothing but inflict violence too, such as the police, legal and prison systems. See ‘The Rule of Law: Unjust and Violent’ and ‘Punishment is Violent and Counterproductive’.

But separately from the manifestations of violence illustrated above, which fall mainly into the domains of direct (biological and physical), institutional (socially endorsed), structural (such as capitalism and imperialism) and ecological violence, there are several other domains of violence each of which has its own manifestations too. These include violence that is labeled cultural (‘those aspects of culture, the symbolic sphere of our existence – exemplified by religion and ideology, language and art, empirical science and formal science (logic, mathematics) – that can be used to justify or legitimize direct or structural violence’ in the words of Professor Johan Galtung) and psychological (‘lies, brainwashing, indoctrination of various kinds, threats, etc. that serve to decrease mental potentialities’), for example. For a fuller discussion of these categories of violence, see ‘Ending Violence, Exploitation, Ecological Destruction and War: Creating a Culture of Peace’.

However, to reiterate what I mentioned at the beginning of this article, the fundamental driver of all of this violence is our violent parenting and education models. See ‘Why Violence?’, ‘Fearless Psychology and Fearful Psychology: Principles and Practice’and ‘Do We Want School or Education?’

So, unless we address this fundamental cause of violence, there is no prospect of ending violence generally and human extinction, at our own hand, is inevitable and will now take place in the near term. For further documentation of this point, see ‘Human Extinction by 2026? A Last Ditch Strategy to Fight for Human Survival’, ‘Doomsday by 2021?’ and ‘Extinction in 2020?’

Ending Violence

So if you share Gandhi’s passion to end violence, then we must do many things.

Most fundamentally, we must nurture children so that they have the capacity to live by their conscience, the intellectual capacity to critique society and the courage necessary to resist elite and other violence strategically and fearlessly, while living sustainably despite the entreaties to over-consume. See ‘My Promise to Children’ and ‘Nisteling: The Art of Deep Listening’.

If your own intellectual and/or emotional functionality is the issue and you have the self-awareness to perceive that, and wish to access the conscience and courage that would enable you to act powerfully, try ‘Putting Feelings First’.

If we are to resist elite violence effectively, in a great many contexts, we must campaign strategically to do so. Whether you are engaged in a peace, climate, environment or social justice campaign, the 12-point strategic framework and principles are the same. See Nonviolent Campaign Strategy. And, for example, you can see a basic list of the strategic goals necessary to end war and halt the climate catastrophe in ‘Strategic Aims’.

If you want to know how to nonviolently defend against a foreign invading power or a political/military coup, to liberate your country from a dictatorship or a foreign occupation, or to defeat a genocidal assault, you will learn how to do so in ‘Nonviolent Defense/Liberation Strategy’.

Given that substantially reducing consumption is imperative if we are to survive, we will also need to become largely self-reliant. You can learn how to to do this in a way that has strategic impact by participating (preferably now using a substantially accelerated timeframe) in ‘The Flame Tree Project to Save Life on Earth’ which outlines a simple plan to systematically reduce your consumption by at least 80%, involving both energy and resources of every kind – water, household energy, transport fuels, metals, meat, paper and plastic – while dramatically expanding your individual and community self-reliance in 16 areas.

And if you want to be part of the worldwide movement committed to ending all violence, consider signing the online pledge of ‘The People’s Charter to Create a Nonviolent World’.

Conclusion

Human beings love violence. This love of violence is the inevitable outcome of parenting and education models that are designed to destroy the ‘Selfhood’ of each child and turn them into a ‘socially constructed delusional identity’ that readily participates, as a submissive student, worker/soldier and citizen, in their society on the promise that they can over-consume as compensation for surrendering their unique Self.

This over-consumption requires extraordinary levels of violence in its many domains so that the nature and extent of the violence is largely obscured from the attention of most people.

Nevertheless, the simple reality is this: If enough of us reduce our consumption and increase our local self-reliance, capitalism will fade away, wars and other military violence against resource-rich countries (in Africa, the Middle East, Asia and Central/South America) to steal resources on our behalf will cease, and the enormous pressure on our biosphere will be decreased. Of course, we can accelerate this outcome by acting strategically on several other fronts at the same time, as noted above.

But we need a global movement – and soon – for this strategy to succeed. Mind you, no other strategy has any prospect of succeeding.

While the global elite is destroying the biosphere to produce the goods we all buy, it does not need to respond to our entreaties no matter what form they take. In essence, if you fly and drive, the elite will make sure the war economy extracts the raw materials to make your aircraft and your vehicle, and the fossil fuels (or equivalent) to fuel them. If you don’t fly and drive, the elite won’t destroy more of the biosphere (often destroying countries, killing people and inflicting other atrocities in the process) to produce these commodities for you. Your personal choice (for good or bad) makes a vital difference, including because of the example you set for others.

As Gandhi, already wearing his own homespun cloth, noted more than 100 years ago: ‘Earth provides enough for every person’s need but not for every person’s greed.’ This is something that those attending the World Economic Forum are too psychologically damaged to understand.

And you?

Or, if the options above seem too complicated, consider committing to:

The Earth Pledge 

Out of love for the Earth and all of its creatures, and my respect for their needs, from this day onwards I pledge that:

1. I will listen deeply to children (see explanation above)
2. I will not travel by plane
3. I will not travel by car
4. I will not eat meat and fish
5. I will only eat organically/biodynamically grown food
6. I will minimize the amount of fresh water I use, including by minimizing my ownership and use of electronic devices
7. I will not buy rainforest timber
8. I will not buy or use single-use plastic, such as bags, bottles, containers, cups and straws
9. I will not use banks, superannuation (pension) funds or insurance companies that provide any service to corporations involved in fossil fuels, nuclear power and/or weapons
10. I will not accept employment from, or invest in, any organization that supports or participates in the exploitation of fellow human beings or profits from killing and/or destruction of the biosphere
11. I will not get news from the corporate media (mainstream newspapers, television, radio, Google, Facebook, Twitter…)
12. I will make the effort to learn a skill, such as food gardening or sewing, that makes me more self-reliant
13. I will gently encourage my family and friends to consider signing this pledge.

*

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

Robert J. Burrowes has a lifetime commitment to understanding and ending human violence. He has done extensive research since 1966 in an effort to understand why human beings are violent and has been a nonviolent activist since 1981. He is the author of ‘Why Violence?’ His email address is [email protected] and his website is here. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Did CDC Deliberately Mislead Public on Allergic Reactions to Moderna Vaccine?

By Dr. Meryl Nass and John Stone, January 29 2021

On Jan. 13, California health officials issued a hold on 330,000 doses of Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine after “fewer than 10” people at San Diego’s Petco Park stadium vaccine clinic suffered allergic reactions to the vaccine. Santa Clara County officials lifted the hold on the vaccine lot in question on Jan. 21.

Ten Reasons Why SARS-CoV-2 Is an “Imaginary” and “Theoretical Virus”. “They Never Isolated the Virus”

By Makia Freeman, January 29 2021

The Imaginary and Theoretical Virus known as SARS-CoV-2, a concept which has been used by the NWO (New World Order) controllers to shut down the world, is becoming more and more exposed as the months go by.

Electromagnetic Fields, 5G and Health: What About the Precautionary Principle?

By John William Frank, January 29 2021

Some health protection agencies and their scientific advisory committees have concluded that there is no conclusive scientific evidence of harm. Several recent reviews by independent scientists, however, suggest that there is significant uncertainty on this question.

Biden Will Likely Try to Politically Influence Venezuela by Re-engaging with It Economically

By Paul Antonopoulos, January 29 2021

After the EU, the U.S. could also end its recognition of the self-proclaimed interim president and change its sanctions policy with a new one that is more conducive to normalization. Washington will most likely try and strengthen American economic presence in the devastated Venezuelan economy and convert that into political influence.

With Likely Victory of Andrés Arauz, Ecuador Will Join Latin America’s Anti-Imperialist Surge

By Alan MacLeod, January 29 2021

Ecuador is just weeks away from becoming the latest Latin American nation to move away from the IMF and United States and elect a strongly progressive, anti-imperialist government.

If US Foreign Policy Toward Palestine Is Any Indication, “Trump Is Here to Stay”

By Rima Najjar, January 29 2021

As I watch the unfolding political drama of the impeachment trial in the US Senate, the glimmer of hope for change I had following the incredible scenes at the Capitol on Jan 6 is being dimmed. The question in my mind now is whether it is even possible, with the tools being used by Joe Biden, to turn the tide on Trump’s movement.

Blinken Says Iran Must Comply with Nuclear Deal before the US Does

By Dave DeCamp, January 29 2021

In a sign that the US is a long way from lifting sanctions on Iran, Secretary of State Antony Blinken said the US will not return to the nuclear deal until Iran comes back into compliance.

Video: Israeli Military Asks $1.2 Billion to Prepare for Strike on Iran

By South Front, January 29 2021

The Israeli military needs over $1 billion to fund its widely promoted strike on Iran, which Tel Aviv has threatened to carry out if the US should rejoin the nuclear deal.

Relations Between India and Russia on the Rise

By Lucas Leiroz de Almeida, January 29 2021

Military relations between Russia and India are increasing and this can bring a series of significant changes in international society. However, this is unlikely to be pleasing to Washington, which sees New Delhi as a key partner in its strategy for the Indo-Pacific region.

“Western Civilization”: The Culture of Slavery vs. the Culture of Resistance

By Caoimhghin Ó Croidheáin, January 29 2021

The general problem of culture today is its ability to facilitate and support negative aspects of society through encouraging escapism, diversion and ignorance regarding many important issues of contemporary life, such as economic crises, repressive legislation, poverty, and climate chaos.

All Global Research articles can be read in 27 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

***

As a good tradition observed in Russia, Jan 25 is popularly called Tatyana’s Day – the last day of the first study semester in the academic year for all institutes and universities, so President Vladimir Putin seized the opportunity to interact with a cross-section of students via videoconference.

In his introductory remarks, Putin expressed appreciation for their readiness to learn and receive new knowledge amid the difficult conditions of the pandemic, and despite the fact that the technical capabilities for remote study are not always available, some places lack equipment and the necessary internet speed.

“Overall, this unusual format could not but affect the comprehensiveness and quality of education and the academic performance rating. Again, I reiterate that the transition to a totally remote study format was an exclusively temporary measure (in the places where it was introduced), related to, as we know, the spread of the coronavirus,” he said.

At the same time, it is necessary to make use of the experience accumulated, the best know-how and practices, increasing the digital potential of all universities. Incidentally, it had already laid the groundwork for this, meaning the education system was prepared for the challenges of the era of rapid technological transformation and, importantly, opened up new opportunities for young people throughout the country. Online education is extremely important for such a huge country as Russia.

Putin said that efforts to strengthen and drastically expand the chain of modern higher education institutions all over Russia certainly rank among national priorities. This work is already underway, and it will continue.

“We have already expanded state-funded places at higher education institutions. This mainly concerns higher education institutions in the regions. Consequently, at least 60 percent of Russian high-school graduates can expect to study free of charge under higher education curricula,” he informed. “We will expand the share of state-funded students because the number of high school graduates will increase here in the next few years, due to positive earlier results achieved by our programmes to support families, to increase birth rates and to facilitate demographic development.”

According to him, affordable higher education is a highly significant matter in the context of social and national development and in providing equitable and equal opportunities for people’s self-realisation. Successful studies at higher education institutions are intended to pave the way for professional success in life.

Furthermore, this year (2021) has been declared the Year of Science and Technology. This is ultimate recognition of the merits of our scientists and engineers, the enormous role of knowledge and innovation in people’s life and in the development of our regions, cities and villages.

“I am confident that it is universities that must become real centres for the scientific and technological development of the Russian regions and pool the efforts of students, postgraduate students, strong teachers and professors, and company specialists for resolving practical tasks. All of them must form a single team and work in this way,” Putin told the students.

To attract and interest these young and talented people, it is necessary to strengthen the research potential of universities, upgrade their infrastructure in general, and build dormitories as well as sports and social facilities. Of course, it is necessary to improve cities and create the conditions for leisure and recreation, as well as for implementing business, creative and public initiatives.

In this context, last year a draft federal law that substantially expands the autonomy of universities in forming educational programmes, and introducing many other useful innovations, was submitted to the State Duma.

In a word, it is essential to ensure modern standards for education and life and for a start of career. There is a saying, “East or West, home is best.” This saying reflects great wisdom. It is necessary to use energy, vigour and talent for developing this big and enormous country.

Vladimir Putin held a meeting via videoconference with representatives of universities and other higher education institutions of Kazan, Samara, Smolensk, Ufa, Crimea, Novosibirsk, Nizhny Novgorod and Saransk.

*

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

Kester Kenn Klomegah, who worked previously with Inter Press Service (IPS), is a frequent and passionate contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from the author

All Global Research articles including can be read in 27 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

***

‘They adopted our dressing fashion, and begun wearing the togas; little by little they were drawn to touches such as colonnades, baths, and elegant talks. Because they didn’t know better, they called it ‘civilization,’ when it was part of their slavery‘

‘Inde etiam habitus nostri honor et frequens toga; paulatimque discessum ad delenimenta vitiorum, porticus et balinea et convivorum elegantiam. Idque apud imperitos humanitas vocabatur, cum pars servitutis esset‘  (Tacitus, Agricola)

Introduction

The general problem of culture today is its ability to facilitate and support negative aspects of society through encouraging escapism, diversion and ignorance regarding many important issues of contemporary life, such as economic crises, repressive legislation, poverty, and climate chaos. Or worse still, the use of culture to promote elite views of society regarding power and money, as well as imperialist agendas through negative depictions of a targeted ethnic group or country.

In this, some would call a neo-feudalist age, we see echoes of an earlier feudalism with its abuse of power and wealth that the philosophers of the Enlightenment tried to deal with and rectify. The Enlightenment was an intellectual and philosophical movement that dominated the world of ideas in Europe during the 17th and 18th centuries.

It was led by philosophers such as Cesare Beccaria, Denis Diderot, David Hume, Immanuel Kant, Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, John Locke, Montesquieu, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Adam Smith, Hugo Grotius, Baruch Spinoza, and Voltaire. Their concerns about injustice, intolerance and autocracy led to the introduction of democratic values and institutions, and the creation of modern, liberal democracies.

A painting of the 1840 Anti-Slavery Conference. The Anti-Slavery Society Convention, 1840, by Benjamin Robert Haydon (died 1846), given to the National Portrait Gallery, London in 1880 by the British and Foreign Anti-Slavery Society. Oil on canvas, 1841. 117 in. x 151 in. (2972 mm x 3836 mm). This monumental painting records the 1840 convention of the British and Foreign Anti-Slavery Society which was established to promote worldwide abolition.

However, a new movement in the arts and literature arose in the late 18th century, Romanticism, which emphasized inspiration, subjectivity, and the primacy of the individual. Romanticism was a reaction to the Industrial Revolution, aristocratic society and politics, and the scientific rationalization of nature. Romanticism became the basis of many subsequent cultural movements whose common feature has been anti-science and individualistic.

The Romanticist influence can be seen in ‘mainstream’ mass culture and high culture in terms of its emphasis on formal experimentation or emotions over sociopolitical content. Romanticist reaction stressed “sensibility” or feeling, and tended towards looking inwards. It was a movement whose ideas have come to dominate much of culture today.

Weighing scales, planets, and fractals

Romanticism is portrayed as having left and right aspects. If we picture a weighing scale with opposing ideas, for example,  we can have the radical opposition to fascism (Romanticist Expressionism) on one side and the radical right of National Socialism on the other side. However, what if this weighing scale was on one side of an even bigger scale? On the other side of that bigger scale would be Enlightenment ideas.

Image on the right: Little weighing scale on one side of an even bigger scale

We rarely get to see the Enlightenment side of the larger scales. We live in a society where we are generally presented with the small scales two sides to everything (the bi-party system, good Nazis [only following orders] v the bad Nazis [gave the orders], this ‘good’ person v that ‘bad’ person, good cop v bad cop) but the reality is that they are usually different sides of the same coin. Similarly, on the smaller scale, the left and right aspects of Romanticist ideas are also two sides of the same coin, because what they both have in common is their rejection of science and reason.

Yet, on the big scales, the Enlightenment side we find progressive politics, the left opposition who were the first to be put into the concentration camps in the 1930s, the community workers, writers, and activists who work diligently today for change in the background are all squeezed out of the large, dominant media-controlled picture.

The problem with this skewed picture is that understanding what is going on becomes as difficult to ascertain as the movements of the planets were to the ancients. Seeming to go in all sorts of strange directions, the ancient Greeks called the planets ‘planeta’ or ‘wanderers’. The movements of the planets were perplexing in a geocentric (earth-centered) universe. It was only with the application of modern science, putting the sun at the center of a solar system, that the odd movements of the planets suddenly fell into place and made sense. We have the same experience of ‘revelation’ or understanding when science is applied to many different difficult problems in various aspects of history, philosophy and society itself.

‘Planets appear to go in one direction, take a looping turn, and then go in the opposite direction. This appears because of the differences of our orbits around the Sun. The Earth gets in an inside or outside track as we pass them causing a planet to look as if it had backed up and changed direction. They wander around the sky.’

The word ‘science’ comes from the Latin word ‘scientia‘ meaning ‘knowledge’ and is a systematic exploration that allows us to develop knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe.  The development of science has allowed us to determine what is truth and what is falsehood. Truth is defined as the property of being in accord with fact or reality and the application of science allows us to verify truth in a provable way.

In this sense truth is like a fractal. Fractals are geometrical shapes that have a certain definite appearance. When we magnify a fractal we see the same shape again. No matter how much we magnify the shape, the same geometrical patterns appear infinitely. Truth is similar to a fractal in that whether the truth of something is held by one person, a group of people, a community or a nation its essence remains the same on a micro or macro level.

Image below: ‘Fractals appear the same at different levels, as illustrated in successive magnifications of the Mandelbrot set. Fractals exhibit similar patterns at increasingly small scales called self-similarity, also known as expanding symmetry or unfolding symmetry.’

The heliocentric view of the universe remains true even if only one person believes or many believe, even in the face of powerful forces. For example, Galileo’s championing of heliocentrism led him to be investigated by the Roman Inquisition in 1615, where he was found guilty of heresy and spent the rest of his life under house arrest. The truth eventually came out and Galileo was pardoned by the Roman Catholic church (359 years later).

Contradictions and falsehoods

It has often been said that the truth will set you free. We live in a society of contradictions and falsehoods where lies, cheating and deception contradict reality. However, many refuse to see the truths of modern society, while others are actively involved in creating the deceptions that maintain the status quo. We know that people are ‘unfree’ and we accept many different levels of this condition: captivity,  imprisonment, suppression, dependency, restrictions, enslavement, oppression.

We may even see this condition as applying to others and not to ourselves. But if we examine closely and truthfully our own position in the societal hierarchy we may recognize our own powerlessness: the contradiction between our view of ourselves and the reality of our situation. Although we vote and we recognize the social contract by rendering taxes to the state, the fact is that very little of substance changes and generally things seem to get worse.

As I have written elsewhere, the fact is that we are triply exploited: we are taxed on wages, alienated from wealth created (profits), and we pay interest on the money borrowed from the wealthy to pay for the capital and current expenditure needed for the maintenance of society and fill in the gap created by the wealthy in the first place.

How is this system of exploitation maintained? Aside from the obvious threat of imprisonment for nonpayment of taxes, and the existence of police and army to enforce the laws of the state: the most influential, and sometimes most subtle tool, is through culture.

The culture of slavery

Culture has a long history of use and abuse, from the bread and circuses of Roman times to the social media of today.

In modern society mass culture helps to maintain this system of exploitation and keeps people in general from questioning their position in the societal hierarchy. The middle classes are lulled into thinking they are free because of better wages making for an easier life, while the working class work ever harder to achieve the benefits of the middle class: higher education, higher status, higher wages. (It has been suggested that the middle class are essentially ‘working class people with huge debts’ e.g. large mortgages.)

However, in general, people work in a globalized system of exploitation in states that support and maintain it thus making wage slaves of the 99 percent.

Slaves in chains during the period of Roman rule at Smyrna (present-day İzmir), 200 CE.

The traditional definition of slavery is ‘someone forbidden to quit their service for another person and is treated like property.’ Modern slavery takes on different forms such as human trafficking, debt bondage, and forced labour:

“Experts have calculated that roughly 13 million people were captured and sold as slaves between the 15th and 19th centuries; today, an estimated 40.3 million people – more than three times the figure during the transatlantic slave trade – are living in some form of modern slavery, according to the latest figures published by the UN’s International Labour Organization (ILO) and the Walk Free Foundation. Women and girls comprise 71% of all modern slavery victims. Children make up 25% and account for 10 million of all the slaves worldwide.”

While this may apply to the most extreme cases in modern society, the majority of workers have no control over the wealth they produce:

“one of the defining features of the employment relationship in all capitalist countries is that the worker’s will is, by law, “subordinate” to the employers. The employer has the right, within broad bounds, to define the nature of the task, who performs it, and how. This shows up in all kinds of surveillance, control, and submission — also known as maximizing productivity and extracting profit.”

The investors and the shareholders benefit the most, while the employees receive wages of varying levels according to the demand for their particular skillset.

We are encouraged to accept this way of life and there are plenty of different state methods to make sure that we do. However, culture is an important tool of soft power, in particular, mass culture.

The role of mass culture is absolutely essential for the creation, maintenance, and perpetuation of a broad acceptance of the ever-changing forms of technological ‘progress’ and geopolitical shifts in modern capitalist societies, particularly as the global financial crisis (corporate and national debt) deepens.

Culture on three levels

To do this, modern mass culture operates on three different levels. The first level is creating passive acceptance through diversion and escapism and turning people into passive consumers. Secondly, through the overt representation of elite ideology. Thirdly, and more controversially, through covert manipulation of mass culture to benefit the agenda of elites.

In the first case, consumption becomes inseparable from the ideas of enjoyment and fun. Earlier twentieth century theorists of the Frankfurt School saw consumers as essentially passive but later theoreticians such as Baudrillard saw consumption as an unconscious social conditioning, consuming culture to achieve social mobility by showing awareness of the latest trends in mass culture.

Secondly, overt representation of elite ideology is evident in mass culture that glorifies the upper classes and promotes racism and militarist imperialism. In particular, mass culture depicting historical and contemporary events can be portrayed from an elite perspective.

Thirdly, conscious manipulation of the masses using psychological means, and more controversially, predictive programming. In the 1930s Edward Bernays was a pioneer in the public relations industry using psychology and other social sciences to design public persuasion campaigns. Bernays wrote: “If we understand the mechanism and motives of the group mind, is it not possible to control and regiment the masses according to our will without their knowing about it? The recent practice of propaganda has proved that it is possible, at least up to a certain point and within certain limits.”

‘For Adorno and Horkheimer, the culture industry creates false needs to keep us purchasing products we do not actually need by manipulating our psychological impulses and desires.’

Another form of mass manipulation is the concept of predictive programming. Predictive Programming is the theory “that the government or other higher-ups are using fictional movies or books as a mass mind control tool to make the population more accepting of planned future events.”  It is by its nature hard to prove yet the many extraordinary coincidences between events depicted in mass culture and later actual events is, at the very least, disconcerting. For example, the film The Manchurian Candidate depicting the son of a prominent U.S. political family who is brainwashed into being an unwitting assassin for a Communist conspiracy, was released in 1962, a year before the assassination of J F Kennedy in 1963 by Lee Harvey Oswald, an emotionally disturbed ‘communist sympathizer’ who declared his innocence and believed he was being used as a ‘patsy’.

Thus, these three levels allow elites to control how the past, the present, and the future is depicted in mass culture, according to national and geopolitical agendas.

Cultural producers

In their defense, the role of cultural producers has never been easy, and the more money or support that is needed for a cultural project, the harder it is to maintain an independent position.

While with modern production methods and technology it is easier to produce books, films and music independently of the major producers and distributors, in the past elite pressure, censorship, and imprisonment were common.

Pushkin, for example, in his Ode to Liberty, exclaimed with indignation:

“Unhappy nation! Everywhere
Men suffer under whips and chains,
And over all injustice reigns,
And haughty peers abuse their power
And sombre prejudice prevails.“

However, later during the time of Nicholas I, he changed and ‘adopted the theory of art for art’s sake’:

“According to the touching and very widespread legend, in 1826 Nicholas I graciously “forgave” Pushkin the political “errors of his youth,” and even became his magnanimous patron. But this is far from the truth. Nicholas and his right-hand man in affairs of this kind, Chief of Police Benkendorf, “forgave” Pushkin nothing, and their “patronage” took the form of a long series of intolerable humiliations. Benkendorf reported to Nicholas in 1827: “After his interview with me, Pushkin spoke enthusiastically of Your Majesty in the English Club, and compelled his fellow diners to drink Your Majesty’s health. He is a regular ne’er-do-well, but if we succeed in directing his pen and his tongue, it will be a good thing.” The last words in this quotation reveal the secret of the “patronage” accorded to Pushkin. They wanted to make him a minstrel of the existing order of things. Nicholas I and Benkendorf had made it their aim to direct Pushkin’s unruly muse into the channels of official morality.”

Pushkin’s contemporaries, the French Romanticists, were also, with few exceptions, ardent believers in art for art’s sake, the idea of the absolute autonomy of art with no other purpose than itself.

In the twentieth century, Ars Gratia Artis (Latin: Art for Art’s Sake) would become the motto for the American media company Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, to designate art that is independent of political and social pressures.

Of course, while some believe that art should not be politicized, others think that if art was not a social endeavor then it would be used as a commercial item only available to the rich, e.g. a profitable escapist product while simultaneously maintaining and promoting a conservative mindset.

‘During the Cold War period, films were an important factor in the persuasion of the masses. They would be used in various ways, to present the ideal image of their country and to distinguish a national enemy, to name a few.’

However, any thoughts of art as a progressive tool were soon quashed by the HUAC (House Un-American Activities Committee) in the USA, a body which was set up in 1938 to investigate alleged disloyalty and subversive activities on the part of private citizens, public employees, and any organizations with left wing sympathies.

Dialectic of Enlightenment

Not long after, a theoretical analysis of consumerist mass culture was published in a book by Theodor Adorno (1903–1969) and Max Horkheimer (1895–1973) in 1947 entitled Dialectic of Enlightenment in which they coined the term the Culture Industry. For Adorno and Horkheimer “the mass-media entertainment industry and commercialized popular culture, which they saw as primarily concerned with producing not only symbolic goods but also needs and consumers, serving the ideological function of diversion, and thus depoliticizing the working class.”

They believed that the production of culture had become like a “a factory producing standardized cultural goods — films, radio programmes, magazines, etc.— that are used to manipulate mass society into passivity.”

Thomas Hart Benton, Hollywood 1937-38 oil on canvas; 56×84 in. (142.2×213.4 cm)

More significantly, Adorno and Horkheimer also believed that the scientific thinking the Enlightenment philosophers had developed “led to the development of technologically sophisticated but oppressive and inhumane modes of governance.”

Adorno and Horkheimer believed that because the rationalization of society had ultimately led to Fascism, science and rationalism provided little optimism for future progress and human freedom.

However, this view of the history of science and its relationship with human emancipation is, according to Jeffrey Herf in ‘”Dialectic of Enlightenment” Reconsidered’, one that ignores many progressive movements and changes brought about by Enlightenment ideas, and that Horkheimer and Adorno’s view of modern society and politics simply reduced modernity to technology, science, and bureaucracy. Herf outlines many of the events, institutions, laws, rights, treatments and other human benefits that Adorno and Horkheimer (and others) had ignored:

“In Weber’s sociology, Heidegger’s philosophical ruminations, or Dialectic of Enlightenment, the panoply of ideas and events associated with the 1688 revolution in Britain, the moderate wing of the French Revolution, and the ideas and institutions that emerged from the American Revolution, and then from the victory of the North in the American Civil War, are simply absent. As a result of this paucity of historical specificity, Horkheimer and Adorno’s view of modernity during World War II was a very German caricature that did not include ideas about the extension of citizenship, British antislavery, American abolitionism, feminism in Europe and the United States, and the rule of law. Theirs was modernity without liberal democratic ideas and institutions, the rule of law, and the freedom of speech, of assembly, of the press, and of religion or unbelief. […] Dialectic of Enlightenment presented modern science as primarily an exercise in the domination of nature and of human beings. Theirs was a view of the history of the scientific revolution that left out Galileo’s challenge to religious authoritarianism and Francis Bacon’s liberating restatement of the role of evidence in resolving contentious issues. From reading Horkheimer and Adorno — as well as Heidegger and Baumann — one would conclude that modern science was first and foremost a source of control, and would have no idea of how modern medicine, unthinkable without the Enlightenment and the scientific revolution, had come into existence.” [1]

Thus, Adorno and Horkheimer’s view leaves us with an almost Nietzschian nihilism, that knowledge is impossible, and life is meaningless because to try and improve society will fail and ultimately only increase oppression. Without action, Nietzsche predicted a society of ‘the last man’, the “apathetic person or society who loses the ability to dream, to strive, and who become unwilling to take risks” and slave morality characterized by pessimism and cynicism. A society which has not only lost its ‘will to power’ but also its will to revolt.

The culture of resistance

Throughout history, oppression has been met with resistance in many forms such as uprisings, rebellions, and insurrections.

‘Richard II meeting with the rebels of the Peasants’ Revolt of 1381.
The Peasants’ Revolt, also named Wat Tyler’s Rebellion or the Great Rising, was a major uprising across large parts of England in 1381. The revolt had various causes, including the socio-economic and political tensions generated by the Black Death pandemic in the 1340s, the high taxes resulting from the conflict with France during the Hundred Years’ War, and instability within the local leadership of London.’

The resistance often starts with strikes, boycotts, and civil disobedience, leading to mass movements of people who ultimately reject the old system of governance and change it for a new system which can be anti-colonial, anti-imperialist or anti-capitalist. The rise of resistance seems to generally develop in three stages, each affecting culture in very different ways. These different stages could be called criticism, substitution and implementation.

Irish Citizen Army group outside Liberty Hall. Group are lined up outside ITGWU HQ under a banner proclaiming “We serve neither King nor Kaiser, but Ireland!”. Photo taken in early years of WWI.

Criticism

Resistance often begins as criticism of the policies or nature of government, or the state. This can be aesthetic or intellectual resistance appearing, for example, in various art forms. Critiques can be of an ideological nature, or simply to highlight social problems and issues. Resistance can take the form of criticism of officially sanctioned culture through demonstrations and boycotting.

It may also take a violent form, for example, the blowing up of colonial statues in Ireland (see my comprehensive list of statues blown up in my blog post here). The blowing up of Nelson’s Pillar in Dublin in 1976 was celebrated subsequently in two different ballads which became immensely popular, an aesthetic critique arising out of a violent ‘critique’.

On a formal level resistance can also be ‘form-poor’ as struggle without help from educated or trained professionals is left to amateurs.

Substitution

Gradually, a new ideology, a different reading of history, a new set of artists and writers produce culture which eventually substitutes the old culture with a new culture as the movement gathers momentum.

The less costly forms like art, music, ballads, books etc. can become very popular and important elements of the resistance itself. The more expensive cultural forms are difficult to produce in the new culture, e.g., cinema, theatre, opera, TV etc., (unless of course if the format is changed like in community theatre substituting for state theatre).  Digital equipment can be vastly cheaper to use for the making of movies for mass viewing assuming that the outlet for presentation, the internet, is not closed off through censorship.

Implementation

The final stage is implementation, whereby popular resistance takes control of the state and is able to implement progressive culture as state policy. This is particularly important for the most costly art forms which also gain access to state finance and auditoriums. It allows movies, for example, to cover ignored themes such as histories of resistance, or to show past events from more radical perspectives than the previous elite mindset and agendas.

These different levels of cultural change: criticism, substitution, and implementation can be a long process or all come together in a short span of time.

The storming of the Bastille, 14 July 1789, during the French Revolution.

I have tried to show in my previous examination of ten different art-forms (see: art, music, theatre, opera, literature, poetry, cinema, architecture, TV, and dance articles) that since the Age of Enlightenment there has been a strong vein of radical ideas relating to social progress. Over the centuries radical culture has looked at the plight of the oppressed using different forms such as naturalism, realism, social realism, and working class socialist realism.

The philosophers of the Enlightenment believed that advancements in science, technology, economic development and social organization would have universal application globally. They also believed in the idea that empirical knowledge should be the basis of society and that with these ideas political and societal change would strengthen civilization itself. While social progressivism, as a political philosophy, is reformist in nature, it also has the potential to snowball into more radical action through discussion around questions as to who runs the state and ownership of the means of production.

The form and content of the culture of resistance has many aspects. Some emphasize change on the community level, developing the skills, community spirit, and artistic sensibilities of the community members whether they be producers, creators or observers. An important element of this strategy for social change is encouraging critical thinking through participation in active dialogue. General themes for discussion have been, for example, gender equality, human rights, the environment and democracy.

The Bash Bush Band musical protesters at Bush’s 2nd inauguration, Washington DC.

Others have taken a more radical approach of examining human conflict and its sources. They look at human conflict from a social perspective and see society in terms of conflicting economic classes. By portraying economic classes in conflict they hope to evolve or expand a working class consciousness or at least an understanding of, and empathy with, oppressed groups. Radical artists, writers, composers etc are encouraged to take a scientific approach and work against superstitions and blind practices. As radical cultural producers they try to present the truth and inspire wide-ranging social and political activism.

Future of culture?

Modern resistance, often in digital form on the internet today, is now subject to a creeping censorship as big tech tries to slow down the efficacy of the internet at making widely available different perspectives on many different issues. At the same time, big tech tries to portray technological progress as social progress, and is at the forefront of liberal campaigns for individual rights at the expense of mass movements for collective or group rights. Such group rights allow for organizations to speak for, and negotiate on behalf of trade unions, trade associations, specific ethnic groups, political parties, and nation-states.

However, internet censorship and the gradually increasing power of the state (through police, courts, and prisons) using current and new legislation will be able to continue unabated, that is, unless the slave culture that facilitates it is shaken off and a new culture of resistance is born.

*

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

Caoimhghin Ó Croidheáin is an Irish artist, lecturer and writer. His artwork consists of paintings based on contemporary geopolitical themes as well as Irish history and cityscapes of Dublin. His blog of critical writing based on cinema, art and politics along with research on a database of Realist and Social Realist art from around the world can be viewed country by country here. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization. 

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

Note

[1] Jeffrey Herf, “Dialectic of Enlightenment” Reconsidered Source: New German Critique , FALL 2012, No. 117, Special Issue for Anson Rabinbach (FALL 2012), pp. 81-89 Published by: Duke University Press [p84] Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/23357065

All Global Research articles including the  E-Book can be read in 27 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

***

On Jan. 13, California health officials issued a hold on 330,000 doses of Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine after “fewer than 10” people at San Diego’s Petco Park stadium vaccine clinic suffered allergic reactions to the vaccine. Santa Clara County officials lifted the hold on the vaccine lot in question on Jan. 21.

One day later, on Jan. 22, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) issued a Morbidity Mortality Weekly “early release” report on Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine. For the report, the CDC used data reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) between Dec. 21, 2020  – Jan. 10, 2021 to investigate cases of anaphylaxis, a life-threatening allergic reaction, following injections of Moderna’s vaccine.

The CDC’s choice to use VAERS data to calculate the rate of anaphylaxis associated with Moderna’s vaccine is idiosyncratic and troubling. Why?

First, VAERS is a “passive” reporting system, which results in a high degree of underreporting. In fact, a 2010 study (Lazarus et al, 2010) commissioned by the CDC, concluded that “fewer than 1% of vaccine injuries” are reported to VAERS. A 2015 study (Shimabukuro et al, 2015) similarly concluded that vaccine adverse events are underreported.

The other problem with VAERS? Reports often get filed only weeks or months after the event, which means the data is not current.

There are other reporting systems that the CDC could have used to calculate anaphylactic reactions to Moderna’s vaccine.

For example, the Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD) data, which the CDC used to calculate its overall rate of 1.3 events per million doses, updates in real time. So does the V-safe database, which was created specifically to assess the safety of COVID-19 vaccines. V-safe sends text message prompts to vaccine recipients on a daily basis for a week after a person is vaccinated, and occasionally thereafter. The prompts urge vaccine recipients to report any side effects directly using a cell phone app.

CDC notified the public of six cases of anaphylaxis following Pfizer’s COVID vaccine during the first week of the vaccination program. Its information came from the V-safe active surveillance data.

Both the Vaccine Safety Datalink and V-safe are considered “active” surveillance systems, sensitive for identifying events and fit for calculating event rates in a vaccinated population. However, unlike VAERS, neither systems’ contents are available for public scrutiny.

CDC’s Jan. 22 report on the Moderna reactions surprisingly asserted that “reporting efficiency to VAERS … is believed to be high,” and “VAERS is likely sensitive at capturing anaphylaxis cases occurring after COVID-19 vaccinations.”

The only reference cited to support these assertions was a 1995 CDC publication on VAERS, written by the CDC’s own scientists — which instead of supporting the CDC’s Jan. 22 assertions, contradicted them.

Just like the 2010 Lazarus study, the CDC’s 1995 report found that less than 1% of certain serious adverse events were being reported to VAERS. The report, which didn’t mention anaphylaxis, also “highlight[ed] the limitations of passive surveillance systems in assessing the incidence of vaccine adverse events.”

In fact, according to the VAERS website: “It is not possible to use VAERS data to calculate how often an adverse event occurs in a population.”

Notwithstanding these extraordinary impediments to relying on VAERS to calculate any adverse event rate, CDC found 108 potential episodes of anaphylaxis following Moderna vaccinations in VAERS, of which only 10 met the Brighton criteria for anaphylaxis. With 4 million doses administered, the CDC calculated a rate of 2.5 anaphylaxis events per million doses — still double the accepted average rate for vaccination.

Pfizer’s vaccine has also been associated with higher-than-expected anaphylaxis events. By Dec. 19, 2020, after only a few days of use, the CDC had confirmed 6 cases of anaphylaxis among 272,000 vaccine recipients, or 22 cases per million doses. This is also considerably higher than CDC’s expected rate of 1.3 per million cases of  anaphylaxis following vaccination.

CDC had promised it would have five adverse event monitoring systems at work at the onset of the COVID-19 vaccination program, and it would add six more systems later.

Yet V-safe is the only one of these systems currently in use that provides active surveillance. As such, it is the only one from which adverse event rates can be reliably calculated. The CDC should have used V-safe to calculate the anaphylaxis rate associated with the Moderna vaccine — but it didn’t.

If the CDC were desperate to improve the appearance of Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine safety profile, and release the 330,000 doses quarantined in California, using the VAERS data — and hoping no one would notice — was probably the best option.

If the CDC wants to cultivate trust in COVID vaccines and reinstate trust in vaccine injury monitoring, it’s essential that it make public the best, most accurate data — data the CDC has had all along.

*

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

Featured image is from CHD

All Global Research articles including the  E-Book can be read in 27 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

***

James (he gives his last name in the video) is a CNA (Certified Nursing Assistant), and he recorded this video as a whistleblower because he could not keep silent any longer.

James reports that in 2020 very few residents in the nursing home where he works got sick with COVID, and none of them died during the entire year of 2020.

However, shortly after administering the Pfizer experimental mRNA injections, 14 died within two weeks, and he reports that many others are near death.

The video is long (47 minutes), and it is clear that James is suffering from emotional stress, and he admits that he has nothing to gain from going public, and that he will probably lose his job for doing so.

But he makes it very clear that these were patients he knew and cared for (he is also a “lay pastor”), and that after being injected with the mRNA shot, residents who used to walk on their own can no longer walk. Residents who used to carry on an intelligent conversation with him could no longer talk.

And now they are dying. “They’re dropping like flies.”

His superiors are explaining the deaths as being caused by a COVID19 “super-spreader.”

However, the residents who refused to take the injections, are not sick, according to James.

James makes it very clear that as a Christian, he cannot live with his conscience anymore, and that he can no longer remain silent.

He is not anti-vaccine, but just sharing what he knows is true, regarding the people he has cared for in his profession for over 10 years now.

This is a very clear pattern now. Inject the elderly with the mRNA injections, then blame their illnesses and deaths on the COVID virus.

The only reason Big Pharma and their sponsored corporate media are getting away with this, is because more healthcare workers like James are not coming forward to speak up for the helpless.

Even many in the Alternative Media are guilty for not covering this genocide against our seniors, as James states, because people are more concerned with Donald Trump and Joe Biden political news, while people’s grandmother, grandfather, and others are being killed by these injections.

James calls upon other CNAs, nurses, and family members to go public and tell the world what is going on with these experimental mRNA COVID injections.

How many more lives need to be lost before we say something?

If you know what is happening, but are not speaking out, then you are part of the problem.

And shame on you in the Alternative Media who are more concerned about which tyrant should be president than you are about covering the greatest crime of genocide this country has ever seen.

Rescue those being led away to death; hold back those staggering toward slaughter.

If you say, “But we knew nothing about this,” does not he who weighs the heart perceive it? Does not he who guards your life know it? Will he not repay each person according to what he has done?(Proverbs 24:11-12)

The video is from our Minds.com account. It should also soon be available on our Bitchute channel, and Rumble account. (Still rendering at time of publication.)

Click here to watch the video.

*

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

All Global Research articles including the  E-Book can be read in 27 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

***

As I watch the unfolding political drama of the impeachment trial in the US Senate, the glimmer of hope for change I had following the incredible scenes at the Capitol on Jan 6 is being dimmed. The question in my mind now is whether it is even possible, with the tools being used by Joe Biden, to turn the tide on Trump’s movement.

The US news media is marveling that, for the first time ever, a president has denounced white supremacy “by name” in an inaugural address. The hashtag #EndWhiteSupremacy is gaining currency. But I believe the rallying cry generated in opposition to Trump’s nativist, xenophobic and racist politics, the same elements that had shaped the politics of the first half of the twentieth century, is insufficient to turn the face of this country toward its “better angels.”

The devil is in both the details and history. Some activists are already raising the alarm that “moves to combat far-right extremism will instead redound against communities of color and leftwing activists.”

Others, like a friend commenting on my post that attempted to make sense of why only a handful of Republicans in the Senate had voted for the impeachment trial to take place (the vote was 54 to 45 in favor), believe that “The GOP want power, and contesting an election or assaulting the Capitol doesn’t faze them. The Dems are living in a dream world, like the late Weimar politicians.”

After being confirmed by the Senate as secretary of state, in a stunningly oblivious statement, ignoring the fact that half the American government is afraid of one man, Antony Blinken had this to say during an interview with Andrea Mitchell: “It remains striking to me how concerned and maybe even scared the Russian government seems to be of one man, Mr Navalny.”

Many people outside politics are trying to grapple with the fact that, for all practical purposes, jury nullification is built into this Senate impeachment trial (as it was in the first). The upcoming trial (to begin Feb 8) appears to be merely a political exercise meant “for history” to record, not a vehicle to showcase truth, justice and accountability. We just have to live with it. We have to live with the version that gives credence to, in Trump’s words, “a continuation of the greatest witch-hunt in history!”

I am no stranger to witnessing slavish loyalty to unprincipled movements. As a Palestinian American, I have witnessed the misplaced and deeply-entrenched US loyalty to Israel and Israel only, no matter how egregious its actions become (think of Obama administration’s defense of Israel’s brutalizing a civilian population when bombing besieged Gaza in 2014). When I hear phrases like “Trump owned them,” (meaning the insurrectionists), I understand immediately that such a thing is possible.

Haven’t books been written on how Israel and its allies “own” US foreign policy on Israel/Palestine? When I hear paranoid inversions of reality and fact such as the Capitol rioters saying, “they are locking us down, taking away our freedom and our country, too,” I think of all the hasbara Israel has deployed over the years with talking points that aim to invert reality, so much so that, in many people’s minds, Israel is still perceived as being viciously mistreated and the people it victimizes, the oppressed and dispossessed Palestinian people, are perceived as the victimizers.

Long before Trump’s account was removed from Twitter for misinformation, as journalist Daoud Kuttab wrote way back in 2015,

paid individuals, often university students, who are hired by the office of the prime minister of Israel to respond quickly and fiercely to anyone daring to criticise the state of Israel and its actions… Many commentators are not traceable to any real individual because they use pseudonyms. On Twitter, where there is much debate surrounding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, some anti-Palestine comments or reactions come from pages with 25 followers and little activity; one begins to doubt whether these are genuine Twitter users.

And the campaign to invert reality and entrench doublespeak regarding Israel and its apartheid, supremacist Zionist ideology is still being waged on social media today. As I write this, a petition launched by American Muslims for Palestine (AMP) and Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP) states: “The Israeli government is pressuring Facebook to add critical usage of the word ‘Zionist’ to its hate speech policy. If Facebook restricts use of the word ‘Zionist,’ how can Palestinians describe our daily lives under Israeli apartheid, or discuss our families’ history?”

Trump may have failed to reverse the election, but he continues to reverse reality. As a Palestinian American, I ought to be inured to denials of reality in the highest places in the US as well as on social media. Still, it’s devastating for me to realize that Trump is the beginning of something that is here to stay, that the sacking of the Capitol, for all its farcical elements as the “stupid coup,” is the who-we-are coup according to millions and their Republican enablers in the Senate and that Democrats have no clue how to stop them.

*

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

Rima Najjar is a Palestinian whose father’s side of the family comes from the forcibly depopulated village of Lifta on the western outskirts of Jerusalem and whose mother’s side of the family is from Ijzim, south of Haifa. She is an activist, researcher and retired professor of English literature, Al-Quds University, occupied West Bank.

She is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image: Trump and Netanyahu’s love affair around Jerusalem and Palestine’s fate – Cartoon [Sabaaneh/MiddleEastMonitor]

All Global Research articles including the  E-Book can be read in 27 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

***

The Israeli military needs over $1 billion to fund its widely promoted strike on Iran, which Tel Aviv has threatened to carry out if the US should rejoin the nuclear deal. According to Israeli sources, the military would need these additional funds to deal with the challenges that it faces including ‘threats’ from the Iranian-led Axis of Resistance.

The interesting fact is that even the IDF Chief of Staff admits that Israel is the initiator of the escalation. However, the Israeli leadership continues to insist that the Iranian threat is growing.

“In general, none of [our enemies] want to initiate anything against us. All of their actions — almost without exception — are retaliatory to our actions, not actions that they’ve initiated. And when they decide to carry out [an attack], they experience difficulties and decide to abandon their ways of acting,” IDF Chief of Staff Aviv Kohavi said adding that military spending must be increased, despite the coronavirus crisis.

“The missiles don’t get sick, but they can be fired the moment the other side decides that’s what it wants to do,” Kohavi stated referring to the missile arsenal of Hamas, Hezbollah and Iran.

It is interesting to know: Would the new US administration fund Israeli preparations for a strike against Iran beforehand or it would prefer to compensate it after the event.

In any case, as of now there are no conditions to test Israeli readiness to really attack Tehran. Whether the Biden administration will rejoin the nuclear deal is still in question. Iran argues that it would reject any preconditions and the deal could only be considered to be restored after the lifting of all the imposed sanctions.

Meanwhile, the main side suffering are the Gulf allies of the Israeli-US bloc. The new Iranian-backed group, which claimed responsibility for the recent attack on the Saudi capital, issued a threat to the United Arab Emirates. On January 27, the Righteous Promise Brigades released a poster showing a drone attacking Burj Khalifa in the Emirate of Dubai. Rising to 829.8 meters in height, Burj Khalifa is the world’s tallest structure and building.

“The second blow will be on the dens of evil in Dubai, with the help of the Almighty, if the crimes of Bin Salman and Bin Zayed are repeated,” the statement reads. The RPB said its attack on Riyadh was a response to the January 21 bombings in the Iraqi capital. ISIS claimed responsibility for the terrorist attack. However, the Righteous Promise Brigades blamed Saudi Arabia and the UAE.

“The second blow will be on the dens of evil in Dubai, with the help of the Almighty, if the crimes of Bin Salman and Bin Zayed are repeated,” the statement reads. The RPB said its attack on Riyadh was a response to the January 21 bombings in the Iraqi capital. ISIS claimed responsibility for the terrorist attack. However, the Righteous Promise Brigades blamed Saudi Arabia and the UAE.

*

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

SUPPORT SOUTHFRONT:

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

The Globalization of War: America’s “Long War” against Humanity

Michel Chossudovsky

The “globalization of war” is a hegemonic project. Major military and covert intelligence operations are being undertaken simultaneously in the Middle East, Eastern Europe, sub-Saharan Africa, Central Asia and the Far East. The U.S. military agenda combines both major theater operations as well as covert actions geared towards destabilizing sovereign states.

ISBN Number: 978-0-9737147-6-0

Year: 2015

Pages: 240 Pages

List Price: $22.95

Special Price: $15.00

Click here to order.

All Global Research articles including the  E-Book can be read in 27 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

***

What makes the current state of war against “terrorism” so dangerous is that the national security apparatus has been politicized, Phil Giraldi writes.

President Joe Biden has already made it clear that legislation that will be used to combat what he refers to as “domestic terrorism” will be a top priority. That means that his inaugural speech pledge to be the president for “all Americans” appears to apply except for those who don’t agree with him. Former Barack Obama CIA Chief John Brennan, who is clearly in the loop on developments, puts it this way in a tweet where he describes how the new Administration’s spooks “are moving in laser-like fashion to try to uncover as much as they can about [the] insurgency” [that includes] “religious extremists, authoritarians, fascists, bigots, racists, nativists, even libertarians.”

The United States Constitution’s Bill of Rights, which includes freedom of speech and association, has been under siege for some time now. Government has always used its assumed powers conferred by a claimed state of emergency to deprive citizens of their rights. During the American Civil War Abraham Lincoln imprisoned critics of the conflict. Woodrow Wilson’s First World War administration brought in the Espionage Act, which has since been used to convict whistleblowers without having to present the level of evidence that would be required in a normal civil trial. During the Second World War, Franklin D. Roosevelt erected concentration camps that imprisoned Japanese Americans whose only crime consisted of being Japanese.

But perhaps the greatest attack on the Bill of Rights is more recent, the Patriot and Military Commissions Acts that were passed into law as a consequence of the “Global War on Terror” launched by President George W. Bush in the wake of 9/11. Together with the secretive Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), which includes a court designed to speed up the warrant approval process, ordinary citizens found themselves on the receiving end of surveillance for which there was little or no justification in terms of probable cause. The FISA process was even notoriously abused in the national security apparatus attempt to derail the campaign of Donald Trump. The tools are in place for ever more government mischief and no one should doubt that the Democrats are just as capable of ignoring constitutional safeguards as the Republicans have been.

What makes the current state of war against “terrorism” so dangerous is that the national security apparatus has been politicized while the government has learned that labeling someone or some entity terrorist or even a “material supporter of terrorism” is infinitely elastic. That is precisely why Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has frequently called out opponents and attached to them the terrorist label, since it then permits other steps that might otherwise be challenged.

And there is also the fact that the playing field has changed since the First and Second World Wars. The government has technical capabilities that were never dreamed of in most of the twentieth century. Edward Snowden and other whistleblowers have demonstrated how the government routinely ignores constitutional limits on its ability to interfere in the lives of ordinary citizens. Not only that, it can monitor the lives of millions of Americans simultaneously, giving the police and intelligence agencies the power to mount “fishing expeditions” that literally invade the phones, computers and conversations of people who have not been guilty of any crime.

The authorizations that already exist will be further weaponized to go after dissidents as identified by the new regime. A bill introduced by House intelligence committee chair Adam Schiff “would take existing War on Terror legislation and simply amend it to say we can now do that within the U.S.” It would be combined with previous legislation, including former president Barack Obama’s infamous 2012 National Defense Authorization Act, which allows the military to indefinitely detain American citizens suspected of terrorism without a trial. Obama and Brennan also assumed an illegal and unconstitutional right to act as judge, jury and executioner-by-drone of American citizens overseas. Given those precedents, a bill like Schiff’s would free the national security community’s hands even more.

The new body of legislation would mean increased secret legal surveillance, suppression of free speech, indefinite incarceration without charges, torture, and even perhaps assassination. If it sounds like totalitarianism it should. There ought to be particular concern that the plan of the Biden Administration to go after so-called domestic terrorists will be this generation’s version of either Pearl Harbor or 9/11. The incident that took place at the Capitol Building on January 6^th (already being referred to as 1/6 in some circles) has been exaggerated beyond all recognition and is now being regularly referred to as an “insurrection,” which it was not, by both politicians and the mainstream media. The language used to vilify what are alleged to be “right wing” and “white supremacist” enemies of the state is astonishing and the technology is keeping pace to turn the United States and other countries into police states to ensure that citizens will do the bidding of government.

To cite only one example of how technology can drive the process, Biden has several times threatened to initiate and enforce something like a nationwide lockdown to defeat the coronavirus. Can he do it? Yes, the tools are already in place. Facial recognition technology is highly developed and deployable in the numerous surveillance cameras that are being installed. Wrist bands are being developed overseas that are designed to compel compliance with government dictates on pandemic measures enforcement. If you have been told to stay home and are instead walking the dog your wrist band will tell the police and they will find and arrest you.

And, as the old saying goes, the Revolution is already beginning to devour its own children. Universities and schools are insisting that teachers actively support both publicly and privately the new “equity and diversity” order while police departments are purging themselves of officers suspected of being associated with conservative groups, meaning that something like a loyalty test might soon become common. Recently the Defense Department has begun intensive monitoring of the social media of military personnel to identify dissenters, as is already done in some large companies with their employees. The new Director of National Intelligence hardliner Avril Haines has already confirmed that her agency will participate in a public threat assessment of QAnon, which she has described as America’s Greatest Threat.

Haines has also suggested that intelligence agencies will “look at connections between folks in the U.S. and externally and foreign” while Biden on his first full day in office has pledged to thoroughly investigate claims about Russian hacking of U.S. infrastructure and government sites, the poisoning of Putin critic Alexei Navalny, and the story that Russia offered the Taliban bounties to kill U.S. troops in Afghanistan. It could be Russiagate all over again, with a claimed foreign threat being used to conceal civil rights violations being committed by the federal government at home.

And, of course, the new policies will reflect the biases of the new rulers. Right wing “terror” will be targeted even though the list of actual right-wing driven outrages is embarassingly short. Groups like Black Lives Matter will be untouchable in spite of their major role in last year’s rioting, arson, looting and violence that caused $2 billion damage and killed as many as thirty because they are in all but name part of the Democratic Party. Antifa, which rioted in Portland last week, will also get a pass – the media routinely describes leftist violence as “mainly peaceful” and only sometimes concedes that some “property damage” occurred.

It is Trump supporters and conservatives in general who are being shown the exit door, to include calls for “deprogramming them”. The Washington Post’s Zionist harpy Jennifer Rubin recently declared that “We have to collectively, in essence, burn down the Republican Party. We have to level them because if there are survivors, if there are people who weather this storm, they will do it again.” She also echoed calls for making them unemployable, “I think it’s absolutely abhorrent that any institution of higher learning, any news organization, or any entertainment organization that has a news outlet would hire these people.”

As the notably clueless Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said in 2006 while Lebanon was getting bombed and shelled by Israel, “We are seeing the birth pangs of a new Middle East…” so too are we Americans seeing something new and strange emerging from the ruins of Trumpdom. It will not be pretty and after it is over Americans will enjoy a lot fewer liberties, that is for sure.

*

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

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 https://councilforthenationalinterest.org address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email is [email protected]

He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image: Charlottesville riot (Source: Shutterstock)

All Global Research articles including the  E-Book can be read in 27 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

***

All Global Research articles including the  E-Book can be read in 27 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

***

On 11 January, just a few days before the inauguration of President Joe Biden, the outgoing Trump administration made the shameless decision to return Cuba to its ‘state sponsors of terrorism’ (SST) list.

In one of his last acts as Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo cited Cuba’s refusal to extradite leaders of Colombia’s National Liberation Army (ELN) and its alleged interference in Venezuela as justification.

It is difficult to know where to start in describing the hypocrisy, fraudulence and vindictiveness of this action. There was a widespread backlash and condemnation, not only from Cuba and its close friends, but from many in the US too.

US Congressman Gregory Meeks, the incoming chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, stated he was “outraged that Donald Trump is designating Cuba as a SST less than a week after he incited a domestic terror attack on the US Capitol.” The policy “focused on hurting the Cuban people – from drastically reducing remittances in the middle of a pandemic, to limiting the ability of Americans to travel to the island,” and he urged Biden to reverse it.

Biden could undo the myriad of presidential measures that Trump took against Cuba with a simple presidential directive. However, removing the country from the SST list is more complicated. It requires a formal review, which could take months, plus congressional sign-off which would meet pushback from hard line Republicans.

The designation also adds additional trade and economic sanctions to those already in place which will make companies and third countries think twice before doing business with Cuba.

The State Department’s Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs pushed through the decision, rather than the Counterterrorism Bureau, as would usually be expected.

Ben Rhodes, who served as Deputy National Security Adviser in the Obama administration and played a key role in normalising US-Cuba relations, tweeted that this was evidence it was politically motivated:

“This is such politicised garbage meant to tie the hands of an administration that takes power in ten days. Cuba is not a state sponsor of terrorism. Ordinary Cubans will suffer so Pompeo can look tough to a few people in Miami.”

Ine Eriksen Søreide, Norway’s Minister of Foreign Affairs questioned the reasoning behind the measure, specifically the presence of members of Colombia’s ELN in the country. Cuba has been Norway’s partner in the peace negotiations and hosted talks between the ELN and the Colombian government in Havana before talks broke down in 2019.

“If a country risks being placed on a terrorism list as a result of facilitating peace efforts, it could set a negative precedent for international peace efforts,” said Ms Eriksen Søreide.

Perhaps the most offensive part for Cubans is the fact that they themselves have been the victims of numerous terrorist attacks by US-based groups. From attacks on literacy brigades and burning of crops in the 1960s, to the mid-air bombing of a Cubana flight in 1976; from the introduction of dengue fever and swine flu into the country in the 1980s to the bombings of Cuban hotels in the 1990s; the island has suffered a long and horrific list of atrocities, many carried out by US citizens who were never prosecuted.

Such attacks have cost the lives of 3,478 people and injured 2,099. Cuban American terrorists such as Orlando Bosch and Posada Carilles both died free men in the US, protected from their crimes by a complicit State Department. The Miami Five had to leave their homeland and families to go undercover in the 90s to help protect the Cuban people because the US government failed to act.

Cuba is the antithesis of a state sponsor of terrorism. The popularity of the international campaign for their medical brigades to receive a Nobel Peace Prize, and the number of official nominations made on their behalf, illustrates the absurdity of such a claim.

Sacha Llorenti, Executive Secretary of the Bolivarian Alliance for the Peoples of Our America-Peoples’ Trade Treaty represented the thoughts of many when he described the US actions as an “affront to the peoples of the world. In the midst of a pandemic and suffering under a criminal blockade, Cuba is sending doctors and saving thousands and thousands of lives. If there were a list of countries sponsoring solidarity and life, Cuba would be in first place.”

British MP Richard Burgon described the decision to return Cuba to the list as “disgraceful” and made for “cynical political objectives based upon lies. Obama rightly removed Cuba from this classification and I hope that Joe Biden does so too, and swiftly.”

The Cuba Solidarity Campaign calls for this disgraceful designation to be reversed, together with all the extra measures against Cuba implemented by the Trump Administration. The speed with which President Biden acts on this will indicate his administration’s future intent towards the island. However, we can not settle for Obama mark 2. The blockade of Cuba remained in place, even at the height of the rapprochement between the two countries in 2016. Yet, just four years later, in 2020, the annual cost of the blockade to the Cuban economy exceeded $5 million for the first time in its history. It is the longest and most extensive set of sanctions against a country in living memory – a cruel and vindictive act of economic warfare against the Cuban people which must end now.

*

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

Featured image is by martirena via Cuba Solidarity Campaign

All Global Research articles including the  E-Book can be read in 27 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

***

In a sign that the US is a long way from lifting sanctions on Iran, Secretary of State Antony Blinken said the US will not return to the nuclear deal until Iran comes back into compliance.

“President Biden has been very clear in saying that if Iran comes back into full compliance with its obligations under the JCPOA, the United States would do the same thing,” Blinken said at a press conference on Wednesday.

“But we are a long ways from that point. Iran is out of compliance on a number of fronts. And it would take some time … for it to come back into compliance in time for us then to assess whether it was meeting its obligations,” he said.

Blinken’s comments come after Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif said the US must take the first step. Writing in Foreign Affairs last week, Zarif called on President Biden to unconditionally lift sanctions if he is serious about restoring the JCPOA.

Zarif’s argument is that since the US was the first to violate the deal by re-imposing sanctions on Iran in 2018, it’s on Washington to revive the JCPOA. Iran gradually began violating the deal in 2019, after waiting a year for the other signatories to offset US sanctions.

Zarif, and other Iranian officials, have made it clear these violations are easily reversible and that they would quickly comply with the agreement if the US gives Iran sanctions relief.

*

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

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

Featured image: Tony Blinken At His Confirmation Hearing, Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Jan. 19, 2021. Screenshot.
via Mondoweiss

All Global Research articles including the  E-Book can be read in 27 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

***

From across the globe, hundreds of activists, intellectuals and artists launched an open letter calling on Facebook to ensure that any amendments to its hate speech policy keep all people safe and connected. The petition garnered over 14,500 signatures in its first 24 hours.

Led by 31 organizations, the global campaign “Facebook, we need to talk” began in response to an inquiry by Facebook to assess if critical conversations that use the term “Zionist” fall within the rubric of hate speech as per Facebook’s Community Standards. Facebook may make a decision as soon as the end of February 2021. Zionism is a political ideology and movement that emerged in the 19th century and led to the founding of the state of Israel on Palestinian land; It has been deeply contested since its conception, including within the Jewish community.

Notable human rights activists and cultural figures such as Hanan Ashrawi, Norita Cortiñas, Wallace Shawn and Peter Gabriel have signed the petition, which notes that if Facebook restricts the usage of the word “Zionist,” it would prevent Palestinians from talking about their daily lives, shield the Israeli government from accountability for human rights violations, and do nothing to make Jewish people safer from antisemitism.

“We are deeply concerned about Facebook’s proposed revision of its hate speech policy to consider “Zionist” as a proxy for ‘Jew’ or ‘Jewish,’” the petition reads. “The proposed policy would too easily mischaracterize conversations about Zionists — and by extension, Zionism — as inherently antisemitic, harming Facebook users and undermining efforts to dismantle real antisemitism and all forms of racism, extremism and oppression.”

This attempt to stifle conversations about Zionist political ideology and Zionist policies — both of which have real implications for Palestinian and Israeli people, as well as Jewish and Palestinian people around the world — is part of an emerging pattern of political censorship by the Israeli government and some of its supporters. The most prominent example of these efforts to shield the Israeli government from accountability is the current campaign to impose the controversial IHRA working definition of antisemitism on campuses and civil society, and to codify it in government legislation. The IHRA definition conflates antisemitism with holding the Israeli government accountable for rights violations, stifling protected political speech that is necessary for healthy, open discussions about foreign policy and human rights.

After 12 hours the petition already had thousands of signers, including: Atilio Boron, Judith Butler, Michael Chabon, Noam Chomsky, Julie Christie, Richard Falk, Amos Goldberg, Marc Lamont Hill, Adnan Jubran, Ronnie Kasrils, Elias Khoury, Karol Cariola, Ken Loach, Miriam Margloyses, Ilan Pappe, Vijay Prashad, Prabir Purkayastha, Rima Berns-McGown, Jessica Tauane, Einat Weizman and Cornel West. (See facebookweneedtotalk.org/petition-text/english for a complete list of initial signatories.)

The campaign was launched by 7amleh – The Arab Center for the Advancement of Social Media, Palestine Legal, MPower Change, Jewish Voice for Peace, Independent Jewish Voices Canada, Eyewitness Palestine, BDS National Committee, American Muslims for Palestine and Adalah Justice Project. (See below for a complete list of cosponsors.)

Rabbi Alissa Wise, Deputy Director of Jewish Voice for Peace: “If Facebook decides to add ‘Zionist’ to its hate speech policies, it will be in order to shield the Israeli government from accountability. This is not an earnest effort seeking to dismantle antisemitism on its platforms. Facebook should be focusing on those involved in white nationalist groups inciting violence, not Palestinians seeking to share their experiences living under Zionism with the world.”

Lau Barrios, Campaign Manager at MPower Change: “This move by Facebook would represent them actively siding against Palestinians and those fighting in solidarity alongside them for Palestinian liberation. It would also set a dangerous precedent around Big Tech’s ability to further target our movements and harm marginalized communities for simply sharing their lived experiences, such as life under apartheid. Facebook must stop harming and silencing Palestinians living under apartheid and start cracking down on white supremacist groups — like the Proud Boys — that have used their platform as a recruitment site and to push anti-Semitic, anti-Black, and Islamophobic rhetoric for years. That would require looking in the mirror. We hope they finally do so — and listen to Palestinians and the most impacted communities.”

Nadim Nashif, Executive Director of 7amleh – The Arab Center for the Advancement of Social Media: “Suppressing critical discussion of Zionism and Zionists on the Facebook platform would be a political act that would severely restrict Palestinians and human rights defenders from communicating about the history and the lived reality of Palestinians.”

Liz Jackson, Senior Staff Attorney at Palestine Legal: “The policy Facebook is considering would be yet another tool to silence Palestinians and their allies who are trying to tell the world about the impacts of Zionism on their daily lives. Every year Palestine Legal hears from hundreds of people in the U.S. — Palestinians and their allies — who are censored, punished and harassed for speaking out for Palestinian freedom. The vast majority are accused of antisemitism because they criticized the political positions of Zionists, in defense of Palestinian lives. Facebook must resist this censorship, not reinforce it.”

To read the full text of the open letter, list of signatories, and background about the campaign, visit facebookweneedtotalk.org. For interviews with petition organizers or signatories, contact Sonya E. Meyerson-Knox at [email protected]or 929-290-0317.

Campaign background

We all want to connect. And social media can be a powerful tool to help us get past walls and share our stories, grow our networks and stand up for one another. But some politicians and governments are trying to turn these necessary guardrails into walls that keep us apart, generating fear and keeping us divided so they can avoid being held accountable for their actions.

Right now, Facebook is reaching out to stakeholders to ask if critical conversations that use the term “Zionist” fall within the rubric of hate speech as per Facebook’s Community Standards. Basically, Facebook is assessing if “Zionist” is being used as a proxy for “Jewish people or Israelis” in attacks on its platform.

Facebook may make a decision as soon as the end of February 2021.

This move is part of a concerning pattern of the Israeli government and its supporters pressuring Facebook and other social media platforms to expand their hate speech policies to include speech critical of Israel and Zionism – and falsely claiming this would help fight antisemitism. They are hoping that by mischaracterizing critical use of the term “Zionists” as anti-Jewish, they can avoid accountability for its policies and actions that violate Palestinian human rights. Such a move would do nothing to address antisemitism, especially the violent antisemitism of right-wing movements and states — which, as recent events have shown, is the source of the most tangible threats to Jewish lives.

Attempts to stifle conversations about Zionist political ideology and Zionist policies carried out by state actors — both of which have real implications for Palestinian and Israeli people, as well as Jewish and Palestinian people around the world — are part of an emerging pattern of political censorship by the Israeli government and some of its supporters.

The most prominent example of these efforts to shield the Israeli government from accountability is the current campaign to impose the controversial IHRA working definition of antisemitism on campuses and civil society, and to codify it in government legislation.

If Facebook does move to restrict use of the word Zionist, this would block important conversations on the world’s largest social media platform, harm Facebook users attempting to connect across space and difference, and deprive Palestinians of a critical venue for expressing their political viewpoints to the world. Palestinians need to be able to talk about Zionism and Zionists in order to share their family stories and daily lived experience with the world. That language is essential to clearly distinguishing between Judaism and Jewish people, on the one hand, and the State actors responsible for human rights violations against Palestinians, on the other.

***

Facebook, we need to talk campaign co-sponsors:

7amleh – The Arab Center for the Advancement of Social Media

Adalah Justice Project

American Muslims for Palestine

Arab Resource & Organizing Center (AROC)

BDS México

BDS National Committee

Center for Constitutional Rights

Color of Change

Disciples of Christ Palestine-Israel Network

Eyewitness Palestine

Fight for the Future

Free Press

Free Speech on Israel

Friends of Sabeel North America (FOSNA)

If Not Now

Independent Jewish Voices Canada

Jewish Voice for Labour

Jewish Voice for Peace

Kairos Action

Los Otros Judíos

Media Justice

Movement Alliance Project

MPower Change

National Students for Justice in Palestine

National Lawyers Guild

Palestine Institute for Public Diplomacy (PIPD)

Palestine Legal

Palestine Solidarity Campaign, UK

Palestinian Youth Movement

South Africa BDS Coalition

US Campaign for Palestinian Rights

*

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

Featured image is from Jewish Voice for Peace

All Global Research articles including the  E-Book can be read in 27 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

***

Ecuador is just weeks away from becoming the latest Latin American nation to move away from the IMF and United States and elect a strongly progressive, anti-imperialist government.

If the country’s polls are to be believed, Ecuador is set to become the latest Latin American nation to move away from the United States and elect a strongly progressive, anti-imperialist government. Successive public opinion studies have shown Andrés Arauz of the Unión por la Esperanza coalition holding a commanding lead over his rivals, with some suggesting he may receive double the votes of his nearest challenger.

In 2018, Mexico voted in its first leftist president in decades. One year later, Argentina returned to progressive hands with the election of Alberto Fernández. Perhaps most remarkably of all, Bolivians managed to turn back the U.S.-backed coup against Evo Morales last year, electing Morales’ finance minister, Luis Arce in October. Added to that are the failed attempts by the Trump administration to dislodge socialist governments in Venezuela and Nicaragua. Meanwhile, far-right Brazilian president Jair Bolsonaro is currently under fire from all sides for his handling of the COVID-19 crisis and has his popularity plunge.

The youthful Arauz is an economist by trade, and a disciple of Rafael Correa, president of Ecuador from 2007 to 2017 and the only Ecuadorian leader in modern history to be re-elected. Arauz, still only 35-years-old, served as Minister of Knowledge and Human Talent at the tail end of the Correa administration and initially wanted to select the former president as his running mate. However, Correa was banned from politics by a court presided over by his rival and current president, Lenín Moreno. He now lives in exile in Belgium, the country of his wife’s birth.

Correa, still a popular figure inside the country, reduced poverty by 38% and extreme poverty by 47%, while doubling social spending, particularly in education, health, and housing. He was able to do this by defaulting on odious debt, ignoring mainstream economists’ advice to keep taxes on the wealthy low and increasing the government’s share of the country’s oil revenues from 13% to 87% — much to the chagrin of foreign energy corporations.

Correa was also part of a continent-wide move to the left, a wave of progressive, anti-imperialist presidents elected in the time frame, a movement that included Lula da Silva in Brazil, Evo Morales in Bolivia, Hugo Chavez in Venezuela, and Néstor Kirchner in Argentina. Under Correa’s leadership, Ecuador expelled the United States military from the country, insisting they could only return if they granted his country a base in Florida. He also offered asylum to Western dissidents like Julian Assange.

His vice-president, Lenín Moreno was elected in 2017 on a promise to carry on his legacy. Almost immediately, however, Moreno performed a 180-degree turn on policy, pulling Ecuador out of a number of regional alliances with other progressive anti-imperialist countries and renewing close ties to the U.S. It wasn’t long before poverty and inequality in Ecuador began to rise and Moreno was agreeing to substantial loans from the International Monetary Fund (IMF), reversing Correa’s oil policy and opening the country to foreign exploitation once more. At the same time as this was happening, the left appeared to be waning across the region. In 2016, Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff of the Workers’ Party was impeached, a chain of events that eventually led to Bolsonaro’s rise. Meanwhile, conservative billionaire Sebastian Piñera won Chile’s 2017 presidential election.

Arauz has promised to reverse Moreno’s spending cuts and cease business with the IMF. “We don’t see any sense in continuing with the current programme the IMF has with the Moreno government,” he told the Financial Times. “Firstly because the quantity of resources is too small and secondly because the conditionality associated with it is absolutely counter-productive for Ecuador’s growth and development needs.” Instead, he will increase public spending to counter the negative effects of the pandemic, raise taxes on the wealthy and increase capital controls on rich individuals taking their money out of the country. If foreign capital is necessary, he has stated he will negotiate with development banks in China.

Ecuador was hit extremely hard by the coronavirus, in part because of Moreno’s decision (encouraged by Washington) to expel around 400 Cuban doctors on the eve of the pandemic. Some opinion polls have found the current president’s popularity to lie in the single digits.

Economic issues are the primary concern for voters in this election, with 32% identifying poverty and 25% unemployment as their key concerns. Ecuador’s poverty rate jumped from 25.7% in December 2019 to 58.2% in June 2020, with extreme poverty quadrupling over the same period.

Most polls identify Arauz’s closest challenger as Guillermo Lasso, a 65-year-old banker, and former Coca-Cola executive popular with the country’s wealthier class. An anti-communist, he was a member of the right-wing Christian group Opus Dei and came second in the 2017 presidential election, running on a neoliberal platform. However, in recent weeks, Lasso has been fading, and some polls show 51-year-old indigenous leader Yaku Pérez in second. Pérez came to prominence in the nationwide protests against Moreno’s austerity measures in 2019 but has also distanced himself from Correa and socialism.

“Arauz will win unless they steal it from him,” wrote Professor Steve Ellner, managing editor of the journal Latin American Perspectives. “After all, Correa had a 60% favorable rating when he left office. Moreno is completely discredited, and Lasso has been around too long to be considered a new face for business in politics — and in addition is associated with global capital.”

However, the left has been under considerable pressure during the campaign, not least the banning of Correa from holding office. 10,000 Ecuadorians who live in Venezuela, generally considered to be a progressive group, are in the dark about whether they will be allowed to participate, despite the fact that voting is mandatory for all citizens.

The 2010s were a dark decade for the continent’s left-wing groups. However, a victory in Ecuador would underscore the dawning of a new era in the region the United States calls its “backyard.”

*

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

Alan MacLeod is a member of the Glasgow University Media Group. He is author of “Bad News From Venezuela: 20 Years of Fake News and Misreporting.” His latest book, Propaganda in the Information Age: Still Manufacturing Consent, was published by Routledge in May 2019.

All Global Research articles including the  E-Book can be read in 27 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

***

Abstract

New fifth generation (5G) telecommunications systems, now being rolled out globally, have become the subject of a fierce controversy. Some health protection agencies and their scientific advisory committees have concluded that there is no conclusive scientific evidence of harm. Several recent reviews by independent scientists, however, suggest that there is significant uncertainty on this question, with rapidly emerging evidence of potentially harmful biological effects from radio frequency electromagnetic field (RF-EMF) exposures, at the levels 5G roll-out will entail. This essay identifies four relevant sources of scientific uncertainty and concern: (1) lack of clarity about precisely what technology is included in 5G; (2) a rapidly accumulating body of laboratory studies documenting disruptive in vitro and in vivo effects of RF-EMFs—but one with many gaps in it; (3) an almost total lack (as yet) of high-quality epidemiological studies of adverse human health effects from 5G EMF exposure specifically, but rapidly emerging epidemiological evidence of such effects from past generations of RF-EMF exposure; (4) persistent allegations that some national telecommunications regulatory authorities do not base their RF-EMF safety policies on the latest science, related to unmanaged conflicts of interest. The author, an experienced epidemiologist, concludes that one cannot dismiss the growing health concerns about RF-EMFs, especially in an era when higher population levels of exposure are occurring widely, due to the spatially dense transmitters which 5G systems require. Based on the precautionary principle, the author echoes the calls of others for a moratorium on the further roll-out of 5G systems globally, pending more conclusive research on their safety.

Read full document here.

*

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

All Global Research articles including the  E-Book can be read in 27 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

***

The Sines coal plant in Portugal went offline at midnight yesterday evening (14 January), leaving the country with just one remaining coal power station in operation, which is scheduled for closure in November.

Portuguese energy utility EDP announced its decision to shut down the 1,296 MW Sines coal plant in July last year, bringing the closure forward by two years – from 2023 to 2021. EDP’s initial plans were to close Sines in 2030.

The decision is “part of EDP group’s decarbonisation strategy” and was taken in a context where energy production increasingly depends on renewable sources, the company said back in July.

EDP’s decision to accelerate the phase out of coal was “a natural consequence of this energy transition process,” “in line with European carbon neutral targets” and the country’s national energy and climate plan, which puts the emphasis on renewables, EDP said in a statement.

This leaves Portugal with just one remaining coal power plant in operation, Pego, which is already scheduled for closure in November this year, campaigners said.

When it does, Portugal will become the fourth country in Europe to completely eliminate coal in electricity production – following in the footsteps of Belgium (2016), Austria and Sweden (2020), according to Europe Beyond Coal, an environmental NGO.

Campaigners applauded the move, underlining that Sines had until then represented, on average, 12% of Portugal’s total greenhouse gas emissions.

“In four years, Portugal has gone from having a rough strategy to exit coal by 2030, to concrete plans to be coal free by year’s end. Sines going offline even earlier than expected underscores the reality that once a country commits to clean energy, the economics of renewables deliver the transition very quickly,” said Kathrin Gutmann, campaign director at Europe Beyond Coal.

“Countries like Germany, Czech Republic and Poland who have committed to, or are considering coal phase out dates well after the needed 2030 end for coal in Europe should take note: not choosing ambitious phase-outs will leave you playing catch up as they happen anyway.”

In addition to Portugal, five more European countries are expected to end coal by 2025: France (2022), Slovakia (2023), the UK (2024), Ireland (2025) and Italy (2025), according to Europe Beyond Coal.

*

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

Featured image: The decision is part of EDP’s decarbonisation strategy, which involves the early closure of plants in the Iberian Peninsula, the Portuguese utility said. [EDP]

All Global Research articles including the  E-Book can be read in 27 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

***

Brazilian activists continue to campaign for justice two years on from the Brumadinho mining disaster in Brazil.

For two years now, the people of Brumadinho, Brazil have endured tireless searches and rescue attempts, looking for missing loved ones and seeing only mud.

Brazilian mining giant Vale has constructed mining operations across the state of Minas Gerais, disfiguring existing local political and social dynamics by creating a direct economic dependence on extractivism.

In Brumadinho it was no different. On 25 January 2019, a tailings dam at Vale’s Córrego do Feijão mine collapsed. The millions of cubic metres of mining waste the dam contained spilled out in a toxic mud flow. A total of 272 people were left dead or disappeared, buried in mud. Families, friends and neighbours were left desolate, in deep sadness and trauma.

Disaster

What happened at Brumadinho is often referred to as a disaster or one of Brazil’s worst ever industrial accidents. Many of those who survived it and who now campaign for justice, however, insist that it should be seen instead as a crime.

Vale’s representatives were aware of the possibility of rupture – including the existence of cracks identified by the mining company’s workers and residents of the region. Early last year, Brazillian courts accepted charges of homicide which allowed a case to move forward against employees of Vale and German auditor TÜV SÜD for their role in the deadly dam collapse.

While TÜV SÜD certified the dam as safe, there are suggestions that it was known within the company that this was not the case, and that the auditors were involved in covering up the dangers posed.

An International Commission of Jurists with specialists in health, labour and mining was created to draw worldwide attention to Vale and its destructive mining operations. The Commission points to the fact that the majority of victims in the Brumadinho dam collapse were hired workers from the company itself, making it Brazil’s biggest labour disaster.

On the day of the collapse, warning sirens were not switched on. In what seems like an act of culpable disregard by Vale for their own workers, the victims did not even have the chance to run.

Aftermath

In the years since the dam collapse, the communities affected by this crime have both mourned and mobilised. Local organizations, Church representatives, and others are building collective solidarity to amplify the call for justice and reclaim the narrative of what happened at Brumadinho (against the sanitized and establishment version of events promoted by vested interests).

RENSER (Região Episcopal Nossa Senhora do Rosário) has been the main Church-based group at the forefront of working with those affected. Its work has been refocusing the narrative away from corporate “management and processes” and instead towards the structural, material and psychological impacts on Brumadinho’s communities and families.

To mark the second anniversary of this tragic destruction and loss of life, RENSER has organised a series of activities as a form of online ‘pilgrimage’. At the centre of this work is the launch of the Pact of Those Affected by Vale’s Crime in Brumadinho, which brings together voices from the community in memory of those lost and dedicated to resist “economic development based on exploitation and contempt for life, in all its forms.”

Using faith as a cornerstone and source of unity, the Pact honours the lives of those who have “long felt the effects of predatory and irresponsible mining” and stands as a testimony to the strength of a community determined to be strong in the face of such loss and grief.

Vidas Barradas (2020). Photos: Cid Faria.

Permanent struggle

The Movement of People Affected by Dams in Brazil (MAB) has also organised a series of events it is calling the Journey of Struggles to mark “two years of Vale’s crime in Brumadinho”.

Its agenda presents what it calls the “permanent struggle” of those affected by Vale and what the company represents – a struggle for the right to water, emergency financial assistance and participation in agreements between Vale and the state government of Minas Gerais.

For MAB, collective action is essential in holding to account those responsible for the death and destruction in Brumadinho. As it clearly states, “there’s only justice with struggle and organisation”.

Disaster sprawl

With the second anniversary approaching, Brumadinho may be the current focus of groups like RENSER and MAB, but it is by no means the only site in the state of Minas Gerais where they act in solidarity with those badly affected by Vale’s practices.

In November 2015, the Fundão dam at the Samarco iron ore dam collapsed, releasing 50 million cubic metres of mine waste. Twenty people lost their lives. The villages of Bento Rodrigues, Paracatu de Baixo and Gesteira were destroyed. More than 600km of the river basin was polluted.

In the five years since, entire communities living in the surrounding Rio Doce basin have had to live with polluted water, lack of access to their land, and broken promises from the mining giants behind the catastrophe.

The Samarco mine is owned 50/50 by Vale and the Anglo-Australian mining company BHP. Despite facing ongoing legal action over the case, the owners resumed operation of the Samarco mine in late 2020.

Sanctity of life

In both of these cases, those organizing for justice are clear: this is not simply about compensation. No amount of money is worth life and lives. No profit is worth the life of the people living and working in and around these mine sites. People who once brought joy, affection and comfort will no longer return, and no money can pay for that.

As the Pact of Those Affected evocatively puts it: “May money never be a reason for division among us and let us not be bought by the crumbs of those who kill.” The social and spiritual trauma caused by these tragedies must be reckoned with.

In the areas surrounding Brumadinho, potentially irreversible damage has been done to peoples’ way of life. Indigenous Pataxó Hã Hã Hãe people can no longer perform their rituals on the river due to contamination, or even use the water for consumption or to irrigate their crops. Their long-term self sustainability may never recover.

The case is similar for African descent quilombola communities and others making their lives and livelihoods in this region. While corporate interests may see compensation payments as the end of the matter, the story that affected communities are fighting to tell and to establish says otherwise.

Respect, comprehensive reparation and justice are what they expect from Vale and the equally negligent public authorities.

Never forgotten

The advocacy work done by solidarity groups, the church, and community activists is far from over. They stand against corporate and state powers that have vested interests in supporting Vale, and their actions are reclaiming the voice of those whose story this is to tell.

They are keeping alive the memory of those who were killed and continuing to fight for justice in the face of overwhelming grief.

We must never forget the people of Brumadinho, their struggle against these predatory mining abuses, and their rightful demand for justice.

*

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

Gabriela Sarmet is co-founder of the Coletivo Decolonial, a researcher on socio environmental conflicts in Latin America and a volunteer & individual associate member of the London Mining Network. 

Saul Jones is the communications coordinator at London Mining Network.

All Global Research articles including the  E-Book can be read in 27 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

***

Military relations between Russia and India are increasing and this can bring a series of significant changes in international society. The Indian government recently sent about 100 soldiers to Russia to train them in handling the S-400 anti-aircraft system, which New Delhi plans to acquire as soon as possible. However, this is unlikely to be pleasing to Washington, which sees New Delhi as a key partner in its strategy for the Indo-Pacific region.

In October 2018, India signed a contract with Russian company Rosoboronexport for the purchase of five S-400 anti-aircraft systems for more than 5 billion dollars. At the time, Washington disapproved the negotiation, but as India had not yet received the equipment, tensions eased. However, the Asian country will receive the first anti-aircraft batteries between September and October 2021 and that will be operational later this year or early next year, which worries Americans deeply. New Delhi recently informed that it has already transferred a significant advance payment to Rosoboronexport and is designing a mechanism to make the final payment soon. Meanwhile, the Indians are planning mechanisms to ease their tensions with the US, which has already threatened to impose severe sanctions.

The S-400 is an extremely powerful system, being used by the Russian armed forces since 2007. With a range of hundreds of kilometers and being able to shoot down ballistic missiles, the S-400 can significantly improve Indian national security in the midst of the regional tensions. Indeed, India is rushing to increase the material and human resources of its armed forces, mainly due to the fact that its dispute with China continues. Still, it is necessary to emphasize that, although tensions with China have gained a lot of evidence since May last year (when there were small incidents of direct confrontation and deaths), the dispute between India and Pakistan still remains and generates victims every year, making that region a big focus of tensions, with three nuclear powers involved in territorial disputes.

Throughout the Trump administration, tensions between the US and India due to the agreement with Russia were eased, although they remained. The former American president has warned New Delhi several times to cancel the deal before receiving the equipment. The reason Trump did not make more active interventions in the case is simple: the US and India have a common enemy, China, and the Americans cannot lose this important ally against Beijing. However, now, in the early days of the Biden administration, Washington receives news on the consummation of the agreement between Indians and Russians. Biden, who has a more active attitude towards the imposition of American interests with his defense of global hegemony, will now have to choose between continuing Trump’s policy or taking a more aggressive attitude towards India.

For India, however, the situation has not changed so much. New Delhi has never been interested in forming an ideological alliance with Washington – Indian interest is limited to the existence of a common enemy. To ensure their security against this enemy, Indians seek American support – but if the US does not provide all the resources necessary for India to guarantee its protection, the Indian government will seek this guarantee in other possibilities of cooperation, such as Russia.

What we can see in the Indian case is yet another evidence of the irreversibility of the process of geopolitical multipolarisation – mainly in international trade. India, while a historical ally of the US, seeks to equip itself with Russian armaments and to strengthen commercial and military ties with Russia, because what New Delhi wants is to guarantee its own interests, regardless of which power may be an ally for this. With the rise of trade wars and the wave of international sanctions politically or ideologically motivated, Washington tried to impose on the world a very distorted notion of the function of trade, limiting the exchange of resources between nations to the existence of political and ideological affinities. However, this type of trade limitation cannot be maintained for long, as this would lead to an irreparable global crisis. Knowing this, more and more nations seek to diversify their trade options and maintain ties simultaneously with apparently antagonistic potentials.

With this scenario, it will be up to the new American president to choose between sanctioning India – which will make the US to lose an important ally and push the Indians even further into relations with Russia – or to maintain a peaceful policy of “warnings” and “verbal disapprovals”, without any aggressive commercial measure, accepting the fact that any nation can buy any product – military or not – from any nation.

*

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

This article was originally published on InfoBrics.

Lucas Leiroz is a research fellow in international law at the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro.

Featured image is from InfoBrics

All Global Research articles including the  E-Book can be read in 27 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

***

Following its January 6 announcement, the European Union (EU) reaffirmed on Monday that it no longer recognizes Juan Guaidó as the interim president of Venezuela. In 2018, the EU claimed that Nicolás Maduro was not the legitimate president and backed Guaidó. After the EU, the U.S. could also end its recognition of the self-proclaimed interim president and change its sanctions policy with a new one that is more conducive to normalization. Washington will most likely try and strengthen American economic presence in the devastated Venezuelan economy and convert that into political influence.

Although the European Council believes that the December 6 parliamentary election in Venezuela was a “missed opportunity” for democracy because they were supposedly not in line with international standards for democratic processes, it was concluded that Guaidó remains a “privileged interlocutor” for the EU, but as an opposition figurehead and not interim president.

Guaidó remains the recognized interim president of Venezuela for only the United Kingdom and the U.S., but that could soon change. Guaidó’s political party did not go to the polls and could not measure the influence and popularity they have among Venezuelans because they were afraid that they would not receive the support they promised their Western partners they enjoyed.

Maduro’s political opposition lost control of the parliament in the recent election. The parliament was their political stronghold between 2015 and December 2020. Guaidó, who chaired the parliament, lost the formal basis that Western countries used to declare him as the interim president of Venezuela. January 5 marked two years since Guaidó declared himself interim president because the opposition did not recognize Maduro’s election as head of state. They claimed that the presidential election was rigged. At the time, self-proclaimed president Guaidó was immediately recognized by the U.S. as interim president, and then by the EU.

After Biden’s election to the U.S. presidency, Maduro immediately sent him congratulations, expressing hope that he would lift sanctions against Venezuela and start a new era in bilateral relations. The EU, under pressure from former U.S. President Donald Trump, followed a rigid policy against Venezuela, full of accusations, threats, sanctions and demands that he surrenders his presidency. But now a lot has changed. That is why neither the U.S. or the UK will continue recognizing Guaidó for long.

A few days after receiving a congratulations from Maduro, Biden diplomatically replied that he was ready to start a new policy and new negotiations with Venezuela. It is symptomatic that as soon as there was a new president in the White House, the Guaidó-aligned president of CITGO, an extremely rich and U.S.-based branch of Venezuela’s state oil company PDVSA, immediately resigned. This is an indication that Guaidó has come to an end.

It must be remembered that in the middle of last year, a court in London recognized Guaidó as the “acting president” of Venezuela and gave him access to Venezuela’s gold reserves stored in the Bank of England, which was followed by a lawsuit from Maduro’s legal team. At the end of October last year, the Court of Appeals in London concluded that the Court of First Instance did not assess the facts well and that Maduro exercised control over the government, which is why the case returned to the Court of First Instance for retrial. It is very likely that the British court will accept the fact that Guaidó no longer has a formal basis to dispose of such large gold reserves, which is very important for the functioning of Venezuela in these extremely difficult economic times caused by U.S. sanctions.

With the departure of Trump, who was the first to recognize Guaidó as interim president and constantly imposed sanctions against Venezuela, a lot has changed. Biden will try to achieve political power through economic influence in Venezuela. Because of the sanctions, not only did Venezuelan companies suffer, but also foreign companies that did business in the South American country. Because of that, about 50 large companies from the U.S. had to leave Venezuela, suffering major losses.

Biden no longer wants such a policy and announced that it is inadmissible to have bad relations with Latin America because it is too close to the U.S. It is likely that the new president will, first of all, try to win over countries with his economic policy, and then through economic influence, achieve political ones. If Biden follows this path, it will encourage American companies to invest in Venezuela again, and they will look to strengthen those ties. In this way, it will amortize the destructive policies made by Trump against Venezuela.

*

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

This article was originally published on InfoBrics.

Paul Antonopoulos is an independent geopolitical analyst.

Featured image is from InfoBrics

All Global Research articles including the  E-Book can be read in 27 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

***

“Nothing ever seems to last

promises made promises lost

and pride is kept at any cost

and flowers die and children cry

and lonely people carry on.”

She was tired, but not too tired to go to work. Matter of fact, she was lucky to be able to have a job. So many of her friends were still at home, collecting, if fortunate enough,  those ‘not enough’ unemployment checks. She herself had no choice. She needed the money to stay in her apartment and pay to fix that old clunker on ‘life support’. True, the moratorium on her rent had been good for the interim, but now it was back to reality. And what would happen when they started demanding all that back money? No one in government gave that answer… because no one knew how that would play out. Yes, she was tired, too tired to even ponder all that.

She lived with her daughter, who was in her third year of college. The kid was already saddled with the student loans, and could not find a part time job anymore. Waitresses, or ‘Servers’ as they were called, were not in demand, to say the least. On top of that her daughter was doing ‘Virtual learning’ and that took discipline, which she did not have much of. So, she needed to keep on her kid to follow the regimen needed to pass those courses. All this made her even more tired.

She had absolutely no social life now. With this pandemic all she could do was rely on ‘Face time’ with her sister and a few close friends.

No more lunches or drinks and dancing out, and that was actually good right now.

It saved her money, money needed at this moment to stay afloat. Being about to hit sixty years of age she had terrible health coverage.

Her job only covered about one third of the premiums, and her deductible was $2500. If she had to go into the hospital, even for one or two nights, it would be her problem, not the insurance companies. A year ago, before the pandemic, she cut her finger really bad on a scissor at home. It just would not stop bleeding, so she had to rush to an Urgent Care nearby. When she felt faint after being stitched up, she started to pass out. The aide panicked a bit and called 911. Within minutes the Paramedics arrived and hurried her into the ambulance and rushed her to the ER. That bill cost her $1500, and she was still paying it off. Not being a political person at all, THAT woke her up a bit, and she became a Bernie Sanders supporter. This whole medical insurance thing was a joke, and she knew then that everyone should have coverage those on Medicare had… or even better than that.

The $600 dollar checks for the two of them had come in handy… but they both knew it was not enough. She wished she had been more well read on things pertaining to the issues important to her economic survival. Yet, she knew instinctively that the big corporations and the very wealthy were making out like bandits while the two of them suffered. When she saw how the candidate Andrew Wang was pushing for a Universal Basic Income, she hoped that something like that could be instituted. No one running other than he and Sanders seemed to be behind it, and she knew then that Biden was too wishy washy to ever do it as president. He was now president and she was correct. It faded away and she was left hoping for maybe one more stimulus check. So sad.

So, she wore her face mask and went about her business of just getting through this all. When would she be able to get the vaccine? At her age it might be months, or even a year. She and her daughter would have to truck it through. Help would not be on the way.

*

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

Philip A Farruggio is a contributing editor for The Greanville Post. He is also frequently posted on Global Research, Nation of Change, Countercurrents.org, and Off Guardian sites. He is the son and grandson of Brooklyn NYC longshoremen and a graduate of Brooklyn College, class of 1974. Since the 2000 election debacle Philip has written over 400 columns on the Military Industrial Empire and other facets of life in an upside down America. He is also host of the ‘It’s the Empire… Stupid‘ radio show, co produced by Chuck Gregory. Philip can be reached at [email protected].

All Global Research articles including the  E-Book can be read in 27 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

***

While both right wings of the US war party differ on some issues, they’re likeminded on most geopolitical ones.

It’s notably the case with regard to policies toward nations free from US control, especially China, Russia and Iran.

They’re considered adversaries for being unwilling to subordinate their sovereign rights to US interests.

At his first press conference following Senate confirmation as Biden/Harris secretary of state, Antony Blinken was especially hostile toward Russia.

He was also unreassuring about US relations with China and Iran, suggesting continued dirty business as usual ahead instead of constructive change.

Meddling in the internal affairs of other nations is longstanding US policy.

It was evident in Blinken’s Wednesday remarks.

Expressing concern about pro-Western Kremlin critic/convicted felon Alexey Navalny’s detention in Moscow for breaching terms of his suspended embezzlement conviction, Blinken said the following:

The Biden/Harris regime is “reviewing (Russian) actions that are of deep concern to us, whether it is the treatment of Mr. Navalny, and particularly the apparent use of a chemical weapon in an attempt to assassinate him (sic),” adding:

“We’re looking very urgently as well at SolarWinds and its various implications.”

“We’re looking at the reports of bounties placed by Russia on American forces in Afghanistan.”

“And of course, we’re looking at these questions of election interference.”

All of the above and more are baseless accusations.

Despite no evidence supporting them, Blinken said Biden/Harris are “not ruling out anything” in retaliation.

More unlawful sanctions and other dirty tricks are likely.

On Tuesday, Vladimir Putin and Biden spoke by phone.

Despite no prospect for improved bilateral relations, Putin said “normalization of relations between Russia and the US would meet the interests of both countries and, considering their special responsibility for maintaining global security and stability, of the entire international community,” according to what his website posted.

Both leaders agreeing to extend New START for another five years is a positive step if there’s US follow-through with no hitches ahead.

Arms Control Association director Daryl Kimball said extending the agreement “will enhance US and global security, curtail dangerous nuclear arms racing, and create the potential for more ambitious steps to reduce the nuclear danger and move us closer to a world without nuclear weapons,” adding:

It’s “just the beginning.” Much more is needed to “reduc(e) and eventually eliminat(e) deadly nuclear stockpiles…”

Putin noted that both leaders discussed other bilateral and international issues.

His hope for improved relations with the US is highly likely to be dispelled in the days, weeks and months ahead — like virtually always before.

While Blinken said Washington’s relationship with China “is arguably the most important relationship that we have in the world,” things ahead are likely to remain much more confrontational that accommodative.

Admitting that Sino/US relations have “adversarial aspects,” they’ll likely overshadow cooperative ties on issues of mutual concern.

Straightaway after Wednesday’s Senate confirmation, Blinken spoke to his Japanese, South Korean, UK, French, German and Mexican counterparts.

He didn’t call Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi.

Other Biden/Harris officials signaled no change in US adversarial relations toward China ahead.

Climate envoy John Kerry said the new US regime will challenge China on various issues, including human rights and intellectual property protection in exchange for cooperation on other issues.

Ignoring horrendous US human rights abuses at home and abroad, Dem and GOP officials falsely accused Beijing of interning and abusing Uyhgur and other Muslims in “concentration camps.”

Pompeo falsely accused China of “genocide.” Addressing his phony accusation Wednesday, China’s Foreign Ministry spokesman Zhao Lijian said the following:

“We have said many times that the so-called ‘genocide’ in Xinjiang is a completely false accusation, a lie concocted by some anti-China forces and a staged farce to smear and defile China,” adding:

“We believe the vast majority of countries in the world are sharp-eyed as they have an objective and fair assessment of Xinjiang’s development and the Chinese government’s policy on making Xinjiang a stable and prosperous place.”

Separately, White House press secretary Jennifer Psaki called China’s telecom giant Huawei a national security threat to “the US and our allies,” adding:

“We’ll ensure that the American telecommunications networks do not use equipment from untrusted vendors, and we’ll work with allies to secure their telecommunications networks.”

Her hostile remark signaled likely continuation of Trump’s war on China by other means politically, economically and technologically.

Biden’s UN envoy designee Linda Thomas-Greenfield vowed to counter China’s “authoritarian agenda” and global influence, adding:

“We know China is working across the UN system to drive an authoritarian agenda that stands in opposition to the founding values of the institution – American values (sic).”

“Their success depends on our continued withdrawal. That will not happen on my watch.”

She’ll work with other governments to “push back on China’s self-interested and parasitic development goals (sic).”

The above differs sharply from her earlier view on Sino/US relations, calling them “win-win-win cooperation.”

All of the above suggests continuation of hardline US policies under Biden/Harris against all nations free from its control.

It’s likely true with Iran ahead, Blinken saying:

“(I)f Iran comes back into full compliance with its obligations under the JCPOA, the United States would do the same thing and then we would use that as a platform to build, with our allies and partners, what we called a longer and stronger agreement and to deal with a number of other issues that are deeply problematic in the relationship with Iran (sic)” adding:

“But we are a long ways from that point.”

“Iran is out of compliance on a number of fronts (sic).”

“And it would take some time, should it make the decision to do so, for it to come back into compliance in time for us then to assess whether it was meeting its obligations.”

“So we’re not – we’re not there yet to say the least.”

Blinken failed to explain that the Trump regime breached its JCPOA obligations by abandoning the landmark agreement in 2018 — not Iran.

E3 countries Britain, France and Germany followed suit.

In response to their breach of Security Council Res. 2231, unanimously affirming the landmark agreement, Iran responded as permitted under JCPOA articles 26 and 36.

Foreign Minister Zarif and other Iranian officials said that if the US and E3 countries come back into compliance with their mandated obligations and lift unlawfully imposed sanctions, Tehran will observe JCPOA provisions as originally agreed on in 2015.

On Wednesday, Iran’s UN envoy Majid Takht-Ravanchi said the following:

“The United States must immediately adhere to its commitments in the nuclear agreement, which was enshrined in international law in United Nations Security Council Resolution 2231.”

“By doing so, (Biden/Harris) will put the country back into compliance.”

“The new (US regime) should also swiftly remove the new sanctions” imposed by Trump.

“This will indicate the new government’s commitment to rebuilding the United States’ shattered global credibility.”

The above apparently is unacceptable for Biden, Harris and Blinken.

If they remain firm in their stance, US relations with Iran will continue to be confrontational.

Whenever transition of power occurs in Washington, dirty business as usual continuity remains at least largely unchanged.

After a few days in power, Biden’s geopolitical agenda appears much like his predecessors, a disturbing sign going forward.

*

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

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

VISIT MY WEBSITE: stephenlendman.org (Home – Stephen Lendman). Contact at [email protected].

My two Wall Street books are timely reading:

“How Wall Street Fleeces America: Privatized Banking, Government Collusion, and Class War”

https://www.claritypress.com/product/how-wall-street-fleeces-america/

“Banker Occupation: Waging Financial War on Humanity”

https://www.claritypress.com/product/banker-occupation-waging-financial-war-on-humanity/

All Global Research articles including the  E-Book can be read in 27 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

***

Trump was too busy nursing his grudge to bother with overseas matters, but both his son-in-law and secretary of state rushed through a package of foreign policy initiatives and policies, writes As`ad AbuKhalil.

Donald Trump son-in-law Jared Kushner and now former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo rushed to engineer various foreign policy initiatives in the very last stretch of the Trump administration.

Trump was too busy nursing his grudge to bother with overseas matters, but both Kushner and Pompeo rushed through a package of foreign policy initiatives and policies.

Pompeo decided to classify Cuba, again, as a terrorism-sponsoring state.  That in itself tells you how hollow and flimsy the official criteria for U.S. designation of individuals, groups, and states as terrorists.

The criteria of classification are first and foremost political and subject to extreme fluctuations: Sudan was declared a terrorist state until it normalized with Israel — under extreme pressure.

Furthermore, Cuba has suffered from U.S. terrorism since the victory of the 1959 revolution against the U.S.-supported mafia which ruled Cuba.

Pompeo also decided to add the Houthis in Yemen to the terrorism list, as if the Houthis ever engaged in activities outside Yemen and when, in fact, they have been the most bitter foes of Al-Qa`idah in Yemen. Meanwhile the Saudi-UAE-U.S. war on Yemen has in fact improved the lot of Al-Qa`idah there.

The Houthis’ terrorism designation would complicate the cumbersome efforts of international organizations to provide aid to Yemen, and the U.S. has rejected UN pleas to factor in the humanitarian needs of the people of Yemen.

Various international sanctions were added, including one with religious significance for millions of Shi`ites, and Pompeo, in the wake of a tête-à-tête with the director of Mossad, announced that Iran is now the new base for Al-Qa`idah.

This move blatantly ignores the Sunni-Shiite conflict between the two sides, which the Zionists in D.C. are too quick to dismiss for propaganda purposes, just as they themselves promoted the myth of an alliance between Saddam Husayn and Osama Bin Laden.  Of course, some of these recent U.S. official acts were political favors to the Saudi regime (and to Israel).

The Saudis have been ingratiating themselves with the U.S. administration ever since Trump was elected. But the ingratiation increased in intensity after the murder of Washington Post columnist Jamal Khashoggi when Trump extracted more concessions from the regime under the pretext of fending off congressional action against Riyahd.

Saudi Arabia not only blessed the recent wave of Gulf and other Arab normalization with Israel, but it was the chief instigator and sponsor, despite its reluctance to join openly.  It is a matter of time —when Crown Prince Muhammad bin Salman (MbS) feels secure in the throne —before the regime will follow the tide of normalization.

The Trump administration was also eager to please both Saudi Arabia and Israel to make it more difficult for the Biden administration to return to Obama’s framework of relations with Iran.

GCC Feud Resolved

But Kushner was most busy in the Gulf region.  He engineered a dramatic Gulf Cooperation Council reconciliation on Jan. 4 after years of feuding between Qatar, on the one hand, and the UAE and Saudi Arabia on the other.

Image on the right: Jared Kushner and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in 2018, at embassy dedication ceremony. (U.S. Embassy Jerusalem, CC BY 2.0, Wikimedia Commons)

In 2017, Saudi Arabia and the UAE both declared an open boycott and siege on Qatar and accused it of conspiring with Iran against its neighbors.  The UAE intelligence service even hacked the official national news site of Qatar to distort the words the Qatari Emir.

All UAE and Saudi regime media used the hacking to make claims about a historical betrayal by Qatar of Arabs (bin Salman presumably represents the Arabs according to this scenario).  Saudi Arabia closed its borders with Qatar and banned Qatar’s airline from flying over Saudi airspace.

Egypt and Bahrain also joined the campaign on Qatar while Kuwait and Oman took a neutral role and were rather closer to the Qatari stance.  Saudi Arabia and the UAE quickly released a list of conditions that Qatar had to accede to before any reconciliation would be considered.

The UAE-Saudi-Bahraini alliance made it clear that they wouldn’t settle for any deal that would not include closure of all pan-Arab Qatari media outlets, including Al-Jazeera.  Initially, Trump tweeted sympathy with the Saudi-UAE campaign against Qatar but the U.S. government — presumably under pressure from the military command — quickly adjusted and called for reconciliation, taking into consideration that Qatar hosts the biggest U.S. military base in the Middle East.

The Combined Air and Space Operations Center (CAOC) at Al Udeid Air Base, Qatar, provides command and control of air power throughout Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan and 17 other nations. (U.S. Air Force, Joshua Strang)

Kuwait attempted mediation but the Saudi and UAE regime would not budge.  Qatar was willing to make compromises as it has done in the past when it would for example ban Saudi dissidents from appearing on Aljazeera as a price for better relations with the Saudi regime. (I was contacted in 2017 at the onset of this conflict by Aljazeera and invited to appear presumably to bash the Saudi regime, but I made it very clear that I won’t be a tool for warfare between various despotic regimes. I reminded them that they feuded in the past and then reconciled).

The reconciliation was sudden and concessions by the UAE and Saudi Arabia were uncharacteristic, to the effect that they basically dropped the famous 13 conditions and agreed to lift the tight siege on Qatar in return for nothing from Qatar — at least nothing that we know of.

The two regimes had not been magnanimous toward Doha, whom they accused of collaborating with their chief enemy, Iran, and conspiring with Turkey and the Muslim Brotherhood.  (It is true that Qatar has been a chief sponsor in recent years of the Muslim Brotherhood and a close ally of Turkey which also supports the Brotherhood).

Their Own Interests

While it was Kushner who sponsored this GCC reconciliation, the two regimes (the UAE and Saudi Arabia) also have their own calculations.

Both the Saudi and UAE regimes were assuming that Trump was going to be re-elected.  Both were nervous about a Biden presidency, although bin Salman had the most reasons to worry.  It’s not that Biden will reverse the traditional U.S. foreign policy of installing and coddling despots around the world.

That won’t change. But the Democratic leadership is on the record committing to hold bin Salman responsible for the murder of Khashoggi, who has become in Democratic rhetoric a symbol of freedom of speech (as opposed to say, Julian Assange) — which is ironic given Khashoggi’s lifetime of propaganda work for the House of Saud.

Biden pledged to seek accountability and that won’t be easy to reverse, despite Biden’s long career of support for Arab despots.  Most likely, Biden will support the replacement of MbS with another prince. Former Crown Prince Muhammad bin Nayif remains a favorite of the D.C. security and intelligence establishment.

But the rehabilitation of MbS is not out the question, especially if he were to follow in Sadat’s footsteps by addressing the Israeli Knesset.

Bin Salman has not been able to visit Western capitals since the murder of Khashoggi, and no Saudi king can rule without having direct access to the White House and Congress.  Bin Salman needs to improve his image quickly now that Biden has taken over.

Trump, not unlike previous presidents, supported and armed Gulf despots but Kushner took the relationship with Sheikh Mohammed bin Zayed (MbZ), the ruler of Abu Dhabi, and MbS a step further by pushing for a regional triangle, which includes Saudi Arabia, UAE and Israel.

The normalization process was blessed and instituted by MbS, but he has not openly joined in.  He has been cautious, particularly because of internal dissent within the Saudi royal family (many of his uncles and cousins remain under house arrest).

If MbS can achieve GCC reconciliation and help the U.S. in creating a united front against Iran in the region, he gains more support from Israel, which is already lobbying the Biden administration for a softer approach to those Arab despots (namely, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and the UAE).

There was little attention paid in the media, following the announcement of Gulf reconciliation, to an important Trump administration announcement: that the U.S. decided a week before Biden’s inauguration to move Israel from under U.S. European military command to Central Command, which covers the Arab region.

The U.S. will be working to consolidate the Israeli-Gulf regional alliance and the Biden administration won’t work to reverse that either.

Biden: No Change Toward Palestine Either

Image below: June 16, 2016: Antony Blinken, as deputy secretary of state, meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in Jerusalem. (U.S. State Department, Wikimedia Commons)

In fact, most of the pro-Israeli policies of the Trump administration will remain in place, like reopening the U.S. consulate in East Jerusalem, re-opening the PLO office in Washington, refunding the UN’s Palestinian relief agency UNRAW, and declaring support for a two-state solution but without committing to any concrete steps to ensure its implementation.

MbS is working to prepare the stage not only for his coronation but for U.S. support for his coronation.  He knows that his task has been made most difficult with the murder of Khashoggi and with the advent of a new administration which does not have the same admiration for his role in the region.

The direct line to Kushner in the West Wing is gone, as is the attempt to obtain Trump’s gratitude with an arms deal.  Not that Biden will be going around the world punishing despots, but MbS has a big hurdle to overcome with the new White House and State Department teams.

For that, the road to Washington will pass — as is always the case for Arab tyrants — through Tel Aviv.  MbS has now arranged for the (theoretical) consolidation of the GCC team, and with the addition of Israel to Central Command, he will present a unified front vis-à-vis Iran to the Biden administration.

Oct. 14, 2020: Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Faisal bin Farhan Al Saud prepare to address reporters in Washington, D.C. (State Department, Ron Przysucha)

By reconciling with Qatar, he has succeeded in obtaining Qatari good will, which will be translated into unannounced concessions by Doha: It will over time end its hosting of Saudi dissidents in its media, and criticisms of Gulf normalization with Israel will diminish gradually so as not to cause frictions between GCC members. (Let us not forget that the Qatari regime took the first steps to open normalization with Israel among Gulf countries).

The GCC has been a united front in name only and conflicts and frictions between its members has characterized its history.  But the preservation of the GCC has been an American imperative especially with the projection of U.S. military force in the Gulf following the war on Iraq in 1991.

Nevertheless, the recent reconciliation could be significant for an eager Saudi crown prince who is wondering how the Biden administration will handle his succession to the throne.

*

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

As`ad AbuKhalil is a Lebanese-American professor of political science at California State University, Stanislaus. He is the author of the “Historical Dictionary of Lebanon” (1998), “Bin Laden, Islam and America’s New War on Terrorism (2002), and “The Battle for Saudi Arabia” (2004). He tweets as @asadabukhalil

Featured image: Jan. 12, 2021: Secretary of State Michael Pompeo delivers remarks at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C. (State Department, Freddie Everett)

All Global Research articles including the  E-Book can be read in 27 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

***

Biden, the current occupant of the White House, and President Putin of Russia have had their first telephone meeting. President Putin stressed that it is in the interest of the US, Russia, and the entire world for the tense relationship between Washington and the Kremlin to be normalized. Biden apparently, was noncommittal on this overriding issue and although indicating agreement to renew the 1991 treaty to limit and reduct strategic offensive arms, Biden mainly raised American propaganda issues with Russia.

Considering Washington’s record since the Clinton regime of simply abandoning out of hand previous agreements with Russia, renewing the START Treaty might not mean much.  The important issue is the normalization of relations between the nuclear superpowers. As Russia can wipe the US off of the face of Earth, Washington needs to be careful what impression it creates in the Kremlin.

Vladimir Putin is correct that a normalization of relations between the US and Russia is in the interests of both countries and that of the entire world.  The tensions that the American neoconservatives have created between the nuclear superpowers is not only a barrier to business and scientific cooperation but also a threat to the world because of the risk of war.

However, Russia is fooling herself if she thinks Washington has any real interest in normal relations.  The Kremiln needs to keep in mind that normalizing relations was President Trump’s goal.  It was this goal that caused the US military/security complex to orchestrate the Russiagate hoax in order to prevent any such normalization and to remove Trump by stealing his re-election.  By investigating Trump for three years as a Russian agent, Trump was unable to normalize relations without confirming the propaganda that he was acting in Russia’s interest.  The Kremlin needs to understand that the US military/security complex requires Russia as an enemy in order to justify its budget and power.  Therefore, there can be no normalization.

It is pointless to talk about something that cannot happen.  President Putin needs to realize that to pursue normalization with Washington would make him appear naive and gullible to Washington.  Consider the issues Biden raised with President Putin in their first telephone conversation.

Russian cyberattacks against America, Russian interference in American elections, alleged Kremlin bounties to the Taliban to kill US soldiers, and the never-ending portrayal of Vladimir Putin as a dictator—“the new Hitler”—and praise of US-financed Alexei Navalny against whom Washington alleges ongoing Putin plots. 

Washington understands that these are propaganda issues used as operations against Putin and Russia. How can Putin expect to find common cause with an enemy that operates against him? Putin should take a different approach. The Kremlin should make it clear to Washington that when Washington stops demonizing Russia and her leader and requests a better relationship, Russia will consider it at that time.  Putin should avoid behavior that makes him look weak to Russians as a person who accepts endless insults and false accusations from Americans.  The Russian people want to see Putin stand up for Russia.  Once Putin does, Washington will be more careful.

On the question of how the Kremlin might more successfully pursue a better relationship with Washington, Putin could consider a different approach. The problem is that Washington does not respect the Russian government. The evidence of Washington’s disrespect is abundant.  Washington sanctions members of the Russian government and Russian business enterprises.  Washington seized Russian consulates and property for no other reason than an intentional provocation. Endless derogatory remarks are made about President Putin. Washington overthrew the Ukrainian government and installed its own, causing Russia problems with the EU and Ukraine. Washington interfered in Belarus. Recently House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Hillary Clinton said that Putin had ordered Trump to have his supporters storm the Capitol.  “All roads lead to Putin,” said the Speaker of the House. See this.

Until Washington respects the Russian government, Russia cannot negotiate on equal terms.  It is dangerous for Washington to disrespect the Russian government.  It could result in Washington miscalculating and provoking a war.  Russia could gain respect with more aggressive responses to Washington’s accusations and provocations.  It is Russia’s weak position to always be denying accusations. 

Alternatively, the Kremlin could just turn its back on Washington, cease responding to the accusations, and go about its business in the rest of the world. 

As long as Russia comes across as fixated on being part of the West, Russia is in the position of a suitor.  It is in the Kremlin’s interest to put Washington in the position of suitor. A very visible mutual defense treaty between Russia, China, and Iran would sober Washington and Israel considerably. By all means, the Kremlin should cease permitting Washington to finance a fifth column inside Russia. Alexei Navalny and his supporters are Washington’s agents.  They make propaganda inside Russia that Washington and NATO exploit outside Russia.

The Kremlin seems to think that it is just being democratic, but what the Kremlin is really doing is destroying the image everywhere in the West that Russia is democratic.  Instead, Russia is understood by most Americans and Europeans as a dictatorship that poisons the leader of the democratic forces. This propaganda is dangerous to Americans, Russians, and the entire world. Propaganda is the empoyment of lies to create a false reality.  False realities are dangerous. They can take on lives of their own and lead to wars. 

*

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

Dr. Paul Craig Roberts writes on his blog site, PCR Institute for Political Economy, where this article was originally published. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

All Global Research articles including the  E-Book can be read in 27 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

***

A less publicized Trump policy that actually killed children was the fulfilment of his campaign promises to “bomb the shit out of” America’s enemies and “take out their families.” Trump escalated Obama’s bombing campaigns against the Taliban in Afghanistan and the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, and loosened U.S. rules of engagement regarding airstrikes that were predictably going to kill civilians.

But the killing of civilians in America’s post-9/11 wars did not begin with Trump. And it will not end, or even diminish, under Biden, unless the public demands that America’s systematic slaughter of children and other civilians must end.

Its 2020 report, Killed and Maimed: a generation of violations against children in conflict, reported 250,000 UN-documented human rights violations against children in war zones since 2005, including over 100,000 incidents in which children were killed or maimed. It found that a staggering 426,000,000 children now live in conflict zones, the second highest number ever, and that, “…the trends over recent years are of increasing violations, increasing numbers of children affected by conflict and increasingly protracted crises.”

In the wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria and Yemen, U.S. and allied forces are armed with highly destructive explosive weapons and rely heavily on airstrikes, with the result that blast injuries account for nearly three-quarters of injuries to children, double the proportion found in other wars. The U.S. reliance on airstrikes also leads to widespread destruction of homes and civilian infrastructure, leaving children more exposed to all the humanitarian impacts of war, from hunger and starvation to otherwise preventable or curable diseases.

Image on the right: Iraqi children are seen in a town of Mosul after the village was retaken by Peshmerga forces from Daesh on 31 October, 2016 [Ahmet Izgi/Anadolu]

To prevent new U.S. wars, the Biden administration should commit to participate and comply with the rules of international law, which are supposed to be binding on all countries, even the most wealthy and powerful.

Despite U.S. non-participation and disdain, the rest of the world has continued to develop effective treaties to strengthen the rules of international law. For instance, treaties to ban land-mines and cluster munitions have successfully ended their use by the countries that have ratified them.

Americans should also support the International Network on Explosive Weapons (INEW), which is calling for a UN declaration to outlaw the use of heavy explosive weapons in urban areas, where 90% of casualties are civilians and many are children. As Save the Children’s Blast Injuries report says, “Explosive weapons, including aircraft bombs, rockets and artillery, were designed for use in open battlefields, and are completely inappropriate for use in towns and cities and among the civilian population.”

Since the United States and Russia still possess 90% of the nuclear weapons in the world, the main onus for their elimination lies on Presidents Biden and Putin. The five-year extension to the New START Treaty that Biden and Putin have agreed on is welcome news. The United States and Russia should use the treaty extension and the NPT Review as catalysts for further reductions in their stockpiles and real diplomacy to explicitly move forward on abolition.

These sanctions are a brutal form of economic warfare and collective punishment that leave children dying from hunger and preventable diseases, especially during this pandemic. UN officials have called for the International Criminal Court to investigate unilateral U.S. sanctions as crimes against humanity. The Biden administration should immediately lift all unilateral economic sanctions.

*

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

Medea Benjamin is cofounder of CODEPINK for Peace, and author of several books, including Inside Iran: The Real History and Politics of the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Nicolas J. S. Davies is an independent journalist, a researcher with CODEPINK and the author of Blood On Our Hands: the American Invasion and Destruction of Iraq.

Featured image is from Syria News

All Global Research articles including the  E-Book can be read in 27 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

***

Team Biden is planning to hold on to what it apparently sees as its “Trump card”— the Trump administration’s sanctions against Iran oil exports that have gutted the Iranian economy.

A close analysis of recent statements by members of President Joseph Biden’s foreign policy team indicates his administration has already signaled its intention to treat negotiations with Iran as an exercise in diplomatic coercion aimed at forcing major new concessions extending well beyond the 2105 nuclear agreement. The policy could trigger a renewed US-Iran crisis as serious as any provocation engineered by the Trump administration.

Although the Biden team is claiming that it is ready to bring the United States back into the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) if Iran comes into full compliance first, it is actually planning to demand that Iran give up its main source of political leverage. Thus, it will require Iran to cease its uranium enrichment to 20 percent and give up its accumulated stockpile of uranium already enriched to that level before the United States has withdrawn the economic sanctions that are now illegal under the JCPOA deal.

Meanwhile, the Biden team is planning to hold on to what it apparently sees as its “Trump card”— the Trump administration’s sanctions against Iran oil exports that have gutted the Iranian economy.

But the Biden strategy faces a serious problem: Iran has already demanded all sanctions imposed after the JCPOA took effect must be ended before Iran would return to compliance. Iran expects the United States, as the party which initially broke the agreement, to come into compliance first.

The new Biden coercive strategy

The Biden administration is banking on a scenario in which Iran agrees to cease its enrichment to 20% and reverse other  major concessions Iran made as part of the 2015 agreement.

The Biden team then states it would start a new set of negotiations with Iran, in which the United States would use its leverage to pressure Iran into extending the timeline of its major commitments under the deal. Further, Tehran will be required to accept a modification in its missile program, as European allies have urged.

The Biden team’s Iran strategy was not hastily cobbled together just before inauguration.  National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan outlined it in an interview last June with Jon Alterman, the Middle East program direct at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. “You can get some early wins on the nuclear program but tie long-term sanctions relief to progress on both [nuclear and other issues] files,” Sullivan explained.

Sullivan made it clear the primary goal of his proposed strategy was to constrain Iran by imposing extended restraints on its nuclear program. The idea, he explained, was “to see, is it possible to get a short term win on the nuclear file to basically get Iran back into compliance with the JCPOA and to then put the longer term disposition of Iran’s nuclear program on a negotiating track.”

Biden’s future NSC director implied that US sanctions would be exploited to draw Iran into talks with Israel and Saudi Arabia on missiles and other issues, but not at the expense of U.S. aims on the nuclear issue. The assumption that the US would maintain its coercive leverage on Iran is at the center of the policy. As Sullivan said, summarizing an article he co-authored for Foreign Affairs, “the U.S. should say, ‘We are going to be here applying various forms of leverage, including economic leverage as well as military dimensions, apart from whether we have 20,000 more troops or 10,000 less troops there’.”

At the heart of Biden’s strategy is the demand for Iran to return immediately to full compliance with the nuclear agreement. Before Iran rejoins the pact, the new administration expects it to reverse the moves it made to increase the level and the speed of enrichment in response to Trump’s withdrawal.

The Biden administration’s demand ignores the fact Iran scrupulously observed all of the JCPOA’s provisions for two years after the Trump administration had withdrawn from the agreement. It was only after the Trump administration reintroduced old sanctions outlawed by the agreement and introduced crushing new sanctions aimed at preventing Iran from exporting oil that Iran began enriching uranium at higher levels.

By piling up onerous demands while offering few concessions of its own, the new administration conveys the clear message that it is in no hurry to return to the JCPOA. Secretary of State of Tony Blinken stated in his confirmation testimony that the Biden administration was “a long way” from returning to the deal and said nothing about reversing any of the sanctions that were introduced or reintroduced by the Trump administration after it quit the agreement.

Robert J. Einhorn, a key Obama policymaker on the Iran nuclear issue as State Department Special Adviser on Arms Control and Proliferation who has maintained contacts with Biden insiders, has provided an explanation for that ambiguous message. He suggested that the Biden administration aims to press Iran for a deal falling well short of full restoration of the JCPOA — an “interim agreement” involving “rollback” of part of Iran’s current enrichment activities and going beyond the JCPOA in return for “partial sanctions relief.”

That relief would include “some” of the revenues from oil sales that have been blocked in foreign bank accounts.  Einhorn appeared to confirm that the new Biden strategy would be based in holding on to the leverage conferred by Trump sanctions against Iran’s oil and banking sectors, which have crippled the country/s economy.

Learning the wrong lesson from Obama’scoercive diplomacy

Biden’s foreign policy team is comprised largely of Obama administration officials who either initiated nuclear deal talks in 2012-2013 or who were involved in the later stages of the negotiations. NSC Director Sullivan and CIA Director William Burns were key figures in the early talks with Iran; Blinken oversaw the later phase of the negotiations as Deputy Secretary of State, and Undersecretary of State Wendy Sherman was in charge of day-to-day negotiations with Iran on the JCPOA until the final round in Vienna in 2015.

So it should be no surprise that the Biden team is pursuing an Iran strategy similar to the one that the Obama administration followed in its negotiations with Iran on the JCPOA itself. The Obama administration proudly claimed success in increasing Iran’s “breakout time” for obtaining enough enriched uranium for a single bomb from two or three months to a year through the pressure of heavy sanctions. It believed it had secured a winning diplomatic hand in 2012 when it got European allies to buy into its coercive strategy of oil and banking sanctions that would cut deeply into Iran’s foreign currency earnings.

But Iran’s enrichment efforts before negotiations on the nuclear deal began in 2012 tell a very different story. As the IAEA reported at the time, between late 2011 and February 2013, Iran enriched 280 kg of uranium to 20 percent, which would have placed it well over the level regarded as sufficient for “breakout” to a bomb. Meanwhile, Iran roughly doubled the number of centrifuges capable of 20 percent enrichment at its Fordow enrichment facility.

Instead of storing the total amount of uranium enriched to 20 percent for a possible bomb, however, Iran did exactly the opposite: it immediately converted 40 percent of its total capacity of enriched uranium to power Iran’s reactor. What’s more, it did not take steps to make the new centrifuges at Fordow capable of enrichment.

Iran was clearly amassing its stockpile and enrichment capability as bargaining chips for future negotiations. During a September 2012 meeting with EU officials in Istanbul, Iran confirmed the strategy by offering to suspend its 20 percent enrichment in return for significant easing of Western sanctions.

The Obama administration believed its sanctions weapon would prevail over Iran’s diplomatic chips. But Iran persisted in asserting its right to more than a token enrichment program. In the very last days of the negotiations in 2015, Secretary of State John Kerry sought to retain language that would allow the United States to reimpose sanctions deep into the implementation of the agreement, as an Iranian official told this writer in Vienna.  But Iran held fast, and Obama needed to get an agreement. Kerry ultimately gave up his demand.

Blinken, Sullivan and the other Biden administration officials who worked on Iran during the Obama administration seem to have forgotten how Iran used 20 percent enrichment to get the United States to drop its sanctions. In any case, they are so enamored with the Trump sanctions and their role in stifling Iranian oil sales that they believe they will have the upper hand this time around.

In its bid to coerce a state that is fighting for its most basic national rights into submission, the Biden administration has exhibited a stubborn refusal to acknowledge the limits of U.S. power. The Trump administration’s “maximum pressure” campaign has already prompted Iran to establish military capabilities that it previously lacked.

If the Biden administration refuses to relent on its coercive diplomacy and provokes a crisis, Iran can now inflict serious costs on the United States and its allies in the region. Yet Biden’s foreign policy team appears so far to be oblivious to the serious risks inherent in its current path.

*

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

Gareth Porter is an independent investigative journalist who has covered national security policy since 2005 and was the recipient of Gellhorn Prize for Journalism in 2012.  His most recent book is The CIA Insider’s Guide to the Iran Crisis co-authored with John Kiriakou, just published in February.

Featured image is from OneWorld

The Globalization of War: America’s “Long War” against Humanity

Michel Chossudovsky

The “globalization of war” is a hegemonic project. Major military and covert intelligence operations are being undertaken simultaneously in the Middle East, Eastern Europe, sub-Saharan Africa, Central Asia and the Far East. The U.S. military agenda combines both major theater operations as well as covert actions geared towards destabilizing sovereign states.

ISBN Number: 978-0-9737147-6-0

Year: 2015

Pages: 240 Pages

List Price: $22.95

Special Price: $15.00

Click here to order.

All Global Research articles including the  E-Book can be read in 27 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

***

A new animal study by a group of European researchers has found that low levels of the weed killing chemical glyphosate and the glyphosate-based Roundup product can alter the composition of the gut microbiome in ways that may be linked to adverse health outcomes.

The paper, published Wednesday in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives, is authored by 13 researchers, including study lead Dr. Michael Antoniou, head of the Gene Expression and Therapy Group within the Department of Medical and Molecular Genetics at King’s College in London, and Dr. Robin Mesnage, a research associate in computational toxicology within the same group.  Scientists from the Ramazzini Institute in Bologna, Italy, participated in the study as did scientists from France and the Netherlands.

The effects of glyphosate on the gut microbiome were found to be caused by the same mechanism of action by which glyphosate acts to kill weeds and other plants, the researchers said.

The microbes in the human gut include a variety of bacteria and fungi that impact immune functions and other important processes, and a disruption of that system can contribute to a range of diseases, the researchers said.

“Both the glyphosate and the Roundup did have an effect on gut bacterial population composition,” Antoniou said in an interview. “We know that our gut is inhabited by thousands of different types of bacteria and a balance in their composition, and more important in their function, is crucial for our health. So anything that disturbs, negatively disturbs, the gut microbiome… has the potential of causing ill health because we go from balanced functioning that is conducive to health to imbalanced functioning that may lead to a whole spectrum of different diseases.”

The authors of the new paper said they determined that, contrary to some assertions by critics of glyphosate use, glyphosate did not act as an antibiotic, killing off necessary bacteria in the gut.

Instead, they found – for the first time, they said – that the pesticide interfered in a potentially worrisome way with the shikimate biochemical pathway of the gut bacteria of the animals used in the experiment. That interference was highlighted by changes in specific substances in the gut. Analysis of  gut and blood biochemistry revealed evidence that the animals were under oxidative stress, a condition associated with DNA damage and cancer.

The researchers said it was not clear if the disturbance within the gut microbiome influenced the metabolic stress.

The indication of oxidative stress was more pronounced in experiments using a glyphosate-based herbicide called Roundup BioFlow, a product of Monsanto owner Bayer AG, the scientists said.

The study authors said they were conducting more studies to try to decipher if the oxidative stress they observed was also damaging DNA, which would raise the risk of cancer.

The authors said more research is needed to truly understand the health implications of glyphosate inhibition of the shikimate pathway and other metabolic disturbances in the gut microbiome and blood but the early findings could be used in the development of bio-markers for epidemiological studies and to understand if glyphosate herbicides can have biological effects in people.

In the study, female rats were given glyphosate and the Roundup product. The doses were delivered through the drinking water provided to the animals and were given at levels representing the acceptable daily intakes considered safe by European and U.S. regulators.

Antoniou said the study results build on other research that makes it clear regulators are relying on outdated methods when determining what constitutes “safe” levels of glyphosate and other pesticides in food and water. Residues of pesticides used in agriculture are commonly found in a range of regularly consumed foods.

“Regulators need to come into the twenty-first century, stop dragging their feet… and embrace the types of analyses that we have done in this study,” Antoniou said. He said molecular profiling, part of a branch of science known as “OMICS,” is revolutionizing the base of knowledge about the impacts chemical exposures have on health.

The rat study is but the latest in a series of scientific experiments aimed at determining if glyphosate and glyphosate-based herbicides – including Roundup – can be harmful to humans, even at levels of exposure regulators assert are safe.

Several such studies have found an array of concerns, including one published in November  by researchers from the University of Turku in Finland who said that they were able to determine, in a “conservative estimate,” that approximately 54 percent of species in the core of the human gut microbiome are “potentially sensitive” to glyphosate.

As researchers increasingly look to understand the human microbiome and the role it plays in our health, questions about potential glyphosate impacts on the gut microbiome have been the subject not only of debate in scientific circles, but also of litigation.

Last year, Bayer agreed to pay $39.5 million to settle claims that Monsanto ran misleading advertisements asserting glyphosate only effected an enzyme in plants and could not similarly impact pets and people. The plaintiffs in the case alleged glyphosate targeted an enzyme found in humans and animals that bolsters the immune system, digestion and brain function.

Bayer, which inherited Monsanto’s glyphosate-based herbicide brand and its glyphosate-tolerant genetically engineered seed portfolio when it bought the company in 2018, maintains that an abundance of scientific study over decades confirms that glyphosate does not cause cancer. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and many other international regulatory bodies also do not consider glyphosate products to be carcinogenic.

But the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer in 2015 said a review of scientific research found ample evidence that glyphosate is a probable human carcinogen.

Since that time, Bayer has lost three out of three trials brought by people who blame their cancers on exposure to Monsanto’s herbicides, and Bayer last year said it would pay roughly  $11 billion to settle more than 100,000 similar claims.

*

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

Featured image is from Yann Avril/Pixavril – stock.adobe.com

All Global Research articles including the  E-Book can be read in 27 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

***

While it is well known that international treaties and agreements signed are not a personal contract between political leaders, but rather certain obligations between states, the United States has repeatedly shown the world that it does not care about such norms of international law. Hence the entire structure of the international legal framework, be it the international agreements limiting the arms race, the nuclear deal with Iran, or other agreements to resolve recent armed conflicts, is collapsing through the USA’s fault. The activity of international organizations suffers as well, with Washington giving notice of withdrawal from UNESCO, WHO or some other international institution only at its whim, thereby openly blackmailing them.

All of Washington’s policies in recent years are evidence that the United States has long ceased to be a treaty-minded country.

Therefore, international efforts, in which the United States participates, to resolve conflicts, to reduce armed confrontation in different regions or to establish denuclearization zones, in particular on the Korean Peninsula, have ceased to bring results. Not believing the official signatures of one of the main international actors — the US — countries continue arms race, accumulating a dangerous potential of various weapons, creating their own military alliances, increasing the level of danger of another war in one region or another.

A good example of this is the development of the situation in Afghanistan, where, during “Trump’s short era,” certain steps were taken to end the armed conflict in the country and to reduce the foreign military presence there, as one of the main conditions for resolving the situation. Recall, in particular, how on October 7, 2020, Donald Trump wrote on his Twitter page that all US troops still remaining there should return from Afghanistan by the end of 2020. This was due to the peace agreement signed on February 29, 2020 in Doha between the US administration and the radical Taliban movement (an organization banned in Russia), under which the United States, its allies and the coalition declared their intention to withdraw all troops from Afghanistan within 14 months. Then, in mid-January, the United States announced a partial, though not total, reduction of its military contingent in Afghanistan to 2,500 people. Nevertheless, there was still time for the complete withdrawal of foreign troops from Afghanistan at the end of April this year, as stipulated in the Doha agreement…

To say the least, the process of the withdrawal of American troops from Afghanistan, where they have been for 19 years, wasted $2 trillion of US taxpayers’ money, lost over 2,300 soldiers, and more than 20,000 soldiers and officers of the US army paid for this adventure of American politicians with their health and injuries, was not easy.

There have been periodic disputes and incidents between the signatories to the Doha Agreement. In an attempt to substitute the withdrawal of US troops and to prevent its actual reduction of military presence in the country, Washington has been actively replacing US soldiers by PMCs, which have recently been actively increasing in number, and this was very critically perceived by the Taliban, to the point of escalating armed clashes.

Trump’s plans to reduce the US military presence in Afghanistan were also opposed by Democrat-supported political forces, not only in the United States but also in Western Europe. And a clear manifestation of this was the statement of NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg in mid-November 2020 about the “concern” of the North Atlantic bloc about such intentions of Trump, because, according to Stoltenberg, in such a development NATO, whose contingent in Afghanistan is 50% composed of American troops, will have to make “a difficult decision.” The NATO countries have decided to take the decision on the continued presence in Afghanistan in February 2021, after the inauguration of US President-elect Joe Biden, to orient themselves to the new course of Washington, Alliance Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg told reporters on December 1.

And now, the new US President Joe Biden has already begun his duties, starting “his era” with a fundamental review of the policies of the previous US president, in the first hours after his inauguration repealing five of Trump’s executive orders. As part of “adjusting” Trump’s policy, the new president will certainly make some changes to the US strategy in Afghanistan, which, despite Joe Biden’s multiple campaign declarations, is not yet clear.

For instance, Joe Biden has said that his first priority after winning the presidential election would be to get US troops back from Afghanistan and negotiate with the Taliban, leaving only a small contingent of special forces in the Central Asian country “to counter potential threats” – in case the United States cannot come to “a sufficiently acceptable agreement on combating terrorism.” However, Trump’s decision to completely withdraw US troops from Afghanistan was critically received not only in US political circles, but also in Europe. In this regard, through Afghan lawmakers — supporters of US policy — a call has already been prepared for Biden to reconsider the agreement made by the Trump administration with the Taliban, including the clause requiring the full withdrawal of coalition troops. However, this would mean that the US would not only have to break the Doha Agreement, but would also have to resume the war.

This position on the withdrawal of US troops from Afghanistan is actively promoted by the US industrial circles, given the fact that the country occupies an important geostrategic position, and in addition to the United States, a number of countries, including China, Iran, Russia and Pakistan are interested in it. In particular, China is already demonstrating its willingness to fill the vacuum after the US withdrawal from Afghanistan, to monopolize commodities and rare earth elements, and to invest in Afghanistan, something the US has never done. Back in 2008, Beijing signed an agreement with the Afghan authorities to develop the Aynak copper deposit, the value of the non-ferrous metal reserves in which can be up to $50 billion, and also obtained the right to develop oil deposits in the Amu Darya River basin, which was suspended in 2013.

Under these circumstances, and clearly unwilling to let go of Afghanistan’s natural wealth, US National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan held telephone conversations with his Afghan counterpart Hamdullah Mohib on January 23 and made it clear that the United States intends to revise the 2020 Doha agreement with the Taliban. This includes assessing whether the Taliban (a movement banned in the Russian Federation) are fulfilling their commitments to sever ties with terrorist groups, reduce violence in Afghanistan, and engage in constructive negotiations with the Afghan government and other stakeholders. In general, he made it clear that if Biden’s concerns about Taliban links with other terrorist groups are not resolved, the US will insist on maintaining a limited US military contingent on Afghan territory.

But this will certainly cause serious disagreements in US relations with the Taliban, who will continue to push for a full withdrawal of American troops from Afghanistan, including by escalating the armed confrontation in that country…

*

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

Vladimir Danilov, political observer, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

Featured image is from TheFreeThoughtProject.com

The Globalization of War: America’s “Long War” against Humanity

Michel Chossudovsky

The “globalization of war” is a hegemonic project. Major military and covert intelligence operations are being undertaken simultaneously in the Middle East, Eastern Europe, sub-Saharan Africa, Central Asia and the Far East. The U.S. military agenda combines both major theater operations as well as covert actions geared towards destabilizing sovereign states.

ISBN Number: 978-0-9737147-6-0

Year: 2015

Pages: 240 Pages

List Price: $22.95

Special Price: $15.00

Click here to order.

All Global Research articles including the  E-Book can be read in 27 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

***

Below is the Executive Summary of the Children’s Defense Fund Report entitled

“Protecting Individual Rights in the Era of COVID-19”

Read full Report 

• Compulsory vaccination violates fundamental human rights, notably the right to prior, free and informed consent for medical interventions. Com- mon law, state and federal statutes, the Nuremberg Code (1947), and the 2005 UNESCO Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights establish the necessity of informed consent.
• COVID-19 must not become a pretext for forced vaccination.
• The legal edifice shoring up compulsory vaccination rests on a Supreme Court decision that is more than a century old. Subsequent lower court decisions about vaccine mandates differ radically from what the Supreme Court envisioned and have led to results that fail to safeguard health and individual rights.
• Twentieth-century progress in sanitation, hygiene, refrigeration, and the provision of clean water produced dramatic declines in infectious disease. The decline in infectious disease had little to do with vaccination.
• Vaccines cause injuries and death that are far from “rare” or “one in a million.” A 2010 study commissioned by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) reports at least one vaccine injury for every 39 vac- cines given.
• The Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) does an extremely poor job of capturing adverse events, with fewer than 1% reported. The CDC refuses to take recommended steps to strengthen VAERS data.
• A flawed and corrupt regulatory process enables vaccine safety shortcuts and fraud. No clinical trial for vaccines given to babies and toddlers has used an inert placebo control group, and most trials have followed young recipients for only a few days or weeks.
• Under the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (NCVIA), vaccine manufacturers and healthcare providers cannot be held liable for vaccine injuries from federally recommended vaccines. The Act allows companies to escape scrutiny and the document discovery associated with litigation.
• Under the 2005 Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness (PREP) Act, manufacturers, healthcare providers, and government officials will be immune from liability for potential COVID-19 vaccine injuries and deaths. Compensation through its Countermeasures Injury Compensation Pro- gram is likely to be minuscule.
• HHS has a statutory obligation to study vaccine injuries, improve vaccine safety, and report biannually to Congress—but it has never once done so in over 30 years.
• The National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, also created in 1986, pits vaccine-injured claimants against HHS in an adversarial and usually unsuccessful process. In over three decades, the program has compen- sated only a third of the petitions filed. Even so, compensation awarded to date exceeds $4.4 billion.
• Vaccine-induced immunity—if it occurs at all—wanes over time, some- times rapidly. Outbreaks of conditions such as measles, mumps, pertussis, and chickenpox in highly vaccinated populations are not uncommon. Herd immunity and disease eradication cannot be reliably achieved through vaccination.
• American children have never been sicker. The passage of the NCVIA enabled an explosion of liability-free vaccines and one of the most aggres- sive childhood vaccine schedules in the world. Over half (54%) of American children now develop at least one chronic health condition, and many have multiple health challenges.
• COVID-19 vaccines include gene-altering and inflammation-promoting technologies that may create genetic changes that may pass to future gen- erations. Lawyers must not provide cover for liability-free medical inter- ventions that carry profound unknown, de facto experimental risks.

Read full report here.

*

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

Featured image is from The Freedom Articles

All Global Research articles including the  E-Book can be read in 27 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

***

In 2018, the hashtag #ThankGodIGraduatedAlready began trending on China’s Weibo social media platform.  The tag reflected concerns among Chinese students that schools had begun to install the ‘Class Care System’, developed by the Chinese technology company Hanwang.  Cameras monitor pupils’ facial expressions with deep learning algorithms identifying each student, and then classifying their behaviour into various categories – “focused”, “listening”, “writing”, “answering questions”, “distracted”, or “sleeping”. Even in a country where mass surveillance is common, students reacted with outrage.

There are many technological, legal, and ethical barriers to overcome before machine learning can be widely deployed in such ways but China, in its push to overtake the US as world’s leader in artificial intelligence (AI), is racing ahead to introduce such technology before addressing these concerns.  And China is not the only culprit.

Frank Pasquale’s book ‘The New Laws of Robotics: Defending Human Expertise in the Age of AI’ investigates the rapidly advancing use of AI and intelligent machines in an era of automation, and uses a wide range of examples – among which the ‘Class Care System’ is far from the most sinister – to highlight the threats that the rush to robotics poses for human societies.  In a world dominated by corporations and governments with a disposition for centralising control, the adoption of AI is being driven by the dictates of neoliberal capitalism, with the twin aims of increasing profit for the private sector and cutting costs in the public sector. 

Pasquale’s book vividly demonstrates how the use of immature technology and crude algorithms for these purposes is shattering privacy rights, undermining workplace protections, ignoring diversity, and reinforcing discrimination, power imbalances, and wealth differences.

A modern panopticon: Hanwang’s ‘Class Care System’ uses AI and facial recognition technology to constantly monitor Chinese school students. Image credit: Sixth Tone.

Pasquale argues that another future is possible, and that AI can be adopted for the benefit of humanity – promoting prosperity and providing meaningful work – by striking a balance between the ingenuity and creativity of humans and the precision and analytical capacity of machines. To do this, he proposes four new laws of robotics, extending the influential laws of robotics outlined by Isaac Asimov in his ‘I Robot’ science fiction stories.  Pasquale’s four laws are:

• Robotic systems and AI should complement professionals, not replace them.
• Robotic systems and AI should not counterfeit humanity.
• Robotic systems and AI should not intensity zero-sum arms races.
• Robotic systems and AI must always indicate the identity of their creator(s), controller(s), and owner(s).

The book identifies how these laws can be applied in areas where the use of AI is rapidly expanding: health and social care, education, automated media, the legal and judicial system, and warfare, and applies them to real-life ethical dilemmas which the egregious application of AI has exposed.   In places the writing is sometimes a little prosaic, but the book draws on a wealth of examples to show the risks which arise from poorly thought-out applications of AI and out-of-control robots – which Pasquale describes as “as dangerous as unregulated bioengineering of viruses”.  He is not afraid to call out the tech giants as serial offenders in this respect: Facebook for peddling fake news and conspiracy theories and failing to regulate user content to safeguard its users, and Google for failing to moderate un-transparent search algorithms which have at times promoted racist and anti-Semitic content and flagged disturbing spoof videos of cartoon characters abusing each other as ‘child friendly’.

‘New Laws of Robotics’ is not, however, a mere horror-show, cataloguing irresponsible technical decisions: it is firmly focused on providing solutions intended to harness the algorithm and design a future where humans and machines work together and the use of machines will enrich and enlighten humanity.

Frank Pasquale is a Professor of Law at Brooklyn Law School, specialising in the law of AI, algorithms, and machine learning, so it’s perhaps not surprising that his solutions for delivering algorithmic accountability are based on regulation and legal measures.  However, in the current neoliberal political climate, how likely are his ideas to gain momentum?  In the United Kingdom, where the Johnson government is keen to exploit the economic benefits of AI but uninterested in regulation, the Centre for Data Ethics and Innovation has been set up to advise on the governance of AI and data-driven technology.  To date, the Centre’s work has had limited impact and Ministers have yet to take forward any of its recommendations.  At the same time, senior military figures are rushing to embrace the prospect of ‘robot soldiers’ before the UK has fully considered the ethical and practical implications of this – unlike the US Department of Defence, which has published a set of ethical principles to guide its use of military AI.  Many would argue that in less liberal countries such as Russia and China the likelihood of an ethical approach to the adoption of AI is even less likely than in the UK.

Among the measures that Pasquale suggests to keep algorithms under control is putting an end to decision-making on the adoption of AI and robotics by technologists and mangers – “tech evangelists”, as Pasquale describes them – and instead democratising decisions in this field.  He gives a number of suggestions on how to increase public engagement to do this.  He also proclaims the need for a sea-change in what he calls ‘the political economy of automation’ – a move away from the mindset that automation should be pursued as an end in itself, and instead advocates an approach which aims for ‘better AI’ rather than ‘more AI’.

What would perhaps also be welcome in Pasquale’s manifesto for the future is a louder wake-up call to those who have not yet appreciated the changes and risks that society is facing as a result of advances in AI and robotics.  Civil society, the press, and activists have a duty to help educate the public in this respect.  Perhaps the first place to start is in the trade union movement, by working with unions to force managers to introduce automated systems which genuinely improve conditions in the workplace and services to the public, rather than just improve the bottom line on the balance sheet.  This might empower us to deliver the much-needed controls on the technologies of the future which Pasquale has elegantly articulated.

*

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

All Global Research articles including the  E-Book can be read in 27 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

***

Despite deep divisions plaguing American politics, the Republican pushback against President Joe Biden’s cabinet nominees has been relatively quiet. 

Days into the new administration, the Senate confirmed Biden’s secretaries of state, treasury and defence, as well as intelligence chief with bipartisan support as other nominees undergo routine hearings.

A fight may be looming, however, over the potential nomination of Robert Malley, an outspoken proponent of diplomacy, as the administration’s envoy for Iran.

Malley, an Obama-era diplomat, leads the International Crisis Group think tank, which focuses on preventing and resolving violent conflicts. His possible appointment has faced an early backlash from conservatives and earned the praise of advocates of the Iran nuclear deal.

Sina Toossi, a senior research analyst at the National Iranian American Council (NIAC), said a well-funded and coordinated “network” of anti-Iran hawks that has been smearing advocates of diplomacy with Tehran has “drawn the line” on Malley.

“Rob Malley was the Obama administration’s chief nuclear negotiator – someone has experience negotiating with the Iranians, who is an actual diplomat,” Toossi told MEE.

“These attacks are part of a broader effort against diplomacy with Iran, against reversing Trump’s disastrous approach towards Iran.”

Backlash

The chatter, opposition and praise for Malley started last week when Jewish Insider reported that he was being considered for the position of special envoy for Iran.

“It’s deeply troubling that President Biden would consider appointing Rob Malley to direct Iran policy,” Republican Senator Tom Cotton wrote on Twitter last week.

“Malley has a long track record of sympathy for the Iranian regime & animus towards Israel. The ayatollahs wouldn’t believe their luck if he is selected.”

The post from Cotton, a staunchly conservative foreign policy hawk, prompted many to leap to Malley’s defence.

Palestinian-American analyst Yousef Munayyer said Cotton’s opposition was an additional reason to tap Malley for the job.

“President Biden shouldn’t hesitate to pick someone like Malley, and if he had any doubt, the fact that a sociopath like Tom Bomb Everything Cotton opposes it should make it a slam dunk,” Munayyer wrote on Twitter.

Some of Malley’s former colleagues have also lauded the former diplomat.

“Rob Malley is an extraordinary diplomat, a brilliant strategist, and a profoundly decent human being,” said Ben Rhodes, who served as deputy national security adviser under former President Barack Obama.

“While his critics were supporting and enabling authoritarianism these last few years, Rob was fighting it and standing up for human rights around the world.”

Who is Rob Malley?

Malley served in various senior capacities at the Obama White House, including as advisor to the campaign to defeat the Islamic State group, Middle East coordinator at the National Security Council and special assistant to the president.

He was the lead US negotiator in the talks that led to the Iran nuclear deal. The multilateral pact, known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), saw Iran scale back its nuclear programme in exchange for lifting sanctions against its economy.

Former President Donald Trump nixed the deal in 2018, but Biden has signalled that he plans to bring back the agreement and use it to launch negotiations over broader issues with Tehran.

Malley started his government service during the administration of former President Bill Clinton, where he served as senior aide on Arab-Israeli affairs and director of Near East and South Asian affairs at the National Security Council.

Malley’s father, who was born in Egypt to a Jewish family of Syrian descent, was a leftist journalist who wrote extensively about the anti-colonial struggle in Africa.

The former diplomat has been critical of Israeli policies against Palestinians.

In a Foreign Policy column he co-authored in April, Malley urged Biden to warn the Israeli government against plans to annex parts of the West Bank, including by pledging to allow international criticism of Israeli actions and using US aid as leverage.

“Even as the United States continues to support Israel’s security, a President Biden could explore ways of deducting any money spent on the annexed territories from generous US assistance, consistent with the long-standing US policy of deducting spending on Israeli settlements in the West Bank from US loan guarantees,” the article reads.

“If such a policy were made clear, any decision by Israel’s government to nonetheless go forward with annexation would be a sign that it felt secure enough to forgo a portion of US assistance.”

Later in 2020, Malley appeared sceptical about the normalisation agreement between the UAE and Israel, which halted Israel’s formal annexation scheme – at least temporarily.

“Those most strongly [against] deal oppose annexation not [because] it’s new but bc it isn’t – bc it merely formalizes existing reality. See only harm in rewarding Israel for keeping hidden policies annexation [would] have brought to light. They oppose annexation because it is the status quo,” Malley wrote on Twitter.

The post, part of a series of tweets on the normalisation deal, does not necessarily convey Malley’s own views, but rather what he thinks critics of the agreement are saying. Nonetheless, it demonstrated understanding of Palestinians’ grievances beyond the bipartisan consensus in support of Israel.

Late in 2020, Malley criticised Trump’s efforts to reward Arab states who formalise relations with Israel, including weapons deals to the UAE and recognising Morocco’s claims to Western Sahara.

“All diplomacy is transactional, but these transactions are mixing things that ought not to have been mixed,” Malley told the New York Times.

Last week, the Zionist Organization of America, a right-wing pro-Israel group, slammed Malley’s rumoured appointment, calling his views “extremely dangerous for the United States and our allies”.

Iran deal

If Malley gets nominated to the post of special envoy for Iran, he would be able to play an instrumental role in reviving diplomacy with the Islamic Republic.

The US and Iran do not have formal diplomatic ties. Malley would be based in Washington, not Tehran. The envoy would be the public face and spearhead of America’s policy towards Iran.

For example, former Iran envoy Brian Hook toured the world to promote Trump’s “maximum pressure” campaign, of which he was one of the leading architects.

When Hook quit last year, then-Secretary of State Mike Pompeo called him “my point person on Iran” and credited him for “historic results countering the Iranian regime”.

Malley’s mission would be to unroll a lot of what Hook did.

Biden is already facing calls to delay the return to the JCPOA in order to secure a more comprehensive agreement that would address Tehran’s regional activities and ballistic missile programme.

So far, the president and his top aides have maintained that Washington will abide by the deal if Tehran also returns to full compliance. Iran had loosened its commitments to the deal, increasing uranium enrichment levels in response to US sanctions.

Secretary of State Tony Blinken told lawmakers last week that the administration would return to the JCPOA and use it as a “platform – with our allies and partners, who would once again be on the same side with us – to seek a longer and stronger agreement”.

Appointing Malley, Toossi said, would signal that Biden is serious about reviving the Iran deal.

“The personnel are reflective of what the policy is going to be… Choosing people like Rob Malley, this shows that the policy that Biden wants to pursue towards Iran is going to be a diplomatically-driven policy. It is going to be seriously aimed at getting a deal, not just rhetoric,” Toossi said.

Malley, who has personally met with top Iranian officials, would also help establish a communication channel with the Iranians to address broader issues or incidents that may arise in the region, Toossi added.

Still, conservatives argue that Malley’s possible appointment would be a gift to the Iranian government and a disservice to the Iranian people who oppose the regime in Tehran.

“Malley is widely seen as one of Tehran’s premier apologists in Washington; in November 2019 he went so far as to suggest that massive public protests in Iran justified Tehran’s paranoia about an Israeli-Saudi-US plot,” New York Times columnist Bret Stephens wrote on Tuesday.

“A Malley appointment would signal that, on the things that matter most, Biden’s foreign policy will be coldly transactional.”

Critics of Stephens, a conservative columnist with frequent controversial takes, were quick to point out that Malley was describing the way the Iranian government views events in the region, not justifying the crackdown on protests.

Malley’s possible appointment will be a telling indicator of how Biden will deal with Tehran. Foreign policy progressives are already rallying around Malley and backing him for the job.

“Rob Malley is an extremely knowledgeable expert with great experience in promoting US security through diplomacy rather than war,” Senator Bernie Sanders wrote on Twitter last Friday. “He would be an excellent choice for the role of Iran envoy.”

*

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

Featured image is CC BY 2.0

All Global Research articles including the  E-Book can be read in 27 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

***

North East Syria is the scene of a stand-off between the Syrian Arab Army (SAA), based in Damascus, and the Syrian Defense Forces (SDF), who are militarily led by the People’s Protection Units (YPG), a Kurdish militia founded in October 2015, and supported by the US.

The North East corner of Syria has become like a patchwork-quilt, with patches of soil controlled by opposing sides, and various international players in the proxy war in Syria.  The Syrian conflict is approaching 10 years, and was a US-NATO attack on Syria for ‘regime change’. Their plan failed, but succeeded in destroying the country and infrastructure, and scattering millions around the world as refugees and economic migrants.

Some in the west have rooted for the Kurds to establish a ‘homeland’ in North East Syria, but they fail to acknowledge that the region is not inhabited by only Kurds.  While the Syrian Kurds represent some 10% of the population, they are a sizeable minority; but in a democracy the majority rules.

The Russian military recently sent reinforcements to the Qamishli airport in an effort to stabilize the tense situation in the area. The Russian military was invited to Syria by the Damascus government in 2015, and since then the government has regained control over the majority of the Syrian territory, with the exception of Idlib, which is under occupation by an Al Qaeda affiliate, HTS, and the North East region which is a conflict zone including the US, Russia, Turkey, the Kurdish militia YPG and the SAA. The Russians have continued negotiating with the Kurds for a peaceful resolution.

The Turkish Army invaded Syria in 2020 and recently shut down the Alouk water station, which supplies the city of Hasaka. After a one-week siege on the city residents, the Turks reopened the water on January 23.

The Internal Security Forces, a division of the YPG, sent reinforcements to the battle zone at Qamishli, in the neighborhood of Halko, where pitched battles erupted between the YPG and the SAA on January 23.

Previously, the YPG had prevented Syrian civil servants of the Hasaka water department in Al Azizia neighborhood from going to their office, and had kidnapped three of its staff.

The YPG had prevented doctors and staff from entering the Al-Qamishli National Hospital, a Syrian government hospital, for several days.

Yesterday, large reinforcements were set to the area by both sides. The YPG are surrounding Qamishli neighborhoods and the airport. The area is populated by Syrians, who are not ethnically Kurds, is controlled by Damascus, and the YPG cut off bread supplies and water to them.

The Kurds have been blamed for starving non-Kurds, such as the indigenous Syrian Christian population, which is a sizeable group referred to as Syriani.

Wheat, other grains, and crude oil have been smuggled to Turkey from Syria by the SDF/YPG and sold on the black market in Turkey, which is controlled by Turkish President Erdogan’s son and his relatives.

Rojava, which translates to ‘west’ in Kurdish, is the name given to the North East region of Syria, by the Communist revolutionaries of the SDF.

The YPG and affiliated groups are designated as terrorist organizations by Turkey and Qatar. Both Turkey and the United States consider the PKK to be a terrorist organization, and yet the SDF and YPG are aligned with the PKK, who was led by the jailed Abdullah Ocalan. On June 4, 2020 Turkey asked the US to designate the YPG as a terrorist organization.

Residents recently fled from areas near Hasaka for fear of expected clashes after reports surfaced the SDF were storming the security zone in Hasaka city, which spurred people to flee from the market.

Some families living near the frontlines between the cities of Hasaka and Qamishli, started to leave their homes for fear of expected clashes between the SAA and the YPG, and the ongoing siege imposed by YPG.

The YPG has continued to prevent food and goods from entering the security zone in Hasaka city and has extorted money from violators.

Dozens of civil servants of the Syrian government staged a demonstration outside the justice building in the city of Hasaka, in protest against the continued siege imposed by YPG for the fifth day in a row on the neighborhoods controlled by Damascus, which prevent the entry of goods and food.

The current tensions may be tied back to January 10, when the YPG and the SAA stationed at the airport of Qamishli city, after the YPG kidnapped three senior SAA officers and some soldiers. Residents in the city were informed to stay away security checkpoints and windows, and the market of Qamishli city was closed due to the escalating security tensions and clashes which left four SAA soldiers injured, while YPG snipers were stationed on roof-tops.

Qamishli is mostly under the control of the SDF, and the YPG, that has been a major US partner. The Syrian government forces; however, have a significant military presence on the southern outskirts of the city and control its international airport.

“A few weeks ago, the YPG arrested a major Syrian government intelligence official and his son while they were coming to Qamishli from the city of Hasaka,” said Ivan Hasib, a reporter based in Qamishli.

“(Syrian) Government troops at the time responded by arresting several YPG officers,” he told Voice of America, adding that, “the Russians swiftly mediated between the two sides and for a while an informal truce was largely holding.”

A US military convoy of 40 trucks and armor vehicles entered Syria from Iraq on December 17, in Hasaka province, near the border with Turkey, and was followed up with some 200 US troops who arrived on helicopters. The troops deployed to the nearby oilfields. Trump had ordered the US military to guard the oil fields, while allowing the plundered oil revenues to support the SDF and YPG.

The Syrian Democratic Council (SDC) is the political-wing of the SDF and YPG. Their media outlets have detailed kidnappings, murder, abuse and arbitrary arrests in the region by the mercenaries under the control of the Turkish occupation forces.

These mercenaries are called the Syrian National Army (SNA) and they are terrorists following Radical Islam, which is a political ideology. Erdogan of Turkey leads a Muslim Brotherhood party, the AKP. The SNA were brought into Syria by the Turkish military invasion, which was green-lighted by Trump. The terrorists are responsible for massacres, abuse of human rights and overall oppression in the region, and consist of groups like the Sultan Murad division, the Hamza division, Jaysh-al Islam, Ahrar al-Sham and are often described as ‘moderate rebels’ in the US media, which tries to clean the image of these terrorists to sell regime change.

The patchwork quilt of North East Syria is fraying on the edges, and coming unstitched altogether. Opposing sides, and opposing international players are holding the Syrian people hostage. Now more than ever, the peace talks need to result in some changes on the ground.

*

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

This article was originally published on Mideast Discourse.

Steven Sahiounie is an award-winning journalist. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from South Front

All Global Research articles including the  E-Book can be read in 27 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

***

Perfect love casteth out fear — King James Bible, 1 John 4:18

— Thomas Ken, The Book of Common Praise

I must confess I am not entirely clear what such a sacrifice would entail. Perhaps climbing out of a warm bed, to tiptoe across a cold floor, fumbling to light the fire to chase the chill? For myself, I like to get up in the morning, and also to go to bed at night. Simple but satisfying. 

Now in a time of crowning idiocy, perhaps we may, amidst what often seems an unmitigated disaster, grasp the nettle, seize the day, grab the chimeric crisis and make it holler uncle.

The advice to “be in the moment” is all very well, but hard to do when one is paralyzed with fear. The best things in life may be free, and certainly it is good to appreciate the “simple things” but sometimes it is not so easy, and anything but simple, far less “dead easy” as the late lamented James Barber crowed in delight as he whipped up another culinary triumph for his salivating TV audience.

Perfect love does seem a likely candidate with which to cast off fear. And dull sloth, too, as a bonus. But until we reach perfection, perhaps a good belly laugh can be a saving grace. It is harder to be frightened when clutching one’s aching sides.

What makes us laugh? Famously, Norman Cousins laughed himself out of illness watching Charlie Chaplin and the Marx Brothers.  Chaplin’s antics, as he is mechanically force-fed at the factory conveyor belt by a bevy of efficiency experts, are hilarious in their absurdity. Surprise makes us laugh, irony makes us chuckle, non sequiturs provoke giggles.

Certainly there is no dearth of absurdity in our present circumstances, with the current cast of clowns strutting their stuff to their captive audience in this cockamamie circus. Certainly the emperors presiding over the Roman circus did it better. But what a golden opportunity to see the funny side.

Central Casting’s own Klaus Schwab has been cited most often by the observant, for his very creditable homage to Ian Fleming’s arch-villain Ernst Stavro Blofeld. As has been pointed out, he only lacks the white Persian cat. Personally I prefer Donald Pleasance in the role, but everyone to his own taste. And lest we forget, Herr Schwab has showed promise for future sci-fi portrayals, in his Neo-Klingon outfit. One wonders where he gets his wardrobe, now that Edith Head is sadly no longer with us.

As we feverishly chase elusive white bunny tails down labyrinthine underground warrens, trying to understand what is happening to us, we can be forgiven any fleeting desire to see the Red Queen pop up, screeching: “Off with their heads!”

Charles Dodson certainly saw humour in the darker elements of absurdity; there is no lack in the fate of the innocent little oysters, being slyly seduced to their inevitable doom by the slick verbal blandishments of the Walrus:(1)

‘It seems a shame,’ the Walrus said,

      ‘To play them such a trick,

After we’ve brought them out so far,

       And made them trot so quick!’

The Carpenter said nothing but

       ‘The butter’s spread too thick!’

‘I weep for you,’ the Walrus said:

       ‘I deeply sympathize.’

With sobs and tears he sorted out

       Those of the largest size,

Holding his pocket-handkerchief

       Before his streaming eyes.

‘O Oysters,’ said the Carpenter,

       You’ve had a pleasant run!

Shall we be trotting home again?’

       But answer came there none —

And this was scarcely odd, because

       They’d eaten every one.

“Normal” may have been anathema to a generation reading Paul Goodman’s Growing Up Absurd, but it is doubtful many could even begin to imagine the bizarre level of “new normal” absurdity we have now achieved. And in such a short time. Warp speed. Shades of Star Trek, or in Ben Hur, the mallet-wielding pausarius’ command to the galley-slaves toiling at the oars: “Ramming speed!“

Might not we, from time to time, as comic relief, pop out of the box of our normal mentality—old or new—taking advantage of our sense of the absurd, of the potential for risible explosion at incongruence. Even “cognitive dissonance” could serve as grist for the humour mill and not an invitation to follow latter-day walruses out onto the sands.

Some daring and athletic souls use the terror of imminent destruction, climbing sheer rock faces, to pop them out of their everyday mind-sets, to be truly present—as the greater fear ousts the lesser. But for those who lack opportunity and inclination perhaps humour is the better method. A sense of the ridiculous is something all people share, along with the love of good food, song and dance, and the love of others of their kind. And I believe we were all born with a sense of wonder, of appreciation for all creation, of a sense that all of it is a gift. 

Some of us have been robbed of this gift at an early age. Others have retained this wondrous sense, only to be confronted by those who would tear it from them. We might take a cue from Sandy, formerly so “reliable,” as she confronts her Mussolini admiring teacher, Miss Brodie: “You really are a ridiculous woman.” Or from the “Boggart-Banishing Spell” used to cast away fear in Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban: “Riddikulus!”

Perhaps we could try enchanting the present moment’s boogiemen, those “ghoulies and ghosties and long-leggedy beasties” infecting our minds, and infesting the body politic. Perhaps, after all, laughter truly is the best medicine.

*

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

All Global Research articles including the  E-Book can be read in 27 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

***

The situation in the Middle East is slowly, but steadily moving towards critical mass.

An advent of ISIS is being observed in central Syria where the terrorists have carried out over 40 attacks on various targets since the start of the year. Most recently, on January 24, ISIS cells ambushed a bus carrying Syrian Army troops on the Homs-Deir Ezzor highway. 3 soldiers were killed and at least 10 others were injured. Pro-government sources say that the ISIS units came from the area of al-Tanf.

This coincides with the increase of activity of radical militant groups hiding in Idlib. The terrorist threat has been spreading out of this Turkish-protected jihadi paradise and Idlib groups have already started carrying out terrorist attacks across the country. Recently, Huras al-Din released a video of a suicide bombing attack on a checkpoint of the Russian Military Police near the town of Ain Issa in the province of Raqqa. The attack took place overnight on January 1, but the released video confirms that it was carried out by the Idlib-based group. The usage of Idlib-based terrorists against Russian troops based in the north of the country may become a new trend in the Turkish strategy in the region.

Feeling a sense of urgency, Russia is also bolstering its positions. Several cargo planes delivered reinforcements to northern Syria, and more ships were sent on patrol off Syria’s coast. The Russian ‘readiness’ is likely a symptom of the “unknowns” represented by the presidential transition in Washington.

Washington’s stance on the situation appears to be taking a turn compared to the Trump presidency, with the US military once again openly boosting its presence in the country. A major US deployment was carried out on January 24th, after Joe Biden came into office. A convoy of at least 40 trucks loaded with weapons and logistical materials entered Syria. According to local media reports, it is moving towards US bases in the Hasakah countryside. US heavy equipment was observed going toward building up US positions at the Conoco oil and gas field. The troop withdrawal proclamations seem to have vanished from the White House agenda.

However, there is a permanent factor in the US policy – the confrontation with Iran and support to Israel and the Gulf monarchies. Washington is expected to deploy recently procured Israeli-made Iron Dome missile defense systems to the Persian Gulf states to reinforce the defense of its positions in Bahrain and the UAE.

Back in December 2020, Israel also signaled that it was ready to skip the middleman in the face of the US and deal directly with its supposed enemies in the Arab states of the Persian Gulf.

On the Israeli side, there appears to be permanent activity that includes regular drills simulating wars with Lebanon and Syria, public threats against members of the Axis of Resistance and strikes on Syria. The most recent strike took place on January 22nd killing a family in Hama. On January 25th, for the first time ever an Israeli fighter jet – a F-35 Joint Strike Fighter was seen in the skies above Lebanon.

The IDF frequently encroach on Lebanese airspace and use it to launch airstrikes on various targets in Syria. Israel is concerned that the U.S. will be softer against Iran, but it appears dead set on improving its grip on Syria’s oil resources.

Saudi Arabia is likely to begin feeling a sense of urgency soon, as well. A missile was intercepted above Riyadh on January 23rd and another one on January 26th. The Kingdom immediately pointed its finger at the Iran-aligned Houthi movement. Responsibility, however, was assumed by a brand-new Iraqi group – the Righteous Promise Brigades [Alwiyat Al Wa’ad Al Haq]. The group, potentially affiliated with Iran, said that it is just beginning its actions against Riyadh and its coalition. According to a recent report by Kuwait’s al-Qbas, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps deployed precision-guided rockets and drones in southern Iraq. Iran may opt to use these weapons against its regional advisories by other hands.

These developments came as more and more US convoys in Iraq are being attacked by the various pro-Iranian groups.

The situation is nearing a fully chaotic state, in which one wrong movement can send the entire region spiraling. The tension can be cut with a knife and every side is bolstering its positions and holding tight. When a misstep is made, which leads to a catastrophic escalation, every party will look to further its interests in the ensuing madness.

*

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

SUPPORT SOUTHFRONT:

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

All Global Research articles including the  E-Book can be read in 27 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

***

George Floyd, who was publicly tortured and lynched by Minneapolis police officers on May 25, 2020, narrated his own death, legendary civil rights lawyer Benjamin Crump told the International Commission of Inquiry on Systemic Racist Police Violence Against People of African Descent in the United States at its January 25 hearing. “He narrated his death, like a cinema movie at the time.”

The unarmed Floyd was accused of using a counterfeit $20 bill. As Floyd lay face down on the ground with his arms handcuffed behind him, Officer Derek Chauvin kept his knee firmly planted on Floyd’s neck for 8 minutes and 46 seconds, squeezing the life out of him. Floyd pleaded, “I can’t breathe” 28 times. “I can’t feel my insides,” he uttered. “I can’t feel my legs.” He called out for his mama, who had predeceased him by two years. Floyd said, “Tell my children I love them.” Two other officers kneeled on Floyd’s back and legs as a fourth officer stood guard to keep horrified citizens from intervening to save Floyd’s life, threatening them with mace.

Philonise Floyd, George’s brother, implored the commissioners at the hearing,

“I’m asking you to let his legacy continue to build a brighter future from structural racism and police brutality . . . I’m asking and seeking justice for all Black and brown men, women and children who have needlessly been killed by racism and police violence.” He added, “Not only did my brother have the weight of three police officers on him, he had the weight of a nation plagued with centuries of systemic racism that stole his last breath.”

The murder of George Floyd is “the most important civil rights case of this century,” said Crump, who represents the Floyd family. Indeed, the videotape of Floyd being tortured to death ignited a mass uprising against white supremacy throughout the United States and around the world. The officers who murdered Floyd weren’t fired or arrested until the video galvanized massive protests. Only mass action will thwart impunity for racist police killings.

Attorney Jasmine Rand testified that officers in the Minneapolis Police Department receive “Killology training.” They are instructed to kill rather than de-escalate conflict situations. Rand said that between 2015 and 2020, Minneapolis police used violence against Blacks seven times as often as against whites.

Floyd’s case kicked off the second week of commission hearings, which feature testimony in nearly 50 cases of police killings of unarmed and non-threatening Black individuals.

The murder of Floyd was committed in broad daylight in the presence of several eyewitnesses, much like the shooting of Jacob Blake in Kenosha, Wisconsin, on August 23, 2020. Crump’s firm also represents Blake, whose case was presented to commissioners on January 25 as well. Blake was left paralyzed after police shot him seven times in the back while his three little boys watched. On January 5, the Kenosha County District Attorney announced that the officer who shot Blake will face no criminal charges.

Another illustration of the impunity police officers enjoy is the case of 12-year-old Tamir Rice, who was playing with a toy gun in a park in Cleveland, Ohio on November 22, 2014, when officers shot and killed him. Billy J. Mills, attorney for the Rice family, testified on January 26 that a whistleblower revealed that career prosecutors in the Department of Justice wanted to seek an indictment against the officers. But Donald Trump’s political appointees quashed the investigation.

In several of the cases heard by commissioners, police tried to cover up their crimes by concocting false narratives. They demonized the victims, aided and abetted by police union lawyers and corrupt medical examiners who falsely reported the cause of death to protect the officers. Case after case confirms the system of structural and institutional racism that leads to police killings of unarmed Black people.

Testimony elicited at the hearings exposes two systems of justice – one for whites and one for Blacks.

“Oftentimes, when police pull our white brothers and sisters over, they see them as a measure of assistance. When they encounter African Americans, we see it as a measure of oppression,” Crump testified.

Contrast the police treatment of Black individuals like Floyd, Blake and Rice, who were doing nothing illegal, with the police response to Kyle Rittenhouse. Forty-eight hours after police shot Blake in Kenosha, Rittenhouse, a young white man, shot three people who were protesting Blake’s shooting. He killed two of them and wounded another. He then strolled down the street armed with his assault weapon as police and national guardsmen looked on. “No one shot him in the back. No one killed him and no one arrested him,” Crump said. “None of those police officers saw him as a threat.”

Contrast the starkly different police responses to the largely peaceful Black Lives Matter protesters – who were met with overwhelming police violence and mass arrests – with the mainly white January 6 insurrectionists – who were allowed to storm the Capitol and nearly kill our elected representatives.

The commission was established by the National Conference of Black Lawyers, the International Association of Democratic Lawyers, and the National Lawyers Guild after the Trump administration prevented the UN Human Rights Council from convening a UN commission to investigate systemic racism and police brutality in the United States.

But the Council did order the High Commissioner for Human Rights, Michelle Bachelet, to write a report about police violence against people of African descent, not limited to the U.S., by June 2021. After the hearings, the Commission will prepare a report and submit it to the high commissioner to help inform her task. The commission will also publicize its report widely in the U.S. and globally for use in litigation and advocacy. Twelve eminent international lawyers are serving as commissioners. I am one of four rapporteurs assisting them with the hearings and preparation of the report.

The hearings continue six days a week through February 6. The hearing in the Breonna Taylor case will take place on Saturday January 30. Click here to see a full schedule of cases and register for the hearings. Videos and transcripts of the hearings can be accessed here.

*

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

Marjorie Cohn is professor emerita at Thomas Jefferson School of Law, former president of the National Lawyers Guild, deputy secretary general of the International Association of Democratic Lawyers and a member of the advisory board of Veterans for Peace. Her most recent book is Drones and Targeted Killing: Legal, Moral, and Geopolitical Issues.

She is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

All Global Research articles including the  E-Book can be read in 27 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

***

In this interview for Pacifica Radio’s “Covid, Race and Democracy,” Ajamu Baraka warned of a new era of totalitarian neoliberalism. 

“Anybody who is in opposition to the hegemony of the neoliberal project is at some point over the next few years going to experience the heavy hand of the state.”

*

Ann Garrison: On January 20, we saw Joe Biden carry on about “unity” behind seven-foot fences topped with razor wire and 25,000 plus National Guard troops deployed . One friend of mine said that this pointed to an irony deficiency. Is there anything you’d like to say about it?

Ajamu Baraka: Well, I think it is ironic, but it’s quite understandable that the kinds of activities that the US has been involved in promoting and supporting globally—undermining democracies, subverting states, undermining and destroying any semblance of the rule of law—have basically come back to haunt them. You have a militant movement in the US partially inspired by the inability of the state and the system to address their material interests and to look at their concerns regarding their own understanding of democracy and its deficiencies. They feel like they lack space to articulate those views, and they’ve decided to engage in militant actions to make sure that their voices are heard, and they believe that they are upholding democracy.

And their experience with the state made them feel justified in advancing their concerns about democracy in violent forms. The state has demonstrated to them that the way you defend democracy is through state violence. So they were taking their defense into their own hands and bringing it right back to the center of empire. Some of us call that blowback.

AG: For the past four years, liberals on the coasts have excoriated the white working class in the middle of the country, whom they perceive to be deplorable Trump supporters. Do you think that this is helpful?

AB: No. Not only is it not helpful, it is inaccurate and it has helped to create the narrative that many of these forces have embraced; that is the centerpiece of their grievances. They believe that liberals and the liberal order have not addressed their needs, their interests. They believe that the economic elites are only out for themselves and that therefore they needed to rally behind Trump, a billionaire who claimed that he understood their interests and would fight for them because nobody else was.

So this characterization of them as deplorables, and as either Nazis or Nazi-like, is not only not helpful but also contradictory in the sense that those folks who level those charges still have not been able to explain why the Trump presidency happened.

For example, some nine million people who voted for Trump in 2016 had voted for Barack Obama in 2012. Liberals can’t explain why, after four years of constant anti-Trump rhetoric, the Trump forces expanded their ranks by another 11 million voters. So this is something in play that’s a little bit more sophisticated than these people just being deplorables or Nazis. And that something has to be interrogated. It has to be extracted. It has to be understood if you’re going to have a politics to counter it. And right now the liberals have not understood where these elements are coming from because they have basically painted those 75 million people as a monolith of deplorables.

The neoliberals have constructed a politics that is going to result in a continuation of the same conditions, politically and economically, that created what they pretend to be most opposed to—the Trump movement. So this is the failure of imagination, the failure of critical analysis, the embracing of illusions that has characterized much of the politics in the US for a couple of decades now. And we see the consequences of that with us every day.

AG: In the 48 hours after Biden became president, Israel bombed Syria, killing a family of four, a US convoy of trucks crossed into Syria to steal oil yet again, a double suicide bombing in Baghdad killed 32 people and Foreign Affairs, the journal of the US Council on Foreign Relations, published a piece with the headline “Th e  M yth of a  R esponsible  W ithdrawal from Afghanistan,” which said, “the Biden administration should accept that there is no feasible middle way for a responsible withdrawal.” What do you think is next?

AB: The continuation of policies that have resulted in the US being bogged down in Afghanistan for two decades, policies that will ensure that the wars that the US is involved in will continue. There will be a continuation of the commitment to US global full-spectrum dominance. In other words, violence is still at the center of the neoliberal project. And they intend to reintroduce that instrument under the Biden administration.

There were reports leading up to the election that Democratic Party-associated elements were secretly suggesting to the Afghan authorities that they would not have to worry about a peace process being executed once Joe Biden came to power. And they made the argument using some of the same terms and framework that we saw in that article in Foreign Affairs, that the US had a responsibility to remain in Afghanistan. And so they will fully prepare to undermine whatever progress was made for extracting US forces from that territory.

“There will be a continuation of the commitment to US global full-spectrum dominance.”

So we’re not surprised to see the kind of elements that Biden has brought to his administration. These people were part of the Obama Administration, and they are committed to the US national security strategy, which is attempting to maintain US global hegemony using the instrument that they believe they are dependent on now, which is in fact global violence.

AG: Yesterday, I signed a petition to Twitter to restore @real Donald Trump , the Twitter account of the 45th president of the United States. I didn’t share the petition on my social media pages because I didn’t want to have to fend off a lot of cancel culture, but I had enough faith in Pacifica to think I wouldn’t get kicked off the air for sharing it in the broadcast version of this conversation. What do you think of Twitter’s suspension of Trump and 70,000  more accounts that they said were linked to the QAnon conspiracy theory?

AB: I think it was quite troubling. I understand the disgust, the revulsion people have to Donald Trump. We know who Donald Trump is. He’s a sociopath, he’s a white supremacist. He’s despicable, but Donald Trump is, in fact, America. Donald Trump represents the kind of attitude and the kinds of values that made the US settler state what it is today.

So, this notion on the part of the liberals that he is some kind of aberration is completely ridiculous. In fact, it’s ahistorical, but because of the disgust and because of the very serious legitimation crisis the US is facing, and the concern that neoliberal politicians have with the possibility of a return of Donald Trump, they have used the incident on January 6th as their opportunity to not only target Donald Trump as a person, but to target his “movement,” to undermine an above ground, legal political tendency, a tendency that generated 75 million votes.

If they can move against Donald Trump and make a connection between his speech and what occurred on January 6 in order to justify a permanent ban on someone who was the President of the United States with 88 million followers, then arbitrarily take down these other accounts that they say are “conspiratorial,” and if people then cheer because they hate Donald Trump, we are seeing a monumental mistake being made by liberals who think that this state is their friend, and that this state will get rid of Donald Trump, but somehow be able to maintain a commitment to civil liberties.

“Donald Trump represents the kind of attitude and the kinds of values that made the US settler state what it is today.”

No, they are in fact conditioning the public to accept the constraints of civil liberties, or to have faith in private capitalist entities to determine what is acceptable speech and information that can be disseminated.

I believe they are, in essence, setting up the kind of dystopia that we see in science fiction movies, where you have corporate interests that have a complete and total control over every aspect of our lives. And of course, complete and total control over the ideals that are disseminated in those kinds of totalitarian society.

So, this is a quite troubling and even more troubling because so many people don’t recognize that it’s dangerous. But it’s quite slick because, like you said, you don’t want to share your petition because you know people would go crazy if you said in public that you believe that Donald Trump’s rights have been violated. So, this is a quite dangerous moment because what we see, in my opinion, is the hegemony of irrationality.

AG: Neoliberal militarists are comparing the Capital Riot to 9/11 and using it to justify the further militarization of Washington DC and Biden’s domestic terrorism bill . At the same time, he has appointed infamous militarist Susan Rice to a new position, Director of Domestic Policy. Who do you think will become domestic targets during the Biden-Harris years?

AB: Anyone who is involved in oppositional politics, including those elements that are part of the Black Lives Matter movement, and anyone else who questions US colonial policies. Anyone who will advance sharp analysis of the capitalist state, who will question some of its dominant ideals, who might even suggest that police forces should be withdrawn from certain neighborhoods. And anyone who would advocate better relations with the so-called adversaries of the US, like the Chinese and the Russians.

There’s no telling what is going to be seen as acceptable speech and political practice because we are entering a new totalitarian era. So I think anybody who is in opposition to the hegemony of the neoliberal project is at some point over the next few years going to experience the heavy hand of the state.

Let me just say this about the state that we’ve been talking about. People say that these Big Tech entities—Twitter, Facebook, Google, YouTube, etcetera—are private corporations, and that therefore they have no obligation to protect free speech rights: We need to make a correction. These entities are of course private, but the essence of neoliberalism is the spinning off of elements of the state that are public to private entities. So what we have with these Big Tech companies is, in fact, the spinning off of the function of speech monitoring and massive surveillance to these private companies.

These companies are in fact, from my point of view, part of the ideological state apparatus. They are part of the state, just like the private corporate media is part of the state. So we have to expand our understanding of what we refer to as the state.

AG: A lot of people are frightened, particularly Black, Brown, and Jewish people, and most likely Asians now given all the bipartisan China-bashing underway. People, especially in these communities, have good reason to be frightened. And a lot of people are using the word fascist as they have for the past four years. But you’ve warned that neoliberal fascism will also get worse. Could you tell us what you mean by neoliberal fascism?

AB: Well, first let me say that it’s quite understandable, and we should be quite concerned about some of the more hardcore elements that we associate with the traditional right, who are quite capable and seem to be committed to using various methods to advance their political project. We saw some of those elements in the Capitol on January 6. So it’s understandable that we be concerned with that, but I’ve been warning people also that we should be more concerned with the neoliberal elements that control the state and did even during the time that Donald Trump was occupying the executive branch. We have to remind ourselves, or at least come to the understanding, that neoliberalism is a right-wing ideology. It is a right-wing set of policies, including privatization, deregulation, globalization, so-called free trade, austerity, and reductions in government spending, all to empower the private sector and diminish the public sector. Neoliberalism has to be connected to its essence, which is neoliberal capitalism.

The turn to neoliberalism was born out of an act of violence. A neoliberal capitalist project was imposed on the people of Chile after the assault and the overthrow of Salvador Allende in 1973. So this is a right-wing, violent phenomenon. Okay? Now it’s been able to dress itself up in the garb of state respectability, but it is a rightist tendency. And so that right-wing, neoliberal, totalitarian element is the element that is now constricting the range of acceptable political activity. They are the ones that re-introduced McCarthyism, McCarthyism 2.0. They are the ones that are now moving to smash this political opposition in the form of the Trump movement. They are the  ones that have allowed the FBI to create first, the Black identity extremist category to target us and to modify that with another term but the same objective—to target and undermine Black radical political opposition. So I’ve been making the argument that while we have been watching the theatrics of Donald Trump, the neoliberal state has been systematically conditioning the people to accept a new kind of totalitarianism. We’ve always had totalitarianism, but this is a new kind that will, they believe, ensure the continuation of their dominance.

“That right-wing, neoliberal, totalitarian element is the element that is now constricting the range of acceptable political activity.”

And I’m suggesting to people that, even though we hate Donald Trump and the traditional right, we are in a position now where we have to defend their traditional bourgeois rights as well as our own, and not allow the acceptable space of political, ideological opposition to be reduced.

We know that the state will reconcile with the right. Their real opposition and the basis for a potential cross class united front is opposition to socialists and communists, those of us on the left. And we on the left we are the real targets of this settler political state. So we’ve been trying to warn people to be vigilant and not allow themselves to be manipulated by these very powerful forces. And it’s very difficult because they control all of the major means of communications and thought dissemination. But we’ve got to, to the extent that we can, present an alternative perspective so that we can build the kind of opposition we have to build if we’re going to survive this critical period.

AG: So it sounds like you think there’s more we can do than duck and cover.

AB: We have to. Those of us who have been part of the Black Liberation Movement, we have survived because we have resisted, and we also have survived because we know that we have been through the worst. You see, this thing referred to as fascism is nothing new for us, a colonized people, people who have been enslaved. It has typically been called fascism only when white people do certain things to other white people.

When the Nazis were studying, how they were going to construct laws in Germany, they were studying the apartheid system in the US. The Germans practiced building concentration camps in their murderous assault on the territory today referred to as Namibia. So it’s when these policies of brutality, of systematic violence, of rape, when they are moved from the periphery, from the colonial periphery to the Global North, that’s when they become Hitlerist, the ultimate expression of violence.

King Leopold II in the Congo? That’s written off. It’s not something that’s important, even though 10 million African people lost their lives. And we don’t quantify the level of irrational violence, but we do say that we have an experience with this kind of irrational violence. And so we know we have to resist. And so we know that Donald Trump is not the worst US president. We know that things can in fact get worse. And what we do and have done is to prepare our forces, to resist, and to try to provide leadership to other resistors. Because we know even though it will get more difficult, we know that we are still on the right side of history. And there are enough people of conscience in this country who believe that we can build a new, better world. We believe that once we can organize ourselves, even though it may be difficult for a while, we have a real possibility of not only surviving, but also transforming this backward society.

*

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

Ajamu Baraka is the national organizer of the Black Alliance for Peace and was the 2016 candidate for vice president on the Green Party ticket. Baraka serves on the Executive Committee of the U.S. Peace Council and leadership body of the United National Anti-War Coalition (UNAC). He is an editor and contributing columnist for the Black Agenda Report and contributing columnist for Counterpunch. He was recently awarded the US Peace Memorial 2019 Peace Prize and the Serena Shim award for uncompromised integrity in journalism.

Ann Garrison is an independent journalist based in the San Francisco Bay Area. In 2014, she received the Victoire Ingabire Umuhoza Democracy and Peace Prize  for promoting peace through her reporting on conflict in the African Great Lakes Region. Please help support her work on Patreon . She can be reached on Twitter @AnnGarrison  and at ann(at)anngarrison(dot)com.

All Global Research articles including the  E-Book can be read in 27 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

***

Mexico’s relationship with the US opens a new stage with the beginning of the Joe Biden government. According to the Democrat’s plans, the focus of the binational dialogue will be directed to strategic and humanitarian issues, such as migration, combating drug trafficking, international trade, and investment commitments. Mexicans are very hopeful that several improvements can be achieved, especially in terms of migration, but certainly many challenges still need to be overcome.

In fact, of all Biden’s promises, the one that most arouses interest and good expectations among Mexicans is the plan to naturalize around 11 million currently irregular and undocumented immigrants, of which more than half are of Mexican origin, completing the migratory reform project. President Andrés Manuel Lopez Obrador said, when commenting on Biden’s inauguration ceremony, that he expects the new president to fulfill his promise to consolidate a migratory reform.

What Mexicans fear is that Biden will act like former Democrat President Barack Obama, who has promised to reform immigration policy but has never did so. Biden, as vice president, worked on drafting the proposed migration reform, but Democrats failed to get the minimum number of votes needed due to frontal opposition by Republicans – whose more protectionist and nationalist view of the migration issue became official during the Trump era.

Now, despite Biden’s promise, there is no guarantee that Democrats will not face the same challenges, especially considering the current American scenario, which is much more polarized and violent than in Obama’s days. If Biden makes any decision that directly confronts Republican interests, the response may be severe not only within Congress or institutional sphere, but also among the people with Trump supporters, who form a mass of activists with broad mobilizing power. This, of course, worries the Mexican government, which fears that Biden will withdraw from his promises to avoid suffering reprisals.

Last week, Biden and Obrador talked by telephone to discuss plans, strategies, and joint partnerships for the years to come. Among the issues, in addition to a migratory reform, both presidents addressed topics such as international cooperation in the fight against COVID-19, economic revitalization plans, among others. Subsequently, during a speech, Obrador said that during the conversation Biden promised to offer aid valued at 4 billion dollars for the three nations that make up the so-called North Central American Triangle, Honduras, El Salvador, and Guatemala, as part of an economic support plan. The American interest is strategic, because, helping to reduce poverty, the migratory flows tend to be more balanced, and it helps to establish a softer migration policy. However, the very fact that Obrador publicly revealed the content of the conversation, before Biden did so, shows that the Mexican government handles American promises with warning – by making the pledge public, Obrador allows three countries that are meant to receive the aid to require it even before Biden notifies them of this.

This scenario of collective distrust is further aggravated by another factor: the American policy to combat drug trafficking. Recently, cooperation between Americans and Mexicans in combating drug trafficking has been profoundly affected by the arrest of General Salvador Cienfuegos. The general, a former Mexican national defense secretary, was arrested in October last year on charges of having links to drug trafficking cartels, which the Mexican government vehemently denied.

At the time, Obrador not only defended Cienfuegos, but also accused the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) of having produced false evidence against the general. The Mexican accusation is not by chance: Cienfuegos was investigated in a completely confidential manner, without any information being provided to the Mexican government. His arrest surprised Mexican civil society, as he is a well-known and beloved public figure in his country. The American action completely violated the bilateral security cooperation agreements between the US and Mexico, but more than that, it hurt the national pride of the Mexican people, which deeply irritated Obrador and his team. Subsequently, both governments consented to repatriate Cienfuegos so that he could be investigated in his country, provided he was exonerated from all his positions. But the case continues to profoundly influence the direction of bilateral relations, as the Mexican government expects a more diplomatic attitude from the Democrats, such as the end of investigations, but at no time did Biden promise to do so.

The Cienfuegos case goes far beyond the mere figure of the General, as long as the investigations are not closed, it will mean that Washington will maintain a position of unilateral conduct of policies to combat drug trafficking, conducting investigations and intelligence operations against Mexican people without the consent of the Mexican government, which will certainly negatively influence relations. In fact, for Mexicans, it is not enough to prevent the construction of the wall at the border, it is necessary to create a scenario of mutual respect, recognition of sovereignty and bilateral cooperation. Obrador has taken more and more emphatic positions in favor of Mexican sovereignty and respect not only for his country, but also for the neighbors of Central America.

In fact, the domestic crisis scenario in the United States is profound and does not allow Washington to choose to continue to conduct relations between these countries unilaterally – Mexico will increasingly seek to impose its interests, regardless of the effects of this on migration policy.

*

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

This article was originally published on InfoBrics.

Lucas Leiroz is a research fellow in international law at the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro.

First published in March 2017. The 5G Rollout is taking place alongside the corona crisis

We have become thoroughly accustomed and habituated to endless advertising by drug makers to buy into the promises of pharmaceutical drugs or to consent to the nutritional value of junk food.  Yet the drug and food industries are completely indifferent to their products’ dangerous adverse effects. They give no thought to what it does to our health. All that matters is the business’ bottom line.  Fortunately, we have the freedom to make informed choices about most areas that impact our lives, whether it be living a healthy lifestyle or eating nutritious foods. But that is about to  change completely due to the brilliant marketing campaigns to make life easier with the arrival of 5G’s Internet of Things into our homes, bedrooms, offices and streets and avenues. What we are not being told is that as 5G technology increases, we will eventually be living in a 24 hour cycle that carries threats that are potentially far more dangerous than the occasional hamburger, pizza or beer.

Nobody seems to be asking whether the introduction of 5G will truly improve the quality of our lives.  Is there any redeeming truth to telecom’s promises? There are none. But unlike a drug or unhealthy habits that can cause death, the FCC under the Clinton presidency passed legislation through Congress that hands over carte blanch permission to the telecommunications industry to directly violate our democratic freedoms of choice. Privacy will disappear altogether since this new technology increases surveillance capabilities exponentially.

And the average citizen has no choice. You cannot prevent Verizon or any of the other telecom giants from installing 5G transmission antennae in your neighborhoods, grade schools and playgrounds, apartment complexes, hospitals, and parks. And this enormous technological feat will also require a minimum of 50,000 new satellites orbiting the heavens above our heads to beam transmission signals to every habitable place on the planet. This new network will be five times greater than the number of operative satellites in space already.

The precautionary principle is intended to avoid inflicting unnecessary harm and injury in order to reduce avoidable health risks, and more importantly death.  But this principle is being completely ignored with the full frontal assault to implement 5G at maximum speed. During a Congressional hearing, Senator Richard Blumenthal asked a very poignant question. Do you have any science confirming that 5G is safe? Is money being spent on studies to determine electromagnetic frequency radiation’s safety. At the hearing, every representative of the telecom industry said there were none that they were aware of.

Imagine for a minute that the FDA were to approve and register a drug or vaccine that had never been tested for safety on humans? That would never be permissible; however the telecom industry is doing just that. And their primary market is the millennial and iGen generations who are also most susceptible to EMF’s adverse effects. These are the generations who grew up with social media and chat rooms and who virtually live through the internet. It is their panacea that is fully integrated into their purpose and meaning in life.

This dark and deadly side of EMF emitting technology, especially 5G, is being hidden by our multimedia system that is being paid to manufacture both consent and doubt: consent that 5G will somehow miraculously improve our lives, and doubt against the 10,000-plus studies that show 5G will be one of the greatest health and environmental risks humanity has ever faced.

This month, IEEE Access published a special study out of the Birla Institute of Technology and Science in India as part of its Special Section on Antenna and Propagation for 5G. The article, “Electromagnetic Radiation Due to Cellular, Wi-Fi and Bluetooth Technologies: How Safe are We?,” is an excellent summary of the state of the science regarding 5G’s future threats based upon the confirming evidence at present. To date there are already 15 billion wireless local area network routers connected with the Internet of Things and 9 billion mobile connections.  Almost 70% of the world’s current population is using mobile phones.

Thousands of studies have been collected that indicate EMF’s health risks. The BioInitiative Report has compiled 1800 studies alone showing serious impact on both humans’ and animals’ gene transcriptions, genotoxicity, DNA damage, chromatin condensation, loss of DNA repair capacity, reduction of free-radical scavengers, neurotoxicity, decreased sperm morphology, and impaired development of brain and cranial bone. Worse, Igor Belyaev’s research at the Slovak Academy of Sciences has found evidence that some frequencies emitted by this technology damages all cells, including fibroblasts, lymphocytes and stem cells. The Indian scientists breakdown EMF’s health risks into seven main headings.

Cancer

Back in 2011, the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer classified radiofrequency electromagnetic fields as possibly carcinogenic to humans. Nine years later, this threat has been confirmed by thousands of medical professionals. No longer are the risks simply possibilities. It is a reality. The US’ National Toxicology Program’s final report on mouse and rat studies in late 2018 confirmed cancerous heart tumors due to the earlier 2G and 3G cell phone technologies. One of the world’s leading experts in wireless technology’s cancer risks, oncologist Leonard Hardell at the University Hospital in Orebro, Sweden, concludes that “the evidence that RF radiation exposure is a risk factor for cancer is particularly worrying, taking the present deployment of the fifth generation (5G) for wireless communication.” Dr. Hardell, along with hundreds of other scientists and medical doctors have demanded a moratorium against 5G until further independent studies are performed to assure the industry’s denials of its hazards can be confirmed.

In a study published in the August 2018 issue of Journal of Medical Imaging and Health Informatics, after an extensive review and analysis of the medical literature researchers concluded that “incidence of cancer cases was remarkably higher among people who resided in 400 meters from mobile antennas, in comparison to those who lived further away. Inhabitants living close to cellular antennas are also at increased risk for developing neuropsychiatric complaints.” Under the 5G regimen every American in a suburb or city will be living 100 meters or less from a 5G antenna. In 2016, the Europa EM-EMF guideline found “strong evidence that long-term exposure to certain EMFs is a risk factor for diseases such as certain cancers, Alzheimer’s disease, and male infertility…Common EHS (electromagnetic hypersensitivity) symptoms include headaches, concentration difficulties, sleep problems, depression, lack of energy, fatigue, and flu-like symptoms.”

Populations living within 350 meters of a 850 MHz, 1500 watt cell phone tower in Netanya, Israel experienced a 400 percent cancer increase (i.e., carcinoma of the breast, ovary, lung, kidney, bone, and Hodgkin’s disease)

Pregnancy and Infertility

The science is conclusive that EMF’s erratic pulses from mobile phones induces oxidative stress that damage testicular tissues and decreases sperm quality and motility. EMF exposure results in sperm mutations that have been shown by scientists at the University of Mainz in Germany to contribute to testicular cancer. Prof John Aitken at the University of Newcastle has shown that sperm exposed to mobile phone radiation revealed a 300 percent increase in mitochondrial damage.

We need to take the precautionary principle at heart when animals studies confirm the serious health risks. We are irresponsible when we draw a distinction between alarming animal studies that have yet to be adequately tested in humans and then make assumptions there can be no correlation. Therefore, when research shows that pregnant animals are exposed to even low levels of EMF will show uterine congestions, dead and reabsorbed fetuses, hemorrhage, unequal and asymmetrical distribution of fetus implantation, and genetic malformation, we must consider its risks against pregnant women as well. But the FCC and FDA have been horribly negligent in this regard to warn women.

Auditory System Damage

When our phones are linked to the wireless network, our entire auditory system — skin, inner and middle ear, cochlear nerve and our brain’s frontal lobe — are absorbing EMF radiation. EMFs are damaging the highly sensitive hair-like cells in the cochlear and likely contributing to the neurological disorder known as tinnitus. Tinnitus is becoming increasingly more common. The high pitch sounds associated with this illness disturb normal sleep patterns and in more serious cases interfere with normal cognitive abilities and has even led to suicides, according to a study conducted by the Medical University of Vienna and published in the British Medical Journal. Additional studies have associated long-term mobile use with hearing loss.

Adverse Childhood Development

In addition to EMF’s adverse effects on the developing fetus, the younger generations are the most exposed population to EMF radiation through excessive wireless device use. It is well-known that children’s brain tissue displays much more electrical conductivity when compared to an adult. A child’s brain also absorbs EMF radiation more readily. The geometry of a child’s head significantly increases mobile phone EMF absorption in the brain, eye, cortex, hippocampus, and hypothalamus. According to a study published in the journal Physics in Medicine and Biology, children have especially high bone marrow conductivity, greatly increasing EMF absorption.

Consequently, a study out of the Swiss Tropical and Public Health Institute looking at 7th through 9th graders found that cumulative phone use decreased memory.

Blood-Related Disorders

Even very low intensity EMF frequencies — much lower than what 5G will expose us to — interrupt the blood brain barrier that hinders toxic chemicals from disrupting various tissues, including the brain. EMFs interfere with this protective barrier. Dr. G Salford at Lund University in Sweden, observed that a single two-hour cellular phone session will produce leakage in this barrier and after 50 day use can lead to neuronal damage.

DNA Damage

Medical scientists are quick to warn about the mechanisms by which our cellular DNA interact with EMF radiation. In fact, the DNA’s double helix structure “causes it to act like a fractal antenna” whereby it interacts with a wide range of different electromagnetic frequencies. For this reason DNA is highly susceptible to damage across the wide spectrum of wireless frequency ranges. The DNA-EMF interaction creates free radicals that contribute to stress proteins and ultimately gene mutations, including in stem cells.

Mental and Cognitive Risks

The scientific literature increasingly reveals that EMF exposure is contributing to the growing rates in neurodegenerative diseases such as Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s. EMF’s effects on brain tissue and neurons is an established fact based on epidemiological studies of populations living close to cell towers. 5G will bring these towers into everyone’s neighborhoods. An article in Reviews of Environmental Health introduces a new observed disorder — “Chronic multi-system illness” (CMSI).  CMSI correlates to milder electromagnetic hypersensitivity to 3 MHz-300 GHz, with headaches, concentration difficulties, sleep problems, depression, lack of energy, fatigue, and flu-like symptoms. However, beside these milder effects, long-term exposure to these high output towers are also contributing to severe brain and cognitive disabilities, including paralysis, stroke and psychosis.

In our opinion, the 5G rollout is an irresponsible experiment with potential holocaust-like consequences in the long-term. Neither the US nor China have ever felt obliged to follow UNESCO’s Precautionary Principle to avoid “morally unacceptable harm” when the science is plausible but still uncertain. In the case of 5G, the harm to human life is conclusive, and in the view of Dr. Lennart Hardell, it may be in violation of the Nuremberg Code.

In addition there is something largely missing from the 5G debate in the US, whereas some European nations are paying attention to it; that is, existing safety standards for wireless technology are obsolete. This conclusion was arrived at independently by Vienna Medical University in Austria and Carl Blackman at the University of North Carolina, published in the journal Pathophysiology. The problem herein lies in the failures of federal regulatory agencies to be truthful to the scientific evidence rather than show favoritism to the wireless industry’s own junk science and commercial interests. Again, private interests profit and the public is harmed.

Unfortunately, the FCC standards for mobile phones have remained the same since 1996. Since 1997, secondary insurance providers have refused to cover health damages due to wireless radiation. During the past two and a half decades, the technology has changed dramatically, and not for the better. This is not simply the words of independent 5G critics in the medical profession announcing health warnings. The FDA also acknowledges the problem. On its website, we find “the FDA does not review the safety of radiation-emitting consumer products such as cell phones and similar wireless devices before they can be so, as it does with new drugs or medical devices…. However, the FDA does have the authority to take action if cell phones are shown to emit radiofrequency energy at a level that is hazardous to the use.” Unfortunately, the FDA has never taken charge of this mandate and injunction it has been assigned with.

Dr. Devra Davis is the founder of the Environmental Health Trust and a Visiting Professor of Medicine at the Hebrew University Hadassah Medical School and a Visiting Professor of Medicine at Ondokuz Mayis University, Turkey. For years Dr Davis has served as the director of the Center for Environmental Oncology, which she founded, at the University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute —­ the first institute of its kind in the world to examine the environmental factors that contribute to the majority of cases of cancer.

During a recent lecture for the 2020 Expert Forum on 5G and emerging EMF technologies, Dr. Davis outlined many of the gold standard studies that should have us worry about the future ahead as the telecom industry with the blessing of governments roll out 5G. It is not simply EMF exposure from phones and wireless routers that pose dire risks. It is also the accumulative EMF radiation people are exposed to daily — from laptops, cellular phones, towers and antennas, wi-fi routers, and microwave ovens,

In addition to the above risks, Dr. Davis has observed other worrisome EMF effects. Dementia for example has become an epidemic and even young adults as young 30 are starting to show signs of this neurodegenerative condition. Recently dementia has been called “diabetes of the brain.” Davis has noted that due to EMF exposure brain scans reveal an increase in glucose levels in brain tissue and increases lipid peroxidation that results in cell damage. Mobile phones also significantly reduce glutathione, an essential enzyme necessary for DNA repair.

As we reported in the past, the mainstream media, in particular the New York Times, which has a collaborative agreement with the leading 5G provider Verizon, have no intention to warn the public about any of the scientific findings mentioned above. There is a growing consensus in the scientific and medical community that 5G will usher an epidemic of disease never before witnessed in human history. It is too difficult to make forecasts. Nevertheless, if the past and current research on EMF’s adverse effects on health and the environment during the past 50 years are any indication, we are entering a new epoch of disease and neurological disorders that humanity is completely unprepared to handle.

*

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

Richard Gale is the Executive Producer of the Progressive Radio Network and a former Senior Research Analyst in the biotechnology and genomic industries.

Dr. Gary Null is the host of the nation’s longest running public radio program on alternative and nutritional health and a multi-award-winning documentary film director, including The War on Health, Poverty Inc and Plant Codes.

Featured image: Demonstrators at the anti-5G protest in Bern on Friday. (© Keystone / Peter Klaunzer)

Important article first published by Global Research in April 2019

We are in the midst of a 5G wireless technology rollout, and politicians have yet to address safety concerns. I recently used Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau as an example, but it’s happening worldwide. It’s one of many examples that illustrates how large corporations completely control politics. I also recently wrote about Robert F. Kennedy explaining how this came to be, and how they’ve been able to completely compromise government, big media, and our federal regulatory agencies that are supposed to be protecting and informing us.

In the video, he uses Big Pharma as an example, as they provide the most money to congress; even more so than big oil and gas. In that article I also outline multiple examples of fraud so readers can get a clearer picture of what’s going on and see some actual evidence of it.

It’s clear that we are not being protected, and politicians are simply abiding to the the will of their masters, the big corporations, who in turn act as slaves to their ‘financial overlords,’ the big banks. We continue to see products and services being approved and implemented without ever going through any safety testing. This is a big problem, and one of the main reasons why we could be seeing a drastic rise in multiple diseases and ailments, especially when it comes to neuropsychiatric disorders.  A study titled “Microwave frequency electromagnetic fields (EMFs) produce widespread neuropsychiatric effects including depression” published in the Journal of Chemical Neuroanatomy outlines this quite clearly, and it’s only one of thousands of peer-reviewed studies raising multiple concerns in regards to this type of technology.

Is there really any concern for the well being of humanity within these institutions? If not, why do we continue to support them? Is it because we’re under the illusion that there is actual concern? And why do we continue to take power away from ourselves by electing corrupt politicians?

Anyways, in this article, I’d like to draw your attention to Dr. Martin L. Pall (image on the right), PhD and Professor Emeritus of Biochemistry and Basic Medical Sciences at Washington State University. Taken from his report titled “5G: Great risk for EU, U.S. and International Health! Compelling Evidence for Eight Distinct Types of Great Harm Caused by Electromagnetic Field(EMF) Exposures and the Mechanism that Causes Them,” he states that:

“Putting in tens of millions of 5G antennae without a single biological test of safety has got to be about the stupidest idea anyone has had in the history of the world.”

That report goes through a lot of science, which only adds to all of the science that’s already available regarding the harmful effects of 5G technology. If you’re looking for more information, I often point people toward the Environmental Health Trust because it’s a great resource that gives you access to more science.

This is not new information. For years, numerous studies have been published proving the health concerns regarding 5G technology and hundreds of scientists have petitioned the United Nations about them. These initiatives started as a result of the work done by Dr. Marin Blank from Columbia University’s Department of Physiology and Cellular Biophysics.

According to him, with regards to wireless radiation in general:

“We have created something that is harming us, and it is getting out of control. Before Edison’s light bulb there was very little electromagnetic radiation in our environment. The levels today are very many times higher than natural background levels, and are growing rapidly because of all the new devices that emit this radiation. Putting it bluntly they are damaging the living cells in our bodies and killing many of us prematurely.”

Again, it’s unbelievable that these technologies are being rolled out without any safety testing done. How is this even allowed to happen? The thing is, if there was safety testing done, there would likely be no changes made anyways, and these corporations would be allowed to rollout and utilize these technologies.

Seeing how this article is about the work of Dr. Pall, below is a lecture that goes into detail about his research and why we should be concerned with 5G technology.

It’s alarming that some people have been made to believe that this is “pseudoscience.” Not only is this surprising, but it’s also very concerning.

During the “Health in Buildings Roundtable” sponsored by the NIH and co-organized by the US CDC and several other organizations, Dr. Martin Pall from Washington State University (WSU) concluded that the “5G rollout is absolutely insane.” In this short presentation, Dr. Pall confirmed that the current 2G/3G/4G radiation the population is exposed to has been scientifically linked to: lowered fertility, insomnia, fatigue, depression, anxiety, major changes in brain structure in animals, cellular DNA damage, oxidative stress, hormonal disruption, cancer, and much more. Dr. Pall briefly explained the mechanisms of how the electro-smog emitted by our cell phones, wifi routers, cell phone antennas, and other wireless technologies affect human cells.

We’ve written about this topic in depth, and below are some recent articles we’ve published that go into more detail if you’re looking for more information.

On a side note, a lot of this information can spark a fearful reaction, and that’s normal. It could elicit the same fearful reaction you may have to other humanitarian issues including the massive amounts of pesticides being sprayed in our environment and on our food, the rising deforestation rates, and several other aspects of the human experience that need to be changed. As important as it is to not react with fear and panic, it’s even more important not to completely ignore these things and think everything will magically be okay.

Earth has become engulfed with this mess as a result of our ignorance, as a result of us ignoring important scientific findings such as these. If we continue along this path, disease rates will continue to rise. Awareness is key, and simply being informed about this issue is a huge step in the right direction.

So, what can you do? You could purchase some EMF protective clothing and bedding, or you could even paint your home with EMF protective paint. You can unplug your computer when not in use, turn off your cell phone, and unplug all your electronic devices before you go to sleep. You could have a wired internet connection, which is actually much faster than any wireless connection. You can live a healthy lifestyle, and you can use mind-body healing techniques to help you.

I write a lot about parapsychology, and it’s quite clear that our minds can have a significant impact on our biology. I know it sounds a little ‘new agey,’ but the truth is, if you don’t believe you are being harmed, odds are that the impact on your biology will be significantly different than someone who is fearful and stressed out about health concerns. Consciousness is huge, and it is one of the biggest factors in regards to preventative measures.

*

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

All Global Research articles including the  E-Book can be read in 27 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

***

International Warmongers Beat the War Drums for War Against Russia

By Dr. Rudolf Hänsel, January 27 2021

The only certain thing about this so-called security conference – postponed because of the Corona plague – is that the world’s worst warmongers are again beating the war drums. This year, possibly for a new war against Russia.

Russian-American Relations Under Biden: More of the Same Except for One Thing

By Andrew Korybko, January 27 2021

Russian-American relations will remain just as bad under Biden as they were under Trump except for the 46th President’s desire to extend the New START for another five years as part of an implied nuclear detente with Moscow after his administration also announced that it’ll investigate Russia for alleged cyber spying.

What Happened to JFK and a Foreign Policy of Peace?

By Rick Sterling, January 27 2021

Sixty years ago, John F Kennedy (JFK) was inaugurated as president of the USA. In less than three years, before he was assassinated in November 1963, he initiated major changes in foreign policy.

Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.: Individual Rights and Freedoms Under Siege in Era of COVID

By Robert F. Kennedy Jr, January 27 2021

“The COVID-19 pandemic has proven an opportunity of convenience for totalitarian elements who have put individual rights and freedoms globally under siege,” said CHD chairman Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. in his letter to 100,000 lawyers.

Serious Health Impacts of Wireless and Power Frequency EMFs: “Impact Oxidative Balance”: Swiss Expert Group

By Environmental Health Trust, January 27 2021

The Swiss expert group on electromagnetic fields and non-ionising radiation BERENIS just released a major evaluation of the scientific evidence on oxidative stress in their January 2021 newsletter.

In the 1930s, UK and US Business Ties to Nazi Germany. Churchill’s “Admiration” of Adolph Hitler

By Shane Quinn, January 27 2021

Early this century Winston Churchill was voted “the greatest Briton of all time” in a nationwide British poll, which attracted more than a million votes, as he finished ahead of figures like the naturalist Charles Darwin. It is little known, however, that Churchill had favourably viewed European fascism during the 1920s and 1930s.

French Court Hears Case Against Chemical Corporations Over Agent Orange Use in Vietnam

By Brett Wilkins, January 27 2021

A court in France on Monday heard a case brought by a French-Vietnamese woman against over a dozen multinational corporations she accuses of causing grievous harm by selling the defoliant Agent Orange to the United States government.

Neonic Pesticides Could Spell Disaster for Our Food Supply

By Daniel Raichel, January 27 2021

Humanism in Painting: Remembering the Art of Symeon Shimin. NY Whitney Museum

By Prof. Sam Ben-Meir, January 27 2021

Note: All Global Research articles are now accessible in 27 languages by activating the Translate Website Drop Down Menu on the top banner of our home page.

***

Governments, news and even hospitals are claiming that without locking down society the healthcare system would collapse.

Yet, we only need take a look at headlines of flu seasons gone by to see that hospitals have dealt with far greater surges of respiratory illnesses without collapsing.

Here are just a few samples:

…

2019: “Some of Ontario’s biggest hospitals are filled beyond capacity nearly every day”

Before the “pandemic” hit Canada, on January 22, 2019, CBC News wrote this article stating that “hospital gridlock… is the new normal.” See for yourself:

Overcrowding has become so common in Ontario hospitals that patient beds are now placed in hallways and conference rooms not only at times of peak demand, but routinely day after day…

An exclusive analysis of the data by CBC News shows that hospital gridlock — a phenomenon that used to be restricted to surges in patients during flu season — is the new normal.

In contrast, today, during this so-called “new normal,” hospitals are being under-utilized. “Ontario’s hospital capacity is better than before pre-pandemic….” wrote Roman Baber, a minister of the Ontario parliament in a recent letter to the province’s premier. “Urban area hospitals are always above capacity at this time of the year — that’s why we campaigned on ending Hallway Healthcare.”

2018: “Hospitals Overwhelmed by Flu Patients Are Treating Them in Tents”

A year earlier, January 18, 2018, Time Magazine wrote:

The 2017-2018 influenza epidemic is sending people to hospitals and urgent-care centers in every state, and medical centers are responding with extraordinary measures: asking staff to work overtime, setting up triage tents, restricting friends and family visits and canceling elective surgeries, to name a few.

Extraordinary measures; but not insane. They were facing a veritable epidemic, yet they did not even propose healthy people stay in their homes as some kind of far-fetched remedy.

2018: Rapid increase in seasonal flu cases taxes area hospitals

2018 was a big year for the flu, as we can see from this January 11, 2018 article in University of Alabama News:

UAB Hospital Emergency, Critical Care, Ambulatory and Prime Care services have experienced a 50 percent increase in seasonal influenza cases in the past 72 hours alone. These events led Alabama Gov. Kay Ivey to issue a State of Emergency this evening.

Yes, Alabama had an emergency. But Spain didn’t go into lockdown to avoid getting the Alabama flu.

2018: “California hospitals face a ‘war zone’ of flu patients — and are setting up tents to treat them

The same month, on January 16, 2018, the LA Times reported:

Hospitals across the state are sending away ambulances, flying in nurses from out of state and not letting children visit their loved ones for fear they’ll spread the flu. Others are canceling surgeries and erecting tents in their parking lots so they can triage the hordes of flu patients.

I wonder if these journalists, who throw around this “war zone” hyperbole, have ever been to a real war zone. Typically, bullets and grenades make far gorier injuries than pneumonia.

2017: “French hospitals cancel operations amid brutal flu epidemic”

A year earlier, on November 1, 2017, France 24 reported:

“Emergency rooms are at breaking point,” François Braun, head of France’s Samu-Urgences de France ambulance group, told AFP on Wednesday. “All regions of France are affected.”

Yet did they order everyone in France to start wearing masks? No. Maybe masks weren’t invented yet.

2014: “CDC says nation hits epidemic status“

On December 31, 2014, Dayton Daily News reported:

The Center for Disease Control and Prevention said this week that the flu has reached the epidemic threshold nationally and is widespread in 36 states. Four pediatric flu-related deaths have been confirmed in Ohio, including an infant less than six months old in Cincinnati.

Four children sadly died from the flu, yet kids were still allowed to go to school. In my province of Ontario, no children have died from COVID, yet none are allowed to attend school.

2013: “Hospitals overwhelmed by flu and norovirus patients”

On January 10, 2013, CTV News reported:

“In our emergency rooms, we would normally see about 150 patients a week with influenza; now it’s nearly 700,” Dr. Bill Dickout, medical director for the Edmonton zone of Alberta Health Services, told reporters Wednesday.”

So how is COVID-19 any different? Or has influenza simply hired a better PR team?

2011: “Hospitals overwhelmed by surge of flu cases”

The Globe and Mail, January 11, 2011, printed this shocking statement:

A surge in seasonal influenza cases in parts of the country has clogged hospital emergency rooms, postponed elective surgeries…

Is not COVID sounding like that Shreddies commercial? You know, the one where they tilt the square breakfast cereal on the side and rebrand it “Diamond Shreddies.”

2009: “Swamped hospitals fear an ER emergency”

On May 1, 2009, the LA Times reported:

On Long Island, N.Y., hospitals are scrambling to bring extra workers in to handle a 50% surge in visitors to emergency rooms. In Galveston, Texas, the local hospital ran out of flu testing kits after being overwhelmed with patients worried about having contracted swine flu.

At Loma Linda University Medical Center near San Bernardino, emergency room workers have set up a tent in the parking lot to handle a crush of similar patients. In Chicago, ER visits at the city’s biggest children’s hospital are double normal levels, setting records at the 121-year-old institution.

Obviously, hospitals are prepared (or at least should be) for seasonal rises in respiratory illnesses.

2009: “‘Walking well’ flood hospitals with — or without — flu symptoms”

May 5, 2009, CNN reported:

This week, some hospitals saw record numbers of patients. A few emergency departments shut down to paramedics because of overcrowding. “We have had a lot of nervous patients with minimal respiratory tract symptoms,” said Dr. Mark Bell, principal of Emergent Medical Associates, which operates 18 emergency departments in Southern California. “It has caused significant amount of delays in emergency care. They’re all walking well.”

This reminds me of the testimony of undercover nurse Erin Olszewski. She said patients with anxiety and mild respiratory issues were being intubated at New York hospitals.

2000: “Early Flu Outbreak Has Hospitals Overflowing”

January 1, 2000, the New York Times brought in the New Year with these words :

This year’s wave of influenza has become widespread across the nation, overwhelming emergency rooms in cities from Boston to Los Angeles, filling hospital beds and forcing postponements of operations as staff members turn to treating the rising number of flu patients….

The Centers for Disease Control in Atlanta said this year’s outbreak had arrived much earlier than usual and had increased death rates from pneumonia and flu-related illnesses.

Of course, they didn’t shut down businesses. Indeed, since health care is very expensive, ruining the economy probably didn’t seem like a viable solution.

1999: “Health Lorry used as mortuary as ‘flu strikes hospitals”

Over in England, on January 5, 1999, BBC News shared this familiar story:

A hospital spokesman said emergency admissions were up 50% on last year, and fewer burials and cremations over Christmas and the New Year had created a body jam.

Sounds like New York City, in the spring of 2020; sans the world-wide hysteria.

1993: “Beijing Flu Outbreak Pounds L.A. County”

The LA Times, December 29, 1993, reported:

An outbreak of Beijing flu has swept Los Angeles, boosting absenteeism at local companies, schools and government offices and sending droves of feverish people to doctors’ offices and hospitals, health officials said Tuesday.

As a Toronto-area nurse wrote in an open letter, regarding the second wave of COVID: “Bottlenecks have always occurred in [urban hospitals]; old, inadequate infrastructure, for a baseline, unhealthy population.”

1978: “Texas-Type Flu Sweeps Across Area“

Lastly, going back to the year of my birth, January 7, 1978, the The Washington Post wrote:

Influenza has hit the Washington metropolitan area with such force that the emergency room staff at the Children’s Hospital National Medical Center has been overwhelmed and has called for volunteer help from other hospital staffers.

That was just a sample of what you can find searching the archives of mainstream news sites. It becomes clear that flu outbreaks appear every year. Some years are worse than others. They are typically not labelled as a global pandemic.

How to Rebrand the Flu For Prime Time News

But just consider how easy it would be to give separate cold and flu outbreaks — appearing in, let’s say, China, Italy and New York — the same name. Then, instead of keeping it on the back pages of the newspapers, you print it on the front page. Instead of the last few minutes of a newscast, you make it the feature story. Every day. Week after week.

Then you have government tell everyone to wear masks. Which they do. Then you tell them the masks have stopped the flu. What a relief!

But sadly, this other new virus is so much smarter than the flu. Indeed, it is now killing about the same amount of people as the flu was. What a coincidence!

Alas, no one would fall for that. They’d see right through such an obvious ploy. Wouldn’t they?

John C. A. Manley has spent over a decade ghostwriting for medical doctors, naturopaths and chiropractors. Since March 2020, he has been writing articles that question and expose the contradictions in the COVID-19 narrative and control measures. He is also completing a novel, Much Ado About Corona: A Dystopian Love Story. You can visit his website at MuchAdoAboutCorona.ca.

All Global Research articles can be read in 27 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

***

Following House impeachment on the phony charge of inciting insurrection, Trump’s politicized Senate trial to begin on February 9 lacks legitimacy.

It’s all about wanting him hung out to dry for partisan reasons — unrelated to the rule of law.

It reveals deep-seated undemocratic Dem contempt for the rule of law.

Throughout Trump’s tenure, they savaged him for the wrong reasons consistently, ignoring legitimate wrongdoing to hold him accountable for because most congressional members share guilt.

The same goes for the corporate-owned fourth estate that long ago abandoned what journalism is supposed to be.

The US political system is too debauched to fix — a fantasy democracy from inception, it’s intolerant of the real thing wherever it exists.

It’s contemptuous of what just societies hold dear.

Long ago having abandoned the rule of law, governing is by the law of the jungle instead while pretending otherwise.

Only the ignorant and naive are fooled. Unfortunately they comprise a large segment of US society, perhaps a majority — brainwashed to accept what demands rejection.

All but five GOP senators expressed opposition to Trump’s upcoming Senate trial.

The Constitution is unclear on whether a former president or other US official can be impeached and put on trial.

Constitutional experts disagree on this issue. While nothing in the document explicitly permits impeachment of a former US official, nothing rules it out.

If a former US official is convicted by a required two-thirds Senate majority, the ruling could be contested in federal court to the highest level.

If so, a Supreme Court majority would decide this issue, what hasn’t happened so far.

Trump’s Senate trial is all about wanting him prevented from seeking public office again.

It also aims to greatly humiliate him more than already that could backfire on Dems by exposing their chicanery.

Law Professor Jonathan Turley explained that Chief Justice John Roberts won’t be present for Trump’s trial because he’s no longer president.

Someone else will be chosen for the dubious task. Turley asked and answered the following questions:

“(W)ho is being tried. Is (Trump) a president? Obviously not.”

“Is he a civil officer? No, he is a private citizen.”

“A private citizen is being called to the Senate to be tried for removal from an office that he does not hold.”

Turley cited congressional “opportunism” as a greater danger than holding a former US official justifiably or unjustifiably accountable by Senate trial.

“A new Congress with a new majority can seek retroactive impeachments and disqualifications for figures in an opposing party” — at any time for any reasons when they’re private citizens to prevent them from ever holding public office again by separate majority vote.

By this standard, a future GOP controlled Congress could impeach and try Obama and Clinton, even 96-year-old Jimmy Carter if still living at the time.

Turley: A future Congress “could insist that there is no escaping impeachment by merely leaving office.”

Turley also criticized what he called a “snap impeachment” of Trump — with no hearing, no chance for rebuttal by DJT or his counsel.

He stressed that while Trump’s upcoming Senate trial may or may not be “extraconstitutional, it should (be) view(ed) as constitutionally unsound.”

In discussing the above, Turley left unaddressed the issue of impeaching and trying Trump for inciting insurrection he had nothing to do with.

Storming Capitol Hill on January 6 was an orchestrated anti-Trump false flag for what’s happening now.

Going way beyond Trump’s trial by Senate, it’s a diabolical scheme to advance the World Economic Forum’s Great Reset that aims to establish ruler-serf societies worldwide — enforced by police state harshness.

In 2012, Occupy Wall Street activists in US cities nationwide were wrongfully demonized as domestic terrorists.

Today it’s dissenting from the official narrative. It’s speech, media and academic freedoms.

It’s a free and open society US dark forces want replaced by full-blown tyranny on the phony pretext of protecting national security at a time when the only threats to the nation are invented, not real.

On Tuesday, GOP senators voted overwhelmingly against Trump’s upcoming second Senate trial — only five party members supporting it.

The measure on whether to proceed with trial passed by a 55 – 45 margin — way short of a two-thirds Senate majority to convict.

Proceedings against Trump remain scheduled to begin on February 9.

Based on Wednesday’s Senate vote, exoneration seems certain.

Trump will be the only former US president to be impeached and tried twice — while in office and as a private citizen, both times on phony charges, not legitimate ones.

As things now stand, he’ll be exonerated again next month.

The same judgment cannot apply to a nation of, by, and for privileged interests exclusively at the expense of most others — where the rule of law no longer exists.

*

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

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

VISIT MY WEBSITE: stephenlendman.org (Home – Stephen Lendman). Contact at [email protected].

My two Wall Street books are timely reading:

“How Wall Street Fleeces America: Privatized Banking, Government Collusion, and Class War”

https://www.claritypress.com/product/how-wall-street-fleeces-america/

“Banker Occupation: Waging Financial War on Humanity”

https://www.claritypress.com/product/banker-occupation-waging-financial-war-on-humanity/

Featured image: President-elect Trump with retired Marine Corps General James Mattis, who would soon become Secretary of Defense in between stints at General Dynamics. (By a katz/Shutterstock)

The Swiss expert group on electromagnetic fields and non-ionising radiation BERENIS just released a major evaluation of the scientific evidence on oxidative stress in their January 2021 newsletter finding that the majority of research studies have found effects which could be more severe  for those with preexisting conditions and the more vulnerable young and old.

This issue is central to the landmark US federal case EHT et al. v FCC which contends the FCC has ignored the scientific evidence presented to them showing harm.

The BERENIS review confirms that yes there is scientific evidence showing adverse impacts from non ionizing radiation as the  “majority of the animal and more than half of the cell studies provided evidence of increased oxidative stress caused by RF-EMF or ELF-MF.”

Despite the methodological issues in the body of research “EMF exposure, even in the low dose range, can lead to changes in oxidative balance.”

Furthermore as pre-existing conditions, such as immune deficiencies or diseases (diabetes, neurodegenerative diseases), compromise the body’s defence mechanisms, including antioxidative protection, “it is therefore possible that individuals with these conditions experience more severe health effects.”

Straightaway after replacing Trump by election theft, the illegitimately installed Biden/Harris regime targeted Russia, China, and domestic freedoms — the latter by inventing a domestic terrorist threat that doesn’t exist except when state-sponsored.

It’s an ominous sign for what’s likely coming — continued erosion of a free and open US society with intent to eliminate it altogether, along with no end to war by other means on Russia, China, and by extension other nations free from US control.

That’s the disturbing state of things in America under growing tyrannical rule on track toward becoming full-blown if not checked.

Russia denounced what had earmarks of US orchestrated pro-Navalny protests in Moscow, St. Petersburg, and other cities over the past weekend.

Putin spokesman Dmitry Peskov slammed what he called US “support for the violation of the Russian law.”

Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said “we will respond to” unacceptable US meddling in Russian internal affairs.

The Biden/Harris regime “will have to provide explanations to the foreign ministry for the conduct of the US embassy in Moscow and for the statements from the Department of State.”

“We will continue to address this matter because it is just the tip of an iceberg — what was published by the US official structures, the recommendation given by foreign ministries of some Western countries.”

The only language US ruling authorities understand is toughness, diplomacy a waste of time, accomplishing nothing when undertaken with sovereign independent nations.

Already the die is cast on Biden/Harris regime foreign policy toward nations free from US control.

Dirty business as usual is certain ahead as earlier — perhaps with a new hot war or two in mind against one or more invented enemies.

No real ones exist so they have to be invented when unjustifiably justifying an attack on another nation preemptively in flagrant breach of the UN Charter and US constitutional law.

US dirty hands were all over weekend protests in Russia with more of the same virtually sure to follow.

US war on China by other means is certain to continue, chances of improved bilateral relations virtually nil.

Straightaway after being sworn into office as US war secretary, former 4-star army general Lloyd Austin called on Washington’s key Asian allies to support its hostile-to-China agenda — in less than so many words.

In testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee last week, he said he’ll “work to update (US geopolitical) strategy.”

“We’ll have to have capabilities that allow us…to present a credible threat, a credible deterrent…to China in the future.”

“(C)apabilities (are) need(ed) to be able to (check) large pieces of Chinese military inventory…”

“(W)e still have the qualitative edge and the competitive edge over China.”

“I think that gap has closed significantly and our goal will be to ensure that we expand that gap going forward.”

US “strategy will be arrayed against the threat and China presents the most significant threat going forward because China is ascending.”

“Russia is also a threat, but it’s in decline (sic).”

Like China, Russia is rising as the US steadily declines because of its imperial madness war on humanity worldwide and unwillingness to change.

On January 22, Austin was confirmed as Biden/Harris war secretary.

According to the South China Morning Post (SCMP) on Monday, he called on key US Asian allies to support its hostile to China agenda without naming it directly.

The US opposes “any unilateral attempts to change the status quo in the East China Sea,” he told his Japanese counterpart Nobuo Kishi.

According to the Pentagon, Austin urged Kishi to “strengthen Japan’s contribution to the role the alliance continues to play in providing security (sic) in the Indo-Pacific region.”

He made similar remarks to his South Korean counterpart Suh Wook.

Separately, Biden/Harris national security advisor Jake Sullivan told his South Korean counterpart Suh Hoon that the bilateral relationship is a “linchpin” of regional peace and security.

Polar opposite is true wherever the US shows up in parts of the world where it doesn’t belong — its hegemonic presence always assuring trouble that too often includes preemptive war on nations threatening no one, along with other hostile actions.

US relations with China and Russia are tense, the same true with other nations free from its control.

Once again on Saturday, a US carrier group provocatively entered the South China Sea for military exercises near Chinese waters.

Time and again, the US unjustifiably justifies what’s unacceptable by falsely claiming the right of freedom of navigation.

Its military-related actions near borders of nations on its target list for regime change are provocative and confrontation.

They have nothing to do with national security or free navigation.

At this time, Biden/Harris appear likely to continue Trump’s hardline anti-China agenda that’s fraught with risk of direct confrontation if things are pushed too far.

A Final Comment

Last week, Beijing sanctioned 28 former Trump regime officials in retaliation for their involvement violating China’s sovereign rights.

They’re “prohibited from entering the mainland, Hong Kong and Macao of China.”

“They and companies and institutions associated with them are also restricted from doing business with China,” according to information from its People’s Daily, adding:

This “countermeasure of China demonstrated the country’s firm resolution to safeguard its sovereignty, security and development interests.”

*

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

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

VISIT MY WEBSITE: stephenlendman.org (Home – Stephen Lendman). Contact at [email protected].

My two Wall Street books are timely reading:

“How Wall Street Fleeces America: Privatized Banking, Government Collusion, and Class War”

https://www.claritypress.com/product/how-wall-street-fleeces-america/

“Banker Occupation: Waging Financial War on Humanity”

https://www.claritypress.com/product/banker-occupation-waging-financial-war-on-humanity/

Featured image is by Tony Webster/Wikimedia Commons

„Liebesgrüße nach Moskau: Biden droht der ‚Tyrannei‘ Putins mit dem Ende.“ Dieses vergiftete „Versprechen“ gab Biden dem russischen Präsidenten bereits lange vor seiner gestohlenen Wahl zum neuen US-Präsidenten (1). Über das in München anstehende private Treffen ausgewählter Kriegstreiber sagt er: „Wie kein anderes globales Forum verbindet München europäische Führungskräfte und Denker mit Gleichgesinnten aus der ganzen Welt (2).“ Das einzig Sichere bei dieser so genannten Sicherheitskonferenz – die wegen der Corona-Plandemie verschoben wird – ist jedoch die Tatsache, dass die weltweit schlimmsten Kriegstreiber wieder die Kriegstrommeln rühren. In diesem Jahr möglicherweise für einen neuen Krieg gegen Russland. Völker hört die Signale!

Vor nahezu 80 Jahren – im Sommer 1941 – überfiel das faschistische Deutschland – nicht ohne Unterstützung westlicher Staaten – die Sowjetunion und hinterließ eine Bilanz des Schreckens: Schätzungsweise 13 Millionen tote Soldaten, 14 Millionen tote Zivilisten und 3 Millionen tote Kriegsgefangene (3). Und nur drei Generationen später werden die Kriegstrommeln für einen neuen Krieg gegen Russland gerührt. Unterzeichnen Sie deshalb weiterhin die Öffentliche Erklärung vom 8./9. Mai 2018 in der „Neuen Rheinischen Zeitung (NRhZ)“ (4): „Wir Europäer sagen NEIN zu einem Krieg gegen Russland!“

Für die jüngere Generation, die nicht weiß, was Krieg bedeutet, beschreibt der kirgisische Schriftsteller Tschingis Aitmatow in der Erzählung „Goldspur der Garben“, wie der „Große Vaterländische Krieg“ über die Sowjetunion hereinbrach und das Leben von Jung und Alt augenblicklich veränderte (5). Oft erreichen nur ganz persönliche Schilderungen das Herz der Menschen.

In einem Gespräch mit Mutter Erde in Aitmatows Erzählung sagt Mutter Tolgonai, die in diesem Krieg ihren Ehemann und einen Sohn verlor:

„Bedenke doch, teure Erde, gerade deine besten Arbeiter, deine geschicktesten Meister mordet der Krieg. Ich bin damit nicht einverstanden, mein ganzes Leben bin ich nicht einverstanden damit! Die Menschen können und müssen dem Krieg Einhalt gebieten (6).“

„Das Glück des Ackerbauern liegt im Säen und Ernten“

Zu Beginn der Erzählung beschreibt Tolgonai, Tochter eines kirgisischen Taglöhners, wie sie als 17jährige bei der Ernte Suwankul, ihren zukünftigen Ehemann kennenlernte:

„Flammend stieg die Sonne auf, die schneebedeckten Berggipfel erglänzten in goldenem Schimmer, wie ein tiefblauer Fluss strömte uns aus der Steppe der Wind entgegen. Diese frühen Sommermorgen waren die Morgenröte unserer Liebe. Die ganze Welt verwandelte sich wie im Märchen, wenn wir zusammen dahingingen. Und das Feld, grau, zerstampft und aufgewühlt, wurde zum schönsten Feld der Erde… (S. 435).“

Vom Glück beseelt fragte sie ihren Liebsten flüsternd: „Suwan, was glaubst du, wir werden doch glücklich sein, ja?“ Und er antwortete:

„Wenn Land und Wasser gleichmäßig unter alle verteilt werden, wenn auch wir unser eigenes Feld haben, wenn auch wir pflügen, säen und unser eigenes Getreide dreschen – dann wird das unser Glück sein. Ein größeres Glück braucht der Mensch nicht, Tolgonai. Das Glück des Ackerbauern liegt im Säen und Ernten (S. 436).“

Mit ihren Händen schufen beide ihr Leben. Sie arbeiteten und legten sommers und winters den Ktmen (Hacke) nicht aus der Hand: Viel Schweiß haben sie vergossen, viel Mühe aufgewandt. Sie bauten sich ein Haus und schafften sich ein paar Stück Vieh an. Sie begannen wie Menschen zu leben. Das Großartigste aber war, dass ihnen drei Söhne geboren wurden. Die Zeit verging und fast unmerklich wuchsen die Söhne heran. Jeder wählte seinen eigenen Weg.

„Es ist Krieg, Mama!“

Im Sommer 1941, an einem Morgen vor Sonnenaufgang, erblickten Tolgonai und die anderen Bauern beim Mähen auf einem neuen Getreidefeld direkt am Fluss, wie am anderen Flussufer plötzlich ein Reiter auftauchte. Er kam hinter den letzten Höfen des Ails (kirgisisches Dorf) hervorgeprescht und jagte in wildem Galopp geradewegs durch Gestrüpp und Schilf, als wäre eine Meute wilder Hunde hinter ihm her.

Was trieb diesen Menschen? Es war ein junger Russe. Er fuchtelte mit den Armen und rief ihnen etwas zu, aber durch das Getöse des Flusses war nichts zu verstehen. Als der Reiter den reißenden Fluss durchquert hatte und bei einem Mähdrescher ankam, war plötzlich ein großes Geschrei. Von allen Seiten stürzten Menschen dorthin, manche zu Fuß, andere zu Pferd, wieder andere standen auf ihren Fuhrwerken und hieben mit der Peitsche auf die Pferde ein. Auch Tolgonai lief los:

„‘Gott behüte! Gott behüte!‘, flehte ich, im Laufen die Hände emporgestreckt. (…) Als ich endlich ankam, war der Mähdrescher von einer lärmenden Menge umringt. Ich konnte nichts hören, nichts verstehen. Verzweifelt versuchte ich, mir einen Weg durch die Menge zu bahnen: ‚Macht Platz! Lasst mich durch!‘ Die Leute traten auseinander, und als ich Kassym und Aliman nebeneinander am Mähdrescher stehen sah, streckte ich wie eine Blinde die zitternden Arme nach meinem Sohn aus. Kassym kam auf mich zu und fing mich auf.

‚Es ist Krieg, Mama!‘, hörte ich wie von weitem seine Stimme. Ich blickte ihn an, als ob ich nicht begriffe, was das für ein Wort sei.

‚Krieg? Krieg, sagst du?‘, fragte ich zurück. ‚Ja, Mama, Krieg ist ausgebrochen‘, antwortete er. Mir aber kam immer noch nicht klar zum Bewusstsein, was sich hinter diesem Wort verbarg. ‚Wie denn, Krieg? Warum Krieg? Krieg, sagst du?‘ wiederholte ich dieses unheimliche Wort, und dann packte mich jähes Entsetzen, und ich begann leise zu weinen nach all der ausgestandenen Angst und der unerwarteten Nachricht. Als die Frauen mein tränenüberströmtes Gesicht sahen, fingen sie an, laut zu jammern und zu klagen. (…).

Mit dieser Minute begann ein neues Leben – das Leben im Krieg.

Wir hörten nicht den Schlachtenlärm, aber unsere Herzen hörten die Schreie der Menschen (S. 454ff.).“

Leben im Krieg

Ein Mann nach dem anderen bekam vom Boten des Dorfsowjets die Einberufung. Auch Ehemann Suwankul und Sohn Kassym mussten Abschied nehmen. Die Zurückgebliebenen aber arbeiteten weiter:

„Sie arbeiteten in der Mittagsglut und in den schwülen Trockenwindnächten, bei der Mahd, beim Drusch, beim Einfahren, sie arbeiteten unentwegt und kannten keinen Schlaf und keine Ruh. Dabei wurde die Arbeit immer mehr, denn immer weniger Männer blieben übrig (S. 456).“

Tolgonai gürtete sich nun wie ein Mann, wie es ihr der Kolchosvorsitzende gesagt hatte, setzte sich aufs Pferd und kam ihren Pflichten als Brigadier nach:

„Gesunde Männer gab es nicht mehr in den Ailen, nur noch kranke und lahme, und die übrigen Arbeitskräfte waren Frauen, Mädchen, Kinder und Greise (S. 469).“

Alles, was geerntet wurde, lieferten sie an die Front ab. Auch die Kinder mussten ran. Eines Tages kam der Kolchosvorsitzende mit dem Schulleiter in die Klasse und sagte zu den Schülern:

„Ich bin zu euch gekommen, Kinder, weil ein paar von euch vorübergehend weg müssen von der Schule. Wir dürfen keine Zeit verlieren, müssen die Zugpferde für die Frühjahrsbestellung vorbereiten, dabei graust einen, sie anzusehen, sie halten sich kaum noch auf den Beinen. Wir müssen das Pferdegeschirr instand setzen, es ist völlig hinüber, müssen die Pflüge und Sämaschinen reparieren, unser ganzes Inventar vergammelt unterm Schnee. Warum sag ich euch das alles? Weil wir auf den Flächen, wo kein Wintergetreide eingebracht ist, Sommergetreide sähen müssen. Unbedingt, ohne Widerrede. (…) Woher aber die Arbeitskräfte nehmen, auf wen sich stützen? (…) Frauen können wir nicht schicken! Das Land liegt weit ab, in Aksai – keine Leute. Uns blieb nichts anders übrig, als euch um Hilfe zu bitten (7).“

Für viele Jungen begann ein schweres Erwachsenenleben.

Als Tolgonai eines Abends nach getaner Arbeit nach Hause ritt, erfuhr sie von ihren Nachbarinnen vor ihrem Haus, dass ihr Mann Suwankul und ihr Sohn Kassym gefallen sind. Sie schrie auf, dass es über die ganze Straße gellte. Und auf einmal wurde sie ganz taub:

„Wahrscheinlich war ich von meinem Schrei taub geworden. Die Straße wankte, mir war, als fielen die Bäume um und stürzten die Häuser ein. In der unheimlichen Stille wechselten vor meinen Augen die Wolken am Himmel, vor mir erschienen entstellte, stumme Gesichter (S. 484).“

Ihre Sonne war erloschen.

„Mutter Erde, können die Menschen leben ohne Krieg?“

Nach einiger Zeit ging Tolgonai in einem dunklen gesteppten Beschmet (Halbrock) über dem frisch gewaschenen weißen Kleid und um den Kopf ein weißes Tuch langsam zum Feld hinaus und sprach lange mit der Mutter Erde:

„Warum, Mutter Erde, stürzen nicht die Berge ein, warum treten nicht die Seen über die Ufer, wenn solche Menschen fallen wie Suwankul und Kassym? Beide, Vater und Sohn, waren tüchtige Ackerbauern. Seit Urgedenken lebt die Welt durch solche Männer, von ihnen wird sie ernährt, von ihnen im Krieg verteidigt, sie werden als erste Soldat. Wäre der Krieg nicht gewesen, was hätten Suwankul und Kassym noch alles vollbringen können, wie viele Menschen hätten sie mit den Früchten ihrer Arbeit beschenken, wie viele Felder bestellen und wie viel Korn ausdreschen können. Und sie selbst, hundertfach belohnt mit den Früchten der Arbeit anderer, wie viel Schönes hätten sie noch erleben können. Sag mir, Mutter Erde, sag mir die Wahrheit: Können die Menschen leben ohne Krieg?“

„Eine schwierige Frage hast du mir da gestellt, Tolgonai. Es gab Völker, die durch Kriege ausgerottet wurden, es gab Städte, die in Schutt und Asche fielen, und es gab Jahrhunderte, da ich davon träumte, eine menschliche Spur zu finden. Und jedes Mal, wenn die Menschen wieder einen Krieg anzettelten, rief ich ihnen zu: ‚Haltet ein, lasst das Blutvergießen!’ Und auch jetzt wiederhole ich: ‚Ihr Menschen hinter den Bergen und Meeren! Ihr Menschen auf der ganzen Welt, was fehlt euch – Land? Hier bin ich – das Land, die Erde! Ich bin für euch alle dieselbe, und für mich seid ihr alle gleich. Nicht euren Hader brauche ich, sondern eure Freundschaft, eure Arbeit! Werft ein einziges Korn in die Furche, und ich gebe euch hundert Körner dafür zurück. Steckt ein winziges Reis in den Boden, und ich ziehe euch eine Plantage groß. Legt einen Garten an, und ich überschütte euch mit Früchten. Züchtet Vieh, und ich werde Gras sein. Baut Häuser, und ich werde Mauer sein. Pflanzt euch fort, vermehrt euch, und ich werde euch allen eine herrliche Heimstatt sein. Ich bin unendlich, ich bin grenzenlos, ich bin tief, und ich bin hoch, ich habe Platz für euch alle!’ Und da fragst du noch, Tolgonai, ob die Menschen ohne Krieg leben können. Das hängt nicht von mir ab, das hängt von euch Menschen ab, von eurem Willen und eurem Verstand.“

„Bedenke doch, teure Erde, gerade deine besten Arbeiter, deine geschicktesten Meister mordet der Krieg. Ich bin damit nicht einverstanden, mein ganzes Leben bin ich nicht einverstanden damit! Die Menschen können und müssen dem Krieg Einhalt gebieten.“

„Denkst du denn, Tolgonai, ich leide nicht unter den Kriegen? Doch! Ich leide sehr. Ich sehne mich nach den Händen der Bauern, ewig beweine ich meine Kinder, die Ackersleute, immer werden mir Suwankul, Kassym und alle gefallenen Soldaten fehlen. Wenn ich ungepflügt bleibe, das Getreide ungemäht und ungedroschen bleibt, rufe ich sie: ‚Wo seid ihr, meine Pflüger, wo seid ihr, meine Säer? Steht auf, meine Kinder, meine Ackersmänner, kommt und helft mir, ich ersticke, ich sterbe!‘ Wie schön wäre es, wenn dann Suwankul mit dem Ketmen in der Hand, Kassym mit seinem Mähdrescher und Dshainak mit seinem Fuhrwerk kämen! Doch sie geben keine Antwort…“

„Hab auch dafür Dank, Erde! Du trauerst also um sie wie ich, du beweinst sie also wie ich. Hab Dank, Erde (S. 489f.).“

*

Der vorliegende Artikel erschien erstmals in NRhZ 552 vom 09.03.2016 und wurde geringfügig überarbeitet.

Dr. Rudolf Hänsel ist Diplompsychologe und Erziehungswissenschaftler.

Quellen und Anmerkungen

(1) https://de.rt.com/nordamerika/93854-liebesgruesse-nach-moskau-biden-droht/

(2) Münchner Sicherheitskonferenz https://securityconference.org/

(3) https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tote_des_Zweiten_Weltkrieges

(4) http://www.nrhz.de/flyer/beitrag.php?id=24807
https://www.rubikon.news/artikel/zwei-weltkriege-sind-genug
https://www.globalresearch.ca/we-europeans-say-no-to-a-war-against-russia/5638772

(5) Aitmatow, Tschingis (2008). Erzählungen und Novellen I und II. Unionsverlag Zürich

(6) Aitmatow, Tschingis (2008). Erzählungen-Novellen I. Goldspur der Garben. Unionsverlag Zürich, S. 431-540. Die Seitenangaben im Text beziehen sich auf diese Erzählung

(7) Aitmatow, Tschingis (2008). Erzählungen-Novellen II. Frühe Kraniche. Unionsverlag Zürich, S. 347f.

This article can be read in 27 languages including Russian and Chinese by activating the Translate Website Drop Down Menu on the top banner of our home page.

The author’s article in German is available on our German language page.

***

“Love greetings to Moscow: Biden threatens to end Putin’s ‘tyranny'”. Biden made this poisoned “promise” to the Russian president long before his stolen election as the new US president (1). About the upcoming private meeting of selected warmongers in Munich, he says: “Like no other global forum, Munich connects European leaders and thinkers with their peers from across the world (2).” However, the only certain thing about this so-called security conference – postponed because of the Corona plague – is that the world’s worst warmongers are again beating the war drums. This year, possibly for a new war against Russia. Peoples hear the signals!

Almost 80 years ago – in the summer of 1941 – fascist Germany invaded the Soviet Union – not without the support of Western states – and left behind a record of horror: an estimated 13 million dead soldiers, 14 million dead civilians and 3 million dead prisoners of war (3). And only three generations later, the war drums are being beaten for a new war against Russia. Therefore, continue to sign the Public Declaration of 8/9 May 2018 in the “Neue Rheinische Zeitung (NRhZ)” (4): “We Europeans say NO to war against Russia!”

For the younger generation, who do not know what war means, the Kyrgyz writer Chingiz Aitmatov describes in the story “Gold Trail of Sheaves” how the “Great Patriotic War” broke out over the Soviet Union and instantly changed the lives of young and old (5). Often only very personal accounts reach people’s hearts.

In a conversation with Mother Earth in Aitmatov’s narrative, Mother Tolgonai, who lost her husband and a son in that war, says:

“Consider, dear Earth, it is precisely your best workers, your most skilled masters, that war murders. I do not agree with it, my whole life I do not agree with it! People can and must put a stop to war (6).”

“The happiness of the farmer lies in sowing and harvesting”

At the beginning of the story, Tolgonai, daughter of a Kyrgyz day labourer, describes how she met Suwankul, her future husband, while harvesting at the age of 17:

“The sun rose flaming, the snow-covered mountain peaks shone with a golden glow, the wind flowed towards us from the steppe like a deep blue river. These early summer mornings were the dawn of our love. The whole world changed like a fairy tale when we walked together. And the field, grey, trampled and churned, became the most beautiful field on earth… (p. 435).”

Moved by happiness, she asked her beloved in a whisper, “Suwan, what do you think, we will be happy, won’t we?” And he replied:

“When land and water are equally distributed among all, when we too have our own field, when we too plough, sow and thresh our own grain – then that will be our happiness. Man needs no greater happiness, Tolgonai. The happiness of the cultivator lies in sowing and reaping (p. 436).”

With their hands they both created their lives. They worked and did not put down the ktmen (hoe) in summer or winter: much sweat they shed, much toil they expended. They built themselves a house and got themselves a few head of cattle. They began to live like people. But the greatest thing was that three sons were born to them. Time passed and almost imperceptibly the sons grew up. Each one chose his own path.

“It’s war, Mama!”

In the summer of 1941, one morning before sunrise, Tolgonai and the other farmers were mowing a new grain field right next to the river when they saw a rider suddenly appear on the other side of the river. He came dashing out from behind the last farms of the ail (Kyrgyz village), galloping wildly straight through the brush and reeds as if a pack of wild dogs were after him.

What was driving this person? It was a young Russian. He was waving his arms and shouting something at them, but nothing could be understood through the roar of the river. When the rider had crossed the raging river and arrived at a combine, suddenly there was a great clamour. People rushed there from all sides, some on foot, others on horseback, still others standing on their carts and lashing the horses with their whips. Tolgonai also ran:

“‘God forbid! God forbid!’ I pleaded, stretching out my hands as I ran. (…) When I finally arrived, the combine was surrounded by a noisy crowd. I could hear nothing, understand nothing. Desperately I tried to make my way through the crowd: ‘Make way! Let me through!’ The people dispersed and when I saw Kassym and Aliman standing next to each other at the combine, I stretched out my trembling arms like a blind woman towards my son. Kassym came towards me and caught me.

‘It’s war, Mama!’, I heard his voice as if from far away. I looked at him as if I did not understand what that word was.’War? War, you say?’, I asked back. ‘Yes, Mama, war has broken out,’ he replied. But it was still not clear to me what was behind this word. ‘What do you mean, war? Why war? War, you say?’ I repeated this sinister word, and then sudden horror seized me and I began to cry quietly after all the fear I had endured and the unexpected news. When the women saw my tear-streaked face, they began to wail and complain loudly. (…).

With that minute, a new life began – life in the war.

We did not hear the noise of battle, but our hearts heard the cries of the people (p. 454ff.).”

Life in the war

One man after the other received the draft from the village Soviet’s messenger. Husband Suwankul and son Kassym also had to say goodbye. Those who stayed behind, however, continued to work:

“They worked in the midday heat and in the sultry dry windy nights, mowing, threshing, driving in, they worked incessantly and knew no sleep and no rest. In the process, the work became more and more, for fewer and fewer men remained (p. 456).”

Tolgonai now girded herself like a man, as the kolkhoz chairman had told her to do, sat on her horse and fulfilled her duties as brigadier:

“There were no healthy men left in the ailes, only sick and lame ones, and the remaining labourers were women, girls, children and old men (p. 469).”

Everything that was harvested they delivered to the front. Even the children had to do it. One day the kolkhoz chairman came to the class with the headmaster and said to the pupils:

“I have come to you, children, because some of you have to leave school temporarily. We have no time to lose, we have to prepare the draft horses for the spring tillage, and it makes me dread to look at them, they can hardly stand on their feet. We have to repair the harness, it is completely broken, we have to repair the ploughs and the seed drills, our whole inventory is rotting under the snow. Why am I telling you all this? Because we have to sow summer cereals on the areas where no winter cereals have been sown. Absolutely, without argument. (…) But where do we get the labour, on whom do we rely? (…) We cannot send women! The land is far away, in Aksai – no people. We had no choice but to ask you for help (7).”

For many boys, a difficult adult life began.

One evening, as Tolgonai rode home after her work was done, she learned from her neighbours outside her house that her husband Suwankul and her son Kassym had fallen. She cried out so loudly that it rang out all over the street. And suddenly she went completely deaf:

“I had probably gone deaf from my scream. The street swayed, I felt as if the trees were falling and the houses were collapsing. In the eerie silence, the clouds in the sky changed before my eyes, disfigured, mute faces appeared before me (p. 484).”

Her sun had gone out.

“Mother Earth, can people live without war?”

After some time, Tolgonai, wearing a dark quilted beschmet (half-skirt) over his freshly washed white dress and a white cloth around his head, walked slowly out to the field and spoke at length to Mother Earth:

“Why, Mother Earth, do not the mountains collapse, why do not the lakes burst their banks, when such people fall as Suwankul and Kassym? Both father and son were capable farmers. From time immemorial the world has lived through such men, by them it is fed, by them it is defended in war, they are the first to become soldiers. Had it not been for the war, what more could Suwankul and Kassym have accomplished, how many people could they have bestowed with the fruits of their labour, how many fields could they have cultivated and how much grain could they have threshed. And they themselves, rewarded a hundredfold with the fruits of others’ labour, how many beautiful things they could still have experienced. Tell me, Mother Earth, tell me the truth: can people live without war?”

“A difficult question you have asked me there, Tolgonai. There have been peoples wiped out by wars, there have been cities reduced to rubble, and there have been centuries when I dreamed of finding a human trace. And every time people started another war, I called out to them: ‘Stop, stop the bloodshed!’ And even now I repeat: ‘You people beyond the mountains and seas! You people all over the world, what do you lack – land? Here I am – the land, the earth! I am the same for all of you, and for me you are all equal. It is not your strife that I need, but your friendship, your work! Throw a single grain into the furrow and I will give you back a hundred grains in return. Put a tiny rice in the ground and I will raise you a plantation. Plant a garden and I will shower you with fruit. Raise cattle, and I will be grass. Build houses, and I will be a wall. Plant yourselves, multiply, and I will be a glorious home for you all. I am infinite, I am boundless, I am deep, and I am high, I have room for you all!’ And there you are still asking, Tolgonai, whether people can live without war. That does not depend on me, that depends on you people, on your will and your mind.”

“Remember, dear earth, it is precisely your best workers, your most skilful masters, who are murdered by war. I do not agree with it, all my life I have not agreed with it! Men can and must put a stop to war.”

“Do you think then, Tolgonai, that I do not suffer from wars? Yes, I do! I suffer a lot. I long for the hands of the peasants, eternally I weep for my children, the cultivators, always I will miss Suwankul, Kassym and all the fallen soldiers. When I remain unploughed, the grain unmown and unthreshed, I call out to them: ‘Where are you, my ploughmen, where are you, my sowers? Arise, my children, my ploughmen, come and help me, I am choking, I am dying!’ How nice it would be if Suwankul then came with ketmen in hand, Kassym with his combine and Dshainak with his cart! But they give no answer…”

“Have thanks for that too, earth! So you mourn for them like I do, so you weep for them like I do. Have thanks, earth (pp. 489f.).”

*

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

This article first appeared in NRhZ 552 of 09.03.2016 and has been slightly revised.

Dr Rudolf Hänsel is a qualified psychologist and educationalist.

Notes

(1) https://de.rt.com/nordamerika/93854-liebesgruesse-nach-moskau-biden-droht/

(2) Munich-Security-Conference https://securityconference.org/

(3) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties

(4) http://www.nrhz.de/flyer/beitrag.php?id=24807
https://www.rubikon.news/artikel/zwei-weltkriege-sind-genug
https://www.globalresearch.ca/we-europeans-say-no-to-a-war-against-russia/5638772

(5) Aitmatov, Chingiz (2008). Narratives and novellas I and II. Union Publishing House Zurich

(6) Aitmatov, Chingiz (2008). Narratives-Novellas I. Gold Trail of the Sheaves. Unionsverlag Zurich, pp. 431-540. The page references in the text refer to this story.

(7) Aitmatov, Chingiz (2008). Narratives-Novellas II. Early Cranes. Unionsverlag Zurich, p. 347f.

Featured image is from InfoRos

All Global Research articles including the  E-Book can be read in 27 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

***

In 2021, the United States and its allies’ focus has shifted heavily towards the Arctic.

The Arctic region was dubbed as the next battlefield of various interests, but the situation was only rhetorically tense, for a while.

According to Scramble, the US Air Force is planning a Bomber Task Force (BTF) deployment, with four Rockwell B-1B Lancers, to Ørland (Norway) in February 2021.

The date of arrival is not yet clear, but is said to be somewhere late in week 7 or early in week 8. This means end of February.

Ørland Main Air Station (hovedflystasjon) is situated at the mouth of the Trondheimsfjorden in the municipality of Ørland, in Trøndelag county, in the centre of Norway.

The air base has a 2,714 metres (8,904 feet) runway, oriented north-west to south-east (15/33) and a ramp with four parking spots for large aircraft.

The air station is the home of 332 skvadron, operating the F-35A Lightning II. Also, a detachment of 330 skv with the Sea King Mk43B is based at this air station.

This is a rare occurrence, since US strategic bombers typically operate out of the UK, but with focus shifting on the Arctic, the closer proximity will play a significant role.

Back in September 2020, B-1B Lancers assigned to the 345th Expeditionary Bomb Squadron conducted training with the Norwegian air force.

The 16-hour sortie that crossed directly over the North Pole as part of a Bomber Task Force mission here.

The 6,100 nautical mile mission received air refueling support over the Arctic Ocean before spending several hours training with the Norwegian forces off the coast of Greenland and over the Norwegian Sea. It highlighted the U.S. Air Force’s capacity to conduct complex operations in multiple areas of responsibility with NATO allies and partners.

Col. Christopher Hawn, 345th EBS commander, said the ability to operate in the Arctic region is important in supporting U.S. European Command (EUCOM) initiatives and in fulfilling the objectives of the 2018 National Defense Strategy, which reoriented the U.S. military’s focus from the Middle East to near-peer concerns in Asia and Europe.

“It is about access,” he explained. “In a near-peer conflict, the closest point of access could require us to go through the Arctic, so we need to ensure we are well versed in that operational environment.”

Operating out of Eielson Air Force Base proved to be an invaluable training opportunity for the unit, whose home station is Dyess AFB, Texas.

“The fact that we can conduct operations at a moment’s notice from Alaska to anywhere within the EUCOM area of responsibility sends a strong message,” said Lt. Col. Andrew Marshall, 345th EBS director of operations.

Training in the Arctic has grown increasingly important, as the region holds strategic value for U.S. Air and Space Forces as well as its allies and partners. It is also vital to homeland security, as it provides avenues of approach to the U.S. from space, air, sea, and land.

“The harsh conditions and limited access throughout the region make it easy to overlook the value of the Arctic,” Marshall said. “However, the increase in global competition for access and control of the region solidifies the Arctic’s status as a key territory.”

The situation in the Arctic promises to become hotter as time goes by, it should be reminded that recently it was revealed that Russia was working on floating airfields to be used in the arctic, and it is also constructing an airfield in the region.

*

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

SUPPORT SOUTHFRONT:

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

要阅读Pepe Escobar的中文文章，请在Globalresearch.ca主页的最高横幅上单击“翻译网站”

注意：现在，通过激活主页

顶部横幅上的“翻译网站”下拉菜单，可以使用27种语言访问所有“全球研究”文章。

The virtual Davos Agenda is finally on, from Monday to Friday this week, promoted by the World Economic Forum (WEF).

No, this is not The Great Reset. At least not yet. The Agenda is the  aperitivo towards the Great Reset apotheosis at the WEF’s Special Annual Meeting, which will take place this coming spring in Singapore.

The Agenda’s theme for 2021 is “A Crucial Year to Rebuild Trust.”

Oops. Davos, we got a problem: trust is always earned, never built.

Trust, anyway, in Davos speak, must always lead towards – what else – the Great Reset, introduced here in a Tik Tok-ready clip crammed with catchy slogans such as “a new dashboard for the new economy” or “right people, right place, right time”.

The message clincher is “tune in, turn on, get involved”, borrowing shamelessly from 1960s Timothy Leary (but ditching “drop out”).

It obviously escaped the clip’s producers that their P.R. opus indirectly admits to rigged elections and blanket censorship on social media.

The Agenda’s P.R. blitz must have a hard time dismissing the predominant perception this is all about Davos Man – and Woman – losing their sleep over global wealth inequality while enthusiastically applauded by a bunch of glitterati sociopaths.

Onwards with the sessions.

Here’s your new social contract

On day one, a “Leadership Panel” examined how to restore growth, advising the public and private sectors on how to build a “new economic agenda”. Sleep-inducing platitudes were the norm.

WEF’s Agenda sessions cannot possibly address the iron imperative: the implosion of the old economic order under a Green camouflage, conducted by self-appointed, sub-Platonic sages which belong to the world’s wealthiest, will only benefit this 0.0001%.

The Great Reset is not an organic grassroots movement coordinated and benefitting the over 99%. It will lead, inevitably, to techno-feudalism, as I previously argued. Herr Schwab, the Oracle of Ravensburg and Davos supremo, insists in his writings “you will own nothing”.

A WEF graph – Top Ten Most Likely Fall Out for the World – should in fact be interpreted as The Great Reset’s ultimate targets. This is not a warning: it’s the road map ahead.

A session on advancing the new social contract neatly merged with a discussion about “stakeholder capitalism”. That’s a clever P.R. advertisement – what else – for Herr Schwab’s new book: Stakeholder Capitalism, which advances a “more sustainable, resilient and inclusive” global economy and argues for – what else – a “clearly defined social contract” which will allow “governments, business and individuals to produce the most optimal outcomes.”

So here’s how it works. You don’t earn trust: you rebuild it (italics mine). This trust metastasizes into the social contract – which is absolutely necessary for The Great Reset. Selling this new social contract is a matter of rebranding turbo-capitalism globally as “stakeholer capitalism”, or capitalism with a human face.

Not a peep about the Great Reset as a mechanism of unbridled expansion of mega-corporate power, hermetically securing/serving the 0.0001%, which are not, and will never be, suffering The Great Depression.

Stripped to the bone, that’s also one of the key themes of the Fourth Industrial Revolution: consolidating, crushing and shepherding the working class masses into the unstable gig economy, commanded by “emotionally intelligent” leaders.

The Who nailed it half a century ago: meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

A realpolitik stunner

It’s still unclear what China, Russia and Iran – the real Three Sovereigns in this Brave New World, and the key nodes of progressive Eurasia integration – will counter-propose when faced with the Great Reset.

Into this toxic mix steps in none other than President Xi Jinping, the leader of the global superpower in the making. Instead of Reset platitudes, his Davos Agenda address was quite a realpolitik stunner.

Xi stressed, “to build small circles or start a new Cold War, to reject, threaten or intimidate others, to willfully impose decoupling, supply disruptions or sanctions, and to create isolation or estrangement will only push the world into division and even confrontation (…) We cannot tackle common challenges in a divided world, and confrontation will lead us to a dead end.”

Xi might be interpreted as aligning with Herr Schwab. Not really. Xi stressed solutions to our current plight must be multilateral; but the key is how to implement them geopolitically.

It’s unclear how the new dispensation in the US – humanitarian imperialists, Dem oligarchs, Big Tech, Big Pharma, Big Media – will react to Xi’s call: “The misguided approach of antagonism and confrontation, be it in the form of a Cold War, hot war, trade war or tech war, would eventually hurt all countries’ interests (…) “Difference in itself is no cause for alarm. What is alarming are arrogance, prejudice and hatred.”

Xi emphasized a straight to the point definition of multilateralism as “having international affairs addressed through consultation and the future of the world decided by everyone working together (…) To beggar thy neighbor, to go it alone, and to slip into arrogant isolation will always fail.”

What Xi has made it crystal clear, once again, is the acute contrast between relative Asian serenity and stability and the volcanic chaos engulfing the West’s top power centers. How this intertwines – in realpolitik terms – with Her Schwab’s Brave New World will be a work in progress. For the moment, Xi has just read the Multilateral Riot Act at Davos. The whole Global South is paying attention.

This article was originally published on Asia Times.*

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

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 frequent contributor to Global Research.

Early this century Winston Churchill was voted “the greatest Briton of all time” in a nationwide British poll, which attracted more than a million votes, as he finished ahead of figures like the naturalist Charles Darwin.

It is little known, however, that Churchill had favourably viewed European fascism during the 1920s and 1930s; that is, before the expansionist policies of the fascist dictators began to affect British interests.

In October 1937, almost five years into Adolf Hitler’s dictatorship in Germany, Churchill wrote in the Evening Standard about, “The story of that struggle” regarding Hitler’s rise to power which

“cannot be read without admiration for the courage, the perseverance, and the vital force which enabled him [Hitler] to challenge, defy, conciliate or overcome, all the authority or resistances which barred his path”. (1)

Churchill refused to criticise either Hitler’s brutal suppression of those who opposed him, nor his erecting of concentration camps, which by 1934 were under the direct control of the SS.

Churchill continued that “history is replete with examples of men who have risen to power by employing stern, grim and even frightful methods” but “when their life is revealed as a whole, have been regarded as great figures whose lives have enriched the story of mankind. So may it be with Hitler”.

Less than four years later, by June of 1941, Churchill was calling Hitler over the radio “a monster of wickedness, insatiable in his lust for blood and plunder”, because as can be safely assumed, Hitler was directly challenging Britain’s diminishing empire and her financial concerns.

Stalin, Roosevelt and Churchill in Tehran. (Public Domain)

Through the 1930s Churchill had wanted to accommodate Hitler, while forming a solid alliance between Britain, France, Belgium and the Netherlands, which he hoped would deter the Third Reich from advancing westwards. Churchill suggested as much in a May 1936 letter to Violet Bonham-Carter, daughter of former British prime minister Herbert Asquith. Churchill believed there was a good chance these policies would convince the Führer to, instead, turn his military might to the east: against the Soviet Union, a state which Churchill disliked and distrusted considerably more than Nazi Germany; while he professed that “Britain and France would maintain a heavily-armed neutrality”.

The English historian John Simkin wrote, “Churchill believed that the right strategy was to try and encourage Adolf Hitler to order the invasion of the Soviet Union… He expected that Hitler would turn eastwards and attack the Soviet Union, and he proposed that Britain should stand aside while his old enemy Bolshevism was destroyed” (2). Churchill was one of the few British politicians who had read Hitler’s 1925 book ‘Mein Kampf’, in which the Nazi leader outlined bluntly his aim to conquer vast territories in the east.

Churchill was an admirer of fascist leaders like Benito Mussolini, whom he praised for having “thought of nothing but the lasting good” regarding the Italian people. While visiting Rome in January 1927 Churchill wrote to his wife, “This country gives the impression of discipline, order, goodwill, smiling faces. A happy strict school… The Fascists have been saluting in their impressive manner all over the place”. (3)

During the Spanish Civil War (1936-1939), Churchill’s support for fascism extended to General Franco’s forces, and he was firmly against the left-leaning Republican government. Churchill denounced the Republicans as “a poverty stricken and backward proletariat” that was resisting Franco’s “patriotic, religious and bourgeois forces” who were “marching to re-establish order by setting up a military dictatorship”.

David Lloyd George, a liberal and British prime minister from 1916 to 1922, felt it necessary to visit Nazi Germany in September 1936 to see Hitler. Lloyd George subsequently wrote about his meeting with the dictator in the Daily Express, and he enthused about Hitler being “a national hero who has saved his country from despondency and degradation” while he called him “the George Washington of Germany” and “a born leader of men” who possessed “a magnetic and dynamic personality”. (4)

Admiration for Hitler even came through the British Labour Party, with plaudits pouring forth from George Lansbury, the Labour leader from 1932 to 1935. Like Lloyd George, Lansbury thought it apt to go and see Hitler in the flesh, which he did in April 1937. Lansbury said later, “I think history will regard Hitler as one of the great men of our time” and it was “sheer nonsensical folly” to suggest that he wanted a European war. (5)

The Western corporate world had been enthralled at the investment potential European fascism presented, with its destruction of leftist parties, labour power and trade unions. British and American businessmen flocked at first to Mussolini’s Italy from the early 1920s, a regime that the Western powers would continue supporting, until the commencement of war.

By 1933 the human rights violations in the new Nazi Germany, growing in severity from the opening months of Hitler’s reign, were no obstacle either to Western elites. The Nazis wiped out the democratic threat in Germany, creating what was viewed as a perfect environment for big business to blossom in. Warm ties were developed between the UK’s Conservative-dominated governments and the Hitler dictatorship; particularly through the formation of Anglo-German commercial, industrial and financial relations. In the face of popular pressures in Europe, close links to Hitler’s regime allowed the British establishment a strategy of self-preservation.

On 4 July 1934, Britain’s government and the Third Reich signed the Anglo-German Trade Agreement, regarded as a cornerstone of British policy with the Nazis. Under this deal, the Germans were allowed to accumulate a considerable trade surplus with London – ensuring that Berlin could purchase commodities that would assist in building up its war machine, including the acquisition of mineral resources like rubber and copper, critical to a war industry.

In early December 1934 the influential governor of the Bank of England, Montagu Norman, advanced Hitler a £3 million loan to “facilitate the mobilisation of German commercial credits” (6). This was a nice gift which sent out another message of British support. The following year, 1935, the Anglo-German Fellowship was founded, through which large British corporations partook in, like Dunlop Rubber, Unilever and Price Waterhouse. The Anglo-German fellowship was an elitist organisation sympathetic to Nazism. Several British MPs, mostly Conservatives, joined this society such as the pro-Nazi Thomas Moore; rather revealingly, among its members too was the aforementioned Montagu Norman, Bank of England governor, and Frank Cyril Tiarks, a director at the Bank of England. The Anglo-German fellowship was forced to dissolve at the outbreak of war.

On 18 June 1935 the UK government, under its new Conservative prime minister Stanley Baldwin, concluded the Anglo-German Naval Agreement. For the time being, this ensured that Britain would retain a much larger navy than the Germans. US-born author Guido Giacomo Preparata, who has studied US-British connections to Hitler’s regime, wrote that with the payment from the Bank of England and the naval agreement secured, “Hitler won from Britain no less than her official and financial military support. The Führer was exultant”. (7)

One of Britain’s foremost arms manufacturers, Vickers-Armstrong, was selling heavy weaponry to Nazi Germany (8). Herbert Lawrence, chairman of Vickers-Armstrong and a heavily decorated English general, was asked in 1934 to give an assurance that his company was not covertly helping to re-arm the Germans. General Lawrence failed to assuage fears by replying, “I cannot give you assurance in definite terms, but I can tell you that nothing is done without the complete sanction and approval of our own government”.

By 1937, the Third Reich was providing a bigger market for British goods than which existed between any two continents on earth. At the end of the 1930s, with Hitler set to initiate another European war, Britain’s principal trading partner was Nazi Germany (9). British investment with the Germans significantly rose from 1933, an indication that corporations fare best where the democratic threat is least. This may explain why Conservative governments, usually supportive of corporate investment, had persisted in appeasing Hitler for so long, through fear of losing their most lucrative client.

Churchill was undoubtedly aware of the British-Nazi business relations, and he had been an advocate of appeasement for years. In April 1936, with Hitler’s dictatorship consolidated, Churchill requested that the League of Nations invite Nazi Germany “to state her grievances and her legitimate aspirations” so that “justice may be done and peace preserved”.

This statement came a month after Hitler had invaded the demilitarised Rhineland, in March 1936, a stark violation of the Treaty of Versailles, unjust and all that it was. Shortly afterwards, writing in an article in the Evening Standard, Churchill praised France for not “retaliating with force of arms, as the previous generation would have”, after the Wehrmacht had marched through the Rhineland without a glove laid on it (10). The Nazis would have been dealt a serious blow, had France’s much larger army reacted with force, but the French government’s response was timid. This did not seem to bother Churchill, however.

Prime minister Baldwin gave a silent nod of approval to Hitler’s march on the Rhineland. London informed Paris that they would not back them militarily over an issue of no concern to them. The British Foreign Secretary Anthony Eden said, “Hitler was only going into his own back garden”, an irresponsible attitude which dismayed France. Baldwin’s successor as British leader, Neville Chamberlain, another Conservative, would in the autumn of 1938 willingly consent to the Munich Agreement – or Munich Betrayal – which dismembered Czechoslovakia and further strengthened the Nazi position in central Europe. Chamberlain thought the prospect of conflict with Germany unnecessary over “a quarrel in a far-away country between people of whom we know nothing”.

The Conservatives’ notorious appeasement of Hitler was backed by US president Franklin Roosevelt. His close adviser Sumner Welles said that the 1938 Munich Agreement provided an opportunity to establish “a new world order based upon justice and upon law” (11), in which the moderate Hitler, then stepping up his persecution of the Jews, would play a central role.

As with their British counterparts, American corporate leaders invested large sums in the Third Reich. US Secretary of the Navy Frank Knox remarked that, in 1934 and 1935, Hitler received hundreds of state-of-the-art aircraft engines from America (12). Preceding this in 1933 the US firm, United Aircraft and Transport Corporation, reportedly signed a secret deal with German airplane manufacturer, Junkers, through which $1,775,000 worth of aircraft engines and rifles were sent to Nazi Germany. This US arms deal with Junkers was highlighted on 14 August 1947, by Krasnaya Zvezda, the official newspaper of the Soviet Ministry of Defence; whose report seems plausible but has virtually disappeared from history. (13)

Junkers would construct such military aircraft as the Junkers Ju 88, one of the Luftwaffe’s key fighter planes – while Junkers also built the feared Stuka dive-bomber, the design of which was made possible “with techniques learnt in Detroit”, as Preparata wrote, a senior lecturer in political economy and social sciences. (14)

On 16 March 1935, the day that the Wehrmacht was formally established, Hitler announced that he was introducing conscription, and bolstering the size of his land forces to over half a million men. Nazi Germany was now publicly rearming, though in secret for months she had been gradually augmenting her fighting power, with assistance coming from the US and British centres of power. In July 1934, the Conservative leader Baldwin said of Germany in the House of Commons, “she has every argument in her favour, from her defenceless position in the air, to make herself secure”.

In October 1936 the US Ambassador to Nazi Germany, William Dodd, who was previously a history professor, wrote a letter to president Roosevelt elaborating on US-Nazi business collaboration. In the letter Ambassador Dodd revealed that “more than a hundred American corporations have subsidiaries here [Nazi Germany] or cooperative understandings” (15). Dodd noted that the US chemical corporation, DuPont, has links to German companies “that are aiding in the armament business”. DuPont’s chief partner was the German chemical corporation IG Farben, which was centrally involved in strengthening the Nazi war machine. IG Farben was later implicated in slave labour practices and the Holocaust.

According to US Ambassador Dodd, the Standard Oil Company (New Jersey sub-company) sent $2 million to Nazi Germany in December 1933. Standard Oil was also making $500,000 a year in helping the Germans to produce ersatz gas, that is synthetic fuel, an important substance for war purposes. Such dealings as this, we can presume, would not have been rebuked by the US State Department. They concluded in 1937 that European fascism was suitable to American economic needs (16). As early as 1933, the US chargé d’affaires in Berlin wired to Washington that US expectations lay in “the more moderate section” of the Nazi Party “headed by Hitler himself” which appeals “to all civilized and reasonable people” and that seems to have “the upper hand” on its extreme elements. (17)

Ambassador Dodd wrote that US aircraft people had developed relations with the German steel corporation, Krupp; which, like IG Farben, ably supported the Nazi regime while Krupp played a decisive part in strengthening Hitler’s armed forces. The Krupp company was later incriminated in human rights abuses, such as pertaining to slave labour. A month after his ambassadorship in Nazi Germany ended, Dodd acknowledged in a January 1938 interview, “Certain American industrialists had a great deal to do with bringing fascist regimes into being in both Germany and Italy. They extended aid to help fascism occupy the seat of power, and they are helping to keep it there”. (18)

Moreover, the German business tycoon Gustav Krupp, owner of the company that bore his family’s name, had assisted in bringing Hitler to power in 1933 through his influence (19). Other powerful German industrialists and bankers had, likewise, performed a part in securing the chancellorship for Hitler, like the magnate Fritz Thyssen (of Thyssen AG steel company) and Hjalmar Schacht (Reichsbank president).

Image on the right: Prescott Bush (Public Domain)

Thyssen, born into one of Germany’s wealthiest families, was introduced to Hitler in 1923 by the country’s former dictator Erich Ludendorff, who persuaded the industrialist to attend a rally where Hitler was to speak. Later on, Thyssen became intimately linked with the New York-based Union Banking Corporation, managed by American banker Prescott Bush, who was also a director at this company which represented Thyssen’s US business interests. Prescott Bush was the father and grandfather of future presidents, George H. W. Bush and George W. Bush.

Prescott Bush, whose dealings with the Nazis lasted until 1942, was a shareholder at a number of other companies connected to Thyssen. Prescott Bush had links to a separate firm that was involved in Nazi slave labour, the Consolidated Silesian Steel Company (CSSC). He made substantial profits from his transactions through Thyssen, who had joined the Nazi Party in December 1931. Thyssen dispensed with hundreds of thousands of Reichsmarks to Hitler’s cause, while he encouraged other industrialists to bankroll the Nazis.

As a result of Prescott Bush’s extensive doings with Thyssen, and therefore the highest echelon of Nazi business, his name is closely linked with Hitler’s rise to power (20). The money accrued by him in these shady businesses assisted in setting up his son, George H. W. Bush, in the US oil industry from the late 1940s. Prescott Bush would become a senator by 1952.

Schacht, reinstated as Reichsbank president by Hitler and another who contributed financially to the Nazi Party, was a close friend of Montagu Norman, the long-time Bank of England governor. Norman, as stated, had in 1934 sent millions of pounds to the Nazis, and he was a godfather to one of Schacht’s grandchildren. In March and June 1939 the Bank of England, still under Norman’s guidance, helped to sell huge quantities of gold bars that the Nazis had stolen from occupied Czechoslovakia. (21)

A major US manufacturer, the International Harvester Company (IHC), was investing in Germany through selling weaponry there. In the mid-1930s IHC’s dealings with the Nazis was growing by 33% each year, as divulged by IHC president Sydney G. McAllister to Ambassador Dodd.

Other big name US multinationals were profiteering in Nazi Germany, such as Coca-Cola, which had a bottling plant in the city of Essen. Coca-Cola sold 4.5 million cases of its beverage in Germany during 1939, a massive increase from 100,000 such cases in 1933. Coca-Cola was one of the main sponsors of the 1936 Olympic Games in Berlin, an event which aided in legitimising the Nazi state on the international stage (22). In the summer of 1940, as the Germans conquered most of western and northern Europe, Coca-Cola followed along with other corporations by expanding into Nazi-occupied countries.

General Motors (GM), the world’s largest auto maker and a US multinational, fully bought up an Opel factory in the German city of Rüsselsheim in 1931. General Motors’ dealings with Germany soared from 1933 with Hitler’s takeover – and the company’s president from 1937 to 1940, William S. Knudsen, was an outspoken admirer of Hitler; in September 1938 Knudsen met in person with Hermann Goering, the Luftwaffe commander. Furthermore, a General Motors senior executive, James D. Mooney, saw Hitler on a number of occasions, including after European hostilities began in September 1939. Hitler had awarded Mooney the Order of Merit of the Eagle in August 1938 for his “distinguished service to the Reich”.

Following the D-Day Landings of early June 1944 – with American soldiers capturing their first German vehicles in Normandy, France – they were bemused to discover that many of the Wehrmacht engines were produced by General Motors, along with the mighty Ford Motor Company (23), another US transnational, and also Opel, owned by General Motors. This might not have been so surprising. The American magnate Henry Ford, founder of the Ford Motor Company and a virulent anti-Semite, was an early fan of Hitler. Ford operations in Germany recorded booming profits, from 25.8 million Reichsmarks in 1933, to 60.4 million Reichsmarks in 1939.

In July 1938 a grateful Hitler awarded Ford the Order of the German Eagle, First Class, the most prestigious decoration that could be granted to a non-German. Hitler had read Ford’s anti-Semitic writings from the early 1920s, which may have had some influence on the Nazi leader.

The powerful US multinational, International Business Machines Corporation (IBM), undertook various deals with the Nazis, under IBM chairman Thomas J. Watson, a Nazi sympathiser. Watson, one of the world’s richest men, saw Hitler at separate times and wrote in a letter to Reichsbank president Schacht outlining “an expression of my highest esteem for himself [Hitler], his country, and his people” (24). As with Ford, IBM’s ventures in Germany increased sharply after 1933, especially under IBM’s German subsidiary, Dehomag. Having made a profit of $1 million in 1933, Dehomag’s net worth in Germany almost doubled from 7.7 million Reichsmarks in 1934, to 14 million Reichsmarks by late 1938. Dehomag provided the Nazis with the punch-card machine, which was needed to automate production.

Image below: Junkers Ju 87 Ds over the Eastern Front, winter 1943–44 (CC BY-SA 3.0 de)

ITT Corporation, a big US manufacturing firm, had initially secured a 25% share with Focke-Wulf, the German aircraft producer, which would rise to 29% by 1943 – and so ITT, with its main headquarters in New York, was helping to produce military aircraft for the Luftwaffe, even after Hitler had declared war on America in late 1941. Despite Germany now being an enemy of America, ITT was also continuing to provide the Nazis with high-tech communications systems. The ITT founder, US businessman Sosthenes Behn, had met Hitler as long ago as August 1933 – while the historian, Antony C. Sutton, claimed that ITT subsidiaries in Germany funnelled cash to SS chief Heinrich Himmler.

By 1939, at World War Two’s outset, Ford and General Motors’ subsidiaries controlled a remarkable 70% of the automobile market in Germany (25). That same year the General Motors chairman, Alfred P. Sloan, was forced to defend his business operations with the Nazis, by pointing to the profits that GM were amassing there. Albert Speer, Hitler’s armaments minister from 1942 to 1945, was reported to have admitted that Germany “could not have attempted its September 1939 Blitzkrieg of Poland, without the performance-boosting additive technology provided by Alfred P. Sloan and General Motors”.

In the late 1930s/early 1940s, the Germans were manufacturing arms at more than 60 factories in the Third Reich owned by American capital (26) (27), according to Nikolay Inozemtsev, a respected Russian economist and journalist; Inozemtsev was later the director for over 15 years at the Institute of World Economy and International Relations, a leading independent research organisation based in Moscow.

The Nazi armaments program, meanwhile, was proving a boon to American corporations, a welcome remedy for unscrupulous businessmen not long after the Great Depression had first hit. A 1940 US Senate investigation revealed that American industrialists – belonging to manufacturers like Pratt & Whitney, Douglas and Bendix Aviation – were freely selling military patents to the Nazis, with the assent of Roosevelt’s government. (28)

President Roosevelt’s position had been compromised. His administration was partly made up of high-level businessmen like Edward Stettinius Jr., a former vice-president at General Motors and chairman of US Steel. Stettinius, who first met Roosevelt in the early 1930s when he was at GM, quickly rose through the ranks of government, becoming Secretary of State before war’s end.

At the time of Japan’s attack on Pearl Harbour in December 1941, US corporate investment in Nazi Germany came to an estimated $475 million. By 1942, of the Wehrmacht’s 350,000 trucks in service, around 33% of them were produced at Ford factories in the Reich (29). Between 1942 and 1944 the Ford plant in Cologne, for example, constructed about 10,000 half-tracks for the German Army (30); half-tracks consist of large armoured vehicles, equipped with a mounted machine-gun or cannon, and a half-track can hold half a dozen soldiers at a time.

Many of the Ford-built trucks and half-tracks were being used by German troops on the Eastern front, against the USSR, America’s official ally in the war. Deep-seated ties between US business and the Third Reich can hardly have escaped the Soviets’ attention, as Red Army troops captured large caches of Wehrmacht weaponry from 1942. Newspaper reports connected to the Soviet Ministry of Defence, such as the one mentioned earlier from 1947, simply confirm what the Russians already knew.

Ford previously exported partially assembled trucks to Nazi Germany, which were shipped directly from the US. Construction of these vehicles was completed at the Ford plant in Cologne, and were ready just in time for Hitler’s invasion of Czechoslovakia in March 1939. A US Army report compiled by investigator Henry Schneider, on 5 September 1945, correctly accused Ford manufacturers in Germany of being “an arsenal of Nazism, at least for military vehicles”, having acted with the “consent” of the parent Ford company at headquarters in Dearborn, Michigan. (31)

*

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

Shane Quinn obtained an honors journalism degree. He is interested in writing primarily on foreign affairs, having been inspired by authors like Noam Chomsky. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Notes

1 John Simkin, “Was Winston Churchill a supporter or opponent of Fascism? Spartacus International, September 1997 (updated January 2020)

2 Ibid.

3 Ibid.

4 Stephen J. Lee, European Dictatorships 1918-1945 (Routledge, 4th edition, 19 Feb. 2016) Chapter 5, Dictatorship in Germany

5 Oliver Kamm, “The Britons who have stood with Hitler”, The Times, 4 March 2014

6 Guido Giocomo Preparata, Conjuring Hitler: How Britain and America Made the Third Reich (Pluto Press; Illustrated edition, 20 May 2005) p. 224

7 Ibid., p. 234

8 Rob Sewell, Germany 1918-1933: Socialism or Barbarism (Wellred; Illustrated edition, 19 Oct. 2018) Chapter 1, The Rise of German Social Democracy

9 Preparata, Conjuring Hitler, p. 224

10 Simkin, Spartacus International, September 1997 (updated January 2020)

11 Noam Chomsky, Hegemony or Survival: America’s Quest for Global Dominance (Penguin, 1 Jan. 2004) p. 68

12 Preparata, Conjuring Hitler, p. 226

13 Krasnaya Zvezda, 14 August, 1947

14 Preparata, Conjuring Hitler, p. 226

15 Mark Turley, From Nuremberg to Nineveh (Vandal Publications, 27 Sep. 2008) p. 109

16 Noam Chomsky, Deterring Democracy (Vintage, New edition, 3 Jan. 2006) p. 41

17 Ibid.

18 Luiz Alberto Moniz Bandeira, The World Disorder: US Hegemony, Proxy Wars, Terrorism and Humanitarian Catastrophes (Springer; 1st ed. 2019 edition, 4 Feb. 2019) p. 19

19 Jacques R. Pauwels, “Profits über Alles! American Corporations and Hitler”, Global Research, 7 June 2019

20 Ben Aris, Duncan Campbell, “How Bush’s grandfather helped Hitler’s rise to power”, The Guardian, 25 September 2004

21 BBC, “Bank of England helped in sale of looted Nazi gold”, 31 July 2013

22 Hayley Richardson, “This is the shocking reason why Fanta was created”, The Irish Sun, 24 May 2017

23 Pauwels, Global Research, 7 June 2019 

24 Glen Yeadon, The Nazi Hydra in America: Suppressed History of a Century (Progressive Press, 17 Nov. 2008) p. 91

25 Michael Dobbs, “Ford and GM Scrutinized for Alleged Nazi Collaboration”, Washington Post, 30 November 1998

26 Nikolay Inozemtsev, Foreign Policy of the USA in the Epoch of Imperialism, p. 309, Moscow 1960

27 Soviet Life, Issues 7-12, p. 18

28 Preparata, Conjuring Hitler, p. 226

29 Yuji Nishimuta, Nazi Economy and U.S. Big Businesses – The Case of Ford Motor Co., Jstor, October 1995, p. 8 of 14

30 Ibid., p. 12 of 14

31 Dobbs, Washington Post, 30 November 1998 

All Global Research articles including the  E-Book can be read in 27 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

***

“The COVID-19 pandemic has proven an opportunity of convenience for totalitarian elements who have put individual rights and freedoms globally under siege,” said CHD chairman Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. in his letter to 100,000 lawyers.

In a letter to 100,000 lawyers, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., Children’s Health Defense (CHD) chairman and chief legal counsel, urges his fellow attorneys to read “Protecting Individual Rights in the Era of COVID-19,” a special report prepared by the CHD team.

The report explores the legal rights to informed consent, bodily integrity, the right to refuse unwanted medical interventions, religious expression and autonomy. All of these rights will be “dramatically constricted” if employers, states and/or the federal government impose vaccine mandates.

*

Dear Colleague,

The COVID-19 pandemic has proven an opportunity of convenience for totalitarian elements who have put individual rights and freedoms globally under siege. A medical cartel composed of pharmaceutical industry, government regulators, financial houses, and telecom and internet billionaires are systematically obliterating freedom of speech and assembly, religious worship, property rights, jury trial, due process, and — ultimately — America’s exemplary democracy.

That’s why I am sending you this new Special Report, “Protecting Individual Rights in the Era of COVID-19.”

As a fellow lawyer who has practiced in our country’s courts for more than 40 years, I am alarmed by the growing power of global corporations to overwhelm our justice system, obliterate our constitutional liberty, and destroy public health. Throughout my career as a litigator, law professor, public advocate and author, I have worked to hold corporate giants and government institutions accountable. My life’s work has provided me with a unique perspective on our individual rights to clean air, clean water, unobstructed access to the commons, and our rights to make our own decisions about our bodies.

As chairman and chief legal counsel for Children’s Health Defense (CHD), I have now dedicated myself to protecting children’s health by ending harmful environmental exposures to children, ending the exploding chronic disease epidemic that has debilitated over half of American kids born after 1989, and to holding those responsible accountable.

A 2006 Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) study found that 54% of America’s children today have chronic health conditions — allergies, ADHD, autism, eczema, asthma, obesity, autoimmune conditions and more. When I was growing up, most of these conditions were rare or unknown. When I was a boy, I received three vaccines. Today, children receive 72 mandated doses of 16 vaccines, prior to age 18. A mountain of peer-reviewed studies points to vaccines as the primary culprit in this public health calamity. That isn’t stopping our health authorities from mandating more hugely subsidized, shoddily tested, zero-liability vaccines for children. Our vaccine safety program falls dangerously short of what our children deserve.

The COVID-19 pandemic has allowed captive corporate regulators to hold the population hostage to justify the transfer of $45 billion of taxpayer money to pharmaceutical companies to finance a gold rush of new vaccines.

Protecting individual rights in the era of COVID-19 is essential 

I urge you to read this short legal dossier, “Protecting Individual Rights in the Era of COVID-19”, with an open mind and to draw your own conclusion about the legal and ethical implications of one-size-fits-all vaccine mandates for zero-liability, heavily subsidized mandatory vaccines.

Current vaccine mandates now require most school children to receive between 50-75 shots just to attend school. A vaccine-injured child, or adult, cannot sue the healthcare provider or the vaccine producer — but rather must go to a rigged national injury compensation program to sue the very government that ordered vaccine compliance in the first place. After studying this subject for years, I am more horrified than ever by the system’s pervasive corruption.

Given existing federal legislation and judicial precedents, it is all but impossible to hold vaccine manufacturers or healthcare providers accountable for vaccine injury in the courts. Vaccine injuries are not rare — HHS’s own studies show that the agency claims that injuries only occur with “1 in a million” vaccines is a mendacious canard. The true injury rate is actually 1 in every 39 vaccines, according to the Federal Agency for Health Research Quality.

Problems with vaccine safety aren’t isolated just to children 

Federal and State officials are considering mandates for the new COVID-19 vaccine. The New York State Bar Association, an organization for which I have great respect, has given its imprimatur to a COVID-19 vaccine mandate for all New Yorkers if “experts” deem that necessary. But those experts are mainly regulators from captured public health agencies with pervasive and corrupt financial entanglements with pharmaceutical manufacturers.

The pharma-controlled media’s advice that we “trust the experts” is anti-democratic and anti-science. You and I know that “experts” can differ on scientific questions and that their opinions can vary in accordance with and demands of politics, power, and financial self-interest. In every lawsuit, leading, highly credentialed experts from opposite sides routinely offer diametrically antithetical positions based on the same set of facts. The trouble is that today, in the political arena, dissenting voices that question government policies and corporate proclamations are silenced by censorship and vilification.

In this special report, our CHD Team explores the legal rights to informed consent, bodily integrity, the right to refuse unwanted medical interventions, religious expression and autonomy. All of these rights will be dramatically constricted if employers, states and/or the federal government impose vaccine mandates.

I hope that “Protecting Individual Rights in the Era of COVID-19” can help you work with any future clients as you navigate the uncertain COVID-19/vaccine mandates landscape.

Sincerely yours,

Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.
Chairman, Children’s Health Defense

*

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

Russian-American relations will remain just as bad under Biden as they were under Trump except for the 46th President’s desire to extend the New START for another five years as part of an implied nuclear detente with Moscow after his administration also announced that it’ll investigate Russia for alleged cyber spying, interfering in last year’s elections, poisoning anti-corruption blogged and accused US intelligence asset Navalny, and putting out bounties on American servicemen in Afghanistan.

As New York’s Whitney Museum exhibits the work of the great Mexican muralists – Rivera, Orozco and Siqueiros – this is a moment to revisit and reflect on the work of Russian-born artist Symeon Shimin. During his life, Shimin illustrated over 50 children’s books, including two that he authored himself; his masterpiece, however – influenced in part by ‘Los Tres Grandes’ – was the mural painting, “Contemporary Justice and the Child” (1936), located on the third floor of the Department of Justice, where it still stands today.

In 2019, Mercury Press International published The Art of Symeon Shimin, an exceptionally fine compilation of his work, featuring not only dozens of gorgeous, high-resolution color plates, but a short autobiography by the artist, as well as essays by noted art journalists Josef Woodard and Charles Donelan. Edited and curated by the artist’s daughter, Tonia Shimin, this book was more than 30 years in the making, and represents the first complete collection and overview of Shimin’s fine art.

While he enjoyed a long and successful career as an illustrator and commercial artist for Hollywood films (including the original, iconic poster for Gone With the Wind), Shimin never quite received the recognition that his work truly merited. Undoubtedly, this was largely due to the fact that Shimin was fundamentally a figurative and representational painter working at a time when various forms of modernism and avant-garde art, such as abstract expressionism, were ascending and gaining influence.

Mural by Symeon Shimin, Contemporary Justice and the Child, Tempera on Canvas, 1936-1940, Awarded by competition for the Public Works Arts Project, Department of Justice Building, Washington DC

The book provides exquisite reproductions of over 70 paintings, including a detailed look at the gestation and development of “Contemporary Justice and the Child.” Commissioned by the Public Works Art Project, Shimin understood that this was, as he put it, “not a slight matter” – it was the artist’s “moment of truth,” as Donelan observes, and he would choose his subject both “carefully and wisely.” Having travelled to Mexico in the 1930s, and soaked up the Mexican Mural Renaissance, Shimin was committed to seeing his work serve the cause of social justice, not only as a condemnation of child labor, but as a meditation on racial and gender equality, the social pursuit of knowledge and science, and much else besides.

Shimin arrived with his family at Ellis Island in 1912, when he was ten-years old; and growing up in Brooklyn, he learned first-hand what it meant to be exploited at an early age, delivering groceries from five in the morning until six in the evening, for three dollars a week. He sought and found refuge in music, and originally was determined to become a musician. While music would remain for Shimin a life-long passion, that ambition was quickly quashed by his parents, and his uncle, who was himself a “disillusioned composer.” It was not long after this that he discovered his gift for drawing “with fidelity to reality” – and “as if by some mystery it was revealed to me that I am an artist.”

Shimin’s experiences as a child would stay with him and inform his masterpiece, which is, on the left-hand side, about the hardship and injustice endured by countless children subjected to desperate poverty, hunger, and the soul-sapping labor of the factory. A large group of impoverished children are gathered together, drained of color, looking directly at the viewer with mixed expressions of sadness, anger, worry and hopelessness. Above them a large factory stretches endlessly into the distance, topped by three smokestacks that spew their sooty fumes into the darkening sky. In the lower left corner, a tight crawl space is occupied by two young boys, ragged, weary, and half-starved.

The centerpiece and heart of the mural is a young woman, in front of whom stands a wide-eyed boy, presumably her son, whose hands she gently holds in her own. Both figures face the viewer, as if she is offering him to us, to the world; as if she is saying, “Here he is, take him, care for him, and he will do great things.” On the right-hand side we see what some of those things are – the creative, scientific, and athletic pursuits of young men and women, black and white, working and thinking intently together, or engaged in the healthy competition of sport.

The expressivity of hands were crucially important for Shimin – and they constitute a motif running through much of his work, including his great mural. At the bottom center, a large pair of hands are not merely part of the foreground, but actually jut out, almost as if they are part of the viewer’s space, or the hands of the artist himself. One holds a drafting triangle, and the other a compass; and both are oriented towards the right, the hopeful and colorful side of Shimin’s multi-layered mural, hovering above the heads of a young man and woman who study an architectural blueprint.

Shimin was able to convey the wide array of human emotion through the hands no less than through the face of his subjects. In “Lovers” (1980), for example, the faces are almost entirely hidden, but all four hands are visible, and together they manage to carry the nearly monochrome painting and convey all the tenderness, gentleness and warmth of the man and woman. In the extraordinarily powerful “Woman with Hands at Chest” (1973-76), the two clenched fists that the subject brings together above her breast seem to reflect both the grief and determination, the sadness and strength that we find in her striking profile.

Hands figure prominently also in “The Pack” (1959), a painting which is otherwise unique in Shimin’s oeuvre. A profound meditation on violence which brings to mind Hobbes’ assertion that ‘man is a wolf to man’, “The Pack” arose out of the artist’s confrontation with a street gang “that left him injured and traumatized.” In Shimin’s blood red painting, which was shown at the Whitney Museum’s 1959 Annual Exhibition of American Art, the entangled figures appear to be metamorphosizing into hyenas and jackals. At the bottom, an arm lies outstretched on the ground, the palm facing upward, a victim presumably of street violence who now lies surrounded by the pack like a fresh kill.

Symeon Shimin’s art was chiefly concerned with using the human form to express the inner life of the individual, and the weight of existence that each of us carries. Through his portraiture, through his careful observation and representation of the human figure, he was able to find and express the intrinsic value of the human person as such. His work is imbued with a deep and abiding sympathy for the humanity of his subjects, the need we have for each other, for understanding and being understood, with all the difficulty and riskiness that this implies. Shimin always used live models because, he said, “I believe the individual characters to be more meaningful.” That unflagging devotion to the human individual, to the inherent value and dignity of the individual human being is his lasting legacy; and as long as we seek to understand and express the value and significance of human experience as such, there will be a place for artists such as Shimin.

*

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

Sam Ben-Meir is a professor of philosophy and world religions at Mercy College in New York City. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

The last remaining arms control agreement between Russia and the US expires on February 5 unless extended at the 11th hour.

Hardline Trump regime’s arms control negotiator Marshall Billingslea rejected Vladimir Putin’s good faith offer to extend it for another five years with no pre-conditions.

Russia’s chief arms control negotiator/Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov called his unacceptable demands “a nonstarter for us.”

His lack of good faith assured no extension while Trump remained in office surrounded by hardline Russophobes like him and Pompeo.

Ryabkov and other Russian officials said the Kremlin would respond appropriately if the US side let New START expire.

If Washington expands its nuclear arsenal, Russia “would be ready to counter this,” he explained.

Earlier, China’s Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Hua Chunying said the following:

“We made clear our position on multiple occasions.”

“China has no intention to take part in so-called China-US-Russia trilateral arms control negotiations. This position is clear and consistent,” adding:

“China’s nuclear power is not on the same order of magnitude as that of the US and Russia.”

New START worked well for a decade, why Russia is willing to extend it for five more years or another period of time with no pre-conditions.

Any extension would give the new US regime time to negotiate a further time frame ahead.

In early January, Biden’s national security advisor Jake Sullivan said the following:

“(R)ight out of the gate in the early days and weeks of the administration…we will have to look at extending that treaty in the interests of the United States.”

Numerous US arms control experts urged Biden to accept a five-year extension without pre-conditions straightaway in office.

Trump regime hardliners were never serious about extending the landmark agreement.

Throughout their tenure, they never negotiated in good faith — why no extension was agreed on.

Ryabkov stressed that they made unacceptable demands, showing no interest in reaching common ground.

If Russian and Biden regime negotiators reach agreement before February 5, various steps must follow under Russian law, including approval by its parliament.

Days earlier, Ryabkov said “(w)e are prepared to…do our utmost to be there in time (but) the situation is challenging.”

According to the Washington Post on Thursday, Biden seeks a five-year New START extension, citing two unnamed senior US officials.

At the same time, his regime will demand “new costs on Russia pending a newly requested intelligence assessment of its recent activities (sic).”

There’s the rub. What Biden regime hardliners say they seek may depend on Moscow’s willingness to go along with unacceptable demands that will likely leave things at stalemate as the clock runs out.

Unnamed Biden officials said “reset” with Russia is ruled out, another negative sign.

Dealmaking requires all sides to negotiate in good faith. Time and again, the US fails the test.

With about two weeks to go before New START expires, it’s uncertain at best if extending it is coming or for how long.

It won’t be Russia’s fault if the landmark agreement expires.

Another unnamed Biden official signaled where the new regime in town is going with Russia ahead.

And by extension, it appears to be its intention in dealings with all nations free from its control, saying the following:

“(W)e (will) work to hold Russia accountable for their reckless and aggressive actions (sic) that we’ve seen in recent months and years (sic).”

“Reckless and aggressive actions” reflect longstanding US policy, the same true for its imperial partners.

Russia operates by higher standards the US and partners in high crimes long ago abandoned.

The above remarks show where bilateral relations are likely going ahead — perhaps on the rocks before Biden regime officials are confirmed and settle into their new jobs.

Russia, China, Iran, Syria, Yemen, North Korea, Venezuela, Cuba, Nicaragua, and other nations unwilling to be subservient to US demands can expect no change in its hardline treatment.

On Friday, Putin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said Russia “definitely favors the preservation of New START and its extension so as to buy some more time for proper negotiations.”

As of now like always, the US side has a lot of proving to do to achieve anything positive between both countries.

Hostile remarks by senior Biden regime official concealing their identify behind a cloak of anonymity are unacceptable twice over.

In 2017, NYT public editor Liz Spayd said use of unnamed sources leaves readers “unconvinced,” adding:

The public “despise(s)” their use, including vague designations like “government official,” “congressional aide,” or “those familiar” with the issue at hand.

A letter to the editor called their use “poor journalism,” leaving readers with no way to evaluate the credibility of the source, or even it one exists.

I’ve been quoted a number of times by others. I stand by my remarks and always prefer full attribution.

Anonymity is unacceptable. Unwillingness to be identified with remarks suggests something to hide.

At the same time, exceptions to the rule exist under special circumstances, especially when the lives and livelihoods of sources are at risk from what’s revealed.

For the vast majority of what I cite or quote from the Times or other publications, the above exceptions don’t apply.

According to WaPo, Biden’s secretary of state nominee Blinken is amenable to a five-year New START extension, based on his remarks to Congress.

In contrast, neocon hardliner Victoria Nuland favors a one or two year extension of the agreement in hopes of gaining more leverage over Moscow that won’t come whatever the fate of the deal.

Russia is ready to walk away from talks if the US side continues acting in bad faith.

Other Biden/Harris regime officials are split on whether to extend New START and for how long, WaPo reported.

In response to reports of Biden moving ahead with a five-year extension if followed through on, Billingslea slammed the idea, saying it “shows stunning lack of negotiating skill.”

The above remark reflects his failure to achieve anything positive in talks with Russia on this vital issue.

Arms Control Association executive director Daryl Kimball said the following:

“There is no evidence that Russia is desperate to extend the treaty or that a shorter-term extension would make Russia more likely to negotiate a follow-on agreement,” adding:

“A straightforward five-year extension would provide the new president with an early win and positive momentum, help restore US credibility on arms control issues, and create the potential for more ambitious steps to reduce the nuclear danger and move us closer to a world without nuclear weapons.”

In the coming days, it’ll be clear whether New START will be extended for five years, a shorter period, or not at all.

As for Biden/Harris regime relations with Russia and other nations free from US control, its first few days offer no encouragement about positive domestic or geopolitical moves coming — just the opposite as expected.

*

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

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

VISIT MY WEBSITE: stephenlendman.org (Home – Stephen Lendman). Contact at [email protected].

My two Wall Street books are timely reading:

“How Wall Street Fleeces America: Privatized Banking, Government Collusion, and Class War”

https://www.claritypress.com/product/how-wall-street-fleeces-america/

“Banker Occupation: Waging Financial War on Humanity”

https://www.claritypress.com/product/banker-occupation-waging-financial-war-on-humanity/

Featured image is from OneWorld

All Global Research articles including the  E-Book can be read in 27 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

***

“This is an issue that all Democrats, Republicans, independents, Libertarians should be extremely concerned about, especially because we don’t have to guess about where this goes or how this ends. What characteristics are we looking for as we are building this profile of a potential extremist, what are we talking about? Religious extremists, are we talking about Christians, evangelical Christians, what is a religious extremist? Is it somebody who is pro-life? [The proposed legislation could create] a very dangerous undermining of our civil liberties, our freedoms in our Constitution, and a targeting of almost half of the country.”—Tulsi Gabbard, former Congresswoman

This is how it begins.

We are moving fast down that slippery slope to an authoritarian society in which the only opinions, ideas and speech expressed are the ones permitted by the government and its corporate cohorts.

In the wake of the Jan. 6 riots at the Capitol, “domestic terrorism” has become the new poster child for expanding the government’s powers at the expense of civil liberties.

Of course, “domestic terrorist” is just the latest bull’s eye phrase, to be used interchangeably with “anti-government,” “extremist” and “terrorist,” to describe anyone who might fall somewhere on a very broad spectrum of viewpoints that could be considered “dangerous.”

Watch and see: we are all about to become enemies of the state.

In a déjà vu mirroring of the legislative fall-out from 9/11, and the ensuing build-up of the security state, there is a growing demand in certain sectors for the government to be given expanded powers to root out “domestic” terrorism, the Constitution be damned.

If this is a test of Joe Biden’s worthiness to head up the American police state, he seems ready.

As part of his inaugural address, President Biden pledged to confront and defeat “a rise of political extremism, white supremacy, domestic terrorism.” Biden has also asked the Director of National Intelligence to work with the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security in carrying out a “comprehensive threat assessment” of domestic terrorism. And then to keep the parallels going, there is the proposed Domestic Terrorism Prevention Act of 2021, introduced after the Jan. 6 riots, which aims to equip the government with “the tools to identify, monitor and thwart” those who could become radicalized to violence.

Don’t blink or you’ll miss the sleight of hand.

This is the tricky part of the Deep State’s con game that keeps you focused on the shell game in front of you while your wallet is being picked clean by ruffians in your midst.

It follows the same pattern as every other convenient “crisis” used by the government as an excuse to expand its powers at the citizenry’s expense and at the expense of our freedoms.

As investigative journalist Glenn Greenwald warns:

“The last two weeks have ushered in a wave of new domestic police powers and rhetoric in the name of fighting ‘terrorism’ that are carbon copies of many of the worst excesses of the first War on Terror that began nearly twenty years ago. This New War on Terror—one that is domestic in name from the start and carries the explicit purpose of fighting ‘extremists’ and ‘domestic terrorists’ among American citizens on U.S. soil—presents the whole slew of historically familiar dangers when governments, exploiting media-generated fear and dangers, arm themselves with the power to control information, debate, opinion, activism and protests.”

Greenwald is referring to the USA Patriot Act, passed almost 20 years ago, which paved the way for the eradication of every vital safeguard against government overreach, corruption and abuse.

Source: KSLA-12.

Free speech, the right to protest, the right to challenge government wrongdoing, due process, a presumption of innocence, the right to self-defense, accountability and transparency in government, privacy, press, sovereignty, assembly, bodily integrity, representative government: all of these and more have become casualties in the government’s war on the American people, a war that has grown more pronounced since Sept. 11, 2001.

Some members of Congress get it.

In a letter opposing expansion of national security powers, a handful congressional representatives urged their colleagues not to repeat the mistakes of the past:

“While many may find comfort in increased national security powers in the wake of this attack, we must emphasize that we have been here before and we have seen where that road leads. Our history is littered with examples of initiatives sold as being necessary to fight extremism that quickly devolve into tools used for the mass violation of the human and civil rights of the American people… To expand the government’s national security powers once again at the expense of the human and civil rights of the American people would only serve to further undermine our democracy, not protect it.”

Cue the Emergency State, the government’s Machiavellian version of crisis management that justifies all manner of government tyranny in the so-called name of national security.

This is the power grab hiding in plain sight, obscured by the political machinations of the self-righteous elite. This is how the government continues to exploit crises and use them as opportunities for power grabs under the guise of national security. Indeed, this is exactly how the government added red flag gun laws, precrime surveillance, fusion centers, threat assessments, mental health assessments, involuntary confinement to its arsenal of weaponized powers.

The objective is not to make America safe again. That has never been the government’s aim.

Greenwald explains:

“Why would such new terrorism laws be needed in a country that already imprisons more of its citizens than any other country in the world as the result of a very aggressive set of criminal laws? What acts should be criminalized by new ‘domestic terrorism’ laws that are not already deemed criminal? They never say, almost certainly because—just as was true of the first set of new War on Terror laws—their real aim is to criminalize that which should not be criminalized: speech, association, protests, opposition to the new ruling coalition.”

So you see, the issue is not whether Donald Trump or Roger Stone or MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell deserve to be banned from Twitter, even if they’re believed to be spouting misinformation, hateful ideas, or fomenting discontent.

Rather, we should be asking whether any corporation or government agency or entity representing a fusion of the two should have the power to muzzle, silence, censor, regulate, control and altogether eradicate so-called “dangerous” or “extremist” ideas.

This unilateral power to muzzle free speech represents a far greater danger than any so-called right- or left-wing extremist might pose.

The ramifications are so far-reaching as to render almost every American an extremist in word, deed, thought or by association.

Yet where many go wrong is in assuming that you have to be doing something illegal or challenging the government’s authority in order to be flagged as a suspicious character, labeled an enemy of the state and locked up like a dangerous criminal.

Eventually, all you will really need to do is use certain trigger words, surf the internet, communicate using a cell phone, drive a car, stay at a hotel, purchase materials at a hardware store, take flying or boating lessons, appear suspicious, question government authority, or generally live in the United States.

The groundwork has already been laid.

The trap is set.

All that is needed is the right bait.

With the help of automated eyes and ears, a growing arsenal of high-tech software, hardware and techniques, government propaganda urging Americans to turn into spies and snitches, as well as social media and behavior sensing software, government agents have been busily spinning a sticky spider-web of threat assessments, behavioral sensing warnings, flagged “words,” and “suspicious” activity reports aimed at snaring potential enemies of the state.

It’s the American police state’s take on the dystopian terrors foreshadowed by George Orwell, Aldous Huxley and Phillip K. Dick all rolled up into one oppressive pre-crime and pre-thought crime package.

What’s more, the technocrats who run the surveillance state don’t even have to break a sweat while monitoring what you say, what you read, what you write, where you go, how much you spend, whom you support, and with whom you communicate. Computers by way of AI (artificial intelligence) now do the tedious work of trolling social media, the internet, text messages and phone calls for potentially anti-government remarks, all of which is carefully recorded, documented, and stored to be used against you someday at a time and place of the government’s choosing.

For instance, police in major American cities have been using predictive policing technology that allows them to identify individuals—or groups of individuals—most likely to commit a crime in a given community. Those individuals are then put on notice that their movements and activities will be closely monitored and any criminal activity (by them or their associates) will result in harsh penalties.

In other words, the burden of proof is reversed: you are guilty before you are given any chance to prove you are innocent.

Dig beneath the surface of this kind of surveillance/police state, however, and you will find that the real purpose of pre-crime is not safety but control.

Red flag gun laws merely push us that much closer towards a suspect society where everyone is potentially guilty of some crime or another and must be preemptively rendered harmless.

This is the same government that has a growing list—shared with fusion centers and law enforcement agencies—of ideologies, behaviors, affiliations and other characteristics that could flag someone as suspicious and result in their being labeled potential enemies of the state.

For instance, if you believe in and exercise your rights under the Constitution (namely, your right to speak freely, worship freely, associate with like-minded individuals who share your political views, criticize the government, own a weapon, demand a warrant before being questioned or searched, or any other activity viewed as potentially anti-government, racist, bigoted, anarchic or sovereign), you could be at the top of the government’s terrorism watch list.

Moreover, as a New York Times editorial warns, you may be an anti-government extremist (a.k.a. domestic terrorist) in the eyes of the police if you are afraid that the government is plotting to confiscate your firearms, if you believe the economy is about to collapse and the government will soon declare martial law, or if you display an unusual number of political and/or ideological bumper stickers on your car.

According to one FBI latest report, you might also be classified as a domestic terrorism threat if you espouse conspiracy theories, especially if you “attempt to explain events or circumstances as the result of a group of actors working in secret to benefit themselves at the expense of others” and are “usually at odds with official or prevailing explanations of events.”

Additionally, according to Michael C. McGarrity, the FBI’s assistant director of the counterterrorism division, the bureau now “classifies domestic terrorism threats into four main categories: racially motivated violent extremism, anti-government/anti-authority extremism, animal rights/environmental extremism, and abortion extremism.”

In other words, if you dare to subscribe to any views that are contrary to the government’s, you may well be suspected of being a domestic terrorist and treated accordingly.

Again, where many Americans go wrong is in naively assuming that you have to be doing something illegal or harmful in order to be flagged and targeted for some form of intervention or detention.

In fact, U.S. police agencies have been working to identify and manage potential extremist “threats,” violent or otherwise, before they can become actual threats for some time now.

In much the same way that the USA Patriot Act was used as a front to advance the surveillance state, allowing the government to establish a far-reaching domestic spying program that turned every American citizen into a criminal suspect, the government’s anti-extremism program renders otherwise lawful, nonviolent activities as potentially extremist.

In fact, all you need to do these days to end up on a government watch list or be subjected to heightened scrutiny is use certain trigger words (like cloud, pork and pirates), surf the internet, communicate using a cell phone, limp or stutter, drive a car, stay at a hotel, attend a political rally, express yourself on social media, appear mentally ill, serve in the military, disagree with a law enforcement official, call in sick to work, purchase materials at a hardware store, take flying or boating lessons, appear suspicious, appear confused or nervous, fidget or whistle or smell bad, be seen in public waving a toy gun or anything remotely resembling a gun (such as a water nozzle or a remote control or a walking cane), stare at a police officer, question government authority, or appear to be pro-gun or pro-freedom.

Be warned: once you get on such a government watch list—whether it’s a terrorist watch list, a mental health watch list, a dissident watch list, or a red flag gun watch list—there’s no clear-cut way to get off, whether or not you should actually be on there.

You will be tracked wherever you go.

You will be flagged as a potential threat and dealt with accordingly.

This is pre-crime on an ideological scale and it’s been a long time coming.

The government has been building its pre-crime, surveillance network in concert with fusion centers (of which there are 78 nationwide, with partners in the corporate sector and globally), data collection agencies, behavioral scientists, corporations, social media, and community organizers and by relying on cutting-edge technology for surveillance, facial recognition, predictive policing, biometrics, and behavioral epigenetics (in which life experiences alter one’s genetic makeup).

If you’re not scared yet, you should be.

Connect the dots.

Start with the powers amassed by the government under the USA Patriot Act, note the government’s ever-broadening definition of what it considers to be an “extremist,” then add in the government’s detention powers under NDAA, the National Security Agency’s far-reaching surveillance networks, and fusion centers that collect and share surveillance data between local, state and federal police agencies.

To that, add tens of thousands of armed, surveillance drones and balloons that are beginning to blanket American skies, facial recognition technology that will identify and track you wherever you go and whatever you do. And then to complete the picture, toss in the real-time crime centers being deployed in cities across the country, which will be attempting to “predict” crimes and identify so-called criminals before they happen based on widespread surveillance, complex mathematical algorithms and prognostication programs.

Hopefully you’re starting to understand how easy we’ve made it for the government to identify, label, target, defuse and detain anyone it views as a potential threat for a variety of reasons that run the gamut from mental illness to having a military background to challenging its authority to just being on the government’s list of persona non grata.

There’s always a price to pay for standing up to the powers-that-be.

Yet as I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, you don’t even have to be a dissident to get flagged by the government for surveillance, censorship and detention.

All you really need to be is a citizen of the American police state.

*

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

This article was originally published on The Rutherford Institute.

Constitutional attorney and author John W. Whitehead is founder and president of The Rutherford Institute. His new book Battlefield America: The War on the American People  is available at www.amazon.com. Whitehead can be contacted at [email protected].

Featured image: Storming of the US Capitol on 6 January 2021 (TapTheForwardAssist/Wikimedia Commons)

All Global Research articles including the  E-Book can be read in 27 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

***

Sixty years ago, John F Kennedy (JFK) was inaugurated as president of the USA. In less than three years, before he was assassinated in November 1963, he initiated major changes in foreign policy.

These foreign policy changes are documented in books such as “JFK and the Unspeakable” (2008) and “Betting on the Africans” (2012). One of the foremost scholars on JFK, James Di Eugenio, has an excellent new article of the Kennedy foreign policy at Covert Action: “Deconstructing JFK: A Coup d’Etat over Foreign Policy?”. Despite this literature, many people in the West do not realize the extent to which JFK was an exception. This article will briefly review some of the actions he took while alive, and what happened after he was gone.

While JFK was a staunch advocate for capitalism and the “free world”, in competition with the Soviet Union and communism, he promoted acceptance of non-aligned countries and supported nationalist movements in Africa, the Middle East and Third World generally.  In the summer before he was killed, he reached out to the Soviet Union and proposed sweeping changes to promote peace and prevent war.

The previous Eisenhower administration was hostile to post WW2 nationalist movements in Africa, Asia, and the Middle East. In 1953 the CIA supervised the overthrow of Iran’s elected government. They supported the Saudi monarch and undermined the popular Egyptian Nasser. In contrast, Kennedy was sympathetic to the “winds of change” in Africa and beyond. He criticized France’s repression of the Algerian independence movement and was sympathetic to Patrice Lumumba leading the Congo’s independence from Belgium. Kennedy worked with UN Secretary General Dag Hammarskjold to preserve Congo’s independence and try to restore Lumumba to power. The CIA managed to have Patrice Lumumba executed three days before Kennedy’s inauguration.

Under Kennedy, the United States started voting against the European colonial powers in Africa. Kennedy provided tangible aid to Nasser in Egypt. After Kennedy’s death, the US policy returned to support for European powers and CIA intervention. The US supported NATO ally Portugal in its wars in Angola, Mozambique, and Guinea Bissau. The US supported secessionist and tribal forces in the Congo, Angola, Somalia, and many other countries with hugely damaging results. The US supported apartheid South Africa until the end. The US supported the sectarian Muslim Brotherhood against Nasser.

This was also a critical time for Israel Palestine. JFK was more objective and balanced that most US politicians. Just 22 years old in 1939, Kennedy visited Palestine and wrote his observations / analysis in a 4 page letter to his father. He is thoughtful and recognizes the Palestinian perspective. He speaks of the “unfortunately arrogant, uncompromising attitude” of some Jewish leaders. In May 2019, more documents were released from the National Security Archives. They show that JFK, as president, was intent on stopping Israel from surreptitiously building a nuclear weapon. In a letter to the new Israeli Prime Minister Eshkol, Kennedy gives a diplomatic ultimatum that US support of Israel will be “seriously jeopardized” if Israel did not comply with inspection visits to the Israel’s nuclear facility at Dimona. After JFK’s death, the Johnson administration was submissive to Israel and pro-Israel supporters. Johnson showed the ultimate political subservience by preventing the rescue and hiding Israeli treachery regarding the USS Liberty. The Israeli attack killed 34 and injured 172 US sailors. Would Israel have had the arrogance and chutzpah to do this if Kennedy had been in the White House? Unlikely.

The invasion of Cuba at the Bay of Pigs took place just three months after Kennedy took office. The CIA and generals expected Kennedy to provide US air support for the anti-Castro attackers. Kennedy said no and resolved to get rid of the long-standing CIA Director who had managed the operation. Allen Dulles and two Deputy Directors were forced to resign by the end of the year. The Pentagon, CIA and anti-Castro Cubans were furious at JFK. When the Soviet Union sent nuclear capable missiles to Cuba, the hawks demanded that the US attack. Kennedy opposed this and ended up negotiating an agreement whereby the US removed its nuclear missiles in Turkey as Soviet nuclear missiles were removed from Cuba.

Indonesia is the most populous Muslim country with vast natural resources and strategic location. President Sukarno led the country to independence and was a leader in the global Non-Aligned Movement seeking a middle ground between the poles of the USA and Soviet Union. The Eisenhower/Dulles administration tried to overthrow Sukarno. In contrast, JFK changed the policy from hostility to friendship. Sukarno invited JFK to visit the country and the invitation was accepted. Following JFK’s assassination, the policy returned to hostility and just two years later, in 1965, the US engineered a coup leading to the murder of about half a million Indonesian citizens suspected of being communist.

JFK visited Vietnam in 1951 as the French colonial powers were trying to assert their control. He saw the situation as 400,000 French soldiers were losing to the Vietnamese nationalist movement. Thus, when he became president, he was skeptical of the prospects. President Kennedy authorized an increase of US military advisers but never sent combat troops. As the situation deteriorated, JFK finally decided the policy was wrong. In October 1963 Kennedy issued National Security Action Memorandum 263 directing US withdrawal to begin in December and be completed by the end of 1965. After JFK’s death, President Johnson reversed course and began sending massive numbers of US soldiers to Vietnam. Twelve years later, after 58,000 American and about two million Vietnamese deaths, the US military departed Vietnam.

The Soviet Union was the largest communist country and primary challenger to the US and capitalist system. The Cold War included mutual recriminations and a huge amount of military spending as both sides designed and produced ever more hydrogen bombs, air and sea delivery systems. During the Cuba crisis, Kennedy and Soviet Premier Khruschev both realized how dangerous the situation was. Nuclear war could have accidentally or intentionally begun. In June1963, JFK delivered the commencement address at American University. It was probably his most important speech yet is little known. JFK called for a dramatic change in US posture, from confrontation to mutual acceptance. He called for re-examination of US attitudes toward peace, the Soviet Union, the Cold War and peace and freedom within the USA itself. He called for a special communication line between Washington and Moscow to allow direct communications between the two leaders. And then Kennedy declared that the US would end nuclear testing as a first step toward general and complete disarmament.

In the last months before his death, JFK opened secret communications with Soviet Premier Khruschev and used a journalist to communicate directly with Fidel Castro. JFK proposed face-to-face talks aimed at reconciliation with Cuba.

Kennedy’s initiatives toward reconciliation and peace were opposed by the CIA and militarist elements in the government. As reported in the NY Times, Kennedy privately told one of his highest officials he “wanted to splinter the CIA in a thousand pieces and scatter it to the winds”. Before that could happen, JFK was assassinated, and his policy changes reversed.

From Moscow to Cairo to Jakarta, Kennedy’s death was met with shock and mourning. Leaders in those countries sensed what the assassination meant.

The day after JFK’s funeral, President Johnson supplanted Kennedy’s planned withdrawal from Viet Nam with National Security Action Memorandum 273. This resulted in 12 years of aggression and bloodshed in southeast Asia. Coups were carried out in the Dominican Republic and Indonesia. US resumed support for South African apartheid and Portuguese colonial wars. Assassination attempts on Fidel Castro escalated while military coups took place in numerous Latin American countries. In the Middle East, the US solidified support for Israel and Saudi Arabia.

The author of “JFK and the Unspeakable”, Jim Douglas, writes “President Kennedy’s courageous turn from global war to a strategy of peace provides the why of his assassination. Because he turned toward peace with our enemies, the Communists, he found himself at odds with his own national security state.”

*

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

Rick Sterling is a journalist based in the SF Bay Area. He can be reached at [email protected]

All Global Research articles including the  E-Book can be read in 27 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

***

Industry would have us believe that pesticides help sustain food production—a necessary chemical trade-off for keeping harmful bugs at bay and ensuring we have enough to eat. But the data often tell a different story—particularly in the case of neonicotinoid pesticides, also known as neonics.

Despite being the most widely used family of pesticides in the United States, research has shown that the largest uses of these neurotoxic chemicals do little to nothing to help crop yields or farmers’ bottom lines.

If we look closer, it’s easy to see why: The vast majority of neonics are applied as coatings on seeds for crops like corn, soybean, and wheat—where they are most often used indiscriminately, rather than in response to specific pest problems. For many conventional seed varieties, farmers have no choice but to buy neonics-treated seeds, thanks to the near monopolies enjoyed by agrochemical giants, which manufacture both the seeds and the pesticides.

The result? Tens to hundreds of millions of acres are needlessly sown with bee-toxic seeds. And while these wasteful practices may spell good news for the profit margins of chemical manufacturers—to the tune of more than $3 billion per year—they are catastrophic news for the surrounding ecosystems.

That’s because neonics are pervasive ecosystem contaminants. When coated on seeds, they’re absorbed “systemically” as plants grow—up through the roots and into the nectar, pollen, and fruit itself—which then get eaten by other wildlife. What doesn’t make it into the plant (usually more than 95 percent of the toxic seed coating) leaches out into the soil, where it can travel long distances, carried by rain and agricultural runoff into new soil, plants, and water supplies. Once in the ground, neonics are long-lived—building up in the soil over time and continuing to harm or kill bugs and other wildlife for years after application.

Unsurprisingly, our agricultural system is now 48 times more harmful to insect life than it was just two decades ago, with neonics accounting for more than 90 percent of that increase. That’s why it’s also no surprise that neonics have been recognized as a primary cause of the massive losses of U.S. honey bee colonies every year—the unfortunate new normal. Neonics are also linked to mass die-offs of native bees, birds, fish, and harm to other important insects and earthworms, which keep our soil healthy and nutrient-dense.

This contamination poses a clear ecological crisis but it’s also a crisis for how we eat.

In a recent study out of Rutgers University, researchers looked at seven different crops in 131 commercially managed fields across North America to see how many crops were “pollinator-limited”—i.e., crops whose yields would be higher were there more pollinators.

Distressingly, five out of every seven crops they analyzed were pollinator-limited—including favorites like apples, cherries, and blueberries. “Honeybee colonies are weaker than they used to be and wild bees are declining, probably by a lot,” said the paper’s senior author, Rachael Winfree. “Fewer bees, in turn, mean less food, and more pressure on struggling honeybee populations to replace pollination from native bees.”

As Winfree notes, this reliance on a single species is risky, “setting us up for food security problems.” Worse yet, the study shows the likely impact of neonics on our food supply isn’t decades away; it’s already happening right now.

For the present, industries can use stopgap solutions—like breeding and shipping out more honeybees to make up for lost colonies—but these strategies may ultimately fail if we don’t address the source of the vast and wasteful neonic contamination.

Looking into the future, low yields may mean that some of our favorite foods become far pricier or unavailable entirely—an outcome with high human and economic costs.

In the United States, the production of crops that rely on pollination is valued at more than $50 billion annually. Indeed, one in every three bites of food is reliant on pollinators. Food workers—an umbrella term for a behemoth industry that includes everyone from farm workers to restaurant cooks and servers to grocery store clerks—could experience increased job disruptions, too, should the markets for these foods become upended.

Recently, a group of local New York chefs—recognizing their reliance on bees and an abundant and diverse food supply to keep restaurants open, workers employed, and their food healthy and delicious—asked state legislators to rein in wasteful neonic use statewide.

Faced with rising food costs, more families may also struggle to put food on the table. Already, more than 10.5 percent of all U.S. families—or more than 35 million Americans—experienced food insecurity at some point in 2019. During the COVID-19 crisis, that number has ballooned. For those unsure where their next meal may come from, even moderate increases in food costs are felt acutely. Potentially significant changes to food costs or availability—particularly for our most nutrient-dense produce—would likely hit low-income families hardest.

The stakes are high, but the solution is simple: We must rein in needless neonic use that threatens our food supply and contaminates our land and water on a vast scale.

In the same turn, we must also support regenerative agriculture practices, which eliminate the need for synthetic pesticides like neonics. A more just and sustainable food system that protects workers, consumers, and the wild world also protects our food security—it’s what we need and it’s within reach.

*

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

Daniel Raichel is a Staff Attorney, Pollinator Initiative, Wildlife Division, Nature Program

Featured image is from Alamy

All Global Research articles including the  E-Book can be read in 27 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).  Vease el texto de Arnold en Español.  

***

As the Canadian Parliament is about to start its next session on January 25, on January 22, Don Davies, Member of Parliament for Vancouver Kingsway (British Colombia), New Democratic Party (NDP) Health Critic tweeted: “In his last days, Donald Trump declared Cuba a “state sponsor of terrorism” without a shred of evidence. This makes a mockery of the concept and was driven by a President who was actually spurring terrorism in his own country. President Biden should reverse this travesty at once.”

The New Democratic Party (NDP) Member of Parliament for Hamilton Centre (Ontario), Matthew Green retweeted by adding: “I stand alongside my colleague and comrade @DonDavies in solidarity with Cuba.”

Background: From Reagan to Obama to Trump/Pompeo

The State Sponsor of Terrorism (SST) list was created in 1979 as part of the Export Administration Act, and according to the Washington Post, was a legal clause intended to give the Executive Branch the ability to restrict exports, arms transfers, and other commercial transactions. On March 1, 1982, the Reagan administration formally added Cuba to the list. No clear rationale was given at the time.

The 1979 SST list was created as part of existing legislation of providing it with a legal clause intended to give, let us emphasize, the Executive Branch, not the Congress, the ability to restrict exports, arms transfers, and other commercial transactions to certain countries.

On December 17, 2014 simultaneous statements were made by Raúl Castro and Barack Obama with a view to reopening embassies in the respective capitals and re-establishing diplomatic relations. However, the Cuban side insisted that it be removed from the SST list. On April 17, 2014, Obama said: “I’ve instructed Secretary Kerry to review Cuba’s designation as a State Sponsor of Terrorism. This review will be guided by the facts and the law.”

By following this formal procedure, Obama did order a review of Cuba’s presence on the list, making it part of his major policy shift announced on December 17. On April 14, 2015, the State Department reported that Obama notified the US Congress of his intent to remove Cuba from the list. The Congress had 45 days to object, which they neglected to do. In May 2015, Cuba was therefore removed and no longer a state sponsor of terrorism. Just weeks before, diplomats had met in Washington, but failed to come to an agreement about opening embassies. This was solved by removing Cuba from the SST.

Moving on to January 11, 2021, just nine days before the end of the Trump administration, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo issued a State Department directive stating that it “has designated Cuba as a State Sponsor of Terrorism.”  Note, there is not even a pretence to have followed the formal procedure, as Obama had done, to remove Cuba from that spurious list.

In anticipation of the expected announcement about the SST that was circulating in Washington, on Friday January 8, 2021, Patrick Leahy (Democrat ,Vermont) and eight other Senators issued a statement indicating that Cuba should be removed and that Pompeo had designated Cuba without formal consultation and review by Congress.”

Thus, we see that Pompeo did not listen to the senators. He did not carry out any formal consultation and review by Congress.

Why wait when Cuba is being bled – again?

It seems to be an open and shut case as far as procedure is concerned. If Pompeo could unilaterally redesignate Cuba as a member of the SST list, then the Biden administration and Secretary of State Antony Blinken could do the same. As far as political motivations are concerned, everything points to swift action being taken by Biden, as he was himself Obama’s vice president when Cuba was taken off the list. Furthermore, the Democrats control both houses.

However, as mentioned in a previous article, some Obama/Biden apologists seem to be providing a pretext for Biden not to move. For example, CNN’s Fareed Zakaria, an Obama presidential endorser for 2008, and informally since then, reaching a climax for the 2020 elections in the wide anti-Trump coalition. In a barely veiled suggestion, he warned on his CNN program that it would be “awkward” for Biden to take Cuba off the list because this would play into the hands of Trump and Pompeo who would accuse Biden “that they are somehow in league with terrorists.”

Whether for the attention of Biden or CNN, one has to keep in mind that Pompeo mentions in the very second sentence of his SST designation on Cuba: “The Trump Administration has been focused from the start on denying the Castro regime the resources it uses to oppress its people at home, and countering its malign interference in Venezuela and the rest of the Western Hemisphere.” Regime change for Venezuela is a bipartisan program in Washington. Another reason for the Democrats to be stalling?

However, what is more worrisome was revealed in Antony Blinken’s Senate confirmation hearing as Secretary of State on January 19, 2021. Throughout the four-hour meeting, hard-line anti-Cuba right-wingers Robert Menendez (Democratic), Marco Rubio (Republican) and other Republicans, also participated. Yet, neither the Republicans nor Blinken said anything about Cuba and SST. Strange?

The only explanation is the following. The Republicans, Democrats and Blinken in the Senate have agreed on Venezuela and all other issues such as Israel, Iran, China, Russia and even non-SST-related issues related to Cuba. However, by quietly leaving the Cuba SST controversy out of the conversation, they achieved consensus on the Biden team’s foreign policy. In other words, with overt or hidden consensus of the Republicans and Democrats, Blinken threw Cuba under the bus by not raising the Cuba SST issue. Republicans would give Blinken a pass on his confirmation as Secretary of State. Quid pro quo?  In effect, on January 26, the Senate voted overwhelming in favour of Blinken by a vote of 78 to 22, with many Republicans voting in favour of him.

What does this say to Canadian deputies, members of the US Congress, and all of us together, with both governments and social organizations all over the world demanding that Cuba be taken off the list right away? Given what seems to be underhanded tactics, this is another reason to put the pressure on our respective governments to raise their voices so that Biden moves now.

At the same time, what Cuba-US expert, Peter Kornblue writes in The Nation has also to be taken into account:

“Although Biden can reverse many of Trump’s executive directives with a stroke of a pen, removing Cuba from the SST list requires a series of time-consuming, statutory steps: a formal State Department review; a presidential certification to Congress, and a 45-day waiting period during which Congress can object before Cuba can be, once again, rescinded.”

However, why give up on the demand that “what is good for the goose, is good for the gander”? If Pompeo can punish Cuba with the stroke of a pen, why cannot Biden undo it with a flick of the wrist? The addition of Cuba to that list has far-reaching effects on the economy and day-to-day life of Cubans. They and their government are already under the cruellest of stresses based on the 240 blockade measures implemented by the Trump administration in the last four years. Speaking to some Cuban colleagues over the phone, they fear far-reaching effects on trade and commerce as to what little is left of US trade with Cuba, access to the International Monetary Fund and other such institutions, as well as with other countries. Just to provide one example, it was explained that Cuba is currently carrying out about 12,000 tests per day to detect and trace Covid-19. This requires funding, which will be more difficult to obtain under the SST.

This is no times for niceties of formal procedure when it can be avoided. And it can. If Biden does not move now, he will be asked: what about that “historical struggle” against the Trump/Pompeo “fascist administration”?

*

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

This article was originally published on The Canada Files.

Arnold August is a Montreal-based author and journalist whose articles are published in web sites across North America, Latin America, Europe and the Middle East in English, Spanish and French. He is a Fellow at the Canadian Foreign Policy Institute.

All Global Research articles including the  E-Book can be read in 27 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

***

A court in France on Monday heard a case brought by a French-Vietnamese woman against over a dozen multinational corporations she accuses of causing grievous harm by selling the defoliant Agent Orange to the United States government, whose use of the deadly chemical during the Vietnam War has killed, maimed, or seriously sickened hundreds of thousands of people to this day. 

Agence France-Presse reports the suit was brought by Tran To Nga, 78, an activist and journalist who was working in Vietnam when she was exposed to Agent Orange. Tran suffers from diabetes and a blood disorder she transmitted to her second daughter; her first daughter died of a heart defect when she was 17 months old. Tran also contracted tuberculosis twice, had cancer, and suffers from an extremely rare insulin allergy.

Initially, Tran blamed herself for the afflictions that have plagued her and her children.

“I asked myself, what have I done to transmit this incurable disease to my children?” she said in a 2015 France 24 interview.

“Now I know that I am not at fault,” she said. “We can identify the culprit of my children’s illnesses… It’s these dioxins.”

In 2014, Tran sued 14 companies that made or sold Agent Orange, including Monsanto—now owned by the German firm Bayer—and Dow Chemical for their roles in selling the chemical to the U.S. government.

#JusticePourTranToNga et toutes les victimes de l’Agent Orange-dioxine. Depuis 45 ans, ni le gouvernement américain, ni les fabricants de l’Agent Orange-dioxine n’ont reconnu leur responsabilité vis-à-vis des victimes vietnamiennes. Un procès historique.https://t.co/pDHrNLSCrO

— LDH France (@LDH_Fr) January 25, 2021

Agent Orange contains TCDD dioxin, a known carcinogen and one of the most toxic chemicals ever invented. In addition to numerous cancers, research has shown that Agent Orange exposure causes severe birth defects, diabetes, spina bifida, cardiovascular, digestive, neurological, respiratory, skin, and other ailments.

The U.S. government knew about the dangers of Agent Orange when the John F. Kennedy administration approved Operation Ranch Hand (pdf) in 1961 as part of a growing counterinsurgency operation in Vietnam.

“When we initiated the herbicide program in the 1960s, we were aware of the potential for damage due to dioxin contamination in the herbicide,” Dr. James R. Clary, a former senior scientist at the Chemical Weapons Branch of the U.S. Air Force Armaments Development Laboratory, later admitted.

“We were even aware that the military formulation had a higher dioxin concentration than the civilian version due to the lower cost and speed of manufacture,” added Clary. “However, because the material was to be used on the enemy, none of us were overly concerned.”

The communist Viet Cong insurgency against the oppressive U.S.-backed Ngo Dinh Diem dictatorship was proving more difficult to defeat than anticipated by U.S. planners, who sought novel ways to combat the resistance. In a bid to deny fighters the cover provided by the dense jungle foliage, the U.S. sprayed an estimated 76 million liters (20 million gallons) of Agent Orange over Vietnamese, Laotian, and Cambodian rainforests.

Agent Orange was also sprayed over farmland, as U.S. planners sought to eradicate the crops that were feeding Viet Cong and North Vietnamese fighters, their families, and supporters.

The effects on the people of Vietnam have been devastating. As many as 4.8 million Vietnamese were exposed, with the country’s government claiming 400,000 deaths and millions of cancer cases caused by the decadelong spraying. More than 50,000 babies over three generations have suffered severe birth defects, which will continue to affect future generations.

Soil and water contamination due to Agent Orange continue to sicken and kill to this day. Around 800,000 Vietnamese currently require medical and other assistance due to the lingering effects of exposure.

Tens of thousands of U.S., South Vietnamese, South Korean, and Australian troops were also exposed to Agent Orange, which has caused serious health problems for many of them, and some of their children.

While U.S. victims of Agent Orange were awarded $180 million in a class-action lawsuit in 1984, nearly all attempts by the people of Vietnam to gain desperately needed direct compensation have been rejected by the U.S. government and American courts.

This, despite a U.S. promise as part of the 1973 Paris Peace Agreement to pay $3.25 billion over a five-year period, plus an additional $1.5 billion, in reparations to Vietnam. Not a penny was paid.

Vietnamese also watched with great interest as Monsanto was ordered to pay $289 million in damages to an American man who said that its Roundup weed killer caused his cancer.

Since 2007, the U.S. Congress has appropriated (pdf) nearly $60 million for dioxin cleanup and related healthcare services in Vietnam as relations between Washington and Hanoi have improved, but victims’ advocates say this is nowhere near enough, as some 6,000 children are diagnosed with congenital deformities each year due to Agent Orange.

Tran says her lawsuit is meant for these and other victims who have been denied relief over the decades.

“I’m not fighting for myself, but for my children and the millions of victims,” she told AFP.

Vietnam is not the only place the U.S. has used toxic weapons in recent decades. The firing of depleted uranium rounds in Iraq during the 1991 Gulf War, the 1999 NATO air war against Yugoslavia, and during 2003-2011 Iraq War have been blamed for a rise in birth defects and other often deadly ailments.

From Common Dreams: Our work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. Feel free to republish and share widely.

*

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