On the morning of December 30th, warplanes of the Israeli Air Force once again carried out strikes on alleged Iranian targets in the countryside of Damascus. According to reports one person was killed and 3 others injured in the attack.

Earlier, an unidentified, unmanned aerial vehicle struck several oil tanks near the village of al-Hamran, which is located north of the town of Manbij in northern Syria. The village is situated on the contact line between territories controlled by Turkish-backed forces and the Kurdish-dominated Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF).

According to local sources, the oil tankers belonged to SDF-linked oil smugglers, who were selling oil looted from the US-controlled oil fields on the eastern bank of the Euphrates to Turkish-linked entities. This oil smuggling business sheds light on the real face of the Kurdish SDF leadership, which likes to make loud statements about its alleged patriotism and its plans to expel the Turkish Army from northern Syria.

In Idlib, three Russian service members received minor injuries as a result of an ATGM strike on their armoured vehicle, the Russian Defense Ministry reported on December 29. The report said that an armored personnel carrier of the Russian Military Police came under attack from the territory controlled by Turkish-backed militants. Russian forces, in cooperation with the Turkish military and Syrian security forces, are looking for those involved.

These developments came as the Turkish Armed Forces were working to evacuate their observation point near the town of Tell Touqan. This was one of their last remaining points within the territories, which have been liberated by the Syrian Army.

Over the past months, Turkey has withdrawn a group of its posts, which had been besieged by Syrian troops. In light of this, the recent increase in attacks by Turkish proxies along the contact line may be a part of the Turkish game aimed at demonstrating that any decrease of the Turkish military presence in Greater Idlib would lead to the deterioration of the security situation there.

*

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

Since COVID-19 was declared a pandemic, families have been separated, businesses have been shuttered and schools have been closed down. Many people are living their lives shrouded in fear of Sars-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19 — a direct response to media coverage and health officials’ claims of its dire associated risks.

Understanding the real risks, and being able to make choices on how to live your life in response to them, is only possible, however, if you have real facts, like how many have died from the virus and what the death rate actually is. Is it a lethal virus that warrants lockdowns and panic, or is it one more akin to influenza, which can indeed be deadly but, in most cases, is not?

Early on during the pandemic, COVID-19 infection mortality rate claims varied from 2.7% to 7%, with most being in the 4% range. But according to some experts, the actual infection mortality rate may be much lower, ranging from 0.05% to 1%, with a median of about 0.25%.¹

The number of COVID-19 deaths may also be skewed, as health officials may count deaths from unrelated causes — even gunshots and motorcycle accidents — as COVID-19 deaths if the person had the virus within the last 30 days.²

Are COVID-19 Deaths Being Inflated?

In Grand County, Colorado, five COVID-19 deaths were reported, but according to coroner Brenda Bock, two of them were actually deaths from gunshot wounds. Speaking to CBS4 News, Bock spoke out against the misleading classifications, as the deaths from gunshot wounds were counted as COVID-19 deaths because the victims had tested positive within 30 days.

The distinction comes down to some tricky working: deaths “among” COVID-19 cases and deaths “due to” COVID-19. Someone who died with COVID-19 may be counted as a death among COVID-19 cases, even if the virus had nothing to do with their death. When a death is said to be “due to” COVID-19, this is intended when COVID-19 caused or significantly contributed to the death.

According to the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, even deaths among COVID-19 cases must be reported to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC):

“This information is required by the CDC and is crucial for public health surveillance, as it provides more information about disease transmission and can help identify risk factors among all deaths across populations.”³

But according to Bock, the inflated numbers could hurt the region’s economy, which is largely dependent on tourism:

“It’s absurd that they would even put that on there. Would you want to go to a county that has really high death numbers? Would you want to go visit that county because they are contagious? You know I might get it, and I could die if all of a sudden one county has a high death count. We don’t have it, and we don’t need those numbers inflated.”⁴

Washington state was also accused of inflating COVID-19 deaths, by up to 13%. According to the Freedom Foundation, the state’s Department of Health was counting every death in a person who had previously tested positive for COVID-19 as related to the virus.

While the governor denied the inflation, internal emails revealed in May 2020 that the Department of Health (DOH) was, in fact, counting deaths in their official COVID death numbers that weren’t directly due to the virus.⁵

By December 2020, Washington’s DOH had responded by subtracting more than 200 deaths from its COVID-19 fatality count after “methodological improvements.” However, a Freedom Foundation analysis suggests their fatality counts are still too high. And if this is going on in Washington, it’s likely happening in other states and countries as well.

According to the analysis, some of the questionable examples of the DOH’s “COVID-19 deaths” include the following:⁶

Motorcycle Death Initially Counted as COVID-19 Death

Another misleading instance occurred in Orlando, Florida, where a man in his 20s who died in a motorcycle accident was initially counted as a COVID-19 death because he had tested positive. In a significant stretch, Orange County health officer Dr. Raul Pino told FOX 35 News, “[Yo]u could actually argue that it could have been the COVID-19 that caused him to crash.”⁷

That death was reportedly removed from the official count, but how many others weren’t? In April 2020, Dr. Ngozi Ezike, director of the Illinois Department of Public Health, also detailed the loose case definition being used for COVID-19 deaths:

“If you were in hospice and had already been given a few weeks to live, and then you also were found to have COVID, that would be counted as a COVID death. It means technically even if you died of a clear alternate cause, but you had COVID at the same time, it’s still listed as a COVID death.

So, everyone who’s listed as a COVID death doesn’t mean that that was the cause of the death, but they had COVID at the time of the death.”⁸

Are Total Deaths in 2020 Excessive?

Michael Yeadon, Ph.D., a former vice-president and chief scientific adviser of the drug company Pfizer and founder and CEO of the biotech company Ziarco, now owned by Novartis, said in an interview, “You cannot have a lethal pandemic stalking the land and not have excess deaths.” Yet, excess deaths on the level of a lethal pandemic just aren’t occurring.

About 1,700 people die each day in the U.K. in any given year, Yeadon says — but many of these deaths are now falsely attributed to COVID-19. “I’m calling out the statistics, and even the claim that there is an ongoing pandemic, as false,” he said, noting that the definition of a “coronavirus death” in the U.K. is anyone who dies, from any cause, within 28 days of a positive COVID-19 test.

In the U.S., it’s a similar story. As of December 22, 2020, the provisional total death count from all causes, according to the CDC, is 2,835,533.⁹ For comparison, the total number of deaths from all causes in 2018 was 2,839,205¹⁰ while in 2019 it was 2,854,838.¹¹

Some estimates suggested that 2020 deaths may top 3.2 million when all the final figures are added up,¹² but how many of those deaths are directly attributable to COVID-19?

According to Yeadon, some of the slight uptick in deaths being presorted in the U.K. — primarily people aged 45 to 65, with equal distribution between the sexes — are mainly from heart disease, stroke and cancer, which suggests they are excess deaths caused by inaccessibility of routine medical care as people are either afraid of or discouraged from going to the hospital.

These deaths may be characterized as being COVID related, but that’s only because they have been falsely lumped into that category due to a positive test being recorded within 28 days of death. In the U.S., other deaths have also increased, including, according to Robert Anderson of the CDC, “an unexpected number of deaths from certain types of heart and circulatory diseases, diabetes and dementia.”¹³

Drug overdose deaths are also at record numbers. According to the AP, in late December 2020, “the CDC reported more than 81,000 drug overdose deaths in the 12 months ending in May, making it the highest number ever recorded in a one-year period.”¹⁴

Flu Deaths Disappear

Another curiosity in 2020 is what happened to the flu. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) tracks influenza (flu) and pneumonia deaths weekly through the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) Mortality Reporting System. But, “April 4, 2020 was the last week in-season preliminary burden estimates were provided,” the CDC wrote on its 2019-2020 U.S. flu season webpage.¹⁵

The reason the estimates stopped in April is because flu cases plummeted so low that they’re hardly worth tracking. In an update posted December 3, 2020, the CDC stated:

“The model used to generate influenza in-season preliminary burden estimates uses current season flu hospitalization data. Reported flu hospitalizations are too low at this time to generate an estimate.”¹⁶

They also added, “The number of hospitalizations estimated so far this season is lower than end-of-season total hospitalization estimates for any season since CDC began making these estimates.”¹⁷ Meanwhile, the “COVID” deaths the CDC has been reporting are actually a combination of pneumonia, flu and COVID deaths, under a new category listed as “PIC” (Pneumonia, Influenza, COVID).

Their COVIDView webpage, which provides a weekly surveillance summary of U.S. COVID-19 activity, states that levels of SARS-CoV-2 and “associated illnesses” have been increasing since September 2020, while the percentage of deaths due to pneumonia, flu and COVID-19 has been on the rise since October.¹⁸

As noted by professor William M. Briggs, a statistical consultant and policy advisor at The Heartland Institute, a free-market think tank, “CDC, up until about July 2020, counted flu and pneumonia deaths separately, been doing this forever, then just mysteriously stopped … It’s become very difficult to tell the difference between these,”¹⁹ referring to the combined tracking of deaths from “PIC.”

Selection Bias and Problems With Testing

Dr. Reid Sheftall has also suggested that COVID-19 fatality rates may be inflated, by about 40 times. In an interview with Ivor Cummins, a biochemical engineer with a background in medical device engineering,²⁰ he said selection bias was being used in the counting of cases, and organizations such as the World Health Organization (WHO) and CDC were drastically undercounting the number of people who were infected, which inflated the mortality rate.

Sheftall looked for data in which every case had been counted, ending up with a cruise ship, in which every person had been tested, and a small town in Germany that had also tested all residents. “When I crunched the numbers, the infection fatality rate came out to 0.14%, so I knew … there were some gross errors going on.” Sheftall cited COVID-19 survival rates by age, posted by the CDC September 10, 2020, which are as follows:²¹

• Ages 0 to 19: 99.997%
• Ages 20 to 49: 99.98%
• Ages 50 to 69: 99.5%
• Ages 70 and up: 94.6%

This translates into a 0.1% infection fatality rate, using the CDC’s own numbers. More than 224.5 million COVID-19 tests have been conducted in the U.S,²² which includes an unknown number of tests conducted on people with no symptoms.

The costs for such testing could be used for a more productive purpose, according to Sheftall, particularly for asymptomatic people. “The whole basis of medicine,” he says, is to test people with symptoms so you can find out what’s wrong and treat them accordingly:

“In 2017 to 2018 … between 70 and 80 million people in America got the flu … nobody noticed for the most part and no one was tested. I’m a doctor and I vaguely remember that it was a bad flu season. That was it. And yet with COVID we’re testing so many people you wouldn’t believe it.”²³

What’s more, positive reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) tests have proven remarkably unreliable with high false result rates, and a positive test does not mean that an active infection is present.

Fear May Be Causing More Deaths

Taken together, what’s clear about the COVID-19 fatality rates being reported is that there’s a lot of room for error and misinterpretation. Solid analysis of any “excess” deaths being attributed to COVID-19 are needed before policy decisions are made. When this was done in England in October 2020, deaths were only 1% higher than expected, and many of them were due to heart disease, stroke and diabetes.

“Notably” fewer deaths due to respiratory conditions and acute respiratory infections were found, yet deaths occurring in homes due to non-COVID-causes increased. This may be another sad outcome of the fear being propagated in relation to COVID-19. According to the study,

“The data suggest that mortality has shifted from hospital to home, especially for deaths not associated with COVID-19. This ‘displacement’ may be due to the reluctance of individuals to receive treatment in hospital or of clinicians to admit non-covid patients … Deaths in the home remain persistently high, and yet they receive little attention.”²⁴

*

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.

Notes

¹ Greek Reporter June 27, 2020

² ZeroHedge December 17, 2020

³ Colorado Department of Public Health & Environment September 28, 2020

⁴ CBS Local December 14, 2020

⁵ Freedom Foundation August 18, 2020

⁶ Freedom Foundation December 16, 2020

⁷ FOX 35 Orlando July 16, 2020

⁸ Week April 20, 2020

⁹ U.S. CDC, Provisional Death Counts for Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19)

¹⁰ U.S. CDC, Deaths and Mortality

^{11, 12, 13, 14} AP December 21, 2020

^15, 16, 17 U.S. CDC, 2019-2020 U.S. Flu Season: Preliminary In-Season Burden Estimates

¹⁸ COVIDView December 11, 2020

¹⁹ YouTube, Discernable November 24, 2020, The Flu Has Disappeared!

^20, 21, 23 The Fat Emperor, Podcast, December 11, 2020

²² COVIDTracking.com December 17, 2020

²⁴ The Center for Evidence-Based Medicine October 23, 2020

Featured image is from OffGuardian

For decades US-based Boeing and European aerospace giant, Airbus, have dominated global civilian aviation in what many in the industry describe as a duopoly. But as is the case in so many other industries as of late, China’s economic and technological rise has raised questions about the future of this duopoly.

COMAC is working to position itself to meet this demand and in the process eventually establishing itself as a reliable aerospace company capable of manufacturing and maintaining civilian airliners around the globe on par with Boeing and Airbus.

Russia’s United Aircraft Corporation (UAC) is similarly expanding its operations and already enjoys a share of foreign civilian aviation markets, however small in comparison with Boeing and Airbus.

Together, COMAC and UAC through the China-Russia Commercial Aircraft International Corporation  (CRAIC), are developing a long-range wide-body twinjet airliner that would further enhance the competitiveness of both companies.

Designated the CR929, the new aircraft is expected to make its first flight by 2025, before being introduced to the market in following years.

The ability for the CR929 to compete head-to-head with Boeing and Airbus at the moment seems unlikely. What is more likely is that it, along with other offerings from both COMAC and UAC, will prove themselves first in the Russian and Chinese civilian aviation markets, before future developments are more widely accepted by others internationally.

It is a long-term plan that takes into account not only the current geopolitical climate, but one that takes into consideration a future international order that has tilted considerably more toward the multipolar and away from the West’s current unipolar order, and an order that has produced and still jealously protects the Boeing-Airbus duopoly.

In fact, among the growing list of US sanctions against both China and Russia, several are designed specifically to target the civilian aviation industries of both nations.

These include sanctions that will prohibit Western corporations from providing systems and components to either country that would eventually make their way into the CR929 and future aircraft designs.

Such sanctions will  undoubtedly delay the development of CR929 and setback the Chinese and Russian civilian aviation industries, but just as is the case with sanctions aimed at Chinese telecom giant Huawei, these sanctions are unlikely to entirely stop either nation’s civilian aviation industries.

Additionally, such sanctions invite the possibility of retaliatory sanctions which might include the exclusion of companies like Boeing from China’s massive and still growing civilian aviation market.

This would help compensate for the technical setbacks COMAC, its products and those it is jointly developing with Russia’s UAC face from US sanctions and give it the time and space it needs to mature its technology within China’s domestic market, to eventually, directly compete with Boeing and Airbus internationally.

Thus, while the threat by COMAC and UAC to the West’s civilian aviation duopoly is not immediate, it is present and growing. Because of the West’s inability or lack of confidence to compete fairly in open markets with China and Russia, it is creating the conditions COMAC and UAC need to develop their aircraft in a market protected by retaliatory sanctions and in a market more than large enough to sustain both companies.

The saying, “what doesn’t kill you only makes you stronger” appears to be apt here. If COMAC and UAC can continue developing world class airliners despite current pressure from the US, developing the systems domestically that the US seeks to deny the companies from Western suppliers, both companies will come out stronger because of it.

At the same time, it isn’t difficult to imagine China’s partners across Asia, particularly in Southeast Asia adopting COMAC aircraft some time in the near future, with many already having bought UAC’s Sukhoi Superjets.

Constructive competition and a balance between great powers is a key feature of multipolarism. The deconstruction of the West’s civilian aviation duopoly will be a key metric to measure multipolarism’s success in the coming years as COMAC, UAC and their joint venture, the CR929 take shape and hopefully soon, take flight.

*

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.

Gunnar Ulson is a New York-based geopolitical analyst and writer especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

Featured image is from NEO

On December 9, the US war department announced its “distribution plan” for covid mass-vaxxing.

Service members to be vaxxed include active duty personnel — including National Guard troops — their family members, war department civilian personnel and their families.

“Distribution will be conducted in phases,” it was announced.

US forces in South Korea — including military and civilian healthcare personnel — will be vaxxed first with Moderna’s high-risk, inadequately tested, experimental vaccine.

Like Pfizer’s entry into the covid mass-vaxxing sweepstakes, Moderna’s vaccine in NOT approved by the FDA.

Both were given Emergency Authorization Use (EAU) green-lighting for widespread mass-vaxxing — despite the high-risk of what the CDC calls an “health impact event” or an “adverse event.”

Either may require medical treatment for what’s potentially life-threatening like anaphylaxis — or any one or more major illnesses that can cause death like heart disease and cancer.

In five days after US mass-vaxxing began on December 14, over 5,000 “health impact events” were reported.

How many more went unreported is unknown. Nor is there information on the seriousness of health issues experienced.

All vaccines are high-risk. Experimental ones like Pfizer’s and Moderna’s may cause widespread serious health issues only known much later.

During the 1991 Gulf War, around 150,000 US troops were vaxxed for anthrax.

Short-term it caused redness, swelling and fever that’s associated with all vaccines.

Serious health issues weren’t discovered until later called Gulf War syndrome.

Experimental anthrax vaccines contained squalene-based adjuvants that caused severe autoimmune diseases and deaths among Gulf War veterans later on.

They included rheumatoid arthritis, multiple sclerosis, neuritis risking later paralysis, uveitis risking blindness, neurological harm, congenital disabilities in offspring, cognitive impairment, and systemic lupus erythematosus, among other health issues.

The latter disease can harm joints, skin, brain, lungs, kidneys, and blood vessels.

From 1990 to 2001, over two million doses of anthrax vaccine were administered to US military personnel.

According to Stars and Stripes, the Veterans Affairs Department denied over 80% of benefits claims filed by military vets for health issues related to the Gulf War or later vaxxing for anthrax.

Research showed that squalene-based adjuvants are directly linked to Gulf War syndrome.

US military personnel were used and abused as unwitting lab rats. Many became ill. Thousands died.

One Gulf War vet likely spoke for many others, saying the following:

“Was the character of my valor less intense than those at Lexington?”

“Was the pain of my wounds any less severe than those at Normandy?”

“And was my loneliness any less sorrowful than those at Inchon?”

“Then why am I forgotten amonst those remembered as ‘heros?’ ”

Squalene adjuvants are a key ingredient in many vaccines.

It’s unclear if they’re used in Pfizer and Moderna covid vaccines.

Smith, Kline & French (SKF) expects its covid vaccines that contain squalene adjuvants will be approved and distributed.

It’s preparing to supply adjuvants for 1 billion doses — together with Sanofi, Sanofi, Clover Biopharmaceuticals, Medicago, and Innovax, its covid vaccine development partners.

SKF claims that adjuvant technology can “create a stronger and longer-lasting immunity against infections,” according to a company press release.

Omitted was information on hazards to human health from their use.

Soviet Russia researchers earlier called squalene adjuvants “a biological time bomb.”

Others called compulsory vaxxing (likely containing them) “medical barbarism.”

Pediatrician Robert S. Mendelsohn, author of Confessions of a Medical Heretic, called vaxxing “a medical time bomb,” adding:

The “greatest threat to childhood diseases lies in the dangerous and ineffectual efforts made to prevent them.”

He urged parents to reject vaxxing for their children. In many states, it’s mandatory.

Not so far for covid but perhaps it’s coming to get medical passports for employment, attending school, air travel, and other public activities.

Will daily lives and routines ahead no longer be possible without proof of covid vaxxing?

Commander of US forces in South Korea General Robert Abrams said the following to USFK troops:

“I want you to make an informed decision for you and your family regarding the vaccine.”

If mass compliance doesn’t follow, will he mandate covid vaxxing for everyone he commands.

Refusal would risk possible bad conduct or dishonorable courts-martial punishment.

If mandated for US military personnel or all Americans, it’ll breach Nuremberg Code principles. It’s 10 points include:

1. Voluntary consent on matters relating to human health.

2. Procedures yielding positive results that benefit individuals and society.

3. Procedures based on positive experimentation results.

4. Physical and mental suffering prohibited.

5. Whatever risks death or disability is forbidden.

6. Risks taken should never exceed sought benefits.

7. Proper preparation in suitable facilities should precede procedures followed.

8. Only scientifically qualified individuals should conduct them.

9. At any time during treatment, individuals may cancel it at their discretion.

10. Scientifically qualified individuals involved must terminate procedures if too high a risk of harm to human health exists.

A brave new world order is unfolding in plain sight — facilitated by covid that’s largely seasonal flu/influenza.

Outbreaks occur around six months annually with no lockdowns, quarantines, mask-wearing, social distancing, fear-mongering-created mass hysteria, and Main Street economic Depression.

What’s happening is a dystopian nightmare that caused enormous harm to millions of ordinary people in the US and elsewhere.

Is a permanent draconian way of life in the US and West the new abnormal — enforced by police state harshness?

Is the old order gone, life as before not coming back?

What was unthinkable not long ago are nations more unsafe and unfit to live in than before seasonal flu/influenza showed up masquerading as covid.

Is the worst yet to come?

*

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

Award-winning author Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at [email protected]. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG)

His new book as editor and contributor is titled “Flashpoint in Ukraine: US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III.”

http://www.claritypress.com/LendmanIII.html

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.

Featured image is from The Freedom Articles

Global Research Editor’s Note

This article first published by Global Research on May 24, 2019 is of utmost relevance to the ongoing debate on the Covid Vaccine.

***

In October 2014, the conference of Catholic bishops in Kenya released a statement regarding the tetanus vaccine programme implemented under UN auspices. (see the statement below)

The issue was subsequently addressed by Kenya’s Catholic Doctors Association. (see article below).

Published below are the following texts:

• a recent review article pertaining to the 2014 findings of Kenya’s Catholic Doctors Association concerning the tetanus vaccine. No update is provided in this article with regard to Kenya.
• the original 2014 statement by the Conference of Catholic Bishops.
• the 2014 response by UNICEF and the WHO with regard to the tetanus vaccine.

May 23, 2019

***

According to LifeSiteNews, [November 2014] a Catholic publication, the Kenya Catholic Doctors Association is charging UNICEF and WHO with sterilizing millions of girls and women under cover of an anti-tetanus vaccination program sponsored by the Kenyan government.

The Kenyan government denies there is anything wrong with the vaccine, and says it is perfectly safe.

The Kenya Catholic Doctors Association, however, saw evidence to the contrary, and had six different samples of the tetanus vaccine from various locations around Kenya sent to an independent laboratory in South Africa for testing.

The results confirmed their worst fears: all six samples tested positive for the HCG antigen. The HCG antigen is used in anti-fertility vaccines, but was found present in tetanus vaccines targeted to young girls and women of childbearing age. Dr. Ngare, spokesman for the Kenya Catholic Doctors Association, stated in a bulletin released November 4:

“This proved right our worst fears; that this WHO campaign is not about eradicating neonatal tetanus but a well-coordinated forceful population control mass sterilization exercise using a proven fertility regulating vaccine. This evidence was presented to the Ministry of Health before the third round of immunization but was ignored.” (Source.)

Dr. Ngare brought up several points about the mass tetanus vaccination program in Kenya that caused the Catholic doctors to become suspicious:

Dr. Ngare told LifeSiteNews that several things alerted doctors in the Church’s far-flung medical system of 54 hospitals, 83 health centres, and 17 medical and nursing schools to the possibility the anti-tetanus campaign was secretly an anti-fertility campaign.

Why, they ask does it involve an unprecedented five shots (or “jabs” as they are known, in Kenya) over more than two years and why is it applied only to women of childbearing years, and why is it being conducted without the usual fanfare of government publicity?

“Usually we give a series three shots over two to three years, we give it anyone who comes into the clinic with an open wound, men, women or children.” said Dr. Ngare.

But it is the five vaccination regime that is most alarming. “The only time tetanus vaccine has been given in five doses is when it is used as a carrier in fertility regulating vaccines laced with the pregnancy hormone, Human Chorionic Gonadotropin (HCG) developed by WHO in 1992.” (Source.)

UNICEF: A History of Taking Advantage of Disasters to Mass Vaccinate

It should be noted that UNICEF and WHO distribute these vaccines for free, and that there are financial incentives for the Kenyan government to participate in these programs. When funds from the UN are not enough to purchase yearly allotments of vaccines, an organization started and funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, GAVI, provides extra funding for many of these vaccination programs in poor countries. (See: Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation Vaccine Empire on Trial in India.)

Also, there was no outbreak of tetanus in Kenya, only the perceived “threat” of tetanus due to local flood conditions.

These local disasters are a common reason UNICEF goes into poorer countries with free vaccines to begin mass vaccination programs.

Health Impact News reported last year that UNICEF began a similar mass vaccination program with 500,000 doses of live oral polio vaccine in the Philippines after a Super Typhoon devastated Tacloban and surrounding areas. This was in spite of the fact there were no reported cases of polio in the Philippines since 1993, and people who have had the live polio vaccine can “shed” the virus into sewage systems, thereby causing the actual disease it is supposed to be preventing. (See: No Polio in the Philippines Since 1993, But Mass Polio Vaccination Program Targeted for 500,000 Typhoon Victims Under Age 5.)

A very similar mass vaccination with the live oral polio vaccine occurred among Syrian refugees in 2013, when 1.7 million doses of polio vaccine were purchased by UNICEF, in spite of the fact that no cases of polio had been seen since 1999. After the mass vaccination program started, cases of polio began to reappear in Syria. (See: Are UNICEF Live Polio Vaccines Causing Polio Among Syrians? 1.7 Billion Polio Vaccines Purchased by UNICEF.)

It seems quite apparent that UNICEF and WHO use these local disasters to mass vaccinate people, mainly children and young women. Massive education and propaganda efforts are also necessary to convince the local populations that they need these vaccines. Here is a video UNICEF produced for the tetanus vaccine in Kenya. Notice how they use school teachers and local doctors to do the educating, even though the vaccines are produced by western countries.

At least in Kenya, Catholic doctors are acting and taking a stand against what they see as an involuntary mass sterilization campaign designed to control the population of Africans.

Statement from WHO and UNICEF on the Tetanus Vaccine in Kenya

The World Health Organization (WHO) and the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) express their deep concern about the misinformation circulating in the media on the quality of the Tetanus Toxoid (TT) Vaccine in Kenya.

The allegations are that the tetanus vaccine used by the Government of Kenya and UN agencies is contaminated with a hormone (hCG) that can cause miscarriages and render some women sterile. These grave allegations are not backed up by evidence, and risk negatively impacting national immunization programmes for children and women.

Human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG) is a hormone produced by the placenta, during pregnancy. hCG is also produced in the pituitary glands of males and females of all ages. However, very high levels pose risks to pregnancy.

We have taken note of test results claiming to show levels of hCG in samples submitted to some clinical laboratories. However it is important to note that testing for the content of a medicine, e.g TT Vaccine needs to be done in a suitable laboratory, and from a sample of the actual medicine/vaccine obtained from an unopened pack and not a blood sample. Furthermore the Pharmacy and Poisons Board – the legally mandated National Regulatory Authority has the capacity and mandate to determine the quality, safety and efficacy of medicines and to advise the Government accordingly.

WHO and UNICEF confirm that the vaccines are safe and are procured from a pre-qualified manufacturer. This safety is assured through a three-pronged global testing system and the vaccine has reached more than 130 million women with at least two doses of TT vaccines in 52 countries.

Given most tetanus cases in Kenya are among newborns, the target group of Kenya’s TT vaccination campaigns is girls and women (15-49 years), with a particular emphasis on those in the most marginalized areas. We note with concern that Kenya is one of the 25 countries where tetanus is still a public health problem, killing hundreds of newborns every year.WHO and UNICEF reiterate our readiness to support the Government of Kenya in its efforts to provide safe and quality assured vaccines for the immunization programmes.

Dr. Custodia Mandlhate
WHO Representative Kenya

Dr. Pirkko Heinonen
Acting Representative
UNICEF Kenya

For more information kindly contact:

Edita Nsubuga
Chief of Communication, UNICEF Kenya
Tel: +254 (20) 762 2977
Email: [email protected]

*

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

Featured image is from UNICEF

2020 is coming to an end and entering history as one of the most troubled years in recent decades, having caused structural changes in the global geopolitical balance. The “pandemic” of the new coronavirus brought a series of changes in the daily lives of the citizens of large cities worldwide. All over the world, a “new normal” was established – a new unwritten code of coexistence between human beings, which seeks to meet the needs of an era of risk and collective fear.

The new health regulations, focused on establishing a standard of social isolation and infection prevention, forced entire populations to reshape their customs. Obviously, in the event of a proliferation of infectious diseases, stricter health standards must be adopted to manage the risks and prevent deaths, but the consequences of prolonged social isolation have brought serious damage to the social structure of most countries. The productive chain was interrupted as, with fewer people circulating on the streets, the lower the average consumption was, and, consequently, many companies went bankrupt, aggravating social problems such as unemployment and poverty.

In general, the main problem caused by the coronavirus, in economic terms, was the acceleration of the process of extinction of the middle classes at a global level, which further increased the economic power of a small class of billionaires to the detriment of an entire disadvantaged mass. The middle sectors went bankrupt and became closer to the line of misery than to the wealth of the great capitalists. Not even the banking sector escaped the crisis, with the advanced bankruptcy process of some of the largest institutions in this sector, such as Deutsche Bank. The oil sector has experienced its worst days, with drastic declines in global demand for fossil fuels as their use has reached the lowest rates ever with social isolation measures. Financial capitalism itself proved to be on the brink collapse, lacking the resources to manage an unprecedented global crisis.

All of this set a precedent for new narratives and projects. In the face of the bankruptcy of the current system, alternatives appeared to replace it. In the midst of so many speeches, two stood out: a speech in favor of replacing the current global system with a new model, focused on prioritizing major global issues, mainly environmental issues – defending the internationalization of biomes and mass deindustrialization – and a more nationalist and protectionist model, which seeks to regress in the phases of capitalism in favor of a revival of the industrial era. This dispute was visible mainly in the American elections, with Trump representing a populist project of protectionist capitalism and Biden representing the Western Globalists’ agenda, defending the move towards a “green capitalism”.

Still, on the specific topic of the American elections, we can notice many curious facts. For the first time, Washington was the scenario of a possible attempt of colorful revolution. This is what we can think with the violent protests and racial tensions that have spread throughout the country in recent months and have caused immense instability in the Trump administration – a fundamental factor in paving the way towards Biden’s victory. The sharp drop in Trump’s popularity was almost exclusively due to the combined crisis of the rebellions and the pandemic’s health catastrophe, with which his difficulty in dealing was notorious and caused outrage. But even with Biden’s victory, the election results remain uncertain. Although he has already authorized the transition, Trump still does not recognize Biden and rumors are currently circulating about a possible martial law that would allow the American president to establish a state of exception and remain in power. All of this makes the American domestic scenario even more uncertain for 2021.

In parallel with the economic and political effects already mentioned, the pandemic has led to a new era in the arms race of nations, making the pharmaceutical industry acquire a fundamental character in the geopolitical balance. In an era of pandemics, the strongest nation is the one that has the means to immunize its own population. Vaccines and medicines took on a role that was once reserved for nuclear bombs and weapons of mass destruction: guaranteeing the real sovereign power of a state. All the great world powers have invested heavily in the production of vaccines and, so far, no vaccine has reached a preferred status worldwide, which indicates not only that the race will continue, but also that we will possibly have a near future of medical pluralism, with different vaccines being implemented in each country, without a medicine reaching the global level of production and distribution.

Also noteworthy is the recent wave of so-called “peace agreements” between Arabs and Israelis, which reversed the structure of decades of ethnic-religious conflict in the Middle East, bringing the Islamic autocracies and Tel Aviv closer to an alliance against Turkey and Iran, supported mainly by France and US.

With all this troubled and unstable scenario, what to expect in 2021? Nothing more than an exact continuation of this year’s events, without any sudden change in the directions taken by international society in 2020.

Everything indicates that the dispute between a populist speech in favor of closing borders and reindustrialization and a speech in favor of “green globalization” will continue as Trump will remain resistant to accepting Biden’s victory. It is likely that Trump will not break institutional legality and will in fact allow the transition of power, but he and his supporters will start a strong anti-government campaign in search of a viable outcome for their party in 2024. This will make the nationalist discourse continue to grow and compete with globalism. Biden, on the other hand, will recover Washington’s alliance with Western Europe, previously broken by Trump and will increase an interventionist policy in the Middle East – this will happen amid the wave of peace agreements between Arabs and Israelis, which will further isolate Palestine and exclude the possibility of a peaceful coexistence of two States.

In fact, 2020 was a year like few in history. Changes that would have taken decades occurred in months and the effects of this year are unlikely to be reversed in a short time.

*

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

As Europe begins vaccinating the first wave of high-priority patients, a “glitch” has already emerged: many health-care workers and others have refused to take the vaccine, as skepticism and suspicion remain elevated.

A similar phenomenon has played out in the US, but to a less intense degree. But the situation, which we discussed last night, is now one of a variety of reasons, from a shortage of supplies and raw materials, to an uncooperative populace, that public-health officials are growing worried about hitting lofty vaccination targets.

And so, in Spain at least, government bureaucrats are fighting back, as Health Minister Salvador Illa warned the country would set up a “registry” for everybody who refuses the vaccine.

“What will be done is a registry, which will be shared with our European partners… of those people who have been offered it and have simply rejected it,” he said.

“It is not a document which will be made public and it will be done with the utmost respect for data protection.”

He added that the registry would not be made public, or delivered to employers, which begs the question: why else would the government keep a database of that information?

An AFP report on the health minister’s remarks wasn’t exactly clear about the motive, which leads us to believe that it’s just another tactic by the Spanish government, which has sworn up and down, like other European governments, that vaccinations wouldn’t be mandatory,.

Polls released over the last couple of months appear to reflect a steep and unexplained drop in the number of respondents who claim to be skeptical, or otherwise indicate that they would like to wait before getting the vaccine, has plunged as the first doses have been doled out and administered.

Spain’s government expects to have between 15MM and 20MM people out of its population of 47MM vaccinated against the virus by June in order to salvage next summer’s tourism season.

“The way to defeat the virus is to vaccinate all of us or the more the better,” Illa said.

Speculation has also been brewing about what might happen to those who refuse to inoculate themselves, and/or their children, even as public officials have talked up the importance of “transparency” and – of course – freedom of individual choice.

To be sure, the Spanish aren’t alone. Many other Europeans share their anxieties, which have been stoked by government table-pounding about vaccine safety (any skepticism is verboten), the rapid pace of development, and the use of the new mRNA technology. For example, independent pollster Alpha Research said its recent survey suggested that fewer than one in five Bulgarians from the first groups to be offered the vaccine – frontline medics, pharmacists, teachers and nursing home staff – planned to volunteer to get a shot. A recent IFOP poll found that roughly 41% of French would take the shot if available, which means nearly 60% would not.

Which is why, looking ahead, we wouldn’t be surprised to see more heavy handed measures employed (immunity passports?) as officials grow increasingly desperate to hit their (largely speculative) herd immunity targets.

*

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 Viacheslav Lopatin | Credit: scaliger – stock.adobe.com

Even before President-Elect Joe Biden sets foot in the White House, the Senate Intelligence Committee may start hearings on his nomination of Avril Haines as Director of National Intelligence. 

Barack Obama’s top lawyer on the National Security Council from 2010 to 2013 followed by CIA Deputy Director from 2013 to 2015, Haines is the proverbial wolf in sheep’s clothing. She is the affable assassin who, according to Newsweek, would be summoned in the middle of the night to decide if a citizen of any country, including our own, should be incinerated in a U.S. drone strike in a distant land in the greater Middle East. Haines also played a key role in covering up the U.S. torture program, known euphemistically as “enhanced interrogation techniques,” which included repeated water boarding, sexual humiliation, sleep deprivation, dousing naked prisoners with ice cold water, and rectal rehydration.

For these reasons, among others, the activist groups CODEPINK, Progressive Democrats of America, World Beyond War and Roots Action have launched a campaign calling on the Senate to reject her confirmation.

These same groups ran successful campaigns to dissuade Biden from choosing two other warmongering candidates for critical foreign policy positions: China-hawk Michele Flournoy for Secretary of Defense and torture apologist Mike Morell for CIA Director. By hosting calling parties to Senators, launching petitions and publishing Open Letters from DNC delegates, feminists—including Alice Walker, Jane Fonda, and Gloria Steinem—and Guantanamo torture survivors, activists helped derail candidates who were once considered shoo-ins for Biden’s cabinet.

Now activists are challenging Avril Haines.

In 2015, when Haines was CIA Deputy Director, CIA agents illegally hacked the computers of the Senate Intelligence Committee to thwart the Committee’s investigation into the spy agency’s detention and interrogation program. Haines overruled the CIA’s own Inspector General in failing to discipline the CIA agents who violated the U.S. Constitution’s separation of powers. According to former CIA whistleblower John Kiriakou, she not only shielded the hackers from accountability but even awarded them the Career Intelligence Medal.

And there’s more. When the exhaustive 6,000-page Senate Intelligence Committee report on torture was finally complete, after five years of investigation and research, Haines took charge of redacting it to deny the public’s right to know its full details, reducing the document to a 500-page, black-ink-smeared summary.

Page 45 of the redacted Senate Intelligence Committee report on CIA torture.

This censorship went beyond merely “protecting sources and methods”; it avoided CIA embarrassment, while ensuring her own career advancement.

Moreover, Haines supported torture apologist Gina Haspel as Trump’s CIA Director. Haspel ran a secret black site prison in Thailand where torture was regularly inflicted. Haspel also drafted the memo ordering the destruction of almost 100 videotapes documenting CIA torture.

As David Segal of Demand Progress told CNN, “Haines has an unfortunate record of repeatedly covering up for torture and torturers. Her push for maximalist redactions of the torture report, her refusal to discipline the CIA personnel who hacked the Senate and her vociferous support for Gina Haspel — which was even touted by the Trump White House as Democrats stood in nearly unanimous opposition to the then-nominee to lead the CIA — should be interrogated during the confirmation process.”

This sentiment was echoed by Mark Udall, a Democratic senator on the intelligence committee when it finished the torture report. “If our country is going to turn the page on the dark chapter of our history that was the CIA’s torture program, we need to stop nominating and confirming individuals who led this terrible program and helped cover it up.”

Another reason Haines’s nomination should be rejected is her support for the proliferation of killer drones. There has been a concerted effort by former Obama colleagues to paint Haines as a voice of restraint that tried to pro­tect­ civil­ians. But according to former CIA whistleblower Kiarikou, Haines regularly approved the drone bombings that killed not only suspected terrorists, but entire families, including children, who died as collateral damage.”It was Avril that decided whether it was legal to incinerate someone from the sky,” said Kiriakou.

When human rights groups denounced Obama’s rash use of extrajudicial killings, including the assumption that all military-age males in the strike zone were “enemy combatants” and therefore legitimate targets, Haines was enlisted to co-author a new “pres­i­den­tial pol­i­cy guid­ance” to tighten the regulations. But this new “guidance,” issued on May 22, 2013, continued to blur the line between civilians and combatants, nor­mal­izing tar­get­ed assas­si­na­tions and effectively repudiating the “presumption of innocence” that has been the bedrock principle of civilian law for over 800 years.

The drone playbook, “PROCEDURES FOR APPROVING DIRECT ACTION AGAINST TERRORIST TARGETS LOCATED OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES AND AREAS OF ACTIVE HOSTILITIES,” says on page 1 that any “direct action must be conducted lawfully and taken against lawful targets,” yet the guidelines never reference international or domestic laws that define when extrajudicial killings outside of an active war zone are permitted.

On page 4, the guidelines for drone strikes allow for lethal action against those who are not “high value targets,” without explaining the criteria the CIA would use to identify someone as an imminent threat to the security of the United States. On page 12, the co-authors, Haines among them, redacted the minimum profile requirements for an individual “nominated” for lethal action. The very term “nominated” suggests an effort to sugarcoat targeted assassination, as though the bombing target is recomended for a U.S. presidential cabinet position. [NOTE: You might (somewhat sarcastically) want to put “[sic]” after the first use of the word “nominated”]

Page 12 of Haines’s guidelines for extrajudicial killings. Required generic profile entries for individuals “nominated” for lethal action are redacted. 

Moreover, the guidelines themselves were often totally disregarded. The policy states, for example, that the U.S. “prioritizes, as a matter of policy, the capture of terrorist suspects as a preferred option over lethal action” and that lethal action should be taken “only when capture of an individual is not feasible.” But the Obama administration did nothing of the sort. Under George Bush, at least 780 terrorist suspects were captured and thrown into the U.S.-run gulag in Guantanamo. Haines’s guidelines prohibit transfer to Guantanamo so, instead, suspects were simply incinerated.

The guidelines required “near certainty that non-combatants will not be killed or injured,” but this requirement was routinely violated, as documented by the Bureau of Investigative Journalism.

Haines’s policy guidance also states that the U.S. would respect other states’ sovereignty, only undertaking lethal action when other governments “cannot or will not” address a threat to the U.S. This, too, became simply empty words on paper. The U.S. barely even consulted with the governments in whose territory it was dropping bombs and, in the case of Pakistan, openly defied the government. In December 2013, the National Assembly of Pakistan unanimously approved a resolution against U.S. drone strikes in Pakistan, calling them a violation of “the charter of the United Nations, international laws and humanitarian norms” and Pakistan’s former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif stated: “The use of drones is not only a continual violation of our territorial integrity but also detrimental to our resolve and efforts at eliminating terrorism from our country.” But the U.S. ignored the  pleas of Pakistan’s elected government.

The proliferation of drone killings under Obama, from Yemen to Somalia, also violated U.S. law, which gives Congress the sole authority to authorize military conflict. But Obama’s legal team, which included Haines, circumvented the law by insisting that these military interventions fell under the 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF), the law Congress passed to target Afghanistan in the wake of the 9/11 attacks. This specious argument provided fodder for the out-of-control misuse of that 2001 AUMF which, according to the Congressional Research Service, has been relied on to justify U.S. military action at least 41 times in 19 countries.

In addition, the guidelines don’t even require the CIA and other agencies participating in the drone program to notify the President, the Commander-in-Chief, as to who is to be killed in a drone strike, except when a targeted individual is a U.S. citizen or when the agencies in charge cannot agree on the target.

There are many other reasons to reject Haines. She advocates intensifying crippling economic sanctions on North Korea that undermine a negotiated peace, and “regime change”–hypothetically engineered by a U.S. ally–that could leave a collapsed North Korea vulnerable to terrorist theft of its nuclear material; she was a consultant at WestExec Advisors, a firm that exploits insider government connections to help companies secure plum Pentagon contracts; and she was a consultant with Palantir, a data-mining company that facilitated Trump’s mass deportations of immigrants.

But Haines’s record on torture and drones, alone, should be enough for  Senators to reject her nomination. The unassuming spy—who got her start at the White House as a legal adviser in the Bush State Department in 2003, the year the U.S. invaded Iraq—might look and sound more like your favorite college professor than someone who enabled murder by remote control or wielded a thick black pen to cover up CIA torture, but a clear examination of her past should convince the Senate that Haines is unfit for high office in an administration that promises to restore transparency, integrity, and respect for international law.

Tell your Senator: Vote NO on Haines.

*

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 Drone Warfare: Killing by Remote Control. In 2013 she directly confronted President Obama about his drone killings.

Marcy Winograd of Progressive Democrats of America served as a 2020 DNC Delegate for Bernie Sanders and co-founded the Progressive Caucus of the California Democratic Party. Coordinator of CODEPINKCONGRESS, Marcy spearheads Capitol Hill calling parties to mobilize co-sponsors and votes for progressive foreign policy legislation.

Featured image is from Columbia World Projects

Look at and listen in to three spheres of contemporary Western society – politics, research and media: The word” peace” and related words, such as the UN Charter norm of” making peace by peaceful means”, nonviolence, negotiations – have disappeared. And with the words, the discourse and with the discourse, the interest, the education and expertise, the focus, the awareness and the strategies.

Let us start with the political sphere. In Scandinavia where I happen to live, today’s status is very different from the 1980s. There are no global disarmament policies or disarmament ministers; the UN’s basically non-armed peace-keeping is hardly ever mentioned; while Sweden has integrated with NATO and has soldiers under NATO command, it no longer contributes a single UN peacekeeper.

Ideas such as human security, common security and confidence-building measures with the presumed enemy are never mentioned in the political discourse. The Corona crisis has also shown that there never was any planning for human security.

When Denmark goes to war which, regrettably, it has done more or less constantly since 1999 – a trend toward rogue state status started by the Social Democrats – responsible politicians merely state that it will serve stability, security and peace, promote democracy or take down a dictator. There is no analytical work and no consulting with conflict and peace-making before the F16s take off – usually less than 24 hours after Washington has called.

In the research sphere, Scandinavia used to be a region with quite good critical and, to some extent, solution-oriented peace research institutes. SIPRI now calls itself” the independent resource on global security”. It’s Stockholm conferences that you may watch on various videos are filled with diplomats, security experts and other government representatives who do not focus on theories, concepts or development of them. Its funding includes a series of NATO/EU governments. In 2020 it worked closely with the Münich Conference.

The originally stipulated theory development and focus on making proposals for conflict-resolution has been watered down in the latest version of the statutes.

In Denmark, the well-respected Copenhagen Peace Research Institute (COPRI) directed at the time by Håkan Wiberg was closed down by the same government that made Denmark an occupying power 2003-2007 in Iraq – Denmark’s perhaps biggest foreign policy blunder since 1945. Instead, a series of military-oriented research centres have been established over the years – in addition to military research facilities such as the Defence Academy.

The Danish Institute of International Studies, DIIS, has substantial funding from the Ministry of Defence; its director is experienced from his deputy permanent secretary position at the Ministry of Defence and in the Danish delegation to NATO.

Some of the remaining university-based peace research departments in Scandinavia may study peace concepts or activism, a bit here and there, but the thrust is theories and policies of conflict, violence and war – and no alternatives to world militarism.

Mainstreaming has been on the research agenda for decades. Criticism of militarism, nuclear policies and interventionism is hard to find now, except in tiny local peace movement circles consisting of older age segments. In spite of their knowledge and life experience, they are never invited to give their views in the media. One such group that deserves international recognition is “Fredsvagten” – The Peace Guard – outside the Danish parliament building, Christiansborg. They have been standing there every day since 2001 when the US commenced its Global War on Terror – that is 7000 days now!

Third, the mainstream media does not require much space here. It is abundantly clear to me – having followed the international affairs coverage also in the mainstream press over four decades – that there is no fundamental questioning of Western interventionism, US foreign policies in particular, today. The New York Times is allegedly still the only newspaper that has apologised for its misleading coverage up to the intervention in Iraq – but then continued that type of coverage in the cases of Libya and Syria.

I could write a book about a) all the media work I did between the late 1970s and up to around 2005 after which no requests – and b) the attempts at manipulations I have experienced, including framings.

The last massive Syria media narrative had perhaps even less to do with reality than earlier conflicts.

In December 2016 I was in Eastern Aleppo when it was liberated from terrorist occupation, the only person from Scandinavia and one of only a handful of Westerners. Nevertheless, not one Western mainstream media of about a hundred approached wanted my texts or photos – all published instead on our foundation’s homepage.

Sweden has, since the days of Olof Palme’s murder – moved incrementally in the direction of NATO membership. There is a Host Nation Support Agreement and huge NATO exercises are regularly held on Swedien’s territory. Its mainstream media question neither this trend nor how this has happened over some 20 years with the deliberate strategy to minimise public debate.

Of course, Scandinavia is not the whole West, and some countries may be worse, some better. However, the media homogenisation is so uniform and systematic that it is natural to assume that there is a conductor deciding which tune to play and whose hand movements decide when to start and stop plaing.

For instance, since Aleppo 2016 when this basically Western regime-change policy had failed miserably, how much have the media told us about Syria?

Militarism as the new God

After these scattered observations, let me jump the causes – which I judge to be many and complex – and just say that what I call the Military-Industrial-Media-Academic Complex (MIMAC) is the dominant reason behind the fact that the peace discourse has disappeared.

It is a much wider and deeper notion than when President Eisenhower, in his farewell speech in 1961, talked about the MIC – the Military-Industrial Complex.

While so much bigger and resource consuming as well as globalised today compared with back then, this MIMAC has become the elephant in the centre of the room of Western civilisation which rather small vested elite interests have a common interest in maintaining with as little public debate as possible. It is also in their interest to secure that it should not be seen, interpreted and certainly not disarmed.

Of course, this militates against democracy as well as human welfare.

It may even have become a kind of religion-like mental construction or thought-structure. It can certainly be argued that the militarised governments based on MIMAC dynamics substitute a sense of authority that – earlier – was placed in the hands of God before the whole society secularised ad absurdum and subordinated values and ethics under the market mechanism and blind technological “progress” only at the end to find itself in a deep identity crisis.

It could also be that it satisfies the human need for protection – however, in this case in exchange for obedience and the non-questioning of this God-like MIMAC.

Like other faiths, the MIMAC has its priesthood, it followers – who are not supposed to question any of it – and its punishment of unbelievers.

Leading Buddhist teacher and thinker (and TFF Associate), David Loy, has written about this – about the militarized, corporate state as contemporary Western deity although he has not made use of the MIMAC concept.

Carrying this a bit further, one may add that since the birth of the nuclear weapon, man took over what had up till then been God’s prerogative – namely to decide whether humankind should, or should not, continue to exist. Thus, we did not need God; we took over God’s role. Remember Charlie Chaplin’s Hynkel/Hitler playing with the globus at his desk in “The Great Dictator” (1940)?

The MIMAC deity is, of course, invisible. It has an invisible hand that runs everything (like the invisible hand on the neo-liberal market) and people who believe in it feel they get protection. It no longer has to reason, argue or document any facts about the observable world; it is enough to state a) that there are “infidels” out there who are threatening us and b) that whatever it does serves “stability, security and peace” (NATO).

Philosophically, it rests purely on fear and faith – believe it or not, you may add.

It runs, of course, on constructed, outdated Them/Us paradigms: there is some Evil out there that must be combatted and killed (purification of the world, the extermination of the evil/infidels), carried through with the Sword – or to be brought over to us, become like us, feel like us and see the world like we do (mission with a Bible in hand).

In this perspective, arms trade is much more than the transfer of destructive capacity; it is rather a currency or exchange coins that symbolises and solidifies the MIMAC community among elite believers of the same faith. A bonding, or a pact.

The faith in militarism as the main tool to solve whichever problem – be it that of enemy threats, carrying through defence sector reforms or mould governments and societies to forward the message to yet others is boundless. The military and its bonding elites profess to be able to help bring about democracy in faraway lands and cultures, create the preconditions for (Western) understanding of gender equality and human rights and direct/protect refugees on the run from its own war zones.

And when the world talks about climate change, militarism is responding by making its military bases and exercises “green” and environmentally friendly. Not even Greta Thunberg has had the civil courage to mention the huge role of the global military in the process of environmental destruction – not to speak of the Creation that would be totally destroyed by nuclear war.

While people engage in the environment and climate ‘change’ (a newspeak term preferred over all the others since’ change’ is positive…), they do not seem to care much about nuclear weapons as the by far largest and potentially most destructive threat to humanity’s survival.

One may even ask: What is actually left that the military as part of the MIMAC can not be brought in to do? If given the appropriate resources paid by taxpayers’ money – a kind of collect in the church – virtually any sector of society can benefit from, or be taken over by, the MIMAC. To sell that, all you need is the NATO mantra which states that, no matter what the alliance actually does, it creates” stability, security and peace” – all of which are devoid of evidence from the moment those words come flying out of the mouth of, say, NATO’s S-G.

So, are we saying that militarism moulds civil society into a garrison state and that society operates like under top-down control from an authoritarian leader? No, far from it. You also do not see political leaders in uniforms or huge military parades in the capitals of the West. Why?

Contemporary militarism is something very different from the times of, say, Alfred Vagts who in 1937 published his classical book, A History of Militarism: Civil and Military. Today it is about two mutually bending longterm trends: the military operates more and more in a civilian manner inside society, and society becomes increasingly authoritarian in its structures and modes of operation. But while the military thinking has melted into society, civilian thinking – and means – have not melted into the defence and security sectors, at least not to the same extent. If they did and societies would go for civilian conflict-resolution, defensive defence, nonviolence and negotiations, the military would no longer be able to usurp civil society on which it depends for its survival.

To maintain MIMAC and continuously find new “threats” (like an addict searching all the time for the next heroin shot) – the focus ranges from North Korea, Iran, to the classical Soviet/Russian enemy (with 8% of 30 NATO members’ military expenditures and falling) and since Obama’s” pivot” – to China.

Call it North Koreaphobia, Iranophobia, Russophobia and Sinophobia. As TFF Associate in Beijing, Gordon Dumoulin recently argued, the latest US State Department report, The Elements of the China Challenge, reads quite a lot like the Ten Commandments of what the US/West must and must not do vis-a-vis China. It’s clearly faith- rather than fact-based.

Militarism as the largest single cause of Western decline

In summary, the peace discourse has been marginalised, indeed disappeared. The winner – militarism – has taken it all. For now and some time. But it is self-defeating. With it go hubris, over-extension, a center that will not hold and – most importantly – an inability to grasp (“group think”) that the rest of the world is changing rapidly.

The enemies are invented/imagined and, in reality, rather more projections of one’s own dark features upon ’the others’.

To uphold the MIMAC, the West has increasingly to distort reality and base itself on fake – production of enemies that are not, deceptive media narratives, the silent acceptance of its own politically and morally failed projects in one war zone after the other and the toll these wars take on the interventionist’s and warmaster’s own society – blowback in the larger sense of the term.

It also has to omit every mention of the positive sides of the designated enemy. There is nothing good to say about North Korea, Iran, Russia and China. Period. And only good things to talk about when it comes to ourselves – noble motives, superior civilisation and ”better” values.

Like in the Soviet Union towards the end, fewer and fewer will believe it. Legitimacy in the eyes of others will fade. The truth, to the extent that there is one, is that there is nobody who threatens the West. It is the West that is doing incredible harm to itself and undermines its economy, legitimacy, vision and democracy as well as its moral power.

The latter is, of course, undermined by the deceptive policies embedded in the short sentence uttered with pride by US Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo – “We lied, we cheated, we stole. We had entire training courses. It reminds you of the glory of the American experiment.”

So the Empire – the glory of the American experiment – is coming to an end. All empires do – and then it will fall. Militarism will be the largest single cause of that demise, Eisenhower’s warnings completely ignored and so too Luther King Jr.’s “America, you are too arrogant.”

Peace people combine passion with detachment

So if you are a peace researcher, peace activist or peace journalist, what do you do in the nearest times when peace is basically out of sight? I would try to suggest:

1. Look at it in a macro perspective – a few years is nothing in world history although, of course, it may be in one’s own life depending on how far through it you have advanced.
2. Do not give up or hibernate.
3. Do for peace what you have always done, light a candle, don’t waste your time cursing the darkness. (It’s not peace to only criticize violence, wars and weapons).
4. Do something else simultaneously and creatively, that recharges your batteries and gives you joy while we wait for more peaceful times.

And, finally, remember Gandhi’s words in 1946: “A burning passion coupled with absolute detachment is the key to all success.” Gandhi (Harijan, 9-29-1946, p. 336). If you worked for peace to get famous or be awarded prizes (as the fruits, or rewards) then better you stop.

But if you work with the conviction that that is what you must do, can not not do, then you are like the artist who continues to work creatively because it is an inner urge, a passion, rather than in order to become rich and famous. (An they turn out, in hindsight if not while still alive, to be the greatest).

In short, don’t follow the past or the present – which admittedly looks a bit overclouded right now. Do not give in to the wish of those in power who rule more smoothly when you feel powerless and stop researching, criticising, imagining and struggling for the better future(s) to come.

Over the clouds, the sky is blue.

With another piece of Gandhi wisdom, be the change you want to see – that is, do your pro-peace work only with a view to the future, with passion in what you do and total detachment from the immediate fruits of it.

Peace is part of the good society. We do not know that the good society is impossible, so let’s try. If we don’t try, we can be sure that it will never emerge. In the longer perspective – logically – violence is other/self-destructive while non-violence is constructive.

*

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 Transnational

On December 26, hundreds of Syrian refugees fled their refugee camp in the Miniyeh region near the coastal city of Tripoli in north Lebanon after their tents were burned when fighting broke out between local youths and camp residents.  At least three were injured in the incident said Khaled Kabarra, a UN refugee agency (UNHCR) spokesman, while nearly four hundred residents who fled found temporary shelter in various locations.

Damascus urged Lebanon’s judicial authorities and its security forces to ensure its nationals were protected.

The Lebanese army said it had arrested eight people after the incident, including two Lebanese nationals and six Syrians over a personal dispute. The Lebanese men shot in the air and torched the tents of Syrian refugees.

“I came back to check on belongings inside our small tent only to discover that we no longer own anything,” said Amira Issa, a 45-year-old mother of five who fled Syria eight years ago. “We lost everything in one moment,” she said, sobbing.

November incident

On November 23, around 270 Syrian refugee families evacuated the northern Lebanese town of Bsharre after a Syrian man was accused of killing a Lebanese man, sparking widespread tension and hostility.

The eviction of all Syrians was demanded after the murder, and residents rioted and demanded that the authorities act.

The Syrian, identified by the initials of MK, surrendered to security forces after allegedly killing Joseph Tawk in a personal argument.

Lebanese locals of the Christian mountain resort town of Bcharre torched Syrian homes and attacked Syrians in the streets following the killing. They surrounded the town’s main government building and demanded the authorities to hand the suspect over, while the Lebanese Army deployed troops in the area.

The Mayor of Bcharre, Freddy Keyrouz, echoed local sentiments and demanded that all Syrian citizens should be evicted from the town. “All Syrians who are staying in the town illegally must leave immediately,” he insisted. The mayor also called on security forces to raid Syrian homes in the town and search for weapons after it was reported that MK had allegedly used a gun to shoot Tawk.

Hearing of forced eviction, many Syrians fled the town, and others were forcibly evicted by residents.

Pro-US politicians in Lebanon will not allow the Syrian refugees to return to Syria, even in the face of suffering inside the refugee camps, and elsewhere. The supporters of the pro-US Lebanese parties hate the refugees and continue to torment them, even though their party leaders benefit from the refugees, as well as from supporting the US position which maintains Syria must have ‘regime change’ before a return to normalcy. What the US-NATO war machine failed to achieve in 10 years of war on the Syrian people, they demand to be fulfilled, using the refugees as pawns in the game.

Refugees as political pawns

The UN reports that 90% of Syrian families in Lebanon are living in extreme poverty. Lebanese and Syrian authorities have both called on refugees to return to Syria; however, some international groups claim Syria is not yet safe. Instead of allowing refugees to go home, the US, EU, and UN all demand that a political settlement is in place before repatriation. However, the country is safe and calm in most areas, except Idlib, which is occupied by HTS, the Al Qaeda affiliate in Syria. Many refugees would be safer back in Syria rather than in dangerous camps in Turkey, Jordan, and Lebanon. Some experts claim the refugees are being used as political pawns.

Lebanese prejudice

Lebanon has over one million Syrian refugees. During the Lebanese civil war, the Syrian Arab Army was requested to enter by the Lebanese government, to stop the war. This was achieved, but the Syrians remained longer than some Lebanese people would accept, which led to hard feelings, ending in the 2005 withdrawal of troops.

Some writers have incorrectly attributed tensions to racism, but this is an incorrect usage of the term, as Lebanese and Syrian belong to the same race. However, you can say some Lebanese have a prejudice against Syrians for various reasons. The Lebanese economy has collapsed in early 2020, and some blame refugees for taking their jobs, such as labor for the construction and agriculture sectors.

Syria calls refugees back home

On December 38, Syrian officials in a joint Syrian-Russian press conference in Damascus reported that the overall situation in Syria is promising for the return of refugees while blaming Western sanctions for hindering their return.

The Syrian government is looking forward to the full return of all Syrians to rebuild the country, which has been destroyed by international and domestic terrorism. Western sanctions hinder the return of refugees to Syria and negatively affect the social and economic situation as well as the health sector in light of the COVID-19 pandemic.

The deputy head of the Russian Center for Reconciliation, Major General Vyacheslav Sitnik, told reporters that currently there are 50 refugee centers in Syria which are home to more than 100,000 people, and more than 2 million Syrians have returned to their homes.

More than half of Syria’s 23 million people have fled their homes, including 5.5 million who went abroad as they were forced to leave their country by an unjust war waged against them.

UN calls for peace and stability in Syria

On December 16, the United Nations special envoy for Syria, Geir Pedersen, warned that the country could be a powder keg for a major international incident, as five foreign armies are operating there.

The UN calls for an end to hostilities in Syria to protect civilians, keep peace and security, support a political process, and concentrate forces to fight the Covid-19 pandemic. There are hostilities in northeast Syria between the invading Turkish Army, along with Radical Islamic mercenaries they employ, and the Syrian Kurds. The battles in Idlib are between the Al Qaeda terrorist group, HTS, who hold 3 million persons as human shields, and the Russian military and Syrian Arab Army in a war against terrorism.

The UN is working with the Syrian government, opposition, and civil society groups to work towards a political solution under UN resolution 2254.

The United Nations Deputy Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs, Mark Lowcock, reported that the number of Covid-19 cases in Syria continues to increase.  Sanctions have prevented Syrian civilians from rebuilding their homes, and businesses because imported supplies and equipment are strictly prohibited by the US and EU sanctions, which have even prevented medical companies from delivering orders of necessary supplies, out of fear of penalties by the US Treasury.

*

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.

Featured image is from Mideast Discourse

“In his [1996] arms-to-Iraq enquiry, Lord Richard Scott heard evidence that an entire tier of the Thatcher government, from senior civil servants to ministers, had lied and broken the law in selling weapons to Saddam Hussein…Thumb through old copies of the Baghdad Observer, and there are pictures of… cabinet ministers, on the front page sitting with Saddam…around the time [he] was ordering the gassing of 5,000 Kurds”. (John Pilger(1))

The US government has the highest military spending in the world, with approximately one-third of the world’s military expenditure. Britain consistently figures in the top 10.(2) Global annual weapons expenditure is $1.8 trillion,(3) with overseas exports estimated at approximately $100 billion. There are some important political reasons for the enormous size of the weapons trade. Firstly, the belief by our politicians that weapons sales are a good way to stay friendly with decision-makers abroad, to help keep those decision-makers in power, to get them into power in the first place and to cement relations with future rulers in the military.(4) Secondly, it is the most corrupt, secretive and unaccountable industry in the world, with everything hidden behind a fake veil of ‘national security’.(5) Thirdly, the political influence of huge weapons companies (discussed in the next post).

Keeping Repressive Regimes In Power 

Earlier posts have explained that US and British foreign policies revolve around supporting leaders who will run their countries in a way that benefits the US and Britain. Good examples would be Indonesia and Columbia, where both the US and Britain have supplied weapons, despite knowing that the governments of these countries regularly murder their citizens. In return, these leaders allow Western corporations access to resources. The British Foreign Office identified 20 ‘countries of concern’, such as Egypt and Nigeria, which had very poor human rights records. Under British law it should be illegal to sell weapons to these countries, yet Britain was selling weapons to 19 of those countries from 2004-2006. More recent data confirms that this illegal selling is still common practice in Britain.(6) The United States also has a long history of selling weapons to many of the world’s worst human rights abusers throughout Latin America, Africa and Asia.(7)

Every Weapons Sale Is Illegal 

In theory there is a distinction between legal and illegal sales. It is legal to sell some weapons, but not others. It is legal to sell to some countries, but not to others. In practice, the corporations and government officials making these sales ignore these distinctions. The leading expert on the subject, Andrew Feinstein, has explained that he has never come across an arms deal that is not somewhat illegal.

There are many examples of Britain and America supplying weapons to anyone, however illegal, by sending them via another country and trying to obscure the paper trail.(8) Britain has sold weapons to the Cayman Islands and the Channel Islands, yet these countries do not have militaries. Where these weapons actually end up is unknown, but they are clearly destined for other countries. Sellers are well aware that in many cases the final recipients want to slaughter or control people. This was highlighted during the 1990s when the British firm Matrix Churchill was found to have been providing equipment to make a ‘supergun’ to Saddam Hussein with the full backing of the British Government, even while he was committing extreme human rights abuses.

In one of the more notorious examples of US crimes, the US government supplied weapons to Iran during the 1980’s in what became known as the Iran-Contra affair. The money and weapons were channelled through fake corporations, offshore bank accounts and foreign countries so that the sales could not be traced back to the US government.(9) Some of the money was then sent to Nicaragua where it was used to finance a rebel army (the contras) who were trying to overthrow the government, which was trying to create a better life for the poorest people.

Promises that a recipient country makes about the use of their new weapons, such as stating that they will only be used for training or defensive purposes, are of little value. The paperwork for the sale of aeroplanes often contains a description such as ‘trainer’ in order to imply that the planes will not be used for anything other than training. But advanced nations also supply the necessary components to convert that trainer into a ground attack aircraft, which can be used to repress local populations, or attack other countries. Everyone involved in the weapons industry is aware of this. All promises by governments regarding the use of weapons are just for public relations purposes, so they can deny involvement with large-scale slaughter.(10)

The Most Corrupt Industry In The World 

It is estimated that 40% of all corruption is in the weapons trade. This makes it the most corrupt industry in the world, with corruption affecting all countries involved, both buyers and sellers. For example, the extremely repressive rulers of Saudi Arabia regularly purchase advanced weapons, such as military aeroplanes, from Britain. The British Serious Fraud Office (SFO) attempted to investigate corruption during these weapons sales. The biggest deal, known as Al-Yamamah, involved £6 billion in bribes. The British government stepped in and stopped the investigation, clearly demonstrating that good relations with oil-rich countries are more important than their human rights abuses, or corruption.(11) Part of any bribe sometimes comes back to the executives in the company. In the Saudi deal, expensive flats in London were given to the chief executive of British Aerospace.(12)

The early deals by the new African National Congress (ANC) government that took power in South Africa in 1994 provide another excellent case study. The new government had no military enemies, and no need of expensive weapons, yet they spent $10 billion on their first deal, including $300 million in bribes. They bought aeroplanes that were more expensive than the ones the military wanted. Many of those aeroplanes have never flown because there is no money to fuel them, or to train pilots, and they serve no purpose. Decisions were taken by just 6 ministers. The Queen of England invited all 6 ministers aboard her yacht, to help ‘lubricate’ the deals. South African President Zuma faced over 700 prosecutions relating to the deal, but all charges were dropped. The South African state and the ANC Party have been engulfed by corruption ever since. When the SFO was able to investigate this deal, along with 8 others, the main British company involved, British Aerospace, admitted to accounting irregularities and was fined the trivial sum of half a million pounds.(13) Weapons companies are effectively above the law.

The US and Britain are not interested in ending weapons sales 

There are numerous international agreements, known as conventions or treaties, regarding the sale or use of weapons, but these do not work unless everyone agrees to them, and everyone enforces them. Countries are not compelled to sign up to them and the US has failed to sign up to or enforce numerous conventions on biological, incendiary and other weapons.(14) A few years ago there was an international focus on landmines. Thousands of people are still killed by landmines every year, many of them children, and there are millions of unexploded mines lying around the world. In 1996, the US called for the eventual elimination of all anti-personnel mines, but in 2004, President George Bush changed US policy and made it clear that he had no intention of joining the mine ban treaty.(15) More recently, Donald Trump removed US restrictions on the use of landmines.(16) Whilst the UK sometimes signs up to treaties, it uses loopholes to get around them.(17) For example, although it has signed up to the Convention on Cluster Munitions (CCM), it was still supplying them to Saudi Arabia as recently as 2016.

*

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 first posted at medium.com/elephantsintheroom

Rod Driver is a part-time academic who is particularly interested in de-bunking modern-day US and British propaganda. This is the eighth in a series entitled Elephants In The Room, which attempts to provide a beginners guide to understanding what’s really going on in relation to war, terrorism, economics and poverty, without the nonsense in the mainstream media.

Notes 

1) John Pilger, ‘Dance on Thatcher’s Grave, but remember there has been a coup in Britain’, 25 April 2013, at http://johnpilger.com/articles/dance-on-thatcher-s-grave-but-remember-there-has-been-a-coup-in-britain

2) SIPRI, ‘Trends in International Arms Transfers, 2017’, SIPRI, March 2018, at https://www.sipri.org/sites/default/files/2018-03/fssipri_at2017_0.pdf

3) ‘SIPRI yearbook 2019: Armaments, Disarmaments and International Security’, at https://www.sipri.org/sites/default/files/2019-08/yb19_summary_eng_1.pdf

4) Norman Schwarzkopf, cited in Mark Curtis, The Great Deception, 1998, p.203

5) Andrew Feinstein, The Shadow World: Inside The Global Arms Trade, 2011

6) Saferworld, ‘The Good, the Bad and the Ugly: A decade of labour’s arms exports’, May 2007, at http://curtisresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/The-Good-the-Bad-and-the-Ugly-rev.pdf

Anna Stavrianakis, ‘The facade of arms control’, Feb 2008, at  https://www.caat.org.uk/resources/publications/government/facade-2008-02.pdf

Rick Kelsey, ‘From Egypt to Saudi Arabia, here’s who the UK is selling arms to’, BBC Newsbeat, 19 Dec 2016, at http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/38365529/from-egypt-to-saudi-arabia-heres-who-the-uk-is-selling-arms-to

7) Thalif Deen, ‘US ramps up arms supplies to repressive regimes’, May 26, 2005, at www.antiwar.com/ips/deen.php?articleid=6080

8) Amnesty International, ‘The Arms Campaign Report’, 7 August 2003, at  https://www.amnesty.org/download/Documents/100000/act300012003en.pdf

9) Time magazine, ‘Pursuing The Money Connections’, Jan 2007, at  http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1582830,00.html

10) Alan Clark, interviewed in John Pilger, Death of A Nation, 1994

Also see Norman Schwarzkopf discussing how control of spare parts can limit the use of weapons after they have been sold, cited in Mark Curtis, The Great Deception, 1998, p.150

11) George Monbiot, ‘Promoting Peace Is For Wimps – Real Governments Sell Weapons’, Aug 24, 2006, at http://politics.guardian.co.uk/columnist/story/0,,1856916,00.html

12) Andrew Feinstein, ‘The Shadow World of the Global Arms trade’, talk at Peter Wall Institute for Advanced Studies, 22 Nov 2017, at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hCjZXCYD_8c

13) Andrew Feinstein, ‘The Shadow World of the Global Arms trade’, talk at Peter Wall Institute for Advanced Studies, 22 Nov 2017, at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hCjZXCYD_8c

14) Andrew Buncombe, ‘Incendiary Weapons: The Big White Lie’, Nov 17, 2005, at https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/politics/incendiary-weapons-the-big-white-lie-515664.html 

Julian Borger, ‘US Weapons Secrets Exposed’, Oct 29, 2002, at https://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/oct/29/usa.julianborger 

15) Human Rights Watch, ‘The Bush Administration’s Landmine Policy’, 7 Dec, 2004, at  https://www.hrw.org/legacy/backgrounder/arms/arms0805/2.htm 

16) Idrees Ali, ‘Trump eases restrictions on land mine use by US military’, 31 Jan 2020, Reuters, at https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-war-landmines-idUSKBN1ZU2GA 

17) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_on_Cluster_Munitions

It was a quiet year for Ukraine and its many issues compared to previous years, or at least in the eyes of most Westerners. Other global issues, such as the COVID-19 pandemic and elections in Belarus, took greater precedence and international focus. Most of the international community and media are no longer interested in the situation in Ukraine, with only passing mentions when the European Union or the U.S. renew their sanctions regime against Russia for its unification with Crimea. Although skirmishes in the breakaway Donbass region occur time to time, it is mostly stagnant, along with Kiev’s claims on Crimea – only Poland is taking an interest in Ukrainian events.

An exception to this “quiet” year was Kiev’s attempt to manufacture a humanitarian crisis by cutting off water supplies from the North Crimean Canal to the peninsula. This human rights violation was to the disinterest of the UN Human Rights Commission. Kiev’s provocative actions will ensure that any Crimeans who were sympathetic to Ukraine will be marginalized. In fact, Ukrainian authorities view local residents as enemies of the state, rendering statements by Kiev about the necessity of reintegrating Crimea into Ukraine as absurd.

In Donbass, even less has changed. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky claims he still supports the Minsk Protocols, but is reluctant to start implementing it. The logically and legibly worded protocol, proposed by Germany’s former Minister of Foreign Affairs and current German President, Frank-Walter Steinmeier, was in practice rejected by Kiev as they never enacted many of the points in the protocols. This includes the decentralization of power, improvement to the humanitarian situation in Donbass, and adopting a programme of economic recovery and reconstruction in the war-torn region.

In an October joint declaration between Zelensky and Polish President Andrzej Duda, it was emphasized that Poland was ready to join efforts to “de-occupy” Crimea in the international arena. Similar to the Donbass case, Warsaw continues to use war rhetoric put into circulation by previous Ukrainian President, Petro Poroshenko. Polish involvement in Ukrainian affairs has clearly decreased not only due to the COVID-19 pandemic, but also due to the emergence of another color revolution attempt on Russia’s borders – this time in Belarus. And yet, the foreign affairs minister of Lithuania, Poland and Ukraine prominently announced the creation of an initiative called the “Lublin Triangle”.

Lithuania, Poland and Ukraine created the “Lublin Triangle,” a trilateral platform for these three countries to counter supposed “ongoing Russian aggression” and show their “firm support” for Western institutions. In their joint declaration, the Foreign Affairs Ministers of the three countries condemned Russia’s “ongoing aggression” and its “attempted annexation” of Crimea, while welcoming Ukraine’s “European choice.” Effectively, the trilateral platform is a pillar for the three countries to enact Washington’s main foreign policy priorities in Eastern Europe, that they incorrectly call “Central Europe.” Although it is not very clear what specific actions the triangle is supposed to take, it is understood that one of its main interests is to bring about a change of power in Belarus. Indeed, the efforts of all three countries in recent months have focused on destabilizing the situation in Minsk.

Meanwhile, economic matters in Ukraine are at a standstill. After 2014, Polish entrepreneurs, due to the huge financial risk and a wave of bankruptcies in Ukraine, as well as legal instability and the weakened justice system, are not very interested in cooperation. The exception are state-owned enterprises, which do so for political reasons. Possible investments by Polish state-controlled PGNiG oil and gas company in the Ukrainian market are primarily related to politics and the need to construct a network of recipients for American gas imported by Poland.

In fact, despite Ukraine neighboring Poland and supposedly being close allies, the eastern European country is only Warsaw’s 16th biggest partner in foreign trade. Its decline in importance will likely continue.

Sławomir Nowak, a Polish politician who served as chief of Ukrainian transport agency Ukravtodor, was arrested in Poland at the behest of Ukrainian services on suspicion of corruption, management of an organized criminal group, and money laundering. Following this arrest, that is often described as being made on flimsy evidence, there will be a shortage of people willing to work as advisers to Ukrainian companies and public institutions.

The pandemic crisis partially closed Polish borders to Ukrainians. However, there still large amounts of Ukrainian nationals in Polish cities. This is despite the import of cheap labor decelerating significantly. Ukrainians already started looking for work further afield than Poland as the industries in which they worked were significantly affected by COVID-19 measures.

For years, Ukraine has been the most important center of interest for the Polish political elite. In the sphere of rhetorical declarations, nothing has changed. Behind these bombastic declarations however, there are no real forms of cooperation. Kiev has much more important partners than Warsaw, such as Washington and Ankara. Ukraine also has its problems in dealing with economic catastrophe, something that Poland is unable to solve for its neighbor due to its own limitations. The problems of Ukraine will remain Ukrainian issues, despite rhetoric made by Polish officials.

*

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

The new film Seven (trailer above), directed by Dylan Avery, examines the story of the scientific study of World Trade Center building 7 (WTC 7) recently published by the University of Alaska Fairbanks. The study was led by structural engineering professor J. Leroy Hulsey and took nearly five years to complete. It evaluated the possibilities for destruction of WTC 7 using two versions of high-tech computer software that simulated the structural components of the building and the forces that acted upon it on September 11th.

After inputting worst case conditions, and painstakingly eliminating what didn’t happen, Hulsey and his team of engineers came to the following conclusions:

The principal conclusion of our study is that fire did not cause the collapse of WTC 7 on 9/11, contrary to the conclusions of NIST and private engineering firms that studied the collapse. The secondary conclusion of our study is that the collapse of WTC 7 was a global failure involving the near-simultaneous failure of every column in the building.

These peer-reviewed conclusions directly contradict the findings of the U.S. government’s final investigation into WTC 7 as reported by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST).

Seven documents the journey of Professor Hulsey and his team from their introduction to the subject and the related evidence to the final publication of their report in March of this year. It is an interesting story and important for several reasons. First, it shows what an objective group of engineering science professionals will find if they look closely at the destruction of WTC 7. Additionally, it provides a great example of what one concerned citizen can do to make a great difference in shedding light on the truth of the events of September 11, 2001.

The concerned citizen, who was barely mentioned in the film, is John Thiel, a nurse anesthetist from Alaska. In 2010, Thiel began a 3-year process of looking for an engineer to conduct an honest scientific investigation into the destruction of WTC 7. Thiel was not a structural engineer, but he knew that the official reports on the destruction of that building were false and he wanted to do something about it. Ten years later, after contacting 150 engineers, finally finding and gaining Hulsey’s commitment to do it, and persuading Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth to get involved, Thiel’s persistence paid off.

Seven also features comments from some brave engineers who have spoken out in the past about WTC 7. This includes fire protection engineer Scott Grainger, structural engineer Kamal Obeid, civil engineer and AE911Truth board director Roland Angle, and mechanical engineer Tony Szamboti.  All these men make powerful statements in the film about NIST’s failures and omission of evidence.

The film reviews much of the evidence and how it was treated by the initial ASCE/FEMA building performance study and by NIST. It discusses circumstantial evidence including the suspicious tenants of WTC 7 (e.g. the CIA, the Secret Service, the DOD, and the SEC) and foreknowledge about the collapse of the building. It reviews the inexplicable “predictions” of WTC 7’s collapse by media giants CNN and BBC, both of which reported the collapse before it actually happened.

However, the strength of the film is in exposing the viewer to scientific facts and evidence as described by credible experts like Hulsey, Angle, Grainger, Obeid, and Szamboti. This includes the samples of steel exhibiting intergranular melting and sulfidation that the New York Times originally called “the deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation” but that were ignored in the NIST reports.  It includes the fact that no tall building had ever collapse primarily from fire and that the fires in WTC 7 were ordinary and were fed by only 20-minutes of fire load in any given area.  The film also highlights concerns about the lack of scientific integrity in NIST’s manipulation of model parameters like the coefficient of expansion of steel and the omission of shear studs on the WTC 7 floor assemblies.

The film is only 45 minutes long and focuses largely on the evidence related to Hulsey’s study. It does not include some facts and evidence about WTC 7 that have been pointed out in the past. For example, it does not detail NIST’s history of failed hypotheses, like the diesel fuel tank hypothesis or the claim that the design of the building contributed to the collapse. It also doesn’t mention that the new WTC 7 was completed in 2006, when NIST was stating it had no idea what happened to the first one.

In the film, Professor Hulsey comes across as very credible and driven by the desire for an objective approach that gives the public an understanding of what happened to WTC 7. His comments about building his study on a clear palate, using pure science, ring true. Avery tells Hulsey’s story simply, without engulfing the viewer in unanswered questions.

Overall, Seven is an excellent presentation for people with a scientific mindset. As John Thiel wrote to me:

Any engineer or scientist with a basic understanding of physics, who does not suffer from cognitive dissonance, should easily be convinced of the truth after watching this video.

I agree.

If people want to help reveal the truth about WTC 7, and therefore about 9/11, they should share this film with every scientist and engineer they know. It is available on multiple streaming platforms, including Amazon Prime, iTunes, Vudu, Google Play, and Microsoft. As a society, our understanding of the crimes of 9/11 continues to be crucial to our understanding of what is going on today.

Seven is directed by Dylan Avery, released by Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, and available to rent and buy from various platforms, 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.

The odds are stacked against Julian Assange, the WikiLeaks publisher who faces the grimmest of prospects come January 4.  On that day, the unsympathetic judicial head of District Judge Vanessa Baraitser will reveal her decision on the Old Bailey proceedings that took place between September and October this year.  Despite Assange’s team being able to marshal an impressive, even astonishing array of sources and witnesses demolishing the prosecution’s case for extradition to the United States, power can be blindly vengeful.

Such blindness is much in evidence in a co-authored contribution to The Daily Signal from this month.  The authors are insipidly predictable: national security and technology types with comic strip names (Charles “Cully” Stimson; Klon Kitchen) and rule of law advocates who seemingly campaign against their own brief (John G. Malcolm).  Having not bothered to read the evidence submitted at the extradition trial, the authors are obedient to a fictitious record.  This includes allegations that WikiLeaks harmed US diplomatic relations; the stubborn libel that Assange’s actions, far from exposing US atrocities, led to a loss of life; and the disruption of essential “intelligence sources and methods”.  (Accountability can be expensive.)

The authors fail to appreciate the dangers of the Assange case to the First Amendment, free speech and the publication of national security information.  They merely claim to be free speech defenders, only to neatly hive Assange’s activities off from its protections.  Free speech is a fine thing as long as it is innocuous and inconsequential.  “Suppression of speech, in a free society, is wrong.  But Assange is not a free-speech hero.”

By internationalising the reach of the Espionage Act, the indictment against Assange threatens the global documentation and reporting of classified information in the public interest.  To put it in elementary terms for the legions of ignorant security hacks, granting the request will legitimise the targeting of US citizens.  Bruce D. Brown, executive director of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, summarises the implications.  “If the UK grants the request to deliver Assange, UK prosecutors could make similar arguments in an effort to extradite a journalist in the US for violations of its Official Secrets Act, which explicitly criminalizes the publication of leaked military or intelligence information.”

Of central importance in the Assange pardon drive is the cultivation of vanity and, it follows, the appeal to posterity.  “We write to request that you put a defining stamp to your presidential legacy by pardoning Julian Assange or stopping his tradition,” urge the signatories of yet another letter to Trump on the subject.  The heavy artillery is impressive, including five Nobel Prize laureates: Northern Irish peace activist Mairead Maguire, human rights activist Adolfo Pérez Esquivel, Iranian political activist and lawyer Shirin Ebadi, feminist campaigner Rigoberta Menchú Tum and Austrian novelist Peter Handke.

Appropriately, the signatories impress upon Trump that the case “threatens the constitutional protections that Americans hold dear” and suggest that history will be kind should he show sound judgment in the case.  “By offering a pardon, to put a stop to the prosecution of Assange, your presidency will be remembered for having saved First Amendment protections for all Americans.”

The approach taken by the UN Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment is more expansive and detailed.  In his appeal to Trump on December 22, Nils Melzer outlines the high price Assange has paid “for the courage to publish true information about government misconduct throughout the world.”  The deteriorating health condition of the publisher is noted, including the risks posed to him by the COVID-19 pandemic at Belmarsh prison in London.

The relevant pointers are there: that Assange is not an enemy of the American people; his work and that of WikiLeaks “fights secrecy and corruption throughout the world and, therefore, acts in the public interest of the American people and of humanity as a whole.”  He had not hacked or pilfered the information he published, having “obtained it from authentic documents and sources in the same way as any other serious and independent investigative journalists conduct their work.”

Melzer then seeks to appeal to Trump the man, pleading for Assange’s release as the president had “vowed … to pursue an agenda of fighting government corruption and misconduct; and because allowing the prosecution of Mr Assange to continue would mean that, under your legacy, telling the truth about such corruption and misconduct has become a crime.”

Finally, the personal touch is being fashioned for the president, spearheaded by Assange’s fiancée Stella Moris.  Her appearance on Fox News with host Tucker Carlson was primed for Trump’s hearty consumption, laden with hooks of catchy lingo.  This made perfectly good sense; there is still some time to go before the world’s first Fox News president vacates the White House.  “Once he [Assange] gets to the US,” feared Moris, “he will be in the hands of the Deep State.  That’s why I pleaded with the President to show the mercy the Deep State will not show Julian if he is extradited.”

Carlson was certainly convinced, taking a position at odds with various national security wonks that pullulate the US airwaves.  “Whatever you think of Julian Assange and what he did, he is effectively a journalist.  He took information and he put it in a place the public could read it.”  The Australian was spending time in prison for releasing documents “he did not steal,” merely providing a platform for their dissemination, showing that “the US government was illegally spying on me, and everybody else in this country.”

The seeds for a stinging provocation against the US imperium have been sown.  Whether they take firm root and grow in the self-absorbed mind of the commander-in-chief is another matter.

*

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

Featured image: Julian Assange court sketch, October 21, 2019, supplied by Julia Quenzler.

Masking the COVID-19 Virus in this ‘Pandemic’

By Dr. David Halpin, December 29, 2020

There is no logic, nor reason based in medical science, for the wearing of paper or cloth masks in the context of the epidemic of this virus – Covid-19 (C19).  The virus, though likely altered in laboratories, is part of a family of viruses/virions first identified in the 1960’s – the corona viruses.

Turkey Pivots to the Center of the New Great Game

By Pepe Escobar, December 29, 2020

Under the delightfully named Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act (CAATSA), the Trump administration duly slapped sanctions on Ankara for daring to buy Russian S-400 surface-to-air missile defence systems.

A Nasty Shot in the Arm – RT-PCR Kits and Vaccines Unlicensed by Britain’s MHRA

By John Goss, December 29, 2020

Aware of the forthcoming vaccine roll-out aimed, it is said, to protect against a disease (COVID-19) that reached its apex almost nine months ago, I emailed the MHRA (Medical and Healthcare Regulatory Authority) on 20 November 2020.

Colonialist Injustice: The Pardoning of the Blackwater Killers

By Richard Becker, December 29, 2020

Along with a motley collection of wealthy swindlers and fraudsters, President Donald Trump on Dec. 22 pardoned four former Blackwater private contractors (mercenaries) convicted in the infamous Sept. 16, 2007, Nisour Square massacre in Baghdad.

The 2020 Nashville Bombing vs. the 1995 Oklahoma City Bombing

By Dr. Paul Craig Roberts, December 29, 2020

Many Americans concluded that the truck bomb was cover for an inside job.  McVeigh and Nichols were regarded as patsies who thought they blew up the building, but their role was to direct attention away from those responsible.

A Pardoning Time of Year. Julian Assange and Edward Snowden?

By Philip Giraldi, December 29, 2020

The process of issuing presidential pardons will undoubtedly continue up until Inauguration Day on January 20^th, but sources are uncertain whether Trump will be courageous enough to pardon the two individuals whose freedom would most definitely be sending a powerful message for integrity in government.

2020: The Year the Tree of Liberty Was Torched

By John W. Whitehead, December 29, 2020

The government failed to protect our lives, liberty and happiness. The predators of the police state wreaked havoc on our freedoms, our communities, and our lives.

Video: The Future of Vaccines

By James Corbett, December 29, 2020

If the Gateses and the Faucis and the representatives of the international medical establishment get their way, life will not return to normal until the entire planet is vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2.

Asia-Pacific articles:

A Dalit and a Brahmin

By Sophie Michel, December 29, 2020

The table was long and elegant and filled every night with rich Brahmins, such as Aashka’s family.  Most of them were reserved old men, who hardly spoke to Aashka save for reprimanding her that if she kept up her unladylike behavior she’d surely be reincarnated as a stick bug.

Tensions Between China and India May Soon Rise as Trump Approves Historic Tibet Act

By Uriel Araujo, December 29, 2020

The Tibetan Policy and Support Act (TPSA), which supports Tibet in key areas, even includes possible sanctions against Chinese authorities should they try to appoint the next Dalai Lama themselves and calls for building an international coalition to ensure such appointment is only carried out by the Tibetan Buddhist community.

Notre site Web en français, mondialisation.ca

***

Nuestro sitio web en español, globalizacion.ca

Free citizens who stand up against tyranny have nothing against those in power. They do nothing to them. They fight for a more just order, for their right to life, to freedom, peace and security. When nothing else helps, that is the message of Thomas More’s novel “Utopia”, then it helps to do things radically differently. (1) For the humanist scholar, the small island state was a counter-model to the decaying society of England at the time.

For the author, a liberal social order with free people is the counter-model to the present totalitarian form of rule of unfreedom, violence and exploitation. This vision of the future, for which every full-minded and unblinded citizen should fight, was already held by some mature people like Peter Kropotkin and other liberal socialists more than 100 years ago. However, since they had only anticipated and not yet recognised the emotional reactions of human beings and were also vehemently opposed by authoritarian-minded contemporaries, they were unable to put their progressive ideas into practice. Thus, man is still not free today.

Gottfried Keller: Step outside the front door yourself and see what is available!

Every individual is called upon to make his or her contribution to solving the pressing problems of our time. And of course we are able to do so if we are aware that it depends on each and every one of us. Why not muster the courage to use our own minds and not repress the monstrosities of today, but to see them and stand up against them – intellectually, emotionally, politically.  Overcome the inertia of the heart and act! Against all odds, muster the determination to seek the truth and thereby preserve our dignity as human beings and create a future worth living for ourselves and our children.

The Swiss poet and novelist Gottfried Keller (1819-1890) put it this way:

“No government and no battalions (…) are able to protect law and freedom where the citizen is unable to step outside the front door himself and see what is available.” (Zurich Novellen)

Albert Camus: Every human being has a more or less large sphere of influence

Shortly after the outbreak of the Second World War, the Nobel Prize winner for literature Albert Camus (1913-1960), one of the most important intellectuals of the 20th century, commented in a “Letter to a Desperate Man” on the role of the individual in a situation perceived as hopeless. (2) These are thoughts that document and deeply touch Camus’s relevance to our own day.

The useful task that, in Camus’ view, the person seeking advice still has to fulfil after the outbreak of the Great War is also a task for every individual in our present time, the worldwide war of the ruling clique against us citizens:

“You write to me that this war depresses you, that you would be ready to die, but that you cannot bear this worldwide stupidity, this bloodthirsty cowardice and this criminal naivety that still believes human problems can be solved with blood. I read your lines and I understand you. I understand you, but I can no longer follow you when you make a rule of life out of this despair and want to retreat behind your disgust because everything is useless. For despair is a feeling and not a state. You cannot remain in it. And the feeling must give way to a clear realisation of things.” (3)

“(…) First of all, you must ask yourself whether you have really done everything to prevent this war. (…) But I am sure that you did not do everything that was necessary, any more than any of us. You were not able to prevent it? No, that’s not true. This war was not inevitable, you know that. (…) There is still a useful task to be done.” (4)

“You have a task, do not doubt it. Every person has a more or less large sphere of influence. He owes it to his shortcomings as well as to his advantages. But be that as it may, it is there and it can be used immediately. Do not drive anyone to riot. You have to be sparing with the blood and freedom of others. But you can convince ten, twenty, thirty people that this war was neither inevitable nor is it, that all means have not yet been tried to stop it, that it must be said, written if possible, shouted out if necessary! These ten or thirty people will spread the word to ten others, who will in turn spread it. If inertia holds you back, well then, start all over again with others.”

In conclusion, Camus encourages the advice-seeker not to despair of history, in which the individual is capable of everything:

“Individuals are what send us to our deaths today. Why should other individuals not succeed in giving peace to the world? Only one must begin without thinking of such great goals. Remember that war is waged as much with the enthusiasm of those who want it as with the despair of those who reject it with all the strength of their souls.” (5)

“The International”: To the final battle!

“The Internationale” is the world-famous struggle song of the socialist workers’ movement, whose call to the last stand was issued to the international workers’ movement after the violent suppression of the Paris Commune in May 1871. (6) The German version of the original French text by Emil Luckhard (1910) reads:

“Wake up, damned of this earth, who are still forced to starve! (…) Army of slaves, wake up! (…) Peoples, hear the signals! To the final battle! (…) No higher being, no god, no emperor, no tribune can save us! To deliver us from misery, that we can only do ourselves!”

After the revolt, let the people go free!

Karl Marx (1818-1883) – drawing on Ludwig Feuerbach (1804-1872) – argued that man’s consciousness is shaped by social conditions and thus brought man back to earth. His materialist conception of history was a tremendous intrusion into the emotional world of man. Marx and some liberal socialists began to see man correctly – and this man began to deal with himself. Before that, the tendency prevailed in schools and universities that man’s soul merely undergoes a trial here in this world and that eternal life only begins in heaven.

Since religion is associated with fear and terror, man believes as long as he is afraid. In the materialistic view of history, belief in gods and supernatural beings ceases. When man has more knowledge about nature and more certainty, he becomes calmer and no longer has this emotional reaction. He is a different person: he is not afraid of life, of starvation or of exploitation; he has time to develop, to read, to learn scientific knowledge and to think about the world.

The Russian anarchist, geographer and writer Prince Peter Kropotkin (1842-1921) observed both nature and natural beings and related his findings to human beings. In his book “Mutual Aid in the Animal and Human World”, Kropotkin writes that in nature and society there is by no means only a struggle of all against all (social Darwinism), but that the principle of “mutual aid” also prevails. Those living beings that implement this principle would survive more successfully.

Scientific depth psychology is based on these findings. According to this, man is a naturally social being, oriented towards the community of his fellow human beings. He also has a natural inclination towards good, towards the knowledge of truth and towards community life. We do not have to be afraid of this human being. He wants to live in freedom and peace, without violence and war – just like all of us.

Leading man to freedom!

The freedom that is to be (re)given to man, because it is his by nature, is of course not the freedom to exploit the other man and to plunder his hard-earned savings. This is the “freedom” that the ruling clique in capitalism means and that makes man involuntarily corrupt. To give man freedom is to give him the right to a decent life, to justice, security and tranquillity.

This principle of freedom means that every working person knows, should he no longer be able to work for reasons of old age or illness, that he will not then be dismissed, but can continue to live just as before: he will continue to receive his last wage, keep his flat and not have to beg for soup in the communal kitchen or at the church. If he should die unexpectedly because of an accident, his family will continue to be provided for and his children can attend a good school.

In a free society, he not only has security but also peace of mind. No so-called authority will rise to rule over him; there will be no violence, no war, no military service, no hardship, no lunatic asylum, no prisons. External freedom will also lead to internal freedom: Man will have a different consciousness, a different thinking, a different relationship with his fellow man, a different feeling towards the dear God.

How do we set up the new social order?

Will we again establish a dictatorship and force the human being? Or will we believe in man, associate ourselves with him, empathise with him, appeal to him? He wants to live well with his children and have a roof over his head. This human being will cooperate in a free society because this corresponds to his nature. We do not have to be afraid of him. We do not have to see any danger in freedom either. If someone is not willing or able to live in a community, then he will be taken along by the others. The sick will be dealt with in the same way; they will not be a nuisance. On the contrary, in a free society they will get well.

Let us leave man free and demand nothing of him! He will gladly accept this and behave differently because he finds a different social situation. Man can change, Marx said – and depth psychology confirms this. He should also be given the same freedom. The churches will not be closed like the Bolsheviks did in Russia, because that hurts people deep inside, in their faith, in their dependence, in their fear. They then feel attacked in their minds, in their souls, and are called upon to fight against it. One must not take religion away from people, but leave them free to pray. It is not the state that decides, but the individual and the community. In the present principle of violence and authority, man cannot develop.

Some mature people who have had a laid table have guessed that the prevailing capitalist system is not right. How many beneficiaries there are in this system who do not contribute to the maintenance of the community. It was Peter Kropotkin, Mikhail Bakunin and a few more rich people who have had the opportunity to educate and research. But they would not allow the liberal socialists to strive for a community in which free association prevailed, in which each person decided which path to choose, with whom to associate and how to live. That is why they were bitterly opposed.

In a free society, the consciousness of man changes

Karl Marx was right: when man has the security of his life, he thinks differently. He has different thoughts, different feelings and a different relationship to his fellow man.

Man becomes different when he has the table laid. He has different feelings than the one who lives in insecurity, is exploited, is poor, is afraid of hail and lightning that God will send him if he does not pray enough. Afraid that the good Lord will set his house on fire or send hail and smash the grain so that he starves. In his whole emotional life and thinking he is taken up by this.

If we establish a society where man has his right to life, then man has a different consciousness.

Fear in capitalism shapes the human being. Exploiters and exploited are equally poor. The church maintains this system with miracle men who are in relationship with the dear God and order everything. If we give up the capitalist system and form a community where this is not an issue, then there are no exploiters, no capitalists, no wars, no fear. Then a different human being develops.

Then there is no fear of God’s punishment and hell and therefore no religion. The person has a different consciousness, thinks for himself, trusts in his own powers, checks by experience, has different thoughts and feelings.

The sick person becomes healthy through a different social system and has a fear-free relationship with his fellow human being. He can show solidarity with him, join him and put himself on an equal footing with him. Man can develop and changes his behaviour, he no longer becomes corrupt as in the capitalist system. He educates himself and learns to read and write. He no longer waits for paradise in heaven, but wants it on earth; he decides for himself which way he will go.

In Russia, in Cuba and in the former Yugoslavia with a once very high illiteracy rate, the old people have learned to read and write. They did not have paper yet, so they practised the letters in the snow or sand.

*

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. paed. Rudolf Hänsel is an educationalist and qualified psychologist.

Notes

(1) https://www.globalresearch.ca/die-utopie-als-politisches-mittel-in-…en-nicht-in-passivitat-und-resignation-zu-versinken/5709995; https://www.globalresearch.ca/utopia-political-means-not-sinking-passivity-resignation-social-crisis/5709993; http://www.nrhz.de/flyer/beitrag.php?id=26733&css

(2) Marin, L. (ed.) (2013). Albert Camus – Libertarian Writings (1948-1960). Hamburg

(3) op. cit., p. 271

(4) op. cit., p. 272

(5) op. cit., p. 273

(6) https://www.globalresearch.ca/reflections-secret-agenda-elite-roleus-citizens/5709112;

https://www.globalresearch.ca/uberlegungen-zur-heimlichen-agenda-,,,-sogenannten-elite-und-zur-rollevon-uns-burgern/5709117;

http://nrhz.de/flyer/beitrag.php?id=26716&css

On Christmas day, a recreational vehicle exploded in downtown Nashville, TN outside an AT&T transmission building — one block from the company’s office building.

What happened knocked out communications and 911 emergency call centers over a wide area, including parts of neighboring Kentucky and Alabama.

Was the motive behind what happened what official reports claimed?

Or was something else responsible for the blast? Was it a false flag?

It’s unclear at this time. What is known is that numerous US false flag attacks occurred before — notably since at least the mid-19th century.

They’re a US tradition at strategically timed moments.

Before the blast, the Tennessean reported that Nashville residents in the affected area were warned before the incident occurred, saying:

A “recorded warning” inside the vehicle said “(e)vacuate now. There is a bomb. A bomb is in this (RV) and will explode.”

An area resident said “(w)hoever did it did give fair warning” 15 minutes before the blast.

Fox News Nashville TV reported that city “police got people to safety before the downtown explosion.”

The following day, FBI agents raided the home of a “person of interest” following “more than 500” leads.

That many in hours after what happened is highly suspicious.

How is it possible to identify a possible suspect hours after the incident, including before an investigation began?

Nashville police called the incident an “intentional act,” a likely suicide bombing.

No mass casualties occurred — just three injuries reported and the remains of an individual identified as Anthony Quinn Warner.

Was he responsible for the incident or a convenient patsy to blame for what he had nothing to do with?

Before ID’d from DNA, his residence was searched by federal agents in a Nashville suburb, as explained above — a disturbing red flag.

Why his home alone and no others? Why before an investigation began?

No motive pointing to him is known.

Did what happened follow pre-planning to name him for the incident before occuring?

As the saying goes, dead men tell no tales so he’s unable to defend himself.

Reportedly, police and FBI agents aren’t looking for other suspects, another disturbing red flag.

Who is Anthony Quinn Warner. Local media called him a loner, an unmarried man with no children.

According to the Tennessean, “acquaintances…described (him) as a self-employed computer guru — and a homebody who tended to his pets and kept to himself.”

A next door neighbor called him “a little odd” but friendly, adding:

“If he…ha(d) any political beliefs…that was something he kept to himself.”

Another neighbor called him a “recluse.”

Local authorities claimed that the RV (or one similar to the detonated vehicle) was seen outside his residence for years.

Nothing known about Warner explained above suggests a motive for what happened, one more red flag.

What happened in Nashville is reminiscent of two earlier incidents.

In April 1995, a truck bombing killed 168 people and caused extensive damage in Oklahoma City.

Within 90 minutes of the incident, Timothy McVeigh was arrested on a firearms charge, spent two days in jail, then was charged with the bombing.

On May 10, Terry Nichols was named his alleged accomplice and arrested.

Experts, including professional demolition contractors, concluded that only high-grade military explosives, detonators, and proper multiple internal placements could have caused such extensive destruction.

Elgin Air Force Base’s Armament Wright Laboratory studied the incident.

It concluded that no single truck bomb was involved.

(Ret.) Brig. General Benton K. Partin, an explosives and ordnance expert, it said a truck bomb couldn’t cause steel-reinforced concrete columns to collapse,” adding:

“The total incompatibility with a single truck bomb lies in the fact that either some of the columns collapsed that should not have collapsed or some of (them) are still standing that should have collapsed and did not.”

“This is a classic cover-up of immense proportions.”

“To cause the damage pattern that occurred to the Murrah building, there would have to have been demolition charges at several supporting column bases, at locations not accessible from the street, to supplement the truck bomb damage.”

“(A) careful examination of photographs showing the collapsed column bases reveal a failure mode produced by demolition charges and not by a blast from the truck bomb.”

More forensic evidence showed other devices were involved, what major media suppressed.

Yet McVeigh was executed for the incident, Nichols sentenced to life imprisonment.

Gen. Partin and others believe they were framed — used as convenient patsies.

So were falsely charged Dzhokhar Tsarnaev and his brother Tamerlan for what’s known as the April 2013 Boston Marathon bombing.

Local police lethally shot Tamerlan near Watertown, MA.

Dzhokhar was arrested, falsely charged, convicted and sentenced to death — later reversed to multiple life sentences.

Neither brother was involved with the incident, a state-sponsored false flag.

Like many times before in the US, innocent patsies were wrongfully punished. Innocence wasn’t enough to save them.

Was the Christmas Day Nashville incident the latest example of wrongfully charging a convenient patsy despite no motive or evidence of involvement in what happened?

Perhaps what’s unknown at this time will be revealed later without public attention to set the record straight if the incident was other than what’s reported.

A Final Comment

Accused suspect Anthony Quinn Warner appears to have been used as a convenient patsy.

Deceased and unable to defend himself, discovered evidence spoke for him.

The widely reported official narrative has holes large enough to drive an RV through.

Claiming Warner’s DNA was found on a detonated RV is where the official narrative falls apart.

The vehicle at the crime scene isn’t the RV seen parked outside Warner’s home.

According to a keen-eyed observer,

the crime scene RV has a single horizontal pin stripe along the driver’s side near the vehicle’s roof.

Warner’s RV seen parked outside his residence earlier (now nowhere in sight) has two pin stripes in the same location.

It’s proof that his RV had nothing to do with the incident.

Claiming it refutes the official narrative to falsely blame Warner for what he apparently had nothing to do with.

Based on what’s known, he was set up to be a convenient patsy for a planned in advance false flag — a US specialty since the 19th century.

Clearly not the first time this mass deception stunt was used by US dark forces. It surely won’t be the last.

*

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

Award-winning author Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at [email protected]. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG)

His new book as editor and contributor is titled “Flashpoint in Ukraine: US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III.”

http://www.claritypress.com/LendmanIII.html

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.

Featured image: FBI Photo of Anthony Quinn Warner, the 2020 Nashville bomber (Public Domain)

There is no logic, nor reason based in medical science, for the wearing of paper or cloth masks in the context of the epidemic of this virus – Covid_19 (C19) .  The virus, though likely altered in laboratories, is part of a family of viruses/virions first identified in the 1960’s – the corona viruses. Corona = crown, and hence the projected images seen on every BBC ‘news’ for months.  It is often found, along with other classes of viruses, by chance – as in 15% of cases of the ‘common cold’.

I was a medical student at St Mary’s Hospital Paddington from 1958 to 1964.  Amongst all of the subjects in my education there was bacteriology, virology, epidemiology (the study of disease in populations at large eg cholera in Soho – Dr Snow 1854), and immunology.  The latter was taught very well by Professor Porter, who was later awarded a Nobel Prize, and his case deservedly! St Mary’s was the home of penicillin, Alexander Fleming having noted that a mould was killing colonies of bacteria on a culture plate.  The hospital was expert in infection, and its Almoth Wright Institute had been at the centre of this since the early twenties.  We were taught to use antibiotics wisely, and not wastefully nor dangerously.

As doctors, it is essential that we learn as much as possible about pathology in creatures, and especially the human.

This is the study of things that go wrong and sometimes cause disease.  Known in depth, and over time, this gives the doctor ‘X ray eyes’ when facing a sick person.

It was  taught very well at St Mary’s there being a ‘post-mortem’ demonstration at noon on every weekday.  These were presentations of the history, preserved organs and slides of the tissues in the woman or man who had died.  They took place in a lecture theatre and were given by the Professor in Pathology or one of several pathologists.  We also witnessed actual post-mortems/autopsies.  I absorbed all this, and gained a prize as a student in it.  I am very grateful for this teaching and to St Mary’s – a hospital that was a family – for caring.

I am sad, and angry also, to say that pathology has been sidelined, along with much else in OUR NHS.  I read that of all deaths IN hospital only between 1 to 2% are subject to a post-mortem.  It is known that at least 40% of diagnoses made on the ward are found to be wrong when the body and its tissues are studied in and after the post-mortem examination.

My training in this is the reason why I have contributed fact and analysis in the unnatural death of Dr David Kelly MD CMG 17/18th July 2003.

He was the UK’s foremost germ and chemical weapons expert whose death was dealt with superficially, and indeed very inadequately, at the ad hoc Hutton Inquiry as triggered by Anthony Charles Lynton Blair QC within three hours of an unidentified corpse being found in an Oxforshire wood.  The then PM was at the time in a jet travelling from Washington, after an award to him, en route to Tokyo!  The hearing – directed by Lord Falconer to ‘inquire urgently into the circumstances surrounding the death of Dr Kelly …’, an oblique instruction, started 3 weeks after the death.  It had no legal force and was hamstrung as against an inquest in four key ways.  Uniquely, this ‘unnatural’ death has never been subject to an inquest as the law of our beautiful islands has required since the 13thC – mostly.  Of the total 21 days of the hearing, only one half of one day were spent in discussing the medical and forensic matters, and these most inadequately.  One of the four key omissions was the absence of any cross examination by others than Lord Hutton.  (He died a few weeks ago.)

This virus has been lethal, especially in the frail elderly and those with impaired immunity, and what are called ‘co-morbidities’ – lung disease, diabetes, heart failure etc.  All are common in a sickly Britain.  The Office of National Statistics has recorded that 95% of those dying with Covid19 had these co-morbidities.

The diagnosis has been ‘encouraged’ in many ways.  As for those dying in care homes, mostly as a result of government negligence, the death certificates have been written after telephone calls and without a doctor having seen the patient in his or her’s usually lonely death.

In the US, hospitals have received a bonus for each death attributed to C19.  Expert doctors and scientists who have sought to inform and plead for logical and scientific management have been ruthlessly censored by governments.

Literally hundreds of ‘videos’ on Youtube etc have been ‘taken down’ within hours.  This confirms that the Covid-19 ‘management plan’ is a lie, and disastrous for humans worldwide.

Great distress is being caused, especially in those with existing mental illness, backlogs in diagnosing often treatable cancers, treating pain and disability in my field of orthopaedic surgery and trauma surgery etc.  The effects on the global, national and personal economies are disastrous and growing daily, and are entirely predictable.  The winter ahead will be dark, and we all must hold to our common sense, and care for each other – as this country did so bravely from 1939.  ‘To care is the most important characteristic of any worthwhile society’ – David Halpin.

The WHO is a ‘dodgy’ organisation.  One defect is its inconsistency – like any committee.  And its members vary greatly in calibre and motivation.  I give these quotes from a posting on the GreenMedInfo website.

According to the World Health Organization’s June 5, 2020, guidance on face mask use, there’s no direct evidence that universal masking of healthy people is an effective intervention against respiratory illnesses

Despite the fact that cloth masks are far less effective for blocking potentially infectious respiratory droplets, the WHO recommends cloth masks should be worn by infected persons in community settings

A policy review paper published in the CDC’s (USA) journal Emerging Infectious Diseases found that masks did not protect against influenza in non-healthcare settings

Harms and risks of mask-wearing include health effects associated with poor air quality and toxic ingredients in the mask, self-contamination caused by manipulation of the mask by contaminated hands, general discomfort, facial skin lesions, irritant dermatitis or worsening acne, and a false sense of security that may reduce adherence to other preventive measures such as hand hygiene

I add that oxygen levels fall and carbon dioxide levels rise in the blood as a result of re-breathing expired air.

I finish.  Fascism rose strongly in Germany from 1933 after the ‘false flag’ / ‘put up job’ of the Reichstag Fire – lead by Hitler.  It rose in Italy and other countries.  There was a strong movement here in Britain with many powerful sympathisers.  I quote from Milton Mayer, the son in a German ‘Jewish’ family who fled Berlin and moved to the US in 1936.  He became a journalist and went back to Germany a few years after WW2 to interview many Germans.  These quotes are from the book he wrote on the Home page of my website – google ‘david halpin’ under ‘A Little Food for Thought’.  The book – ‘They Thought They Were Free’ by Milton Mayer, The Germans, 1938-45

“What no one seemed to notice was the ever widening gap between the government and the people. And it became always wider…..the whole process of its coming into being, was above all diverting, it provided an excuse not to think….for people who did not want to think anyway gave us some dreadful, fundamental things to think about…..and kept us so busy with continuous changes and ‘crises’ and so fascinated…..by the machinations of the ‘national enemies,’  without and within, that we had no time to think about these dreadful things that were growing, little by little, all around us…..

“Each step was so small, so inconsequential, so well explained or, on occasion, ‘regretted,’ that unless one understood what the whole thing was in principle, what all these ‘little measures’…..must some day lead to, one no more saw it developing from day to day than a farmer in his field sees the corn growing…..Each act is worse than the last, but only a little worse. You wait for the next and the next.

“You wait for one great shocking occasion, thinking that others, when such a shock comes, will join you in resisting somehow. You don’t want to act, or even talk, alone…..you don’t want to ‘go out of your way to make trouble.’  But the one great shocking occasion, when tens or hundreds or thousands will join with you, never comes.

“That’s the difficulty. The forms are all there, all untouched, all reassuring, the houses, the shops, the jobs, the mealtimes, the visits, the concerts, the cinema, the holidays. But the spirit, which you never noticed because you made the lifelong mistake of identifying it with the forms, is changed. Now you live in a world of hate and fear, and the people who hate and fear do not even know it themselves, when everyone is transformed, no one is transformed.

“You have accepted things you would not have accepted five years ago, a year ago, things your father…..could never have imagined.”

Be kind to one another.

Rely on your common sense.  Stand together for reason, justice and our laws.  Speak up for your family and friends.  And NEVER GIVE UP.

*

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 author’s blog site, David Halpin, where this article was originally published. 

Featured image is by Engin Akyurt from Pixabay

Free speech is the bedrock on which all our other freedoms rest, yet it is currently in greater peril than at any time since the Second World War. The Free Speech Union  is a non-partisan, not-for-profit membership organisation that stands up for people whose right to freedom of expression has been violated.

Not only do we pressure institutions to uphold their own free speech policies through direct challenges and media pressure, but we also litigate when we believe they’ve behaved unlawfully. This work is particularly urgent in the present climate, with people being cancelled every day for daring to challenge the latest ideological dogma.

Freedom of expression is legally protected in Britain, but that’s often forgotten by private companies and public organisations when they come under pressure to get rid of someone who’s said something people don’t want to hear. Faced with an angry mob on social media, the people at the top nearly always cave in, firing the heretic in question or forcing them to resign. Due process is forgotten and people’s careers and reputations are destroyed.

One of the best ways to protect people from mob justice is to let their bosses and the powers that be know that there is an organisation out there that will stand up for people’s speech rights in the courts. That’s where the FSU litigation fund comes in.

When, on 20th April 2020, the broadcast regulator slapped down Eamonn Holmes, an ITV presenter, for arguing in favour of always maintaining an open mind with respect to different theories about the coronavirus crisis and the Government’s response to it, the FSU decided it needed to do something to defend the right of Holmes and other broadcasters to express their views freely without fear of being censured by Ofcom. Given that it is likely that Ofcom will become the regulator of the internet as well in due course, we consider it vitally important that it should pay proper attention to Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights which protects the right to freedom of expression. Ofcom should encourage – rather than discourage – open debate.

We lodged a complaint with Ofcom in the hope that it would realise the error of its ways. However, it refused to budge on the issue, citing the ‘coronavirus guidance’ it had published on March 23rd, the same day the country was placed under a full lockdown, which cautioned broadcasters to exercise extreme caution when airing the views of people who were critical of the official response to the pandemic. Consequently, we decided to apply for permission to Judicially Review that guidance in the High Court. We hope to be able to persuade the Court that the guidance is unlawful.

When we raised a similar issue with the Isle of Man’s Communications Commission, the IoM equivalent of Ofcom, its response was very different. They were, at the time, investigating a complaint about a chat show host, Stuart Peters, and we were concerned that they would neglect Mr Peters’ Article 10 rights. Mr Peters had challenged the concept of white privilege in the course of a robust exchange of views with a caller to his radio station and we did not think he should be penalised for that.

In the event, the Communications Commission took proper account of the importance of Mr Peters’ right to free speech, finding in his favour and stating in their report that: “The Commission is of the view that open and honest debate about such issues is required as part of the democratic process and encourages this to take place.”

As the FSU has a range of obligations towards its members, it has opened this separate litigation fund so that those who specifically support this and other general litigation can do so, whether or not they wish to join the FSU.

A judge will shortly decide whether to allow us to proceed with a Judicial Review of Ofcom’s guidance. We think we have a strong case, but in the event of losing Ofcom will ask us to pay its costs so we have asked the judge for a ‘Protective Costs Order’ which places a cap on the liability faced by the FSU. We have said that we want the cap to be whatever is in this fund when the case has been decided. If the High Court finds in our favour, the money in this fund will be held over and used to support other litigation to protect free speech.

As George Orwell said, “If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people things they do not want to hear.”

It’s more important now than ever to stand up for that right.

Organization’s Note: The organiser of this campaign is the FSU’s Company Secretary. All funds raised will go to The Free Speech Union Limited.

*

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 TFSU

This article was originally published on Asia Times.

When it comes to sowing – and profiting – from division, Erdogan’s Turkey is quite the superstar.

Under the delightfully named Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act (CAATSA), the Trump administration duly slapped sanctions on Ankara for daring to buy Russian S-400 surface-to-air missile defence systems. The sanctions focused on Turkey’s defence procurement agency, the SSB.

Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu’s response was swift: Ankara won’t back down – and it is in fact mulling how to respond.

The European poodles inevitably had to provide the follow-up. So after the proverbial, interminable debate in Brussels, they settled for “limited” sanctions – adding a further list for a summit in March 2021. Yet these sanctions actually focus on as-yet unidentified individuals involved in offshore drilling in Cyprus and Greece. They have nothing to do with S-400s.

What the EU has come up with is in fact a very ambitious, global human-rights sanctions regime modeled after the US’s Magnitsky Act. That implies travel bans and asset freezes of people unilaterally considered responsible for genocide, torture, extrajudicial killings and crimes against humanity.

Turkey, in this case, is just a guinea pig. The EU always hesitates mightily when it comes to sanctioning a NATO member. What the Eurocrats in Brussels really want is an extra, powerful tool to harass mostly China and Russia.

Our jihadis, sorry, “moderate rebels”

What’s fascinating is that Ankara under Erdogan always seems to be exhibiting a sort of “devil may care” attitude.

Take the seemingly insoluble situation in the Idlib cauldron in northwest Syria. Jabhat al-Nusra – a.k.a. al-Qaeda in Syria – honchos are now involved in “secret” negotiations with Turkish-backed armed gangs, such as Ahrar al-Sharqiya, right in front of Turkish officials. The objective: to boost the number of jihadis concentrated in certain key areas. The bottom line: a large number of these will come from Jabhat al-Nusra.

So Ankara for all practical purposes remains fully behind hardcore jihadis in northwest Syria – disguised under the “innocent” brand  Hayat Tahrir al-Sham. Ankara has absolutely no interest in letting these people disappear. Moscow, of course, is fully aware of these shenanigans, but wily Kremlin and Defence Ministry strategists prefer to let it roll for the time being, assuming the Astana process shared by Russia, Iran and Turkey can be somewhat fruitful.

Erdogan, at the same time, masterfully plays the impression that he’s totally involved in pivoting towards Moscow. He’s effusive that “his Russian colleague Vladimir Putin” supports the idea – initially tabled by Azerbaijan – of a regional security platform uniting Russia, Turkey, Iran, Azerbaijan, Georgia and Armenia. Erdogan even said that if Yerevan is part of this mechanism, “a new page may be opened” in so far intractable Turkey-Armenia relations.

It will help, of course, that even under Putin pre-eminence, Erdogan will have a very important seat at the table of this putative security organization.

The Big Picture is even more fascinating – because it lays out various aspects of Putin’s Eurasia balancing strategy, which involves as main players Russia, China, Iran, Turkey and Pakistan.

On the eve of the first anniversary of the assassination of Gen Soleimani, Tehran is far from cowed and “isolated”. For all practical purposes, it is slowly but surely forcing the US out of Iraq. Iran’s diplomatic and military links to Iraq, Syria and Lebanon remain solid.

And with less US troops in Afghanistan, the fact is Iran for the first time since the “axis of evil” era will be less surrounded by the Pentagon. Both Russia and China – the key nodes of Eurasia integration – fully approve it.

Of course the Iranian rial has collapsed against the US dollar, and oil income has fallen from over $100 billion a year to something like $7 billion. But non-oil exports are going well over $30 billion a year.

All is about to change for the better. Iran is building an ultra-strategic pipeline from the eastern part of the Persian Gulf to the port of Jask in the Gulf of Oman – bypassing the Strait of Hormuz, and ready to export up to 1 million barrels of oil a day. China will be the top customer.

President Rouhani said the pipeline will be ready by the summer of 2021, adding that Iran plans to be selling over 2.3 million barrels of oil a day next year – with or without US sanctions alleviated by Biden-Harris. 

Watch the Golden Ring

Iran is well linked to Turkey to the west and Central Asia to the east. An extra important element in the chessboard is the entrance of freight trains directly linking Turkey to China via Central Asia – bypassing Russia.

Earlier this month, the first freight train left Istanbul for a 8,693 km, 12-day trip, crossing below the Bosphorus via the brand new Marmary tunnel, inaugurated a year ago, then along the East-West Middle Corridor via the Baku-Tbilisi-Kars (BTK) railway, across Georgia, Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan.

In Turkey this is known as the Silk Railway. It was the BTK that reduced freight transport from Turkey to China from one month to only 12 days. The whole route from East Asia to Western Europe can now be travelled in only 18 days. BTK is the key node of the so-called Middle Corridor from Beijing to London and the Iron Silk Road from Kazakhstan to Turkey.

All of the above totally fits the EU’s agenda – especially Germany’s: implementing a strategic trade corridor linking the EU to China, bypassing Russia.

This would eventually lead to one of the key alliances to be consolidated in the Raging Twenties: Berlin-Beijing.

To speed up this putative alliance, the talk in Brussels is that Eurocrats would profit from Turkmen nationalism, pan-Turkism and the recent entente cordiale between Erdogan and Xi when it comes to the Uighurs. But there’s a problem: many a turcophone tribe prefers an alliance with Russia.

Moreover, Russia is inescapable when it comes to other corridors. Take, for instance, a flow of Japanese goods going to Vladivostok and then via the Trans-Siberian to Moscow and onwards to the EU.

The bypass-Russia EU strategy was not exactly a hit in Armenia-Azerbaijan: what we had was a relative Turkey retreat and a de facto Russian victory, with Moscow reinforcing its military position in the Caucasus.

Enter an even more interesting gambit: the Azerbaijan-Pakistan strategic partnership, now on overdrive in trade, defence, energy, science and technology, and agriculture. Islamabad, incidentally, supported Baku on Nagorno-Karabakh.

Both Azerbaijan and Pakistan have very good relations with Turkey:  a matter of very complex, interlocking Turk-Persian cultural heritage.

And they may get even closer, with the International North-South Transportation Corridor (INTSC) increasingly connecting not only Islamabad to Baku but also both to Moscow.

Thus the extra dimension of the new security mechanism proposed by Baku uniting Russia, Turkey, Iran, Azerbaijan, Georgia and Armenia: all the Top Four here want closer ties with Pakistan.

Analyst Andrew Korybko has neatly dubbed it the “Golden Ring” – a new dimension to Central Eurasian integration featuring Russia, China, Iran, Pakistan, Turkey, Azerbaijan and the central Asian “stans”. So this all goes way beyond a possible Triple Entente: Berlin-Ankara-Beijing.

What’s certain as it stands is that the all-important Berlin-Moscow relationship is bound to remain as cold as ice. Norwegian analyst Glenn Diesen summed it all up: “The German-Russian partnership for Greater Europe was replaced with the Chinese-Russian partnership for Greater Eurasia”.

What’s also certain is that Erdogan, a master of pivoting, will find ways to simultaneously profit from both Germany and Russia.

*

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 is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Aware of the forthcoming vaccine roll-out aimed, it is said, to protect against a disease (COVID-19) that reached its apex almost nine months ago, I emailed the MHRA (Medical and Healthcare Regulatory Authority) on 20 November 2020.

My main concern is that people will unwittingly subject themselves to an experimental vaccine that has not been licensed by the MHRA, the ingredients of which have not been made public. Diagnosis of COVID-19 is made on the basis of a test, the RT-PCR test, the results of which are frequently flawed. I questioned if the MHRA had approved the RT-PCR test and copied in a medical doctor friend of mine.

“Since the reliability of the RT-PCR test has been questioned . . . it is important to know that the MHRA has done its duty in protecting the public from potentially harmful health-care products. Please reassure me that procedures have been followed and that this product the (RT-PCR test) has been approved by the authority. Thank you.”

The MHRA response was mind-blowing.

“There are literally 100s of CE marked Covid RT-PCR tests available on the EU market.

Such tests require a self-declaration process undertaken by the manufacturer with no review of performance data by any EU Government Body or Notified Body and that MHRA does not approve such products.

However, I can confirm that all PCR kits used by government laboratories or their subcontractors have been subject to rigorous validation by them before use.”

How can anyone possibly confirm that rigorous validation has taken place if these tests are not monitored?

It raised an alarm to think results from all the “100s” of RT-PCR tests which the UK government, and other governments of the world, use in checking for COVID -19 are reached using kits that are self-regulated “by the manufacturer”. It is more than disturbing. There is no authority reviewing the tests and no authority reviewing results from the tests. It was necessary to delve further.

“Who is checking how positive tests are arrived at? How many amplifications are being used in tests? Is this consistent across all testing stations?”

The answer, which did not address the questions, raised even more concerns, including the competency of the MHRA.

“There is no relation to vaccinating human volunteers and the use of an RT-PCR test.

I can also confirm that trials of the vaccines was approved by the normal rigorous processes.”

Whether intentionally, or through ignorance, both these sentences are blatantly false.

Within the last week the Assets Publishing Service of the UK government issued a document to Healthcare professionals on how to administer the PfizerBioNTech vaccine.

It quite clearly states that there is now, and since trials began always has been, a relationship between “vaccinating human volunteers and the use of an RT-PCR test.” In section 5.1 which discusses results from trials it explains the two criteria which were, and still are, being adopted:

“Confirmed cases were determined by Reverse Transcription-Polymerase Chain Reaction (RT-PCR) and at least 1 symptom consistent with COVID-19 disease*.

*Case definition (at least 1 of): fever, new or increased cough, new or increased shortness of breath; chills, new or increased muscle pain, new loss of taste or smell, sore throat, diarrhoea or vomiting.”

As to confirmation that vaccine trials were “approved by the normal rigorous processes” the whole document disproves any such claim. Approval has been granted on the basis of a measure only normally used in extreme emergencies, for example during the spread of “pathogenic agents, toxins, chemical agents or nuclear radiation.” It is called REG 174 (Regulation 174) a regulation which has recently been updated. Right at the start of the Assets Publishing Service document it states that:

“This medicinal product [REG 174] does not have a UK marketing authorisation but has been given authorisation for temporary supply by the UK Department of Health and Social Care and the Medicines & Healthcare products Regulatory Agency for active immunization to prevent COVID-19 disease caused by SARS-CoV-2 virus in individuals aged16 years of age and over.”

Whatever it is, it is not “normal rigorous” procedure. This vaccine is being rushed through in a process that can normally take up to ten years to complete. Even today no approved vaccine exists for SARS-COV from the 2003 epidemic, and indeed, no approval exists for any of the SARS/MERS family of viruses.

What is happening is a human experiment with a vaccine that has had minimal testing, of which the full recipe of ingredients is being kept secret.

That, in itself, ought to raise alarm – but the only alarms being raised seem to be of the nature whether people are wearing masks, obeying lockdown restrictions, washing their hands and social distancing.

We should be really worried about the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, and other vaccines, which contain ingredients designed to sterilize volunteers or change our DNA in a government-promoted scheme, the adverse results of which may not be known for decades.

Thanks to a GlaxoKlineSmith whistleblower whose evidence was presented on the David Knight Show (taken down by YouTube) we know that GKS was (is?) planning to use an ingredient in its COVID-19 vaccine, an anti-human chorionic gonadotropin (HCG) antigen, which causes infertility in women and in men. In men their testicles shrink, testosterone levels fall, the sperm is chemically attacked and dead sperm goes on to make women infertile too. In women. it:

“. . . produces antibodies which combine with HCG to render it biologically inactive . . . Out of 63 women they ][GSK] tested with HCG 61 of them became infertile. . . “

It would seem also that Pfizer BioNTech’s vaccine has life-threatening contents.

The last email I received from the MHRA confirmed my suspicion that this is a sensitive subject which the MHRA chooses to nip in the bud.

“I am sorry John but I do not have the time to deal with repeated communications with you as I am dealing with 100s of emails a day. This will be my last email to you.

The trials regarding vaccines have not been rushed through in terms of the MHRA’s involvement and we have applied the same level of scrutiny as it has historically done so for others.

The evidence that the vaccine is working or not depends on how many people contract the virus who have had the vaccine to those who have not been given it.”

His last sentence took me back full circle to my initial question about the reliability of the RT-PCR test which the MHRA has consistently neglected to monitor for accuracy, and which, despite assurance to the contrary, is being used in vaccine tests. The whole process reminded me of the plight of Daniel Doyce from Charles Dickens’ Little Dorrit.

Doyce was an engineer who tried to get his invention patented. For years he went backwards and forwards to the Circumlocution Office being sent from department to department without ever being given any constructive advice. Unable to make progress Doyce eventually took his creation abroad where he and it were a success. The trouble is with today’s regulatory authorities there is nowhere abroad to take our worries since the European Medicine Agency (EMA) is as complicit with Big Pharma’s aims as our own MHRA.

As the employee at MHRA did not have time “to deal with repeated communications” I emailed back to see if there was somebody else who could address my concerns. Previous correspondence had been answered quickly but it is two weeks now since I had a response to my last and I am not expecting another. When members of the public are worried about the safety and accuracy of medical products it is the MHRA’s duty to act.

Attempts to elicit the truth can be frustrating. It is in the interests of our families and friends, and their families and friends, to find out why the MHRA is not doing its job with regard to the RT-PCR test. Without doubt my questions have rattled the authority’s cage. Although it refuses to engage with me further I like to think there are others, concerned enough for their families and friends’ welfare and future on this beautiful planet of ours, who might wish to know why the RT-PCR test has not been given full scrutiny.

Close ties between big pharmaceutical conglomerates and their regulatory authorities raise suspicions as to their impartiality. In its questions and answers section the MHRA attempts to put these suspicions quietly to bed.

8. Why does the MHRA accept money from pharmaceutical industry? Isn’t this a conflict of interest?

Companies have to pay a fee for their marketing authorisation but we don’t seek business from them. Any complex licensing decisions are referred to the Agency’s independent advisory committees. These members must register any interests they have in the industry. They must declare any specific ones and take no part in discussions on that subject.

The agency’s independent advisory committees are another matter altogether and serious concerns have been raised as to how independent they really are. For example, in a June meeting of the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation, the minutes of which are still in draft form, we note that the Medical Advisor is Professor Jonathan Van Tam – a recent spokesman on the BBC promoting the virtues and safety of Pfizer BioNTech’s new vaccine while at the same time attempting to ameliorate public concern that these untested vaccines might indeed be dangerous.

Unlike most of the others on the committee Van Tam provides no conflict of interest details that are specific to COVID-19 vaccines. That does not mean he has none and contravenes a basic tenet of the MHRA’s dos and don’ts. University of Oxford Senior Associate Tutor, Tom Jefferson, exposed in 2017 the revolving door nepotism which saw the promotion of figures like Professor Van Dam and Sir Patrick Vallance to their present positions. Van Tam is one of three Deputy Chief Medical Officers to Professor Christopher Whitty, and it is not unusual for him to play down or choose not to mention his connections with pharmaceutical groups. As Jefferson notes: “Professor Van Tam’s track record as an ex-employee of Roche, Aventis Pasteur MSD and SmithKline Beecham (now GSK) has been excluded from the official DH press release . . .”

The “independent” CEO of the MHRA, Dr. June Raine, issued a statement on 19 November 2019, espousing the virtues of the Pfizer BioNTech vaccine trials.

She outlines the two routes available in approving a vaccine for use, namely, the emergency route (REG 174) which is now being made operational and the proper route which normally takes years. In these “new normal” days the MHRA has committed itself to “rigorously assess the data in the shortest time possible, without compromising the thoroughness of our review” regardless of which route is adopted. She fails to mention the RT-PCR test which is being used to determine results.

In the dangerous and untested vaccine experiments the unmonitored RT-PCR test is possibly the MHRA and the government’s weakest link. Interested parties can email the authority in the first instance at: [email protected]

*

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 author’s blog site, All the Goss.

Featured image is from Children’s Health Defense

Along with a motley collection of wealthy swindlers and fraudsters, President Donald Trump on Dec. 22 pardoned four former Blackwater private contractors (mercenaries) convicted in the infamous Sept. 16, 2007, Nisour Square massacre in Baghdad.

Seventeen Iraqis were killed and 14 seriously wounded in an unprovoked attack by the four, who indiscriminately fired machine guns, sniper rifles, and rocket-propelled grenades into a crowd of unarmed civilians. Among the dead were two boys, 9 and 11 years of age, and a woman burned alive in her car. The four killers suffered no injuries, and their claims of self-defense were rejected by Iraqi and U.S. investigations. It was one of many atrocities committed by U.S. and allied forces.

Trials and retrials in the U.S. found the four guilty of heinous crimes including first-degree murder and manslaughter.

But why were they never tried in Iraq, site of their monstrous actions? Answering that question unmasks the colonial relationship between the U.S. and Iraq that began with the 2003 “Shock and Awe” invasion.

Now the four will walk free, as do the much higher-ranking war criminals who planned and executed the war against Iraq, a country half-way around the world that did not and could not threaten the United States. Iraq remains decimated, while George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Candoleezza Rice, Colin Powell, who perpetrated the war and occupation that followed, have never had to face justice. Nor have such fervent supporters of the war like Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden.

The reaction in Iraq to news of the pardons was widespread outrage, from Iraqi government officials to people on the street, and renewed demands that the U.S. finally get out.

Reaction in Iraq

A well-known Iraqi commentator, Muhammad Waeli, tweeted:

“Pardoning the Blackwater killers is renewing the crime committed against the Iraqi people.”

Fares Saadi, an official who led the Iraqi investigation leading to the convictions of the Blackwater, told the AFP news agency, “I knew we’d never get justice.”

“The infamous Blackwater company killed Iraqi citizens at Nisour Square. Today we heard they were released upon personal order by President Trump, as if they don’t care for the spilled Iraqi blood,” said Saleh Abed, a Baghdad resident, interviewed by Al-Jazeera.

Blackwater was notorious for its extreme racist brutality against the Iraqi population. Founded by Erik Prince, billionaire brother of Trump’s Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos and a frequent visitor to the Trump White House. Blackwater, which had thousands of high-paid mercenaries supporting 150,000 U.S. troops in Iraq from 2003-11, were hated and feared by the population.

“We used to be terrified of them, especially Blackwater, who were the nastiest of them all,” said Ribal Mansour, a witness to the massacre.

Dr Haidar al-Barzanji, an Iraqi researcher and academic, told the Guardian: “Trump has no right to decide on behalf of victims’ families to pardon these criminals. It is at odds with human rights and against the law. In Iraqi law they can only be pardoned if the families of victims pardon them.”

If the Nisour Square killers had been tried in an Iraqi court, there can be little doubt that they would be in prison today. But neither they nor any other occupation personnel were subject to Iraqi law.

Colonial injustice protected Blackwater guards from trial in Iraq

After conquering Iraq in April 2003, Washington dismantled the Iraqi state and government, and set up a new colonial-style dictatorship answerable only to the Pentagon. The “Coalition Provisional Authority” was headed by an American bureaucrat, J. Paul Bremer.

In June 2003, Bremer issued CPA Order 17, which stated: “Multinational forces, international consultants, and U.S. personnel are immune from the Iraqi legal process. … Coalition contractors and their sub-contractors as well as their employees not normally resident in Iraq, shall not be subject to Iraqi laws. … ”

Order 17 remained in place until 2008. What replaced it differed very little in substance. In the 2008 Status of Forces Agreement, Iraq was granted jurisdiction over U.S. military and civilian forces only for the commission of “grave premeditated felonies” and only when the personnel are off-duty. What the definition of “grave premeditated felonies” meant was left to a “Joint U.S-Iraqi Commission.”

In 2011, the Obama administration withdrew U.S. troops from Iraq after a new agreement to grant U.S. forces continued extraterritorial immunity. U.S. forces returned in 2014 when much of Iraq and Syria was conquered by ISIS.

While tens of thousands of Iraqis were arrested, imprisoned and abused by the occupying forces, the search for records of U.S. personnel locked up in Iraqi jails yields nothing.

CPA Order 17 and the 2008 SOFA embodied the old colonial policy of “extraterritoriality,” the racist doctrine that holds the colonizers cannot be judged by the colonized. It means that the occupiers can murder, rape and steal with impunity.

Extraterritoriality and colonialism

When China was divided into “spheres of influence” by several imperialist powers in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, violent acts by soldiers and civilians against Chinese nationals and the fact that the perpetrators were immune from prosecution in Chinese courts led to many acts of resistance.

In 1906, Washington established a special U.S. Court for China based in Shanghai, with jurisdiction over all U.S. citizens in its district, which was all of China. It was only disbanded in 1943 in the midst of World War II when the U.S. and China were allies.

And it was not just China. Wherever colonialism has existed so have racist parallel systems of justice/injustice.

What it means to live under colonial rule was expressed by the classmate of a medical student killed in Nisour Square. She spoke anonymously to the Guardian, fearing retaliation:

“The Americans have never approached us Iraqis as equals. As far as they are concerned, our blood is cheaper than water and our demands for justice and accountability are merely a nuisance.”

*

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 Liberation News.

Featured image is from commons.wikimedia.org

The Nashville bombing raises questions about the Oklahoma City bombing.  In 1995 the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City was blown up.  Allegedly, the building was destroyed by a fertilizer bomb in a Ryder rental truck parked on the street.  The Murrah building had massive reinforced concrete columns, some being  3 feet thick if memory serves. The front third of the building was destroyed with columns turned to dust.

The guilty parties were allegedly Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols.  According to reports, the blast killed 168 people, injured 680 others, and destroyed or damaged 324 buildings within a 16-block radius along with 86 cars and caused $652 million of damage in 1995 dollars.

At the time US Air Force General Partin, who had high level responsibilities for ordinance and weapons development, distributed an expert report to 75 members of the House and Senate.  The report proved that the Murrah building blew up from the inside out.  Many Americans concluded that the truck bomb was cover for an inside job.  McVeigh and Nichols were regarded as patsies who thought they blew up the building, but their role was to direct attention away from those responsible.

Image on the right: A view of the destroyed Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building from across the adjacent parking lot, two days after the bombing. (Public Domain)

General Partin’s report was quickly tossed into the Memory Hole. To get rid of the evidence the Murrah building was hauled away and buried just as the steel in the World Trade Center buildings in 2001 was sent abroad to be melted down, and an official bogus report was issued like the 9/11 official reports. Instead of a real investigation, we got a controlled explanation.

Twenty-five years after the Oklahoma City Bombing we have another bomb in a vehicle parked in the street in front of a building.  This time the building is an AT&T building. The parked vehicle is a RV which could hold as much explosives as a rental truck.  An interesting difference is that the RV is much closer to the building, seperated only by a sidewalk, whereas if memory serves, the Murrah building was set back from the street.

When the RV bomb went off, 3 people were injured, and building damage seems to be limited to blowing out windows.  Clearly, there is no comparable structural damage to the Oklahoma City bombing.

Why?  Was the RV bomb just an oversized firecracker?  Or was General Partin, clearly an expert, correct when he concluded that the Murrah Federal building was blown up from the inside out?

*

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.

Featured image:The bombing occurred on this block of the Second Avenue Commercial District. CC BY-SA 3.0

The resistance to the apparent election of Joe Biden as President of the United States is continuing to play out. Current President Donald Trump is continuing to fight against the presumed results of the November national election with his final card appearing to be a vote in Congress when it reconvenes on January 6^th to throw out the results due to fraud in certain key states. Many have noted how the registration and electoral processes in the United States, varying as they do from state to state, were and are vulnerable to fraud. That, plus some eyewitness testimony and technical analysis, suggests that possibly systematic fraud did take place but it is far from clear whether it was decisive. This is particularly true of the vote by mail option, which was promoted by leading Democrats and which empowered literally millions of new voters with only limited attempts made to validate whether citizens or even real people were voting.

Vote by mail is now one of several options that are appearing to be weaponized by the cash-rich Democrats in the state of Georgia, where two Senate races will be up for grabs in runoff elections on January 5^th. If the Democrats obtain both, they will control the Senate through the Vice President’s role in presiding over the upper chamber where she has the tie breaking vote. That will mean that we the voters can expect some dramatic changes as the Democrats respond to their various constituencies with their well enunciated grievances.

In what may be its last weeks in office, the Trump Administration is also exploiting its executive power to pardon to reverse perceived injustices and to protect remaining allies, to include some family members. Trump is already on track to pardon more individuals than any preceding president with 90 pardons issued as of Christmas Eve and many more expected. One of his initial pardons was a notable example of a miscarriage of justice in the case of presidential national security advisor designate Michael Flynn, who was wrongly accused of collaborating with Russia. If anything, he was actually cooperating with a request that came from Israel, which Congress and the media apparently do not regard as wrongdoing.

Trump’s pardon of his daughter Ivanka’s father-in-law Charles Kushner is particularly controversial, as Kushner was a multimillionaire real estate developer and a leading Democratic Party donor when he was convicted in 2005 to two years in federal prison after he pleaded guilty to 18 counts, which included both tax evasion and making illegal campaign contributions. The tale of Charles Kushner is particularly unsavory because he reportedly sought revenge after he learned that his brother-in-law and former business partner was aiding federal authorities. Charles hired a prostitute to seduce his brother-in-law in a New Jersey motel room, making a recording of the encounter using a hidden camera that he then showed to his brother-in-law’s wife, who was, of course, Kushner’s own sister.

Kushner’s prosecution was directed by then-U.S. Attorney Chris Christie, who afterwards became a prominent Trump supporter and head of his transition team before being fired in 2016, apparently per orders originating with Jared Kushner. In a 2019 interview Christie explained “Mr. Kushner pled guilty. He admitted the crimes. And so what am I supposed to do as a prosecutor? I mean, if a guy hires a prostitute to seduce his brother-in-law, and videotapes it, and then sends the videotape to his sister to attempt to intimidate her from testifying before a grand jury, do I really need any more justification than that? I mean, it’s one of the most loathsome, disgusting crimes that I prosecuted. And I was U.S. attorney in New Jersey, so we had some loathsome and disgusting crime going on there.”

Charles Kushner is also a close friend and supporter of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, which might also be relevant to his pardon and I will leave any assessment of the ethics of the Kushner clan up to the reader. Nevertheless, the consequence of Jared’s ability to influence the president could be politically damaging as he reportedly has been responsible for many of the pardons that have already taken place and is now the conduit for new petitioners.

Another highly criticized Trump pardon has involved the four Blackwater mercenaries who massacred 19 Iraqis including 2 children firing from a helicopter into a crowded Nisour Square Baghdad in 2007. The president is reportedly very friendly with Blackwater founder and former president Erik Prince, whose sister Betsy DeVos is Education Secretary and also close to the president. But in any event Trump’s pardon record is different only in terms of magnitude from those of some of his predecessors as there have been some highly questionable pardons in the past, to include Marc Rich under Bill Clinton and Elliot Abrams under George W. Bush.

There remains a long list of possible candidates for Trump to sign off on, to include a possible self-pardon, and more pardons for family members Ivanka, Jared and two of his sons as well as his lawyer Rudy Giuliani. Other current and impending pardon recipients have been individuals who were involved in the Trump campaigns, to include Paul Manafort and Roger Stone. Pardons are a particularly attractive pre-emptive option currently as a number of leading Democrats have been calling for “truth commissions” and other forms of punishment of Trump supporters and officials.

The process of issuing presidential pardons will undoubtedly continue up until Inauguration Day on January 20^th, but sources are uncertain whether Trump will be courageous enough to pardon the two individuals whose freedom would most definitely be sending a powerful message for integrity in government. They are Julian Assange and Edward Snowden. Both men’s names have been coming up frequently in the alternative media, together with the development of active lobbying groups that are seeking their freedom.

Assange, a journalist and founder of WikiLeaks, is currently languishing in a British prison, where he has been for twenty-one months, awaiting a decision on whether he will be extradited to the United States or not which will reportedly be decided on January 4th. The Department of Justice has claimed that he violated the Espionage Act of 1917 by receiving classified information from Chelsea Manning. Reportedly, Assange’s mental and physical health have deteriorated sharply as he is being held in solitary confinement with only short periods of exercise and without access to reading or writing material to occupy his time. The British judge appears to be completely unsympathetic to Assange and it is generally believed that she will order his extradition if he does not fortuitously die in prison before that could take place.

Snowden, meanwhile, is living in Russia and has been granted citizenship, a country to which he fled by way of Hong Kong in 2013, after revealing to journalists details of a vast and illegal surveillance program run by the National Security Agency (NSA) against American citizens, something he discovered while he was employed as a NSA contractor. He had attempted to raise his concerns with supervisors but was rebuffed and he eventually became a self-declared whistleblower and fled the country. He has repeatedly offered to return to the United States to face trial, but has also insisted that a fair hearing would be impossible under the current circumstances.

It should be observed that Snowden is absolutely correct to assume that he would be convicted both on grounds of espionage and of compromise of classified information. The federal court in Alexandria, where national security cases are usually tried, always finds for the government even if evidence is questionable or even non-existent. A recent conviction involved ex-CIA officer Jeffrey Sterling, who was sent to prison for 42 months even though it could not be demonstrated that he had actually done anything. The court concluded that “it had to be him.”

To be sure, revealing classified information is a serious matter, even though many former government employees would agree that much material that is classified does not actually damage national security if it is revealed. Frequently, classification is used to keep the government from being embarrassed or to shut down any revelation that it has acted illegally. Both Assange and Snowden would argue that they had acted appropriately in revealing war crimes, illegal acts and even violations of the Constitution as consequences of the so-called “global war on terror.” Assange, who regards himself as a journalist, published details of the Blackwater massacre of civilians committed by the crew of a helicopter gunship in Iraq and also was involved in the exposure of the Hillary Clinton emails. Snowden, as noted above, claims to be a whistle-blower and has sought protection under relevant laws in the United States, so far to no avail.

The illegal and otherwise unconscionable acts by various elements in the U.S. government that were exposed by Assange and Snowden include war crimes, so they are not trivial. Trump, having already done a “favor” to Blackwater, might be disinclined to pardon someone who exposed its mercenaries’ crimes. But there is nevertheless, as is often the case, an interesting aspect to the story that is worth paying attention to.

Trump, as is widely conceded even by some Democrats, was targeted by the Deep State even before he was nominated, an effort to destroy his presidency that persisted for years through the completely contrived mechanism of Russiagate. Given that, it would behoove Trump to strike back in his waning days in office. Both Assange and Snowden exposed illegal activities and cover-ups by the Deep State, almost certainly to include the active participation of some of the very people who have sought to bring the president down. And they both may have more to say. If Donald Trump seriously seeks to strike a blow against his enemies, it would be both fitting and just to pardon both men on that basis alone. Let us hope that President Trump has both the wisdom and fortitude to take that step in his last days in office.

*

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 Unz Review.

Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation (Federal ID Number #52-1739023) that seeks a more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is 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 is from Massoud Nayeri

For those who find themselves with excess time this holiday season which they would prefer not to squander with idleness or Netflix binges, then I’d like to offer this serving of Frank Capra films to uplift the soul.

Frank Capra (1897-1991) stands as one of the most brilliant directors/producers of the 20th Century, and sadly also one of the least understood- known at best for the film It’s a Wonderful Life played every year as a Christmas tradition, or Mr. Smith Goes to Washington.

Unbeknownst to even many film connoisseurs today, Capra was not only a pre-eminent cultural warrior who took every opportunity to expose fascist movements during the 1930’s and 1940’s but also fought to provide a positive principled understanding of the divinity mankind’s higher nature in all his works. When asked to put into words what motivated him to create movies he said:

“My films must let every man, woman, and child know that God loves them, that I love them, and that peace and salvation will become a reality only when they all learn to love each other”

During World War II, Capra’s Why We Fight series was one of the most important educational tools used to shape the hearts and minds of the American population towards the strategic nature and purpose of the war against the fascist machine which had received much of its support from financiers in the Anglo-American establishment. In America, these groups were masquerading as “patriots” under the American Liberty League promoting America’s neutrality in that conflict. It was an open secret that these groups preferred to let Hitler and Mussolini usher in a new order which they saw as a wonderful opportunity to rule the world, and it was to these groups that FDR declared famously “they who seek to establish systems of government based on the regimentation of all human beings by a handful of individual rulers call this a new order. It is not new and it is not order”. The President knew of what he spoke as he had declared open war on these American fascists from 1932 onward.

Capra not only struggled to revive Roosevelt’s mission to end poverty, hunger and war after the war ended, but also struggled against the CIA-run Congress for Cultural Freedom (CCF) which was created in 1949 to shape the new era of art, music and cinema in the post war age as weapons against communism. The CCF had spared no time in purging Hollywood of all “FDR patriots” under the FBI-steered witch hunt known as Mcarthyism on the one hand while promoting a new culture of banality on the other pouring millions of dollars into mind deadening film scripts conducive to an age of white collar consumerism. This CIA/CCF agenda was recognized by only a few leading film directors as a spiritual virus that had to be stopped at all costs.

Other film makers at the time that stood against this corruption included Robert Kennedy’s close friend John Frankenheimer (7 Days in May, The Manchurian Candidate), and Stanley Kramer, whose film Judgement at Nuremberg (1961) still stands alone as one of the most potent artistic exposures of the western support for eugenics and fascism.

Frankenheimer’s 7 Days in May (1964) showcased the real-life planned coup to overthrow JFK which had been arranged by the Military’s Joint Chiefs under the helm of Anglophile General Lyman Lemnitzer in 1962 after Kennedy rejected the General’s plans for Operations Northwoods.

Capra’s approach to combating this virus during the years of Cold War terror took a different path to that chosen by Frankenheimer and Kramer. Rather than exposing the rot directly, Capra focused on uplifting the image of mankind by channeling all his efforts on science documentaries for children which he felt would have the most long term benefit to humanity.

Capra had been a target of the House on Un-American Activities due to his friendship with many blacklisted film makers, and watched as Hollywood was purged of those key individuals who acted as it’s conscience when Hollwood’s role as a tool of patriotism or fascism was still undetermined. Just as the political world was being re-shaped to a new post-moral world order, so too was Hollywood, and as historian Micheal Medved stated,“Capra refused to adjust to the cynicism of the new order.”

Capra’s documentary The Strange Case of Cosmic Rays illustrates his powerful technique that sought to unite science and art through a reverence for God’s creation which is in many ways as cutting edge today as it was 60 years ago.

Capra’s Greatest Films for this Holiday Season

After watching the brilliant It’s a Wonderful Life (1946) which not only exposed the crushing schemes of Wall Street financiers who sought to ruin local productive businesses/commercial banks but also awoke a higher sentiment of transformative love in the hearts of the audience, I would highly recommend watching his lesser known, yet equally powerful pieces You Can’t Take it With You (1938), Meet John Doe (1941) and State of the Union (1949) . Taken alongside Mr Smith Goes to Washington (1939), these films act as incredible Schillerian masterpieces which express the best potential for the moral use of cinema as a tool to both spiritually and politically ennoble a nation’s citizenry.

Capra dedicated himself to John F. Kennedy’s challenge to embark upon a new age of “open-system” collaboration around un-ending discoveries in space, producing his last film “Rendez-vous in Space” in 1964. Spliced with Beethoven’s 9th Symphony which set Schiller’s immortal poem Ode to Joy to music celebrating humanity’s eventual emergence into an age of reason, Capra had his narrator end with the powerful words: “The Sun still lights up and gives life to our planet, but only the mind of man can light up, and give meaning to the light of the universe.”

Even though darkness clouds the path to that better future towards which world citizens like Frank Capra dedicated their lives, the light that they knew was there is getting stronger by the day. So take the time to welcome the year 2022 by adding some spiritual kindling onto your flame and let Capra’s intention come alive again.

Happy Holidays to all.

*

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 Rising Tide Foundation.

Matthew J.L. Ehret is a journalist, lecturer and founder of the Canadian Patriot Review. He can be reached at [email protected].

“The people are unaware. They’re not educated to realize that they have power. The system is so geared that everyone believes the government will fix everything. We are the government.”—John Lennon

No doubt about it: 2020—a terrible, horrible, no good, very bad year for freedom—was the culmination of a terrible, horrible, no good, very bad decade for freedom.

Government corruption, tyranny, and abuse coupled with a Big Brother-knows-best mindset and the COVID-19 pandemic propelled us at warp speed towards a full-blown police state in which nationwide lockdowns, egregious surveillance, roadside strip searches, police shootings of unarmed citizens, censorship, retaliatory arrests, the criminalization of lawful activities, warmongering, indefinite detentions, SWAT team raids, asset forfeiture, police brutality, profit-driven prisons, and pay-to-play politicians were accepted as the norm.

Here’s just a small sampling of the laundry list of abuses—cruel, brutal, immoral, unconstitutional and unacceptable—that have been heaped upon us by the government over the past two decades and in the past year, in particular.

The government failed to protect our lives, liberty and happiness. The predators of the police state wreaked havoc on our freedoms, our communities, and our lives. The government didn’t listen to the citizenry, refused to abide by the Constitution, and treated the citizenry as a source of funding and little else. Police officers shot unarmed citizens and their household pets. Government agents—including local police—were armed to the teeth and encouraged to act like soldiers on a battlefield. Bloated government agencies were allowed to fleece taxpayers. Government technicians spied on our emails and phone calls. And government contractors made a killing by waging endless wars abroad.

The American President became more imperial. Although the Constitution invests the President with very specific, limited powers, in recent years, American presidents (Trump, Obama, Bush, Clinton, etc.) claimed the power to completely and almost unilaterally alter the landscape of this country for good or for ill. The powers that have been amassed by each successive president through the negligence of Congress and the courts—powers which add up to a toolbox of terror for an imperial ruler—empower whoever occupies the Oval Office to act as a dictator, above the law and beyond any real accountability. The presidency itself has become an imperial one with permanent powers.

Militarized police became a power unto themselves, 911 calls turned deadly, and traffic stops took a turn for the worse. Lacking in transparency and accountability, protected by the courts and legislators, and rife with misconduct, America’s police forces continued to be a menace to the citizenry and the rule of law. Despite concerns about the government’s steady transformation of local police into a standing military army, local police agencies acquired even more weaponry, training and equipment suited for the battlefield. Police officers were also given free range to pull anyone over for a variety of reasons and subject them to forced cavity searches, forced colonoscopies, forced blood draws, forced breath-alcohol tests, forced DNA extractions, forced eye scans, forced inclusion in biometric databases.

The courts failed to uphold justice. With every ruling handed down, it becomes more apparent that we live in an age of hollow justice, with government courts more concerned with protecting government agents than upholding the rights of “we the people.” This is true at all levels of the judiciary, but especially so in the highest court of the land, the U.S. Supreme Court, which is seemingly more concerned with establishing order and protecting government agents than with upholding the rights enshrined in the Constitution. A review of critical court rulings over the past two decades, including some ominous ones by the U.S. Supreme Court, reveals a startling and steady trend towards pro-police state rulings by an institution concerned more with establishing order and protecting the ruling class and government agents than with upholding the rights enshrined in the Constitution.

COVID-19 allowed the Emergency State to expand its powers. What started out as an apparent effort to prevent a novel coronavirus from sickening the nation (and the world) became yet another means by which world governments (including our own) could expand their powers, abuse their authority, and further oppress their constituents. While COVID-19 took a significant toll on the nation emotionally, physically, and economically, it also allowed the government to trample our rights in the so-called name of national security, with talk of mass testing for COVID-19 antibodies, screening checkpoints, contact tracing, immunity passports, forced vaccinations, snitch tip lines and onerous lockdowns.

The Surveillance State rendered Americans vulnerable to threats from government spies, police, hackers and power failures. Thanks to the government’s ongoing efforts to build massive databases using emerging surveillance, DNA and biometrics technologies, Americans have become sitting ducks for hackers and government spies alike. Billions of people have been affected by data breaches and cyberattacks. On a daily basis, Americans have been made to relinquish the most intimate details of who we are—our biological makeup, our genetic blueprints, and our biometrics (facial characteristics and structure, fingerprints, iris scans, etc.)—in order to navigate an increasingly technologically-enabled world.

America became a red flag nation. Red flag laws, specifically, and pre-crime laws generally 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. 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, 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, appear to be pro-gun or pro-freedom, or generally live in the United States. 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.

The cost of policing the globe drove the nation deeper into debt. America’s war spending has already bankrupted the nation to the tune of more than $20 trillion dollars. Policing the globe and waging endless wars abroad hasn’t made America—or the rest of the world—any safer, but it has made the military industrial complex rich at taxpayer expense. The U.S. military reportedly has more than 1.3 millionmen and women on active duty, with more than 200,000 of them stationed overseas in nearly every country in the world. Yet America’s military forces aren’t being deployed abroad to protect our freedoms here at home. Rather, they’re being used to guard oil fields, build foreign infrastructure and protect the financial interests of the corporate elite. In fact, the United States military spends about $81 billion a year just to protect oil supplies around the world. This is how a military empire occupies the globe. Meanwhile, America’s infrastructure is falling apart.

Free speech was dealt one knock-out punch after another. Protest laws, free speech zones, bubble zones, trespass zones, anti-bullying legislation, zero tolerance policies, hate crime laws, shadow banning on the Internet, and a host of other legalistic maladies dreamed up by politicians and prosecutors (and championed by those who want to suppress speech with which they might disagree) conspired to corrode our core freedoms, purportedly for our own good. On paper—at least according to the U.S. Constitution—we are technically free to speak. In reality, however, we are only as free to speak as a government official—or corporate entities such as Facebook, Google or YouTube—may allow. The reasons for such censorshipvaried widely from political correctness, so-called safety concerns and bullying to national security and hate crimes but the end result remained the same: the complete eradication of free speech.

The Deep State took over. The American system of representative government has been overthrown by the Deep State—a.k.a. the police state a.k.a. the military/corporate industrial complex—a profit-driven, militaristic corporate state bent on total control and global domination through the imposition of martial law here at home and by fomenting wars abroad. The “government of the people, by the people, for the people” has perished. In its place is a shadow government, a corporatized, militarized, entrenched bureaucracy that is fully operational and staffed by unelected officials who are, in essence, running the country and calling the shots in Washington DC, no matter who sits in the White House. Mind you, by “government,” I’m not referring to the highly partisan, two-party bureaucracy of the Republicans and Democrats. Rather, I’m referring to “government” with a capital “G,” the entrenched Deep State that is unaffected by elections, unaltered by populist movements, and has set itself beyond the reach of the law. This is the hidden face of a government that has no respect for the freedom of its citizenry. This shadow government, which “operates according to its own compass heading regardless of who is formally in power,” makes a mockery of elections and the entire concept of a representative government.

The takeaway: Everything the founders of this country feared has come to dominate in modern America. “We the people” have been saddled with a government that is no longer friendly to freedom and is working overtime to trample the Constitution underfoot and render the citizenry powerless in the face of the government’s power grabs, corruption and abusive tactics.

So how do you balance the scales of justice at a time when Americans are being tasered, tear-gassed, pepper-sprayed, hit with batons, shot with rubber bullets and real bullets, blasted with sound cannons, detained in cages and kennels, sicced by police dogs, arrested and jailed for challenging the government’s excesses, abuses and power-grabs, and then locked down and stripped of any semblance of personal freedom?

No matter who sits in the White House, politics won’t fix a system that is broken beyond repair.

For that matter, protests and populist movements also haven’t done much to push back against an authoritarian regime that is deaf to our cries, dumb to our troubles, blind to our needs, and accountable to no one.

So how do you not only push back against the government’s bureaucracy, corruption and cruelty but also launch a counterrevolution aimed at reclaiming control over the government using nonviolent means?

You start by changing the rules and engaging in some (nonviolent) guerilla tactics.

Take your cue from the Tenth Amendment and nullify everything the government does that flies in the face of the principles on which this nation was founded. If there is any means left to us for thwarting the government in its relentless march towards outright dictatorship, it may rest with the power of juries and local governments to invalidate governmental laws, tactics and policies that are illegitimate, egregious or blatantly unconstitutional.

In an age in which government officials accused of wrongdoing—police officers, elected officials, etc.—are treated with general leniency, while the average citizen is prosecuted to the full extent of the law, nullification is a powerful reminder that, as the Constitution tells us, “we the people” are the government.

For too long we’ve allowed our so-called “representatives” to call the shots. Now it’s time to restore the citizenry to their rightful place in the republic: as the masters, not the servants.

Nullification is one way of doing so.

America was meant to be primarily a system of local governments, which is a far cry from the colossal federal bureaucracy we have today. Yet if our freedoms are to be restored, understanding what is transpiring practically in your own backyard—in one’s home, neighborhood, school district, town council—and taking action at that local level must be the starting point.

Responding to unmet local needs and reacting to injustices is what grassroots activism is all about. Attend local city council meetings, speak up at town hall meetings, organize protests and letter-writing campaigns, employ “militant nonviolent resistance” and civil disobedience, which Martin Luther King Jr. used to great effect through the use of sit-ins, boycotts and marches.

The power to change things for the better rests with us, not the politicians.

As long as we continue to allow callousness, cruelty, meanness, immorality, ignorance, hatred, intolerance, racism, militarism, materialism, meanness and injustice—magnified by an echo chamber of nasty tweets and government-sanctioned brutality—to trump justice, fairness and equality, there can be no hope of prevailing against the police state.

We could transform this nation if only Americans would work together to harness the power of their discontent and push back against the government’s overreach, excesses and abuse.

As I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, the police state is marching forward, more powerful than ever.

If there is to be any hope for freedom in 2021, it rests with “we the people.”

*

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].

If the Gateses and the Faucis and the representatives of the international medical establishment get their way, life will not return to normal until the entire planet is vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2.

What many do not yet understand, however, is that the vaccines that are being developed for SARS-Cov-2 are unlike any vaccines that have ever been used on the human population before.

And, as radically different as these vaccines appear, they represent only the very beginning of a complete transformation of vaccine technology that is currently taking place in research labs across the planet.

This is a study of The Future of Vaccines.

Full transcript below.

***

Since the dawn of the corona crisis, we have been told over and over that the world has changed forever.

MARIA VAN KERKHOVE: What we’re going to have to figure out, and I think what we’re all going to have to figure out together, is what our new normal looks like. Our new normal includes physical distancing from others. Our new normal includes wearing masks where appropriate. Our new normal includes us knowing where this virus is each and every day, where we live, where we work, where we want to travel.

SOURCE: What the New Normal Looks Like After Covid-19

DUCEY: What we’ve gone through and the challenges that I’m sharing with you really is Arizona’s new normal. And it’s our new normal for the foreseeable future. I really want ask people to get their heads around that.

SOURCE: Arizona Gov. Ducey Holds Coronavirus Briefing

JUSTIN TRUDEAU: This pandemic has provided an opportunity for a reset. This is our chance to accelerate our pre-pandemic efforts to reimagine economic systems that actually address global challenges like extreme poverty, inequality and climate change.

SOURCE: Coronavirus: Trudeau tells UN conference that pandemic provided “opportunity for a reset”

This “New Normal” with which we are being threatened brings with it great uncertainty. Uncertainty over work. Uncertainty over travel. Uncertainty over what our lives will look like on the other side of this “Great Reset.”

But there is one thing that we can be certain about: If the Gateses and the Faucis and the representatives of the international medical establishment get their way, life will not return to normal until the entire planet is vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2.

GATES: It is fair to say things won’t go back to truly normal until we have a vaccine that we’ve gotten out to basically the entire world.

SOURCE: Bill Gates on his 2015 ‘virus’ warning, efforts to fight coronavirus pandemic

ZEKE EMANUEL: Realistically, COVID-19 will be here for the next 18 months or more. We will not be able to return to normalcy until we find a vaccine or effective medications.

SOURCE: Dr. Zeke Emanuel On The Return To ‘Normal’

DOUG FORD: The hard fact is, until we find a vaccine, going back to normal means putting lives at risk.

SOURCE: Ontario announces $20 million for COVID-19 vaccine research

JUSTIN TRUDEAU: This will be the new normal until a vaccine is developed.

SOURCE: PM Trudeau on modelling data and federal response to COVID-19 – April 9, 2020

GAVIN NEWSOM: As I said: normal it will not be, at least until we have herd immunity and we have a vaccine.

SOURCE: California Gov. Newsom Holds Coronavirus Briefing

ANTHONY FAUCI: So, if we get the overwhelming majority of people taking the vaccine, and you have, on the one hand, an effective vaccine, on the other hand, a high degree of uptake of the vaccine, we could start getting things back to relative normal as we get into the second and third quarter of the year, where people can start thinking about doing things that were too dangerous just months ago.

SOURCE: Fauci: We’ll Get Back to Normal Gradually After Vaccine; You Don’t Know How Effective Vaccine Is for You

NORMAN SWAN: The only thing that will really allow life as we once knew it to resume is a vaccine.

SOURCE: Life will only return to normal when there’s a coronavirus vaccine, Dr Norman Swan says

This message has been repeated so frequently and so consistently by public health officials, political “leaders” and media commentators that many have begun to believe it. And now, the public is being prepared for an unprecedented global vaccination campaign. Taking the form of a military operation . . .

GENERAL GUSTAVE PERNA: It is this effort that I can look you in the face and say to you, “E.U.A. [Emergency Use Authorization] comes, 24 hours later vaccines will be distributed out to the American people and be ready for administration.”

SOURCE: General Perna says vaccine distribution will begin 24 hours after Emergency Use Authorization

. . .the plan is to rush a new generation of experimental vaccines to market and deliver them at “warp speed” before any long term testing has even been attempted. What many do not yet understand, however, is that the vaccines that are being developed for SARS-Cov-2 are unlike any vaccines that have ever been used on the human population before.

And, as radically different as these vaccines appear, they represent only the very beginning of a complete transformation of vaccine technology that is currently taking place in research labs across the planet.

This is a study of The Future of Vaccines.

You’re tuned in to The Corbett Report.

For almost the entirety of 2020, a traumatized public has been told that nothing resembling our pre-corona lives will return until there is a COVID vaccine.

So it is no surprise that the same media sources that have been promoting this talking point would celebrate the hopeful pronouncements of the Big Pharma manufacturers regarding their COVID vaccine candidates.

BECKY QUICK: Welcome back to Squawk Box everybody. We have some breaking news from Pfizer. Meg Tirrell joins us right now. Meg, good morning.

MEG TIRELL: Good morning, Becky. This is the news that we’ve been waiting to hear.
Pfizer and BioNTech reporting the first results from their phase 3 vaccine trial saying that in this interim look the vaccine showed to be more than 90 percent effective.

SOURCE: Pfizer, BioNTech announce Covid-19 vaccine candidate is 90% effective

JAKE WHITTENBERG: Well, we begin with breaking news this morning. The push to find a coronavirus vaccine. This morning, Moderna says its vaccine is more than 94 percent effective.

SOURCE: BREAKING: Moderna coronavirus vaccine “more than 94% effective”

TIM STENOVEC: Vaccine headlines are rolling in. One of AstraZeneca’s doses stopped an average of 70 percent of patients from falling ill and that even rose to 90 percent with additional regimens now the head of the government’s operation warp speed is saying that quote hopefully vaccinations in the u.s will start in less than three weeks.

SOURCE: AstraZeneca-Oxford Vaccine Found Effective in Preventing Covid

But lost amid the hype of this media-led celebration are some sobering facts.

Firstly, these news stories were not generated on the back of publicly accessible data, but literal corporate press releases. This announcement-by-press-release style of corporate self-reporting was immediately exposed as a sham when AstraZeneca was found to have given an “unintentionally” lower dose to one group of trial participants and then touted the results of that smaller dose group without clarifying the confusion.

FRANCINE LACQUA: I’m not really sure what to make of this AstraZeneca-Oxford trial there’s confusion about whether it’s 60 efficacy whether it’s 90 what exactly happened.

ANDREW PEKOSZ: Well it is a little bit unclear, but let’s start with what we think we know. which is some of the patients that were in their phase three clinical trial ended up getting a half-dose of their of the initial inoculation and it turns out that the group that got that half dose followed by a boost had a much higher rate of protection from covid19 disease than the group that got the dosing schedule that the company wanted to give to everybody

SOURCE: AstraZeneca Vaccine Trial Likely Needs a Restart: Johns Hopkins

Secondly, the “success” of these vaccines is not being measured by their ability to prevent infection with SARS-CoV-2, as many in the general public believe, but merely to lessen the severity of the symptoms associated with COVID-19, like coughs and headaches.

ANJALEE KHEMLANI: Do you anticipate that the first sets of vaccines out the door will be more of a less effective blocker of the virus?

FAUCI: Well that’s the primary—that’s a great question, and that’s the primary endpoint of most of the virus, is to prevent clinical disease. To prevent symptomatic disease, not necessarily to prevent infection.

SOURCE: Fauci Happy if Vaccine Permits Infection w/ Fewer Symptoms

Thirdly, the studies are touted as involving tens of thousands of people, but in Pfizer’s trial, only 170 of them were reported as being “diagnosed with COVID-19” during the trial. Of those, 162 were in the placebo group and eight were in the vaccine group. From this, it is inferred that the vaccine prevented 154/162 people from developing the disease, or “95%”. But as even the British Medical Journal points out, “a relative risk reduction is being reported, not absolute risk reduction, which appears to be less than 1%.”

Fourthly, the trials are still ongoing. Although several countries have now issued “emergency use authorization” allowing these companies to begin distributing these vaccines to the public, the stage III trials of the vaccines are ongoing, with several of the planned “endpoints” for the data not being collected for 24 months after injection. As a result, as even the UK’s own “Information for UK Healthcare Professionals” pamphlet regarding Pfizer’s vaccine points out, “Animal reproductive toxicity studies have not been completed,” meaning that, “It is unknown whether COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2 has an impact on fertility.”

Even more chillingly, it is not healthcare professionals who are leading the charge to deliver this vaccine to the world, but the military

MURRAY BREWSTER: He commanded Canada’s NATO mission in Iraq. Now he’s in charge of making sure Canadians get the COVID vaccine.

TRUDEAU: Major General Dany Fortin will be heading up the logistics and operations within the centre.

SOURCE: Senior military commander to lead Canada’s COVID-19 vaccine distribution

SAMANTHA GALVEZ: Operation Warp Speed is a Department of Defense / CDC operation to distribute 300 million vaccines to the US.

MATTHEW YIENGST: As soon as the FDA authorizes an emergency use, if they chose to do so, we will move vaccine to all jurisdictions within 24 hours.

SOURCE: Adams County native plays vital role in military operation to distribute vaccine

RICHARD PASCOE: You know, we’re about to turn the corner here into 2021 and I think the American public should be very proud of what the army and the Department of Defense and our partners on the science side have done to bring these vaccines to the market.

SOURCE: Operation Warp Speed and US Army Role in Vaccine Distribution

BREWSTER: How much more involved the military will get is unclear. Public Health is still developing its plan. Defense Minister Harjit Sajjan acknowledges it is not beyond the realm of possibility in some parts of Canada troops could be running clinics and administering vaccine.

SOURCE: Senior military commander to lead Canada’s COVID-19 vaccine distribution

And most importantly, as incredible as this headlong rush to push an experimental vaccine on the majority of the world’s population is, it is even more incredible when it is revealed that Moderna and Pfizer’s vaccines are not, in fact, “vaccines” as anyone in the general public understands them. They are mRNA vaccines, a novel method of vaccination that has never before been approved for human use.

RHIJU DAS: So the concept of an RNA vaccine is: Let’s inject the RNA molecule that encodes for the spike protein.

ANGELA RASMUSSEN: It’s making your cell do the work of creating this viral protein that is going to be recognized by your immune system and trigger the development of these antibodies.

DAS: Our bodies won’t make a full-fledged infectious virus. They’ll just make a little piece and then learn to recognize it and then get ready to destroy the virus if it then later comes and invades us.

[. . .]

DAS: It’s a relatively new, unproven technology. And there’s still no example of an RNA vaccine that’s been deployed worldwide in the way that we need for the coronavirus.

RASMUSSEN: There is the possibility for unforeseen, adverse effects.

AKIKO IWASAKI: So this is all new territory. Whether it would elicit protective immune response against this virus is just unknown right now.

SOURCE: Can Scientists Use RNA to Create a Coronavirus Vaccine?

To be sure, the new mRNA vaccines work on an entirely different principle than any other vaccine that has ever been used on the human population. In order to understand that, it is important to understand the history of vaccine technologies.

The concept of “inoculation” has been around for centuries, with one of its earliest instances in China several centuries ago, where dried-out scabs of lightly infected smallpox sufferers were powdered and then blown up the nostrils of healthy people. The procedure aimed to infect the patient with a mild strain of smallpox, thus conferring immunity on them. This practice was brought over to Europe via Turkey and was eventually adopted around the world.

“Vaccination” developed in the late 18th century when Edward Jenner discovered that those who had been exposed to cowpox—a less virulent relative of smallpox—were themselves immune from smallpox. He “vaccinated” a boy with a cowpox vesicle from a milkmaid and then inoculated him with smallpox two months later. The boy did not develop smallpox, and the procedure was hailed as a breakthrough of medical science. The term “vaccination,” derived from the Latin word for cow, eventually came to refer to the general process of introducing immunogens or attenuated infectious agents into the body in order to stimulate the immune system to fight infections.

But this is not how mRNA vaccines function. In contrast to vaccination, which involves introducing an immunogen into the body, mRNA vaccines seek to introduce messenger RNA into the body in order to “trick” that body’s cells into producing immunogens, which then stimulate an immune response.

ELENA GUOBYTE: Two types of genetic vaccines are being investigated for COVID-19: mRNA and DNA. mRNA needs to reach the cytoplasm of host cells, while DNA needs to enter the nucleus. Then this genetic material gets taken up by the cell’s machinery, and the cell expresses the spike protein. These spike proteins are then recognized by the immune system, hopefully stimulating a protective response.

SOURCE: Coronavirus Vaccines – An Introduction

PAUL OFFIT: So the way this is going to work, the mRNA vaccine is—it’s the mRNA that codes for that coronavirus spike protein. You’re inoculated with that small little piece of genetic material. That genetic material then enters your cells and is is translated into a protein—in
this case, the coronavirus spike protein—which is then excreted from the cell. So, in essence, your body makes the spike protein and then your body makes antibodies to the spike protein, all because it’s been instructed to do that. Your cells have been instructed to do that by this little piece of messenger RNA.

SOURCE: How Do mRNA Vaccines Work?

NARRATOR: Protein factories in the cytoplasm, called ribosomes, bind to the messenger RNA. The ribosome reads the code in the messenger RNA to produce a chain made up of amino acids. There are 20 different types of amino acid. Transfer RNA molecules carry the amino acids to the ribosome. The messenger RNA is read three bases at a time. As each triplet is read, a transfer RNA delivers the corresponding amino acid. This is added to a growing chain of amino acids. Once the last amino acid has been added, the chain folds into a complex 3D shape to form the protein.

SOURCE: From DNA to protein – 3D

Any and all questions about this rushed, experimental vaccine technology are being labeled by the pharmaceutical manufacturers and the corporate press that runs on their advertising dollars as “anti-vax misinformation” and being actively censored. But despite the straw man argument that opposition to the vaccine comes solely from ignorant members of the public who are worried about being “injected with mircochips,” there are genuine concerns about the long-term safety of these vaccines coming from within the scientific community, and even from whistleblowers from within the ranks of the Big Pharma manufacturers themselves.

On December 1st, the former chair of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe Health Committee, Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg, joined Dr. Michael Yeadon, a former Vice-President and Chief Scientific Officer at Pfizer Global R&D, to file a petition calling on the European Medicine Agency to halt the Phase III clinical trials of the Pfizer mRNA vaccine until they are restructured to address critical safety concerns associated with this experimental technology.

DEL BIGTREE: There is a petition now to try and stop the vaccine from being released in Europe and stop the trials in their tracks until some serious errors are fixed. The complaints are the potential dangers, if they are not rectified, of this vaccine. Let me very quickly just read through these before I bring on my next guest.

Here are the four major elements that are being pointed out by Dr. Wodarg and Dr. Yeadon.

• The formation of so-called “non-neutralizing antibodies” can lead to an exaggerated immune reaction, especially when the test person is confronted with the real, “wild” virus after vaccination. This so-called antibody-dependent amplification, ADE, has long been known from experiments with corona vaccines in cats, for example. In the course of these studies all cats that initially tolerated the vaccination well died after catching the wild virus.
• The mRNA vaccines from BioNTech/Pfizer contain polyethylene glycol (PEG). 70% of people develop antibodies against this substance – this means that many people can develop allergic, potentially fatal reactions to the vaccination.
• The vaccinations are expected to produce antibodies against spike proteins of SARS-CoV-2. However, spike proteins also contain syncytin-homologous proteins, which are essential for the formation of the placenta in mammals such as humans. It must be absolutely ruled out that a vaccine against SARS-CoV-2 could trigger an immune reaction against syncytin-1, as otherwise infertility of indefinite duration could result in vaccinated women.
• The much too short duration of the study does not allow a realistic estimation of the late effects. As in the narcolepsy cases after the swine flu vaccination, millions of healthy people would be exposed to an unacceptable risk if an emergency approval were to be granted and the possibility of observing the late effects of the vaccination were to follow. Nevertheless, BioNTech/Pfizer apparently submitted an application for emergency approval on December 1, 2020.

We’ve just updated you that that vaccine has been approved for the UK as we speak.

[. . .]

BIGTREE: What is it that people can do what—your fellow scientists and doctors—what do we need to do to make sure we don’t make one of the greatest scientific errors in human history?

WOLFGNG WODARG: Protect yourself and protect all your neighbors and friends so that they don’t get this vaccine. and you have to be—you have to show up, you have to tell the politicians that you will blame them for what they do with this. I think what what’s happening, it’s a great betrayal. We are betrayed. And people who betray normally are punished, and we won’t forget this if they go on doing this with us.

SOURCE: Health Expert: “Stop COVID Vax Experiments”

Before the combined weight of the pharmaceutical manufacturers, global health bodies, governments and the corporate media combined to suppress any questions about this unprecedented rush for a globally-distributed, experimental vaccine, there were widespread calls for caution from within the heart of the scientific community.

Even mainstream publications like Scientific American were compelled to note back in June of this year that there are reasons for concern over the way the COVID-19 vaccines are being rushed to market:

Telescoping testing timelines and approvals may expose all of us to unnecessary dangers related to the vaccine. While preclinical trials to evaluate the potential safety and efficacy of vaccine candidates are likely to include tens of thousands of patients, it is still unclear whether that number will be large enough and a trial will last long enough to evaluate safety for a drug that would be administered to so many. The US alone plans to vaccinate hundreds of millions of people with the first successful candidate. One serious adverse event per thousand of a vaccine given to 100 million people means harm to 100,000 otherwise healthy people.

The potential dangers of these vaccines—not just the mRNA vaccines that hijack your body’s cells to begin producing proteins to stimulate an immune response, but vaccines like AstraZeneca’s that uses a chimpanzee adenovirus to express the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein—are numerous. Not only do these vaccines present the potential for the antibody-dependent enhancementphenomenon that makes people more susceptible to the wild virus after having been vaccinated against it—which is a problem common to previous coronavirus vaccine candidates—but their potential impact on fertility has, even by the UK government’s own admission, not been tested at this point and remains “unknown.”

But even more fundamental than these particular safety concerns about these particular vaccines is the way that this fanatical, reckless and unprecedented headlong rush to push (and potentially even mandate) these vaccines on billions of people worldwide—women and children, young and old, healthy and unhealthy alike—is setting the most dangerous public health precedent in the history of humanity, a precedent that threatens to undermine our most cherished health freedoms in the name of a panic-induced “emergency.”

One of these core freedoms is the ability to refuse an experimental medical procedure, a freedom that was acknowledged in the Nuremberg Code of 1947 and enshrined in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which states that “no one shall be subjected without his free consent to medical or scientific experimentation.”

Despite the fact that the clinical trials surrounding these experimental vaccines are ongoing and that the FDA itself admits that there is “currently insufficient data to make conclusions about the safety of the vaccine in subpopulations such as children less than 16 years of age, pregnant and lactating individuals, and immunocompromised individuals” and “risk of vaccine-enhanced disease over time, potentially associated with waning immunity, remains unknown,” governments around the world are contemplating making these vaccinations mandatory, or compelling people to take them against their will by restricting their access to public life until they subject themselves to this medical experimentation.

ANCHOR: It’s a controversial idea that could end up being the law: “no jab, no job,” with some businesses considering making the COVID-19 vaccine mandatory for employees.

SOURCE: Coronavirus: Businesses considering making vaccine mandatory | 9 News Australia

CHRISTINE ELLIOTT: There may be some restrictions that may be placed on people that don’t have vaccines for travel purposes, to be able to go totheaters and other places. But that will be up to the individual person to decide.

SOURCE: COVID-19 vaccine won’t be mandatory, but those who don’t get it could face restrictions: Elliott

JO LING KENT: So here’s how it works: The app gives you a health pass to show before you go into big stadiums like this to streamline the process to make it safer and faster to get to your seat.

SOURCE: NBC Nightly News Broadcast (Full) – December 7th, 2020 | NBC Nightly News

TRACY GRIMSHAW: Alan, when there is a vaccine are you going to require all of your passengers to be vaccinated before they get on a plane?

ALAN JOYCE: Yeah we are looking at changing our terms and conditions to say for international travellers that we will ask people to have a vaccination before they can get on the aircraft.

SOURCE: Qantas boss says COVID-19 vaccination compulsory for international flights

The threat of forcing or compelling people to become unwilling guinea pigs in an ongoing medical experiment is immoral on its face. But even the prospect of enforcing such mandates would entail the erection of a surveillance and tracking system that further threatens basic rights and liberties. After all, in order to determine who has been vaccinated—and thus who is allowed to board an airplane or access a stadium or enter a store with a vaccine policy—there will need to be a system for identifying and tracking each vaccine recipient.

Whereas in days past, such tracking systems might have worked with identification papers, special badges to identify people’s status or other outwardly identifying marks, in the modern age, such schemes will take the form of digital apps and other technologically advanced methods for tracking, categorizing and identifying billions of people and their movements in real time.

There are already apps like IBM’s Digital Health Pass and CLEAR’s Health Pass that envision a world where our biometric ID will be linked via our smartphones to our health data in order to grant or deny access from public spaces and public events

NARRATOR: Here’s how Jane opens the CLEAR app and verifies her identity with a photo and real-time health insights. CLEAR’s developed touchless technology can take her temperature and confirm Jane is Jane so she can walk in with confidence

SOURCE: CLEAR Health Pass

NARRATOR: Your COVID-19 status will efficiently display as green, amber or red, dependent on your test results. This allows us to go about our daily activities in a safer way. We can all use health passport ireland in many ways, such as travel, hospitality, education, health care, construction, offices, entertainment, visits and much, much more.

SOURCE: Health Passport Ireland

Once the COVID vaccines are widely distributed, it would simply be a question of linking one’s vaccination record to the health pass app to prevent the unvaccinated from accessing any given space.

And while this future—sold through glossy corporate advertising but rejected by the vast majority of the public—may seem like a science-fiction dystopia, such systems are already being used to control the movements of people in China, where access to certain building or the ability to leave one’s own neighbourhood can be restricted to those whose phone-based apps show a “green” immunity status.

Worse, the COVID vaccine presents governments, intelligence agencies and corporations that have a direct interest in suppressing dissent, monitoring dissidents and controlling their populations with the perfect opportunity to make such systems a permanent fixture of daily life. After the immediate “threat” of the declared public health crisis subsides, the public is already being warned that these apps will be transitioned seamlessly into general monitoring of the population.

ANCHOR 1: Well during the summer spike, Palm Beach County launched something called a Combat COVID app. they spent a huge chunk of CARES Act money to do it. The app can alert you if you come into contact with a COVID positive person.

ANCHOR 2: The problem is it only works if there’s widespread use and there isn’t. So was this just a big waste of money?

[. . .]

DANIELLE WAUGH: Palm Beach County officials would not make anybody available for an interview for this story but I did get a written statement from a county spokesperson, who tells me they will still have use for this app even after the pandemic is over. He says they plan on transitioning its functions to be a more general community app.

SOURCE: Palm Beach County COVID app: Big investment, few users

As chilling as these “immunity passports” opening the door for governments to implement persistent digital tracking of their entire population is, it represents only the most visible privacy invasion that is being enacted on the back of this unprecedented vaccine rollout.

As viewers of the “Who Is Bill Gates?” documentary will know, these smartphone apps and voluntary reporting mechanisms will eventually be replaced by an even more invasive technological means of certifying vaccination. Not the “microchip” strawman that the fact checkers use to attempt to debunk these concerns, but the verifiable existence of a program to develop quantum dot tags to instantly identify who has received a given vaccine.

Late last year, Gates once again turned to Robert Langer and his MIT colleagues to investigate new ways to permanently store and record the vaccination information of each individual. The result of their research was a new vaccine delivery method. They found that by using “dissolvable microneedles that deliver patterns of near-infrared light-emitting microparticles to the skin,” they could create “particle patterns” in the skin of vaccine recipients which are “invisible to the eye but can be imaged using modified smartphones.”

Rice University describes the quantum dot tags left behind by the microneedles as “something like a bar-code tattoo.”

So who was behind this development? As lead researcher Kevin McHugh explains:

“The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation came to us and said, ‘Hey, we have a real problem—knowing who’s vaccinated [. . .] So our idea was to put the record on the person. This way, later on, people can scan over the area to see what vaccines have been administered and give only the ones still needed.”

SOURCE: Who Is Bill Gates?

Experimental vaccine technologies. Rushed testing. Mandates and health apps. And, eventually, quantum dot tags and biometric IDs. The future that is coming into view on the back of this COVID nightmare is truly dystopian.

But as worrying as all of this, the most worrying aspect is the precedent that it sets for a new era of biosecurity. An era in which public health authorities will claim to have the right to force rushed, untested and experimental technologies on the public in the name of public “health.”

At the moment, these new technologies—like mRNA vaccines which reprogram cells to produce antigens or the DNA vaccines that seek to insert foreign genetic material directly into the cells’ nucleus and that even biotech giant Moderna admit “have a risk of permanently changing a person’s DNA”—are still understood by the public as “vaccines.” But they bare as little resemblance to the vaccines that have previously been given to the public as Edward Jenner’s cowpox vaccine bore to the old Chinese art of blowing smallpox scabs up the nose. And the medical technologies that are emerging now will once again utterly transform our understanding of “vaccines.”

One such technology is being actively developed by Profusa, Inc., a company that in 2016 received a $7.5 million grant from DARPA—the research and development agency of the US military—to “develop implantable biosensors that can continuously monitor multiple body chemistries.” Earlier this year, Profusa announced a study that will examine how the company’s technology—including a “wireless reader that adheres to the skin and collects and reports tissue oxygen levels” and a 3mm string of hydrogel, which can be inserted under the skin with a syringe and programmed to send “a fluorescent signal outside of the body when the body begins to fight an infection”—can be used to “develop an early identification system to detect not only disease outbreaks, but biological attacks and pandemics up to three weeks earlier than current methods.” The study is expected to be completed next year.

Hydrogels—networks of crosslinked polymer chains—are increasingly being turned to by proponents of these new technologies as potential delivery devices for drugs, cells, proteins, and bioactive molecules. In 2013, for instance, a team of European researchers announced a novel method for injecting a vaccine-containing hydrogel sphere to a spot beneath the skin, which could be released at a later time by swallowing a “stimulusresponsive biohybrid material.” Touted as a “remote-controlled vaccine delivery system,” the researchers proved their concept by injecting mice with a hydrogel containing human papillomavirus vaccine and later giving them a pill containing fluorescein, which dissolved the hydrogel mesh and released the vaccine. The research on this vaccine delivery method continues, with a Chinese team publishing researchjust this year on a self-adjuvanted hydrogel which “had both adjuvant potential and the ability to sustained release antigen.”

As viewers of the “Who Is Bill Gates?” documentary will know, the idea of implanting remote-controlled vaccines in large populations has been around since at least 2012, when, according to MIT Technology Review, Bill Gates personally asked MIT researcher Robert Langer to create an implantable birth control device that could be turned on or off remotely. The resulting device—a wireless birth control microchip that, as the National Post noted in 2014, “can be turned on and off with a remote control and that is designed to last up to 16 years”—was developed by Microchips Biotech, now part of Daré Bioscience, and has so far received $17.9 million in grant funding from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

From biolectronics to nanorobotics to synthetic biology, ever more incredible technologies are being pioneered that, whether or not they are marketed to the public under the catch-all term of “vaccine,” will operate in ways that are fundamentally unlike anything before used on the human population.

University of Ottawa researchers are working on creating “edible vaccines.”

Researchers at Harvard Medical School are developing autonomous DNA nanorobots capable of transporting molecular payloads directly into cells.

A team of scientists at Johns Hopkins University are working on shape-changing microdevices called “theragrippers” that can reside in the GI tract to aid in extended drug delivery.

Nanobots. Shape-changing bioelectronic devices. Remote-controlled vaccines. This is not the stuff of science fiction but of science fact, and the precedent that is being set during the COVID era to rush experimental and unproven medical technologies into use on the back of a declared crisis is the same precedent that could be used to foist these injectable technologies on the public in the future.

And, as Catherine Austin Fitts—former United States Assistant Secretary of Housing and Urban Development and founder of Solari, Inc.—explains, these injectables are part of an elaborate system of biological, economic, and political control that is being bankrolled into existence by powerful special interests.

CATHERINE AUSTIN FITTS: So let me go through where I think he’s going. I think where they’re going—and they’re they’re prototyping tons of technology, so I don’t think they have it yet—but where they want to go is they want to download a Microsoft Office system into your body, into your brain, and hook it up to the Jedi cloud contract and the Amazon Cloud contract at the CIA. And if they can get seven people seven billion people hooked up directly to their cloud contracts and use viruses—I mean, it’s very clever—use viruses to keep those updates coming. You know, just keep those updates coming.

So you saw my most recent article, “The Injection Fraud.” I think it’s a fraud to call these vaccines they’re not vaccines, they’re not medicine. But I think it’s the exact same model you used in the computers and the ideas. Just like Bill Gates made it possible for the intelligence agencies to get a backdoor into our—you know, our data—and our computers. They want a backdoor into our mind and it’s very hard if you haven’t if you haven’t looked into the creepy technology, the Charles Lieber kind of technology, it’s hard to fathom but we’re beginning to fathom it.

[. . .]

Despite the protestations of those like Bill Gates who have a financial interest in these experimental vaccines, and the Big Pharma corporations that are selling these vaccines, and the governments that are being bribed by the international public health cartel to purchase these vaccines and pressure their public to accept them, and the corporate media who relies on these Big Pharma corporations for their advertising dollars, some facts about these novel coronavirus vaccines are indisputable:

• They are the most rushed vaccines ever developed.
• The manufacturers have been given total immunity from liability if their experimental vaccines cause injury.
• The clinical trials testing the safety of these injections are not finished, meaning that every member of the public who takes one is now a human guinea pig in an ongoing medical experiment with the population of the planet.
• The Pfizer and Moderna mRNA vaccines are themselves part of an experimental class of injection that has never before been given to the public;
• These vaccines have not been tested for their ability to prevent infection or spread of SARS-CoV-2 and are not intended to do so.
• And there is absolutely no long-term data about these vaccines to determine what their effects may be on fertility, the potential for pathogenic priming, or any other serious adverse reaction.

That this represents the most reckless and brazen experiment in the history of the world is undeniable on its face. Never before have billions of people been pressured to submit to a completely experimental, invasive medical procedure on the basis of a disease with a greater than 99% survival rate.

But large-scale, emergency vaccination campaigns have been tried before with sobering lessons about the danger of such a wide-scale experiment that are being deliberately ignored right now.

In the late 1950s and early 1960s, hundreds of millions of people were injected with polio vaccines that, years later, were discovered to have been contaminated with SV40, a cancer-causing virus found in the rhesus monkey kidney cells that were used to create the vaccine.

In 1976, twelve soldiers at Fort Dix were diagnosed with swine flu. This kicked off a round of public health hysteria that led the US government to mandate that every citizen in the country be vaccinated. In the end, only one soldier at Fort Dix died of the swine flu and no one outside of the base even tested positive for it, but the emergency immunization program went ahead. It was brought to an abrupt end after hundreds who had received the rushed vaccine began to display severe neurological disorders.

MIKE WALLACE: Remember the swine flu scare of 1976? That was the year the U.S. government told us all that swine flu could turn out to be a killer that could spread across the nation, and Washington decided that every man, woman and child in the nation should get a shot to prevent a nation-wide outbreak, a pandemic.

Well 46 million of us obediently took the shot, and now 4,000 Americans are claiming damages from Uncle Sam amounting to three and a half billion dollars because of what happened when they took that shot. By far the greatest number of the claims – two thirds of them are for neurological damage, or even death, allegedly triggered by the flu shot.

SOURCE: 60 Minutes Mike Wallace Exposes the 1976 Swine Flu Pandemic Vaccine Injuries

During the hysteria over swine flu in 2009, GlaxoSmithKline rushed a vaccine called Pandemrix to market in several European countries that was later associated with increased risk of narcolepsy. Years later, it was admitted that the 2009 flu season was no deadlier than any other flu season, but the British Medical Journal revealed that the body that advised the WHO on the declaration of the public health emergency that caused governments to purchase billions of dollars of vaccines was itself populated by advisors with direct financial ties to the Big Pharma vaccine manufacturers.

In each of these cases, the public was told to “follow the science,” and in each of these cases an unknown and perhaps unknowable number of people paid for that blind faith with their health. Now the revolver is once again being put to our heads and, with an assurance that that revolver probably contains a lot of empty chambers, the public is being asked to play Russian Roulette in the name of “trusting the science.”

NEIL DEGRASSE TYSON: I think we’re in the middle of a massive experiment worldwide. And that is—

STEPHEN COLBERT: —And we’re the guinea pigs?

TYSON: Maybe. The experiment is: will people listen to scientists?

SOURCE: Neil deGrasse Tyson On Coronavirus: Will People Listen To Science?

Surely those who wish to be the test subjects in this ongoing experiment should be free to make themselves into guinea pigs for the Big Pharma manufacturers. But every mandate or compulsion to force the vaccine on an unwilling recipient sets a dangerous precedent, a precedent that will one day lead to a tracked and surveilled population unable to resist the next generation of injectable bioelectronics.

This is not a game, this is not a test. Billions of people are being asked to participate in a gigantic experiment, not just an experiment in medical technology, but an experiment in compliance and blind trust.

The pressure to say yes and to go along with the crowd in this experiment is enormous. But if we lose the freedom to say “no” to this, then we may lose control over our bodily autonomy—and, ultimately, our humanity—forever.

The choice is ours . . . but for how much longer?

*

James Corbett is an outstanding analyst of geopolitics and World Affairs. 

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 Health Impact News

For decades, the National Defense Authorization Act has been the lifeblood of the US imperium, guaranteeing a flow of money across the military.  A better term for such a bill would use the word offence in it, but lawmakers and industry lobbyists find that granting reserves of cash is better justified when one is constantly threatened and vulnerable.  Be it midget adversaries, deviant non-state actors or an enemy yet to be born, defence will have its share of funding provided the threat is sufficiently inflated.

Mindful of this cardinal principle, Northrop Grumman CEO Kathy Warden told Defense News last month that defence spending was “largely threat-driven and today’s threat environment warrants strong defense.”  It would come as little surprise that Warden sees threats everywhere, “intensifying” in nature.  Peace is distinctly not her business.

The NDAA for 2021 allocates $740 billion for national defence spending.  Congress passed it without much fuss this month, the House favouring it by 335-78-1, and the Senate 84-13.  On December 11, it wound its way to the desk of President Donald Trump.

Trump proved moody.  In another swansong act of defiance, the president stroppily vetoed the bill.

“My administration recognizes the importance of the Act to our national security,” he outlined in a message to Congress.  “Unfortunately, the Act fails to include critical national security measures, includes provisions that fail to respect our veterans and our military’s history, and contradicts efforts by my Administration to put America first in our national security and foreign policy actions.”

The substantive reasons are various, not all of them focused on shrinking the imperium’s waistline.  They are mixed with spite and personal irritation and prove to be, at points, typically erratic.  Consider his objection regarding Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, left untouched by the NDAA.  That this provision, providing legal immunity to social media platforms for hosting the content of users, should have ever arisen in a defence bill suggests a mind gone awry. But relations between the president and social media platforms have been icy of late.

Hoping for a blow to be struck, the NDAA would have been Trump’s sock to the jaw of Silicon Valley.

 “Your failure to terminate the very dangerous national security risk of Section 230,” he scolded lawmakers, “will make our intelligence virtually impossible to conduct without everyone knowing what we are doing at every step.”

He also took issue with the section for facilitating “the spread of foreign disinformation online, which is a serious threat to our national security and election integrity.”

On other matters, Trump is already mounting the stump and hollering to voters.  He called the bill “a ‘gift’ to China and Russia.”  The NDAA also included “language that would require the renaming of certain military installations.”  Names from the Confederacy era are set for the scrubbing in a moral fit of historical erasure, because militarism has to keep up with the trends.

Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) was the key figure behind the provision, extolling the fetish of the mystical Union while denigrating the separatists for their dubious moral code.  On the Senate floor, she claimed that it was “time to put the names of those leaders who fought and killed US soldiers in defence of a perverted version of America where they belong, as footnotes in our history books, not plastered on our nation’s most significant military installations.”  Ten military bases are up for the cleansing, among them Fort Bragg in North Carolina, Fort Lee in Virginia, Ford Hood in Texas and Fort Polk in Louisiana.

Trump, for his part, was against “politically motivated efforts like this to wash away history and to dishonour the immense progress our country has fought for in realising our founding principles.”  Up to a point, he is right.  The US imperium, as with other empires, was most principled in devastating indigenous populations while appropriating and buying land along the way.

While reserving the most important reason for vetoing the NDAA for last, Trump at least takes the position of opposing those “endless wars, as does the American public.”  In his reading of the bill, the president’s discretion in reducing garrison numbers across the globe would effectively be stymied by a consultative process.  It was not for Congress to say “many troops to deploy and where”.

While US presidents tend to be the permissible and public face of the military industrial complex, Trump has been unwilling to play the role consistently.  Troop reductions have been promised in Afghanistan, South Korea and Germany.  The Pentagon is both nervous and agitated.  So is Congress, which wishes to keep its oar in when it comes to international military engagements.

Restating the imperial orthodoxy, Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman James Inhofe (R-Okla.) wished for all his fellow lawmakers to keep the empire running on gas.

“The NDAA has become law every year for 59 years straight because it’s absolutely vital to our national security and our troops.”  He hoped that all his “colleagues in Congress will join me in making sure our troops have the resources and equipment they need to defend this nation.”

The House Armed Services Committee Chairman Adam Smith (D-Wash.) is also keen to keep the machine moving, trumpeting a familiar militarist theme.

“By choosing to veto the NDAA,” claimed Smith in a statement, “President Trump has made it clear that he does not care about the needs of our military personnel and their families.”

Smith has become something of a golden boy for the military industrial complex, raking in donations from such defence contractors as Textron, a leading producer of cluster bombs.

Trump’s reasons for vetoing the bill are not philosophically rigorous or cerebrally hefty. But those opposing greater and deeper funds for the military industrial complex should always find some room to salute a commander-in-chief willing to obstruct the passage of bills that foster aggression and feed a complex that serves to hinder, rather than advance, security.  Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky.) is happy to go along with delaying and blocking the NDAA.

“I very much am opposed to the Afghan war, and I’ve told them [fellow senators] I’ll come back to try to prevent them from easily overriding the president’s veto.”

Congress, in the main, has no such wish.  The bill is in step with the incoming Biden administration’s promise of a more meddlesome brand of US interventionism.  Suitably bribed, the respective chambers have till before noon on January 3, 2021 to override the presidential veto, prior to the 117^th Congress being sworn in.  The House is already considering overriding the veto.  Devotees of endless wars will be lobbying with determination and intent that this takes place.

*

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

Featured image is from NationofChange

The Chinese-Russian strategic partnership could be leveraged to stabilize the CAR after this Sunday’s elections and might eventually become a model for them to apply towards their other African partners too.

Since the first cases of the new coronavirus strain outside of China, every aspect of the pandemic’s ever-changing amoebic narrative has been carefully controlled by the World Health Organization and major government health agencies.

High officials within a syndicate of institutions, including the CDC, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease and the UK’s National Heath Service, have largely dictated government responses to lessen the pandemic.  The Sars2-Cov19 pandemic is not the first time unelected medical bureaucrats, who the average person assumes to possess an enduring expertise, have guided global policies against pandemics and serous infectious outbreaks.  The most recent example was the 2009-2010 HIN1 Swine Flu pandemic that never truly happened according to plan. Subsequently that effort revealed a surprising incompetence in the international medical hierarchy that can be blamed on the entire system rather than a few inept individuals.

However, during the current pandemic scare, something unusual and remarkably radical has happened. Historically, voices of opposition within institutionalized medicine remain relatively silent. Most often it is only a handful of health professionals who come forward to challenge official statements or to uncover the serious flaws in the scientific literature to support their actions.

Yet for the past year we have witnessed tens of thousands of physicians, medical experts and researchers coming forward publicly with harsh and even damning criticisms of how the ruling medical agencies have mishandled the pandemic.  They easily recognize these agencies’ contradictions, the conflicts of interest with the pharmaceutical industry, the large body of medical literature deconstructing and discrediting their fundamental claims, and the evidence to prove their policies are scientifically baseless.  These are not dissident mavericks. Over 52,000 medical professionals representing some of the world’s leading medical schools and research institutions have already signed the Great Barrington Declaration in protest against the official Covid-19 strategies and these policies’ serious adverse effects on the physical and mental health of children, working class citizens and the poor.  Moreover, they have nothing to gain. No financial interests jeopardize their judgments. And they are fully aware of the pushback and blacklisting that may follow and would injure their reputations.

Around the world, dissident medical voices are warning us that:

1. The official death counts, particularly in the US and the UK are grossly exaggerated
2. Polyermase chain reaction (PCR) was never created to be used as a diagnostic tool to determine Covid-19 infection or any other virus. Overreliance upon PCR is a travesty that has created a Case-pandemic rather an actual symptomatic scourge.
3. The evidence to support the belief that large social lockdowns and social distancing, perhaps even mask wearing, will deter the spread of the virus is overstated and inaccurate.
4. America’s official narrative, where the number of cases per capita far surpass any other nation, that effective, safe and cheaper drugs such as Ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) have no value and post serious harm is completely unfounded. Rather, if used wisely it is highly effective and safe as a preventative measure for first stage treatment of mild and moderate infections.

A compilation of 210 studies on HCQ’s effectiveness against Covid-19, 145 peer reviewed, only found 26 showed that the cheap, widely used drug posed some risks or was ineffective. The remainder clearly indicate that HCQ is one of our best and most reliable courses of treatment. For example a study of 585 patients treated with HCQ along with azithromycin and zinc were relieved in under 3 days and none were hospitalized, required ventilation or died. Another study published in the journal Clinical and Translational Science reported 73% reduction in hospitalization with no serious adverse events.

5. In the meantime, we are told we must await for a vaccine or a new miracle drug and no other medical intervention is warranted other then personal hygienic practices, masks and social distancing.
6. The New York Times and other major media outlets are misrepresenting new cases of Covid-19 with the actual disease thereby grossly inflating those who may be positive but are otherwise healthy and pose no public threat.

The WHO’s, CDC’s and NHS’ internal confusion and culture of inconsistency is leaving more and more citizens questioning who can be trusted. Even the otherwise conservative British Medical Journal published a rare and brutal condemnation of the corruption and commercialization throughout the official Covid-19 narrative.  BMJ’s executive editor Kamran Abbasi wrote:

“Science is being suppressed for political and financial gain. Covid-19 has unleashed state corruption on a grand scale, and it is harmful to public health.1 Politicians and industry are responsible for this opportunistic embezzlement. So too are scientists and health experts. The pandemic has revealed how the medical-political complex can be manipulated in an emergency—a time when it is even more important to safeguard science.”

Sadly mainstream media such as the New York Times, Washington Post and BBC are revealing a lack of journalistic integrity despite the open accessibility of medical studies to the contrary. Instead the media serves as an echo chamber to continue advancing this international debacle created by our leading health officials.

To understand the miscalculation of deaths that can be directly attributed to Covid-19 we can begin with the CDC’s own website:

“Due to the ongoing COvID-19 pandemic, this system will suspend data collection for the 2020-2021 influenza season.”

In other words, the CDC’s monthly mortality reports will no longer be monitoring actual influenza deaths, which are more often than not also comflated with deaths due to pneumonia. William Briggs, a former professor at Cornell University noted that last summer the CDC ceased counting flu and pneumonia deaths “because, we suppose, of the difficulty telling these deaths from doom deaths [Covid-19].” So how will these deaths be entered into mortality reports?

In early December, an assistant director at Johns Hopkins Medical School’s Department of Applied Economics examined death statistics during the Covid pandemic and previous years. Due to the high percentage of non-Covid deaths decreasing during the pandemic, her conclusion was that these deaths were intentionally being labeled as Covid-1 caused. Her colleague Dr. Yanni Gu summarized the problem:

“The CDC classified all deaths that are related to Covid-19 simply as Covid-19 deaths. Even patients dying from other underlying diseases but are infected with Covid-19 count as Covid-19 deaths. This is likely the main explanation as to why Covid-19 deaths drastically increased while deaths by all other diseases experienced a significant decrease.”

This irrational discrepancy in causes of death is not solely an American problem. Globally there has been a 98% percent decrease in diagnosed flu cases compared to 2019. Australia alone has recorded a 96% drop off.

There may be a sensible way to explain the decrease in flu and this in turn helps explain the dramatic increase in Covid-19 cases due to inaccurate testing and an infestation of false positives. Given the enormous impact of lockdowns, closing of businesses and public spaces, social distancing and masks, it is feasible that flu rates would decline noticeably. However, then the rise in Covid-19 cases becomes completely nonsensical unless spurious testing is the culprit.

Recently, even the World Health Organization had to acknowledge PCR’s failures. Despite the mincing of words, the WHO reported,

“The design principle of RT-PCR means that for patients with high levels of circulating virus (viral load), relatively few cycles will be needed to detect virus so the Ct [cycle threshold] will be low. Conversely when specimens return a high Ct value, it means that many cycles were required to detect the virus. In some circumstances, the distinction between background noise and actual presence of the target virus is difficult to ascertain”

Most testing labs are using a cycle threshold of 40 amplifications, consequently the high rate of false positives. This is the reason for cases rising exponentially while actual deaths had leveled in mid summer until more recently. In the UK, Public Health England states, “if a person has both a negative and positive test, then only their positive test will be counted.” The US does likewise.

University of California virologist Dr. Juliet Morrison stated, ‘I’m shocked that people think that 40 [cycles] could represent a positive.” She recommends a reasonable cutoff at 35, and Dr. Michael Mina at Harvard’s School of Public Heath suggests 30 or less. University of North Carolina’s director of clinical microbiology Melissa Miller has called the application PCR for all situations “completely irresponsible.”

The most damning indictment against every governor across the US who continues to rule on lockdowns, school closures and draconian police enforcement and yet has failed to reign in the plague of erroneous PCR testing in his or her state is found in a recent study by the Infectious Diseases Society of America. Using as a low a 25 cycle threshold, 70% of positives were not actual cases because the virus was unable to be cultured. In other words, the virus was already dead.

And yet when PCR cycle thresholds are adjusted, the number of cases plummet. This was observed in efforts made in Massachusetts, New York and Nevada where it was discovered that 90% of those testing positive carried “barely any virus.”

Fortunately some countries are waking up to PCR’s unreliability that was originally perpetuated by a very entrepreneurial German doctor Christian Dosten.  Dosten also happens to be an advisor to the Germany’s Federal Ministry of Health.  A Portugal appeals court ruled PRC is unreliable for testing Covid-19 and any enforced quarantine based on a positive PCR test would be illegal. As for Dosten and his paper published in the journal Eurosurveillance, it has served as the rationale for widespread PCR use. But the paper is substantially inaccurate but helped serve as a means for Dosten to gain a patent for coronavirus PCR testing.  Now 22 leading medical professionals from the International Consortium of Scientists in Life Sciences have filed for the paper’s retraction due to “a tremendous number of very serious design flaws… which make the PCR test completely unsuitable as a diagnostic tool to identify the SARS-CoV-2 virus.”

The real crime is that none of the above failures were inevitable.

There is no reasonable explanation for miscalculating actual deaths associated with Covid-19 other than shear stupidity or gross intentional neglect.  PCR’s unsuitability to accurately diagnose the presence of active Covid-19, or any other infectious virus, has been well documented for many years. Even PCR’s inventor Dr. Kary Mullis has stated it is unsuited for clinical diagnosis.

Yet despite all of the foreknowledge of these facts, countless people have had their lives devastated by the choices our federal health officials and politicians have made based upon severely flawed science. Unnecessary quarantining, loss of income, lockdowns, and mental stress have adversely effected millions of Americans and people around the world.  Again, we might to turn Abbasi’s article in the BMJ:

“… as the powerful become more successful, richer, and further intoxicated with power, the inconvenient truths of science are suppressed. When good science is suppressed, people die.”

*

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.

There is a major effort underway to convince and coerce African and Asian nations to “normalize” relations with the State of Israel in exchange for promised United States financial, military and diplomatic assistance.

The Kingdom of Morocco is the latest state in the Maghreb and West Asia to recognize Tel Aviv. In the case of Morocco, the administration of President Donald Trump has endorsed the crafting of a new map depicting this country absent of the internationally recognized Western Sahara, whose people are still seeking national independence.

Since the mid-1970s when Spain abandoned its colonial claims on the Western Sahara, the governments of Morocco and the U.S. have thwarted every attempt to win the liberation of the Saharawi people inhabiting the area. For over 40 years, the Polisario Front has waged a protracted struggle on behalf of the provincial Saharawi Arab Democratic Republic (SADR), which is recognized as the legitimate representatives of this territory by the United Nations and the African Union (AU).

The demands of the Polisario Front and the SADR are centered on the 1991 U.N. Security Council Resolution 690 mandating the holding of an internationally supervised election on whether the Saharawi people want independence. Judging from the support shown to the SADR by residents of the territory and among progressive elements within the international community, a majority of the people would undoubtedly vote for total independence.

An armed campaign was waged by the Polisario Front from 1975-1991, when a U.N.-brokered ceasefire was announced with the understanding that the referendum on independence would be held, resulted in a modicum of hope for a lasting resolution to the crisis. For nearly three decades, Morocco has defied the agreement while maintaining control over the Western Sahara.

Recently in November, the SADR suspended its ceasefire with Rabat. The reissuing of a map which liquidates the SADR question is clearly a provocation to more violence and instability.

The Information Ministry of the Polisario Front said of the decision by Rabat and Washington to deny the legitimacy of their liberation movement that: “Trump’s decision changes nothing in legal terms over the question of Sahrawi because the international community does not recognize Moroccan sovereignty over Western Sahara. It constitutes a flagrant violation of the UN charter… and the founding principles of the African Union and hampers the efforts of the international community in finding a peaceful solution to the conflict between the Sahrawi Republic and the Kingdom of Morocco…. The Polisario and Sahrawi government condemn in the strongest terms the fact that outgoing American President Donald Trump attributes to Morocco something which does not belong.”

On December 21, the United Nations Security Council was briefed on the situation and its implications for the region. No other Western imperialist state has taken a similar position to that of Washington. If U.S. allies in Europe decide to follow its lead on the Western Sahara it would constitute an historical repudiation of the U.N.’s anti-colonial resolutions which have been important to many independence struggles, such as in Africa and Latin America.

After the Security Council briefing conducted by U.N. Assistant Secretary-General for Africa Bintou Keita and Colin Stewart, director of the U.N. peacekeeping mission in Western Sahara, Stephane Dujarric, spokesperson for the U.N., emphasized:

“There are no major operational changes from our part. Our position on the announcements regarding Western Sahara is unchanged and that … we continue to believe that a solution can be found through dialogue based on the relevant Security Council resolutions.” (See this)

It remains to be seen what the position of the incoming Biden-Harris administration will be in regard to the Western Sahara and other anti-colonial resolutions. The AU, which is currently chaired by Republic of South Africa President Cyril Ramaphosa, has recognized the SADR and the Polisario Front for nearly four decades.

South African Ambassador to the U.N. Jerry Matjila stated in the aftermath of the briefing:

“Decisions contrary to multilateral collective decisions must be discouraged and unequivocally disregarded. We believe that any recognition of Western Sahara as part of Morocco is tantamount to recognizing illegality as such recognition is incompatible with international law.”

Recognition of Tel Aviv by Rabat is Part of a Broader Imperialist Strategy

Coinciding with this blatant affront to the Saharawi people, the AU and the U.N., was the decision by Morocco to “partially” recognize Israel. This announcement follows other U.S.-brokered deals involving Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates (UAE), Bahrain and the Republic of Sudan.

Morocco has for years maintained close ties with Washington. The most recent announcement on Israel will have negligible influence on the situation in Palestine and other geo-political regions in North Africa and West Asia.

Yet the underlying reasons behind this diplomatic offensive by the Trump White House are designed to enhance Washington and Wall Streets interests within business, military and foreign policy structures in these various countries. A meeting at the White House in September attended by representatives of the UAE, Israel and the U.S. administration unveiled the so-called Abraham Accord. The agreement is related to the procurement of Pentagon and Defense industry weaponry for the UAE which has already engaged in military operations with the U.S. for more than a quarter century.

The signed agreement read in part as follows:

“Recalling the Treaties of Peace between the State of Israel and the Arab Republic of Egypt and between the State of Israel and the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, and committed to working together to realize a negotiated solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that meets the legitimate needs and aspirations of both peoples, and to advance comprehensive Middle East peace, stability and prosperity; Emphasizing the belief that the normalization of Israeli and Emirati relations is in the interest of both peoples and contributes to the cause of peace in the Middle East and the world; Expressing deep appreciation to the United States for its profound contribution to this historic achievement;….” (See this)

Of course, these accords engineered by the White House have been condemned by the Palestinian national movement and other anti-imperialist states and organizations. Algeria, which has been a staunch supporter of the SADR, rejected the decision by Morocco to partially normalize relations with Israel. Hamas, the Palestinian resistance movement, has strongly objected to the decisions by Morocco, Sudan and the Gulf Monarchies.

With specific reference to the U.S.-induced deal established between Israel and Morocco, the Washington, D.C.-based Brookings Institution reported that:

“According to the agreement, the two states will resume partial diplomatic ties in the near future, establish direct flights, and promote economic and technological cooperation. However, Morocco has not committed to opening an embassy in Israel (rather, it will open liaison offices, as it had prior to 2002) nor will it establish full diplomatic relations. Within a day of Trump’s announcement, his administration sent notice to Congress about a potential $1 billion arms sale to Morocco — a similar move to the one the administration made following the United Arab Emirates’ normalization with Israel.” (See this)

Sudan through the recently passed Sovereign Immunity bill in the U.S. Congress, which was contingent upon normalization with Israel among other issues, is slated to provide financial assistance to the interim Sovereign Council led by Prime Minister Abdalla Hamdok and Chair General Abdelfattah al-Burhan. Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin was scheduled to visit Sudan, the UAE, Israel, Qatar and Egypt in early January in his last foreign mission for the Trump administration.

The Sudan Tribune reported that in exchange for Khartoum’s shift in foreign policy:

“The U.S. will disburse $111 million to pay off part of Sudan’s bilateral debt, and $120 million to help pay off its debt to the International Monetary Fund (IMF). Also, the legislation provides support to Sudan with $700 million until September 2022. The Sudanese government signed a bilateral claims agreement with the United States last month that stipulated removing Sudan from the list of countries that sponsor terrorism and passing the ‘legal peace’ bill in return for paying $335 million to settle with the victims of terror attacks.” (See this)

Therefore, these agreements and accords along with accompanying legislation in Washington, have more to do with the imperialist interests of the U.S. and its allies than the improvement of the living conditions and development prospects in Africa and West Asia. Another offer by the U.S. has been made to Indonesia, the largest-populated Muslim nation in the world. Jakarta has rejected the offer. (See this)

In Africa, the Djibouti President Ismail Omar Guelleh has stated that the conditions “are not ripe” for diplomatic relations with Israel. Nonetheless, Djibouti in the Horn of Africa, is the location of the largest Pentagon military base at Camp Lemonnier. The U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM) utilizes the small country to engage in aerial surveillance and military strikes in other African states and West Asia.

These diplomatic and economic machinations by Washington and Tel Aviv will not halt the people of Palestine, Western Sahara and other oppressed nations from waging an unrelenting campaign for their national liberation.

*

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.

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

Featured image is from the author

“Hypocrisy can afford to be magnificent in its promise, for never intending to go beyond promise costs nothing.” – Edmund Burke

Joe Biden’s statements on resuscitating the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) has also reignited an old debate inside Iran. With the Rouhani administration clearly siding with those pushing for unconditional return to the ‘deal’ signed with the U.S.  and five other world powers, it is important to discuss what is at stake – specifically as it relates to medical isotopes and Iran’s enrichment needs.

While the United States and its western ‘allies’ demand that Iran stop all enrichment of up to 20% for its research reactor and medical isotopes, the US government has continued its efforts to commercialize nuclear medicine.

In 2011, while the Obama administration was busy talking in secret with the ‘reformist’ groups attempting to influence and undermine Iran’s rights under the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), the U.S. Congress passed the “American Medical Isotopes Production Act of 2011” . The Bill calls for providing uranium to private sector companies to make medical isotopes with U.S. government undertaking the task of waste removal: “The lease contracts shall provide for the Secretary to retain responsibility for the final disposition of radioactive waste created by the irradiation, processing, or purification of leased uranium.” It is important to read the entire Bill here: E:\BILLS\S99.IS (govinfo.gov)

Under Section 6 titled ‘DOMESTIC MEDICAL ISOTOPE PRODUCTION’, the Bill stipulates:

 “(a) In General.— Chapter 10 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2131 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following:

 “Sec. 112. Domestic Medical Isotope Production.

“a. The Commission may issue a license, or grant an amendment to an existing license, for the use in the United States of highly enriched uranium as a target for medical isotope production in a nuclear reactor, only if, in addition to any other requirement of this Act.”

Clearly not a proliferation concern.  America is the arbitrator of international treaties – it would seem with cooperation from other powers. But Iran’s uranium enriched to 19.75% – considered to be LEU and necessary for research reactors and medicinal purposes – has to be halted.

Through National Nuclear Security Administration, the U.S. is monopolizing and handing control over global medical isotope production to profit-driven companies. Here is the statement published on NNSA’s website:

“As part of its mission to minimize the use of highly enriched uranium (HEU), NNSA’s Office of Material Management and Minimization was tasked to lead the Molybdenum-99 (Mo-99) program. Mo-99 is an isotope that is used in over 40,000 medical procedures in the United States each day, but is 100% supplied by foreign vendors, most of which use HEU in the production process.”

It also identifies four private companies currently working with the U.S. government:

NorthStar Medical Radioisotopes, LLC, located in Beloit, Wisconsin

• SHINE Medical Technologies, located in Janesville, Wisconsin Northwest
• Medical Isotopes, located in Corvallis, Oregon
• Niowave, Inc., located in Lansing, Michigan”

Medical isotopes are a lucrative, growing business and one that is essential to human health.

Radiotherapy can be used to treat some medical conditions, especially cancer, using radiation to weaken or destroy particular targeted cells.

• Over 40 million nuclear medicine procedures are performed each year, and demand for radioisotopes is increasing at up to 5% annually.
• Sterilization of medical equipment is also an important use of radioisotopes

The global radioisotope market was valued at $9.6 billion in 2016, with medical radioisotopes accounting for about 80% of the total, and poised to reach about $17 billion by 2021. North America is the dominant market for diagnostic radioisotopes with close to half of the market share, while Europe accounts for about 20%.  Hence, 70% of the global medical radioisotopes goes to a population of 778 million people (US 331 and EU 447 million) while 7 billion (global population 7.8 billion less US and EU) are left with only 30%.

Where there is health imperialism, profit, and discrimination, there is Bill Gates.  According to the Journal of Economics and Sociology (2015), Bill Gates, the single biggest contributor to World Health Organization (WHO):

“Gates calls for discussion “about which parts of the process [WHO] should lead and which ones others (including the World Bank and the G7 countries) should lead in close coordination.” While the article contains perfunctory nods to U.N. authority, as well as brief lip service to the idea of strengthening public health services in poor countries, there can be little doubt that Gates is advocating a new form of international institution, transcending the United Nations, targeting the developing world, and effectively controlled by the wealthy nations of the West”.  

It comes as no surprise therefore that Gates in involved with nuclear medicine.

 “TerraPower, the nuclear research venture founded by Bill Gates, is joining with Isotek Systems and the U.S. Department of Energy in a public-private partnership aimed at turning what otherwise would be nuclear waste into radiation doses for cancer treatment.”

Such benevolence.  But sovereign signatory nations party to the NPT are not permitted to cure their sick.

Furthermore, the more affluent people living in countries with limited access to nuclear medicine, find their way to the US or the EU for treatment, benefiting from their affluence while taking their home country’s wealth to the West.  And the gap is only growing.

In the USA there are over 20 million nuclear medicine procedures conducted per year, and in Europe about 10 million. In Australia there are about 560,000 per year, with 470,000 using reactor isotopes. The use of radiopharmaceuticals in diagnosis is growing at over 10% per year.

But in spite of the dire shortage of medical isotopes as reported by IAEA report – April 2020, JCPOA and the signatories, are demanding that Iran not produce this life-saving nuclear medicine.

The degree of double standards and hypocrisy cannot be emphasized enough. Only 10 nuclear reactors, many of which are nearing 50 years of operation, produce over 95% of the world’s supply. In 2007, Poland used HEU to supply medical isotopes – and continued.   Why and how is it that the IAEA and other members states have no problem with Poland possessing HEU?    “In 2007, during a supply crisis in the molybdenum 99 market (caused by breakdowns at some of the older reactors, particularly the Canadian NRU reactor), Poland’s MARIA reactor increased its HEU-based production of molybdenum 99 to fill the gap. Though the crisis has passed, the Polish reactor does not appear to have reduced its production. It too uses HEU fuel and targets.

One of the main suppliers of medical isotope is the Netherlands using bomb grade/HEU to process.    Obviously not an issue with the IAEA or the U.S. or anyone else.  South Africa has maintained around 80 kilograms of its HEU according to NTI Civilian HEU: South Africa | NTI. Clearly, blessed by America as they are working on producing LEU medical isotopes while the U.S. looks the other way.

It is not clear how anyone can accept so much discrimination in applying science, and to enforce not only lawlessness, but health imperialism.

*

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 author’s blog site, CommonSense.

Featured image is from Gage Skidmore/Wikimedia Commons

Background

The Middle East Eye reports there are no gold mines under Dubai’s sands with artisanal miners or children toiling away trying to strike gold. But there is the Dubai Gold Souk and refineries that vie with the largest global operations as the United Arab Emirates (UAE) strives to expand its position as a major gold hub.

In recent years, the UAE, with Dubai in particular, has established itself as one of the largest and fastest-growing marketplaces for the precious metal, with imports rising by 58 percent per annum to more than $27bn in 2018, according to data collated by the Observatory for Economic Complexity.

With no local gold to tap, unlike neighboring Saudi Arabia, the UAE has to import gold from wherever it can, whether it be legitimately, smuggled with no questions asked, sourced from conflict zones, or linked to organized crime.

Blood Gold

The Sentry’s investigation (Sentry Investigations specialize in private and corporate investigations in the UK) found that 95 percent of gold officially exported from Central and East Africa, much of it mined in Sudan, South Sudan, the Central African Republic and the Democratic Republic of Congo, ends up in the Emirates.

Gold has become so important to Dubai’s economy that it is the emirate’s highest value external trade item, ahead of mobile phones, jeweler, petroleum products and diamonds, according to Dubai Customs.

And it is the UAE’s largest export after oil, exporting $17.7bn in 2019. Gold’s importance has only increased as Dubai’s oil reserves have dwindled and the UAE has tried to diversify its economy.

The Swiss connection

Dubai is not the only gold player with dirt, and even blood, on its hands.

“It is not just Dubai, it’s also Switzerland. The Swiss get large quantities of gold from Dubai. The Swiss say they are not getting gold from certain countries [connected to conflict gold], but instead from Dubai, yet the gold in Dubai is coming from these countries. Dubai is complicit, but Swiss hands are equally dirty as they can’t cut Dubai from the market,” said Lakshmi Kumar, policy director, at Global Financial Integrity (GFI) in Washington DC.

Switzerland is the world’s largest refiner, while [more than half] of all gold goes through the country at some point, according to anti-corruption group Global Witness. Switzerland’s trade is tied to the UK, which imports around a third of all gold.

***

PressTV: Gold has become such an important commodity for the UAE, that it is the largest export after oil, exporting $17.7bn in 2019. But there is the other side to this story. A report by the UK’s Home Office and Treasury earlier in December also named the UAE as a jurisdiction vulnerable to money laundering by criminal networks because of the ease with which gold and cash could be moved through the country. Is this the case?

Peter Koenig: First, International Gold Laundering is a gigantic Human Rights abuse, foremost because laundered gold stems from many countries in Africa and South America where massive child labor is practiced. Children not only are put at tremendous risk working in the mines, in narrow rickety underground tunnels that could collapse anytime, and often do – but they are also poisoned on a daily basis by chemicals used in extracting gold ore from the rock, notably cyanide and mercury – and others.

Second, Gold laundering is an international crime, because it illegal and it is mostly run by mafia type organizations – where killing and other type of violence, plus sexual abuse of women – forced prostitution – is a daily occurrence.

There should be an international law – enforceable – issued by the UN – and enforced by the International Criminal Court against anything to do with gold laundering. Infractions should be punished. And countries involved in gold laundering should be held responsible – put on a black list for illegal financial transactions and for facilitating human rights abuses.

The United Arab Emirates — has no gold, so all of the $17.7 billion of their gold exports is being imported and “washed” by re-exporting it mainly through the UK into Switzerland and other gold refining places, like India.

With a worldwide production of about 3,500 tons, there are times when Switzerland imports more gold than the annual world production, most of it coming from the UK, for further refining or re-refining, for “better or double laundering” – erasing the gold’s origins.

From the refinery in Switzerland, it goes mostly into the banking system or is re-exported as “clean” gold coming from Switzerland. And its origins are no longer traceable.

Worldwide about 70% of all gold is refined in Switzerland.

Gold mine production totaled 3,531 tons in 2019, 1% lower than in 2018. About 70% of all gold, worldwide is refined in Switzerland. So, it is very likely that the UK, receiving gold from United Arab Emirates, re-exports the gold to Switzerland, for re-refining, for further export to, for ex. India. – Coming from Switzerland it has the “label” of being clean. How long will this reputation still last?

Metalor is the world’s largest gold refinery – established in Switzerland. And they are absolutely secretive, do not say where they buy their gold from, because the Swiss Government does not require the origin when gold enters Switzerland.

Once it is refined – the origin can no longer be determined, because gold does not have a DNA.

PressTV: The Sentry’s investigation found that 95 percent of gold officially exported from Central and East Africa, much of it mined in Sudan, South Sudan, the Central African Republic and the Democratic Republic of Congo, ends up in the emirate, through what’s known as blood gold:  gold obtained through brutal mining practices and illicit profits, including the use of children, how do you see this?

PK: Yes, this is absolutely true.

As mentioned already before – much of the gold from Africa / Central Africa, Ghana and South America, notably Peru, is blood gold. Of course, it passes through many hands before it lands in a refinery in the UK, Switzerland or elsewhere, and therefore is almost untraceable.

But, the company that buys the gold, like Metalor, they know exactly where the gold is coming from, but, as mentioned before, since the Swiss government does not require the importing company to divulge the origin of the gold – the human rights abuses will never come to light, or better – to justice.

It is estimated that up to 30% of all gold refined in Switzerland is considered blood gold. Imagine the suffering, disease, and even death – or delayed death through slow reacting chemicals like cyanite and mercury.

However, if there is no international law – a law that is enforced – that puts the criminals to justice – and put countries that facilitate gold laundering on an international list – for the world to see – and hold them accountable, with for example financial sanctions, little will change.

*

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.

Peter Koenig is a geopolitical analyst and a former Senior Economist at the World Bank and the World Health Organization (WHO), where he has worked for over 30 years on water and environment around the world. He lectures at universities in the US, Europe and South America. He writes regularly for online journals and is the author of Implosion – An Economic Thriller about War, Environmental Destruction and Corporate Greed; and  co-author of Cynthia McKinney’s book “When China Sneezes: From the Coronavirus Lockdown to the Global Politico-Economic Crisis” (Clarity Press – November 1, 2020). 

Peter Koenig is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization.

Thousands of people have been unable to work or perform daily activities, or required care from a healthcare professional, after getting the new COVID-19 vaccine, according to new data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

As of Dec. 18, 3,150 people reported what the agency terms “Health Impact Events” after getting vaccinated.

The definition of the term is: “unable to perform normal daily activities, unable to work, required care from doctor or health care professional.”

As The Epoch Times’ Zachary Stieber reports, the people reporting the negative effects reported them through V-safe, a smartphone application. The tool uses text messages and web surveys to provide personalized health check-ins and allows users to quickly tell the CDC if they are experiencing side effects.

The CDC and Pfizer, which produces the vaccine with BioNTech, didn’t respond to request for comments.

The information was presented by Dr. Thomas Clark, a CDC epidemiologist, to the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, an independent panel that provides recommendations to the agency, on Saturday.

Click here to read the document.

The CDC said that 272,001 doses of the vaccine were administered as of Dec. 19. That means most people who were vaccinated did not experience negative effects.

The CDC has identified six case reports of anaphylaxis, or severe allergic reaction, that occurred following vaccination with the new vaccine, Clark reported. Other case reports were reviewed and determined not to be of anaphylaxis.

In an update on Friday, the agency stressed that anyone who has ever had a severe allergic reaction to any ingredient in a COVID-19 vaccine should not get that vaccine. People with severe allergic reactions to other vaccines should consult their doctor about getting the new vaccine while those with a history of anaphylaxis not related to vaccines “may still get vaccinated.”

“CDC recommends that people with a history of severe allergic reactions not related to vaccines or injectable medications – such as allergies to food, pet, venom, environmental, or latex – may still get vaccinated,” the CDC said.

“People with a history of allergies to oral medications or a family history of severe allergic reactions, or who might have a milder allergy to vaccines (no anaphylaxis) – may also still get vaccinated.”

Anyone who experiences anaphylaxis after getting the first vaccine should not get the second shot, the CDC said. COVID-19 vaccines are meant to be given across two doses, spaced about three weeks apart.

At least five healthcare workers in Alaska experienced adverse reactions after getting the Pfizer vaccine, the Anchorage Daily News reported. One of two experiencing adverse reactions at the Bartlett Regional Hospital required treatment at the hospital for at least two nights.

An Illinois hospital halted vaccinations after four workers suffered adverse reactions.

Dr. Peter Marks, the director of Food and Drug Administration’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, told reporters in a call on Thursday night that the agency is working with the CDC, and colleagues in the United Kingdom, on probing the allergic reactions.

“We’ll be looking at all of the data we can from each of these reactions to sort out exactly what happened. And we’ll also be looking to try to understand which components of the vaccine might be helping to produce them,” he said.

A container of 5 doses of COVID-19 vaccine sits on a table at Roseland Community Hospital in Chicago, Ill., on Dec. 18, 2020. (Scott Olson/Getty Images)

Noting that he was speculating, Marks said it’s known that polyethylene glycol – a component present in both the Pfizer vaccine and one from Moderna that regulators approved earlier in the day – can be associated, uncommonly, with allergic reactions.

“So that could be a culprit here. And that’s why we’ll be watching very closely,” he said. “But we just don’t know at this point.”

Both vaccines have “systemic side effects,” which are “generally mild,” Marks said.

They go away after a day. According to the FDA website, the most commonly reported side effects include tiredness, headache, muscle pain, and chills. The agency said they go away after several days.

One volunteer in Pfizer’s late-stage clinical trial experienced an allergic reaction. Two people in Moderna’s phase 3 clinical trial experienced anaphylactic reactions, the company said during a meeting on Thursday. But the data showed the benefits outweigh the risk, FDA officials said, as they granted emergency use authorization to the vaccines about seven days apart.

People who get a COVID-19 vaccine should be monitored for at least 15 minutes after getting vaccinated, according to the CDC.

If someone experiences a severe allergic reaction against getting a COVID-19 vaccine, vaccination providers are supposed to provide rapid care and call for emergency medical services. The person should continue to be monitored in a medical facility for at least several hours.

*

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 Zero Hedge

A flurry of them has been expected, and just prior to Christmas, US President Donald Trump waved his wand of pardon with vigour.  On December 22, the president issued fifteen pardons and five commutations.  The choices so far have been, to put it mildly, problematic.

The power to pardon can be found in Article II, Section 2, Clause 1 of the US Constitution, a provision, which states, in part, that the President “shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.”  That most eminent of judicial heads Chief Justice Marshall described a pardon as “an act of grace, proceeding from the power entrusted with the execution of the laws, which exempts the individual, on whom it is bestowed, from the punishment the law inflicts for a crime he has committed.”

Those of curious legal mind will detect the residue of the monarchical prerogative in all of this.  The great synthesising authority of English law, William Blackstone, praised the monarchy for having a distinct advantage: “there is a magistrate, who has it in his power to extend mercy, wherever he thinks it is deserved: holding a court of equity in his own breast, to soften the rigour of the general law, in such criminal cases as merit an exemption from punishment.”  Justifying the mirroring of this power in the US Constitution, Alexander Hamilton’s Federalist 74 argues that, “Humanity and good policy conspire to dictate, that the benign prerogative of pardoning should be as little as possible fettered or embarrassed.”

The Supreme Court has not been blind to the potential abuse of the power, noting in the prohibition case of Ex Parte Grossman that exercising it “to the extent of destroying the deterrent effect of judicial punishment would be to pervert it.”  But Chief Justice William Howard Taft, having himself been a president, thought it unseemly to limit the presidential prerogative.  “Our Constitution confers this discretion on the highest officer in the Nation in confidence that he will not abuse it.”

The quality of mercy in Trump’s decisions has been peculiar and personal.  Jack Goldsmith and Matt Gluck go so far as to claim that “no president in American history comes close to matching Trump’s systematically self-serving use of the pardon power.”  In doing so, the president has also managed to circumvent the 125-year-old Justice Department office of the Pardon Attorney. The pardon attorney acts as sage and counsel in preparing a recommendation on the particular pardon or commutation, conveyed through the Deputy Attorney General.  By July 2020, Trump had made 29 of his 34 pardons without the tempering involvement of the pardon attorney.

Consistent to form, his latest round is heavy with the personal.  There is Alex van der Zwaan, who was charged with one count of making false statements in connection with the investigation of Special Counsel Robert Mueller on possible Russian interference in the 2016 election.  There is George Papadopoulos, also of false statement fame in connection to the Mueller investigation.  “Notably,” goes the White House statement, “Mueller stated in his report that he found no evidence of collusion in connection with Russia’s attempts to interfere in the election.  Nonetheless, the Special Counsel’s team still charged Mr Papadopoulos with the process-related crime.”

Former Republican lawmakers Chris Collins and Duncan Hunter could also count themselves fortunate.  Collins, a firm backer of Trump, pleaded guilty in 2019 to insider trading and was serving a 26-month prison sentence.  Such an offence was never going to trouble Trump too much.  More interesting was his “particular focus on the wellbeing of small businesses, agriculture, and sciences.”  For his part, Hunter was found guilty of one count of misusing campaign funds.  This “could have been handled as a civil case via the Federal Election Commission, according to former FEC Commissioner Bradley Smith.”

By any moral or ethical stretch of the imagination, the most execrable use of the pardon power would have to be those issued for the four security guards of the private military firm Blackwater, convicted for the killing of 14 Iraqi civilians in 2007.  The butchering took place at Baghdad’s Nisour Square, when the contractors deployed sniper fire, machine guns and grenade launchers at a busy traffic circle.  The justification by Nicholas Slatten, Paul Slough, Evan Liberty, and Dustin Heard was crudely predictable: they opened fire only after being ambushed by Iraqi insurgents.  The slain and injured women and children, some with hands in the air as they fled the scene, suggested a different account.

Rather banally, the White House statement praises their record: they were inspired to serve their country; they did so in various capacities in Iraq.  As security contractors tasked with protecting US personnel, they were merely responsible for “the unfortunate deaths and injuries of Iraqi civilians.”  The reputation of the lead Iraqi investigator is also impugned, as he “may have had ties to insurgent groups himself.”

The murderous feats of the four did much to point a finger at how the military security complex had been outsourced to private security firms more concerned with pay packages than the enfeebling irritations of international law.   Their convictions were considered by Paul Dickinson, a legal representative for the Nisour Square families “significant” for showing “that paramilitary contractors who commit crimes abroad can be held accountable for their criminal actions.”

But the lobbyists had been busy bringing out the white wash, making the point that the four were sacrificial lambs for appeasement.  A website dedicated to defending their cause dubbed them “The Biden Four,” who “were sacrificed for politics and convicted by lies.”  Brian Heberlig, lawyer for Slough, was convinced by his brief.  “Paul Slough and his colleagues didn’t deserve to spend one minute in prison.”  Heard’s attorney, David Schertler, babbled on about honour and his client’s “well-deserved freedom.”

Such softening in the rigour of the general law seemed like a grand reversal in jurisprudence.  Hina Shamsi of the American Civil Liberties Union was quick off the mark in condemning the pardons.  The actions of these men had  “caused devastation in Iraq, shame and horror in the United States, and a worldwide scandal.”  As if it was possible, the office of the president had been further degraded.

Marta Hurtado, spokeswoman for the UN Human Rights Office, was more extensive in her criticism.  “Pardoning them contributes to impunity and has the effect of emboldening others to commit such crimes in the future.”  The victims of such egregious human rights violations and violations of humanitarian law also had “the right to a remedy. This includes the right to see perpetrators serve punishments proportionate to the seriousness of their conduct.”  Taft’s confidence in the probity of executive restraint seems comically quaint.

Consideration for the victims was conspicuously absent in Trump’s reasoning.  The Blackwater Pardons are yet another effort on his part to look good with gun toting personnel who served the United States and erred.  In the gesture, a faint electoral message could be detected.

*

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

The whole world is facing the deepening and widening corruption which challenges the very survival of the free democracy and the free market economy. 

Korea has been suffering for last 70 years from the corruption culture. But owing to courageous fight of Korean people and the Candle-Light Revolution of 2016-2017, Korea is freeing painfully but steadily from the dark clouds of the corruption culture.

I hope that Korea’s experience will help developing countries for assuring the development of their economy without becoming the slave of corruption.

The literature on corruption is rich but it has two shortcomings. First, it is based on a definition of corruption which is too narrow to deal with the complexity of corruption. Second, it does not cover sufficiently the range of the impact of corruption on the society.

Most of the existing studies tend to define corruption as illegal activities which are designed to maximize personal gains at the expense of those of others. But, it must be pointed out that some of the laws and regulations are designed to justify corruption.

Therefore, I would define corruption as “illegal or immoral human activities designed to maximize personal or group gains at the expense of the welfare of other persons or other groups”

The objective of this paper is to find, on the basis of Korea’s experience, appropriate measures that would facilitate the fight against corruption.

This paper has five sections.

Section 1 offers a typology of corruption based on the Korean experience of corruption. I have found that the useful way of classifying corruption is to relate it to the behaviour of individuals and organizations involved in corruption.

Section 2 deals with the evolution stage of corruption. I argue that the phenomenon of corruption evolves by stage. The level, the contents and the impact of corruption vary by stage. Therefore, to find appropriate measure of anti-corruption, it is important to know at what stage the process of corruption finds itself.

Section 3 discusses the strategy of protecting the benefits of corruption. It will be shown that, in Korea, the strategy of protecting the fruit of corruption is brutal and sophisticated.

Section 4 copes with the impact of corruption. Here, I will distinguish between economic impact and moral impact. It goes without saying that these two types of impact are related. In fact, I argue that these two types of impact combined can destroy a country

Finally, Section 5 will show how the Korean people have fought for last 70 years against corruption risking their lives and enduring the violation of their basic human rights. In this section, I will show also how President Moon is conducting a total war against the deep rooted corruption in Korea. In addition I will show some lessons we can learn from the Korea’s experience of corruption

I. Typology of Corruption

The corruption takes several forms depending upon the individuals and organizations involved in the process of corruption. I am sure that the following types of corruption take place in many other countries.

Outright theft of public funds

One of the most notorious scandals in Korea is the embezzlement of billions of dollars of public funds by the conservative presidents of the country, civil servants, heads of public corporations, directors of research institutions, and even owners of even kindergarten.

One of the notorious cases was the embezzlements of more than $ 200 million USD by former conservative president, General Chun Doo-hwan (image on the right). He was imprisoned for corruption and abuse of power. He was ordered by the court to pay back to the government the embezzled money. But he is still claiming that he has only $260 USD in his bank; he is making mockery of Korea’s judiciary system.

Under President Lee Myong-bak, billions of dollars of public money was suspected to be stolen through what are called the “4-River Projects” and “Resource Diplomacy.” These scandals remain to be investigated.

Another case of the theft of public money is that of private kindergartens which steal openly a good part of government subsidies for personal use including the purchase of jewelry and other personal use.

Transaction of privileges 

The market of privileged rights is huge. To do business, one has to go through a long series of regulations. But, by paying bribes to government officials, one can get privileges of going over the laws and regulations.

For instance, by paying bribes to government officials, one can get more quickly a legal building permit or illegal building permit. With bribes, a land developer can transform greenbelt land into residential land.

The supply of these privileges is provided by the public authorities. The demand of these privileges is determined by the business. The price of these privileges is the monetary value of these privileges.

The market price of these privileges is the amount of bribery. It is by no means easy to have an idea about the amount of such bribery. But, for example, it is a known secret that the amount of bribery paid by the industry of construction is 5% of the amount of sales. The total amount of bribery could be tens of billions of dollars.

Theft of Information 

In Korea, some of those who are involved in the supervision of stock market and land development are known to be wealthy after their retirement.

The high ranking civil servants of the ministry of construction know in advance the land-development plan and buy land in the name of someone else and assure huge capital gains by selling it.

A person working at the institution which supervises the stock market has access to confidential information on investment plan of companies and can make fortune by buying or selling the stocks. God knows how much illicit money is made by these thieves of confidential information.

Fraudulent procurement 

The government and its numerous agents spend hundreds of billions of dollars every year to buy goods and services. For national defence alone, Korea spends a year $50 billion USD. It happens more often than not that the government and its agents pay an amount far above the real price for the procurement of goods and services.

The difference between the price paid and the real price is shared between the seller and the buyer. This is the “kick-back”. In the area of procurement of military equipment, the amount of kick-back is said to be 10% of the amount of military equipment bought.

Transaction of Freedom

Perhaps, another devastating form of corruption is the transaction of freedom. Under the corrupted judiciary system, those who have committed crimes and corruption can buy freedom with bribe money.

The police do not arrest people of power despite their obvious crimes and corruption in exchange of bribery. The bureau of prosecutors does not investigate clear cases of corruption, if the accused are leaders of business ready to pay bribes.

Even if the investigation shows undeniable proof of corruption, the prosecutor does not accuse the person involved.

Heads of the largest Chaebol were suspected several times for corruption but they were seldom sent to the court trial.

Even if they were judged guilty, they were soon liberated. In many cases, even if the prosecutor provides proof of guilt, the court makes ruling of not guilty.

Transaction of laws 

It is a well known fact that the powerful Chaebols persuade the law makers to pass laws in their favour in exchange of disguised campaign funds.

Laws adopted by the National Assembly can affect the interests of business and other interest groups. The groups which are the most sensitive to laws are large corporations. Large corporations have, in fact, a specialized group whose job is to prevent laws harmful to them and foster those laws which are favourable to them. The laws that have been the most visible target of lobbying have been labour related laws.

Chaebols have been spending a lot of bribe money paid to law makers to prevent the adoption of pro-labour laws. This is one of the reasons for low wages and long hour of work in Korea

Transaction of jobs 

Another form of corruption is the transaction of jobs. In the case of a Casino in Gangwon Province, 80% of jobs were illegally given, in exchange of bribes, to those who were close to lawmakers or other persons close to the government of Park Geun-hye.

It is suspected that Mrs Choi Soon-sil (image on left; now in prison for 20 years for corruption and illegally interfering in government policies) would have intervened, for large sum of bribe, in the nomination of cabinet ministers, judges and other high ranking officials.

II. Evolution Stages of Corruption

The corruption in Korea has evolved by the following stages:

• Economic development and collusion of government-business.
• Formation of oligarchy of corruption
• Creation of corruption community 

Stage 1. Economic Development and the emergence of bilateral collusion: government-business 

One of the key factors of the economic miracle in Japan and Korea was the concept of Japan Incorporated (Japan Inc.) and that of Korea Incorporated (Korea Inc) by which I mean the situation in which the government and the business act as one single company. The government and the business become almost equal partners for economic policies and development.

The close cooperation government-business led inevitably to collusion in planning and executing the project of industrialization and economic development.

The story of collusion between President Park Chung-hee and Chung Joo-young, founder of the Hyundai Group and Lee Byung-chul, founder of the Samsung groups is almost a legend.

The stage of government-business collusion was almost identical to the period of take-off of the Korean economy (1960-1970), In fact, owing to the Korea Inc. and the bilateral collusion, Korea could free itself from absolute poverty in less than thirty years.

Stage 2. Formation of Oligarchy

As the economy developed further and the process of planning of economic development was executed, the role of bureaucracy became essential for the success of planning. In particular, the Bureau of Economic Planning (EPB) became the key factor of success of economic planning. As a result, the daily participation of EPB bureaucrats and high ranking officials of the Ministry of Finance and other civil servants joined the collusion. This led to the trilateral collusion: politics-bureaucracy-business

No doubt, the trilateral collusion made significant contribution to the Han-River economic miracle. But in the absence of close supervision of the collusion, the members of the collusion became attempted to appropriate some of the fruits of economic development.

To do so, the collusion members formed a close circle to hide their illegal or immoral activities. In fact, this close circle became an exclusive oligarchy. One of the functions of the oligarchy consisted in allocating privileges to big businesses in exchange of bribe money

There were several ways of giving public resources to big businesses. The policy loans were the most lucrative gift to the businesses. The government made loans of huge amount of money at an interest rate of less than 5%, while the market rate was above 20%.

This money was designed to foster industrialization and exports. True, a part of these loans were used for the construction of factories and exports. But, in many cases, the businesses made a fortune by making loans of the money borrowed at an interest rate much higher than 5 %.

The big businesses were given tax incentives; they were allowed free entry to industrial complexes; they were given lands which were supposed to be used for industrial use but a part of these lands were used for land speculation. The Chaebols were given all sorts of permit and privileges; they were given huge amount of grants and subsidies for reasons which were not clear.

This stage of the formation of the oligarchy took place in 1980s and 1990s. We may remember that theses two decades were active in reordering the global economy into neo-liberalism, which gave more power to big business and considerably weakened the power of the government. Under this circumstance, it could have become easier for business to dictate policies in their favour by giving bribes.

It was also the period of the transformation of Korean industry into heavy and chemical industries allowing big businesses to have almost unlimited sources of funds.

Stage 3. Establishment of Corruption Community

The oligarchy might have felt the need for strengthening itself by sharing the illicit income with media, the academics and conservative civic groups. In this way, the network of corruption was expanded to form a community of corruption.

The community of corruption is designed to widen the network of corruption so that it can better defend themselves against the anti-corruption forces. Thus, the Korean society became doubly divided between conservatism and progressivism on the one hand and, on the other, between pro-corruption force and anti-corruption force.

The stage of the corruption community came in the 2000s during which the progressive government of Kim Dae-jung (1997-2002 and Rho Moo-hyun (2003-2008) governed the country.

During this period, the corruption community of conservatives had to slow down their activities of corruption. But, it invested money to widen and strengthen its network.

However, since Lee Myong-bak took power in 2008 and Park Geun-hye succeeded him in 2013, the conservative government ruled for 9 years (2008-2017).

During this period, the corruption community expanded and intensified its corruption activities.

In fact, the degree of corruption during this period was even greater than that of the corruption under the military dictatorship of Park Chung-hee and Chun Doo-hwan.

As a result of their crimes, Park Geun-hye (image on the right) is sentenced 25-year imprisonment, while Lee Myong-bak is judged for 15-year imprisonment and accused for additional crimes of corruption.

III. Strategy of protecting the benefits of corruption

The strategy of protecting the interests of the corruption community included the following.

First, in order to silence the voice of opposition, the conservative government massacred a few hundred thousand innocent people under Rhee Sygnman, Park Chung-hee and Chun Doo-hwan.

Second, the freedom of press was completely silenced either through the brutal police force or through bribe money. The sad situation is that majority of press cannot survive without Chaebols’ advertising fees which are used as bribe money

In Korea, there are three dominant national newspapers: Chosun, Joong-ang, and Dong-ah (Cho-Joong-Dong). These newspapers may account for more than a half of the circulation of major newspapers.

They exited during the Japanese occupation of Korea (1910-1945) and they are known to be pro-Japan and pro-conservative; they have been suspected to play major roles in protecting the corruption community.

Third, ordinary Koreans who were suspected for being a part of pro-progressive and anti-corruption force were the targets of false accusation for being North Korean spy by the intelligence services; they were victims of police harassment and other unlawful means of oppression.

Fourth, authors of academic publications unfavourable to the conservative government were deprived of research funds.

In Korea, there is a group of academics, called “the New Right” who justifies the Japanese invasion of Korea. They have revised the modern history book in which they have written that Japan had come to Korea for its economic development for Koreans.

They deny the existence of the crime of sex slavery of 250,000 Korean teen age girls committed by Japanese soldiers during WWII.

The New Right academics along with the conservatives have given themselves the role of criticizing the progressive force for being “Red” (Pal-Gaeng-Ie) in order to induce voters to vote for the conservative party.

Fifth, about 10,000 artists, singer, movie actors and authors of novels who were not for conservative government were put on a black list and excluded from government grants. The director of the movie “Parasite” Bong Joon-ho was also on the black list along with his crew.

Sixth, the corruption community provides money to several civic pro-conservative movements including the association of Korea War veterans and various organizations of the elderly. These people participate, in street demonstrations, to criticize the progressives. They are paid by Chaebols for their participation.

Seventh, the intra-group marriage is another way of widening and strengthening the corruption community. The most visible cases are the marriages between families of leading conservative politicians and Chaebol families.

IV. Negative Impact of Corruption

The major negative impact of corruption may be grouped into two groups: economic impact and moral impact.

Economic Impact

In the short run, corruption can weaken the competitiveness of national economy, while, in the long run, it may bring decades-long deflation as it has happened in Japan.

We may separate micro-economic impact and macro-economic impact.

Micro-economic impact my take various forms. The corrupted way of supervising competition may favour big businesses which may prevent the market from assuring fair competition leading to the loss of competitiveness of small- and medium-sized firms (SMEs).

The government’s bailout operation of insolvent firms in exchange of bribery would simply prolong the life of insolvent firms and, as a result, it could weaken the competitiveness of the Korean industries.

The corrupted system of government procurement may result in buying services and goods of unreliable quality. Korea bought    once a submarine which did not submerge in exchange of kick-back.

The macro-economic impact of corruption is as bad as the micro-economic impact.

The pro-export policy imposed upon by the oligarchy may make GDP increase, but exports do not create much the trickledown effects; it does not create jobs; it increases unemployment; it makes income distribution unfair and unequal..

In Korea, 99.9 % of the total number of firms is small-and medium-sized firms (SMEs). They create 87% of jobs. But, the oligarchy has adopted pro-Chaebol and anti-SME policies.

This policy has contributed to the increase in exports. At the same time, it has surely boosted the income of the Chaebols. The increase of Chaebols’ income meant more bribe money available.

Another feature of pro-Chaebol policy was the exploitation of the SMEs for the benefit of the Chaebols. The conservative government allowed the big companies to steal technologies developed by the SMEs, violate the contracts, delaying the payment due to the SMEs and cutting down unilaterally the price of products sub-contracted.

The results of these policies are serious enough; they have prevented the development of the SMEs; they have destroyed jobs accessible to ordinary people. The worst thing was that these policies have delayed the development of domestic industries and increased the possibility of chronic deflation.

Moral impact  

The moral impact of corruption is even more destructive than the economic impact.

In Korea, there is an old saying: “The downstream water becomes clean, if the upstream water is clean”

Korean people believe that the very root of corruption is the Blue House (Korean White House). In other words, the upstream water is muddy. Therefore the downstream water is muddy. So, the corruption is spread throughout the society.

Under the conservative regime, the primary objective of corruption is to accumulate money.

Man becomes slave of money; the money is above the law, above the Confucian values and even above Jesus.

The social status is determined by money. The money determines the hierarchy of the society. The rich Chaebol chief becomes the king and his family becomes royal family. The king of kings is the head of Samsung Group. In fact, under the conservative government, Korea was called the Republic of Samsung.

Chaebols hire former ministers of the central government to show off that they are more important than the government, demonstrate their wealth and power. These poor former ministers are fatly paid for their lobbying in favour of pro-Chaebol policies.

The power of money has created the phenomenon of “Gap-jil” in which the rich and powerful mistreat the poor as inferior beings.

The world may remembers the 2014 incidence of “macadamia nut” in which, the second daughter of the funder of Air Korea insulted and hit one of the personnel on board of a plane for the stupid reason for not opening the bag of nuts.

Pastors of mega protestant churches which have an annual income of millions of USD seem to have the illusion of having become a king and abuse their money power and mistreat congregation members.

In fact, a number of pastors have been accused of stealing church money, but they went free without being accused for the crime. The bribe money has played its role.

In many companies, the employees are forced to do something which has nothing to do with their job descriptions.

The perilous moral impact of the corruption of the conservative leaders is translated into the worship of money and the destruction of honesty, the decency, the integrity and the loss of mutual respect and love.

V. Fight against corruption 

If Korea remains one of the respected countries in the world for its economic performance, it is because Korean people fought back against dictatorship and corruption.

The candlelight movement in Seoul, South Korea, mobilized for change of government. Credit: Women Cross DMZ

In fact, before the Candle-Light Revolution of 2016-2017, millions of Koreans had gone down to the street and fought bravely against corrupted conservative presidents: Rhee Shygnman (19th of April  1960), Park Chung-hee (16th of October 1979), Chun Do-hwn (18th of May 1980 and the month of June 1987) .

Finally, from late 2016 to April 2017 for eight months, 17,000,000 individuals from all walks of life went down to the frozen streets and shouted:” Impeach the Park Geun -hye! Clean the corruption!”

The Candle-Light Revolution was successful in bringing back the progressive government after nine years of destructive conservative government. And Moon Jae-in became president.

President Moon is the third progressive presidents. The first was President Kim Dae-jung (1998-2002) and the second, President Rho Moo-hyun (2003-2008).

President Kim Dae-jung strengthened the anti-corruption force by encouraging the unionization of labour, vitalizing existing labour unions and fostering the development of progressive civic movements. In addition, he made a major reform of Chaebols asking them to specialize, to stop the circular intra-group financing and to be more transparent in counting..

It was President Rho Moo-hyun who tried hard to guarantee the freedom of media and accomplish a fundamental reform of the police, the office of prosecutors, the courts and the intelligence services.

Measures taken by President Rho were a real challenge to the community of corruption and they plotted his impeachment with fabricated reasons. He was not impeached after all. He finished his presidential term.

However, what worried the community of corruption the most was Rho’s political and ideological legacy of just society and egalitarian democracy.

In order to kill such legacy, the conservatives fabricated fake story that the first lady, Mrs. Rho, had received an expensive watch as bribery and hid it on a rice paddy. This story continued after the take-over of power by the conservative government of Lee Myong-bak.

The family of Rho was continuously harassed even after the retirement of Rho by the police, the conservative media and the office of prosecutors. This was a burden too heavy to endure for Rho and he killed himself.

This episode illustrates how deeply the conservatives were involved in the corruption and why they fabricated incredible story so that they could cling to the rich deriving from corruption.

President Moon Jae-in was President Rho’s chief of cabinet and he knows very well how difficult it is to clean the corruption culture accumulated for 70 years. But, he knows very well also that unless Korea gets rid of the corruption, it is difficult to survive as a normal and healthy nation.

President Moon has adopted the following measures to combat corruption which can be grouped into macro-measures and micro-measures.

Macro-measures anti-corruption

Macro-measures include the North-South peace process and the improved income distribution.

The North-South peace process has resulted in a peace situation in which North Korea no longer threats South Korea.

We remember that the conservative governments have been able to keep power largely due to the North-South tension allowing them to create an atmosphere of fear and win elections. They have been pretending that they are better qualified to deal with North Korea perhaps because of their long tradition of police and military dictatorship.

One of the major socio-economic policies of the Moon’s government is the policy of economic growth with fair income distribution.

Moon’s government increased the minimum wage, increased the national pension, instituted income allowance for the elderly, reduced the number of weekly labour hour, revised the real estate taxes and other measured to slow down the increase of income of the rich and increase the income of the poor.

This policy has the effect of providing a sound basis of economic growth. This policy also allows the poor to have more income and better resist corruption and “Gap-jil.)

Micro-measures of anti-corruption

Moon’s government has taken several micro-measures to tackle the corruption of the conservatives.

First, one of the roots of corruption is the influence peddling by the staff of the Blue House (Korean White House).

Since Moon took over the power, there has been no single case of influence peddling. The mother of President has met no person outside her family for last two years to avoid rumours of influence-peddling which can be fabricated by the conservative media.

Second, Moon has reduced greatly the functions of institutions of power. For instance, the function of the National Intelligence Service (former CIA) is reduced to the management of international information. Under the conservative government, its main function was to arrest those who oppose the government’s corruption by accusing them as North Korean spy.

Moreover, Moon abolished the Military Security Command whose function was to prevent unlawful activities with the armed forces. But, it was unlawfully involved in activities of spying those who criticized the conservative government.

Third, Moon’s government nominated a committee with the mission of re-investigating cases of obvious corruption and crimes committed by the community of corruption. For instance, there was the case of raping women by a deputy director of the Office of Prosecutor, but the case was not properly investigated partly because of bribes and partly because of his close relation with powerful people within the conservative government. 

Fourth, some of the leaders of media who sided with the community of corruption for the oppression of labour unions of reporters were replaced.

Fifth, Moon’s government has passed a series of anti-corruption laws including the Kindergarten Law preventing the theft of public funds by founders of kindergartens.

Sixth, Dozens of the Blue House personnel who collaborated with the corruption community of the conservatives have been punished

Seventh, Perhaps the most difficult fight President Moon has started is the fight against the Office of Prosecutors.

The Korean prosecutor system is the most powerful one in the world; it has the right of investigation of crime and corruption. True, he police also has the right of investigation, but it is the prosecutor’s office which has the final say. Moreover, the prosecutor has the monopoly of indictment right.

In the past, thousand cases of corruption and abuse of power have been accused. But few of them went beyond the office of prosecutor and to the court.

In short, Korea has not been able to win the war against corruption mainly because of the corrupted prosecutor’s monopoly of judiciary power.

In Korea, there is no power which can rule the prosecutor, not even the president. In a way, the prosecutor has been the most powerful and effective defender of the corruption culture.

To fight the prosecutor, Moon has been able to pass a law on the mechanism of supervising high ranking officials including prosecutors (Gong-Soo-Cheo). Moon has won a battle. But it is a long way to go before cleaning the corruption culture.

The ultimate defender of corruption is money. The conservatives have been stacking up corruption money for last 70 years amounting hundreds of billions of dollars hidden in cash, real estate, stocks throughout the world.

It may take more than 10 years, even 20 years of progressive government in power, before Korea can destroy completely the corruption culture.

Lessons

There are some lessons which can be drawn from Korea’s experience of corruption.

First, the corruption must be stopped at the first stage of the evolution of corruption, that is, the stage of the bilateral collusion.

Second, when the process of corruption attains the stage of oligarchy formation, it may take very hard measure to fight it.

Third, if we wait until the stage of the corruption community, it may take decades to clean it. This is the case of Korea

Fourth, one cannot rely always on the government for the elimination of corruption, because the government is often corrupted.

It is very fortunate that, in Korea, the progressive government of Moon is leading the fight against corruption. However, Moon needs the active cooperation of ordinary people to defeat corruption. The people are with him.

*

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.

Professor Joseph H. Chung is professor of economics and co-director of the Observatoire de l’Asie de l’Est (OAE) – the Centre d’Études sur l’Intégration et la Mondialisation (CEIM), Université du Québec à Montréal (UQAM). He is Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG).

Here where I dwell in the northern hemisphere, the winter solstice has just occurred.

The darkest day of the year in a dark year.

A few days ago was also the Grand Conjunction of Jupiter and Saturn and the dawning of the Age of Aquarius, which is interesting to those who like the musical Hair and believe their fates lie in the stars and not in themselves. Shakespeare’s Cassius had it right: such astrological determinism is for underlings.

Free people agree with Beethoven:

“I will take fate by the throat; it will never bend me completely to its will.”

Oppressors have always wanted people to believe their lives are fated, that they live in a prison and there is no escape.  It is the key to successful slavery. Many institutionalized religions have promoted such a belief, contradicting their founders’ messages of freedom. So have secular ideologies. There is nothing you can do, so rollover with Beethoven; it’s hopeless. “Do what you’re told,” as the great wise leader Anthony Fauci has said.

But a much wiser Kris Kristofferson sang:

Freedom’s just another word for nothin’ left to lose.

Didn’t Dostoevsky’s Grand Inquisitor say to Jesus in his cell in the gloomy vaulted prison:

We will show them that they are weak, that they are only pitiful children, but that childlike happiness is the sweetest of all.  They will become timid and look to us and huddle close to us in fear, as chicks to the hen.  They will marvel at us and will be awe-stricken before us, and will be proud at us being so powerful and clever, that we have been able to subdue such a turbulent flock of thousands of millions.

They will do as they are told and reject the freedom Jesus brought, “for nothing has been more insupportable for a man and a human society than freedom,” drones the Inquisitor.  They will do as they are told.  And the prisoner was silent.

As the year comes to an end and another begins, the contemplation of time, its passing, the days gone by and days to come, the new year, resolutions, and how to “keep safe” occupy many minds as governments across the world continue to impose lockdowns on their people that are creating suffering on a vast, unimaginable scale.

“Every ruling minority,” wrote the late great John Berger, “needs to numb and, if possible, to kill the time-sense of those whom it exploits.  This is the authoritarian secret of all methods of imprisonment.”

There is time for you and time for me is the mantra of all authoritarians.  We set the clocks to slow or fast.  You follow.  Alternating rhythm to keep you guessing.  When things are kind of slow, we’ll give you 5G speed as we reset your future to the online life.  Everything will be so fast that you won’t know whether you are coming or going or just running in place.

Slow is for prisoners around the world.  Here in the United States, the world leader in incarceration, there are more than 2 million people caged in such hell holes.  Doing time.  Very slow time.

For those on the outside, a year ago, permanent busyness and speed were the norm. Everyone was so frantic and rushing in the madding crowd of a consumer and cell phone frenzy, driven by an unseen nanosecond  digital dictator. Now the lockdown has brought a taste of boredom, slow time, and anxious waiting for the day the authoritarians will give the word that the new normal has arrived and the children can fling the doors open and run out to play. But they will have to learn the new rules of the game. Same game, but Built Back Better.  Better for the bosses.

Forget that criminal born in a manger. Getting there is a long and hard journey. We are in lockdown. Just do as you are told.

Or imagine that child as a grown man in a prison cell in Seville 15 centuries later.

Or in Bethlehem today, in the West Bank as Palestinian territory is inexorably disappeared by the Israeli government and Palestinians’ places to dwell on this earth grow smaller and smaller as their houses are bulldozed and land stolen.

Imagine the fates of all those locked down shut-in abandoned ones, those who are doing time to the slow ticking of the clocks. Or those who have no time to escape the supersonic hum of drone-launched missiles. Those whose time is up because the authorities deem it so.  Those who just won’t do what they are told.

In lockdown, there is plenty of time to imagine.

Thomas Merton, the inspirational anti-war Trappist monk, in “The Time of the End Is the Time of No Room” in Raids on the Unspeakable, said this about that child in a manger, soon to be radical anti-war criminal executed by the state:

Into this world, this demented inn, in which there is absolutely no room for him at all, Christ comes uninvited. But because he cannot be at home in it, because he is out of place in it, and yet he must be in it, his place is with those others for whom there is no room. His place is with those who do not belong, who are rejected by power because they are regarded as weak, those who are discredited, who are denied the status of persons, tortured, exterminated. With those for whom there is no room, Christ is present in this world. He is mysteriously present in those for whom there seems to be nothing but the world at its worst.

Their numbers are growing by the day.

Pundits are fond of saying that time is all we have. This is untrue.  We don’t have time; time has us. We are born into it and in a techno-clock world those clocks start ticking and we turn with the seasons until our turning stops and our time is up. It comes with being born, being mortal. Human. We don’t need astrology to tell us this. We don’t want authoritarians controlling our experience of this greatest of mysteries.

If you listen closely, you can hear waves of empty words tumbling through the world, whistling windy words saying nothing.  Whining words, nodding heads, vacuous sayings. Media saturated fatuous words. About “time” more clichés have been coined and more quotable quotes recorded than nearly any other word. Quotes about what no one knows.

Time stands still, time flies, time is up, time is on your side, time is short, time is long, who knows where the time goes, time out, time starts, stop the clocks, start the clocks, we’re running out of time, clock in, clock out, time served, serving time, lacking time, losing time, having time, gaining time, the end of time.

Yet everyone knows what time is even though they can’t tell you. It comes with the territory of existing. Like silence, like love, like peace, like truth – simple gifts that authoritarians invert to suit their evil designs. Twisted people twisting words.

And yet:

It is no different now.
The yearning still gnaws.
The night dark, utterly silent,
Sky stretched endlessly back
Into an infinity beyond reach.
And the fears, the tears
Are they any different?

It is no different now.
Joy sometimes, hope too, divisions
Seemingly unbridgeable, vast chasms
Opening between those closest.
Little changes, though two thousand years
Dissolve into oblivion behind us.

It is no different now.
Plus ça change,
Plus c’est la même chose.
Always the same.

Yet a word is heard dimly
Laboring out of the deafening black
Silence, almost but not inaudible.
And the angel says, “Go out,”
And the angel said, “Go out,”
Always the angel, always the voice
Bearing us up along the way
(If you do not turn to the inner light,
Where will you turn?), always calling:
“Journey far through strange country,
Follow the light you barely see
But which is the light of your life.
Follow it across the desert of your heart
Where wild beasts seek to devour you.
There is no time, there is no time
To hesitate. Now is the star’s hour,
Now you are called on a fool’s journey
Into a pig’s pen and a child’s strange
And glorious presence.” Thus speaks the angel
Again and again, no matter how dark
The darkest day, nothing changes.

It is no different now.
Now as always is the star’s hour.
Now as then a star is born to men
To lead us on. A light that darkness
Cannot overcome, despite us.

Love is not a sometimes thing,
Though we abuse it like the earth.
It is all we have to hold us up,
And it always will.

A star is always born.

Edward Curtin is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG)

First published on   Edward Curtin

For centuries, Koreans have been asking the Almighty to bless them with a true leader who would provide daily necessities, hope for the future, courage to fight for the justice and self respect for and self confidence in themselves. 

During the 500-year of Choseon dynasty, many kings could not perform their duties as national leaders because of the corruption of the “Yang-ban” (aristocrats).

King Gojong, (Image below) the last king of the Joseon dynasty was a total failure, because he could not prevent Lee Wan-yong from selling Korea to Japan for his own political and financial greed.

During 40-year Japanese colonial rule, Korea was governed by pro-Japan Korean bureaucrats who collaborated with Japanese for the oppression of Koreans.

After 1945, Korea has been ruled, for 60 years, through all forms of dictatorship, by former pro-Japan collaborators and their descendents who regarded themselves as a superior  race and who were primarily concerned with their own interests at the expense of those of the rest of the Korean population.

Moon Jae-in came along and, for Koreans, he is the first true national leader they have been waiting for so long. He is the true leader who would give them their daily necessities, the hope for a better future, courage to fight for justice and respect for and confidence in themselves.

President Moon will leave his office in little more than one year. Before he leaves, I thought that it is right time to discuss what and how he has accomplished his historical tasks.

President Moon had to overcome two sets of challenges: the internal challenges and the external ones. In this paper, I will discuss the internal challenges.

The internal challenges are those which are related to the liberation of Korea from deep rooted corruption culture of the conservative forces in Korea.

This paper has three parts. The first part explains the nature of the internal challenges, while the second shows how Moon’s government has tried to meet these challenges. Finally, in the final section, I discuss what remains to be done to complete what President wanted to accomplish.

1. Nature of Challenges

During the election campaign in 2017, President Moon Jae-in promised to return the country back to the Korean people suggesting that Korea had been stolen by someone. Who was the thief? The progressive intellectuals, politicians and informed public have been saying that Korea was stolen by the pro-Japan conservative forces (chin-il-bosu-pa-親日保守派). In fact, the liberation from the conservative forces means the liberation from the corruption of these forces.

Corruption Culture

The phenomenon of corruption is a universal problem and every country is exposed to it. However, the reality of corruption in Korea has unusual elements which are specific to Korea and difficult to deal with. It started with the establishment of Korean government in 1948 after WWII. In contrast to France and other countries which had punished the collaborators with enemies, the Korean government was formed with the Korean bureaucrats who had more than collaborated with the Japanese colonial government in stealing land and other assets of Koreans, sending students to the frontline to kill Koreans, capturing and sending teenage girls to comfort women camps and forcing Koreans to work in Japanese mines and factories as slaves.

Thus, in reality, the liberation of Korea from Japan in 1945 was followed by a new version of Japanese occupation through the pro-Japan government. From there on, Korea was divided between pro-Japan elite and anti-Japan Koreans. In the history of mankind, there have been many cases of internal division of population, but it has been rare that the division was generated by mutual mistrust and even reciprocal hatred as it has happened in Korea.

The pro-Japan elite were aware of their sins; they knew that they were hated. This created inevitably a situation in which they were enemies of Koreans and the Koreans were their enemies.

As a result, the pro-Japan elite had to develop a closely knit community capable of defending themselves and attacking the anti-conservative Koreans. To do this, they needed financial resources. To their advantage, they were in good position to get these resources. To begin with, while they were serving the Japanese masters, they enriched themselves by sharing the Koreans’ assets, especially land, stolen by the Japanese. Moreover, they appropriated the huge assets belonging to the Japanese who had to leave Korea after Japan’s defeat in WWII.

If there is any positive aspect of the pro-Japan conservative camp’s money, it facilitated the take-off of the Korean economy in the 1960s and 1970s. Moreover, the collusion between the pro-Japan businesses and the pro-Japan conservative government was surely one of the key variables of the sustained growth of the economy in the 1980s and the 1990s.

However, on the other hand, such collusion led inevitably to corrupted relations between the business and politics. Moreover, in the absence of balancing and checking mechanism, the corruption became so widely spread over and so deeply penetrated into the Korean society that it produced a corruption culture and formed a corruption community.

By corruption, I mean illegal or immoral actions designed to maximize the interests of the person and those of the group of which the person is a part at the expense of the interests of the people. Remember that some of the laws are intended to legalize illegal activities. Such activities may be legal de jure but they are de facto illegal.

The corruption community is composed of the core group and the periphery group. The core group includes large corporations, leading politicians and elite bureaucrats. The periphery group includes those who are not in the position to influence the national policies; they are the beneficiaries of the corruption system. This group includes the core group’s family members, relatives, friends and supporters of the pro-Japan conservative camp. The corruption community has several ways of acquiring and distributing the funds.

The system of generating and distributing the corruption money may be summarized as follows.

(See also my previous paper: The Political Economy of Corruption in Korea, Global Research,  March 14, 2020)

• Outright theft of tax money and government debts embezzled by presidents and people around the presidents. In fact, three of six presidents of the conservative government were imprisoned and two of them are now in prison for embezzlement of these funds
• Transaction of privileges: bribe money for the issuance of illegal construction permit; bribe money for illegal university admission; bribe money for government contract without bidding
• Theft of government subsidies by subsidy recipients. A part of government subsidies paid to private sector kinder-gardens is used for directors’ personal use, personal cosmetics.
• Transaction of freedom: bribe money paid to judges and prosecutors for non-investigation of crimes, non-indictment and the reduction of prison terms
• Transaction of information: bribe money paid to government officials who provide confidential information on urban planning project or classified information on stock market
• Transaction of laws: bribe money paid to lawmakers who pass laws in favour of specific interests groups
• Theft of public funds through kick-backs and other means.

The interesting question here is about the amount of corruption money generated and distributed. Nobody knows. But, there is one thing which is certain. The corruption community of the pro-Japan forces has been expanding and reinforcing itself for last 70 years. This gives you an idea about the amount of the money generated and distributed. Some well-informed people including lawmakers of the progressive party (the Democratic Party) suggest that hundreds of billions of USD have been generated and distributed within the corruption community. They also suggest that a good part of this money is hidden somewhere within and without Korea invested in real estate and other investment outlets.

The conservative pro-Japan camp’s corruption community has more than enough financial resources to sabotage the progressive camp’s battle to destroy the corruption culture. Therefore, it is imperative to find these funds and return it back to the government. General Chun Doo-hwan, the notorious military dictator, was ordered by the court to return a part of stolen money amounting to several hundreds of millions of dollars. He did, but he still has to return a few hundreds of millions of dollars.

In view of the seriousness of the hidden corruption money, the National Assembly is debating a law on the repatriation of stolen public money.

It goes without saying that the existence of the corruption community itself a national shame and threatens the very survival of the country. But what is more scandalous is the strategy deployed by the conservatives to protect the corruption community.

Strategy of Protecting the Corruption Community

The objective of the strategy is the perpetuation of the conservative government by means of the double strategy including on the one hand, the elimination of the progressive forces and, on the other, the pardoning of the wrongdoings of the conservative corruption community members.

Measures designed to eliminate the Opposition Forces 

These measures include the eradication of opposition voice and the political assassination of opposition leaders:

Eradication of Opposition Voices

• Physical elimination of those who criticize the government or those who are suspected to do so.
• Illegal arrests
• Torturing of those who are arrested
• Citizen harassment by civil police, CIA, military intelligence services
• House search with no search warrant
• Refusal of progressives camp’s access to government jobs
• Prohibition of anti-conservative government street demonstrations
• Tight collusion with the media.

It is impossible to know the number of victims of these harsh measures. However, during the 60 years of police dictatorship, military dictatorship, CIA dictatorship and other forms of subtle dictatorship of the conservative government, perhaps half of the population have been victims directly or indirectly.

However, there is one estimate of victims which is reliable. It is about the citizens who have been murdered by the conservative government; it is more than possible that more than three hundred thousand Koreans have been murdered for being “reds”, that is, for being suspected to be anti-conservatives. This happened especially, during the pro-Japan conservative governments of Rhree Syngman (1948-1960), General Park Chung-hee (1962-1979) and General Chun Doo-hwan (1980-1987).

Political Assassination of Opposition Leaders

The most serious conspiracy undertaken by the penal and judicial system is the political assassination of the present and potential leaders of the progressive camp. The process of political assassination of opposition leaders proceeds by step.

First, select the opposition leader who is or will be a threat to the power of the conservative camp.

Next, undertake investigation designed to find any weakness of the prey. If the prey does not have any weaknesses, the prey’s family, relatives, friends are investigated to find out any proof of wrong doings involving the prey. If there are no proofs of wrong doings in the prey’s world, the prosecutor fabricates proofs by forcing prison inmate to make false witnessing. If there is a slight proof of wrong doings, the prey is immediately indicted.

Finally, the interrogation lasts months, even a year until the prey has no more resources to defend oneself.

One of the notorious cases was the imprisonment of a former prime minister of a progressive government. The prosecutor forced one of the inmates of the prison to declare that he had seen the former prime minister receiving bribe money. The inmate was promised to have shortened prison terms in return of false witnessing. The former prime minister has spent two years in prison. Now, the inmate confessed that he was forced to lie.

There are more cases where the prominent leaders of the progressive camp were indicted for fabricated misconduct or groundless violation of election law. All these cases have been revealed to be groundless. But the inevitable result is the fatal destruction of their image and their political career.

Recently, one of the key leaders of the progressive camp was respected to have killed himself because of the groundless accusation by a conservative lawyer for sexual misbehaviour. It is possible that the whole drama was politically motivated by the conservative camp to eliminate the eventual rival for the presidency.

Measures to pardon the wrong Doings of the Conservative Corruption Community Members

The wrong doing of the conservatives, in general, and the members of the corruption community, in particular, are seldom punished because of the prosecutor’s biased leniency. The prosecutor’s office is the best guardian of the corruption community. In fact, the prosecutors are the key members of the corruption community. The main ways of protecting the corruption community members may be summarized.

• Disregard or invalidate the police investigation results. In Korea, the prosecutor has the right of criminal investigation and the right of indictment, while the police have only the investigation right. Moreover, the prosecutor has the right to supervise police investigation
• If the police investigation looks valid, the prosecutor will take over the investigation and make it invalid.
• If there is ample proof for the crime, the prosecutor delays the indictment until the legal delay of indictment is expired.
• If the proof of crime is convincing, the prosecutor will send the case to the court with recommendations for reduced punishment.
• In the case where the accused are key leaders of Chaebol groups, it is very rare that they are condemned to prison confinement; they pay small amount of fine and they are freed on bail for a few years.

In the Korean penal and judicial system, the members of the pro-Japan conservative corruption community seldom go to prison, unless the crimes are so obvious that the public opinion forces the system to condemn the accused.

Consequence of the Corruption Culture 

So far, we have seen how and why the conservative camp has created the corruption community. It is of course important to know this unfortunate phenomenon. But, what is more important and relevant is to know its harmful consequences on the society. To be sure, there can be a host of ill impacts of the corruption community on the Korean society. But, two types of impacts stand out.. One is the impact on the national economy and the other is the social impact.

Economic Impact

The conservative government’s pro-Chaebol and pro-exports policy has, undoubtedly, contributed to the miracle of Han River. But, it has a few serious ill effects on the national economy. On the other hand, this policy has the effect of enriching the conservative corruption community and, on the other hand, impoverishing the rest of the population. Here is why.

First, the excessive reliance on exports and high technology has resulted in increasing unemployment.

Second, the pro-Chaebol policy has brought about a situation in which national financial and other resources have been allocated mostly to Chaebols at the expense of SMEs. The generous tax allowance for Chaebols, countless grants, and bailouts of Chaebols have meant shortage of resources for the SMEs preventing them from developing normally, creating jobs and generating income for the ordinary people. Remember that the SMEs create 85% of all jobs in Korea. Remember also that most income of the ordinary people comes from the SMEs.

Third, the Pro-Chaebol policy has accelerated the concentration of wealth and income in the hands of the conservative elite.

Fourth, the combination of unequal income distribution combined with increasing unemployment has ended up by shrinking consumer demand and contracting domestic market. If this continues, in the long run, decades-long depression of the economy may follow. In other words, the corruption culture can ruin the economy.

Korea should not repeat what has happened in Japan The three decades-long depression of the Japanese economy was primarily attributable the corruption culture.. (See my previous paper: “Japanization and Abenomics”: the Saga of the Falling Japanese Economy, Global Research, November 4, 2019).

Social Impact

Two types of social impacts of the corruption culture deserve our attention: the destruction of the social ladder and the “Hell Korea”.

The corruption community is so rich and so powerful that it has erected an invisible wall so high that the ordinary people cannot come into their community. In other words, the social ladder of the people cannot go over the wall. In the old days, a boy from provincial town with modest family background could go to Seoul National University, marry a daughter of a rich family and go over the wall, have a nice job and lead “successful life”. In other words there was a time when vertical social mobility was possible. Now it has gone.

There are many ways of keeping the wall high. One way is to send the kids abroad and study at expensive universities and get top jobs on return. Ordinary Koreans have no means to send their kids to study abroad. Another way is the promotion of intra-community marriage. The popular pattern of intra- community marriage involves the kids of Chaebol groups, high ranking politicians, judges and prosecutors. You can see why the conservative corruption community is so rich and powerful.

In this situation, most of the young people who are not connected to the corruption community end up with low paying jobs or part time jobs or no job at all. Thus, for decades, under the corrupted conservative rule, Koreans have lived with uncertain future, fear of being suspected to be anti-conservative, despair of being jobless, the sorrow of having to give up what the life offers and, in particular, the self pity for not being capable of looking after their elderly parents. Korea has become “Hell Korea” for many.

Here is how Hell Korea affects the Korean youth. The Hell Korea consists of several “Give-UPs”. or Po-gi (포기) in Korean, simply “PO”.

• 3 POs: dating, marriage, children.
• 5 POs: 3 POs plus social relations, dwelling
• 7 POs: 5 POs plus, dream and hope
• 9 POs: 7 POs plus, physical health and physical look.

At first, the youth give up dating, marriage and having children. But, as the situation gets worse, they gave up nine basic youth desires, even physical look. This alarming picture of Korean youth is heartbreaking and infinitely sad.

The Korean youth spend their entire youth period to prepare university entrance exams; they go to universities; the get papers saying that they have completed their 4-year studies. They go to the labour market but nobody hires them, unless they went to the Korean Ivy League Universities (SKY universities: Seoul National University, The Koryo University, the Yonse University) where the kids of the corruption community have much better chance to go.

Many young people kill themselves. There is one particular bridge connecting the North Shore and the South Shore of Soul City, called Mapo Bridge. This is the bridge where the young people take their last action on the earth; they fall down to their death in the dark water of Han River. There are so many youth suicides that the police have established a watch-post near the bridge. Many young people kill themselves by falling from the roof of high-rise apartment building down to the parking lot below.

Many workers spend a year, risking frozen death, on the roof of 24-five story building to protest unfair firing, non-paying of wages, refusal to recognize labour union and other illegal and immoral treatments of workers by the employer. This is the horrible picture of Hell Korea; this is the tragic consequence of the corruption culture.

Even if they get the job after their studies, they are the object of employers’ abuse of workers’ rights and the violation of human rights. There are no labour unions which could protect the workers’ rights. For the sake of labour market flexibility, the conservative government has been forbidding the unionization of workers. The rate of unionization in Korea is only 9 %. Furthermore, most of these unions are unable to protect workers’ interests because of anti-labour policy of the government authorities. The conservative government considered labour unions as an obstacle to the enrichment of the corruption community.

Many workers become human torch and burn themselves to death. They do this in order to appeal to the world their tragic lot. For them, it is only way to show injustice reigning over the Korea society under the conservative regime. They choose such desperate way, because the media heavily bribed by the conservatives do not report the suffering of the workers.

The elders are also members of Hell Korea. The rate of suicides of the elderly is one of the highest in the OECD countries. They have had to sacrifice their own happiness all their life by working long hours with neither vacation nor over-time pay. By the time they retire, they have no savings, because they have had to carry out parents’ sacred duties of sending kids to expensive academies (hak-won), paying university fees, buy or rent a dwelling house for marrying children and finance expensive wedding of children.

In the absence of proper old-age pension system, it has been the duty of kids to look after their parents. But the kids do not have jobs. No boy looks after the elderly. Normally, it should be the duty of the government to look after the elderly. But, the conservative governments have not spent enough money for people’s welfare because of the fear of increasing the fiscal burden of the conservative elite.

To sum up, the conservative corruption culture not only have increased the danger of the economy’s falling toward the depth of decade-long depression but it also destroyed the raison d’être of the society. It has brought about the unrecoverable divide between the conservative and progressive; it has created mutual distrust; it has destroyed the hope of the youth; it has undermined the people’s confidence in itself; it has hurt the people’s pride of being Koreans.

2. Moon Jae-in’s Response to the Challenges

Thus, the task of President Moon Jae-in is enormous and difficult. However, he has done a lot. His reforms comprise the anti-Corruption measures, economic policy measures and social policy measures.

Anti-Corruption Measures

• Abolishment of some selective public security authorities which have been oppressing the public. This will, to some extent, stop harassment of the people and the violation of human rights
• Modification of the law on CIA (now National Information Service: NIS) so that it will limit itself to the management of foreign intelligence and that it should not gather information on citizens
• Imprisonment of two conservative presidents (Lee Myong-bak and Park Geun-hye) who are in prison for their abuse of power and corruption.
• Imprisonment of a large number of high ranking civil servants for abuse of power and corruption.
• Modification of laws on government’s subsidies so that the subsidy- recipients cannot embezzle the subsidy funds

Measures to strengthen the Economy    

Measures to strengthen the economy include the policy of development of SMEs, the promotion of labour unionization and the increase of minimum wage. These policies are designed to expand and reinforce the domestic market.

The government of Moon Jae-in has created the Ministry of SMEs and appointed, as its first minister, Mme Park Yeon-sun, one of the innovative and courageous ministers. Mme Park has made the Chaebols to establish new value chains in which the SMEs can receive proper rewards for their new technology and products. In the past, the Chaebols used to exploit unfairly the SMEs and in many cases they even stole the technology invented by the SMEs. Now, owing to new pro-SME policy, the SMEs have a new hope, confidence in themselves and they have increased their international competitiveness. This is a well balanced industrial policy allowing both large corporations and SMEs grow together and assure sustained growth of the economy.

President, Moon has encouraged labour unionization and reinforced the voice of labour in economic policy in general and labour policy, in particular.

Moon’s government has increased the minimum wage, which is now above the American minimum wage. Moreover, some provinces have introduced a regime of “basic income” whereby every citizen can receives a given amount of income provided that the money is spent in the locality.

Measures to improve social Welfare 

The government has substantially increased the welfare budget including funds for pensions, medical insurance, housing allowances and other income assistance.

Moreover, Moon’s government has decided to nationalize regional hospitals, kinder-gardens, professional high schools and several other institutions which are important public good producers.

Finally, the government has decided to expand public welfare budget even with public debts, which the conservatives had been avoiding by fear of their increased fiscal burden. Given the size of Korean GDP, it is not too early to expand the welfare budget.

3. Remaining Challenges

For a government which took over the power only four years ago, the government of Moon Jae-in has done a lot. What it has done so far may be summed up by saying that the corruption community is still alive but it has lost some of its force. The precarious industrial structure has been improved. The SMEs are finding their right place in the economy. The welfare of the people is improving and it will continue to improve. In short, Moon’s government has done a good job.

In addition, the government’s handling of the corona-virus crisis has been so successful that Korea’s model has become a global model.

But, President has two difficult challenges to overcome before he leaves. One is the further advance in the reform of the judicial reform. The other is the media reform.

Reform of the Judicial and Penal System

The prosecutors in Korea should exist to protect laws and assure the judicial fairness and justice. But, in reality, they are most powerful law breakers. We saw above how they violate laws. There are less than three thousand prosecutors but, they form the most powerful and most fearful organization. What is tragic is the fact that they think they are special people; they think they are above the law. The tragedy is this. They think that they can topple the government by judicial coup d’état. In fact, what they are doing now is precisely a judicial coup d’état.

A year and half ago, President Noon Jae-in appointed Professor Cho Guk to the post of Minister of Justice. The Minister of Justice is the boss of the chief prosecutor. Professor Cho is a well known expert in judicial affairs. He was nominated for the realization of the judicial reform. Therefore, this nomination has meant, as far as the prosecutors are concerned, a serious threat to their cosy and very lucrative prosecution business.

In order to prevent Cho’s judicial reform, the chief prosecutor, Yoon Suk-yeol, mobilized a large number of prosecutors to find something to justify Cho’s indictment. The prosecutors have used, in the name of investigation, every possible legal, illegal and immoral tactics such as intimidation, harassment, threats, fabrication of false witnesses, illegal house search, and outright lies. The prosecutors have investigated the Minister Cho, his family, his relatives and all individuals who might have relations with Cho and all institutions which might have been involved in Cho’s personal and professional activities. This ordeal lasted more than a year; it is still continuing. But, they have found nothing to indict Minister Cho and find his culpability. The idea of discrediting Professor Cho as Justice Minister was intended to discredit President Moon for having appointed a wrong person as Justice Minister. In other words, the ultimate objective of the prosecutors is the toppling of Moon’s government.

The successor of Minister Cho is Mme Choo Mi-ae, one of the most expected jurists and one of the most able politicians; she has made significant progress in reforming the prosecutors system. But, she has met persistent resistance of the prosecutors under the leadership of the chief prosecutor, Yoou Suk-yeol.

Choo has found out that the illegal activities of the chief prosecutor are so many and so serious that she has nominates the Committee of Discipline of the Ministry of Justice and, on December 16, the committee has recognized the culpability of the chief prosecutor. This is the first time that the chief prosecutor becomes the target of discipline. He is given two-month suspension of work.

Furthermore, President Moon has created another historical institution which will surely speed up the reform of Korean judicial system. The National Assembly adopted, on November 10, 2020, the establishment of the Corruption Investigation Office for High- Ranking Officials (CIOHRO). This is indeed one of many historical achievements of President Moon. Moreover, there will be another law which will be adopted. By virtue of this law, the prosecutors will lose most of the criminal investigation right; this will decrease considerably the prosecutor’s power.

The Media Reform

There is one reform which is even more difficult to realize. It is the reform of the media. Normally, we all expect that the media would produce and diffuse information which is professional, objective, critical, unbiased and useful for public policies designed to promote the welfare of all citizens.

Unfortunately, the Korean media do not have these virtues for the simple reason that for last 70 years they have been created and managed by the conservative governments. The conservative government’s media policy is to glorify the conservatives and demonize the progressives.

The core of the conservative media policy may be summarized.

First, it maximizes the number of media outlets so that the production of pro-conservative information and the anti-progressive information be maximized.

Second, it encourages the creation of small media outlets so that they depend on the conservative corruption community for their income.

Third, it sets up a mechanism of information coordination. The Chosen Ilbo, the Jung-ang Ilbo and the Tong-ah Ilbo (Cho-Jung-Tong) have the function of producing information which is often fabricated and distorted or lies in order to discredit the progressive camp. The reports of Cho-Jung-Tong are copied by most of the media.

Fourth, the main source of media income is the conservative corruption community, especially the major Chaebols.

Fifth, illegal and immoral activities of the media are seldom punished because of the collusion between the conservative camp and the penal and judiciary system.

Sixth, if the prosecutor decides to condemn an innocent person for political or financial reason, the media describes the person in such a way that the person looks guilty so that the person deserves criminal investigation and indictment.

In many cases, the media report what the prosecutors ask the media to report. In this way, the media plays a role condemning innocent people by means of fabricated public opinion.

In fact, the media is the most formidable enemy of the anti-corruption war of Moon-Jae-in. And, the reform of media has not yet begun. The future of media reform depends on which camp will form the next government. If it is the conservative camp, nothing will haven. If it is the progressive camp, the media reform will have the policy priority, but it will be a tough task.

To conclude, President Moon Jae-in has prepared the way to a new era of prosperity, justice, safety and security for all citizens. Koreans thank him, respect him, love him and admire him for what he is and for what he has done for them.

Yes, he is the leader Koreans have been waiting for so long.

*

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.

Professor Joseph H. Chung is professor of Economics and co-director of the Observatoire de l’Asie de l’Est (OAE) – the Centre d’études sur l’Intégration et la Mondialisation (CEIM), Université du Québec à Montréal (UQAM). He is Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG).

Ein Ehrenkodex ist laut Duden „die Gesamtheit der in einer Gesellschaft oder Gruppe geltenden, die Ehre und das ehrenhafte Verhalten betreffenden Normen“ (1). Dieses ungeschriebene Regelwerk über das Wohlverhalten von Berufsgruppen, das mit entsprechenden Verpflichtungen und Privilegien verbunden ist, scheint bei akademischen und anderen herausragenden Berufsgruppen nicht mehr zu gelten. Die Menschen weltweit werden dadurch in einen Zustand von Not, Armut und Hoffnungslosigkeit, von Vereinsamung und Ausgestoßenheit getrieben. Ein Handwerker darf sich ein solches Verhalten nicht leisten, ohne dafür bestraft zu werden und seinen Arbeitsplatz zu verlieren. Haben zum Beispiel auch Politiker, Ärzte, Journalisten oder Psychologen angesichts offensichtlich eklatanter Verstöße gegen ihre Berufsethik derartige Konsequenzen zu befürchten? Wer wird sie eines Tages für ihr Verhalten zur Rechenschaft ziehen?

Der Artikel eines Kollegen von „RUBIKON“ veranlasste mich dazu, mir den Ehrenkodex herausragender Berufsgruppen noch einmal näher anzusehen. (2) Ich empfehle jedem Mitbürger, das Gleiche zu tun, sollte er noch nicht aufgewacht sein: Beginnen Sie mit dem Eid des Hippokrates, dem ursprünglich in griechischer Sprache verfassten Arztgelöbnis und fahren sie fort mit dem Amts- beziehungsweise Diensteid von Politikern, den berufsethischen Richtlinien von Psychologinnen und Psychologen bis hin zu den national sowie international verpflichtenden Vereinbarungen für Journalisten!

Wie können Ärzte oder ärztliche Politikberater Verordnungen treffen, die nicht „zu Nutz und Frommen der Kranken“ sind und die sie nicht bewahren vor Schaden und willkürlichem Unrecht (3)? Wie können Politiker ganz unverhohlen gegen den geleisteten Amtseid verstoßen und ihre Kraft nicht dem eigenen Volk, sondern vielmehr der Milliardärs- und Macht-„Elite“ widmen und gegen die Gesetzes des Bundes verstoßen? Wie können Psychologinnen und Psychologen entgegen ihrer Berufsethik traumatisierte Kriegsheimkehrer wieder dienstfähig schreiben, Folterern bei ihrer Arbeit sekundieren und derzeit die Mitmenschen zum Durchhalten und Zurückstellen ihrer elementarsten menschlichen Bedürfnisse auffordern? Wie kann die „Journaille“ (Presse-Gesindel) ihrer Verpflichtung zur wahrheitsgemäßen Information der Bürger und zum Frieden in keiner Weise nachkommen – und das ungestraft?

Ein Beruf ist eine „aufgrund besonderer Eignung und Neigung systematisch erlernte, spezialisierte, meistens mit einem Qualitätsnachweis versehene, dauerhaft und gegen Entgeld ausgeübte Betätigung eines Menschen“ (4). Ist man ihm nicht gewachsen, sollte man sich einen Job suchen, der meist nur vorübergehend ausgeübt wird, nicht an eine besondere Eignung oder Ausbildung gebunden ist und vor allem keinen Schaden anrichten kann.

Alle Mitbürger sind dazu aufgerufen, die eklatanten Verstöße der verschiedenen Berufsgruppen gegen das geschriebene oder auch ungeschriebene Regelwerk über das Wohlverhalten nicht weiter hinzunehmen, sondern es unverzüglich einzufordern. Sie dürfen es nicht zulassen, dass sich nur die „Ehrenwerte Gesellschaft“ an ihren Ehrenkodex hält.

*

Dr. Rudolf Hänsel ist Diplom-Psychologe und Erziehungswissenschaftler.

Noten

1. http://www.duden.de/rechtschreibung/Ehrenkodex

2. rubikon.news/artikel/die-diktaturdepression

3. https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eid_des_Hippokrates

4. https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beruf

According to the Duden dictionary, a code of honour is “the totality of norms concerning honour and honourable behaviour that apply in a society or group” (1). This unwritten set of rules about the good conduct of professional groups, associated with corresponding obligations and privileges, no longer seems to apply to academic and other prominent professional groups.

People worldwide are thus driven into a state of hardship, poverty and hopelessness, of isolation and outcastness. A craftsman cannot afford such behaviour without being punished for it and losing his job. Do politicians, doctors, journalists or psychologists, for example, also have to fear such consequences in view of obviously blatant violations of their professional ethics? Who will one day hold them accountable for their behaviour?

The article by a colleague from “RUBIKON” prompted me to take another look at the code of honour of outstanding professional groups. (2) I recommend every fellow citizen to do the same, should they not have woken up yet: Start with the Oath of Hippocrates, the doctor’s vow originally written in Greek, and continue with the oath of office or service of politicians, the professional ethical guidelines of psychologists, and even the nationally and internationally binding agreements for journalists!

How can doctors or medical policy advisors make decrees that are not “for the benefit of the sick” and that do not protect them from harm and arbitrary injustice (3)?

How can politicians blatantly violate the oath of office they have taken and devote their power not to their own people but rather to the billionaire and power “elite” and violate federal law? How can psychologists, contrary to their professional ethics, write traumatised war returnees fit for service again, second torturers in their work and currently call on fellow human beings to persevere and put aside their most basic human needs?

How can the “journaille” (riffraff of the press) in no way fulfil their obligation to inform the citizens truthfully and to promote peace – and do so with impunity?

A profession is “an activity of a human being which is systematically learned, specialised, usually accompanied by a certificate of quality, performed permanently and for remuneration on the basis of special aptitude and inclination” (4). If one is not up to it, one should look for a job that is usually only temporary, is not tied to a special aptitude or training and above all cannot cause any harm.

All fellow citizens are called upon not to continue to accept the blatant violations of the written or even unwritten rules of good conduct by the various occupational groups, but to demand it without delay. They must not allow only the “Honourable Society” to abide by its code of honour.

*

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. Rudolf Hänsel is a graduate psychologist and educationalist.

Notes

(1) http://www.duden.de/rechtschreibung/Ehrenkodex

(2) www.rubikon.news/artikel/die-diktaturdepression

(3) https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eid_des_Hippokrates

(4) https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beruf

Samos Dreaming: Reflecting on the Life, History and Social Injustice on Greece’s Samos Island

By Chris Jones, December 27, 2020

The Covid cases here are thankfully small but the lock-downs apply all the same with the closure of businesses and movement restrictions. Such regulations virtually wiped out the 2020 summer tourist season upon which so many depend on.

Democracies Don’t Start Wars. But U.S. Democrats Do.

By Philip Giraldi, December 27, 2020

The idea that pluralistic democracies are somehow less inclined to go to war has in fact been around for a couple of hundred years and was first elaborated by Immanuel Kant in an essay entitled “Perpetual Peace” that was published in 1795.

Elections in Venezuela: The Trump-Guaidó “Pyrrhic Victory” and Its Achilles Heel

By Arnold August, December 27, 2020

In the weeks prior to voting day, the civil-military union contributed to the peaceful exercise of the right to vote, acting as that Achilles heel, and helping turn the December 6 elections into a Chavista victory.

How Will Joe Biden “Resolve” the Syrian Crisis? The Viewpoint of a French Diplomat

By Steven Sahiounie, December 27, 2020

Thepaut treats the Syrian crisis as if it was only between various governments, such as; the US, EU, Russia, Iran, and Turkey. Those various countries listed are indeed involved in the Syrian crisis, but the suffering and effect on the residents in Syria must be considered in any US foreign policy changes.

Covid Death by Ventilator – A Personal Story – for the World to Know

By Peter Koenig, December 27, 2020

So, this is like an open letter about a personal drama, of which there are myriad of similar ones across the continents. A warning to what might happen to innocently trusting people – a warning, not to blindly trust authorities, nor the official covid-narrative and covid-science.

Europe’s Lack of Confidence Hampers Signing of Trade Agreement with China

By Paul Antonopoulos, December 27, 2020

After seven years of tough negotiations, the European Union and China were close to signing an investment agreement. However, at the last moment, it hit a road block as it faced pressure from those wanting Washington’s involvement, or those wanting to impose Western Liberalism on China.

After Trump Blocked UN Inquiry on Racist Violence, NGOs Are Conducting Their Own

By Prof. Marjorie Cohn, December 27, 2020

Shortly after the public lynching of George Floyd, the U.S. Human Rights Network and the ACLU organized an international coalition of more than 600 organizations and individuals to urge the United Nations Human Rights Council to convene a commission of inquiry to investigate systemic racism and police brutality in the United States.

Step Forth Divine Human. The Worldwide Rising Tide of Human Consciousness

By Julian Rose, December 27, 2020

The forces at work to subdue humanity into abject slavery are well aware of the rising tide of consciousness sweeping across our world at this time. They know their own existence is under threat due to the rising momentum of the aspiration for truth. 

Christmas Visions: Children and the Importance of Redemption

By Caoimhghin Ó Croidheáin, December 26, 2020

The idea of a child-centred Christmas is taken for granted now but in Dickens’ time it was not so assured. A high child mortality rate, child labour, poverty and, a colder, more utilitarian attitude towards children prevailed.

Warning: Covid Vaccines! Huge Risks, Huge Injuries – Huge Compensations?

By Peter Koenig, December 25, 2020

Did you know that the US Government since 1988 paid as of 1 December 2020 more than 4.4 billion dollars to vaccine-injury victims? – It’s your money – Taxpayers Money. This is Health Services and Service Administration Vaccine Injury Compensation Data.

Notre site Web en français, mondialisation.ca

***

Nuestro sitio web en español, globalizacion.ca

Brigadier General Mohsen Fakhrizadeh of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Command (IRGC) and Iran’s most important nuclear scientist was assassinated not too far from Tehran recently. Iran immediately accused Israel , an allegation confirmed by a senior Washington official soon after. Meanwhile Tel Aviv has remained silent. Given its many earlier assasinations of Iran’s nuclear scientists and Netanyahu’s specific mention of Fakhrizadeh in 2018 the assumption is a safe one.

This year saw the murder of two prominent Iranian leaders. Very early in the year US President Trump ordered the murder of Qasem Solaimani, a Major General of the IRGC and commander of the Quds Force, one agreed by all as formidable. He was on a diplomatic mission. In both instances Tehran vowed revenge but as time has shown prudence has been the watchword. The reported early warning bombing of the US Iraqi base, Ayn Al-Asad was intended to avoid deaths of US servicemen and women. Clearly the intention was to avoid a counter attack and prevent the outbreak of war.

The loss of Fakhrizadeh while great is not expected to paralyse Iran’s nuclear programme. It is only natural that the personnel pool in the area has grown over the years to meet the needs of Iran’s nuclear energy industry. Iran has denied that there was ever any effort to build a nuclear weapons programme, a stand very much part of its Islamic tenets. But Israel uses the nuclear weapons argument as a convenient strategy of undermining the Iranian effort to build its strength: economic and defence. Israel is fighting to maintain the uneven playing field of West Asia (Middle East) where it is the sole nuclear power but undeclared.

If then the Fakhrizadeh murder will not hamper Iran’s ability to build its nuclear energy industry, which for its own convenience Israel assumes will be flipped and weaponised, then why commit the crime? Observers argue that the intention is to tie President-elect Biden’s hands in the event he tries to resurrect US participation in the Joint Comprehensive Plan Of Action (JCPOA) or the Iran Deal making war the necessary option. The assumption is that the murders would inhibit Iran’s ability to return to the Iran Nuclear Deal. While plausible, this fails to recognise the pragmatism that has informed Tehran’s decisions thus far.

Indeed, most are convinced that vengeance will not bring about the declaration of war by Tehran. And yet, the failure to secure Fakhrizadeh’s safety is an embarrassment for Tehran.

The realization of justice is a much cherished principle of Shia Islam: “Everyday is Ashura. Every land is Karbala”, the former the day of Imam Hussain’s (Prophet Mohammad’s grandson) martyrdom, the latter where he was martyred in his fight for justice. The Islamic Republic of Iran has been at the receiving end of much injustice for defending its sovereignty and resisting the hegemonic proclivities of the USA. The 8 year Iran – Iraq war was nothing but a war where Iraq played proxy for the USA. The on-going debilitating American sanctions, including its refusal to lift those on medical supplies despite the Covid-19 pandemic have caused civilian casualties and deaths, intentionally targeted to trigger an uprising among the Iranian people against the government.

The pursuit of justice is the core of Shi’ite belief. When this informs the dynamics that drives awareness of the Iranian people then the country’s enemy is obvious: external forces. Obviously, too, the government is very mindful of Islamic tenets as is seen in their attitude towards nuclear weapons. Was this the rationale for not killing US troops when Iran’s missile attacked US bases in Iraq? Was this why they shot down the unmanned drone (UAV) and spared the manned US spy plane. If the answer is yes then revenge for the murders of Fakhrizadeh and Soleimani will not be a conventional hot war.

In a time when wars are fought by the weaponising of any means that can destroy society and economies, what can Iran weaponise to undermine Israel? In the case of Soleimani the shape of that justice can be surmised from Trump’s admission of murder. But the Fakhrizadeh murder?

The glean of a possible answer could be at hand. On December 17^th, 2020 a news story in the  Haaretz begins with “Israel is in the midst of a massive cyber attack by an Iranian group…”

“.…Iranian -linked hackers have targeted at least 80 Israeli firms in what experts say is a form of ideologically driven cybercrime.” Apparently, this attack by the group Pay2Key, is the latest “in a string of cyber campaigns against Israel.”Israeli experts suggest this is a war against their economy. What leads the experts to this belief is that, unlike the average sophisticated cybercriminals, the ransom demanded is comparatively small — although a report in The Times of Israel said “no ransom” was demanded — probably because the objective is political rather than commercial.

According to the headline of the report ”The Iranians Are Waiting for the Israeli Response…”

If the report is accurate and a cyber war ensues, given the assumptions of the experts that the ‘hacktivists’ have been in place for a considerable time it is then safe to assume that a planned attack has long been in place. If war it is then it is safe to assume that the objective is economic paralysis hitting all of the economy as what Russia did to Ukraine in 2015. There cannot be half measures on the Iranian part if they are to avenge themselves effectively. Data stolen can be engineered to cause substantial paralysis of whatever the future target maybe, possibly Israel’s supply chain given the nature of the targets.

Cyber warfare fits well into the Islamic principles of the Iranian state. Tehran has taken every opportunity to demonstrate its scientific and technological skills but unwilling to exploit any of it needlessly. It is not a Third World country struggling to develop. It is a major military power of West Asia. It builds missiles, a prowess the US is trying to end. The late Fakhrizadeh has the distinction of being compared to Oppenheimer the father of the nuclear bomb. It is a civilisation of some five thousand years. Iran is feared for its potential, especially by the Arab states of Saudi Arabia and the Gulf monarchies.

*

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.

Askiah Adam is Executive Director of the International Movement for a JUST World.

Featured image: Killing of Mohsen Fakhrizadeh (CC BY 4.0)

Shortly after the public lynching of George Floyd, the U.S. Human Rights Network and the ACLU organized an international coalition of more than 600 organizations and individuals to urge the United Nations Human Rights Council to convene a commission of inquiry to investigate systemic racism and police brutality in the United States. George Floyd’s brother, Philonise Floyd, addressed the Council by video, stating, “You in the United Nations are your brothers’ and sisters’ keepers in America.” He implored the UN, “I’m asking you to help us — Black people in America.”

However, the Trump administration lobbied heavily against this investigation, objecting to limiting the inquiry to the U.S. The Council subsequently declined a request by a group of African countries within the Council to establish the inquiry commission. “The outcome is a result of the pressure, the bullying that the United States did, assisted by many of its allies,” said Jamil Dakwar, the ACLU’s human rights program director.

But the Council did task the High Commissioner for Human Rights Michelle Bachelet with preparing a report by June 2021 on “systemic racism, violations of international human rights law against Africans and people of African descent by law enforcement agencies, especially those incidents that resulted in the death of George Floyd and other Africans and people of African descent, to contribute to accountability and redress for victims.” In Resolution 43/1, the Council did not limit the subject matter of the report to violations in the United States.

To assist in the preparation of Bachelet’s report, the Council called for input from several entities, including nongovernmental organizations.

The International Association of Democratic Lawyers, National Conference of Black Lawyers and National Lawyers Guild responded to that call by establishing their own International Commission of Inquiry on Systemic Racist Police Violence Against People of African Descent in the United States.

Rutgers University law professor emeritus Lennox Hinds, who conceived of the idea for the commission, told Truthout, “This International Commission of Inquiry is an attempt to give voice to the international outrage resulting from the public lynching of George Floyd and to expose the racist and systemic nature of police violence against people of African descent in the United States and to hold the U.S. government accountable before the international community.”

Twelve commissioners, including prominent judges, lawyers, professors, advocates and UN special rapporteurs from Pakistan, South Africa, Japan, India, Nigeria, France, Costa Rica, the United Kingdom and the West Indies will hold public hearings from January 18 to February 6.

The commission will hear evidence in 50 cases of police violence that occurred throughout the United States from 2010-2020, including the killings of George Floyd, Michael Brown, Eric Garner, Breonna Taylor and Tamir Rice. Many resulted in the deaths of unarmed or nonthreatening African Americans.

Although the commission won’t have the money and resources a UN investigation would have commanded (were it not for Trump’s obstruction), the scope of this inquiry will go beyond the Council’s resolution by giving voice to the families of Black victims of police brutality.

Testimony of victims’ lawyers and family members, community representatives and acknowledged experts will occur in 25 cities via Zoom. The commissioners will prepare a report for submission to the UN high commissioner and the public by the end of March. They will be assisted in the hearings and preparation of their report by a team of four rapporteurs, including this writer. Students and faculty from Rutgers Law School will provide research support.

The commissioners will ask the UN high commissioner to use our report to inform her report to the Council. We will also publicize our report widely in the United States and throughout the world for people to use in litigation and advocacy.

This will be a thorough investigation of anti-Black violence perpetrated by police in the United States. It will examine: 1) Cases of victims of police violence, extrajudicial killings and maiming of people of African descent and entrenched structural racism in police practices throughout the U.S.; and 2) The structural racism and bias in the criminal “justice” system that results in the impunity of law enforcement officers for violations of U.S. and international law.

The commission will analyze whether several instances of police violence against African Americans violated international law. A 2020 study of the 20 largest cities in the United States found none whose lethal force policies complied with international human rights law and standards.

Finally, the commission will consider the lack of accountability for violations of human rights, and recommend effective measures to end impunity in the future.

Treaties the United States ratifies become part of U.S. law under the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution. They are the “supreme law of the land.” The U.S. has ratified three human rights treaties that enshrine the right to life, the right to be free from torture and the right to be free from discrimination. All three require effective measures be taken for violations of the rights protected by those treaties.

During the hearings, the testimony will describe instances of police violence that deprived African Americans of the right to life, and the rights to be free from torture and discrimination.

“We want the [UN] high commissioner [Michelle Bachelet] to actually use this report,” said Kerry McLean, a member of the steering committee that is establishing the commission. “She’s not doing hearings, so we’re doing hearings.”

The hearings will be accessible to the public. The report and findings of the commission will be published in English.

*

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.

Copyright Truthout. Reprinted with permission.

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.

Featured image is from Fibonacci Blue/Flickr

The forces at work to subdue humanity into abject slavery are well aware of the rising tide of consciousness sweeping across our world at this time. They know their own existence is under threat due to the rising momentum of the aspiration for truth. 

The human being must now stand-up straight, mask-free and proud. Because that is the only way he/she will be recognisable as a warm blooded, essentially compassionate living example of the species.

Those using the mask are already signifying obeisance to the lie. The mask is a symbol of retreat into fear. What’s more in the near future it will be revealed to be the cause of serious health problems in its own right. This is, of course, one of its roles within the ‘great Covid reset’. The genocide disguised behind ‘the mask of caring’.

Once the individual human being grasps the nature of this great deception, stands straight and declares herself/himself to be an expression of the divine omnipotence from whence all life emerges – and where all life is heading – then truly a new springboard for the flowering of mankind is announced.

For in our defeat of fear and all the ill-will presently being afflicted upon humanity, we will have vanquished the final obstruction to our emancipation and enlightenment.

All the ‘elite’ despotic criminals’ plans for the future of mankind presently on display as ‘New World Order’ ‘Great Reset’ ‘One World Government’ and ‘Transhuman Singularity’ will dissolve away into nothingness once the light of this great awakening quickens and penetrates the veins of our living planet.

It is not a question of waiting for some ‘outside event’ to bring-about such a cleansing. It is our courageous stepping forward in the fullness of our divine human nature which sparks the arousal of benign macrocosmic energies into their conjunction with our innately divine microcosmic mirror energies. The two must come to meet if we are to be the creators of the real ‘Great Reset’, which is nothing less than the defeat of the darkest lies that imprison us – by the light of abundant truth. The truth that sets us free.

Victory is assured. Do not hold back. Your soul awaits your command. Rip away the coward’s mask of victim-hood and cease hiding behind the falsification of your divinity.  Step forth, cast aside those who hold this world to ransom. Brave spirit that you truly are, this is your greatest hour and our greatest victory.

*

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.

Julian Rose is an early pioneer of UK organic farming, writer, international activist, entrepreneur and teacher. His latest book ‘Overcoming the Robotic Mind – Why Humanity Must Come Through’ is particularly prescient reading for this time: see www.julianrose.info

Featured image is from howstuffworks

There is a tragic lack of attention given to the achievements and activities of people and communities in tackling the problems they confront. It is tragic because people need hope and inspiration in these dark times and the thousands upon thousands of grass root mobilisations across the globe provide this. But unless you are closely involved with such activities you are denied a crucial source of knowledge and understanding and with it the energy to mobilise or at least not to be left hopeless and demoralised.

As with all important human and social phenomenon there are many issues at play; local and global – particular to place and circumstance and also general when it comes to managing societies that enrich the few at the expense and on the backs of the majority. The strategies of such domination shift and change over time and are multi-dimensional as authority perpetually struggles to explain why the many struggle and suffer whilst others flourish as they capture the wealth and riches created by the people. Such struggles are never ending and always evolving as circumstances change. And they are not restricted to one site or mode ranging from hard and violent to softly softly : tear gas to youth clubs.

Very few in the world today escape being caught up in endless efforts of authority to shape our thoughts and manage our behaviour according to their needs. Efforts that come in many forms. Many of you reading this will know all too well how religion and ‘science’ have been deployed over time to legitimate inhumanity. I recall how in my English primary school we boisterously sang the Christian hymn All Things Bright and Beautiful at our daily school assemblies.

About the wondrous world God has created with the rich man in his castle and the poor man at his gate. And then later as a social work student being showered with sociological and psychological theories that explained why the poor were to blame for their poverty and hardship. At least I did not have to endure in my schooling in the 1950s and 1960s the experiences of my mum and dad who sat in class rooms with maps of the British Empire – where the sun never sets- and be told of the great gifts the British Empire brought to backward and uncivilised peoples. Yet me and my friends had to confront a schooling system that embedded the privilege of the few. We all sat the 11plus exam at the end of our time in primary school. As an 11 year old I was frightened by the 11 plus. I have a twin brother. At 11 we had never been apart going to the same schools. I had nightmares about one of us passing and one failing and being sent off to different schools. Even at that age you just knew that it was much more than going to different schools. It was about different worlds. Even if we didn’t understand it fully, even at 11 we knew that this exam was life defining. It was the entrance exam into British class society as it was then.

Passing the exam meant you were seen as a child with potential to be developed and encouraged. Failure was the reverse. You were not seen in terms of potential development. Instead your expectations were to be refocused shifting from the brain to the hand. If you passed you went to the grammar school for at least five years knowing that you were being prepared for a bright future in the middle and professional classes. If you failed it was 5 years in the secondary modern school and a future of menial labour. And in both regimes the impact of gender and race was enormous.

One of the most common cruelties of state schooling systems in many parts of the world is in its creation of failure. At very young ages children are labelled and treated as failures. They are told they are not intelligent, that they have no talent and to adjust their expectations of life accordingly. In a variety of ways and settings huge swathes of children internalise these negative judgements which come to shadow their lives whether or not they give in or fight back refusing to accept that they are stupid and useless.

This is just a tiny fragment of the processes at work. In different places and times similar socialisation processes are at work which are designed to cement and reaffirm privilege and power. It never stops. And it can never stop given the enduring characteristics of human beings. We all have agency. We all think. We are not pieces of plasticine to be moulded at will. There are billions of us around today and I would hazard a guess that many are at least like the frightened 11 year old boy facing the 11 plus who is troubled that what he faces is not right.

So how does this relate to my reaction to the work of the Lewisham (London) food bank which prompted this article? I was inspired by what the so called ‘ordinary’ people of the area were doing to feed and help those struggling including those with CoVid. Created in 2014 the We Care project is now feeding and supporting 5,000 people (and their pets!). They take no money from the state, local or central, which had in fact abandoned them. Now Covid is a major aspect of their work as it has deepened their poverty and hardship. They have created a charity shop to raise money which has allowed them to open a cafe as well as a community kitchen for those who no longer have the means to cook and prepare food. All this is done by volunteers. They have made a short film about their work:

“We are delighted that our film ‘Feeding Lewisham’, made out of love and with zero funds, has been selected for, and is winning, awards globally. We believe this is, in part because the world is all facing the same Covid challenges. But our film is also different. It does not go down the misery and poverty porn route. Instead, it shows how powerful communities can be when governments and councils fail them. It shows how awesome we as neighbours can be – united in solidarity. And it shows black people as leaders not as victims.”

(My emphasis: https://www.thecanary.co/feature/2020/12/13/a-short-film-made-by-a-community-is-getting-international-recognition/)

And listen to what they said about why they made the film:

“We cannot thank enough those people who gave their time and still do to help others during this crisis and those in the film team who gave hours of time for free because what was happening in Lewisham was [too] important not to be told whilst the film also is a model for others to copy and be inspired by globally.” (The Canary 13 Dec 2020)

I shouted out Yes ! when I read this. For here was yet another vivid example of how awesome we can be when we are united in solidarity. What is happening in Lewisham is happening world wide. People failed by their governments and elites uniting in solidarity to make a better life. I saw this myself in Easterhouse, Glasgow where the tenants of one of the biggest and poorest council estates in the UK created the Festival Society which gave us stunning performances transforming streets into massive theatres; that brought the holiday seaside into the centre of the community complete with deck chairs, donkeys, sand, a fun fair and sticks of their own Easterhouse rock ( a traditional seaside sweet).

Easterhouse was famous because of its knife, drug and gang crime with its population repeatedly insulted and dismissed. Many commentators said it was the worse place in Britain. BUT never a comment or a glimpse of a community recognising and drawing on its endless talents and achieving great things in the midst of harsh poverty and a depressing environment ( once described by the Scottish comedian, Billy Conolly) as a “desert with windows”.

No mention that they looked at their skills and found that collectively they had 57 trades which became the name of their company which took over an empty school and created workshops which in turn won major contracts for estate maintenance and repairs. No mention that they designed and built the largest outdoor mural in Britain and that contrary to mainstream sneering was never vandalised.

I saw something similar in Croxteth in north Liverpool where a similar mobilisation of an impoverished community following a fight to save a school has led to the creation of network of shops, a sports centre, community university and much more in terms of groups, networks and activities. And I saw the same energies and capacities being realised in the black and Hispanic communities of Fort Worth and Dallas, Texas which created and ran health clinics in the mid 1980s.

Part of the Easterhouse Mural

There are a multitude of such initiatives globally, some of enormous importance such as the mobilisation of communities in various west African countries in their ultimately successful campaigns between 2014 and 2017 to defeat Ebola. In the Basque region of northern Spain the Mondragon Corporation founded in 1956 has become one of the largest companies in Spain, employing 81,507 workers in 2019 in 257 companies. Its core principles are co-operation and solidarity and the subservience of capital.

There are so many examples to learn from! Collectively they help and sustain literally millions of people whether in co-ops, credit unions, food banks, health centres, play and sports, song, dance, theatre, village and town councils and on the streets and in our homes. And it is not just the sheer scale of what they do, but how they do it. With dignity, respect, solidarity, understanding, love and laughter; all qualities which are almost invisible in official agencies of various kinds. (I have learnt over the years that if I don’t hear laughter and don’t see smiles in organisations you need to be on alert as these tend to be bad places.)

That so little of this is ever taught in schools and colleges and given such little media attention is deliberate. So much about these public mobilisations, especially amongst those described by Fanon as the wretched of the earth fundamentally challenge the core precepts which underpin the deep inequalities of today’s world. Love trumps greed and happiness trumps wealth to put it simply. It is for good reason that authority tries to diminish, devalue and at times to destroy these grass roots activities and groups. This is especially clear in the state violence which is so often used against squatters for their violation of the sacredness accorded to private property. But there are many other examples across the spectrum where laws and statutes are dredged up or enacted to control grass root activity.

Occasionally we get some vivid examples of authority’s fears as was the case during the early 1970s when across much of the advanced capitalist world (North America, Japan and Western Europe) women, black and minorities, gays, lesbians and transgender, anti-war movements, students and school kids and other stigmatised and neglected peoples took to the streets demanding and fighting for their fundamental rights including dignity and respect. The convulsion took many forms and was constantly shifting. Authority was frightened. The elites collected in the Trilateral Commission “a mechanism for lubricating the thrust of co-operation and co-ordination between the major capitalist economies” commissioned a report on ‘The Crisis of Democracy’ undertaken by 3 conservative sociologists (Crozier, Huntington and Watanuki). It was published in 1975 and is full of their pessimism and fear about the mass mobilisations underway. For them this was the crisis of democracy. There was no way they could accede to what they called a “democratic surge” because Crozier and his colleagues claimed that it would lead to “the disintegration of civil society, the breakdown of social discipline, the debility of leaders and the alienation of citizens”. Their conclusion is simple; “democratic societies cannot work when the citizenry is not passive.”

(As a brief aside it is worth noting at the time of the Report being published many in the Trilateral Commission were doubtful that they could control these movements or moderate their demands of the state. But some of their key proposals were pursued. They argued that too many schools and universities were encouraging students to question and challenge. The Trilaterals in the final analysis want obedience from their minions and not questions. This had to change. They also argued for a renewed and energetic focus on individualism with people being encouraged to see themselves foremost as consumers and not as citizens. Credit cards and consumer debt were seen as having great potential in controlling behaviour.)

The point I am trying to make is that despite the lack of attention and acknowledgement of these thousands of activities this should not be taken to mean they are not scrutinised and watched by authority. There are moments when this is all too apparent when undercover infiltration by the ‘security service’ (whose security?) is occasionally revealed. But in the main the potential challenge is handled in a vast diversity of ways. For authority generally, the activities of these autonomous movements of the people tend to be viewed as social rather than political problems. This categorisation is reinforced as so many autonomous movements have no significant links with organised politics and rarely use an overtly political vocabulary to describe or even organise their efforts. Moreover, throughout the world, those at the bottom of the social pile are all too often ignored and abandoned by mainstream political parties and groups, even those who claim to be concerned with injustice and poverty. Like, Ramsey MacDonald, one of the leaders of the British Labour Party a century ago who declared that they would never seek the support of those who lived in the slums.

So many in power fear their fellow people. Look at their private banks and strong rooms; look at where they live surrounded by fences and electronic security systems managed by private security firms and guards. Look at their expenditure on the police. Last week in Greece the government in Athens announced a record equipment budget for the police next year. Without any embarrassment or shame they were instead proud to be announcing that the increased budget would provide nearly 700 new police vehicles, nearly 2000 bullet proof vests, armoured boots and helmets plus the usual array of drones, cameras and chemical weapons. It is a budget which reveals much about the way in which the Greek state perceives its people.

Named the wall of shame, the 10 km wall separates rich and poor in Lima, Peru. The rich live amongst us, but you won’t run into them (if they can help it)

For the past 15 years I have lived in a small mountain village on the Greek frontier island of Samos. This is the place where I now stand and dig. As regular readers of Samos Chronicles will know it is place of paradoxes and horrors. We have a beautiful nature but a refugee camp that defies humanity. The majority of the people, both refugees and locals alike, experience enduring poverty, few jobs and low pay. The 12 year economic and social crisis has been crippling. Basic services have collapsed. The public buses would be museum pieces in many parts of western Europe, indeed the same could be said for most of the cars, trucks and lorries here. Their age, condition and that they comprise the majority of the vehicles on the island reveals much.

All of these issues have worsened with Covid. The Covid cases here are thankfully small but the lock-downs apply all the same with the closure of businesses and movement restrictions. Such regulations virtually wiped out the 2020 summer tourist season upon which so many depend on. Then came the devastating earthquake at the end of October 2020 which was terrifying as it was destructive. The great majority of the many who now have homes and lands to repair have no money for the work. There is no expectation that the state will come to their aid quickly. After all, it is commonplace here for newly retired workers to wait up to 3 years before they receive their pension. (There are 300,000 pension cases outstanding in Dec 2020!) Not surprisingly many here are demoralised and feeling battered; not knowing when the next blow will come or from where. They feel unprotected and extremely vulnerable.

What seems new here is not so much the disdain and distrust in the state – this has long been a feature of Greek life – but the erosion in personal confidence and capacity. Most on Samos know there will be little or no help from outside, but what is so saddening is to see young people in particular despair of their own capacity to do anything. There are, as everywhere, amazing talents amongst the people but without some sense of hope they are redundant. This is not it should be noted, the general case for the refugees here who are tireless in their efforts to survive during their detention on the island. But there is still a wide gap between many on Samos and the refugees so the possibilities for energising solidarities are still few.

We desperately need to rekindle hope. Not idle hopes that someone or other will come riding to rescue but hope about our capacity to make life better by working together. There is no other choice. Many here know this to be true but are not clear as to how to move forward and have little or no energy to act. Here we vividly see the consequences of the Greek state denying the people the opportunity to learn from theirhistory.

Very few, and almost exclusively old people, know something of the extraordinary heroism of the Greek people during the Nazi occupation of the1940s. Under the yoke of a brutal occupation the Greek people came to control most of the countryside. They found ways to feed themselves; they created schools, clinics, theatres; women were for the first time involved in elected local councils and many became celebrated partisans and resistance fighters. It is not an exaggeration to describe what was going on in occupied Greece as nothing less than a social revolution. Their so called military allies were appalled and from 1943 they worked endlessly to weaken and defeat what they considered to be a communist uprising. Arms and finances were re-directed away from the peoples’ partisan units to create a conservative counter force. The British government which at that time was the dominant external power in war time Greece was adamant that the (widely hated) Greek monarchy had to be restored and that Greece’s strategic geography meant it must remain with the West and not fall under the influence of the Soviet Union. Once the Nazis withdrew, civil war followed and with significant military support from the US and the UK the peoples’ uprising was defeated. On Samos some of the older people remember as children, the shelling of left partisan groups in the mountains by British warships. In some parts of Greece napalm was dropped on civilian populations.

Many adults fled to neighbouring countries (often communist run such as a Yugoslavia) leaving their children behind in the care of friends and relatives. These in turn were rounded up by the thousands to be ‘re-educated’ under the tutelage of queen, Frederica who with her husband had returned to Greece. As the saviour of these ‘bandit children’ she created around 54 Queens Camps charged with bringing these children back into the Greek family. For Frederica and her ’queens helpers’ these children had to learn to see their parents not as heroes of resistance and progress but as basically evil people who wanted to destroy all that was great about Greece. Lady Norton, the wife of the British Ambassador to Greece was fulsome in her praise. After visiting a Queen’s School on Leros in March 1950, she expressed admiration for the way in which it was “civilising the bandit children” by “eradicating the memory of the wild untamed years of the Civil War”. Moreover, Greece “is the only country in the world where real creative work is being done to combat the cancer of Bolshevism.” (Cited by Danforth and Boeschoten, Children of the Greek Civil War 2012, p.102).

The Greek state, to this day, works to keep this crucial period in Greek history hidden – “eradicating the memory”. It is not unique to Greece as throughout the world similar processes to remove, ignore, ridicule the efforts of the people to survive, to organise and to achieve are ever present. Time and again we see that one of the first tasks of progressive social movements is their taking control over their history; of rescuing their past, and telling their story.

As far as I am aware no state school in Greece explores this relatively recent period of tumultuous social activity and change when the people across the country in small towns and villages took control of their lives and did amazing things in extraordinary circumstances. Yet we need this kind of inspiration like never before in places like Samos where a sense of defeat and hopelessness now shadows everyday life. We need to remember what so called ordinary people can and do achieve when they come together and simply refuse to give up. We have to rip down the curtains that try to stop us from seeing, understanding and imagining. We need to open eyes as to what popular mobilisations have achieved wherever they are. They give us reason to hope with confidence. They are an under-estimated source of our power. So the more we know the better. The more we learn of these events and activities the stronger we become. The phobia of the powerful has always been the people throughout history. After all they are very few in number whereas we are billions strong. Time to rise me thinks!

*

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 Samos Chronicles.  Chris Jones has been actively involved in the course of the last ten years in supporting the rights of refugees on Greece’s Samos Island

All images in this article are from Samos Chronicles

It may have been President Bill Clinton who once justified his wrecking of the Balkans by observing that liberal interventionism to bring about regime change is a good thing because “Democracies don’t start wars with other democracies.” Or it might have been George W. Bush talking about Iraq or even Barack Obama justifying his destruction of Libya or his interventions relating to Syria and Ukraine. The principle is the same when the world’s only superpower decides to throw its weight around.

The idea that pluralistic democracies are somehow less inclined to go to war has in fact been around for a couple of hundred years and was first elaborated by Immanuel Kant in an essay entitled “Perpetual Peace” that was published in 1795. Kant may have been engaging in some tongue in cheek as the French relatively liberal republic, the “Directory,” was at that time preparing to invade Italy to spread the revolution. The presumption that “democracies” are somehow more pacific than other forms of government is based on the principle that it is in theory more difficult to convince an entire nation of the desirability of initiating armed conflict compared to what happens in a monarchy where only one man or woman has to be persuaded.

The American Revolution, which preceded Kant, was clearly not fought on the principle that kings are prone to start wars while republics are not, and, indeed, the “republican” United States has nearly always been engaged in what most observers would consider to be wars throughout its history. And a review of the history of the European wars of the past two hundred years suggests that it is also overly simple to suggest that democracies eschew fighting each other. There are, after all, many different kinds of governments, most with constitutions, many of which are quite politically liberal even if they are headed by a monarch or oligarchy. They have found themselves on different sides in the conflicts that have troubled Europe since the time of Napoleon.

And wars are often popular, witness the lines of enthusiastic young men lining up to enlist when the Triple Entente took on the Germans and Austrians to begin the First World War. So, war might be less likely among established democracies, but it should be conceded that the same national interests that drive a dictatorship can equally impact on a more pluralistic form of government, particularly if the media “the territory of lies” is in on the game. One recalls how the Hearst newspaper chain created the false narrative that resulted in the U.S.’s first great overseas imperial venture, the Spanish-American War. More recently, the mainstream media in the United States has supported the disastrous invasion of Iraq, the destabilization of Syria, and the regime change in Ukraine, Afghanistan and Libya.

So now we Americans have the ultimate liberal democratic regime about to resume power, possibly with a majority in both houses of Congress to back up the presidency. But something is missing in that the campaigning Democrats never talked about a peace dividend, and now that they are returning the airwaves are notable for Senators like Mark Warner asking if the alleged Russian hacking of U.S. computers is an “act of war?” Senator Dick Durbin has no doubts on the issue, having declared it “virtually a declaration of war.” And Joe Biden appears to be on board, considering punishment for Moscow. Are we about to experience Russiagate all over? In fact, belligerency is not unique to Donald Trump and Mike Pompeo.  War is in the air, and large majority of the Democratic Party recently voted for the pork-bloated National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), endorsing a policy of U.S. global military dominance for the foreseeable future. If you are an American who would like to see national health insurance, a large majority among Democrats, forget about it!

But more to the point, the Democrats have a worse track record than do the Republicans when it comes to starting unnecessary wars. Donald Trump made the point of denouncing “stupid wars” when he was running for office and has returned to that theme also in the past several weeks, though he did little enough to practice what he preached until it was too late and too little. Clinton notoriously intervened in the Balkans and bombed a pharmaceuticals factory in Sudan and a cluster of tents in Afghanistan to draw attention away from his affair with Monica Lewinsky. His secretary of State Madeleine Albright thought the death of 500,000 Iraqi children due to U.S. sanctions was “worth it.” Barack Obama tried to destroy Syria, interfered in Ukraine and succeeded in turning Libya into an ungovernable mess while compiling a “kill list” and assassinating U.S. citizens overseas using drones.

If you want to go back farther, Woodrow Wilson involved the U.S. in World War One while Franklin D. Roosevelt connived at America’s entry into the Second World War. FDR’s successor Harry Truman dropped two atomic bombs on civilian targets in Japan, killing as many as 200,000. Japan was preparing to surrender, which was known to the White House and Pentagon, making the first use of nuclear weapons completely unnecessary and one might call it a “war crime.” Truman also got involved in Korea and John F. Kennedy started the intervention in Vietnam, though there are indications that he was planning to withdraw from it when he was killed. The only Democratic president who failed to start one or more wars was the much-denigrated Jimmy Carter.

So, it is Joe Biden’s turn at the wheel. One has to question the philosophy of government that he brings with him as he has never found a war that he didn’t support and several of his cabinet choices are undeniably hardliners on what they refer to as national security. The lobbies are also putting pressure on Biden to do the “right thing,” which for them is to continue an interventionist foreign policy. The Israeli connected Foundation for the Defense Democracies (FDD) has not surprisingly issued a collection of essays that carries the title “Defending Forward: Securing America by Projecting Military Power Abroad.” If one had to bet at this point “defending forward” will be what the Biden Administration is all about. And oh, by the way, as democracies don’t go to war with democracies, it will only be the designated bad guys who will be on the receiving end of America’s military might. Or at least that is how the tale will be told.

*

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 is from SCF

The US Constitution lets presidents grant pardons or clemency under Article II, Section 2, Clause 1 — stating the following:

The president “shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.” 

Pardons may only be granted for federal crimes.

They cannot be issued for individuals impeached, tried, and convicted by Congress.

Thomas Jefferson granted pardons to individuals convicted of sedition.

Gerald Ford pardoned Richard Nixon — even though he wasn’t formally charged or convicted of federal crimes.

He was unjustly tainted by cooked up Watergate offenses.

He was marked for removal from office for threatening entrenched military/industrial/security and other interests.

GHW Bush pardoned convicted felon Elliott Abrams and other Iran-Contra defendants – their high crimes forgiven, not forgotten.

Can presidents pardon themselves? The nation’s founders didn’t address this issue.

Constitutional experts disagree on it.

According to Law Professor Brian Galt, presidents “cannot pardon themselves.”

Judge Richard Posner disagrees, saying: It’s “inferred from the breadth of the constitutional language that the president can indeed pardon himself.”

According to pardon attorney Samuel Morison:

“My opinion is that in theory “presidents can pardon themselves.”

“But then he would be potentially subject to impeachment for doing that.”

“There are no constraints defined in the Constitution…that says he can’t do that.”

No precedent was set either way. No president was ever removed from office by impeachment and conviction.

John Adams once said that this action would cause a national convulsion.

Only three US presidents were impeached — Andrew Johnson, Bill Clinton and Trump, none removed from office.

According to the Congressional Research Service, presidents can grant full pardons to individuals, amnesty to groups, commutations to reduce sentences, reprieves during sentencing, and clemency.

There are “no hard-and-fast rules” for granting clemency, according to criminaldefenselawyer.com.

Trump pardoned, commuted, or rescinded convictions for dozens of individuals — including four Blackwater mercenary hired guns.

In August 2017, the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit reversed their first-degree murder convictions to life in prison.

In September 2019, three of the Blackwater Four were re-sentenced, their prison terms reduced by about half.

A federal judge called their 30-year sentences too harsh.

Nicholas Slatten was convicted of first-degree murder. Paul Slough, Evan Liberty and Dustin Heard were found guilty on multiple voluntary manslaughter counts, attempted manslaughter and various weapons offenses.

The above figures were responsible for the cold-blooded killing or injuring of 31 Iraqi civilians.

The incident occurred on September 16, 2007 in Baghdad’s Nisour Square.

Without provocation, they opened fire on cars carrying families, believing they’d be no accountability.

Washington grants so-called private military contractors (PMCs) blanket immunity. Paul Bremer’s Order 17 authorized it. Rare exceptions prove the rule.

The Blackwater Four opened fire preemptively on defenseless Iraqi civilians, using automatic weapons and a grenade launcher, including from two hovering helicopters.

An eyewitness to her mother’s murder said:

“They are killers. I swear to God, not one bullet was shot at them. Why did they shoot us?”

In October 2014, a federal district court in Washington convicted them.

Defense lawyers defied reality, falsely claiming that they fired in self-defense. Eye witnesses refuted them.

In pronouncing sentence, Judge Royce Lamberth said “(t)he overall wild thing that went on here just cannot be condoned by the court…You can’t just shoot first and seek justification later.”

Former federal prosecutor T. Patrick Martin called what happened “an atrocity.”

FBI investigators of the incident called it the “My Lai massacre of Iraq.”

Defendants were charged under the Military Extraterritorial Act.

It covers overseas crimes of Defense Department civilian employees, military contractors and others involved in US war theaters.

Defense lawyers falsely argued that the four mercenaries were in Iraq to provide diplomatic, not military, services.

Prosecutors argued that crimes committed “were so horrendous – the massacre and maiming of innocents so heinous – that they outweigh any factors that the defendants may argue for leniency.”

Trump’s pardoning of the Blackwater Four reopened unhealed wounds.

No Iraqi civilians killed or wounded were armed or insurgents. None threatened anyone.

Iraq’s Foreign Ministry slammed the pardons, calling them “inconsistent with…human rights, justice and the rule of law.”

They “ignore(d) the dignity of the victims and the feelings and rights of their relatives.”

Founder of Blackwater Erik Prince’s sister, Betsy DeVos, is Trump’s education secretary.

After convictions of the firm’s four mercenaries, it was renamed Xe, then Academi after being sold.

Time and again, the US honors, covers up, ignores, or reverses punishments for the nation’s worst.

It awards medals for war crimes, war criminals left unpunished for wrongdoing too egregious to ignore.

Hollywood glorifies US preemptive wars and honors terrorism — reinventing history on the silver screen.

In 2017, it honored a White Helmets propaganda film as the year’s best documentary short – portraying terrorists as heroes.

The group has nothing to do with civil defense as claimed, everything to do with supporting terrorism in Syria or wherever else they’re deployed to serve US imperial interests.

Individuals warranting high praise for doing the right thing on vital issues risk harsh recrimination.

Whistleblower Chelsea Manning was wrongfully convicted, imprisoned, and harshly treated for revealing unpunished Nuremberg-level high crimes.

Human rights lawyer Lynne Stewart was framed and wrongfully convicted for defending unjustly charged individuals Washington wanted imprisoned.

Numerous political prisoners languish in America’s gulag at home and abroad.

At Washington’s request, UK police forcefully dragged Julian Assange from Ecuador’s London embassy in April 2019.

Imprisoned and harshly mistreated, Trump regime hardliners want him severely punished for the “crime” of truth-telling investigative journalism the way it should be.

Will Trump undo what his regime unjustly ordered by pardoning Assange?

Will he do the right thing by reversing injustice against him, ending his long ordeal?

On June 9, 1954, during nationally televised US Senate Army-McCarthy hearings, I watched attorney Joseph Welch famously confront the senator by asking:

“Have you no sense of decency?”

I put the same question to Trump, asking as well:

Will you end gross injustice against Assange by issuing a full pardon so he can be released?

Will you do the right thing or stick to honoring the nation’s worst before January 20 when your tenure ends?

History awaits your call – up or down for long-delayed justice.

*

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

Award-winning author Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at [email protected]. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG)

His new book as editor and contributor is titled “Flashpoint in Ukraine: US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III.”

http://www.claritypress.com/LendmanIII.html

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.

Featured image is from Lawyers for Assange

The CIA coup to overthrow Jacobo Arbenz in 1954 would put the nation of Guatemala on the path to a nightmare future of poverty, war, and genocide. The United States would reshape Guatemala’s intelligence military and police to fight a counterinsurgency war on the majority of the population.

CIA, Special Forces, military advisers, and Office of Public Safety advisers would arrive in Guatemala to create a massive coordinated killing machine. The result was the introduction of death squads, wide scale torture, rape, mass murder, and genocide.

Guatemala became the textbook example of the worst dirty war in 20th century Latin America outdoing the crimes of the countries under the boot of Operation Condor in South America as well as the crimes of neighbouring El Salvador and Somoza’s Nicaragua. Hundreds of millions of dollars in development aid only served to further impoverish and fragment Guatemala so that today Guatemala is now a textbook example of the poverty and chaos produced by neo-liberalism and globalization.

Castillo Armas, leader of the CIA proxy army that invaded Guatemala during the coup, was finally installed as a dictator after two short lived juntas were maneuvered into and out of power. He banned unions and political parties; burned and banned books; locked up 9,000 Arbenz supporters and communists and forced thousands to flee into exile. Hundreds of union leaders were killed while the CIA, operating under the cover of the Committee Against Communism, composed a massive black list of “subversives” that already had 70,000 names on it by the end of the year.

Decades later the military and police would murder elderly, returning exiles who had ended up on the list because of union membership or other “subversive” activity during the Arbenz years. Armas confiscated all the lands that Arbenz had given to 100,000 peasant families returning them to wealthy landowners and the United Fruit Company.

Corruption was rampant under Armas as the US flooded the country with development aid. Armas had risen to power thanks to United Fruit but he would be assassinated for cracking down on its rival Standard Fruit Company and its gambling interests, casinos controlled by Ted Lewin. Lewin was part of the Meyer Lansky Syndicate (He had also worked closely with the CIA in the Philippines) and was closely allied to Standard Fruit through its President Seymour Weiss.

When Armas cracked down on Lewin, John Rosselli, a mobster who was a fixer for Standard Fruit, made a trip down to Guatemala and arranged for the military, who were being bribed by the casinos, to assassinate President Castillo Armas. Armas was killed by his own bodyguard, who immediately committed suicide (or at least it was made to look that way). The whole thing was conveniently blamed on the communists. Rosselli would later be contracted by the CIA to arrange the murder of Fidel Castro and was killed after testifying about the JFK case in front of the House Committee on Assassinations in the 1970’s. I can only hint at Roselli’s complex connections to the mafia and the CIA, which included people like Rip Robertson, John Martino, and William Pawley linked to covert wars coups and the assassination of JFK. Rosselli’s contact in the Guatemalan military Lt Col Enrique Trinidad Olivia was promoted to head the Guatemalan secret police after the assassination of Armas.

Back in 1953, the year before the coup that overthrew Arbenz, when the CIA was looking for the man to lead it, they had asked Miguel Ydigoras Fuentes a supporter of the dictator Ubico whose handpicked successor Arbenz had overthrown. Ydigoras had run against Arbenz in 1950 and lost by a landslide fleeing the country to avoid harassment by Arbenz supporters. Ydigoras had turned down the CIA offer to lead the invasion but referred them to Armas. Ydigoras had a secret deal with Armas to offer his secret support in exchange for the promise that he would be allowed to run for president after Arbenz was overthrown. However Armas had broken the deal by cancelling the presidential elections in 1956. With Armas dead the Government announced elections for 20 October 1957, Ydigoras saw his chance returning from his Ambassador’s post in Colombia to run (Colombia would also see decades of dirty war and death squads thanks to American advisers.) Armas’ party the MLN, which in future would become infamous as the party of death squads, selected Armas former Interior Minister Miguel Ortiz Passarelli as their candidate.

Ydigoras won the election but Ortiz was declared the winner anyway. Ydigoras threatened to launch a coup and his supporters flooded the streets. The military attaches at the US embassy managed to negotiate a settlement between Ydigoras and the MLN for new elections for January of 1958. Despite the CIA giving his new MLN opponent Luis Cruz Salazar almost $100,000 dollars in campaign funds Ydigoras won again and Congress voted to confirm him. He took office 15 March 1958. 

Voters elected him as an alternative to Armas hated MLN ignoring Ydigoras record of support for Ubico, the 1954 coup, and his far right views. They foolishly believed Guatemala would return to democracy as in 1944-1954. Instead in what would become a recurring pattern things were about to get much worse. Things began amusingly. A newspaperman called Ydigoras a feeble old man and Ydigoras appeared on national TV to skip rope and juggle Indian clubs. Of course most Guatemalans had no electricity let alone television sets. As a darker joke when Ydigoras visited Washington the Americans demanded he pay them back 1.8 million dollars to cover the costs of the 1954 coup. Back in 1954 a young Argentinian named Ernesto “Che” Guevara had arrived in Guatemala to defend the country against the coming coup. After the coup he’d been forced to seek asylum in an embassy while John Foster Dulles tried desperately to have him and thousands of others hiding in embassies illegally arrested then either killed or deported to the Soviet Union. Armas had himself been forced to seek asylum in an embassy a couple years before plus he didn’t want to offend every countries diplomatic corps by carrying out Dulles plan and refused. So “Che” Guevara headed to exile in Mexico met Fidel Castro and helped him liberate Cuba after an initially disastrous beginning to their campaign. 

The victory of the Cuban revolution on 1 January 1959 marked the beginning of the second of three phases of the “Cold War” culminating in the liberation of Vietnam in 1975. Both the goal of preventing another Cuba and the Empire’s ever deteriorating situation in Vietnam would shape the future of the third world in general, Latin America specifically, and especially Guatemala in the decades to come.

US advisers CIA, Special Forces, and police would rotate from Vietnam, Cambodia, Thailand and Laos to countries like Guatemala, Colombia, and El Salvador or vice versa. In each country a version of Vietnam’s Phoenix Program would be created:Centralized control of Intelligence, military, and police. The creation of   communications and computer networks to share information on “subversives.”

They set up death squads, torture centres and disappearances followed. Eventually this massive killing machine would be coordinated across borders evolving into Operation Condor in South America in the 1970’s. In Central America this regional coordination began even earlier with the creation of CONDECA in the 1960s. The US became obsessed with counterinsurgency although of course these techniques were a feature of the earlier dirty wars in places like Greece, Korea, and the Philippines in the 1940’s and 1950’s. The roots of counter-insurgency went back much further to the marine corps “small wars” in Latin America and the Caribbean, to the invasion and occupation of the Philippines, Cuba, and Puerto Rico at the turn of the century and further back still to crushing slave revolts and committing genocide against the Indians. American counterinsurgency theorists combined this long American experience with the lessons learned by the British and French in places like Malaysia, Kenya, Indochina, and Algeria. The United States also learned from the Nazi SS and other fascist death squads who battled partisans and carried out mass murder and genocide during World War 2. These fascists were recruited by the Americans after the war. Many were founding members of US Special Forces. War crimes were an extension of policy, part of the science of psychological warfare.

Image below: Black and white photograph of General Miguel Ydigoras Fuentes in full military uniform decorated with medals of honor. (Source: Public domain)

Cuba’s revolution inspired panic in Washington that other countries in Latin America might follow the Cuban example. Soon plans were under way to train a proxy army of Cuban exiles to invade. Training camps were built in Florida and Louisiana as well as in Nicaragua and Guatemala. The CIA went directly to President Ydigoras and he agreed to host the training camps without even asking the military high command. The military was cut out of it’s share of the bribe and the camps were built on the land of Robert Alejos who had worked for both the CIA and United Fruit in the past, later becoming part of a massive drug smuggling ring.

These foreign bases in Guatemala offended the nationalist pride of the army. On 13 November 1960 there was a military uprising involving 120 officers and 3,000 soldiers at Ft Matamaros in Guatemala City (Where Arbenz’s uprising had begun) and at Zacapa base and Puerto Barrios. Ydigoras asked the Americans to intervene and the CIA had the Cuban exiles repaint their planes with Guatemalan air force insignia and begin bombing the rebelling troops. Eisenhower also sent in the US navy to patrol the coasts. The uprising was quickly crushed but it included future guerrilla leaders both US trained ironically Marco Aurelio Yon Sosa and Luis Turcios Lima who had attended ranger school at Ft Benning Georgia. In 1962 they would return from exile launching an unsuccessful offensive that inspired massive demonstrations and strikes in Guatemala City. In March of 1962,20 student demonstrators were killed further enraging the populace and soon 3 political parties including the far right MLN were demanding Ydigoras resignation.

The same month Ydigoras replaced his entire cabinet, except the Foreign Minister, with military officers. While all this was going on the CIA, the Pentagon and OPS (Office of Public Safety) were busy restructuring Guatemala’s intelligence, military, and police along COIN (Counterinsurgency) lines. Their Guatemalan point man for these changes was Ydigoras’ defence minister Colonel Enrique Peralta Azurdia who was a deep believer in COIN having served 2 years on the Inter-American Defense Board in Washington DC. By the Summer of 1962 the guerrillas had been crushed while the US embassy was working on an Internal Defense Plan which called for increased centralization and coordination between intelligence, police and military and the creation of an intelligence agency out of the president’s office that would combine the powers of the CIA and NSA and run the dirty war. The same request had been made of the US Embassy in El Salvador (and embassies around the world) and they came up with nearly identical solutions leading to a similar bloodbath.

The guerrillas had been crushed but Ydigoras was still wildly unpopular. Moreover, he had agreed to let ex-President Arevalo return from exile to run for president. In January 1963 a team of military advisers on a fact finding mission declared that the threat of insurgency was over. In January 1963 the JFK administration authorised a coup against Ydigoras. Arevalo returned from exile on 29 March 1963 and the next day Ydigoras awoke to discover tanks on his lawn. He had been overthrown by his Defense Minister Peralta Azurdia who had been in charge of restructuring the security services along the lines suggested by his American advisers. In fact they had used this fact to help finance the coup and after the coup sent a massive increase in MAP (Military Assistance Program) funds and OPS funds. After the coup the US State Department even bragged that by preventing the election of Arevalo they had achieved the primary goal of the internal defense plan. 

Peralta Azurdia (image on the right; from public domain) was declared Chief of State instead of President and the constitution was immediately suspended. His main goal was to completely restructure intelligence agencies, military and police along the lines set forth by the latest in US counterinsurgency doctrine. Further Guatemala was integrated into CONDECA (founded in 1964 and part of the OAS) a Central American precursor to South America’s Operation Condor of the 1970s and 1980s.

A surveillance net covered the whole region with state-owned (and military controlled) telecoms like Guatemala’s GUATEL listening in on every phone call, supplemented by American listening posts. Panama was the key US base of operations in Central America home to FT Gulick and the School of the Americas where countries like Guatemala and El Salvador sent their military to train COIN specialists. Panama was also where special forces like Guatemala’s Kaibiles were taught to carry out atrocities beginning like serial killers with torturing animals, and then witnessing torture of humans before carrying it out themselves. Panama was also home to US airbases whose planes would secretly bomb Guatemala and napalm villages during the dirty war.

Under the dictator Peralta Azurdia Guatemala’s security system was completely reshaped so that it could continue to carry on the dirty war no matter who was elected president. Nonetheless the military would only allow two civilian presidents over the next 25 years preferring to hand power to hand picked officers via fixed elections. Acting on US advice Peralta Azurdia created a Presidential Intelligence Agency, which combined the powers of the CIA and NSA directing the dirty war, and using a US supplied computer network to keep the entire country under surveillance.

They were in charge of the most high profile political assassinations and cases of kidnapping, torture and murder of the disappeared. It would change names being known as the Estado Mayor, or “La Regional.” The National Police also had their own centralized intelligence centre known as the “Box.” This centralization of intelligence also made it easy for the CIA and US MILGRP (The US Military mission) to secretly help coordinate the coming decades of dirty war as they worked daily alongside the Presidential Intelligence Agency allowing them to control things from the top. Information from the Ministry of Finance and the Ministry of Labour was funnelled into this centralized intelligence hub and used to draw up death lists of teachers, union leaders, cooperatives members and others. Peralta Azurdia immediately brought back the black list of the Armas years with much more deadly results.

Since the role of the Military and Police would crystallize under Peralta Azurdia this is a good time to describe the structures that would remain in place well into the 1990’s. The military’s intelligence branch G2 or S2 operated out of every military region and reported directly back to their G2 superiors rather then base commanders. They ran networks of informants and organized kidnap torture and disappearances with extreme brutality.

They were the brains behind the dirty war. They also supervised the torture. The military was responsible for the vast majority of the killing and conscripts were expected to execute anyone they deemed a “suspicious” character on sight. They underwent 3 months of abuse and brainwashing after being basically kidnapped. The system of military conscription operated through kidnapping raids the military would surround a market or a village and seize any male from ages 15 to 21. Anyone capable of paying a small bribe was exempt so it was poor Indian peasants who made up the majority of conscripts. After their 3 months of torture brainwashing and forced Ladinoization (they were taught Spanish via beatings) they were always assigned away from their home regions so that their Indian victimswould speak a different Mayan language. The tiny officer corps in contrast was made up of Ladino’s who had passed through a series of military academies.

For them the military was a road to riches as the military gained increasing control of some sectors of the economy and were invited to serve as partners in enterprises owned by rich Guatemalans. Special forces and other counter-Insurgency specialists like the Guatemalan rangers were increasingly the elite of the military. Trained by US Special Forces in Panama, the US or in Guatemala the special forces called Kaibiles were trained to commit unspeakable atrocities as part of psychological warfare, counter-terror, and counterinsurgency warfare. 

The military was sometimes resistant to giving the police a greater role in the dirty war because of old rivalries, as a result the US advised them to create a mobile military police the PMA who would play the role of special police during the dirty war. They would terrorize the countryside cordoning off areas and conducting sweeps for subversives. Peralta Azurdia transformed the role of military commissioners. Now in addition to overseeing forced conscription raids they were armed and empowered to create auxiliary military commissioners.

The military commissioners were responsible for being the eyes and ears of the military making up lists of subversives. Increasingly they used their network of auxiliary military commissioners as death squads in the countryside killing torturing and disappearing any peasant standing up for their rights. The military commissioners usually recruited MLN party members of the increasingly fascist party the CIA had created for Armas during the 1954 coup. To carry out death squad killings and high profile assassinations the military used “confidenciales”. These were troops secretly requested from regional commanders who were sent to the capital for a couple of months to carry out assassinations requiring an extra layer of plausible deniability and then returned to their provinces. 

The National Police were the main Guatemalan police force. US OPS advisers helped them strengthen their investigative divisions so they could be used to hunt down subversives. The detective corps of the National Police carried out most of the torture and killings. The police had their own off the books force the rebajados. Police who got into trouble were forced to serve as rebajados paid out of the informants’ budget. They carried out killings targeting not just subversives but common criminals. Slum areas became dumping grounds for corpses of petty criminals and vigilantes were blamed for these police killings. Sometimes union leaders were killed by these “Vigilantes” and the police would manufacture a phony criminal record of the victim. Also murdered were people in jails, often buses transferring prisoners between prisons were stopped and prisoners were murdered or prisoners were murdered upon release.

OPS advisers also helped set up a counter-terror strike team commando six aka SWAT that was used to raid Guerrilla safe houses as well as arresting subversives and policing demonstrations. They would later be responsible for the infamous massacre of sit in protestors at the Spanish embassy in 1980. In addition to the National Police there were also the Treasury police and the Judicial Police both of whom served as political police and death squads renowned for their brutality, a role they had played since Ubico’s time.

The final element in the new security structure was the creation of paramilitary death squads. Fascist MLN members were recruited into paramilitary death squads. However civilian death squads in Guatemala existed merely to provide plausible denial for the military and the police who were the ones actually responsible for vast majority of the killings and disappearances. Death squads were blamed even when the military and the police had quite openly arrested the victim wearing their uniforms and the victims had been taken to the nearby military base or police station for rape, torture and dismemberment. They were a tool of psychological warfare adding to the confusion and terror. The death squads were the brainchild of the CIA and American Special Forces who talked quite openly of the need to terrorize the populace while maintaining plausible denial through the creation of paramilitary forces. 

They appeared in Guatemala just prior to the election of 1966 publishing manifestos and death lists threatening to target anyone they considered subversive. MANO Blanca was the most infamous one. There was also CEDAG and host of other names for the same group that was secretly controlled by the military. The plausible denial provided by death squads had a further advantage it allowed the Guatemalan press to magnify the terror felt by the populace by filling their papers and magazines with horrifying photos of the killings designed to terrorize even illiterate “readers” while at the same time hiding the role of the military and police in the killings.

Any journalist, politician or activist who dared to point out the connection between the military and the police with the killings was likely to end up dead. The MLN political party was headed by Mario Sandoval Alarcon, a former CIA student leader in CIA backed CEUA (Committee of Anti-Communist University Students) would later become infamous as the “Godfather of the Death Squads” mentoring Roberto D’Aubuisson in El Salvador and helping to create the Nicaraguan contras. Mario Sandoval Alarcon was also the head of the Guatemalan branch of the World Anti-Communist League with close ties to Taiwan. Many in the Guatemalan military would be sent to Taiwan to study political warfare. MLN bragged that it had a paramilitary force of 3000 men and was also happy to take the credit or the blame for the wave of death squad killings.

In his three years in office Peralta Azurdia was able to reshape the military and police into an efficient killing machine, linked by modern communications thanks to American OPS advisers like Alfred Naurocki who set up the communications systems for the militaries throughout Central America as well as in the Dominican Republic and Jamaica. In 1965 Peralta Azurdia created a new constitution founded on anti-communism. In 1966 he decided to hold elections and restore the democratic facade. It was a complete farce the left wing backed candidate Mario Mendez Montenegro was assassinated. His brother Julio Cesar Mendez Montenegro ran in his place but was forced to sign a secret nine-point pact with the military terms of which included complete military independence from civilian control, no negotiations with “subversives” to end the war, and complete immunity for all crimes committed during Peralta Azurdia’s reign. All the candidates were forced to sign this agreement.

The military took no chances on any negotiated settlement. Shortly before the election over 28 of the top communist party and labourleaders were arrested and disappeared eliminating anyone in a position to negotiate an end to the war. It was called Operation Cleanup and owed itssuccess to OPS adviser John Longan. Longan a police adviser had been assigned to Guatemala back in 1957 as part of the first wave of advisers then rotated to various hotspots like Brazil and the Dominican Republic and returned in 1965 to set up a police intelligence unit and strike force. He taught them the “frozen area” method cordoning off a few block radius and conducting house-to-house searches. This culminated in a series of raids where left wing leaders were arrested tortured and forced into giving the locations of their leaders.

It became known as the “Case of the 28” although the actual number of victims was higher. Its victims included Victor Manuel Gutierrez a former congressman and leading PGT leader in Arbenz’s time and Leonardo Castillo Flores who had founded Guatemala’s first peasant federation back in Arbenz’s time. Gutierrez died of a heart attack while he was being tortured. All of them were tortured, murdered and disappeared. Needless to say the American embassy helped mastermind this whole episode. When the university student Union AEU investigated their disappearance and exposed their perpetrators they were hunted down and forced to go underground.

The left wing candidate Mendez Montenegro won the election and was inaugurated July 1966. He was powerless to carry out his promises to end police torture or negotiate an end to the war. Instead he became completely silent on the ever-escalating brutality that even targeted his political party. The real power was held by his defense minister Colonel Arriaga Bosque Mendez. Bosque Mendez appointed Colonel Carlos Arana Osorio as commander of the Zacapa Izabal military zone. Col. Arana Osorio had served for 2 years in Washington DC as a military attaché and was a COIN specialist. The Zacapa zone was to become the laboratory of counterinsurgency warfare.

Over 1,000 American troops mostly Special Forces arrived there to train Colonel Arana Osorio’s troops and secretly taking a direct role in the combat. American bombers also flew out of Panama napalming villages believed to be sympathetic to the guerrillas. This covert war occurred at the height of the war against Vietnam and so is almost completely unknown in the US. Similar wars were taking place around the same time in Colombia and Peru, which are still largely unknown. Colonel Arana became known as the Butcher of Zacapa and he and other officers who worked closely with CIA and Special Forces in Zacapa became known as the Zacapa group.

The Zacapa group included Col Arana Osorio, Kjell Laugerud, Romeo Lucas Garcia, and Mejia Victores. They would dominate the presidency throughout the dirty war rotating through the post of Defense Minister to President. Zacapa was where the scorched earth tactics, the massacres, the death squad killings, torture, rape and murder rapidly escalated and then spread across the country. The Zacapa campaign began in October of 1966. In November of 1966 a state of siege was declared nationwide all civil rights were suspended and strict press censorship of the Zacapa campaign and death squad killings were instituted.

The Zacapa campaign was successful in crushing the FAR guerrillas in the countryside although their defeat in the 1960s only lead to the creation of new Guerrilla groups in the 1970s like EGP (The Army of the Poor) and ORPA who established even broader popular support especially among the Maya Indians. The poverty and misery that the US had imposed on Guatemala by overthrowing Arbenz continuously lead to more revolutionary discontent. Guatemalan planters began to set up sugar and cotton plantations, dispossessing peasants of their lands and transforming them into seasonal labourers who lived a miserable existence in shacks poisoned with pesticides. Both crops destroyed the future fertility of the soil in exchange for short-term profits for the planters while the real winners were huge American agribusinesses that sold them fertilizer.

The dirty war targeting unions, activists, and even church lay workers and priests made non-violent resistance more dangerous then armed resistance. It also fuelled a desire for revenge. In December of 1967 a former Miss Guatemala known for her left wing views, Rogelia Cruz Martinez was kidnapped raped, tortured, and murdered her body dumped in Guatemala City. On 16 January 1967, the guerrillas struck back machine gunning a truck carrying US military advisers, killing the head of the US military mission Colonel John D. Webber and Naval attaché Lieutenant Commander Ernest A. Munro. The attack was masterminded by the son of one, “The 28” Castillo Johnson, son of Castillo Flores. He also tossed a grenade at a military base before being gunned down. 

Interestingly “Strategy of Tension” architect Yves Guerin Serac was also serving as an adviser in Guatemala in the late 1960s. He was an ex-French paratrooper and OAS terrorist part of Operation Gladio (He ran the Portuguese branch Aginter Press). One definite and one possible “False Flag” attack took place in Guatemala although of course his presence could have been a coincidence.

He may merely have been training death squads or advising on counterinsurgency. His partner in crime and fellow GLADIO terrorist Stefano Delle Chiaie would also serve as adviser in Guatemala in the late 1970s and early 1980s while working for Argentine intelligence. In any case Guatemala did suffer a false flag attack. The military kidnapped right wing Archbishop Mario Casariego on 16 March1968 and tried to blame FAR guerrillas. He escaped and exposed the military role and Col. Arana Osorio was sent into “exile” as Ambassador to Nicaragua. In August of 1968 Ambassador Gordon Mein was killed during an attempted kidnapping by guerrillas.

Later a whistle-blower came forward implicating the military. Ambassador Mein had warned his superiors that he felt the military was plotting to kill him and the German ambassador Von Speti. The guerrillas did not deny involvement but they may have been tipped off to Mein’s location by the military. Von Speti was later kidnapped on 31 March 1970 and then killed when the government refused to negotiate. The Mein kidnapping served to justify an increase in US aid and a wave of death squad killings in the city soon followed.

On 1 March 1970, Col Arana Osorio was elected president because no opposition candidate who had a popular following was allowed to run and in the countryside military commissioners threatened to burn villages that did not vote for the MLN. He was inaugurated in July 1970 and a wave of death squad killings swept the capital. He expanded the dirty war throughout the country. Torture and murder were rampant. In 1973 he picked as his successor his defense minister Kjell Laugerud another veteran of the Zacapa campaign. His opponent General Rios Montt won the 1974 election but Laugerud stole the election. Rios Montt was forced to go into exile in Spain as a military attaché when he complained. Laugerud’s specialty was the civic action side of counterinsurgency the winning of hearts and minds. Thus he initially pretended to support the labour and cooperatives groups during the 1974 election and early in his term. In reality it was a sinister ploy to find out who the leaders were so they could be eliminated. While publicly supporting cooperatives the Laugerud regime murdered hundreds of their leaders at the same time. There was a slight decrease in the number of killings in Laugerud’s first two years in office at the same time the power of unions and social movements began to grow. Laugerud was forced to drop his tolerant facade and the number of killings began to rise. This coincided with the catastrophic earthquake of 1976, dubbed an A-class quake, as the rich emerged unscathed while 22,000 poor people died, 77,000 were injured and hundreds of thousands homeless were made homeless. The poor lived in fragile shantytowns that had been built on what little unoccupied land they could find in Guatemala city which was ever expanding as people were forced to flee the war in the countryside or driven to the city by the ever unfolding economic catastrophe. Laugerud responded to the natural disaster by unleashing the death squads while the people were increasingly radicalized and demanding action to provide food and housing. Foreign NGO’s and missionaries descended on the country like vultures in the wake of the disaster. An evangelical cult, the Church of the Word based in Eureka, California arrived and in 1978 future president Rios Montt joined their church. American Evangelical Christians would later play a key role in the dirty war. They were invited into war zones to convert the refugees from the massacres as a way to combat liberation theology. 

Another dangerous legacy of the Laugerud years was the increasing alliance between fascist Guatemala and Israel. Laugerud had first visited Israel back in 1971. In 1974 upon coming to power he sent a delegation of military men to ask for counterinsurgency assistance. Soon Israel was sending weapons, mercenaries, and advisers to Guatemala and they would help design the plan for the coming genocide, help set up model villages turning them into cash crop exporters employing slave labour. Israel’s security assistance often operated under cover of its agricultural and development advisers and of course Counterinsurgency and development are always deeply entwined. Israel would update the Guatemalan intelligence computers in the 1970’s teaching the Guatemalans new tricks like monitoring utilities consumption to discover guerrilla safe houses. Israel provided planes, and guns and the Israeli Galil and Uzi became the standard weapon of the Guatemalan forces. Over half the victims of the genocide of 1981-1983 were killed with Israeli weapons. This relationship became even more important in 1977 when the Carter Administration announced it would begin enforcing the Foreign Assistance Act of 1974, which meant that countries human rights records had to be assessed if they received US military assistance. Guatemala, El Salvador and other countries defiantly renounced aid rather then risk criticism of their horrifying human rights record. The Pentagon however used accounting tricks to continue to supply Guatemala in the Carter years, a fact hidden from Congress. Israel however was left with a leading role in Guatemala and a major role in El Salvador, Panama, and Colombia (training death squads and terrorists for drug cartels) and other Latin American countries.

In 1978 Laugerud handed power via a fixed election to yet another member of the Zacapa group his defense minister General Romeo Lucas Garcia. On 29 October 1978, the Panzos Massacre occurred in which 78 peasants protesting for land rights and demanding an end to the killings by the military were massacred and 25 survivors were also machine gunned by helicopters as they fled. 6 Survivors managed to make it to Guatemala City winning the support of the PGT, unions and activists leading to massive demonstrations in support. President Lucas Garcia would ruthlessly set about eliminating even the moderate opposition death squad killings skyrocketed. His brother General Benedicto Lucas Garcia would oversee the start of the genocidal extermination campaign launched against the Maya Indians in the highlands. In 1979 the American Security Council sent General John Singlaub (CIA/Special forces) and Daniel O. Graham former head of the DIA to Guatemala with a secret message from candidate Reagan that he would resume military aid to Guatemala. Wealthy Guatemalans funnelled illegal campaign funds that helped get Reagan elected along with a series of machinations including the October Surprise by the CIA and ex-CIA loyal to former DCI and future President George H.W. Bush. Reagan was unable to overcome congressional opposition to a massive increase in military aid until 1985. However the Reagan Administration did find loopholes and technicalities allowing them to send weapons and advisers. More importantly his administration was willing to constantly conceal what was happening in Guatemala. US moral support meant Guatemala was free to carry out the genocide that began in fall of 1981 and continued into 1983.

The Reagan administration backed the coup in 1982 that would overthrow Lucas Garcia and install Rios Montt, the evangelical Christian. That made Montt very popular with Reagan’s Christian Right supporters, like Pat Robertson. They also provided a loophole to provide aid to fascist Guatemala. Food and medical supplies were donated by the Christian Right and transported free by the US military. It was part of a little known program that existed worldwide thanks to a law that had the military provide free transportation and logistical support for Christian right-wingNGOs. It was one of many ways that the Christian right had made itself part of global counterinsurgency war the US was waging on the planet. The food along with UN food aid was then used as a weapon of war in Rios Montt’s “Beans or Bullets” campaign. Indians who surrendered to the military were fed living in virtual slavery, doing forced labour building roads so the military could massacre more villages and in constant danger of being tortured and killed. Every other Indian was to be killed. Televangelist Pat Robertson organized the massive project Love Lift, which raised millions for food “aid” to be used in this campaign of slavery and genocide. They were also encouraged to send missionaries to the war zone many Indians converted in hopes that they would be spared by the military and in exchange for food and medicine. Some missionaries actively participated in torture and acted as advisers in the dirty war.  Yet again Guatemala had been the laboratory of imperialism. Back in the 1930s Ubico had welcomed SIL the Summer Institute of Linguistics to Guatemala where they first tested their strategy of learning Indian languages so that they could create a bible in that language and convertthe Indians. SIL soon joined with Nelson Rockefeller and the CIA converting Indians and helping to control them as they were wiped out across Latin America. Ironically the SIL converts of the 1930s were also being wiped out in the 1970s and 1980s because they were Maya Indians. Now in the 1970s and 1980s, with the need to wipe out left wing Catholic activists, American style fundamentalist Christianity was heavily promoted in Guatemala as an alternative to any social reform. By 1992 over 30% of the country had become evangelical Christians.

The genocide of 1981-1983 followed three stages. First there was selective terror: the military and police would kill community leaders, lawyers, doctors, village elders, Maya spiritual leaders, Catholic priests and lay members, labour leaders and mayors. The goal was to destroy anytraditional social cohesion that could rival total military rule. In cities and Ladino areas things never moved beyond selective terror. 50,000 people were “disappeared” in Guatemala. Sometimes a victim would receive death threats for years before finally being disappeared.  They were arrested at home, at work or at checkpoints. Women were often raped in front of their families before being taken off to the secret prisons set up in churches, schools and on every military base and in every police station. The victims were often kept in the Guatemalan version of Vietnamese “Tiger Cages” holes were dug, filled with water and sewage and covered in a tin roof that trapped the heat often they were forced to share these holes with other prisoners. They spent the first day starving in the sweltering heat constantly struggling to keep from drowning. Then they were pulled out of the hole for hours of torture usually wearing hoods filled with insecticide or lime. They were beaten, burned with cigarettes, raped, electric shocked, suffered, dental torture, drowned, and were mutilated with knives. Then they were killed or thrown back in the holes. Most were eventually killed but some were released so they could spread the story of the fate awaiting subversives. The survivors were often physically and psychologically crippled for life reliving the horror every night in nightmares. The mutilated corpses of the executed were dropped in public places or on their families doorsteps often with notes attached describing in detail the torture they suffered. Others were simply shot as the Guatemalan military conducted tens of thousands of extrajudicial executions. Other killings were far more gruesome as the Guatemalan military loved to slice people up with machetes and “Kill them slowly” was one of their favourite mottos. They had a dark sense of humour some victims were crucified; others impaled and buried the way one would barbecue a cow. In Indian areas the military loved to stage murders that would desecrate Mayan shrines and Christian churches.

The second phase of the genocide was mass terror, which meant massacres: the phase when the genocide proper took place. Villages were bombed with napalm and then machine-gunned. Then the troops arrived surrounding the village with orders to kill anything that moved. Residents were shot, chopped to pieces with machetes, and burned alive in their homes, tortured, raped and killed. Crops, were destroyed, livestock killed, and wells poisoned. Often since the military knew it was dealing entirely with unarmed civilians they decided to take their time with the massacre and enjoy themselves. Upon arriving they would demand a cow to barbecue. They would separate the villagers into 3 groups men, women, and children. The children were killed first. The military seldom wanted to “waste bullets” so instead, they were picked up by their legs and had their brains bashed in, or had their heads bashed in with hammers or were thrown down wells. The rest of the village listened helplessly while they were slaughtered. Then the women were raped. Afterward they werehacked up with machetes. Finally the men were killed with machetes, beaten to death or shot. The massacre often lasted for two days and the soldiers would get drunk and feast on the barbecue it was all a big party. They stole anything of value in the village, another perk. Between 200,000 and 300,000 people were killed in Guatemala’s dirty war and the massacres exclusively targeted the Indians. Hundreds of villages were destroyed and between 500,000 and 1.5 million people were turned into refugees. 

The third phase of the genocide was the reorganization. Israel helped design this strategy so it bore a certain resemblance to the ethnic cleansing of Palestine. Once one Indian village had been massacred the neighbouring villages would flee. The military would then arrive to burn their crops and destroy their homes. Fleeing genocide was considered a sign of disloyalty. Survivors of massacres as well as those who fled from nearby massacres were hunted with helicopters and machine-gunned. Many were massacred as they tried to leave the country. Even once they had fled the country the military sent secret missions to kill refugees in refugee camps across the borders. Those who tried to relocate to other parts of Guatemala were targeted because of their Indian dress and often killed. Many were forced to live in the wilderness foraging for food. Eventually starvation would force them to surrender themselves to the military in exchange for food. They were promised amnesty but it was a lie. Once they surrendered they were screened and the military would torture and execute some of them as subversives as an example to the rest. Often people were eliminated because their land had been stolen after they fled. They would spend months under the total power of the military subjected to constant threats and indoctrination forced to conduct forced labour. They were completely at the mercy of the military for food, medicine or even blankets. Finally they would be resettled in model villages where they were subject to constant surveillance and exploited to grow cash crops for wealthy planters.

In addition to model villages the military created civilian defense patrols called PAC. This was the most sinister aspect of the reorganization phase. Every Indian male between 15 and 60 had to serve in PACs patrolling the countryside and villages for signs of the Guerrillas and recording the movements of every peasant. Villages either agreed to join the PAC or were massacred. Once in the PAC they were ordered to carry out their own genocide. The military might order them to execute village elders or even their own families and they were forced to kill their victims slowly with machetes. Other times PAC were ordered to massacre nearby villages. PAC members who disobeyed orders were tortured or killed. PAC members that failed to round up subversives could be tortured or killed. Often as punishment they were put in the same water filled holes used to soften up torture victims. The PAC system would be in place until the peace deal in 1996, keeping the survivors of the genocide under total military control. Today those who lost family at the hands of the PAC are forced to live side by side with the killers. The system of model villages and PACs had some scandalous side effects as the cash crops grown came to include opium poppies and marijuana fields guarded by armed PACs. Of course the intertwining of the dirty war and the drug trade had begun long before and would grow far worse. In future torturers and mass murderers in the police and military joined the drug cartels. G2 Guatemalan military intelligence was deeply involved in the drug trade as was the brother of Guatemala’s first civilian president since the 1960sVinicio Cerezo. 

Rios Montt lasted in power only for a year. The Reagan administration had hoped that by putting in Montt they could mount a PR campaign that would fool congress into restoring aid to Guatemala. Reagan personally met with Rios Montt and praised him in the Press. Montt cooperated by calling a halt to death squad killings in the capital but soon replaced them with a system of arbitrary military executions. One of the goals of the scorched earth campaign had been to completely eliminate anyone living along the Mexican border and so news of the genocide soon leaked to the world press. Montt had also angered the Reagan administration by refusing to revive CONDECA and turn it into an alliance targeting the Sandinista’s in Nicaragua. Montt’s efforts to convert Guatemala to evangelical Christianity angered the Church. Montt had already alienated the original coup backers by abolishing the junta with key MLN allies in it. The fascist MLN had been a key backer of Montt. The young officers who had launched the coup were immediately betrayed when he overruled their demand for elections and an end to military rule. Montt was able to placate the coup plotters for a couple months by firing his economic advisers, the “seven dwarfs” military technocrats, as well as his advisers from the Church of the Word. That was in June 1983, when an open letter from the ex-head of military intelligence had provoked a military uprising. In August 1983 the top military commanders met and decided Montt had to go. His replacement was his defense minister General Oscar Humberto Mejia Victores.

The new president continued the dirty war concentrating on the reorganization of the countryside and the violent suppression of dissent in the cities. He was yet another veteran of the Zacapa campaign and ruled like the many dictators who had preceded him. Since the 1960s death squads and disappearances had continued. Nonetheless the Reagan administration finally managed to restore military aid in 1985. However while the Guatemalan military had won the war the economy was on the verge of collapse and many countries refused to trade with the country because of it’s appalling human rights record. The Guatemalan military decided it was finally time to allow for another civilian president. The CIA and the State Department also wanted to restore civilian rule for PR purposes. On 14 January 1986, Christian Democrat Vinicio Cerezo was elected president thanks to behind the scenes support from the US. Cerezo had barely managed to survive the dirty war himself having survived multiple assassination attempts. However once in office he broke his promises of reform. The military remained the true power operating with total impunity and the number of death squad killings actually rose instead of falling under Cerezo in his first two years. However the slow process of restoring civilian rule and ending the dirty war had begun. In reality the dirty war never truly ended but was simply waged with lower intensity.

President Cerezo began the peace process contacting the URNG, the joint group combining the 4 guerrilla groups FAR, EGP, ORPA and PGT. They demanded the end of PACs death squads and a purge of war criminals in the army before they would negotiate. Cerezo demanded they completely disarm before negotiations could begin. In August of 1987 a national reconciliation commission was set up which included church figures active in exposing the horrendous war crimes and human rights violations in the country. In 1990 American Michael Devine was arrested by the military and had his throat cut with a machete. The killers were CIA assets.  The American Ambassador Thomas Stroock convinced his long-time friend President George H. W. Bush to suspend aid. Ambassador Stroock asked the CIA if they had any connection to the killing and they claiming they didn’t. In 1995 the truth would be exposed thanks to the valiant efforts of lawyer Jennifer Harbury who was married to guerrilla leader Efrain Bamaco who was “disappeared”. For years she lobbied and engaged in hunger strikes demanding answers.  Finally in 1995 the government was forced to admit that her husband and Michael Devine had been killed by the same group of military officers and that they were CIA assets. Two former CIA chiefs of station in Guatemala were fired 8 members of the operations directorate were disciplined. None of them went to jail. 

Back in 1990 Guatemala’s new President Jorge Serrano Elias (an evangelical) hired the PR firm Patton Boggs and Blow to control the damage. Eventually they got House Foreign Affairs committee chair for Latin America Robert G Torricelli, a Democrat, to meet with President Serrano who then sent him to meet with the URNG. When Bill Clinton was elected in 1992 Torricelli got the Clinton administration to back a peace deal in Guatemala. Having a communist guerrilla movement still fighting in Central America was a threat to US plans to create a Central American version of NAFTA called CAFTA that would allow American corporations to loot the region and exploit it’s people. The URNG made the mistake of trusting the Americans who created a peace deal which enshrined the capitalist order. Serrano was forced to resign after launching his self-coupfiring his cabinet and trying to seize sole power. He was replaced by President Ramiro De Leon Carpio as the peace process slowly went forward. Finally in 1996 newly elected President Alvaro Arzu fired 8 of 16 generals and then signed the peace deal on 29 December 1996. PACs were finally abolished but G2 and the Estado Mayor remained. As part of the peace deal the UN set up a truth commission to study the dirty war. Worried that the result would be a white wash the Church decided to create its own report released in April 1998. Two days after it was published, its main author Bishop Juan Jose Gerrardi Contrera had his head bashed in. In 1999 Clinton apologized for the US role in Guatemala. Clinton meanwhile had already unleashed a far worse bloodbath in Rwanda and the Congo that would claim 10 million lives. Less than oneyear later Rios Montt’s preferred candidate Alfonso Portillo Cabrera was elected in 2000 and the death squad killings began again. Rios Montt himself headed congress from 1996 through 2007. Neither he nor any other former Guatemalan dictator was tried for his crimes despite the terms of the peace deal, which had falsely promised justice for the victims.

Guatemala was never to know peace. During the same period 1986-1996 where the peace process was moving at torturously slow pace the destruction of the Soviet Union took place and the age of TINA began. TINA means “There is no alternative”. The forces of neo-liberalism and globalization unleash chaos across the world. World War 3 “the Cold War” had become World War 4 aka “the War on Drugs”, the “War on Terror”, “the Long War”, and now “The New Cold War.” Poverty, terrorism, crime and chaos were unleashed by the triumph of capitalism leading to constant social fragmentation. The solution has been endless war on the planet, total surveillance, militarized police, private mercenaries, ultra sophisticated psychological warfare that weaponizes pop culture. An endless war on terror or war on drugs is waged using the same tactics that had created bloodbaths in Vietnam, Indonesia, El Salvador and Guatemala. It is a phony war since the CIA controls the global drug trade and is secretly in control of the terror groups it pretends to hunt. Capitalism creates chaos and insecurity and increasingly its profits come from selling security in the form of weapons, mercenaries, security firms. “The haves” live in gated communities while the have-nots live in shantytowns that are often urban war zones. The same blueprint used in Guatemala: centralized intelligence, fusion centres, counter-terror assassination squads, militarized police, torture in secret prisons, and paramilitary death squads continues to be used in Iraq and Afghanistan. In fact many tactics of the Central American dirty wars are being used on the streets of the US today with activists kidnapped and fascist paramilitaries working in conjunction with police to crush protests.

It would require another article to do justice to the history of Guatemala in this new post cold war period. Guatemala became a poster child for what happens when a government follows the disastrous neoliberal advice of the Americans. The country opened itself up for tax-free foreign investment and was looted by foreign corporations. There was a massive expansion in the number of sweat shops where underage girls work 17 hour days, forbidden bathroom breaks, and earn $96 to $150 a month. They suffer systemic sexual abuse at the hands of their employers. 70% of Guatemalans work in the “informal sector” meaning they have no real jobs instead trying to survive by selling merchandise on the streets, carrying groceries, begging, dealing drugs, or selling their bodies.  The poverty and dirty war forces millions to flee the country. The US war on immigrants has exported American gang culture to Guatemala. Crime is rampant and many of the horrors of the dirty war continue. Vigilantes and gangs hack up or burn their victims alive. The torture, rape, and murder of poor women are rampant as is the murder of gays and transgender people. Of course it is equally dangerous to be a man or a boy. And the police and military are interchangeable with the higher levels of organized crime. G2 military intelligence in addition to trafficking drugs was caught running a kidnap ring. Indians are still being robbed of their land now in the name of mining and are being killed for resisting. On 5 October 2012, 7 people were killed in the Alaska massacre. Last month Indian journalist Anastasia Mejia Tiriquiz was arrested for exposing corruption. Union leaders are assassinated. In 2018 Guatemala was the country where the most environmental activists were killed in the region. 

Back in 2015 the US organized a colour revolution to overthrow President Otto Perez a former general who ironically was a US trained war criminal,having headed the notoriously brutal Kaibiles special forces during the dirty war. So much for civilian rule. Apparently despite his decade long ties to the Pentagon, CIA, and State Department, he was arrogantly refusing to follow orders and was toppled in an anti-corruption campaign masterminded by the future Colombian president Ivan Duque. He was replaced by Jimmy Morales, a staunch ally in Trump’s war on immigrants,who disbanded the anti-corruption agency. Now President Alejandro Giammatei has provoked an open revolt as he tried to slash health care and the zero hunger program that feeds poor children. An Angry mob burned down part of congress. Strangely though the left CODECA alliance of Indians and peasants are not part of these protests, which have more in common with the anti-corruption movement of 2015. The national police were able to crush the protests but Guatemala remains a powder keg. 60% of the country lives in poverty 60% of children go hungry and that was before Guatemala was hit by two hurricanes and the economic disaster brought by the COVID19 outbreak. Sadly Guatemala’s left was never able to recover from the dirty war or transform itself into a party capable of winning power. Unlike El Salvador or Nicaragua, Guatemala never joined the pink tide countries following the Venezuelan example. 

The struggle for Guatemala’s future continues. Guatemala might have known a very different future if the CIA had not overthrown Jacobo Arbenz destroying all hope of a better future. Instead Guatemala suffered a brutal dirty war that claimed 200,000 and possibly 300,000 lives with 50,000 people disappeared and 1.5 million people internally displaced. Their deaths were the inevitable result of the counterinsurgency strategy America continues to apply all over the world. Millions were kept in poverty to enrich a few. Chaos, misery and suffering were the inevitable result of the victory of capitalism in Guatemala, the victory of the American empire. 

Author’s note: With Special Thanks to Dr T. P. Wilkinson, J. Patrice McSherry and Isa Blumi

*

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.

Sources

Memory of Silence: The Guatemalan Truth Commission Report edited by Daniel Rothenberg exposes the dirty war and genocide in all it’s horror based on interviews with thousands of survivors.

The American Connection: State Terror and Popular Resistance in Guatemala by Michael McClintock provides an in depth account of the construction of the Guatemalan security system, the dirty war, and the social movements and revolutionaries who resisted.

The Last Colonial Massacre: Latin America in the Cold War by Greg Grandin provides a social history of Indian communities and activists in Alta Verapaz culminating in the 1978 Panzos massacre.

The Mayan in the Mall: Globalization, Development, and the Making of Modern Guatemala by J.T. Way is a history of Guatemala City up to 2012 showing how globalization and US backed development programs have transformed Guatemala into a neo-liberal nightmare of poverty, crime and chaos.

Israeli Foreign Policy: South Africa and Central America by Jane Hunter exposes Israel’s role in providing weapons, advisers, and technical assistance to El Salvador, Guatemala and the Contras as role as their role backing apartheid South Africa and it’s wars on Angola, Mozambique, and in support of apartheid Namibia in the 1970s and 1980s. 

Bitter Fruit: The Story of the American Coup in Guatemala (revised and expanded edition) by Stephen Schlesinger and Stephen Kinzer while focused on the 1954 coup also provides details on the dirty war and the peace process.

Powderburns: Cocaine, Contras & the Drug War by Celerino Castillo and Dave Harmon. A first person account by Celerino “Cele” Castillo of his career, which included being sent to Guatemala and El Salvador where he witnessed incredible brutality and corruption. He also conducted surveillance of the contra drug smuggling at Ilpongo airbase, destroying his career by trying to blow the whistle. 

Thy Will be Done The Conquest of the Amazon: Nelson Rockefeller and Evangelism in the Age of Oil by Gerard Colby with Charlotte Dennet. A masterpiece discussing the relationship between missionaries, the CIA, academia, and the corporations in 20th century Latin America, including the role of the Summer Institute of Linguistics in Guatemala and its role in genocide against Indians across the continent.

Spiritual Warfare: The Politics of the Christian Right by Sara Diamond a must read book on the Christian right in the US and it’s little discussed role in supporting US dirty wars around the world in Africa, Latin America, and the middle east the 1970’s and 1980’s including their massive support for genocidal evangelical convert Rios Montt who was praised and supported in millions in aid donations by Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell and others. 

Guatemala War and Revolution Part 1 http://anti-imperialist-u.blogspot.com/2020/10/guatemala-war-and-revolution-part-1.html

My Interview on Guatemala’s dirty war and genocide http://anti-imperialist-u.blogspot.com/2020/10/interview-guatemala-coup-dirty-war.html

El Salvador War and Revolution Part 1 http://anti-imperialist-u.blogspot.com/2019/10/el-salvador-war-and-revolution.html

Alternative views produced a shocking 2-part episode on Guatemala in the 1980s combining 2 short documentaries with interviews with a Mayan poet and genocide survivor and a Guatemalan professor living in exile in the US.

Part 1 https://youtu.be/LsuxXG4BL2M

Part 2 https://youtu.be/lHlgXiYFMKs

An article on Israel’s role in the Guatemalan genocide https://libya360.wordpress.com/2020/11/06/zionisms-bloody-history-in-guatemala/

An analysis of the recent protests that lead to the burning of Guatemala’s congress https://libya360.wordpress.com/2020/11/24/guatemala-why-do-social-protests-culminate-in-a-blind-spot/

More on the protests in Guatemala https://libya360.wordpress.com/2020/11/24/carlos-barrientos-there-is-rage-on-the-streets-of-guatemala/

Inequality and corruption in Guatemala https://libya360.wordpress.com/2020/11/20/guatemala-congressmen-torture-an-already-dying-people/

Why people are fleeing Guatemala https://libya360.wordpress.com/2019/12/26/families-fleeing-from-guatemala-a-case-of-corporate-and-state-aggression/

Guatemala’s Maya Indians face continuing repression including the recent arrest of community journalist Anastasia Mejia Tiriquiz https://libya360.wordpress.com/2020/10/06/eternal-abuse-of-the-original-peoples-in-guatemala/

On December 14, a live webinar was broadcast on the topic of “The National and Regional Impact of Parliamentary Elections in Venezuela.” It was organized by the Washington DC-based Council on Hemispheric Affairs (COHA). Along with electoral observers Dr. Margaret Flowers, and Danny Shaw, who had just returned from Venezuela, the main speaker was Venezuela expert Steve Ellner. He is Associate Managing Editor of the journal Latin American Perspectives, and a retired professor of the University of the East in Venezuela. 

During his informative presentation, Ellner called out Venezuelan opposition figure Enrique Ochoa Antich for writing recently “Are they [the victorious Chavista leaders] going to celebrate with thunder, drummers, trumpets and fireworks that ‘Pyrrhic victory’ (which, like those of the famous Greek general, only leaves a country more destroyed)?” Antich’s assessment fails to take into consideration the political and economic context of the December 6 elections. A non-stop hybrid war against Venezuela has been waged by the US, the European Union and the Lima group since (and even before) Juan Guaidó proclaimed himself “president” in January 2019. Their goal? The overthrow of the Maduro administration by any means necessary, to be replaced by the US surrogate Juan Guaidó and his US-funded shadow government.

However, not only did the strategy fail, but the Bolivarian government was able to organize the constitutionally mandated December 6 legislative elections right under the nose of the mighty Western nations and their Latin American allies. Indeed, the electoral process took place peacefully despite attempts at sabotage. Moreover, the Chavistas won over 70% of the vote and an overwhelming majority of seats in the new parliament. So where was the fraud? Even the newly-elected opposition deputies, who oppose Guaidó’s pro-US interventionist policy, agreed that the elections were legitimate.

So, how can the extremist Guaidó party deny the Chavista victory and instead claim a triumph? The only pretext was the relatively low voter turnout of 31%. However, as both Steve Ellner, in his presentation in the COHA webinar, and Leonardo Flores, in Common Dreams point out, a fair-minded perspective on the participation rate ought to take into account the economic war being waged against Venezuela, the pandemic, gasoline shortages, the opposition boycott by the hardline opposition, as well as historic participation rates both in Venezuela and in other countries that have recently held parliamentary elections. Given this context, the December 6 elections were a clear victory for the allied parties of the Great Patriotic Pole (GPP), led by the United Socialist Party of Venezuela (PSUV).

Trump-Guaidó’s “Pyrrhic Victory”

In any case, the most salient feature of the election results, aside from the Chavista popular vote, consisted of the splits and infighting within the different sections of the opposition that promoted a boycott of the elections. An outstanding feature was not the voter turnout, which was to a large extent expected given the adverse situation. While there had often been division in the past, this time the intramural opposition descended into backstabbing, which was plain for all the world to see while the international corporate media focused on the elections. One example of this dogfight venting its frustration in public was when opposition figure and two-time presidential candidate Henrique Capriles told the BBCthat Guaidó and his Voluntad Popular party are “finished, closed, done.”

When the Trump-backed Guaidó faction declared “victory” because of the low voter turnout, it is reminiscent of the “Pyrrhic victory” cited above by opposition figure Ochoa Antich as having left behind “a country more destroyed.” However, the “country” here is not Chavismo or Venezuela, but rather the land that exists in the imagination of the extremist opposition. If ever the term Pyrrhic victory were to apply, it would be to this hara-kiri in motion. On December 6, the “Greek general,” that is Trump, his Venezuelan acolytes, and European and right-wing Latin American allies left behind nothing but their own political destruction . On the other hand, both Chavismo and Maduro came out of the elections fighting and in better shape than before. The former US-dominated National Assembly is dead and buried, while the new one is opposed to US sanctions and interference. Not exactly a Pyrrhic victory for the Bolivarian Revolution, but rather a real one.

The Trump-Guaidó Achilles Heel in Venezuela

How did millions of humble Chavistas turn the table on their formidable enemy in the weeks leading up to December 6? In a February 2019 visit to Caracas, I attended a semi-private meeting with President Maduro. This experience resulted in the first of a series of articles striving to explain how the Bolivarian Revolution has managed to stave off the combined criminal sanctions and coup attempts. It has done so to maintain its sovereignty, while clearly advancing the social, cultural, educational, health and housing goals at the heart of the Bolivarian Revolution.

Both the economy and the food supply however, have been greatly affected by the US sanctions. There have also been issues with the way the government has handled runaway inflation, the precipitous drop in oil prices, and the shortcomings of a country highly dependent on the fossil fuel industry–a chronic problem that Chavismo hasn’t been able to resolve. With a renovated National Assembly in January, the government will need to urgently address these challenges in the face of both a blockade and a pandemic.

The theme of my first article stressed the “Trump-led Alliance’s Achilles Heel,” referring to the civil-military union that Maduro brought to life for us that day in Caracas. No matter how hard the Trump-Guaidó faction has tried, it has not been able to remove that thorny arrow from its heel. It is its Achilles heel.

Have things changed since our February 2019 meeting in Caracas? Yes, in many ways. First, membership in the militia, a voluntary force that is part of the Armed Forces, has increased substantially. Second, the political consciousness and patriotism inspired by the civil-military union, when confronting the combined forces of the criminal sanctions and the pandemic, has moved up another notch. All efforts by the US and its allies to provoke a mutiny in the ranks of the military and an uprising of the people have dismally failed.

In the weeks prior to voting day, the civil-military union contributed to the peaceful exercise of the right to vote, acting as that Achilles heel, and helping turn the December 6 elections into a Chavista victory. Meanwhile, those who hoped for a Trump-Guaidó victory only experienced a Pyrrhic one.

*

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 Council on Hemispheric Affairs.

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.

Featured image is from COHA

Charles Thépaut is a French diplomat and resident Visiting Fellow at The Washington Institute. He recently published a policy analysis concerning the US foreign policy on Syria.

While, much of his analysis demonstrates professionalism; he misses a very important point of view: that of the Syrian people living inside Syria, which amounts to about 10 million persons, or roughly 44 percent of the original 23 million before 2011.

Thepaut treats the Syrian crisis as if it was only between various governments, such as; the US, EU, Russia, Iran, and Turkey. Those various countries listed are indeed involved in the Syrian crisis, but the suffering and effect on the residents in Syria must be considered in any US foreign policy changes.

Thepaut writes,

“The first step in that direction is clear: using the momentum granted by the coming inauguration to signal Damascus, Moscow, and Tehran that their current strategy of trying to wait out the United States will not work,” while adding, “Ultimately, compromising with Russia is the only way to deliver a negotiated outcome in Syria.”

Political dialog with Russia is of utmost importance to find a solution for the Syria crisis, which is now at a stalemate. The battlefields are silent, the major cities and most highways are operating under normal conditions, and free of terrorist occupation. Idlib remains the last terrorist occupied province, with the Al Qaeda affiliate, HTS holding about 2 million persons as human hostages, while international aid agencies support the civilians, and the families of the Radical Islamic terrorists.

The upcoming Biden administration’s Syrian foreign policy is still unknown, and yet to be revealed.  We know that President-elect Joe Biden has asked Anthony Blinken to be Secretary of State, who as made comments concerning mistakes made in Syria during the Obama administration, and Blinken has stated that he cannot imagine a policy of reengaging with Bashar al-Assad.

The uprising which began in 2011, was not a grass-roots revolution. It was a US-NATO attack on the Syrian people for ‘regime change’.  When the US wants to remove a leader, they don’t always invade, such as the Bush war on the Iraqi people, to remove Saddam Hussein, they often choose to instigate chaos, and an armed struggle using locals acting as mercenaries for the US and/or NATO.

The fact that the Syrian people never fully supported the Free Syrian Army, who some called “Obama’s Army”, and the Syrian Arab Army never broke apart is clear proof the majority of the Syrian population did not support the US goal of ‘regime change’.  There was indeed a minor percentage of Syrian who were following the ideology of the Muslim Brotherhood, which is the dominant group among the US-EU recognized Syrian Opposition.

The US foreign policy on the Middle East is designed to meet the security goals of Israel. Syria and Israel are at war because Israel is militarily occupying the Golan Heights, in defiance and disregard of multiple UN resolutions.  Instead of causing the deaths of hundreds of thousands of unarmed Syrian civilians, the US could have negotiated with Israel to leave the Golan Heights. Syria has not attacked Israel, even in the face of missile attacks by Israel, which have become routine.

Syrian President Assad said in October that to hold Syrian-Israeli negotiations, it is imperative that Israel “restore all Syrian land” it is occupying.

Thepaut feels the “strategy employed against the Islamic State remains a good model for American military action in the Middle East. This may indicate a willingness to keep a small contingent on the ground to support local partners.”

However, he fails to acknowledge the Syrian and Russian military which largely contributed to the defeat of ISIS on Syrian soil.

The US military which is illegally occupying several Syrian bases is there to steal the Syrian oil resources, which was ordered by President Trump, and not fighting ISIS. This has prevented the Syrian government from refining their oil into gasoline and heating oil. This has left the Syrian people in constant shortages of heat and transportation. When Syria attempts to import oil for the needs of the population, often the ships carrying the lifeblood of basic services are prevented from arriving by the US.  Imagine the average Syrian sitting in freezing temperatures, not able to buy cooking gas to cook their food, and having to walk miles daily because their car, or the taxis, sit idle with empty tanks.

The war on ISIS in Syria is over. ISIS will always survive as an ideology of Radical Islam, akin to their brothers in Al Qaeda, and the Muslim Brotherhood. ISIS holds no territory in Syria, but may continue to carry out random acts of terror in Syria, and in the US and Europe as well. There is no military justification for any US occupation of Syria.

Thepaut writes, “economic sanctions targeting the Assad regime are likely here to stay.”

The US-EU sanctions on the Syrian government has not created any revolution, or ‘regime change’. The sanctions are preventing Syrians from acquiring: money from relatives abroad; chemotherapy drugs, and other foreign specialty medicines; gasoline; cooking gas; materials from the US or EU countries which would be used to repair and restore homes, hospitals, schools, and businesses which were damaged in the war. Because the Syrian power generators run on fuel, which is being stolen by the US military, the Syrian population is living with one and one-half hours of electricity in three increments per day. This is not enough time to freeze food at home, and the result is food poisoning. Thepaut rightfully acknowledges that international banks and companies are so afraid of the US-EU sanctions that they refuse to deal with humanitarian needs such as foods and medicines.

Thepaut writes,

“One prerequisite for breaking the diplomatic stalemate is acknowledging that the United States has neither the means nor the ambition to solve the Syria quandary on its own,”

However, the nation which caused the war, which flooded the battlefields with mercenaries and weapons, should be the one who solves the conflict. A withdrawal of US occupation forces and removal of the sanctions which hurt the Syrian civilian population should be among the first steps.

The” Small Group” consists of the UK, Egypt, France, Germany, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia. Thepaut advises that Biden should work diplomatically with that group. Citizens from each of those countries were present in Syria fighting as Radical Islamic terrorists, for ‘regime change’ to a state governed by Islamic Law. Saudi Arabia spent billions of dollars supporting the US-backed terrorists and is accused of supplying the sarin gas used in the 2013 East Ghouta attack. The “Small Group” should be part of the Astana process, along with Russia, Turkey, and Iran, which has never had a US member.

“The United States and the EU have long conditioned their funding of reconstruction projects on making visible progress in the political process,” wrote Thepaut.

The UN resolution 2254 has been the accepted framework of the Syrian government, which has consistently sent delegations to the meetings. The Syrian constitution reform committee has made progress. The US-EU sanctions which prevent Syrian reconstruction should be removed.

As the new year, 2021 is days away, Syria prepares for its Presidential election. The last in 2014 was observed by an international delegation of activists. The upcoming election will have a UN monitoring system. The US-EU sanctions should be lifted before the election, otherwise, voters will not be able to drive to the polls and vote.

*

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 Syria News

Peter Koenig is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization.

After seven years of tough negotiations, the European Union and China were close to signing an investment agreement. However, at the last moment, it hit a road block as it faced pressure from those wanting Washington’s involvement, or those wanting to impose Western Liberalism on China.

A strategic analysis document by the European Union in November 2019 claimed that China is “a systemic rival promoting alternative models of governance.” Josep Borrell, the head of the European Union’s diplomacy, called on Brussels to adopt in May 2020 a “more robust strategy” vis-à-vis Beijing. The investment agreement that was hoped to be reached between Brussels and Beijing seems to reflect this European ambition.

Launched in November 2013, negotiations accelerated in mid-December and was leading to the imminent conclusion of a compromise to mutually protect European investments in China and Chinese investment in the European Union. During a press briefing on December 18, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Wang Wenbin said “negotiations are in the final stage.”Significant progress was made during the ten negotiation sessions organized in 2020, and the European Commission seemed confident that an agreement could be reached.

“We are not quite there yet but it is definitely feasible that, if things move forward as they are moving now, that we can conclude still this year,” Valdis Dombrovskis, the vice-president of the European Commission in charge of the Economy, said to Bloomberg last week.

It is likely that if Beijing makes real concessions by opening its market to Europeans in the biotechnology, electric automotive and the medical sectors, Brussels would allow the presence of Chinese companies in the renewable energy market. The European Union’s objective is to ensure reciprocity as certain economic sectors must not become completely dependent on China.

While it was essential to speed up the timetable for talks in order to crown the end of the German presidency of the European Union, whose six-month mandate has only been marred by failure to protect European interests and servitude to Washington’s demands, it evokes just a purely symbolic text. The terms of the agreement remain vague as ratification by the European Parliament is unlikely because many European Members of Parliament continue a hostile policy against China due to its alleged human rights violations.

Some speculate that an agreement was never supposed to be reached but is rather an exercise to maintain dialogue between the two economic powerhouses. For the Chinese, their desire is to quickly conclude these negotiations, particularly during the American presidential transition period. However, despite this Chinese desire, certain European countries are resisting efforts to make an agreement with Beijing before the self-imposed deadline on December 31.

Unsurprisingly, Poland was the first European Union member to openly resist the “premature” investment deal with China.“Europe should seek a fair, mutually beneficial Comprehensive Agreement on Investment with China. We need more consultations and transparency bringing our transatlantic allies on board. A good, balanced deal is better than a premature one,” Polish Foreign Minister Zbigniew Rau tweeted on Tuesday. He effectively called for a European-Chinese deal to have Washington’s blessing and involvement by highlighting the necessity to have “transatlantic allies on board.”

Biden’s incoming national security adviser, Jake Sullivan, expressed his satisfaction that Poland wants to involve Washington in a European-Chinese trade deal, stating in a tweet that “The Biden-Harris administration would welcome early consultations with our European partners on our common concerns about China’s economic practices.”

The scepticism was not only reduced to Poland as France also joined the fray, albeit for different reasons. Franck Riester, France’s junior minister for trade, said to Le Monde: “We can’t facilitate investment in China if we don’t work to abolish forced labor.” He also admitted that trade deals should be used as a tool to “advance social issues” in China. In fact, it is this demand that trade deals be connected to domestic issues of a country that has resulted in France losing influence in Africa, while China, which makes no such demands in trade agreements, continues to advance on the continent as it does not interfere in the internal running’s of a country.

The French and Polish scepticism also has the support of Belgium, Luxembourg and the Netherlands, and many Members of the European Parliament, such as Germany’s Reinhard Bütikofer who challenged the trade deal by questioning whether Europe should “really help [Chinese President] Xi [Jinping] show Joe Biden the middle finger?”

What this demonstrates is that the European Union is stuck with a 20th century outlook for the 21st century.  Whereas Western Liberalism was protected and projected by Washington during the Cold War and the unipolar-era after the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, European leaders and lawmakers are unwilling to relinquish this antiquated thinking. Poland’s insistence that Washington be involved in negotiations between Europe and China demonstrates that many countries in the Old Continent lack the confidence to engage in the multipolar system as part of an independent European bloc. Although the French are attempting to make the European bloc independent, it faces tough resistance by those wanting Washington’s approval. However, France also limits itself by imposing Western Liberalism as a condition for trade negotiations, not only with China, but with most post-colonial countries.

It is unlikely that China and the European Union will reach an agreement by the self-imposed deadline of December 31. This is due to Europe’s own lack of confidence as a Great Power, insistence that they do not act independently by continuously wanting U.S. input, and the insistence of imposing Western Liberalism on a Far East country. If European strategic thinking could change, an agreement could rapidly be made, however, it is highly unlikely to occur by the end of the year.

*

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.

In this interview, Alena Peryshkina, Co-Chair of the BRICS Civil Forum, Director of the AIDS Infoshare Foundation, Co-Chair of the BRICS and G20 CSOs Working Group, discusses some aspects of multicultural dimensions, especially the need to institutionalize cultural ties and further points to developing a mechanism for evaluating and monitoring the implementation of NGOs recommendations under BRICS. Below are the excerpts of her interview.

***

Kester Kenn Klomegah: What aspects of cooperation strike you most during online roundtable discussions on “International Cultural Cooperation for Strengthening BRICS Unity” organized in Moscow?

Alena Peryshkina: It is really worth noting that the discussions on “International Cultural Cooperation for Strengthening BRICS Unity” were extremely interesting. Our roundtables covered a wide range of issues in the field of culture and the most fruitful dialogues were about institutionalization of cultural ties, development of people-to-people exchange through literature and art, and the most urgent issues in protection of the BRICS cultural heritage.

KKK: In your opinion from BRICS 2020 Chair’s position, how important could cultural cooperation strengthen unity among BRICS? Do you agree that there are diversities in culture among the group?

AP: Certainly, the cultures of the BRICS countries are very diverse and very different from one another. But our cultural ties are getting stronger, since they are based on the values that unite peoples, and therefore states. Cooperation in culture, sport, art, youth and tourism is a priority for the BRICS alliance. By developing and strengthening these ties between nations, we are building a language of communication based on mutual understanding, respect and support. The dialogue of our cultures, even the dialogue of the civilizations, if I may say so, is a symbol of our desire for harmony, trust and productive interaction.

KKK: Could you discuss some of the initiatives that were presented during the meeting? What were the reactions of your colleagues from Brazil, India, China and South Africa?

AP: The experts who participated in the meetings introduced many initiatives contributing to the institutionalization of cultural ties between the BRICS countries, such as creation of the «BRICS Non-Governmental Organizations Union (Association)», establishment of the joint Fund for Grant Support for Cultural Projects and Civil Initiatives or establishment of an organization for promoting joint projects in the audiovisual market, mass media, television and Internet, promoting exhibitions of cinematic and audiovisual content.

Obviously, such ambitious projects require elaboration and can be implemented in the medium or long term. Along with this, I also found very interesting initiatives that would contribute to the development of the culture of the BRICS countries right now, such as establishment of a general Register of cultural, architectural and landscape monuments of the BRICS member states and the inclusion of the given cultural heritage sites in the World Heritage List or establishment of the BRICS Literary Prize and organization of the BRICS Literary Forum with the participation of specialists and professionals of a wide range of knowledge from the five countries, including writers, thinkers, historians, sociologists, and philosophers.

I should note that all of the initiatives proposed by the Russian side were positively received by our BRICS partners. The proposals included in the recommendations to the BRICS leaders are the result of the consensus of all five countries – Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa.

KKK: What challenges are there in promoting civil society, youth and tourism exchanges as part of public diplomacy of BRICS? How did the roundtable meeting participants looked at these in practical terms?

AP: If we talk about the practical aspects in the implementation of programs and initiatives in the sphere of civil society, youth and tourism exchanges, then we are always talking about addressing three key issues: the support of governments, funding, and the capacity of implementing agencies. Where there are political will and administrative support, where the issues of co-financing are solved, where there are human potential and experience – there is guaranteed success.

KKK: What could be the best way to systematize and to combine efforts in implementing all these new initiatives and recommendations arrived at the BRICS Civil Forum? In you view, how best do you see the way forward for the Association of NGOs as part of BRICS?

AP: Indeed, the best way to consolidate the efforts of BRICS civil dialogue partners could be the creation of the BRICS NGOs Association to unite the organizations within the Alliance, acquire new opportunities for providing effective cooperation, organize and coordinate multilateral activities, create a unified base of BRICS NGOs. Similar to any institutional process, the creation of an association should be a step-by-step process. In my opinion, the first step should be the creation of a steering committee of the BRICS civil society forum. This committee would not only ensure the continuity of the agenda from presidency to presidency, but also develop a mechanism for evaluating and monitoring the implementation of NGOs recommendations to the BRICS leaders.

*

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 is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from the author