Global Research

Finally, a priest gives a sermon against the devilish new normal: Father Anthony Hannon is a Latin Rite Catholic priest incardinated with the Archdiocese of Ottawa, Canada. In a comment, after his A Great Spiritual Reset video, he writes:

“Wearing a mask under the pretense that it protects ourselves or others is a lie. It doesn’t do any of that. In fact it will more likely do physical harm to a mask wearer and possible psychological harm to some, especially children and those who have been abused.

“Some people say that wearing a face covering is a sign of love, if for no other reason than to calm the anxiety who are afraid of the virus that has a 99.7% recovery rate. Sorry, but you cannot separate truth and charity. Not real charity. Real, genuine love has nothing to do with lies.”

He goes on to encourage people not only to pray, but to act:

“The lock downs, forced quarantines, the closing of schools and businesses, and the destruction of the economy have caused more suffering and deaths than the 2019-2020 cold or flu, which is all that Covid 19 is, or ever was. The government measures are crimes against humanity.

“Everybody is being bullied and the fear is paralyzing individuals. It’s a hard pill to swallow, but the way to stop a bully is to stop acquiescing to the bully’s demands. Nobody is forcing anybody to wear a mask and stop seeing family and friends. We are doing it to ourselves, and we need to muster up the self respect and the courage to stand up to the bully.”

You can hear more of his brave words in his It’s Time to Get Honest video.

*

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

The World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) work hand in glove – smoothly. Not only are they regularly lending huge sums of money to horror regimes around the world, but they blackmail poor nations into accepting draconian conditions imposed by the west. In other words, the WB and the IMF are guilty of the most atrocious human rights abuses.

You couldn’t tell, when you read above the entrance of the World Bank the noble phrase, “Our Dream is World Free of Poverty”. To this hypocrisy I can only add, ”…And we make sure it will just remain a dream.” This says both, the lie and the criminal nature of the two International Financial Institutions, created under the Charter of the United Nations, but instigated by the United States.

The front of these institutions is brilliant. What meets the eye are investments in social infrastructure, in schools, health systems, basic needs like drinking water, sanitation – even environmental protection – over all “Poverty Alleviation”, i.e. A World Free of Poverty. But how fake this is today and was already in the 1970’s and 1980’s is astounding. Gradually people are opening their eyes to an abject reality, of exploitation and coercion and outright blackmail. And that, under the auspices of the United Nations. What does it tell you about the UN system? In what hands are the UN? – The world organization was created in San Francisco, California, on 24 October 1945, just after WWII, by 51 nations, committed to maintaining international peace and security, developing friendly relations among nations and promoting social progress, better living standards and human rights.

The UN replaced the League of Nations which was part of the Peace Agreement after WWI, the Treaty of Versailles. It became effective on 10 January 1920, was headquartered in Geneva Switzerland, with the purpose of disarmament, preventing war through collective security, settling disputes between countries, through negotiation diplomacy and improving global welfare. In hindsight it is easy to see that the entire UN system was set up as a hypocritical farce, making people believe that their mighty leaders only wanted peace. These mighty leaders were all westerners; the same that less than 20 years after the creation of the noble League of Nations, started World War II.

*

This little introduction provides the context for what was eventually to become the UN-backed outgrowth for global theft, for impoverishing nations, around the world, for exploitation of people, for human rights abuses and for shoveling huge amounts of assets from the bottom, from the people, to the oligarchy, the ever-smaller corporate elite – the so-called Bretton Woods Institutions.

In July 1944 more than 700 delegates of 44 Allied Nations (allied with the winners of WWII, including the Soviet Union) met at the Mount Washington Hotel, situated in Bretton Woods, New Hampshire, United States, to regulate the international monetary and financial order after WWII. Let’s be sure, this conference was carried out under the auspices of the United States, the self-declared winner of WWII, and from now on forward the master over the financial order of the world – which was not immediately visible, an agenda hidden in plain sight.

The IMF was officially created to ‘regulate’ the western, so-called convertible currencies, those that subscribed to apply the rules of the new gold standard, i.e. US$ 35 / Troy Ounce (about 31.1 grams). Note that the gold standard, although applicable equally to 44 allied nations was linked to the price of gold nominated in US dollars, not based on a basket of the value of the 44 national currencies. This already was enough reason to question the future system. And how it will play out. But nobody questioned the arrangement. Hard to believe though that of all these national economists, none dared question the treacherous nature of the gold-standard set-up.

The World Bank, or the Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD), was officially set up to administer the Marshall Plan for the Reconstruction of war-destroyed Europe. The Marshall Plan was a donation by the United Stated and was named for U.S. Secretary of State George Marshall, who proposed it in 1947. The plan gave $13.2 billion in foreign aid to European countries that had been devastated physically and economically by World War II. It was to be implemented from 1948 to 1952 which of course was much too short a time, and stretched into the early 1960s. In today’s terms the Marshall plan would be worth about 10 times more, or some US$ 135 billion.

The Marshall Plan was and still is a Revolving Fund, paid back by the countries in question, so that it could be relent. The Marshall Plan money was lent out multiple times and was therefore very effective. The European counterpart to the World Bank-administered Marshall Fund was a newly to be created bank set up under the German Ministry of Finance, The German Bank for Reconstruction and Development (KfW – German acronym for “Kreditanstalt für Wiederaufbau”).

KfW, as the World Bank’s European counterpart still exists and dedicates itself mostly to development projects in the Global South, now primarily with fuds from the German Government and borrowed from the German and European capital markets. KfW often cooperates on joint projects with the World Bank. Today there is still a special Department within KfW that deals exclusively with Marshall Plan Fund money. These still revolving funds are used for lending to poor southern regions in Europe, and also to prop up Eastern European economies, and they were used especially to integrate former East-Germany into today’s “Grand Germany”.

Two elements of the Marshall Plan are particularly striking and noteworthy. First, the reconstruction plan created a bind, a dependence between the US and Europe, the very Europe that was largely destroyed by the western allied forces, while basically WWII was largely won by the Soviet Union, the huge sacrifices of the USSR – with an estimated 25 to 30 million deaths. So, the Marshall Plan was also designed as a shield against communist Russia, i.e. the USSR.

While officially the Soviet Union was an ally of the western powers, US, UK, and France, in reality the communist USSR was an arch-enemy of the west, especially the United States. With the Marshall Plan money, the US bought Europe’s alliance, a dependence that has not ended to this day – and has, and still is preventing Europe of establishing normal relations with Russia, even though the Soviet Union has disappeared three decades ago. The ensuing Cold War after WWII against the USSR – also all based on flagrant lies, was direct testimony for another western propaganda farce – which to this day, most Europeans haven’t grasped yet.

Second, the US imposition of a US-dollar based reconstruction fund, was not only creating a European dollar dependence, but was also laying the ground work for a singular currency, eventually to invade Europe – what we know today, has become the Euro. The Euro is nothing but the foster child of the dollar, as it was created under the same image as the US-dollar – it is a fiat currency, backed by nothing. The United Europe, or now called the European Union – was never really a union. It was never a European idea, but put forward by US Secret Services in disguise of a few treacherous European honchos. And every attempt to create a United Europe, a European Federation, with a European Constitution, similar to the United States, was bitterly sabotaged by the US, mostly through the US mole in the EU, namely the UK.

The US didn’t want a strong Europe, both economically and possibly over time also militarily (pop. EU 450 million, vs US pop. 330 million; 2019 EU GDP US$ 20.3 trillion equivalent, vs US GDP US$ 21.4 trillion. Most economists would agree that a common currency for a loose group of countries has no future, is not sustainable. There is no common Constitution, thus no common objective, financially, economically and militarily. A common currency is not sustainable in the long run under these unstable circumstances. This is more than visible only 20 years into the Euro. The eurozone is a desperate mess. In comes the European Central Bank (ECB), also a creation inspired by the FED and the US Treasury. The ECB has really no Central Bank function. It is rather a watch dog. Because each EU member country has still her own Central Bank, though with a drastically reduced sovereignty which the eurozone countries conceded to the ECB, without receiving any equivalent rights.

Out of the currently 27 EU members, only 19 are part of the Euro-zone. Those countries not part of the Eurozone, i.e. Czech Republic, Denmark, Hungary, Sweden – and more, have preserved their sovereign financial policy and do not depend on the ECB. This means, had Greece opted out of the Eurozone when they were hit with the 2008 / 2009 manufactured “crisis”, Greece would now be well on her way to full recovery. They would not have been subject to the whims and dictate of the IMF, the infamous troika, European Commission (EC), ECB and IMF, but could have chosen to arrange their debt internally, as most debt was internal debt, no need to borrow from abroad.

In a 2015 bailout referendum, the Greek population voted overwhelmingly against the bailout, meaning against the new gigantic debt. However, the then Greek President Tsipras, went ahead as if the referendum had never taken place and approved the huge bailout despite almost 70% of the popular vote against it.

This is a clear indication of fraud, that no fair play was going on. Tsipras and / or his families may have been coerced to accept the bailout – or else. We may never know, the true reason why Tsipras sold his people, the wellbeing of the Greek people to the oligarchs behind the IMF and World Bank – and put them into abject misery, with the highest unemployment in Europe, rampant poverty and skyrocketing suicide rates.

Greece may serve as an example on how other EU countries may fare if they don’t “behave” – meaning adhere to the unwritten golden rules of obedience to the international money masters.

This is scary.

*

And now, in these times of covid, it is relatively easy. Poor countries, particularly in the Global South, already indebted by the plandemic, are increasing their foreign debt in order to provide their populations with basic needs. Or so they make you believe. Much of the debt accumulated by developing countries is domestic or internal debt, like the debt of the Global North. It doesn’t really need foreign lending institutions to wipe out local debt. Or have you seen one of the rich Global North countries borrowing from the IMF or the World Bank to master their debt? – Hardly.

So why would the Global South fall for it? Part corruption, part coercion, and partly direct blackmail. – Yes, blackmail, one of the international biggest crimes imaginable, being committed by the foremost international UN-chartered financial institutions, the WB and the IMF.

For example, the whole world is wondering how come that an invisible enemy, a corona virus hit all 193 UN member countries at once, so that Dr. Tedros, Director General of WHO, declares on 11 March a pandemic – no reason whatsoever since there were only 4,617 cases globally – but the planned result was a total worldwide lockdown on 16 March 2020. No exceptions. There were some countries who didn’t take it so seriously, like Brazil, Sweden, Belarus, some African countries, like Madagascar and Tanzania – developed their own rules and realized that wearing masks did more harm than good, and social distancing would destroy the social fabric of their cultures and future generations.

But the satanic deep dark state didn’t want anything to do with “independent” countries. They all had to follow the dictate from way above, from the Gates, Rockefellers, Soroses, et al elite, soon to be reinforced by Klaus Schwab, serving as the chief henchman of the World Economic Forum (WEF). Suddenly, you see in Brazil, a drastic surge in new “cases”, no questions asked, massive testing, no matter that the infamous PCR tests are worthless, according to most serious scientists – see “The COVID-19 RT-PCR Test: How to Mislead All Humanity. Using a “Test” To Lock Down Society” (by Pascal Sacré – 5 November 2020) (only sold and corrupted scientists, those paid by the national authorities, would still insist on the RT-PCR tests). Brazil’s Bolsonaro gets sick with the virus and the death count increases exponentially – as the Brazilian economy falls apart.

Coincidence? Hardly.

In comes the World Bank and / or the IMF, offering massive help mostly debt relief, either as grant or as low interest loans. But with massive strings attached: You must follow the rules laid out by WHO, you must follow the rules on massive testing on vaccination, when they become available, mandatary vaccination – if you conform to these and other country-specific rules, like letting western corporations tap your natural resources, continue privatizing your social infrastructure and services – you may receive, WB and IMF assistance.

Already in May 2020 the World Bank Group announced its emergency operations to fight COVID-19 had already reached 100 developing countries – home to 70% of the world’s population with lending of US$ 160 billion-plus. This means, by today, 6 months later and in the midst of the “Second Wave” the number of countries and the number of loans or “relief’ grants must have increased exponentially, having reached close to the 193 UN member countries. Which explains how all, literally all countries, even the most objecting African countries, like Madagascar and Tanzania, among the poorest of the poor, have succumbed to the coercion or blackmail of the infamous Bretton Woods Institutions.

These institutions have no quarrels in generating dollars, as the dollar is fiat money, not backed by any economy – but can be produced literally from hot air and lent to poor countries, either as debt or as grant. These countries, henceforth and for pressure of the international financial institutions will forever become dependent on the western masters of salvation.  Covid-19 is the perfect tool for the financial markets to shovel assets from the bottom to the top.

In order to maximize the concentration of the riches on top, maybe one or two or even three new covid waves may be necessary. That’s all planned, The WEF has already foreseen the coming scenarios, by its tyrannical book “Covid-19 – The Great Reset”. It’s all laid out. And our western intellectuals read it, analyze it, criticize it, but we do not shred it apart – we let it stand, and watch how the word moves in the Reset direction. And the plan is dutifully executed by the World Bank and the IMF – all under the guise of doing good for the world.

What’s different from the World Bank and IMF’s role before the covid plandemic? – Nothing. Just the cause for exploitation, indebtment, enslavement. When covid came along it became easy. Before then and up to the end of 2019, developing countries, mostly rich in natural resources of the kind the west covets, oil, gold, copper and other minerals, such as rare earths, would be approached by the WB, the IMF or both.

They could receive debt relief, so-called structural adjustment loans, no matter whether or not they really needed such debt. Today these loans come in all names, forms, shapes and colors, literally like color-revolutions, for instance, often as budget support operations – I simply call them blank checks – nobody controls what’s happening with the money. However, the countries have to restructure their economies, rationalizing their public services, privatizing water, education, health services, electricity, highways, railroads – and granting foreign concessions for the exploitation of natural resources.

Most of this fraud – fraud on “robbing” national resources, passes unseen by the public at large, but countries become increasingly dependent on the western paymasters – peoples’ and institutional sovereignty is gone. There is always a corrupter and a corruptee. Unfortunately, they are still omni-present in the Global South. Often, for a chunk of money, the countries are forced to vote with the US for or against certain UN resolutions which are of interest to the US. Here we go – the corrupt system of the UN.

And of course, when the two Bretton Woods organizations were created in 1944, the voting system decided is not one country, one vote as in theory it is in the UN, but the US has an absolute veto right in both organizations. Their voting rights are calculated in function of their capital contribution which derives from a complex formula, based on GDP and other economic indicators. In both institutions the US voting right and also veto right is about 17%. Both institutions have 189 member countries. None of these other countries have a voting right higher than 17%. The EU would have, but they were never allowed by the US to become a country or a Federation.

*

Covid has laid bare, if it wasn’t already before, how these “official” international, UN-chartered Bretton Woods financial institutions are fully integrated in the UN system – in which most of the countries still trust, maybe for lack of anything better.

Question, however: What is better, a hypocritical corrupt system that provides the “appearance”, or the abolition of a dystopian system and the courage to create a new one, under new democratic circumstances and with sovereign rights by each participating country?

*

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

This article was originally published on New Eastern Outlook.

Peter Koenig is an economist and geopolitical analyst. He is also a water resources and environmental specialist. He worked for over 30 years with the World Bank and the World Health Organization around the world in the fields of environment and water. He lectures at universities in the US, Europe and South America. He writes regularly for online journals such as Global Research; ICH; New Eastern Outlook (NEO) and more. He is the author of Implosion – An Economic Thriller about War, Environmental Destruction and Corporate Greed – fiction based on facts and on 30 years of World Bank experience around the globe.

Peter is also 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.

Credits to the owner of the featured image

There have been serious threats to the Islamic Republic of Iran and its allies in the aftermath of the contested presidential and congressional elections in the United States.

Inside the U.S., the incumbent administration of President Donald J. Trump has refused to concede electoral defeat in the November 3 elections where challenger and former Vice President Joe Biden and California Senator Kamala Harris won both the popular vote and the electoral college.

During this uncertain period there is a threat of the launching of yet another military assault on the peoples of West Asia and other geo-political regions of the world. Iran has been singled-out as purportedly conducting research which could lead to nuclear weapons capability.

What is not assertively emphasized by the Trump administration, President-elect Joe Biden, Congressional spokespersons and the corporate media is that the existing regime walked away from the negotiated agreement which was signed by several European states, the People’s Republic of China (PRC), the former President Barack Obama and the Iranian Foreign Ministry. With the suspension of participation in the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) by the Trump administration, Washington then enacted additional sanctions against Tehran. (See this)

In fact, more sanctions against Iran were announced on November 18 by the Trump White House which has sought to disenfranchise tens of millions of people within majority and near-majority municipalities and rural areas where African Americans and other oppressed peoples reside. What legitimacy does any government within an imperialist system have in relationship to threatening and waging military conflict directed towards other independent states? Sanctions are acts of war and the impact of such economic measures are illustrated clearly in Iran, Iraq, Syria, Cuba, Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Sudan and other geo-political regions of the world. (See this)

The administration has been discussing plans for the attempt at “regime change” in Iran. Such discussions should not be taken lightly since only earlier in the year during January, two leading military officials from Iran and Iraq, Maj. Gen. Qasem Suleimani and the leader of the Popular Mobilization Forces, Abu Mahdi a-Muhandis, were killed in Baghdad by a Pentagon targeted assassination. These military actions and the further boisterous propaganda against the Tehran are contributing to the escalation of tensions in West Asia, including Iraq, Yemen, Syria and Palestine.

These military threats are based upon falsehoods related to the role of Iran in the region and the existence of a resistance axis which extends from Palestine to South Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Yemen and Tehran. These anti-imperialist forces in West Asia are continuing to be on the frontlines against the aggressive policies of the State of Israel bolstered by Washington and its allies in the Gulf monarchies such as Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. These states recently signed “peace accords” with Tel Aviv while the Palestinian people remain imprisoned by the racist apartheid regime which is funded by Washington and Wall Street.

An article published by the Guardian newspaper on November 18 says:

“Fears that Donald Trump might try to wreak havoc on the world stage in his final, desperate, weeks in office appear to have been well-founded, after he reportedly asked for options on bombing Iran. A report in the New York Times said Trump was advised against strikes on Iranian nuclear sites by senior officials warning of the risk of triggering a major conflict. But it added that the president may not have entirely given up on the idea of staging attacks on Iran or its allies and proxies in the region.”

A military strike on Iran would prompt retaliatory responses from Tehran and its allies throughout the region. The attacks could lead to an extended war which would be inherited by the Biden-Harris “government in waiting.” An ill-advised military maneuver by the Trump administration will undoubtedly weaken the social fabric of the U.S. and its people. The country is facing the worst public health crisis in more than a century. Hospitals and the entire largely privatized healthcare system are being stretched to its structural limits. Schools have suspended in-person learning in many areas while millions of households among the working class and poor are ill-equipped with the proper infrastructure to participate effectively in online education.

Iran Vows to Resist Any Incursion by the U.S. and its Allies

During the evening hours of November 17 there were several news reports indicating that the Israeli Airforce had engaged in strikes inside Syrian territory. Some dispatches stated that the Israeli strikes were in the Golan Heights while others said Damascus repelled an attack. (See this)

The incumbent President Hassan Rouhani of Iran has taken a firm position on the necessity of the White House to shift its orientation towards Tehran. Rouhani is demanding respect towards his nation noting otherwise there will be no fundamental change in the character of relations.

A Press TV report said of the Iranian political leader that:

“President Hassan Rouhani says current developments indicate that the new U.S. administration would need to switch from a posture of threats against Iran to one of seeking opportunities with the country. Speaking at a cabinet meeting in Tehran on Wednesday, Rouhani said the incoming U.S. administration would return to a situation in which rules are respected. ‘With the situation that has been brought about, we will in the future be moving from an atmosphere of threats created by this rogue [U.S.] administration to one of opportunity,’ he said.”

Overall, the international community, including the oppressed, former colonial, semi-colonial, neo-colonial, socialist and non-capitalist governments are welcoming the potentialities associated with the departure of the Trump regime. Whether these aspirations will result in concrete reforms related to Washington’s foreign policy remains to be seen. The Democratic Party governments do not have a record of peace and recognition of the sovereignty of nations around the world. A brief cursory review of the histories of U.S. interventions during the post-World War II period in Korea, Vietnam, Dominican Republic, Grenada, Lebanon, Iraq, Haiti, Somalia, Libya, Syria, Yemen, Afghanistan, Panama, among a host of others territories subjected to sanctions, provocations, drone strikes, targeted executions, destabilization efforts and economic exploitation., illustrates clearly that the majority of people need to remain vigilant in their opposition to U.S. imperialist militarism.

The Role of the Antiwar and Peace Movements in the Imperialist States

Considering the transitional crisis in existence among the two leading bourgeois parties in the U.S., those who are in principled opposition to imperialist militarism must demand that the current war propaganda and sanctions tyranny levelled against Iran and other targeted states be halted immediately. There is a need for the drafting of an agenda which outlines the parameters of antiwar and anti-imperialist organizing related to the current lame duck administration as well as moving forward into a Biden-Harris configuration.

President-elect Joe Biden has been a proponent of imperialist wars which have proven disastrous for both the peoples of the U.S. and the around the globe. The proclivities towards intervention and occupations by the Democratic Party leadership, Cold War liberals and all apologists for the Pentagon, should be countered with concrete arguments and slogans that advance the interests of the working class and the oppressed, in alliance with the peoples within the international community.

Moreover, the large-scale presence of the Pentagon in far too numerous nations are not only a threat to global peace and security, it is a drain on the capacity of the peoples of the U.S. to address the enormous and burgeoning social problems stemming from the COVID-19 pandemic, astronomical unemployment, impoverishment, racial unrest and intensifying class struggle. The movement to acquire genuine democratic rights for the working class and oppressed in the U.S. can only benefit the political and economic aspirations of the proletariat and nationally oppressed worldwide.

*

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.

Credits to the owner of the featured image

---

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

Michel Chossudovsky

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

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

Year: 2015

Pages: 240 Pages

List Price: $22.95

Special Price: $15.00

Click here to order.

Dr. Roger Hodkinson, MA, MB, FRCPC, FCAP, CEO and medical director of Western Medical Assessments, spoke at the Edmonton City Council Community and Public Services Committee meeting on Nov. 13 about the city’s move to extend its face-covering bylaw. He was listed as speaker number 95 on the meeting agenda.

Hodkinson was trained at Cambridge University in the UK. He is ex-president of the pathology section of the Medical Association.

He was chairman of the Examination Committee on Pathology, Royal College of Physicians of Canada, Ottawa, Canada.

Here’s a recording of Hodkinson’s testimony:

Here’s the transcript of Hodkinson’s testimony:

This is Dr. Hodkinson, I just wanted to let you know I’m standing by.

OK, well we would love to hear from you, the floor is yours.

Thank you very much. I do appreciate the opportunity to address you on this very important matter. What I’m going to say is lay language, and blunt. It is counter-narrative, and so you don’t immediately think I’m a quack, I’m going to briefly outline my credentials so that you can understand where I’m coming from in terms of knowledge base in all of this.

I’m a medical specialist in pathology which includes virology. I trained at Cambridge University in the UK. I’m the ex-president of the pathology section of the Medical Association. I was previously an assistant professor in the Faculty of Medicine doing a lot of teaching. I was the chairman of the RCPC Examination Committee on Pathology in Ottawa, but more to the point I’m currently the chairman of a biotechnology company in North Carolina selling the COVID-19 test.

And [inaudible] you might say I know a little bit about all of this. The bottom line is simply this: There is utterly unfounded public hysteria driven by the media and politicians. It’s outrageous. This is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on an unsuspecting public. There is absolutely nothing that can be done to contain this virus. Other than protecting older, more vulnerable people. It should be thought of as nothing more than a bad flu season. This is not Ebola. It’s not SARS. It’s politics playing medicine and that’s a very dangerous game.

There is no action of any kind needed other than what happened last year when we felt unwell. We stayed home, we took chicken noodle soup, we didn’t visit granny and we decided when we would return to work. We didn’t need anyone to tell us.

Masks are utterly useless. There is no evidence base for their effectiveness whatsoever. Paper masks and fabric masks are simply virtue-signaling. They’re not even worn effectively most of the time. It’s utterly ridiculous. Seeing these unfortunate, uneducated people — I’m not saying that in a pejorative sense — seeing these people walking around like lemmings, obeying without any knowledge base, to put the mask on their face.

Social distancing is also useless because COVID is spread by aerosols which travel 30 meters or so before landing. Enclosures have had such terrible unintended consequences. Everywhere should be opened tomorrow as well as was stated in the Great Barrington Declaration that I circulated prior to this meeting.

And a word on testing: I do want to emphasize that I’m in the business of testing for COVID. I do want to emphasize that positive test results do not, underlined in neon, mean a clinical infection. It’s simply driving public hysteria and all testing should stop. Unless you’re presenting to the hospital with some respiratory problem.

All that should be done is to protect the vulnerable and to give them all in the nursing homes that are under your control, give them all 3,000 to 5,000 international units of vitamin D every day which has been shown to radically reduce the likelihood of Infection.

And I would remind you all that using the province’s own statistics, the risk of death under 65 in this province is one in 300,000. One in 300,000. You’ve got to get a grip on this.

The scale of the response that you are undertaking with no evidence for it is utterly ridiculous given the consequences of acting in a way that you’re proposing. All kinds of suicides, business closures, funerals, weddings etc. It’s simply outrageous! It’s just another bad flu and you’ve got to get your minds around that.

Let people make their own decisions. You should be totally out of the business of medicine. You’re being led down the garden path by the chief medical officer of health for this province. I am absolutely outraged that this has reached this level. It should all stop tomorrow.

Thank you very much.

*

GR Editor’s Note: (Correction, error in transcription). Dr. Hodkinson was chairman of the RCPC Examination Committee on Pathology in Ottawa,

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 Shutterstock

I have a crazy idea that I can’t get out of my head, that we Americans are heading for something like an Armageddon in the next several months no matter how the currently electoral imbroglio is resolved. My greatest concern is that I fear that Trump is going to attack Iran, either through some kind of false flag contrivance or through direct aggression. The stage has already been set for military action through the unrelenting hostility towards the Islamic Republic over the past four years combined with an economic war waged against the country’s economy and the deliberately provocative assassination of an Iranian leader, General Qassim Soleimani in January. In truth, it would not require much to start a shooting war, just an errant patrol boat creeping into Iranian coastal waters and opening fire when challenged by a Revolutionary Guards speedboat. A couple of Iranians die, maybe also an American or two and you will have a war.

Speculation that something might be coming derives in part from how several top level Pentagon personnel changes have occurred at a time that makes no sense for a lame duck administration or even for an administration that thinks it will reverse the electoral results. The “termination” and replacement of Mark Esper as Secretary of Defense has been explained as being due to his resistance to orders by the president to carry out a troop withdrawal from Afghanistan, but as such a withdrawal would hardly even be started by January, it doesn’t seem to make sense to make the change in the command structure right now. Indeed, having new leadership would only slow down the process, even though new acting Secretary of Defense Chris Miller has reportedly issued a memo last Friday saying “All wars must end” and there has been an announcement of troop reductions in both Afghanistan and Iraq before January, though we shall see how that actually develops. The arrival of anti-interventionist Colonel Douglas Macgregor at the Pentagon as Senior Advisor to the Acting Secretary of Defense is also supportive of the view that a major withdrawal of U.S. forces is impending.

It is also plausible that Esper was fired due to his resistance to using soldiers to put down rioters in the event of civil unrest between now and January, but that too lacks credibility as such a move would certainly be opposed by entire Joint Chiefs of Staff who would not cooperate. Yet another explanation is that the termination was due to Esper’s reported resistance to releasing classified files relating to Russiagate, which Donald Trump might be seeing as a final exposure of the national security conspiracy that sought to destroy his administration.

Be that as it may, in addition to Esper, the Pentagon’s acting chief of planning James Anderson was also forced to resign. Anderson was replaced by hard-liner Anthony Tata, who is believed to be fiercely loyal to the president and has supported some “deep state” conspiracy theories about the Obamas. The changes at the top in the Defense Department have also triggered resignations of other senior staff including retired Vice Adm. Joseph Kernan, who was undersecretary of defense for intelligence and security. Kernan was replaced by Ezra Cohen-Watnick, a friend of presidential son-in-law Jared Kushner. There reportedly continues to be some concern among other top managers that a witch hunt is in progress.

The cleaning house at the Pentagon as well as persistent rumors that it will soon be followed by firings at the Attorney General’s office, the FBI and the CIA make little sense at this point in the electoral cycle, whether or not one believes that the election results in the U.S. will be reversed. But taken together, they might give Trump a free hand to do whatever he wants in the next two months, to include possibly using some elements in the national security apparatus to intervene directly in the counting and transition processes. They signal to me that an angry Trump just might be preparing something really vindictive and also incredibly stupid in terms of national interests.

President Donald Trump clearly has a visceral hatred for Iran. It has been reported that as recently as last week he asked senior advisers whether he ought to attack Iran’s main nuclear site at Natanz. The meeting reportedly came shortly after international inspectors observed what appeared to be a significant increase in the Iranian stockpile of nuclear material. The advisers convinced the president that a military strike might quickly escalate and would not be in U.S. interests, however.

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has also already served notice on the centrality of Iran in White House thinking. A recent New York Times report regarding the assassination of an alleged al-Qaeda leader in Tehran that is sourced to unnamed “intelligence officials” is intended to suggest that the Iranian government is working with the terrorist group, which is not the case. Pompeo’s State Department also has announced that the U.S. is going to continue to increase sanctions on Iran as well as on Syria. Analysts believe the intention is to create such an all-encompassing network of sanctions that they will not easily be undone, so no one in the future can mend fences with Iran by seeking to restore anything like the nuclear program inspections established by the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). The move is clearly intended to prevent Joe Biden, if he should become president, from trying to reverse Trump administration policies towards the Islamic Republic.

There are other indications that the Trump White House is moving ahead with measures to put even more pressure on Iran. Elliot Abrams, who is in charge of Iran policy as Special Envoy, has just been in Israel on a visit to discuss how the Trump administration, in coordination with Israel and several Gulf states, will impose the new sanctions on Iran in the remaining weeks left before inauguration day, just in case Biden’s election is confirmed. And Mike Pompeo has also stopped in Israel for a visit and talk with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

Those trips come oddly at a time when you would think the two administration loyalists would be needed in Washington. Israel is, of course, lurking in the shadows on anything having to do with U.S. policy towards Iran. Israel manages the current White House through multi-billionaire donor Sheldon Adelson and the Israelis, though confident of their ability to direct Joe Biden just as they controlled Barack Obama, are also warning the incoming president that if he seeks to restore the nuclear inspection agreement Israel will have to “take steps” and there will be warwith Iran.

In an admittedly more alarming report suggesting that Israel will be able to take control of whoever is in charge in Washington, “Shimrit Meir, an Israeli analyst and commentator, told JI [Jewish Insider] that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu would likely ‘save the option’ of having the Republicans in control ‘for a desperate time — a looming agreement with Iran that doesn’t address [Israeli] concerns, for example.’ A Republican Senate will have an ability to ‘apply unique pressure on a Biden administration’s foreign policy,’ suggested Richard Goldberg, senior advisor at the [neocon] Foundation for Defense of Democracies.”

Just exactly who would be doing the fighting and dying in any event is not exactly clear, but as Israel’s government and its U.S. lobby own the Democratic Party, Biden is not likely to be so bold as to bite the hand that feeds him and he will forego taking the risk of initiating any rapprochement with the Iranians.

In addition to doing yet another favor for Israel, a little, hopefully containable, war could also be beneficial in other ways. If it is hyped enough by an acquiescent media, it could possibly generate something like a state of emergency declaration prolonging what we are going through right now and the inauguration of Biden will just have to wait. Are Trump and Pompeo capable of that? Maybe.

Is all of that just too outlandish to consider? And what can be done to stop it? I would observe that I am not the only one whose danger antennae went up when the top Pentagon officials were ousted so soon after the election. Even the Israeli press is speculating that an attack might be coming and Mondoweiss has a compelling piece entitled “An unhinged Trump could still unleash violence against Iran but the U.S. media downplay the danger.” The article cites a New York Times piece discussing the Pentagon firings which includes buried in the text “. . . Defense Department officials have privately expressed worries that the president might initiate operations, whether overt or secret, against Iran or other adversaries in his waning days in office.”

The Times followed up with another article on the Pentagon changes on November 11^th, which began with “A purge of the senior civilians at the Pentagon and the ascension of a similar hard-line policy official to a top job at the National Security Agency have prompted concerns that the Trump administration may be planning new punishments for Iran…” Given that the generally tone-deaf newspaper of record just might have a reliable source could suggest that the rest of us should also take note. One would like to know who those unnamed Defense Department officials were and one might ask “What do they know that we the public should know?”

Some might argue that even for the Trump administration an unprovoked attack on a foreign country just days before a transition in government here at home would be a bridge too far. But that assessment is somewhat naïve. United States governments, both Democratic and Republican, have been doing the unspeakable and unjustifiable for some time now. Let’s hope that instead of a new armed conflict Donald Trump has the vision and fortitude to deliver on what he promised to do four years ago. Let’s end the wars and bring the troops home.

*

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 by Sabaaneh/MiddleEastMonitor

---

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

Michel Chossudovsky

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

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

Year: 2015

Pages: 240 Pages

List Price: $22.95

Special Price: $15.00

Click here to order.

Genocide in Congo and militarization of the African continent are Susan Rice’s specialties, but Black Democrats see her as a “role model.”

“Rice cultivated relations with every pro-U.S. warlord in Africa.”

No one in high levels of U.S. government has been more intimately complicit in the death of more than six million Africans in the Democratic Republic of Congo than Susan Rice, the bloodstained Democratic Party political operative who is actively seeking the job of secretary of state in the incoming Biden administration. If recent history is a guide, we can expect the entirety of the Black Democratic establishment to support this uber-criminal’s elevation as a fitting reward to Black voters for putting Joe Biden in the White House – thus implicating all of Black America in the largest genocide since World War Two.

Rice is a protégé of former secretary of state Madelaine Albright, who in 1996 infamously described the sanctions-induced death of half a million Iraqi children as “worth it ” to punish the Saddam Hussein regime. But Rice has bested her mass murderous mentor in total career body count. As President Bill Clinton’s national security advisor (1993 to 1997), senior director for African Affairs (1995 to 1997) and Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs (1997 to 2001), Rice was the point person in Washington’s massive coverup of the invasion, pillage and depopulation of Congo by the armies of U.S. client states Rwanda and Uganda. In service to the Obama administration (ambassador to the United Nations, 2009-2013, national security advisor, 2013-2017), Rice smothered a United Nations Mapping Report  that documented Rwandan and Ugandan crimes against Congo, including potentially genocidal offenses, and protected Uganda from the International Court of Justice’s award of $10 billion in damages  to the Democratic Republic Congo.

“Rice was the point person in Washington’s massive coverup of the invasion, pillage and depopulation of Congo.”

When the United Nation’s highest court issued its verdict in 2005, the death toll in Congo was estimated at 3 million. By 2010, with Ambassador Susan Rice at the United Nations, the uninterrupted genocide had claimed six million  lives, while the looting of Congo’s vast mineral resources financed the rise of a gleaming skyline over Kigali, the capital of Rwanda, a nation that has no significant mineral deposits. Multinational corporations are the biggest beneficiaries of the ”blood” minerals; it is these conglomerates whose interests Susan Rice protects.

Today, Congolese speak of eight million dead, but nobody in the Congressional Black Caucus is listening. Half of the Black Caucus voted against a measure that would have halted President Obama’s bombing of Libya , in the summer of 2011. Obama claimed that the Euro-American air war in support of mainly jihadist opponents of Muammar Gaddafi’s secular government was not subject to the War Powers Act, because no Americans had died – a totally novel definition of war in which only American bodies matter. Rice was then ambassador to the United Nations, where she successfully pressed for a “no fly zone” as a cover for NATO’s war against Libya. “This resolution should send a strong message to Colonel Qadhafi and his regime that the violence must stop, the killing must stop and the people of Libya must be protected and have the opportunity to express themselves freely,” Rice told reporters . But the bulk of violence was committed by U.S.-backed “rebels” against Black Libyans and south Saharans working in the country. Tawergha , a Black Libyan town of almost 50,000 people, was utterly destroyed, its inhabitants killed, imprisoned or scattered – with not a peep of complaint from the Black American woman at the UN or the First Black President of the United States. The branded faces  of Black migrant workers sold into slave markets are Rice and Obama’s Libyan legacy.

“Rice successfully pressed for a ‘no fly zone’ as a cover for NATO’s war against Libya.”

The unprovoked war against Libya, which removed a bulwark of African independent economic and political development, was heralded as AFRICOM’s “first major combat operation  on the African continent.” There would be many more, as a Black U.S. administration methodically occupied the continent, from the Atlantic to the Indian oceans.

Rice cultivated relations with every pro-U.S. warlord in Africa. She was especially close  to Meles Zenawi, the deceased former leader of the dictatorial Ethiopian regime that invaded Somalia with the full support of U.S. air, ground and sea power in December of 2006, ousting a moderate Islamic Courts government that had brought a brief period of peace to the country. The Somali war, now effectively run by the CIA, has engulfed the Horn of Africa – another bloody feather in Susan Rice’s cap.

When Rice was a candidate for secretary of state under President Obama in 2012, the entirety of the Black Misleadership Class circled their wagons around her, to counter Republican claims that Rice was to blame for the killing of the U.S. ambassador to Libya by U.S.-backed jihadists. Ignoring Rice’s and Obama’s crimes against Africans, Black American politicos rallied to Rice’s defense  as a “a role model to all women” who “represents a rich and important legacy of strong women leaders in foreign policy.” Twelve female members of the Congressional Black Caucus, including anti-war icon Barbara Lee, offered Rice their sisterly support. “We will not allow a brilliant public servant’s record to be mugged to cut off her consideration to be secretary of state,” said DC congressional delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton.

“The Black Misleadership Class circled their wagons around her.”

None of Rice’s Black boosters gave a thought to her culpability in the ongoing terror in the Democratic Republic of Congo, where a 2011 study  estimated that “nearly two million women have been raped…with women victimized at a rate of nearly one every minute.” (See Black Agenda Report, “The Shameless Vacuity of Susan Rice’s Boosters,” Dec 5, 2012.)

Rice’s bid for the top State Department job was frustrated in 2012, but she’s once again shamelessly campaigning for the office, reportedly with the backing of Obama . The Black Misleadership Class – eternally full of themselves – puts forth the worst possible image of Black America to the rest of the world, with not a iota of embarrassment. Having “arrived” at positions of influence in the belly of the beast, they strut about like any other variety of “ugly Americans” who want nothing more than to be full citizens of empire – humanity, including Africa, be damned.

*

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.

BAR executive editor Glen Ford can be contacted at [email protected]

Featured image is from Flickr

Philosopher Hannah Arendt once wrote about the banality of evil, and there’s never been a more banal bunch than the foreign policy and security state crew Barak Obama surrounded himself with for eight years beside the possible exception of Bush’s own Neocons.

Now after three years screaming about “Russian collusion” it appears the Evil Empire is about to regain its lost ground, championing new wars and more interventionist expansionism with a much greater role for the US military in the world.

Let’s name names.

Pentagon

For the defense chief post, the Washington Post has portrayed the banal face of Michele Flournoy as the pick to ‘restore stability’ to the Pentagon, an entirely false assertion. Recall that Fluornoy promotes unilateral global US military intervention, and advocated the destruction of Libya in 2011. By the military-industrial revolving door, Flournoy enabled many Corporate weaponry contracts amounting to tens of millions. Likewise Fluornoy is on the Booz-Hamilton board, where the swamp cannot get any deeper. As if this wretched example of an agent-provocateur for war and destruction were not bad enough, Biden is reportedly considering Lockheed-Martin banal kingpin Jeh Johnson for the DoD position, too.

Lockheed director Johnson was employed by Rob Reiner and Atlantic editor arch-Neocon David Frum to run the Committee to Investigate Russia which mysteriously blew up as soon as the Mueller Report was released. Jeh Johnson has continued to warn of “Russian interference” in the US presidential election until now. Biden’s anointing as president-elect has ended that. As Homeland Security head, Johnson authorized cages for holding immigrant children. He also supported the assassination of General Suleimani, and has voiced support for US wars in Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan.

State

From Libya to Syria, Yemen, Ukraine and beyond, the banality of evil is perhaps best personified by Susan Rice – apparently Biden’s premiere pick for Secretary. Rice was an abject failure at the United Nations, but all seems forgiven, probably at the behest of Biden’s donors. After her failure at the UN, Obama kicked Rice upstairs to be his National Security Advisor, a position that does not require Senate approval.

An obvious war hawk in the mold of the Democrat’s donor class, a Rice appointment could reinforce the liberal mantra that women can be just as good at interventionism as men, and ensure full re-establishment of the Neoliberal agenda in Washington. John Kerry has been flagged as a potential for State (again) too, but at age 77 and subsequent to the failure of the JCPOA Kerry is an unlikely pick.

Another potential pick among the banal Daughters of Darkness is Victoria Kagan-Nuland, architect of the 2014 debacle in Ukraine (among other things). Outed at State in an embarrassing act of what she called impressive statecraft and other embarrassing incidents, Nuland seems an unlikely choice. But Kagan-Nuland is as banal as banal can be, and Biden may somehow wish to reinforce his solidarity with the JTF and his donor class, on Israel.

National Security Advisor

Banality is certainly the mark of the beast here, in the form of Tony Blinken. Well in with Michele Flournoy (above) Blinken typifies the type of banality the Deep State engages in to promote its evil, with Blinken as successful as any other Deep State actor. A major hawk on Russia and war hawk in general, Blinken is an apologist for Israel. Blinken is a war hawk on Afghanistan and Syria too, and Blinken was directly involved in CIA operation Timber Sycamore. Oh, the banality.

Another model of banality is Leon CIA Panetta who so far claims that cruising the Monterey peninsula is more fun that being in Washington. But we know that’s false and Panetta would be a logical pick. Besides being a hawk on everything, and laughing about the fact he has no idea how many wars Obama’s America was fighting – because he lost count – Panetta is simply another sycophant for evil like Hannah Arendt portrayed in her study of Adolf Eichmann.

CIA

Banal of the banal is of course Mike Morell. This incredibly vacuous excuse for a human being has been hate-mongering for years. Beside his blatant pandering support for another banal and brutal warmonger – Hillary Clinton – Mike Morell is one Neoliberal who still maintains that Saddam Hussein actively aided and abetted al Qaeda with regard to the 911 attacks. But Morell simply and ultimately represents the banality of evil, just as Arendt depicted Adolf Eichmann, but in Morell’s case succinctly summarized here by Ray McGovern.

United Nations

Outing the banality of the banal would be incomplete without mentioning Jen Psaki. Although a potential pick for White House Communications Director, why not promote an accomplished liar to a venue where accomplished lying really matters?

Conclusion

There is no indication that the United States as an entrenched warfare state will ever change its course until forced to. Mr Trump was incapable of enforcing that change. Sidelined by Russiagate psychosis, as a Beltway Neophyte and his own worst enemy at times, that sank Trump’s agenda.[1] The actions of Mr Trump now – to end the wars in Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan and Yemen — should have been undertaken in earnest and without compromise years ago. Point being that Mr Trump’s new appointments to the Pentagon – and let’s hope CIA – will hopefully blunt the efficacy of Biden’s bad actors going forward.

Regardless, characters the same or similar to the ones listed above will definitely infest Washington’s infernal Beltway cesspool once again via Joe Biden … make no mistake. …And they will be meaner and nastier than ever before! Guaranteed.

*

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.

Follow Steve Brown on twitter @newsypaperz

Note

[1] Beside his appointment of dreadful characters like John Bolton, Mike Pompeo and Elliott Abrams, apparently at the behest of his own donor class!

Credits to the owner of the featured image

Trump’s decision to cut the number of US troops in Afghanistan from 4500 to 2500 raised questions about whether he’s simply fulfilling a campaign promise out of principle or whether he’s hedging his bets in a Machiavellian way by preemptively attempting to obstruct Biden’s possible foreign policy in the event that his opponent successfully seizes power after the disputed presidential election.

For the second time in a week, news of a “promising” COVID-19 vaccine sent global stock markets on a joy ride and triggered an avalanche of positive news stories which, for the most part, avoided any killjoy questions about vaccine safety or transparency.

On Monday, Moderna announced that its mRNA-1273 COVID vaccine candidate was 94.5% effective, based on interim Phase 3 trial data.

Last week Pfizer announced that analysis of preliminary Phase 3 trial data indicated its BNT162b2 COVID vaccine, developed in partnership with Germany’s BioNTech, was “more than 90% effective.”

Both announcements came in the form of press releases — with neither company providing the actual data behind their claims. Though efficacy rates in the ninetieth percentile were enough to make Wall Street and most media outlets swoon, at least one publication, STAT, pointed out what the companies themselves didn’t: Both trials are ongoing, and as they continue, efficacy rates could decline, as “it’s often the case that a vaccine performs less well in the real world than it does in the setting of a clinical trial.”

STAT also noted that neither company can yet say how long the vaccine, which in both cases is administered in two doses, will provide protection as that “can only be determined over time as large numbers of people are vaccinated.“

Both drugmakers said they will seek Emergency Use Authorization from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for their experimental vaccines as soon as they meet the criteria. The authorization, which allows vaccine makers to skip standard mandatory safety and compliance inspection of their vaccine manufacturing facilities, is a winner-takes-all-prize awarded exclusively to the first COVID vaccine approved by the FDA.

The announcements triggered sharp increases in the companies’ stock prices. Moderna stock shot up by nearly15% on Monday. According to STAT, “Every Tuesday Moderna’s top doctor gets about $1million richer” by selling his existing stock like clockwork through pre-scheduled trades, “earning him more than $50 million since the dawn of the pandemic.”

Moderna’s news also buoyed stock prices of companies that stand to benefit from the economy reopening, including airlines, cruise ships and banks.

Last week, Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla raised eyebrows when he sold $5.6 million of Pfizer stock on the same day the vaccine maker made its “90% effective” announcement. Reporting on the sale, NPR said it was part of an increasingly controversial stock-trading plan that “aims to shield corporate executives from allegations of illegal insider trading plans.” The plan — which is legal but not without questions about abuse — allows major shareholders to sell a predetermined number of shares at a predetermined time and is often used by corporate executives to avoid accusations of insider trading.

So much praise, so few questions

For all the media hype surrounding how fast the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines will be ready, how many billions of doses will be available, who will be the first to get them and how the vaccines will get us all back to “normal,” there’s been little scrutiny of news from from the standpoint of safety and proven efficacy.

That’s a mistake, according to Mary Holland, Children’s Health Defense’s (CHD) general counsel.

“To imagine that Moderna’s unlicensed COVID vaccine, tested for under a year, will be safe is wishful thinking,” Holland said. “There’s a reason vaccine producers insist on blanket indemnification from injuries and deaths.”

Holland is referring to the fact that vaccine makers, already immune from liability for vaccine injuries under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, were granted expanded protection via the Declaration Under the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness (PREP) Act for Medical Countermeasures Against COVID-19 in March.

In fact, as Holland pointed out — in the EU, at least — officials expect a high volume of adverse vaccines as evidenced by this recent notice by the Medical and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency which is “urgently” seeking an “Artificial Intelligence (AI) software tool to process the expected high volume of COVID-19 vaccine Adverse Drug Reaction …”

Why so many secrets?

Vaccine safety and transparency go hand-in-hand, and Moderna gets low marks on both. The company, formed in 2010 and rebranded in 2016, has yet to produce a single commercial vaccine. Still, Moderna was able to enroll in Operation Warp Speed, a highly secretive public-private partnership, dominated by military personnel, most of whom have no experience in healthcare or vaccine production. Participation in the program means that taxpayers are footing a big chunk of the bill for developing Moderna’s vaccine. As the New York Times reported:

“The United States government provided $1 billion in support for the design and testing of the Moderna vaccine. Researchers at the National Institutes of Health oversaw much of the research, including the clinical trials. Moderna also received an additional $1.5 billion in exchange for 100 million doses if the vaccine proved to be safe and effective.”

According to Public Citizen, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) owns a 50% stake in Moderna’s mRNA-1273 vaccine, which it helped develop under the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), run by Dr. Anthony Fauci. In fact, as Public Citizen reported in June:

“Moderna has benefited significantly from federal support. As we described in The People’s Vaccine, the U.S. government provided millions of dollars to Moderna as early as 2013 to help develop its mRNA technology. The NIH meanwhile was also developing new methods to target coronavirus spike proteins. When the new coronavirus emerged in Wuhan, the NIH worked with Moderna to design and test a vaccine. The U.S. Biomedical Advanced Research Development Authority (BARDA) has provided Moderna an additional $483 million to further develop the vaccine and scale-up manufacturing.”

Despite all the taxpayer money behind the development of vaccines by Moderna and other enrollees in Operation Warp Speed, lack of transparency dominates the program and the contracts between drugmakers and the U.S. government.

For example, in October CHD reported on a contract between the NIAID and the leading vaccine candidate Moderna. The contract, obtained by journalist Emily Kopp of Congressional Quarterly, through a Freedom of Information Act request to the NIH, was heavily redacted, raising questions about Fauci, transparency and conflicts of interest. Under another NIAID contract, the Pentagon is required to buy 500 million doses of Moderna’s COVID vaccine for $9 billion.

Speed trumps safety?

Like the Pfizer vaccine, Moderna’s mRNA-1273 uses synthetic messenger RNA (mRNA) technology— a type of genetic engineering never before used, much less proven safe, in vaccine production.

Yet under Operation Warp Speed, vaccine makers are rushing this untested and unproven technology to market in record time.

Here’s how the technology works, according to Horizon, the EU Research and Innovation Magazine:

“To produce an mRNA vaccine, scientists produce a synthetic version of the mRNA that a virus uses to build its infectious proteins. This mRNA is delivered into the human body, whose cells read it as instructions to build that viral protein, and therefore create some of the virus’s molecules themselves. These proteins are solitary, so they do not assemble to form a virus. The immune system then detects these viral proteins and starts to produce a defensive response to them.”

Because there are no mRNA vaccines in use yet, it’s impossible to predict what type of long-term unintended consequences or injuries could arise from their use.

Tal Brosh, head of the Infectious Disease Unit at Samson Assuta Ashdod Hospital, this week told the Jerusalem Post that the mRNA vaccines come with “unique and unknown risks,” including local and systemic inflammatory responses that could lead to autoimmune conditions.

The Jerusalem Post also mentioned an article published by the National Center for Biotechnology Information, a division of the NIH, which said other risks associated with mRNA vaccines include the bio-distribution and persistence of the induced immunogen expression; possible development of auto-reactive antibodies; and toxic effects of any non-native nucleotides and delivery system components.

Absent from Monday’s news reports on the Moderna vaccine was another potential risk tied to Moderna’s mRNA-1273 vaccine: The vaccine relies on a nanoparticle-based “carrier system” containing a synthetic chemical called polyethylene glycol (PEG). Roughly seven in 10 Americansmay already be sensitized to PEG, which may result in reduced efficacy of the vaccine and an increase in adverse side effects.

That’s not news to Moderna. In a statement filed in 2018 with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, the drugmaker told investors that the use of PEG in its vaccines “could lead to significant adverse events in one or more of our clinical trials.”

In June 2020, CHD reported on the story of Ian Haydon, who was among 15 volunteers in the high dose group for Moderna’s COVID vaccine trial. Within 45 days, three participants — 20% of the volunteers, including Haydon — experienced “serious” adverse events according to Moderna’s press release, meaning they required hospitalization or medical intervention. Less than 12 hours after vaccination, Haydon suffered muscle aches, vomiting, spiked a 103.2 degree fever and lost consciousness. His Moderna trial supervisor instructed Haydon to call 911 and Haydon described himself as being the “sickest in his life.” Moderna let Haydon, who had been selected for the trial based on his robust “good health,” believe the illness was just a sad coincidence unrelated to the jab. Moderna never told Haydon he was suffering an adverse event.

In August, CHD sent letters to Dr. Jerry Menikoff, director of the Office for Human Research Protections, Department of Health and Human Services and Fauci, in his role as director of NIAID, detailing concerns about the use of PEG in Moderna’s mRNA-1273 vaccine. In the letter to Menikoff, CHD wrote that the use of PEG in drugs and vaccines is increasingly controversial due to the well-documented incidence of adverse PEG-related immune reactions, including life-threatening anaphylaxis. In the letter to Fauci, CHD urged Fauci to require Moderna to inform clinical trial participants of the unique risks associated with PEG in the “NIAID-funded Moderna mRNA1273 vaccine.”

As the weeks pass with more news on a coming COVID vaccine, perhaps more mainstream media will expose the risks and lack of transparency surrounding the vaccines, in addition to focusing on the potential benefits.

*

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.

A few days before the presidential election, this observer predicted President Trump would win about 50% of the popular vote and around 325 electoral votes. Obviously that didn’t happen. But most polls and poll aggregates predicted a Blue Wave leading to a Joe Biden landslide. That didn’t happen either. And while Biden has won the popular vote, at the risk of sounding like a sore loser, the matter of the electoral college has not yet been settled. The media can say the presidential race is over all it wants, but until the votes are certified by the state legislatures and the electors meet, it isn’t over. As we write, President Trump is exercising his legal options.

We spent election day afternoon making phone calls for New Jersey State Senator Tom Kean, who was challenging incumbent Democrat Congressman Tom Malinowski in our own 7th New Jersey Congressional District. People in the office were optimistic about both Senator Kean and President Trump (Kean eventually lost). We went home, ate dinner and followed the election returns online after vowing not to. We’ve always found it too nerve-racking, worse than the Super Bowl, you see. By 9 PM things were going well for the president. Near 10 PM we remarked to a friend that with Ohio gone, Florida going, and Trump amassing leads in Pennsylvania, Georgia, Wisconsin and Michigan, the election could be over by midnight.

And that’s when vote counting stopped in Pennsylvania, Georgia, Wisconsin and Michigan. Republican poll watchers were barred from counting centers, court orders mandating access to those centers were ignored, windows were blocked; all while hundreds of thousands of mail-in ballots were counted. As we expected, Trump’s lead in these four swing states gradually evaporated. That Saturday the cable news networks ‘called’ the race for Biden. But President Trump has yet to concede.

So, twenty years after Vice President Al Gore spent 37 days litigating hanging, dimpled and pregnant chads in the Florida recount, President Trump intends to litigate his way to a second term. The president has amassed an army of lawyers led by personal attorney and former New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani. The Trump campaign alleges widespread voter fraud in the above-mentioned states, with mail-in ballots being manufactured by Democrat operatives, and even the dead voting. Trump’s legal team also alleges that electronic voting machines were beset by ‘glitches’ that favored Biden over Trump. They’ve filed suit in both state and Federal court. Giuliani promises big revelations, but it remains to be seen if he can deliver, or if a judge will even agree.

Barring Trump’s legal challenges Biden won the kind of victory we expected for the president. Biden won Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan, states Hillary lost in 2016. Impressively he flipped red strongholds like Arizona and Georgia. The latter is going the way of Virginia, once a red state, now solidly blue because of suburban growth. While there was much talk about turning Texas blue, Trump won the state by more than five points. This election further solidified the GOP’s hold on Ohio. Florida, once a key swing state, has turned decidedly red. Here Trump won 47% of the coveted Hispanic vote. But Trump didn’t even come close in New Hampshire or Minnesota, two states we thought he would win.

Though they probably have won the presidency, Democrats feel anything but triumphant. The expected Blue Wave didn’t materialize. The Democrats didn’t flip one state legislature. Republican senators like Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Susan Collins of Maine, both thought to be vulnerable, won handily. Overall, the Democrats only netted 1 seat in the senate. In the House, the Democrats expected to gain 10-15 seats. But the GOP has netted nine seats so far and will almost certainly add at a few more by the time the vote counting is finished. During a group conference call held a few days after the election, House Democrats openly bickered with one another. Moderates blamed leftist members of the caucus for the losses. ‘No one should say ‘defund the police’ ever again. Nobody should be talking about socialism,’ said incumbent Virginia Democrat Abigail Spanberger. ‘We won the House,’ Speaker Nancy Pelosi insisted.

Right now the GOP won the senate, But in Georgia, where they had two senate races due to a special election, no candidate received fifty percent of the vote in the state’s ‘jungle style’ multiple candidate system. By state law a runoff for the two Georgia senate seats will be held on January 5th. If Democrats win both seats, they’ll control the United States Senate. It should be pointed out that the Republicans won combined pluralities of the vote, and early polls show both candidates ahead of their Democratic opponents. That being said, having turned Georgia blue, there’s every reason to think the Dems can turn these senate seats as well.

*

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.

William Stroock is an author of military fiction, commentator.

Credits to the owner of the featured image

More than a hundred years later, what the “international community” fails to address is that the US imperial project, the so-called “Long War” prevails. It’s ongoing. In many regards, it is an extension of World War II.

The overall loss of life during World War II and its aftermath (the so-called post war era) is significantly larger, not to mention the astronomical amounts of money currently allocated by national governments to the war economy, to the detriment of everything else, including  health, education, housing, culture…

The US-NATO “killing machine” is considerably more advanced. In turn, today’s wars, in a twisted irony are upheld as peace-making endeavors [both by Trump and Joe Biden]

In contrast, during WWII the UK lost 419,400 and the US  450,900.

The Immediate Aftermath of World War II. Peace Was not Never an Objective of US Foreign Policy

Barely six weeks after the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima (August 6, 1945), while the US and the Soviet Union were allies:

the Pentagon released a secret plan (September 15, 1945) to:

Bomb 66 major urban areas of the Soviet Union with 204 nuclear bombs.

The Post World War II Era

In the wake of WWII, we enter a period which is euphemistically called the post war era. This designation is a misnomer: this period is marked by a sequence of US led wars, ad hoc military incursions, military coups, intelligence ops, the triggering of so-called civil wars in which the US is indirectly involved. 

According to a carefully documented review article by James A. Lucas  more than 20 million lives were lost resulting from US sponsored wars and intelligence ops, etc. carried out by the United States since 1945.

For further details, see:

US Has Killed More Than 20 Million People in 37 “Victim Nations” Since World War II

James A. Lucas, November 15 , 2018

What we are dealing with is a period of continuous US led warfare since 1945, the worldwide deployment of US military bases, coupled with ongoing US-NATO military threats.

Lucas itemizes 37 Victim Nations which were the object of direct or indirect US military/intelligence intervention.

Large scale theater wars and intel ops resulting in large casualties during the period 1945 to present included

The Korean War (1950-53), Up to 30% percent of the North Korean population were killed in the course of the Korean  war.

The Vietnam War  (1965-1975)

According to a Vietnamese government statement in 1995 the number of deaths of civilians and military personnel during the Vietnam War was 5.1 million. (2)

Since deaths in Cambodia and Laos were about 2.7 million (See Cambodia and Laos) the estimated total for the Vietnam War is 7.8 million.

The Virtual Truth Commission provides a total for the war of 5 million, (3) and Robert McNamara, former Secretary Defense, according to the New York Times Magazine says that the number of Vietnamese dead is 3.4 million. (4,5) (Lucas, op cit)

The Indonesian massacre sponsored by US Intelligence (1965)

Indonesian Army death squads in 1965 and checked them off as they were killed or captured. Martens admitted that “I probably have a lot of blood on my hands, but that’s not all bad. There’s a time when you have to strike hard at a decisive moment.” (1,2,3) Estimates of the number of deaths range from 500,000 to 3 million. (4,5,6)The so-called Soviet Afghan War (1979-1989) (Lucas op cit)

• The Afghan War (2001- ) led by the US and NATO,
• Ongoing War on Palestine
• The Iraq War (2003- ),
• The War on Lebanon (2006),
• The US proxy War on Syria (2011-),
• NATO’s War on Libya (2011-),
• The Saudi-UAE War on Yemen (sponsored by the US)
• US Military interventions in Angola (1970s),
• The Congo “Civil War”
• Sudan’s “Civil War”  (1955-), Casualties in excess of 2 million
• The Rwanda “Civil War” (1990-1994)
• NATO’s wars on Yugoslavia (1991-1999)
• Military coups in numerous countries including Brazil, Bolivia, Panama, Chile, Grenada, Haiti, El Salvador, Dominican Republic, Argentina, Guatemala, Nicaragua, Honduras, Iran, Bangladesh, Pakistan, East Timor, Philippines, and many more.

The Casualties of “The Post War Era” 

60 million lives lost during World War II and another 20 million lost during the “post war Era” according to estimates, total: more than 80 million lives.

What would happen if a Third World War were to break out? 

While one can conceptualize the loss of life and destruction resulting from WWI, WWII as well as Iraq, Syria and Yemen, it is impossible to fully assess the devastation which would result from a Third World War, using the most advanced weapons systems until it actually occurs and becomes a reality, and then it is too late.

But a review and analysis of the nature of advanced weapons systems and their impacts on human life points to the unthinkable. the Worldwide loss of life would be devastating.

US/NATO possesses a diabolical gamut of REAL weapons of mass destruction (WMD) including nuclear, chemical, biological weapons systems, not to mention climatic warfare, cyber warfare, coupled with the instruments of trade and financial warfare, which serve to destabilize national economies and impoverish billions of people around the World.

Corporations invest in the art of destruction. It is a lucrative trade. Nuclear war has become a multi-billion dollar undertaking, which fills the pockets of US defense contractors. What is at stake is the outright “privatization of nuclear war”. A 1.3 trillion nuclear weapons program launched under Obama, and approved under Trump is ongoing.

A recent study suggests that the US post 9/11 war economy has sucked up 5.9 trillion dollars of tax payers money, enough to build tens of thousands of school and hospitals, not to mention the rebuilding of America’s crumbling infrastructure.

United States Budgetary Costs of the Post-9/11 Wars: $5.9 Trillion Spent and Obligated

By Prof. Neta C. Crawford, November 17, 2018

This agenda is profit driven. War propaganda provides a human face to America’s weapons of mass destruction.  Modern warfare is intent upon “saving lives”. The “more usable” COSTLY “low yield” nukes are categorized as “harmless to civilians”.

Dangerous crossroads: The US and its allies have endorsed nuclear war in the name of world peace. “Making the world safer” is the justification for launching a military operation which could potentially result in a nuclear holocaust.

US policy-makers including Trump, Pence, Bolton and Pompeo believe their own lies: for them, nuclear war is a peace-making endeavor. They haven’t the foggiest idea as to the devastating consequences of their decisions.  They believe in their own propaganda.

If nuclear weapons are used, this could be the shortest war in the history of humanity?

In the words of Fidel Castro (2010),

“In a nuclear war the collateral damage would be the life of all humanity”   

Let us have the courage to proclaim that all nuclear or conventional weapons, everything that is used to make war, must disappear!”

“It is about demanding that the world is not led into a nuclear catastrophe, it is to preserve life.” (Havana, October 2010)

See:

• 

  “In a Nuclear War the Collateral Damage would be the Life of All Humanity”. Conversations with Fidel Castro: Hiroshima and the Dangers of a Nuclear War

 

By Fidel Castro Ruz and Prof Michel Chossudovsky, November 19, 2018

.

This article was first published by GR in July 2020.

In the months prior to the most ferocious stock market crash in history and the eruption of the biggest public health crisis of our generation, we witnessed the biggest exodus of corporate CEOs that we have ever seen.  And as you will see below, corporate insiders also sold off billions of dollars worth of shares in their own companies just before the stock market imploded.  In life, timing can be everything, and sometimes people simply get lucky.  But it does seem odd that so many among the corporate elite would be so exceedingly “lucky” all at the same time.  In this article I am not claiming to know the motivations of any of these individuals, but I am pointing out certain patterns that I believe are worth investigating. 

First published by GR on April 8, 2020

Dr. Annie Bukacek is a longtime Montana physician with over 30 years experience practicing medicine. Signing death certificates is a routine part of her job.

In this brief video, Dr. Bukacek blows the whistle on the way the CDC is instructing physicians to exaggerate COVID-19 deaths on death certificates.

Watch the video below and read an excerpt of her speech.

***

Draft Transcript  

“At a time where telling the truth is considered a threat to the national security, we’re very blessed to have a pastor who tells us the truth. We are blessed beyond measure. …”

“The decision for unprecedented government-mandated lockdown has been based on the alleged death rate of COVID-19. Is this death rate based on truth? …”

“Are the reported deaths from COVID-19 truly deaths from COVID-19?

To address this question, we need to discuss death certificates since death certificates are the basic source of information about mortality. …”

“History-changing decisions are being made due to these figures despite the fact that they are flat-out wrong based on data that is insufficient and often inaccurate. People know how much individual power and leeway is given to the physician coroner or medical examiner signing the death certificate. How do I know this? I’ve been filling out death certificates for over 30 years. More often than we want to admit, we don’t know with certainty the cause of death when we fill out death certificates. …”

“Physicians make their best guesstimate and fill out the form then that listed cause of death, whatever we list, is entered into a vital records databank to use for statistical analysis which then gives out inaccurate numbers as you can imagine. Those inaccurate numbers are then accepted as factual information even though much of it is false. So even before we heard of COVID-19, death certificates were based on assumptions and educated guesses that go unquestioned.”

“When it comes to COVID-19, there’s the additional data skewer that there is no universal definition of COVID-19 death.”

“The Center for Disease Control, updated from yesterday April 4th, still states that “mortality” data includes both confirmed and presumptive positive cases of COVID-19. … The CDC counts both true COVID-19 cases and speculative guesses of COVID-19 the same, they call it death by COVID-19. They automatically overestimate the real death numbers by their own admission. …”

“We need to understand how the CDC and the National Vital Statistics System are instructing physicians to fill out death certificates related to COVID-19. Brace yourselves, and please pay attention and let what I’m about to tell you sink in. The assumption of COVID-19 death could be made even without testing. Based on assumption alone, the death can be reported to the public as another COVID-19 casualty. The March 24, 2020 NVSS memo states

“The rules for coding and selection of the underlying cause of death are expected to result in COVID-19 being the underlying cause more often than not.”  …

“Stephen Schwartz, national director of the division of vital statistics, says an answer to the question as stated in the organization’s COVID-19 alert, “Should COVID-19 be reported on the death certificate only with a confirmed test?” Check out his answer,

“COVID-19 should be reported on the death certificate for all decedents where the disease caused or is assumed to have caused or contributed to death. Certifiers should include as much detail as possible based on their knowledge of the case, medical records, laboratory testing, etc.” …

“If a patient is positive for COVID-19 and dies from another cause such as pneumococcal sepsis, it may be considered accurate to say that person died with COVID-19 not from COVID-19. Yet the CDC guideline lists this case as one more COVID-19 death and they go to the next questionable death, they label that as COVID-19 and it goes on and on. You could see how these statistics have been made to look scary when it is so easy to add false numbers to the official database. Those false numbers are sanctioned by the CDC as of their memo yesterday, April 4th. …”

“The real number of COVID-19 deaths are not what most people are told and what they then think. How many people actually died from COVID-19 is anyone’s guess. …”

“Based on inaccurate, incomplete data, people are being terrorized by fear-mongers into relinquishing freedoms.”

-Dr. Annie Bukacek

Draft Transcript by Global Research from Video presentation.

*

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.

Crisis, What Crisis? Hypocrisy and Public Health in the UK

By Rosemary Mason and Colin Todhunter, November 18 2020

An Invitation: Seeking Truth in a Country of Lies

By Edward Curtin, November 18 2020

A new cyber espionage scandal involving American intelligence agencies is being revealed – this time in Europe. Government’s ministries and Danish private companies were targets of US espionage, according to a recent report by an anonymous informer. The US National Security Agency (NSA) appears to have used top-secret schemes to allegedly spy Danish and other Scandinavian ministries and private companies. Details of such activities were revealed in a recent Danish Radio’s article, in which the alleged anonymous informer is referred to as an agent of the Danish Defense Intelligence Service (Forsvarets Efterretningstjeneste, FE). Operations would have started around 2015.

Among many information, the report denounced illegal activities promoted by American intelligence in collaboration with various sectors of Danish intelligence itself, which were conspiring against the interests of their own country by draining information from Danish internet cables and passing it on to external agents. Among several other illegal operations, the report also revealed the espionage against the Ministries of Foreign Affairs and Economy of Denmark, as well as neighboring and allied countries, such as Norway and Sweden, indicating that the limit of such activities is much higher than mere surveillance over Denmark, expanding across a major part of the European continent. According to information contained in the report, the NSA obtained access to fiber optic cables and a data center on the island of Amager, in the south of Copenhagen. From then on, data traffic from the Netherlands, Norway, France and Germany, and political institutions in Denmark were constantly monitored, remaining under full surveillance by American agents.

In addition, it was mentioned that the NSA wanted to obtain more information about the activities of private companies in the defense and military industry, especially Terma, a major Danish company based in Aarhus that stands out internationally in the aerospace industry. According to information in the report, the American interest would have arisen from the moment that the Danish State decided to buy multibillion-dollar fighters to replace its F-16 fleet. At the beginning of the negotiations, Terma and the Swedish company Saab were disputing for a prominent position before the Danish government, but after many debates and long controversies the government’s choice was to purchase a new fleet of dozens of American F-35 fighters. Apparently, constant surveillance and data stealing were key points for Washington to take advantage of European companies during the negotiations.

The anonymous informant said he had tried to warn of the dangers of espionage on several previous occasions, but was only successful when he turned to the Danish Defense Intelligence Service supervisor, whom he accused of having failed to follow or investigate the various espionage reports. On a later occasion, the current Danish defense minister, Trine Bramsen, announced the resignation of five high-ranking agents of the national secret service. So far, the information is not clear due to all the precautions that encompass such issues, but everything indicates that the dismissals occurred due to the spying allegations – however, these were carried out at a late time, indicating a long delay in acting against the internal sabotage.

In fact, espionage against European private companies is absolutely harmful to the interests of these nations, being an activity as dangerous as the espionage of official government agencies – which has also been occurring frequently. The authorities that were supposed to guarantee the security of Danish companies helped to undermine the country’s interests as they were ineffective in combating data theft schemes and enabled, among other things, commercial advantages for Washington in negotiations that prioritized the Danish private market. Still, it is necessary to take into account that during the leak of confidential information by anonymous informants it is very common that only a portion of the real information are revealed, exposing an “outer layer” of the content, but preserving the silence about more compromising data. This leads us to speculate to what extent American espionage is actually at work in Europe – certainly, the information contained in the anonymous informant’s report is only a small part of what is actually known on the subject.

The case has already begun to generate outrage in neighboring countries. Norwegian lawmaker Freddy Ovstegard said he believes Norway is also being spied on by the US, considering that this is a common practice of Washington with its own allied countries. The tendency is for these reactions to spread more and more and for a wave of aversion to Washington and its surveillance and espionage policies to grow across the European continent. A possible scenario is the gradual separation between the US and the EU, considering that the issue directly affects the interests of multibillionaire private companies, going far beyond the relations between states. If such companies fail to cooperate with the governments of their own countries and start selling military equipment to enemy nations, the result will be absolutely catastrophic – Europeans will certainly try to avoid this.

*

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

Nach den Erkenntnissen der Humanwissenschaften Anthropologie, Soziologie und Psychologie besitzt der Mensch von Natur aus einen gesunden Verstand beziehungsweise ein natürliches Urteilsvermögen. Dieser gesunde Menschenverstand arbeitet empirisch, das heißt, er fällt konkrete Urteile auf der Basis alltäglicher Lebenserfahrung und Beobachtung. Auch ist der Mensch autonom. Autonomie ist der Zustand und das Lebensgefühl der Selbstbestimmung, Unabhängigkeit und Selbstverwaltung. Philosophisch gesehen ist sie die Fähigkeit, sich als Wesen der Freiheit zu sehen und aus dieser Freiheit heraus zu handeln. Ausgestattet mit diesen besonderen Fähigkeiten übergibt der Mensch jedoch immer wieder einem anderen die Macht, über sein Leben und seine Zukunft zu entscheiden.

Zum Beispiel werden in den Demokratien der westlichen Welt korrupte Politiker in hohe Regierungsämter gewählt und als respektable Autoritäten angesehen. Die Politiker verbinden mit dieser Zuschreibung umgehend Herrschaftsansprüche, schaffen ein Verhältnis der Über- und Unterordnung und setzen gegenüber den Bürgern die Anweisungen ihrer Auftraggeber durch – der globalen „Macht-Elite“. Damit betreiben sie auf Kosten der arbeitenden Bevölkerung eine Politik, die es einer  ruchlosen „Milliardärs-Clique“ ermöglicht, so viele Dollar-Milliarden zusammenzustehlen, dass sie sich nahezu jeden kaufen können: angefangen von korrupten Politikern bis hin zur Weltgesundheitsorganisation WHO.

Viele Erwachsene reagieren auf diese Politiker wie Kinder oder wie die primitiven Urmenschen reagierten: in Form eines „magischen Autoritätsglaubens“: kritiklos und umnebelt von Stimmungen, Gefühlen und Glücksverheißungen. Und das hat Folgen: Die Autoritätsgläubigkeit führt unweigerlich zur Autoritätshörigkeit, die in der Regel den Reflex eines absoluten geistigen Gehorsams und eine Verstandeslähmung auslöst.

Keinem die Macht übergeben! Keinem anderen Menschen, aber auch keinem übernatürlichen Wesen.  Sind wir doch eingebettet in die Gemeinschaft von Artgenossen, auf deren Unterstützung und Solidarität wir bauen könnten. Jedoch der überwiegende Teil der erwachsenen Menschen klammert sich an eine eingebildete überirdische Macht und versucht, sie günstig zu beeinflussen. Ist das ein Ausdruck menschlicher Hilflosigkeit und mangelnden Selbstvertrauens?

Nicht nur die Intelligenz vollsinniger Erwachsener ist eingeschüchtert und herabgesetzt, sondern auch ihr Wille und ihr Selbstbewusstsein. Das führt in vielen Fällen zu Fatalismus, Schuldgefühlen, Depressionen und der Unfähigkeit, sich mit den Mitbürgern zusammenzuschließen. Aus diesem Grund müssen alle denkbaren Beweggründe der beklagten menschlichen Reaktionsweisen erforscht werden – insbesondere die autoritäre und religiöse Erziehung in Elternhaus und Schule sowie der Einfluss der Gesellschaft.

Alle an der Erziehung von Kindern und Jugendlichen Beteiligten sollten es tunlichst unterlassen, die heranwachsende Generation auf ihrem Weg ins Erwachsenenleben mit autoritären Erziehungsmethoden „gehorsam“ und „gefügig“ zu machen. Auch sollten sie ihnen nicht den verstandeslähmenden „Ballast“ der Religion aufbürden. Nur so können die Jungen als frei denkende, mutige und mitfühlende Bürger die Welt eines Tages in eine andere Bahn lenken.

Pflege und Verstärkung der Gemeinschaftsgefühle statt Gewalt und Machtgier

Die Natur des Menschen

Es ist eine unumstößliche Erkenntnis der wissenschaftlichen Psychologie, dass der Mensch ein naturgegeben soziales, auf die Gemeinschaft seiner Mitmenschen ausgerichtetes und vernunftbegabtes Wesen mit einer natürlichen Neigung zum Guten, zur Wahrheitserkenntnis und zum Gemeinschaftsleben ist. Diese Eigenschaft hilft ihm, die Gesetze der Natur beziehungsweise das Naturrichtige besser zu erkennen. Das „Naturrecht“sagt, dass es etwas gibt, was von Natur aus recht ist. Es unterscheidet sich vom durch Menschen gesetztes, sogenanntes „positives Recht“ dadurch, dass es dem Menschen allein schon deshalb zusteht, weil er Mensch ist.

Da es durch keinen Machthaber oder wie auch immer gearteten Mehrheitsbeschluss geschaffen wird, ist es vorstaatliches Recht. Das heißt, die Gesetze eines Staates müssen sich kritisch am Naturrecht messen lassen. Das Wissen darüber, was von Natur aus recht ist, macht es möglich, totalitären Ideologien und Diktaturen von einem festen mitmenschlichen Standpunkt aus entgegenzutreten und ein Gefühl der Empörung gegen Unrecht und Unmenschlichkeit zu empfinden. (1)

Auch streben die Menschen immer nach einem besseren Leben. Der Wunsch nach Frieden und Freiheit steht dabei im Vordergrund. Alle Menschen wollen frei sein und in Frieden leben, ohne Krieg und ohne Gewalt. Doch die Realität sieht anders aus. So lange die Menschen schweigen, haben wir die Demokratie. So lange sie schweigen, Steuern zahlen und zur richtigen Zeit ins Militär einrücken, haben wir die Demokratie. Doch diese Demokratie ist nichts anderes als eine „stille Diktatur“.

Die klammheimliche „Umwandlung“ der „stillen“ in die „offene“ Diktatur

Nicht nur die Ereignisse der vergangenen 120 Jahre mit zwei Weltkriegen und unzähligen weiteren Kriegen, sondern auch die Vorkommnisse im Zusammenhang mit der Anfang 2020 von der Weltgesundheitsorganisation WHO ausgerufenen Corona-Pandemie haben uns einen gründlichen Anschauungsunterricht über die geschichtliche Bedeutung der Macht und der Gewalttätigkeit gegeben. In unzähligen Ländern wurde in den darauf folgenden Monaten im Auftrag und zum Vorteil der globalen „Milliardärs- und Macht-Elite“ die „Umwandlung“ der Regierungsform der Demokratie oder „stillen Diktatur“ in die Herrschaftsform der „offenen Diktatur“ eingeleitet.

Die Angst vor dem vermeintlich hochansteckenden Virus führte dazu, dass viele Menschen wie paralysiert waren, das Öffentliche Leben in mehreren Staaten stillgelegt wurde, gleichzeitig fundamentale bürgerliche Freiheitsrechte „geschliffen“ wurden und auch das Militär in Bereitschaft gebracht worden ist. Es schien, als sei „die Zeit aus den Fugen geraten“ (Shakespeares). (2) Doch einige wache Zeitgenossen vermuteten bereits damals, dass etwas „faul sei im Staate Dänemark“. Aber ein öffentlicher gesellschaftlicher Diskurs über die Narrative der herrschenden Klasse fand nicht statt. Andersdenkende werden entweder gar nicht angehört oder medial und gesellschaftlich diskreditiert.

Die „verborgene Agenda“ der sogenannten Elite

Doch allmählich wurde deutlich, welche finsteren Pläne die selbsternannte „Elite“ verfolgte: Zum Beispiel sollen alle Bürger der Welt geimpft und darüber hinaus durch implantierte Nano-Chips kontrolliert werden. Diese „Massen-Schutz-Impfung“ darf gerne zu einem Bevölkerungsrückgang führen. Zwei dieser „Weltbürger“, die solche Pläne seit langem verfolgen, sind der ehemalige US-Außenminister Henry Kissinger und der schwerreiche US-Unternehmer und vermeintliche Mäzen William „Bill“ Henry Gates III. (3) Am 1. April 2020 veröffentlichte die „Washington Post“ einen entsprechenden Artikel von Gates. (4)

Doch Kissinger und Gates sind nicht die einzigen „finsteren Gesellen“. Auch alle anderen befehligen und benutzen für ihre teuflischen Pläne eine ganze Reihe von kontrollierenden, krankmachenden oder gar tödlichen „Werkzeugen“: Unter anderem eine Technologie zur Bewusstseinskontrolle, die „mind control technology“. Dazu gehören Mikrowellen, Künstliche Intelligenz, Quantencomputer, Robotik, 5 G und 6 G, Nanotechnologie, Identifizierungs-Chips und vieles mehr. Zu erwähnen ist auch die von ihnen favorisierte philosophische Denkrichtung des „Transhumanismus“, eine der gefährlichsten Ideen der Welt. Der Transhumanismus will die Grenzen menschlicher Möglichkeiten durch den Einsatz technologischer Verfahren intellektuell, physisch oder psychisch erweitern.

„(Sie) rauben keine Bank aus, sie werden Bankenvorstand.“

Durchforstet man die Biographien der „Elite“ aus Politik, Wirtschaft, Militär und auch aus Wissenschaft und Kunst, liest sich das stellenweise wie die reine „Psychopathologie“, die Lehre von den krankhaften Veränderungen des Seelenlebens. Der kanadische Kriminalpsychologe Robert D. Hare nennt in seiner Psychopathologie-Checkliste (PCL-R) insgesamt 20 Kriterien hierfür. (5) Menschen mit dieser Persönlichkeitsstörung sind nicht nur unter Kriminellen und in Gefängnissen, sondern auch in Führungspositionen überrepräsentiert. Jedoch mit einem Unterschied, meinte der Begründer der Psychopathologie-Forschung: „(Sie) rauben keine Bank aus, sie werden Bankenvorstand.“ (6)

Der Ruf nach „sozialer Distanzierung“ verfolgt ebenfalls verborgene Ziele

„Social Distancing“ ist erwiesenermaßen kein wirksamer Schutz und unter medizinischen und psychologischen Experten höchst umstritten, weil die Beziehung mit den Artgenossen für uns Menschen so wichtig ist wie die Luft zum Atmen. Die Einschränkung sozialer Kontakte ist deshalb ein Anschlag auf die menschliche Natur und führt bei Jung und Alt zu schwerwiegenden Folgeschäden.

Sorgen muss man sich auch um die Schulkinder und Jugendlichen machen. Durch die zunehmende Digitalisierung der gesamten Bildung und die fehlende Beziehung zu Lehrern und Klassenkameraden durch den Hausunterricht (Homeschooling) werden sozial benachteiligte Kinder um Bildungschancen gebracht und fallen auf  durch Hyperaktivität, emotionale Probleme und Verhaltensstörungen. Die Isolation führt auch zur Vereinzelung der Jungendlichen. Ein großer Teil lebt trotz unzähliger virtueller Kontakte mit Gleichaltrigen vereinsamt in einer eigenen „Facebook-Welt“, in der die Internetsucht zunimmt. Diese Entwicklung wird von seit Jahren bewusst vorangetrieben. Denn der vereinzelte, von seinen Artgenossen isolierte Jugendliche, dessen familiäre und gemeinschaftliche Wurzeln gekappt sind, lässt sich besser kontrollieren, manipulieren und für Gewaltexzesse und Kriege instrumentalisieren. (7)

Das Schüren irrationaler Ängste als Disziplinierungs- und Herrschaftsmittel

Wenn Bürger ihre Ängste und Panik in den Griff bekommen, durchschauen sie die Lügen der Herrschenden und ihre teuflischen Pläne. Deshalb werden die natürlichen Ängste der Menschen vor Krankheit und Tod mithilfe der gleichgeschalteten Massenmedien permanent geschürt. Das führt zu einer „Überflutung der Realität durch das Imaginäre“ (Klaus-Jürgen Bruder), zu einer „hohen aggressiven Emotionalität“ und einer „Wiederkehr der Blockwart-Mentalität und des Denunziantentums“. (8)

Angst und Furcht gehören zum Leben des Menschen. Doch wenn skrupellose Despoten – ob mittelalterliche Päpste, neuzeitliche Diktatoren oder vermeintliche „Menschenfreunde“ (Philanthropen) – diese alltägliche Angst gezielt von außen schüren, dann wollen sie ihre Machtgier befriedigen und die Völker disziplinieren und beherrschen. Sie betreiben damit das Werk des Teufels und nicht das Werk Gottes (F. J. Strauß). Die meisten Menschen reagieren auf dieses teuflische „Spiel“ der Herrschenden mit einem Gehorsamsreflex.

Der menschliche Reflex des absoluten Gehorsams

Große Teile der Bevölkerung sind wegen der „Hysterisierung der Pandemie-Angst“ (K.-J. Bruder) wie verwirrt und paralysiert. Sehr schnell erklären sie sich dazu bereit, die drastischen und fragwürdigen Einschränkungen staatlich verbriefter Grundrechte ohne Widerspruch als notwendig und alternativlos hinzunehmen – so das Grundrecht der Freiheit der Person und das Recht auf körperliche Unversehrtheit. (9)

Betrachtet man das weltweite Horrorszenario und die Schockstarre der Bürger, wird man an den Naomi Kleins Bestseller „Die Schock-Strategie“ erinnert. Darin weist sie nach, dass neoliberale Regierungen zielstrebig die Verwirrung und Lähmung der Menschen nach politischen und wirtschaftlichen Krisen oder Naturkatastrophen ausgenutzt haben, um das kapitalistische Wirtschaftssystem in seiner reinsten Form schnell durchzupauken. Es sei eine „Schockbehandlung“, bevor die Bevölkerung wieder die Kraft habe, sich dagegen zu wehren. Diese geopolitische Operation der „globalen Elite“ mit ihrer diabolischen Agenda ist ein Verbrechen gegen die Menschheit.

Die erbärmliche und unheilvolle Rolle der „Journaille“ (Presse-Gesindel)

Einen wichtigen Beitrag zur Aufklärung und Ermutigung der Menschen könnten die Massenmedien leisten, da sie gemäß internationaler Vereinbarungen der wahrheitsgemäßen Information der Bürger und dem Frieden verpflichtet sind. Doch das Gegenteil ist der Fall. 1883 hielt John Swinton, der ehemalige Altmeister des New Yorker Pressecorps anlässlich seiner Pensionierung vor Journalistenkollegen eine Rede. Diese ehrliche und scharfe Abrechnung mit der eigenen Zunft ist hochaktuell und betrifft nicht nur Amerika:

„So etwas wie eine unabhängige Presse gibt es in Amerika nicht, (…). Ihr seid alle Sklaven. Ihr wisst es und ich weiß es. Nicht ein einziger von euch wagt es, eine ehrliche Meinung auszudrücken. Wenn ihr sie zum Ausdruck brächtet, würdet ihr schon im Voraus wissen, dass sie niemals im Druck erscheinen würde. (…) Das Geschäft des Journalisten in New York ist es, die Wahrheit zu verdrehen, unverblümt zu lügen, sie zu pervertieren, zu schmähen, zu Füßen des Mammons zu katzbuckeln und das eigene Land und Volk für sein tägliches Brot zu verkaufen, oder, was dasselbe ist, für sein Gehalt. (…) Wir sind Werkzeuge und Dienstleute reicher Männer hinter der Bühne. Wir sind Hampelmänner. Sie ziehen die Fäden und wir tanzen. Unsere Zeit, unsere Fähigkeiten, unser Leben, unsere Möglichkeiten sind alle das Eigentum anderer Menschen. Wir sind intellektuelle Prostituierte.“ (10)

Vom „Großen Neustart“ (Great Reset) zur „Großen Transformation“

Am 3. Juni 2020 kündigte das World Economic Forum WEF in Genf als Folge der „globalen Gesundheitskrise“ für 2021 einen „einzigartigen Zwillingsgipfel“ in Davos an. Das Thema soll lauten: „The Great Reset“, oder “Der Große Neustart“. Das WEF definiert den „Großen Neustart“ als „Verpflichtung, gemeinsam und dringend die Grundlagen unseres Wirtschafts- und Sozialsystems für eine gerechtere, nachhaltigere und widerstandsfähigere Zukunft zu schaffen“. (11)Klaus Schwab, Gründer und Vorsitzender des Weltwirtschaftsforums, schreibt:

„Wir können aus dieser Krise eine bessere Welt hervorbringen, (…). Um ein besseres Ergebnis (als die Depression in den 1930er Jahren, R.H.) zu erzielen, muss die Welt gemeinsam und schnell handeln, um alle Aspekte unserer Gesellschaften und Volkswirtschaften zu erneuern, von Bildung über Sozialverträge bis hin zu Arbeitsbedingungen. Jedes Land, von den Vereinigten Staaten bis nach China, muss teilnehmen, und jede Industrie, von Öl und Gas bis hin zu Technologie, muss transformiert werden. Kurz gesagt, wir brauchen einen ‘großen Reset’ des Kapitalismus.“ (12)

Trotz vieler geäußerter Heilsversprechen des kabbalistischen Weltwirtschaftsforums und des räuberischen Internationalen Währungsfonds IWF ist nicht von einer De-Globalisierung und einer Abkehr vom menschenverachtenden Neoliberalismus auszugehen. Die herrschende „Elite“ wird das Treffen in Davos dafür nutzen, die globale Kontrolle der Bürger durch die Zerstörung der Nationalstaaten weiter voranzutreiben.

Die Ankündigung eines „Großen Neustarts“ wird inzwischen ergänzt durch die Forderung nach einer „Großen Transformation“, einer mit der Pandemie einhergehenden Machtverschiebung im globalen politischen und wirtschaftlichen Sektor. Gemeint ist eine „große Transformation“ der globalen Industriegesellschaft hin zu einer Gesellschaft der Nachhaltigkeit. (13) Diese Forderung muss zusammengedacht werden mit der „UNO-Agenda 2030 für nachhaltige Entwicklung“ und ihren 17 nachhaltigen Entwicklungszielen. Demnach ist unter dem Dach der UNO eine „Eine-Welt-Regierung“ geplant – und da das totalitäre Regime Chinas als Modell dient, eine sozialistische „Eine-Welt-Regierung“.

Was tun? Eine Zwischenbilanz

“Habe den Mut, dich deines eigenen Verstandes zu bedienen!” (Sapere aude!)

Die weltweite Ausnahmesituation erfordert es, weise zu sein, zwischen Wahrheit und Lüge zu unterscheiden und danach zu handeln. Aber nicht nur das „einfache“ Volk versagt im Widerstand gegen den aufkommenden Totalitarismus und Faschismus. Auch die akademischen Kreise werden ihrer Verantwortung nicht gerecht. Immanuel Kant definierte „Aufklärung“ im Jahr 1784 wie folgt:

„Aufklärung ist der Ausgang des Menschen aus seiner selbstverschuldeten Unmündigkeit. Unmündigkeit ist das Unvermögen, sich seines Verstandes ohne die Leitung eines anderen zu bedienen.“ (14)

Die Unmündigkeit des Menschen ist nach Kant dann selbstverschuldet, wenn nicht ein Mangel an Verstand der Grund ist, sondern die Angst, sich seines eigenen Verstandes ohne die Anleitung eines anderen zu bedienen. Kant prägte den Wahlspruch der Aufklärung: „Habe den Mut, dich deines eigenen Verstandes zu bedienen!“ Aufklärung ist also die Maxime, jederzeit selbst zu denken.

Ein Grund für die Unmündigkeit selbst zu denken ist nach Kant Faulheit und Feigheit. Unmündig zu sein, sei bequem und eigenständiges Denken ein „verdrießliches Geschäft“. So werde es für andere leicht, meint Kant, sich zu „Vormündern“ dieser unmündigen Menschen aufzuschwingen. Diese Vormünder würden auch alles dafür tun, dass die unmündigen Menschen den Schritt zur Mündigkeit nicht nur für beschwerlich, sondern auch noch für gefährlich halten.

Abbau von Machtgier und Gewaltstreben durch die Pflege und Verstärkung der Gemeinschaftsgefühle

Da die Politik in den Köpfen und Herzen der Menschen vorbereitet wird und die Menschen morgen so handeln, wie sie heute denken, wird eine vordringliche Aufgabe für die Zukunft die Aufklärung der Mitbürger sein: Der Sinn der aufklärerischen Bemühungen ist die Reinigung des menschlichen Bewusstseins von individuellen und kollektiven Vorurteilen.
Wichtiger als die Aufklärung ist jedoch die Erziehung. Die tiefenpsychologische Einsicht hat deutlich gemacht, welch ungeheure Tragweite die Erziehung hat. Wir wissen heute, dass der Mensch in einem derartigen Maße das Produkt seiner Erziehung ist, dass man die Hoffnung hegen darf, durch bessere, das heißt psychologische Erziehungsmethoden Menschen heranbilden zu können, die gegen die Verstrickungen des Machtwahns gefeit sein werden.

So hat die Pädagogik in Elternhaus und Schule auf das autoritäre Prinzip und auf Gewaltanwendung zu verzichten. Erzieher haben sich mit wahrem Verständnis dem kindlichen Seelenleben anzupassen, die Persönlichkeit des Kindes zu achten und sich ihm freundschaftlich zuzuwenden. Eine solche Erziehung wird einen Menschentypus hervorbringen, der keine „Untertanen-Mentalität“ besitzt und darum für die Machthaber in unserer Welt kein gefügiges Werkzeug mehr sein wird.

In der heutigen gewalttätigen Kultur gerät der Weg des Einzelnen jedoch unweigerlich in den Einflussbereich des Macht- und Herrschaftsstrebens. Alle Vorbilder und Ideale, unter denen das Kind unserer Kulturkreise aufwächst, sind vom Machtwillen gefärbt. Das Blendwerk der Gewalt ergreift von der Seele des Einzelnen bereits zu einem Zeitpunkt Besitz, wo er noch weder über bewusste Einsicht, noch über ein ausgebildetes Gerechtigkeitsgefühl verfügt. Unsere Aufgabe für die Zukunft ist deshalb vor allem die Pflege und Verstärkung der Gemeinschaftsgefühle.

Gesunder Menschenverstand statt Autoritätsgläubigkeit und magische Weltanschauung

Religiöse und autoritäre Erziehung – und der Reflex des absoluten geistigen Gehorsams

Ein anschauliches Beispiel für das psychologische Problem des absoluten Gehorsams bieten die autobiographischen Aufzeichnungen von Rudolf Höß, dem ehemaligen Kommandanten von Auschwitz. Höß durchlebte in seiner Kindheit eine Erziehung nach streng religiösen und militärischen Grundsätzen und reagierte deshalb als Erwachsener mit uneingeschränktem Gehorsam, einem „Kadavergehorsam“. (15)

Ignatius von Loyola, der Gründer des Jesuiten-Ordens, verfasste Mitte des 16. Jahrhunderts einen erhellenden Text, auf den das deutsche Wort „Kadavergehorsam“ zurückzuführen ist. In der von der Ordenskongregation 1558 veröffentlichten Fassung heißt es:

„Wir sollten uns dessen bewusst sein, dass ein jeder von denen, die im Gehorsam leben, sich von der göttlichen Vorsehung mittels des Oberen führen und leiten lassen muss, als sei er ein toter Körper, der sich wohin auch immer bringen und auf welche Weise auch immer behandeln lässt, oder wie ein Stab eines alten Mannes, der dient, wo und wozu auch immer ihn der benutzen will.“ (16)

Gesunder Menschenverstand versus magische Weltanschauung

Bei den nachfolgenden kritischen Gedanken über die Religion und ihre Auswirkung auf das menschlcihe Fühlen, Denken und Handeln stützt sich der Autor auf die Wissenschaft der Psychologie ab. Eine weitere Grundlage sind die Werke des französischen Aufklärers und Enzyklopädisten Baron Paul-Henri Thiry d‘Holbach und anderer Religionskritiker. Holbachs religionskritisches Buch „System der Natur oder von den Grenzen der physischen und der moralischen Welt“ erschien im Jahr 1770 unter fingierter Autorenschaft und erregte skandalöses Aufsehen. (17) Ein kurzer Auszug aus dem Vorwort des Verfassers lässt dies erahnen:

„Der Mensch ist nur darum unglücklich, weil er die Natur verkennt. Sein Geist ist durch Vorurteile derart verseucht, dass man glauben könnte, er sei für immer zum Irrtum verdammt: er ist mit dem Schleier der Anschauungen, den man von Kindheit an über ihn breitet, so fest verwachsen, dass er nur mit der größten Mühe daraus gelöst werden kann. Ein gefährlicher Gärstoff ist all seinen Kenntnissen beigemischt und macht sie notwendig schwankend, unklar und falsch; er wollte zu seinem Unglück die Grenzen seiner Sphäre überschreiten und versuchte, sich über die sichtbare Welt zu erheben; (…).“  (18)

Zwei Jahre nach Veröffentlichung von „System der Natur“, erschien das religionskritische Buch „Der gesunde Menschenverstand“. Um sich der Verfolgung durch die „heilige Inquisition“ zu entziehen, veröffentlichte Holbach seine Gedanken unter dem Namen des bereits verstorbenen freidenkenden Pfarrers Jean Meslier. (19) 1878 erschien eine deutsche Übersetzung. Orthographie, Interpunktion und Satzstellung werden in den nachfolgenden Zitaten unverändert übernommen. Bereits in der Einleitung schreibt Holbach:

 „Es ist vergebene Mühe, die Menschen von ihren Lastern heilen zu wollen, wenn man nicht mit der Heilung ihrer Vorurtheile beginnt. Man muss ihnen die Wahrheit zeigen, damit sie ihre theuersten Interessen kennen lernen, und die wahren Motive, welche sie der Tugend und ihrem wahren Glück zuführen. (…) Sagen wir den Menschen, dass sie gerecht sein sollen, wohltätig, mäßig und gesellig, nicht weil es ihre Götter verlangen, sondern weil man seinen Nebenmenschen zu gefallen suchen muss; sagen wir ihnen, dass sie sich der Sünde und des Lasters enthalten sollen, nicht weil man in einer andern Welt gestraft wird, sondern weil sich  das Böse schon in diesem Leben bestraft. (…).“ (20)

Religion versus Wissenschaft

Unter dem Begriff „Religion“ werden eine Vielzahl unterschiedlicher Weltanschauungen zusammengefasst, deren Basis der jeweilige Glaube an bestimmte überirdische, übernatürliche oder übersinnliche Kräfte ist. Die Lehren einer Religion über das Heilige und Transzendentale beruhen auf dem Glauben an Mitteilungen bestimmter Vermittler. Im Sinne der Wissenschaftstheorie sind sie nicht beweisbar. Skeptiker und Religionskritiker suchen demgegenüber allein nach kontrollierbarem Wissen durch rationale Erklärungen.

Zum Beispiel stellt sich die Frage nach der Verdoppelung des Menschseins in Leib und Seele und nach der entsprechenden Verdoppelung der Natur in ein Diesseits und Jenseits. Diese „Verdoppelungen“ sind eine „Ursünde“ der Religion. Der gesunde Menschenverstand geht von der Einheit von Leib und Seele aus. Deshalb muss der Mensch auch nicht nach einer Wiedervereinigung jenseits des irdischen Lebens streben. Es gibt ebenso keine doppelten Wahrheiten, eine historische und eine religiöse.

Im Gegensatz zur auf Kausalität beruhenden Weltanschauung und Wissenschaft ist die Religion eine magische Weltanschauung. Der religiöse Glaube setzt neben Vernunft und Wissen eine magische Scheinwelt, der sich die wissenschaftliche Analyse nicht zu nahen hat. Die Religionen betrachten sich als etwas über allem Stehendes, das nicht Gegenstand empirisch-rationalistischer Untersuchung sein darf – und auch nicht sein kann. Sie sind der Meinung, dass die Wissenschaft überhaupt nicht imstande sei, den Bereich der Religion, der göttlicher Herkunft sei, in seiner Totalität zu erfassen. Selbstverständlich bleibt es das unveräußerliche Recht des religiösen Menschen, aus den Bibelworten Offenbarungen der höchsten religiösen Wahrheiten zu schöpfen. Aber es ist ebenso die unbedingte Pflicht des Forschers, historische Wahrheiten nur aus ganz einwandfreien Zeugnissen zu folgern.

Wesentlich unterstützt wird die religiöse Glaubensbereitschaft durch die mehr oder weniger große Suggestibilität fast aller Menschen. „Suggestibilität“ ist ein Persönlichkeitsmerkmal, welches das Ausmaß der „Empfänglichkeit“ für Suggestionen ausdrückt. Dabei werden von außerhalb Gedanken, Gefühle, Wahrnehmungen oder Vorstellungen übernommen, die nicht der Realität entsprechen und die Person in manipulativer Weise geistig-psychisch beeinflussen soll. Die Suggestibilität bei Kindern ist sehr hoch, weshalb junge Menschen in besonderem Maße Ziel manipulativer Beeinflussung sind. Außerdem können Kinder dazu neigen, suggerierte Informationen mit Erlebtem zu verwechseln. (21)

Durch die religiöse Suggestion wird nicht nur die Intelligenz eingeschüchtert, sondern auch der Wille und das Selbstbewusstsein, weil der Abfall vom Glauben und der Austritt aus der Kirche seit apostolischen Zeiten als schwere Sünde und als Untreue und Judas-Tat gelten. Der gesunde und geistig-psychisch nicht manipulierte Mensch äußert Urteile erst dann, wenn er sie an der Erfahrung überprüft und als nicht vernunftwidrig erkannt hat.

Der Einfluss der Gesellschaft auf die religiöse Einstellung des Menschen

Der Mensch ist nicht nur ein Naturwesen, sondern auch ein vergesellschaftetes Wesen. Das heißt, sein sogenanntes metaphysisches Bedürfnis, an ein übersinnliches Wesen zu glauben, wird auch von gesellschaftlichen Faktoren beeinflusst und dirigiert: von klassenmäßigen, insbesondere wirtschaftlichen Faktoren. Die Religion wird deshalb so lange bestehen, wie materielle und damit seelische und geistige Not existiert.

Jede Gesellschaftsform hat zu allen Zeiten ihre speziellen religiös-philosophischen-ethischen Ideologien. Es sind die Denkgebilde der jeweils herrschenden Schicht, die ihnen zur geistigen Legitimation ihrer Herrschaft dienen – letztlich ihrer politischen und wirtschaftlichen Macht über die Gemüter der Menschen. Diese Macht wird begründet durch den ideologischen Begriff der „Autorität“. Und diese wird wiederum gestützt durch die Idee des „Absoluten“, das sich jeder Kontrollmöglichkeit durch die Erfahrung entzieht. Im Sinne der herrschenden Schicht ist die höchste Kraft einer solchen Ideologie „Gott“ – als „unerkennbare“, „letzte“ Ursache und ethischer Gesetzgeber.

Nach Karl Marx ist das metaphysische Bedürfnis des Menschen nur ein Protest gegen das Elend dieser Welt. Er kam zu der Erkenntnis, dass der Mensch sich nicht ändern könne, bevor sich nicht die Struktur der Gesellschaft geändert hat. Solange im Diesseits nicht jeder menschenwürdig und ohne Furcht leben könne, werde es den Glauben an ein besseres Jenseits, an eine ausgleichende Gerechtigkeit geben. (22)

Auch Sigmund Freud (1856-1939), der Begründer der Psychoanalyse war Religionskritiker. Er lehrte, dass die religiösen Vorstellungen deshalb eine so große Wirksamkeit hätten, weil sie Illusionen sind, entstanden aus sehr alten, heftigen Wünschen der Menschen: dem Verlangen nach einer gerechten Weltordnung, nach Freiheit von Not sowie dem Wunsche nach Ewigkeit der persönlichen Existenz.

Die Einschüchterung von Verstand und Vernunft beginnt in der Kindheit

Der Mensch wird weder religiös noch gottesgläubig geboren. Das geistig gesunde Kind gerät jedoch in eine Gesellschaft, in der wahnhafte Ideen und Illusionen vorherrschen. Kaum zeigen sich beim kleinen Kind die ersten seelischen Regungen und es lernt zu sprechen, wird es von der Gesellschaft, das heißt von den Eltern und der Kirche „in Obhut genommen“. Es wird ihm klar gemacht, dass sich sein Wesen bezüglich des Naturgefühls und der Weltanschauung nicht frei entwickeln darf.

Bildet sich dann im 3. Lebensjahr das Bewusstsein des „Ichs“, so schalten sich bereits Gott und Teufel der betreffenden Religion ein und lehren das Kind, nicht auf sich selbst zu vertrauen, sondern sich von übernatürlichen Mächten führen und beherrschen zu lassen und eifrig zu beten, um nicht deren Rache zu verfallen. Das Kind lernt die Dämonenfurcht kennen. Die „Tugenden“ der Unterwürfigkeit, des Gehorsams und der Demut prägen sich ein. Seinen Kristallisationspunkt findet der dem Kind beigebrachte Dämonenglaube in den Vorstellungen von Teufel und Hölle.

Die Angst erzeugt im Kind Gefühlsreaktionen, die sich gegen den Menschen wenden: es hat Angst vor dem Menschen. Der junge Mensch wächst heran und ist als Erwachsener nicht imstande zusammenzuwirken und zusammenzuleben. Man nutzt die Jahre der stärksten Suggestibilität des Menschen aus, um ihm mystische Vorstellungen einzuimpfen, es gegen den Vernunftgebrauch in religiösen und weltanschaulichen Dingen immun zu machen und es an eine bestimmte religiöse Institution zu binden. Das Kind darf sich nicht natürlich und ungezwungen entwickeln. Mit diesem Vorgehen wird sehr starker und lähmender Druck auf die Kinderseelen ausgeübt.

Ausblick

Die kirchliche Religionslehre setzt das Weltbild des primitiven Menschen voraus. Diese Voraussetzung ist heute durch die moderne Wissenschaft nicht mehr gegeben. Wir finden das „Göttliche“, das Ideale in der Natur, im Gesetzmäßigen, nicht mehr im Mystischen. Wir dürfen uns nicht mehr durch wunderbare Fabeln von einem vagen Transzendenten ablenken lassen und müssen für das reale Diesseits arbeiten. Wir müssen der Jugend in der Erziehung von Anfang an Werte vermitteln, die unserem Heute entsprechen und die auch im Erwachsenenalter noch Gültigkeit haben.

Die Schule hat die Aufgabe, die Moral auf eine irdische Grundlage zu stellen. Dem Schüler muss gezeigt werden, dass es eine hochstehende Ethik auch ohne Glaubensvorstellungen gibt und in verschiedenen Ländern schon vor Jahrtausenden gegeben hat. Ihm muss gezeigt werden, dass die Begründung der ethischen Lehren aus einem inneren Trieb und dem sozialen Zusammenleben der Menschen zumindest so verständlich und zwingend ist wie die religiöse Begründung.

Wir sollen dem jungen Menschen dazu verhelfen, sein eigenes Wesen ohne Einschnürung durch eine Konfession auszuprägen. Dieser Mensch wird im Allgemeinen auch moralisch sein, denn da er im Einklang mit sich selbst lebt, lebt er auch im Einklang mit seiner Umgebung. Und auch umgekehrt: wer im Einklang mit seiner Umgebung lebt, ist meist auch selbst ausgeglichen und lebt nach den ethischen „Geboten“.

Auch hat die Schule die eigene Kraft und das Selbstbewusstsein der Jugendlichen zu stärken und vom eigenen geliebten Seelenheil abzulenken auf das Heil der Allgemeinheit, auf die Notwendigkeit der Hilfsbereitschaft, auf ein Ideal, das die höchste sittliche Kraft nicht mehr in der religiösen, sondern in der sozialen Idee sieht, in der Schaffung eines „Paradieses“ der Humanität auf Erden.

*

Fußnoten 

(1) Messner, J. (1984, 7. unveränderte Auflage). Das Naturrecht. Handbuch der Gesellschaftsethik, Staatsethik und Wirtschaftsethik. Berlin; http://www.nrhz.de/flyer/beitrag.php?id=26728; https://www.globalresearch.ca/preserve-human-dignity/5709617

(2) http://www.nrhz.de/flyer/beitrag.php?id=26681;  https://www.globalresearch.ca/coronavirus-new-world-order-something-rotten-state-denmark/5706464

(3) https://deutsch.rt.com/international/100535-henry-kissinger-zur-corona-krise/

(4) https://www.welt.de/newsticker/dpa_nt/infoline_nt/wissenschaft_nt/article206943381/Bill-Gates-Massenproduktion-von-Corona-Impfung-vorbereiten.html

(5) https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_D._Hare

(6) https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychopathie; http://www.nrhz.de/flyer/beitrag.php?id=26915

(7) http://www.nrhz.de/flyer/beitrag.php?id=26868;

https://www.globalresearch.ca/social-distancing-lonely-isolated-youngsters-easy-prey-global-rat-catchers/5716281

(8) https://deutsch.rt.com/gesellschaft/107528-auswirkungen-massnahen-gegen-corona-pandemie/; http://www.nrhz.de/flyer/beitrag.php?id=26792;

https://www.globalresearch.ca/diabolic-game-fear-instrument-domination/5712556

(9) http://www.nrhz.de/flyer/beitrag.php?id=26737;

https://www.globalresearch.ca/psychological-remarks-authority-obedience/5710555

(10) https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Swinton_#Die_Rede_im_Twilight_Club_1883

(11) http://www.nrhz.de/flyer/beitrag.php?id=26851;

https://www.globalresearch.ca/davos-reset-2021-agenda-world-economic-forum/5715508

(12) http://www.weforum.org, unter „Now is the time for a ‘great reset’“

(13) https://vera-lengsfeld.de/2020/10/05/es-geht-nicht-um-die-pandemie-es-geht-um-die-grosse-transformation/; https://www.globalresearch.ca/imf-wef-great-lockdown-great-transformation/5721090

(14) De.wikipedia.org, Stichwort „Immanuel Kant“; http://www.nrhz.de/flyer/beitrag.php?id=26713;

https://www.globalresearch.ca/psychological-philosophical-remarks-present-world-situation-sapere-aude-dare-wise/578603

(15) Broszat, M. (Hrsg.) (1994¹⁴). Kommandant in Auschwitz. Autobiographische Aufzeichnungen des Rudolf Höß. München. Im Folgenden beziehe ich mich auf den am 22.04.2015 veröffentlichten Artikel in NRhZ Online Nr. 507 „Psyche des Kommandanten Rudolf Höß“ und übernehme wesentliche Passagen daraus

(16) https://de.wikipedia.org./wiki/Kadavergehorsam

(17) d’Holbach, P.-H. T. (1978). System der Natur oder von den Gesetzen der physischen und der moralischen Welt. Frankfurt am Main, S. 2

(18) A.a.O., S. 11ff.

(19) d‘Holbach, P.-H. T. (1976). Der gesunde Menschenverstand des Pfarrers Meslier. Kritische Gedanken über die Religion und ihre Auswirkung auf die kulturelle Entwicklung. Zürich

(20) A.a.O., S. 4ff.

(21) https://de.wikipedia.org./wiki/Suggestibilität

(22) De.wikipedia.org, Stichwort „Die deutsche Ideologie“

An eye-popping array of corporate consultants, war profiteers, and national security hawks have been appointed by President-elect Joe Biden to agency review teams that will set the agenda for his administration. A substantial percentage of them worked in the United States government when Barack Obama was president.

The appointments should provide a rude awakening to anyone who believed a Biden administration could be pressured to move in a progressive direction, especially on foreign policy.

If the agency teams are any indication, Biden will be firmly insulated from any pressure to depart from the neoliberal status quo, which the former vice president has pledged to restore. Instead, he is likely to be pushed in an opposite direction, towards an interventionist foreign policy dictated by elite Beltway interests and consumed by Cold War fever.

Regime change addicts and revolving doors

A prime example of the interventionist-minded establishment-oriented figures filling the Biden-Harris Defense Department agency team is Lisa Sawyer. She served as director for NATO and European strategic affairs for the National Security Council from 2014 to 2015, and worked for Wall Street’s JPMorgan Chase as a foreign policy adviser. Sawyer was part of the Center for a New American Security’s “Task Force on the Future of US Coercive Economic Statecraft,” which essentially means she participated in meetings that focused on methods of economic warfare that could be used to destabilize countries that refused to bow to American empire.

Sawyer believes the US government is not doing enough to deter Russian “aggression,” US troop levels in Europe should return to the levels they were at in 2012, and offensive weapons shipments to Ukraine should continue and increase in violation of the Minsk Agreements.

“Instead of saying we will lift sanctions when Russia decides to comply with the next agreement, say that we will raise them until they do. Instead of kowtowing to Russia’s supposed spears of influence, provide Ukraine the lethal assistance it so desperately needs and increase US support to vulnerable nations in the gray zone,” Sawyer declared when testifying before the Senate Armed Services Committee in 2017.

US assistant secretary of state for African affairs Linda Thomas-Greenfield was appointed leader of the Biden-Harris State Department team. She is a stalwart ally of former US national security adviser Susan Rice, who pushed for war in Libya, supported the invasion of Iraq, and was involved in the decision to remove peacekeepers from the United Nations which enabled Rwanda genocide.

As a developer and manager for US policy toward sub-Saharan Africa, she cheered President George W. Bush’s Millennium Challenge Account, a neocolonialist policy designed to privilege US corporations and facilitate the economic exploitation of so-called emerging African economies.

Thomas-Greenfield has been a part of the Albright Stonebridge Group, a global consulting firm chaired by former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright that lobbies for the defense industry.

Albright Stonebridge’s client list has included the management firm of vulture capitalist GOP mega-donor Paul Singer. When the two Beltway teamed up to suck Argentina’s economy dry during the country’s last debt crisis, then-President Cristina Kirchner accused Albright of threatening to fund her opponents unless she ceded to her demands.

The State Department group also includes Dana Stroul, a fellow at the neoconservative Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP), which was originally founded by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC).

As The Grayzone’s Ben Norton reported, Stroul was enlisted by Senate Democrats in 2019 to join the “Syria Study Group” to help map out the next phase of the US dirty war in Syria. The recommendations included maintaining a military occupation of one-third of the country, the “resource rich part of Syria” in order to give the US leverage to “influence a political outcome.”

At a US gov-funded think tank, this official who oversaw Congress' Syria Study Group outlines the continued regime-change strategy.

She says the US military "owned" 1/3rd of Syrian territory, including its oil/wheat-rich region. And the US is trying to block reconstruction funds pic.twitter.com/NIEJ9elxhs

— Ben Norton (@BenjaminNorton) November 5, 2019

Stroul urged further economic sanctions against Damascus and the obstruction of reconstruction aid, which has already led to shortages of oil and bread.

Ali Abunimah of the Electronic Intifada noted that Farooq Mitha, a former Pentagon official in the Obama administration, has been appointed to Biden’s Pentagon transition team. Mitha was a board member of Emgage, a Muslim American PAC which has fostered ties to the Israel lobby, provoking angry condemnation from Palestine solidarity advocates. Mitha has reportedly attended AIPAC conferences.

Multiple Biden-Harris appointees back regime change in Venezuela. Paula Garcia Tufro was a member of Obama’s National Security Council and is on the NSC team. She was at the NSC when Obama declared Venezuela a “national security threat” and has consorted with a D.C. group that represents failed coup plotter Juan Guaido.

Kelly Magsamen, the vice president of national security and international policy at the Center for American Progress and a former Pentagon and State Department official, is on the Biden-Harris NSC team. When Representative Ilhan Omar grilled Elliott Abrams, the special envoy to Venezuela, Magsamen rushed to the defense of her former boss, calling Abrams a “fierce advocate for human rights.” (Abrams supported death squads in Central America in the 1980s.)

Former US ambassador to Mexico Roberta Jacobson is a member of the State Department transition team. Marketing herself as an expert on “Latin American business politics,” Jacobson has also worked for the Albright Stonebridge Group consulting firm.

Jacobson helped devise the Obama administration’s designation of Venezuela as a national security threat, setting the stage for the economic blockade imposed under Trump.

“In a rude and petulant manner, Mrs. Jacobson tells us what to do,” Venezuela’s then-Foreign Minister Delcy Rodriguez complained at the time. “I know her very well because I have seen her personally, her way of walking, chewing. You need manners to deal with people and with countries.”

Derek Chollet and Ellison Laskowski, both senior staffers at the German Marshall Fund (GMF), are also on Biden-Harris State Department group. GMF has pushed for a more belligerent US and European posture toward Russia while supporting a dubious information war project called Hamilton 68. This website claimed to be able to identify “Russian influence operations” while fueling social media censorship of accounts that promoted anti-imperialist narratives, misidentifying real people as “Russian bots,” and orchestrating smears against Black Lives Matter protests by branding them as instruments of covert Russian influence.

Today, @SecureDemocracy designated @theintercept and @Antiwarcom as key cogs in Russian influence operations. https://t.co/tEHwsvKsat pic.twitter.com/6ietGM5PSH

— Max Blumenthal (@MaxBlumenthal) September 28, 2017

The Biden-Harris intelligence team features Greg Vogle, the former CIA head of station in Afghanistan and a former partner at the McChrystal Group consulting firm founded by former commander of Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC) Stanley McChrystal. Both JSOC and the CIA, as well as the paramilitary forces they trained, have committed war crimes in Afghanistan.

Vogle also found time to work for a US military contractor named DGC International that provides construction, fueling, oxygen, liquid nitrogen, and other logistical support to US military forces, cashing in on wars across the Middle East.

As Sarah Lazare reported for In These Times, “Of the 23 peo­ple who com­prise the Depart­ment of Defense agency review team, eight of them — or just over a third — list their ​“most recent employ­ment” as orga­ni­za­tions, think tanks or com­pa­nies that either direct­ly receive mon­ey from the weapons indus­try, or are part of this indus­try.” Those companies include Raytheon, Northrop Grumman, General Dynamics, and Lockheed Martin.

Vogle is joined on the intelligence team by Matt Olsen, the former National Counterterrorism Center director for Obama and briefly, the general counsel for the National Security Agency (NSA).

From 2006-2009, Olsen served as deputy attorney general for the Justice Department’s National Security Division. There, he broke down barriers that prevented prosecutors from being able to use information collected through clandestine operations and warrantless surveillance in criminal cases. He also helped craft the FISA Amendments Act, which granted telecommunications companies immunity for their role in the NSA’s warrantless wiretapping program established after the 9/11 attacks.

Olsen is a defender of backdoor searches of Americans’ internet communications, having argued that the Fourth Amendment right to privacy is too cumbersome for the FBI to follow. He spent the months after NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden exposed mass surveillance programs working to discredit Snowden by accusing the whistleblower of aiding terrorists.

Another Snowden opponent on the Biden-Harris intelligence team is Bob Litt, who was the Office of Director of National Intelligence’s top lawyer. When any media organization ran a story on some new aspect of the US surveillance apparatus, Litt was the national security state’s spokesperson deployed to downplay or dismiss the revelation.

When Director of National Intelligence James Clapper was skewered for lying to Congress about the collection of Americans’ phone metadata, for example, Litt rose to Clapper’s defense, absurdly arguing the director was “surprised by the question and focused his mind on the collection of the content of Americans’ communications.”

In fact, the Biden-Harris agency review teams are packed with figures likely to enshrine lawlessness and disdain for civil liberties if they enter the administration.

Agents of injustice

They include Department of Justice review team member Marty Lederman. A Georgetown Law professor, Lederman was the deputy assistant attorney general in the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel from 2009 to 2010. He helped draft the “drone memo” that outlined the supposed “legal basis” for executing Anwar al-Awlaki, an Al Qaeda affiliated terrorism suspect without charge or trial, despite the fact that Al-Awlaki was an American citizen.

Joining Lederman is Barbara McQuade, an ex-MSNBC contributor and former US attorney in the Eastern District of Michigan, which has jurisdiction over Dearborn, Detroit, and Flint. During her time as the government’s top prosecutor in Flint, McQuade had the power to bring charges against Michigan officials responsible for contaminating the city’s water and lying to the public about it, but she waited out her tenure without doing anything of substance to hold them accountable.

McQuade’s office was complicit in the racial profiling and intrusive surveillance of Arab, Muslim, and Sikh communities in Dearborn. She pursued the political prosecution of Rasmea Odeh, a prominent Palestinian American civil rights activist in Chicago, resulting in Odeh’s deportation to Jordan.

Odeh was tortured by Israeli forces, the State Department knew she was accused of violence by the Israeli government, yet she was allowed to immigrate to the US in the 1990s. Nonetheless, Odeh was convicted of immigration fraud and deported to Jordan as part of an effort to salvage a larger FBI counterintelligence operation against antiwar and international solidarity activists.

Neil MacBride, the former US Attorney in the Eastern District of Virginia, is on the Biden-Harris Justice Department team too. Although his office did not indict WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, MacBride oversaw the grand jury that was empaneled to aid the US government in its efforts to destroy the media organization.

MacBride presided over the prosecution of CIA whistleblowers John Kiriakou and Jeffrey Sterling, enabling Obama to claim the dishonorable record of more prosecutions under the Espionage Act than all previous presidential administrations combined. MacBride also fought in federal court for the authority to force New York Times reporter James Risen to divulge his confidential sources in the Sterling case, threatening the correspondent with jail time if he refused.

At an Aspen Security Forum event in July 2013, MacBride was asked by Michael Isikoff, “Have you gone overboard, Neil?” MacBride replied, “No, I don’t believe we have.”

MacBride oversaw grand jury investigation against WikiLeaks until he resigned from his position as US Attorney in August 2013. He prosecuted CIA whistleblowers @JohnKiriakou and Jeffrey Sterling (@S_UnwantedSpy).

— Kevin Gosztola (@kgosztola) November 12, 2020

The Biden-Harris team leader for the Labor Department team is Chris Lu, a cheerleader for the Trans-Pacific Partnership corporate free trade deal as Obama’s Deputy Secretary of Labor.

Half dozen or so of the appointees have links to Big Tech companies. Perhaps the most significant figure is Seth Harris, a lobbyist and former Obama Labor Department official who wrote a policy paper for the neoliberal Hamilton Project.

This paper provided the framework for the passage of Proposition 22 in California. Uber, Doordash, and Lyft spent around $200 million to campaign for the passage of this bill, which exempted them and other corporations from paying their employees benefits and blocked Uber and Lyft drivers from organizing a union.

Max Moran of The American Prospect contended Proposition 22 was Harris’ audition for Labor Secretary in a Biden administration. Given its smashing success in duping supposedly progressive Californians of all demographics into supporting corporate oppression of workers, Harris has earned himself the job.

And like the interventionists that dominate the foreign policy review teams, Moran embodies Biden’s pledge to big money donors: “Nothing will fundamentally 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.

Kevin Gosztola is managing editor of Shadowproof.com. He also produces and co-hosts the weekly podcast, “Unauthorized Disclosure.”

Featured image is from The Grayzone

“Even among bourgeois economists, there is hardly a serious thinker who will deny that it is possible, by means of currently existing material and intellectual forces of production, to put an end to hunger and poverty, and that the present state of things is due to the socio-political organization of the world.” — Herbert Marcuse, “The End of Utopia”

This essay outlines the contribution of Herbert Marcuse to political thought by describing his argument against the loaded concept of ‘utopia’, a device which has, through the ages, been used as a synonym for the impossible, to malign radical philosophies as fruitless ventures. Far from being objectively impossible, though, Marcuse saw that socialism was a realizable possibility, repressed by mechanisms of social and political control. In sum, he argued material and intellectual forces could become effective agents of transformation capable of creating a non-repressive society, if only they weren’t trapped in the wrong mode of production, namely industrial capitalism. Marcuse thus sheds new light on the politics of advanced industrial society, and highlights the extent to which forces of orthodoxy will try to contain possibilities for transformation through concepts like ‘Utopia’ which reify the current order.

In July 1967, by then the best known radical philosopher of the day for his incendiary writings on civilization and domination, Marcuse delivered a lecture entitled “The End of Utopia” to the Free University of Berlin. Its purpose was to expose and extinguish what he saw as the false objectivity of contemporary thinking which dismissed utopian philosophies like Marxism as impossible. Because “Any transformation of the technical and natural environment is a possibility“, the New Left luminary observed, a non-repressive life is possible for the masses. An end to alienation and wage labour is possible. We could put an end to poverty and misery. We could be free if only we knew how. But because  “the material and intellectual forces which could be put to work for the realization of a free society” are incarcerated in capitalism, they are enlisted in “the total mobilization of the existing society against its own potential for liberation,” a project in which corporations and technocratic elites keep citizens trapped in the horrors of capitalist industrialisation: war, needless consumption, planned obsolescence and waste. The mode of production in advanced industrial society at once contains the potential for its’ own evolution, but has simultaneously evolved to defend itself against those forces which might evolve it.

Whilst proclaiming the obsolescence of the concept of utopia which denotes impossibility, this is also to defend the utopian imagination from its assailants, since it is the spectre of an impossible utopia that engenders its distance and uselessness in the eyes of defenders of the traditional order. As Marcuse sees, the underlying premise of that argument – that socialism is impossible – is contradicted by virtually the entire material and intellectual capabilities of humankind. On top of the conquest of technology over human and nature, of human over nature -symbolized most negatively by the atomic bomb -the exponential “development of productive forces and higher standards of living” in the advanced industrial states signified to Marcuse that the utopian designation for Marx’s theory had ceased to be an operative truth, because the means really existed to rationally plan society in such a way as to create “solidarity for the human species… abolishing poverty and misery beyond all national frontiers and spheres of interest, for the attainment of peace“. Combining a pessimism and optimism he ruminated: “We have the capacity to turn the world in to hell, and are well on the way to doing so.” but concluded that “We also have the capacity to turn it in to the opposite of hell.” He believed technology could make possible creative experimentation with productive forces, which, he hoped, would create a reorganisation of human life in which non-alienated work and nature would be restored to a privileged role, and we would be free to explore our consciousness.

Marcuse wrote against the conventional political wisdom of his age and proved that some of the basic assumptions of the liberal west have become obsolescent to the degree to which their object, namely the ‘utopia’ as the embodiment of a fruitless endeavor, has become obsolescent in social reality. If a socialist vision was to be dismissed as ‘utopian’, then what most people considered ‘realism’ could be called in to disrepute for false objectivity. That is to say ideology, namely the ideologies of instrumental rationality, had concealed the reality of domination and alienation inherent in the structure of industrial societies. Referring to this, Marcuse wrote in 1969 that by taking direct action to prefigure an alternative society based on communism and non-oppressive relationships, the militants had “invalidated the concept of utopia… they have denounced a vicious ideology“. Remarking on “the end of utopia“, in 1967, Marcuse denounced “ideas and theories that use the concept of utopia to denounce certain socio-historical possibilities.” It is open to question, Marcuse thought, whether or not the prevailing positivism and its denial of socialism really represented truth.

Remarking on this he argued “When truth cannot be realized within the established social order,” Marcuse argued, “it always appears to the latter as mere utopia.” What does utopia mean? An unrealisable fantasy, an impossible dream, nowhere we could really live. But that’s only from the point of view of the prevailing reality, which Marcuse takes to be a reflection of a biased positivism. I think Marcuse is at his most incisive here when he rejects the objectivity of a proscribed “reality.”

Because he perceived the possibility of utopia, Marcuse wrote with a view to diagnosing and determining those forces that may bring about radical change. In 1969, writing after the seismic uprising of students and workers in France which revived the egalitarian ideals of the 1871 Paris commune, and against the backdrop of uprising in America, Marcuse evaluated the prospects for rebellion against the abhorrent global order. As a form of acknowledgement of the critical influence of the radicals on the febrile atmosphere of protest worldwide, he hailed, in An Essay on Liberation, that a fresh generation of activists had “proclaimed” an era of “the permanent challenge, the permanent education“… “the great refusal“, a species of rebellion in which, he argued to Adorno a little later, consisted possibilities for “the internal collapse of the system of domination today”. Within Marcuse’s philosophy of liberation, which came to be a highly regarded and influential source of guidance to oppositional movements of the New Left, the goal of radical politics was to establish a non-repressive society “based on a fundamentally different experience of being, a fundamentally different relation between man and nature, and fundamentally different existential relations” to the oppressive ones incarnate in contemporary society. Fledgling protest movements brought this “great refusal” closer to fruition because they mobilised against all manifestations of oppression, because “they recognised the mark of social repression” perpetuated by the dominant institutions of civilisation “even in the most spectacular manifestations of technical progress.” Beneath the illusion of its progress, dissenters had become conscious of all that was wrong with the society they inherited, and they looked out to the world with unease.

Marcuse’s adroit remarks on the backlash against repression, made in the height of the New Left’s activity, reveal his thoughts on liberation in their broader cultural and historical milieu. It was a seismic era, a time of transition: The age of capitalist exploitation and neo-colonialism was increasingly assailed by keen and conscientious citizens who no longer wanted to play the game of society. They wanted to introduce a qualitatively different society, one which trans-valuated – transformed the values of, re-evaluated – the civic order they inhabited. Post-war society was abloom with “a protest against capitalism,” a movement to: transcend its conditions of alienation “which cuts to the roots of its existence,” which argued vehemently “against its henchmen in the Third World,” and despised “its culture, its morality” of wastefulness and nihilism. By this point it had become clear to Marcuse and conscientious pupils that the growth and success of the advanced industrial economies was an expression of a project at the center of which is the “experience, transformation and organization of nature” as well as people “as the mere stuff of domination“. Civilization depended on subjection to tyranny, to entrenched forms of subjugation, exploitation and alienation of the masses and nature. But society at this time was nonetheless incandescent with the idea of change. There was a world to win.

One of the most interesting aspects of Marcuse’s philosophy is that it dealt incisively with the forces of repression that our society continues to generate at that very point in time when it has developed the means for creating a new and liberated society. The movement to disestablish capitalism has been at work for over two centuries. From the start the impetus was – as it still is – revolutionary: inflamed with the rise and fall of social orders, borne up by that sense of living through a revolutionary moment which continues to galvanize the left. The assault on capitalism continues, though the revolution hasn’t taken place, or where it has, has been quickly stifled by counter-revolution. Gradually becoming hoist to the engine of counter-revolution, revolutionary energies are absorbed and defused, whilst capitalism evolves to contain those forces that might evolve it. But as Marcuse reminds us, the possibility of utopia remains very much real.

*

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: Everett Collection Historical / Alamy Stock Photo

Almost every paragraph of a recent CBC Morning Brief, about a supposed “COVID-19 resurgence,” contains statements that leave me questioning the competency and motives of the reporter. Is this part of an orchestrated second wave of illogical fear-mongering from the Coronavirus Broadcasting Corporation? Maybe the author would be better off writing medical thrillers for Hollywood? Here are some perplexing examples:

“Canadians successfully flattened epidemic curves during the summer…” Doesn’t the cold and flu season flatten every summer all by itself? What did beer-guzzling Canucks have to do with it? Even a five-year-old knows there ain’t many people with the sniffles in hot, humid August in Canada.

For example, Drs. Karina Reiss and Scharit Bhakdi’s, in Corona: False Alarm?, write:

“Why do annual coronavirus epidemics end in the summertime? Over 50% of the northern European population becomes vitamin D-deficient in the dark winter months. Possibly, replenishment of vitamin D stores by sunshine and the shift of activities to outdoors are simple important reasons.”

And back in 2010, PLOS Biology printed a study suggested that it’s not the heat of the summer but “absolute humidity” which “drives seasonal variations of influenza transmission in temperate regions.”

Whatever the reason, thousands of years of seasonal observations would suggest that new normal rituals had little to do with reducing cases of coronavirus infections this summer.

The CBC article continues: “…the goal was to prevent hospitals and intensive care units from facing a crush of patients with COVID-19 all at once.” Nice of them to remind us of the original messaging — “slow the spread” got lost with all those “stop the spread” signs on the roadside. Needless to say, they created the opposite problem: Empty hospitals and neglected patients, as CTV reported back in the spring.

“Health officials wanted to avoid what happened in hospitals in New York City, where refrigerated trailers were used as temporary morgues.” Well, I doubt the cadavers minded whether they were in a truck or a basement. It’s more sad that their families were not allowed to hold funeral services because of the unnecessary lockdown.

Either way, a rising curve probably had little to do with the New York oddity. More suspect were the the $39,000 payments dangled in front of hospital CEOs if they would rush patients onto ventilators (as many nurses have testified).

But any such backload of patients was not enough to max-out New York hospitals. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers did indeed hand over $660 million to private construction companies to build field hospitals, according to an NPR analysis. “But nearly four months into the pandemic, most of these facilities haven’t treated a single patient,” reported NPR journalist, Joel Rose. That included three in New York State:

“But the recent surge of new coronavirus cases…” That must have been a typo. They meant to say: “…recent surge of new PCR tests…” PCR tests which may or not be detecting a coronavirus (novel or otherwise) which would only cause respiratory distress in a tiny percentage of people, like the common cold does every year.

The article continues by quoting a McMaster professor who “anticipates a surge of patients with COVID-19, and he worries hospitals won’t be able to accommodate them…” Well, thank you dear leaders for not even bothering us with bogus computer modelling. Instead just go ahead and cancel surgeries, collapse what’s left of the economy and throw the elderly into solitary confinement, because some professor suffers from anticipation.

Even with Ontario anticipating as much as 6,500 new cases a day, according to The National Post, that would mean only six deaths per day (at a 0.1% death rate). Or about 180 deaths a month. But let’s say with all these dirty masking practices it’s threefold that: 540 deaths per months. In a province of 14 million, does that sound like enough deaths to warrant locking everybody in their homes again — causing more deaths through suicide, poverty and loneliness?

Ironically, the same article admits: “Traditionally, autumn in hospitals also means scrambling for health-care workers such as nurses and respiratory therapists to backfill those sick with the cold and flu or who need to stay home to care for sick children.” So, like every year, we are expecting an increase in respiratory illnesses among a largely sedentary population addicted to stimulants, smartphones and sugar. 

This year may indeed be worse, I admit, considering we’ve had a population of mask-wearers living in fear, avoiding fresh air and exercise. Sure, a rare few took advantage of lockdown to complete an online degree in quantum physics, test out all the recipes in that vegan cookbook and add twenty pounds to their bench press; but many were probably falling prey to emotional eating and Netflix novacane as a way to escape the new normal nightmare being forced upon them. Should we really be so surprised if people are more prone to infection — corona or otherwise — this fall?

The CBC article concludes by quoting Patty Tamlin, a registered nurse in Toronto, who is “also concerned about the coming cold-and-flu season” and recommends everyone better “get their flu shot.” I wonder if this nurse reads the Journal of Clinical Infectious Disease? A 2012 study found that the flu shot significantly increased people’s chances of getting sick with the coronavirus. Most certainly she’s reviewed such an important paper before making such an authoritative statement.

Furthermore, Vaccine Choice Canada’s Fluwatch Archive shows “influenza comprises only a small percentage of all influenza-like illness.” Tallying up government of Canada records, this watchdog organization found that only 13.5% of flu-like illnesses — from 2000 to 2017 — were attributed to an actual influenza virus. I would love to know, then, how Nurse Tamlin justifies such contradictions.

But contradictions seem to be part of the new normal: Take toxic vaccines. Avoid exercise. Wear a germ-collecting mask. Shun fresh air. Lock up Grandma. And then scratch our sunlight-deprived heads when we see an increase in respiratory illnesses.

But why blame it on a the latest mutation of the common cold virus? That’s like blaming gravity for an airplane crash. Instead, should we not be looking to the second tsunami of COVID-19 disinformation sweeping this land from Bonavista to Vancouver Island?

*

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.

John C. A. Manley has spent over a decade ghostwriting for medical doctors, naturopaths and chiropractors. He currently writes the COVID-19(84) Red Pill Daily Briefs — an email based newsletter that questions and exposes the contradictions in the COVID-19 narrative and control measures. He is also writing a novel,  Much Ado About Corona: A Dystopian Love Story. You can visit his website at MuchAdoAboutCorona.ca. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Credits to the owner of the featured image

Eric Schmitt, Maggie Haberman, David E. Sanger, Helene Cooper and Lara Jakes at the New York Times get the scoop. Their sources in the White House tell them that last Thursday, in a meeting with his senior advisers, Trump abruptly asked them if there were options for a US strike on Iran’s civilian nuclear enrichment facilities.

They say that vice president Mike Pence, secretary of state Mike Pompeo and chairman of the joint chiefs of staff Gen. Mark Milley all sought to dissuade Trump from this course of action, on the grounds it could kick off a major war in the last weeks of his presidency. They are alleged to have come away from the meeting convinced that they had succeeded.

Some commentary on this story:

First, it should be noted that Iran is not engaged in illegal activity. Its right to enrich uranium for civilian electricity production was acknowledged by the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action or nuclear deal signed with all the permanent members of the United Nations Security Council plus Germany. Iran has only departed from that agreement in very minor ways, and mainly as a way of putting pressure on Europe to defy the US severe economic sanctions, which contravene the treaty. It is Trump’s Washington that has behaved illegally, not Iran.

So there is no casus belli and any US military action against Iran’s civilian nuclear facilities would be a massive war crime.

Further, the authors do not say anything about the likely consequences for Iranian civilians of such a strike.

It is possible that such a US strike on active nuclear enrichment facilities could kill as many Iranians as did the use of an atom bomb on Hiroshima in 1945, which killed between 90,000 and 145,000 people over four months. Further effects lingered for years. There was a big spike in leukemia in children from 1947-1951. A similar elevated rate of leukemia in Iranian children would almost certainly follow on a US airstrike on Iranian nuclear facilities. Although the US would not be using a nuclear bomb, it would subject the nuclear material to massive conventional firepower, which would throw up similar radioactive fallout.

A 2012 study found that a strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities would directly and immediately kill between 5,000 and 70,000 people from the release of up to 20% of the uranium hexafluoride gas at the Isfahan facility.

Elsewhere they comment,

“In our report, we have stated that casualties can range from 5,000 to 70,000 should only 1%-20% percent of 371 tons of uranium hexafluoride gas at Isfahan’s Uranium Conversion Facility be released into the atmosphere (P. 28). These casualties are direct results of exposure to chemically toxic hydrogen fluoride and other fluorine containing compounds, not due to radioactive fallout…”

What if 50% of the gas were released?

The authors went on to write about much higher casualties from broader consequences of the strike. They note the

“indisputable fact that thousands, if not tens of thousands, of civilians currently working as engineers, technicians and support staff would be killed or suffer numerous injuries, both short and long term as a result of a military strike. Based on reliable international sources, we have estimated the number at the four facilities at 5,000-10,000.”

These deaths appear to be on top of as many as 70,000 from the gas release.

Then there is the fallout produced by the US bombing, which would throw up toxic radioactive particles into the atmosphere that would then fall on people, would produce further casualties, over decades.

In addition, a strike on Isfahan in particular could pollute one of Iran’s major underground sources of water:

“The Markazi Aquifer, which supplies 29% of all irrigation and culinary water in Iran lies directly beneath the Isfahan Uranium Conversion Facility. Any kind of disturbance and propagation of uranium- containing compounds could expose this large and important body of fresh water to dangerous levels of uranium, shackling millions of Iranians with an increased rate of bone cancer as well as a significant rise in birth defects for decades, if not centuries to come.”

Bone cancer and birth defects. A third of Iran’s water undrinkable. Iran is mostly desert and does not receive much rainfall except in the northeast. This would be a humanitarian consequences of enormous proportions for the country of 81 million people.

Finally, I have a critique of one passage in the article. At one point they say this:

“The report from the International Atomic Energy Agency concluded that Iran now had a stockpile of more than 2,442 kilograms, or over 5,385 pounds, of low-enriched uranium. That is enough to produce about two nuclear weapons, according to an analysis of the report by the Institute for Science and International Security. But it would require several months of additional processing to enrich the uranium to bomb-grade material, meaning that Iran would not be close to a bomb until late spring at the earliest — well after Mr. Trump would have left office.”

I have enormous respect for these reporters, and for Mr. Sanger in particular. But I cannot avoid pointing out that this passage is full of assumptions that are unsupported by any facts. And in fact, the possibility they raise of Iran having a nuclear weapon in 2021 is as near to being impossible as any statement about the future can be, as I have explained elsewhere.

1. Iran was constrained to enrich to no more than 3.67%. To protest the way the US and Europe reneged on the 2015 Iran deal by refusing in fact to proffer Iran substantial sanctions relief, they have started enriching to 4.5%. You can’t do anything with uranium enriched to 4.5%. It is just suitable for fuel for the nuclear reactors at Bushehr, which boil water with it to make electricity. It doesn’t really matter how much of it they produce.

2. Iran has never produced high enriched uranium and there is no reason to believe that they have the capacity to enrich to the over 90% necessary to produce fissionable material.

3. Iran certainly cannot achieve that capacity by next spring!

4. Iran is being regularly inspected by the UN, which certifies that there is no evidence of an Iranian bomb-making program. Unless they cease the inspections, we would know if Iran went for broke and tried to militarize its civilian enrichment program.

The implication of this paragraph, that there is any realistic prospect that Iran could have a nuclear weapon by next March, is absolutely ludicrous. I doubt it is a possibility even in the next decade, and then only if Iran kicked out the UN inspectors and breached the nuclear deal with allies China and Russia, on which it is deeply dependent, and which strongly object to Tehran doing any such thing. It is this sort of alarmist and inaccurate reporting on things nuclear that dragged the US into the Iraq War, and the New York Times played a sinister role in it that the paper has never properly acknowledged.

*

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: Screenshot from Indusdotnews at YouTube.

---

“Towards a World War III Scenario: The Dangers of Nuclear War” 

by Michel Chossudovsky

Available to order from Global Research! 

ISBN Number: 978-0-9737147-5-3
Year: 2012
Pages: 102
Print Edition: $10.25 (+ shipping and handling)
PDF Edition:  $6.50 (sent directly to your email account!)

Michel Chossudovsky is Professor of Economics at the University of Ottawa and Director of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), which hosts the critically acclaimed website www.globalresearch.ca . He is a contributor to the Encyclopedia Britannica. His writings have been translated into more than 20 languages.

Reviews

“This book is a ‘must’ resource – a richly documented and systematic diagnosis of the supremely pathological geo-strategic planning of US wars since ‘9-11’ against non-nuclear countries to seize their oil fields and resources under cover of ‘freedom and democracy’.”
–John McMurtry, Professor of Philosophy, Guelph University

“In a world where engineered, pre-emptive, or more fashionably “humanitarian” wars of aggression have become the norm, this challenging book may be our final wake-up call.”
-Denis Halliday, Former Assistant Secretary General of the United Nations

Michel Chossudovsky exposes the insanity of our privatized war machine. Iran is being targeted with nuclear weapons as part of a war agenda built on distortions and lies for the purpose of private profit. The real aims are oil, financial hegemony and global control. The price could be nuclear holocaust. When weapons become the hottest export of the world’s only superpower, and diplomats work as salesmen for the defense industry, the whole world is recklessly endangered. If we must have a military, it belongs entirely in the public sector. No one should profit from mass death and destruction.
–Ellen Brown, author of ‘Web of Debt’ and president of the Public Banking Institute   

For those of us who have been critical of the growing anti-free speech movement in the Democratic Party, the Biden transition team just took an ominous turn.  The New York Post reports that Biden tapped Richard Stengel to take the “team lead” position on the US Agency for Global Media, including Voice of America, the Middle East Broadcasting Networks and Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty. As I previously addressed in a column, Stengel has been one of the most controversial figures calling for censorship and speech controls. For a president-elect who just called for everyone to “hear each other,” he picked a top aide who wants to silence many.  Since it would be difficult to select a more anti-free speech figure to address government media policy, one has to assume that Biden will continue the onslaught against this core freedom as president.  This is not the first Biden aide to indicate a crackdown on free speech in the new Administration and Biden himself has called for greater censorship on the Internet.

Last year, Stengel wrote a chilling Washington Post op-ed that denounced free speech as a threat to social and political harmony.  Like a number of liberal and Democratic figures, Stengel struggled to convince readers that what they need is less freedom:  “All speech is not equal. And where truth cannot drive out lies, we must add new guardrails. I’m all for protecting ‘thought that we hate,’ but not speech that incites hate.”

It is the European view that has destroyed free speech on that continent. We have previously discussed the alarming rollback on free speech rights in the West, (here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here). It is a trend that seems now to be find support in the media, which celebrated the speech of French President Emmanuel Macron before Congress where he called on the United States to follow the model of Europe on hate speech.

In January, Biden called for greater speech controls on the Internet and denounced Twitter for allowing others to speak freely. In insisted that tolerating such views in the name of free speech is same as “propagating falsehoods they know to be false.” Biden called for companies to bar Trump views on such things as mail-in voting as an invitation for fraud.  He is not alone. Congressional leaders like House Intelligence Committee Chair Adam Schiff have called for labeling and removal of material with some members directly threatening a legislative crackdown. This week, Speaker Nancy Pelosi denounced Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg for resisting speech monitoring and censorship as a matter of free speech. Pelosi lashed out that those who want to preserve a free speech zone are “all about making money,” ignoring free speech advocates who have no financial interest in these companies. Pelosi said that opposing such monitoring means that social media companies simply want “to make money at the expense of the truth and the facts” and are trying to “hide under the freedom of speech.”

These efforts are drawing upon the work of academics who are pushing for greater censorship and speech controls. The Atlantic published an article by Harvard Law School professor Jack Goldsmith and University of Arizona law professor Andrew Keane Woods calling for Chinese style censorship of the internet.  They declared that “in the great debate of the past two decades about freedom versus control of the network, China was largely right and the United States was largely wrong” and “significant monitoring and speech control are inevitable components of a mature and flourishing internet, and governments must play a large role in these practices to ensure that the internet is compatible with society norms and values.”

Stengel however is one of the most unnerving and outspoken voices against free speech. He wrote how hard it was to explain our views of free speech to Arab countries which of course routinely jail or even execute people for exercising free speech. However, Stengel was raising the point to suggest that they had a valid confusion over our values:

“Even the most sophisticated Arab diplomats that I dealt with did not understand why the First Amendment allows someone to burn a Koran. Why, they asked me, would you ever want to protect that It’s a fair question. Yes, the First Amendment protects the ‘thought that we hate,’ but it should not protect hateful speech that can cause violence by one group against another. In an age when everyone has a megaphone, that seems like a design flaw.”

That design flaw is free speech itself. So in a nation filled with gifted people to lead the effort on government media policy and positions, Biden selected a person who rejects the very essence of free speech.  Stengel promises the “unity” of a nation silenced by government speech codes and censorship.   If no one has a megaphone, free speech is no longer a problem.

*

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 Wikimedia Commons

In the mist of the gloom generated by the twin health and economic crises, the birth of the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) is a ray of light auguring hope.

More than a million lives have been lost world-wide as a result of the coronavirus pandemic, there is massive unemployment and entire societies have been devastated. For the 10 ASEAN states and their 5 partners, 3 from North East Asia and 2 from South Pacific to come together to form RCEP in a situation like this is a bold and brave leap of faith. They are of course hoping that the new grouping will accelerate their economic recovery since they have all been affected by the twin crises to a greater or lesser degree. As trade barriers are removed and bureaucratic hurdles overcome, there will be a greater flow of affordable goods and services across borders leading to enhanced economic growth and more opportunities for shared prosperity.

RCEP however is more than a response to immediate, urgent challenges. It is a tremendous boost to regionalism at a time when the concept and practice is faced with new problems as witnessed by the experience of the European Union (EU) in recent years. Regional cooperation promises the more rational and efficient utilisation of new technologies. RCEP may well serve as a platform for this.

It is also the re-assertion of the importance of multilateralism which has also been subjected to immense pressures in the last few years. The very creation of RCEP is a statement that economies at different levels of progress need not succumb to myopic nationalistic measures in order to preserve their political independence and sovereignty. Indeed, multilateral arrangements can always been worked out which will help nation-states to achieve their economic goals while strengthening their autonomy and independence.

More than contributing to regionalism and multilateralism, RCEP may also pave the way to a positive re-orientation of its member states which in turn will impact upon the global economy and world politics. Through RCEP, ASEAN states may begin to realise that getting closer to their North East neighbours, China, Japan and Korea, on the one hand, and their South Pacific neighbours such as Australia and New Zealand, on the other, not only makes economic sense but also denotes deeper geographical roots and cultural meanings which have yet to be discovered.  The same argument goes for the North East Asian states whose interaction with ASEAN at the cultural and societal levels remains somewhat limited.  Perhaps re-orientation will have the greatest significance for Australia and New Zealand as they come to appreciate through RCEP that their real neighbours are in ASEAN and North East Asia. To put it starkly, RCEP may be the conduit through which the two countries finally acknowledge that they are not part of the West but integral to Asia. In other words, for Australia and New Zealand, RCEP could turn out to be an identity marker.  It is not inconceivable that as the 15 members of RCEP re-orientate, their regional and even international roles will change considerably.

But attempts to consolidate and strengthen RCEP will not be a walk in the park.  Even as it is there are major political- cum- security issues facing individual RCEP states. For instance, they relate differently to China on the contentious South China Sea (SCS) issue. The United States’ stance on the issue complicates matters. There are also longstanding disputes between RCEP states which occasionally erupt into friction. Relations between China and Japan; Japan and Korea; China and Vietnam; Thailand and Cambodia; Singapore and Malaysia; Malaysia and the Philippines; Myanmar and Malaysia; and Australia and Indonesia have all had their ups and downs.  What makes it worse is the role played by individuals and groups outside the region, including sections of the media who are ever ready to exploit disputes between and among RCEP members with the aim of weakening the organisation.

This is why RCEP should develop mechanisms that will address these disputes. It could be an Eminent Persons Group (EPG) drawn from within RCEP or an Early Response Caucus which will deliberate on a dispute and recommend solutions to the RCEP leadership.   What RCEP should not do is to sweep problems under the carpet.

In this regard, appointing a RCEP Secretary-General who will focus upon its primary agenda of developing the economies of the region but is also deeply cognisant of political undercurrents, is imperative.   It could be a retired political leader or a retired diplomat who is also knowledgeable about RCEP’s complex cultural nuances. He or she will serve as the regional grouping’s anchor in the initial years.

The Secretary-General’s principal task is to ensure that RCEP does not flounder and fail. Its success which in the ultimate analysis will depend upon the collective political leadership of the grouping will be a fundamental prerequisite for the evolution of a new global economic order.

*

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 Chandra Muzaffar is the president of the International Movement for a Just World (JUST), Malaysia. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG)

Featured image is from InfoBrics

On November 17, under Russia’s BRICS Chairmanship, Vladimir Putin hosted the 12th BRICS Summit via videoconference. The leaders of Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa participated to discuss the state and prospects of cooperation within BRICS, discussed the global stability and security, and most importantly exchanged views on joint efforts to halt the spread of coronavirus pandemic.

President Vladimir Putin reviewed BRICS activities since Russia took over from Brazil, highlighted achievements and set the challenges for the future of BRICS. During the Russia’s Chairmanship the BRICS, Russia has held 130 events, including some 25 ministerial meetings, many of them online.

Within the context of the current global health situation, Putin pointed to the subject of medical cooperation among BRICS, and reminded the Ufa Declaration which was adopted five years ago included an agreement to work together to prevent the spread of infectious diseases.

Pursuant to that agreement, the BRICS countries created an early warning system for infectious disease outbreaks, which could be used during the COVID-19 pandemic. The BRICS countries promptly responded to the disease outbreak and took practical measures to combat the pandemic.

He said that the Russian Direct Investment Fund (RDIF) has signed agreements with Indian and Brazilian partners on clinical tests of the Sputnik V vaccine and with pharmaceutical companies in China and India on the production of this vaccine not only for own use, but also for third countries. There are Russian vaccines, and they are effective and safe. The next task is to launch large-scale production. It is very important to join forces for the large-scale manufacturing of this product for public use.

Besides this, it important to accelerate the establishment of the BRICS Vaccine Research and Development Centre, as agreed at the Johannesburg summit two years ago at the initiative of South African.

Due to the pandemic, many countries have taken emergency measures to support national industries, finance and the social sphere, to revive their economies and return them to a trajectory of sustainable growth. This is the goal of the Strategy for BRICS Economic Partnership for the period until 2025, prepared for this summit.

The New Development Bank is in great demand in the current situation. The Bank has reserved $10 billion to combat the pandemic, while its overall portfolio of investment projects now exceeds $20 billion. As many as 62 large projects are being implemented in the BRICS countries. Incidentally, a regional branch of the bank will soon open in Moscow to implement lending programs across the Eurasian space. The BRICS countries have a special insurance tool in case of a crisis in the financial markets: the BRICS Contingent Reserve Arrangement, with a $100 billion fund.

The BRICS Interbank Cooperation Mechanism is important in the parties’ cooperation on credit and investment policy. This year, they have agreed on the rules and principles of responsible financing of development institutions within its framework.

The five countries are enhancing cooperation in science, technology, and innovation. Intensive contacts have been underway between our academic and scientific centers. Their coverage is truly impressive – from ocean and polar research to astronomy and artificial intelligence. Experts from the five countries carry out joint energy research: reports have been prepared on the projected development of the fuel and energy sectors in the BRICS countries until 2040.

Putin further highlighted the challenging global and regional security environment. International terrorism and drug trafficking continue to pose serious threats, and cybercrime has greatly expanded its reach.

“We are witnessing dangerous destabilizing trends in the Middle East and North Africa. The armed conflicts in Libya and Yemen are continuing. There is still a lot to be done to bring about a political settlement in Syria, and the risks of escalation persist in Iraq, Lebanon, Afghanistan, and in the Persian Gulf,” he told the gathering.

It is highly satisfying that the BRICS countries have been closely coordinating their efforts on current international and regional matters. A policy document, the BRICS Counter-Terrorism Strategy, drafted for the summit. The BRICS countries are expanding their cooperation on combating drug trafficking and corruption, as well as on international information security.

During the meeting, the leaders of the BRICS member countries heard reports from other speakers who have overseen the work on each track of the association’s activity.

Secretary of the Russian Security Council Nikolai Patrushev spoke about cooperation in the coronavirus pandemic response, in combating terrorism and cybercrime.

President of the New Development Bank Marcos Troyjo cited the financial institution’s performance data and plans for next year.

President of the Russian Chamber of Commerce and Industry Sergei Katyrin spoke about the Business Council events, while Chairman of VEB RF Igor Shuvalov covered the BRICS Interbank Cooperation Mechanism.

The report by Chair of the Board of Directors of Global Rus Trade Anna Nesterova addressed the establishment of the BRICS Women’s Business Alliance.

President of Brazil Jair Bolsonaro, Prime Minister of India Narendra Modi, President of China Xi Jinping and President of South Africa Cyril Ramaphosa, during the meeting, exchanged views on the state and prospects of the five-sided cooperation.

The 12th BRICS Summit Moscow Declaration was adopted which reflects the five countries’ consolidated approach to the further development of the association, as well as the Strategy for the BRICS Economic Partnership until 2025 and the BRICS Anti-Terrorism Strategy.

“India, China, South Africa and Brazil commend Russian BRICS Chairmanship in 2020 and express their gratitude to the government and people of Russia for holding the XII BRICS Summit,” the adopted document says. Besides that, Brazil, Russia, China and South Africa extended full support to India for its BRICS Chairmanship in 2021 and the holding of the 13th BRICS Summit.

*

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 and passionate contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from Kremlin.ru

A British MP faced backlash Monday after suggesting that employees in the UK should not be allowed to go to work unless they can prove that they have been vaccinated against COVID-19, when the shot becomes available.

“If vaccination works and if we’re confident it’s safe, and all indications so far are good, then I can certainly see the day when businesses say: ‘Look, you’ve got to return to the office and if you’re not vaccinated you’re not coming in,’” said Tom Tugendhat.

“And I can certainly see social venues asking for vaccination certificates,” Tugendhat added.

Far from being some extreme leftist politician, Tugendhat is a Conservative MP, he chairs the foreign affairs committee under Prime Minster Boris Johnson’s government.

Tugendhat also suggested that there are precedents for requiring vaccinations for foreign travel.

“I remember when I used to travel rather more than I do now – when you go into certain countries you had to show a yellow fever certificate and if you did not have a yellow fever certificate you weren’t allowed in the country and that was that,” said Tugendhat.

“There was no debates, no appeals and no further requests. And I can see a situation where yes, of course you’re free not to have the vaccine, but there are consequences,” he added.

Tugendhat also suggested that vaccine status could even be required to use public transport, saying “It would depend what the public services were, and who and when, so I wouldn’t want to start predicting.”

“But I do think that if things are shown to be safe then rejecting them when they have a wider effect on the whole of society is going to have consequences,” the MP added.

AN ORWELLIAN FUTURE
Tom Tugendhat, Conservative MP & Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, has stated he could “certainly see the day” when people are refused entry into pubs & restaurants, and they may not be allowed to return to their workplace until they've had the vaccine. pic.twitter.com/AWBlkK59Fy

— Jim Slater (@Dailybugle1898) November 15, 2020

“Conservative Tom Tugendhat has warned that he could 'certainly see the day' when proof of vaccination was required to return to normal life.” @TomTugendhat Really??! You think this is OK?!https://t.co/Qj8Raj5l4z

— B Beetle (@busybee8009) November 17, 2020

Advocates for mandatory vaccination like @TomTugendhat always say that the vaccine is safe. What is safe? No vaccine can possibly be 100% safe.
Has the government indemnified the vaccine manufacturers against any liability for their vaccine prior to production I wonder? https://t.co/pvyPJ3r5HJ

— John Fisher (@thejohnfisher) November 17, 2020

I hope this proves to be safe and accurate. https://t.co/u1n8YhSkUf

— Tom Tugendhat (@TomTugendhat) November 16, 2020

Make no mistake; this will be the next divide:

How to “encourage” people to take the vaccine, polls suggest at least 40% of the population will refuse
👇👇
Conservative MP Tom Tugendhat suggested anti-vaxers could be banned from workplaces and social venues until they get jabs

— Ajay Jagota 🏃‍♂️ (@ajayjagota) November 13, 2020

Tugendhat’s suggestion is just the latest in a string of indications that anyone who chooses not to be vaccinated will be effectively ostracised from society.

Airlines are likely to require passengers to sign up for a “health pass” which includes a digital certificate of vaccination against COVID-19 before allowing them to fly, according to a recent report.

The system would be similar in nature to that being considered by Ticketmaster, who it was revealed are considering making customers prove they’ve had the vaccine or a negative coronavirus test before allowing them to purchase tickets.

Ticketmaster later clarified that a final decision on such measures would be up to event organizers but that they were still mulling over the implementation of the system.

With Uber and other companies also beginning to refuse services to people who fail to comply with coronavirus restrictions, the “new normal” will likely create a lower caste of refusniks who are barred from traveling, any form of social life, and in the future even basic financial services.

*

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

The US military establishment will breathe a sigh of relief at Joe Biden’s victory in the presidential election. Nearly 800 former high-ranking military and security officials penned an open letter in support of the Democratic candidate during the campaign. A who’s who of former generals, ambassadors, admirals and senior national security advisers—from former Secretary of State Madeline Albright to four-star admiral and Bush-era Deputy Homeland Security Advisor Steve Abbot—backed Biden as the best bet to revive US power. A month earlier, 70 national security officials who served in Republican administrations threw their weight behind Biden (the list soon grew to 130), arguing that, on foreign policy, Trump “has failed our country”. 

Why was Biden the war criminals’ candidate of choice? The foreign policy chaos and controversy of the Trump years were a symptom of a global superpower in relative decline, with no real strategy out of the quagmire.

The US empire is at a turning point. It is the world’s undisputed superpower; its reach is global, both militarily and economically. The US has been the world’s largest economy since 1871, and its military has close to 800 installations in 80 countries around the world. But today, it is facing a growing economic rival in China, and several lesser powers challenging its ability to call the shots in every corner of the globe, most notably Iran and Russia.

The War on Terror, launched by the administration of George W. Bush, resulted in the invasions of Afghanistan in 2001 and Iraq in 2003. It killed more than a million people and cost upwards of US$2.4 trillion, according to the Congressional Budget Office. For the people of the Middle East, it was a massacre. For US empire, it was a disaster. The destabilisation of Iraq led to the expansion of Iranian influence across the region, rather than the regime change in Tehran the Pentagon dreamed of. The intervention in Iraq was meant to secure US dominance. It instead exposed the weaknesses and limits of US power right at the moment when China’s dramatic economic expansion was beginning.

Tensions between the US and China have been increasing for years. Since its accession to the World Trade Organization in 2001, China has built its economic power, its diplomatic power and its military power, while the US became bogged down in endless wars and suffered economic crisis and depression with the 2008 financial crisis.

Barack Obama’s “pivot to Asia”, with its plan to increase US naval forces in the Asia-Pacific, was a signal that the US ruling class wanted to contain and encircle China. Obama’s then classified Air-Sea Battle doctrine was an effort to create an operational plan for a possible military confrontation. Leaked cables made public by WikiLeaks reveal that Australia was in lockstep with US imperial strategy. In conversation with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in 2009, Prime Minister Kevin Rudd confirmed Australia’s willingness to “deploy force if everything goes wrong”. But Obama’s strategy was too little too late for containment. China became more aggressive in pressing claims in the South China Sea while beginning to close the enormous gap in military capabilities with the United States, engaging in the most rapid peacetime arms build-up in history.

Under Trump, these tensions further increased. Trump’s confrontational rhetoric and trade war were a sharp break from the decades-long US strategy of integrating China into the international liberal order. Since the Republican administration of Richard Nixon—who in 1972 became the first US president to visit Beijing—the US ruling class thought it could ensure global supremacy by incorporating China into the world system. For a while, it appeared to work. China became the world’s sweatshop and a key site of investment for US companies such as Apple and General Motors. But the strategy could be mutually enriching for only so long. Today, China is leveraging its meteoric growth to challenge the United States’ leadership in the Asia-Pacific.

Obama’s signature containment strategy was the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). The TPP would have been the largest free trade deal in history, lowering tariffs and other non-tariff barriers to trade between eleven Pacific countries and the US. Its goal was to lock out China and further integrate Pacific countries with the US economy. Obama’s Defense Secretary Ashton Carter said that the TPP was “as important … as another aircraft carrier”.

But just a few years later, Donald Trump tore up the TPP. The move was at odds with the consensus among the US economic and military elite, but the new president had his own ideas about how to contain China. Trump railed against the US trade deficit, accused Beijing of currency manipulation and, as Obama did, of stealing technology from US companies. In the 2019 State of the Union address he said, “We are now making it clear to China that after years of targeting our industries and stealing our intellectual property, the theft of American jobs and wealth has come to an end”.

By August this year, Trump had slapped tariffs on $550 billion of Chinese goods, with a targeted campaign against tech giant Huawei, which had been tipped to overtake Apple in global phone sales. While Republican and Democratic politicians have backed a hardline approach to China, Trump’s erratic protectionist approach to trade has alienated large sections of the capitalist class otherwise happy with domestic tax cuts and deregulation. A Bloomberg Economics report, released before the pandemic gripped the country, estimated that the escalating tariffs on China would cost the US economy $316 billion by the end of this year.

More worryingly for the US establishment, Trump adopted a dismissive attitude towards US allies, particularly the European Union. Trump prided himself on his ability to cut deals with other nations that favoured the US. He signalled that the multilateral approach to trade was over when he tore up the TPP, and followed that by applying tariffs on German cars, Canadian steel and French luxury goods. For much of the US elite, these moves have simply created a void that Beijing is attempting to fill with its own free trade deals and the $1 trillion Belt and Road initiative, which aims to incorporate more than 138 countries into trade routes and production chains centred on China.

The International Monetary Fund, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, the UN and other international institutions project US dominance by drawing allied nations behind US leadership. Trump’s presidency delegitimised or sidelined those institutions as he focused on an “America first” posture. The military establishment believes that this has threatened, rather than strengthened, US power—although there is now an acknowledgement that those institutions failed to keep China in check, something a Biden presidency will also grapple with.

The war criminals hope that Biden will restore political legitimacy to the office by rehabilitating the liberal ideology that manufactures consent for American imperialism, pitching US aggression as necessary to “make the world safe for democracy” and defending the “rules-based liberal world order”. Above all, the US establishment hopes that Biden will restore relationships with US allies and construct a coalition of nations to confront China, after a disastrous four years that called into question US global leadership. As the National Security Leaders for Biden open letter bemoaned: “Our allies no longer trust or respect us, and our enemies no longer fear us”.

Biden has a proven record as a hawkish proponent of US empire. For decades, he served on the Senate foreign relations committee. He was an early proponent of the expansion of NATO to project US influence into the former eastern bloc after the fall of the USSR. He backed US intervention in the Balkan war, supported the invasion of Afghanistan in 2001, voted for the war on Iraq in 2003 and, as vice president, backed the US intervention in Libya.

There is consensus within the US ruling class over the need to “get tough” with China. The military establishment expects Biden to turn the screws. On the campaign trail, he accused Trump of “getting played” by Chinese President Xi Jinping, whom he called a “thug”. This is consistent with Democratic Party practice in the Congress, which is to criticise Trump for not being tough enough. Senate minority leader Chuck Schumer, for example, accused Trump of “selling out” by cutting a trade deal with China. Schumer also spearheaded legislation to implement bans on Huawei when Trump appeared to back down.

Since his first days in Congress, Biden has also made a name for himself as a staunch supporter of the apartheid state of Israel. According to Israeli publication Haaretz, Biden is said to have a “real friendship” with Israel’s far-right president, Benjamin Netanyahu. He was vice president when the US signed a $38 billion military aid deal with Netanyahu, which the State Department called the “single largest pledge of bilateral military assistance in US history”. So while Trump pushed pro-Israeli rhetoric far to the right, abandoning any pretence of support for Palestinian statehood, Biden put his money where his mouth is when it came to propping up Israeli apartheid in Palestine.

On Afghanistan, Biden may prove to be to the right of Trump. As vice president, he supported an enduring US military presence in the country. Trump, by contrast, shocked the US military when he announced on Twitter that he wants all troops out by Christmas. In contrast, Biden in an interview with Stars and Stripes, a military newspaper, said he would maintain a troop presence in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Anti-imperialists need to judge Biden by his blood-soaked record in Congress and by the company he keeps. The bulk of the US military establishment has backed Biden precisely because they think his multilateral approach will restore credibility to US interventions. It’s for this reason that Forbesmagazine senior contributor Loren Thompson predicted last month: “A Biden presidency … would be more likely to use US military forces overseas than President Trump has been”.

Global capitalism is facing a profound crisis that is reshaping international relations and putting pressure on the fault lines of existing conflicts. Open imperialist rivalry will be a feature of the coming period, along with wars over regional disputes. There is no length to which the US ruling class won’t go to safeguard its position as global superpower. And Joe Biden is the commander-in-chief. He is now the most dangerous man in the world.

*

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.

Credits to the owner of the featured image

Who lost China? The question, first asked when Mao’s dictum about power coming from the barrel of a gun proved pertinent and Truman was in the White House, is being asked again with renewed vigor. Some in the West believed that greater engagement with China would inevitably lead to the country opening up and forging closer ties to the Unites States and Europe. China always viewed things differently. It is often overlooked, though not in China, that it has engaged with the West before, not to its advantage. And then there was 1999. Chinese-people are convinced they were deliberately attacked by America. The US bombing of the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade in 1999 was no accident, most people in China believe.  US President Bill Clinton apologizing for the bombing, stating it was accidental did nothing to alter this viewpoint.

The US selling arms to Taiwan or keeping close ties with the Dalai Lama is not exactly viewed, in Beijing, as the behavior of a friendly partner. But up until now at least, optimism, based on “differences, sure we have them, but things will get better”, reigned. For decades since the historic Nixon-Mao meetings of the early 1970s, US policy to China has been noted for its lack of change, unlike say US relations with Moscow. Ever greater engagement with China has been the mantra.

That policy survived Tiananmen Square in 1989 and China’s premature (its market was not ready) entry into the World Trade Organization in 2001 and China’s trade surpluses.

US presidents have essentially drawn from the same playbook. They have turned a blind eye, the other cheek, perhaps too often as they emphasized support for China’s continued economic emergence at the expense of human rights. A wealthier China they were convinced  benefits everyone. The view in China is more nuanced. Fine if the people are wealthier but more important for stability, the country’s rulers believe, is that the Party is more secure.

The common-held view that China’s moment has finally arrived at the expense of the US is wrong.

China has made ground but the US retains the dominant role. China is not seeking dominance, certainly a greater say on the world stage, but not dominance.

This is not for altruistic reasons. Beijing’s believes establishing a global presence on the world stage makes the party stronger at home. Anything more, such as being Number 1, and the benefits (from greater responsibility) immediately dry up as seen by the US. The financial crisis of 2008 started in America, after five years of a disastrous Middle Eastern war. And the Trump presidency, especially its inability to cope with the end game, has given China a greater belief in itself.

There is a swagger about Beijing. But there are huge challenges facing China. Certain sectors of the economy are doing well, but the fastest growing business in Beijing is food deliveries. The e-commerce sector is beginning to lose momentum, food deliveries aside. COVID, at least in its widely contagious form, came from Wuhan. Beijing is generally behaving arrogantly abroad and fearful at home. Its trade deals with other countries are facing a wave of criticism, something difficult for Beijing to deal with and counteract. No, this does not mean collapse is imminent but it does suggest that events could take place that the party may find threatening. For instance, an incident that ignites a surge of nationalism on the streets that sees the party hesitant and weak in its response or a naval clash in the South China Sea. Neither scenario can be discounted.

China’s accomplishments, not least economic growth and combating COVID, must be applauded but on the streets of Beijing there is little indication of celebration. Relief? Yes. Gratitude? Yes. A new US administration may mark a more cooperative phase in relations. But as the year ends the chill in the air is not just because of plunging temperatures. The last 12 months show that the unexpected may not be that unusual.

*

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.

Scott Atlas, the medical professional who’s been tasked under President Donald Trump to help decide best coronavirus practices and policies, called for citizens, particularly in Michigan, particularly in tyrannically-governed Michigan, to “rise up” and fight unconstitutional crackdowns from overreaching, overbearing public servants.

He’s right.

The longer this coronavirus madness goes on, the more apparent it becomes: civil disobedience and only civil disobedience will rein in the, well, madness.

Here’s what Atlas said, via Twitter:

“The only way this stops is if people rise up. You get what you accept. #FreedomMatters. #StepUp.”

He also tweeted this, an apparent clarification:

“Hey, I NEVER was talking at all about violence. People vote, people peacefully protest. NEVER would I endorse or incite violence. NEVER!!”

His tweets came after Michigan’s resident-in-tyranny Gov. Gretchen Whitmer announced new crackdowns on freedoms due to, sigh, sigh, once again, the coronavirus. Specifically, she announced a three-week ban on indoor dining; on in-person learning in high schools and in colleges and universities; on in-person working “when work can be done from home;” on organized sports; on theater, movie, stadium, and arena attendance; on bowling, on ice skating, on indoor water park play; on bingo-ing in bingo halls, on gambling in casinos; and on going to the gym to take group fitness classes.

I am zee law.

Happily, she didn’t ban the buying of seeds this time.

She also graciously allowed for the playing of professional sports — minus the spectators — and for the mourning at funerals, so long as not more than 25 were in attendance.

Strangely, preschools, kindergartens, elementary schools and middle schools through grade eight, along with day cares, can remain open. Because the coronavirus only infects the higher grade levels?

Anyhow, Whitmer, as expected, expressed shock and awe — shock and awe! — at Atlas’s tweets.

“It actually took my breath away, to tell you the truth,” she told MSNBC’s “Morning Joe,” in reference to the tweets.

But here’s the thing, America: At what point do coronavirus crackdowns on freedoms become unacceptable?

At what point is the breaking point?

Founding Fathers knew well the reluctance of a people to “rise up,” as Atlas put it, and cast off an unjust government. They wrote, in fact, in the Declaration of Independence that “all experience hath shown, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.”

True.

Look around at all the face mask-wearing people, take note of all the business closings and church attendance limits, take a gander at all the kids home from school and it’s clear: “Mankind are more disposed to suffer.”

But these same Founding Fathers also wrote this: “But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government.”

Peaceably, if possibly.

Are we there yet?

If Michigan were the only state, if Whitmer were the only governor, taking this coronavirus chaos and running roughshod over personal rights, maybe America could afford to ride out the storm, wait out the virus, patiently obey all the orders.

But the nonsense is widespread, from California to Michigan to Virginia to Massachusetts.

Atlas is right. Founders were right.

Civil disobedience is the only way to reel in the madness. Americans must beat back the health bureaucrats and political opportunists now — or forever wear the face mask. Forever cede freedoms. Forever give government the right to rule, not serve.

*

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.

Cheryl Chumley can be reached at [email protected] or on Twitter, @ckchumley.

Featured image is from Flickr

Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Muallem passed away earlier this week, but his multipolar vision will be remembered forever. The Arab Republic’s top diplomat previously served as his country’s Ambassador to the US from 1990-1999 prior to becoming Assistant Foreign Minister in 2000, Deputy Foreign Minister in 2005, Foreign Minister in 2006, and even Deputy Prime Minister in 2012. He was also Syria’s Minister of Expatriates too. In order to appreciate his legacy, the reader must understand the complex circumstances in which he worked.

The US became the world’s unipolar superpower after the end of the Cold War right when Mr. Muallem became the Syrian Ambassador to that country. He was charged with managing Damascus’ changing relations with the world during that very difficult time. It was during that period that both countries attempted to normalize their formerly hostile Cold War-era relations. Although extremely challenging, Mr. Muallem succeeded as best as he could with his very important task.

Just before becoming Foreign Minister, Syria militarily withdrew from neighboring Lebanon in response to the domestic political changes that took place there during its Cedar Revolution after the assassination of Prime Minister Rafik Hariri. Damascus was blamed for that crime but vehemently denied it, and Mr. Muallem provided plenty of evidence in defense of his country to the United Nations. That was his first real challenge in his new post. The year after, in 2007, Israel bombed a suspected nuclear reactor in Syria, which caused a brief crisis.

Mr. Muallem also had to contend with the increasingly aggressive US military presence in neighboring Iraq. Washington had accused Damascus of supporting anti-American militias, and some voices were even urging the Pentagon to go to war against the Arab Republic. Thankfully nothing ever came out of those hawkish cries, but that’s largely the result of Syria’s diplomatic success in standing strong against this bullying. Syrian-American relations then thawed for a short period of time after Secretary of State Kerry visited Damascus in 2010.

It was after the onset of the regional regime change operation popular described as the so-called “Arab Spring” in 2011 that Mr. Muallem became a globally recognized diplomatic figure even though he arguably deserved this distinction earlier for the aforementioned reasons. Syria was victimized by an externally waged hybrid war of terror which included foreign sponsorship of terrorist groups, crippling Western sanctions, and several false accusations that Damascus used chemical weapons against its own people.

The most dramatic of the latter occurred in late 2013 and almost led to the US launching a conventional all-out war against Syria like it had against Libya just two years prior. Mr. Muallem played a leading role in resolving this global crisis, which resulted in Syria surrendering its chemical weapons stockpile to the international community. Two years later, Russia launched a game-changing anti-terrorist military intervention in Damascus’ support to help defeat ISIS, which Mr. Muallem also played an integral role in organizing behind the scenes.

All the while, he simultaneously helped Syria react to several Turkish military interventions without escalating them to the point of a larger war, the same as he did whenever Israel launched literally hundreds of strikes against his country in the proceeding years as well, to say nothing of the US-led anti-ISIS coalition’s attacks too. It took exceptional patience and restraint to avoid overreacting to those provocations like others in his position elsewhere might have done, but he kept his cool and thus helped manage those destabilizing developments.

It should also be mentioned that Syria retained its historic alliance with Iran that preceded Mr. Muallem’s tenure as Foreign Minister by several decades. He masterfully balanced between that Mideast country and Syria’s other Russian ally without playing either off against the other unlike other smaller- and medium-sized states in similarly difficult positions had historically attempted in the past with different partners. Importantly, Mr. Muallem also oversaw the improvement of Syrian-Chinese relations during this time as well.

China, Russia, and Iran are completely different countries but are all united in spirit because of their belief in a multipolar world order, which Syria also supports. Mr. Muallem proved that countries such as his can successfully bring all three of them together to synergize their efforts in pursuit of this vision. The example that he set in this respect, among the many others that were mentioned in this analysis, will ensure that he’s remembered the world over as one of the greatest diplomats of the 21^st century.

*

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 OneWorld.

Andrew Korybko is an American Moscow-based political analyst specializing in the relationship between the US strategy in Afro-Eurasia, China’s One Belt One Road global vision of New Silk Road connectivity, and Hybrid Warfare. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is OGL v1.0

Masks can prove liberating.  The hidden face affords security.  Obnoxious authority breathes better and with greater assurance, hiding in comfort.  Behind the material, confidence finds a home.  While tens of millions of jobs have been lost to the novel coronavirus globally, security services, surveillance officers and pen pushers are thriving, policing admissions to facilities, churning through health and safety declarations, and generally making a nuisance of themselves.

Consider the state of Victoria in Australia.  The pandemic lockdown measures have softened but have left a thick film of bureaucracy.  For the overly eager employee wishing to come into work to retrieve necessary materials (the definition of what is necessary varies), the task is irritating, even taxing.  First, temperature check.  Second, checking in via smart phone with a health declaration, a step discriminatory to those who have no interest in having such devices.  Third, clearance with security to ensure the activation of relevant cards, and the lending of necessary keys.  Even through masks, those lining up exude weariness, feeling saggy after months in epidemiological confinement.    

With the card activated and ready to access the necessary buildings, it is time to make way to the office, a space neglected since March.  Books, sulking at not having been consulted.  Detritus of memories on the wall: posters and pictures of travel to places now inaccessible for reasons of cost or the pandemic.  Towers of paperwork left unattended, rendered irrelevant by digitalisation.  White board, uncleaned.  A sense of woe grips: the days for having such a space of monkish calm and serene bliss are numbered.

During the pandemic, employers have been chorusing about the benefits of making people work from home.  This has very much to do with them, though other virtues are also celebrated: the conveniences of work and home living; avoiding long, draining commutes; spending more time with family.  We are doing it for you. 

This has meant the invasion of the employee’s home, and often not a voluntary one.  Urban managerialism, already identified in the 1970s by the English sociologist Ray Pahl, has been hyper charged by a reallocation of resources, the imposition of stresses upon the toilers.  The nature of parasitic capitalism, as Andy Merrifield puts it, has come to the fore with aggression.  “World cities,” he reasons, “are giant arenas where the most rabid activity is the activity of rabidly extorting land rent, of making land pay anyway it can; of dispatching all non-parasitic activities to some other part of town (as Engels recognized long ago), so as to help this rental maximisation.”  The almost operatic description of Karl Marx in the first volume of Das Kapital comes to mind: “Capital is dead labour which, vampire-like, lives only by sucking living labour, and lives the more and more it sucks.”

And sucking it does, making sure that employees feed the beast by shouldering more expenses while all the time being told they are fulfilling their civic obligations and minding their good health.  The fact that doing this also means reducing the ongoing costs of the business or entity, ensuring greater rental maximisation, is seen as ancillary to the main show. 

Prior to the pandemic, the literature on attitudes to remote work was already sounding like an urban manager’s small book of maxims and clichés.  Sophia Bernazzani of the video conferencing company Owl Labs, writing in December last year, announced how “new survey data revealed that remote work is a major benefit for employees.  In fact, 34% of US workers would take a pay cut of up to 5% in order to work remotely.  And those who do work remotely say they’re happy in their jobs 29% more than on-site workers.” 

With COVID-19 yet to make its telling presence, Forbes was already diving into reasons why a remote workforce was an exhilarating boon for business.  As contributor Amar Hussain reasoned, “Although there are challenges that come with hiring and organizing a remote workforce, the reality is working with a remote team might end up being one of the best decisions you could make for your business.”  More work is accomplished by such remote teams (time otherwise wasted on commuting, for instance, can be used); a “larger talent pool” can be drawn from, given the absence of geographical constraints; rental costs will be spared, meaning that US companies would be saving $10,000 per employee per year.  Finally, a health dividend (because they care), would accrue.  “Remote work removes the need to commute and the associated negative effects.”

Urban planning academic Richard Shearmur sees past the glossy narrative of saving costs, tilting the focus away from proselytisers of the religion of remote work.  “Whatever the personal and productivity impacts of remote work, the savings of US$10,000 per year are the employer’s.  In effect, this represents an offloading of costs onto employees – a new type of enclosure.”  With this comes loneliness, reduced productivity and various inefficiencies. 

Shearmur also sees a historical parallel of expropriation.  “In 16^th-century Britain, powerful landowners expropriated common land from the communities, often for the purpose of running lucrative sheep farms.  Today, businesses like Shopify appear to be expropriating their employee’s private living space.”  They do so by making employees purchase more work equipment for the home (ergonomic chairs, desks and so forth), placing the emphasis on them to maintain such equipment and the premises that house them.

Such businesses are also casting an Orwellian eye over employees in their home environment.  Expropriation, in a fashion, is not enough; it must come with the monitoring gaze.  Productivity targets must be maintained.  Elizabeth Lyons of the University of San Diego explains what that entails.  “The things employers are really looking for is what websites are employees on, are these productive or unproductive websites, what apps are they using, how much time they are spending on their different tasks.”

In an online survey of 1,800 people in October conducted by Prospect, a UK trade union representing engineers, scientists and civil servants, two-thirds of workers expressed discomfort at the idea of programmes being used to check the frequency of their typing.  Up to 80% were also unsettled by the use of cameras recording them as they sat at their home computer, with 76% uncomfortable with the idea of wearing devices noting their location.

Some employees have been encouraged to believe in the narcotic of efficiency and productivity.  Take Candice, a “digital marketer” behind podcasts aiding students undertaking English proficiency tests.  Interviewed for ABC Radio National in Australia, she is sympathetic to her employer who “has no idea of what I’m doing all day long.”  Except that he does.  But never mind that: home surveillance technology “keeps me on track … I can see exactly how much time I’ve spent doing work”.  Good for the unassuming Candice and co-religionists of remote work; bad for many of us.

*

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: Public domain image from Wiki’s COVID-Protest page.

Joe Biden is not and never will be US president-elect legitimately.

Clear evidence shows significant election fraud in key swing states — favoring Biden/Harris over Trump.

If all US Election 2020 votes were tabulated accurately, Trump would carry key swing states he won in 2016, enough for reelection.

As things turned out, deep state dark forces orchestrated a diabolical plot to prevent him from winning a second term.

Along with corporate-controlled establishment media, state officials in key swing states and their courts (the latter so far) are complicit with the plot.

If successful, election-rigging will be official US policy henceforth in all races for high office.

If election fraud is exposed and reversed, there’s a chance that future contests will require paper ballots with verified registered voter signatures.

When elections are transparent, the old-fashioned way works best.

Corporate-run voting machines can rig the process with electronic ease, software designed to make losers winners and vice versa.

Mail-in ballots would remain an issue. They can be discarded or counted when arriving post-election.

Independently verified signatures would reduce the chance of fraud.

Proof-positive open, free, and fair elections won’t ever likely be achieved.

What’s only possible is minimizing what’s able to corrupt them.

The outcome of US Election 2020 will likely decide what follows. Now is the moment of truth.

An electronically-controlled system will either be allowed to continue manufacturing outcomes of key races ahead — assuring fraudulent results at will — or the scam will be exposed, a new system replacing it.

A Gateway Pundit analysis discussed in a previous article showed that “millions of votes (were) either switched from…Trump to Biden…were lost” or discarded.

In key swing states and elsewhere, election-rigging was rife, including in Virginia.

In the Old Dominion state, “three entries of over 300,000 votes were posted in the data base to Biden’s vote total. Two entries of over 300,000 votes were taken away,” Gateway Pundit reported, adding:

“The same happened to President Trump’s totals but in much smaller amounts.”

“Overall 851,000 votes were added to Biden’s totals and only 318,000 were awarded to President Trump between 11:14pm (Eastern) on November 3rd and 5:00am November 4th.”

“This resulted in over half a million more votes net going to Biden and 73% of the votes during this timeframe.”

It provided his winning margin in the state of around 450,000 votes.

Similar activity happened in Pennsylvania. What appeared to be an insurmountable lead for Trump evaporated, flipping the state to Biden/Harris.

In key swing states and others, evidence shows that numerous votes for deceased and non-state residents were counted.

So were un-postmarked mail-in ballots and others arriving post-November 3.

Whistleblowers sounding the alarm about widespread fraud were ignored or treated dismissively.

Biden/Harris didn’t win Election 2020. They stole it.

Key Trump campaign attorney Sidney Powell claims she has hard evidence to prove significant election fraud — favoring Biden/Harris over Trump.

DJT was reelected by millions of votes, she maintains —fraudulently shifted from him to Biden/Harris by software designed for this purpose.

An algorithm was used to calculate the number needed to swing key states to Biden/Harris by fraudulent means, she said.

According to Powell, significant election fraud occurred in “at least 29 states,” adding:

“It’s going to blow the mind of everyone in this country when we can get it all together and can explain it with the affidavits and the experts that have come forward.”

Dominion Voting Systems and Smartmatic, producers of electronic voting machines and software, were used to flip states from Trump to Biden/Harris.

Powell maintains that the Trump campaign is preparing “to overturn election results in multiple states.”

All of the above and perhaps more will have to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt in court.

If state courts in key swing states continue to side with Biden/Harris over Trump, nine Supreme Court justices will likely have final say over who won and lost.

Will massive election fraud triumph over an open, free and fair process, or will it be the other way around?

Much depends on how things turn out.

*

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 Wikimedia Commons

Judging the effects of something on a state of affairs requires a standard scale characterized by a spectrum that separates two opposite axiological points: the positive and the negative. The context of the present issue brings us to the question, What are the positive and the negative effects of technology on society? We raise this question this early so as not to be distracted by the unilateral notion that technology is always on the right track as far as its effects on society are concerned. This mentality gets prevalent because the loudest voices we hear and ofttimes choose to listen to are those of the fanatical proponents and users of the technology in question. Their advocacy achieves high-profile strength as media back-up through advertising blows out of proportion the spun-off story of such technology’s best points. This strategy sways people away from getting themselves into a critical mode which generally leads them to a state of pathetic gullibility.

This line of concern does not, however, prevent us from coming up with a positive judgment. Rather, the challenge put forward is to engender a fair and hence impartial acuity on the issue of technology’s effects on society. This is deemed reasonable as the task considers the intermediary stages that run from one end of the scale to the other. We are therefore looking into the fuzzy shades that constitute the spectrum on whose basis our evaluation is intended to issue out.

Technology is generally humanity’s achievement to facilitate an otherwise burdensome endeavor. At the onset, we see the worthwhile intent that pushes onward the positive value of technology. It is not aimed to destroy but to build, not to obstruct but to facilitate, not to generate problems but to solve them. At the inaugural stage, technology is stamped with a pristine character that promotes productivity, facilitates proficiency, enhances expertise, and advances competence. All these even transcend the individual beneficiary to fully embrace an entire society’s movement towards a higher level of progressive refinement. In this sense, technology fulfills its fundamental mandate in the service of humanity.

However, technology’s value is never inherent in itself; it is rather an attribution that emanates from its human users. It is also in the hands of its human users that technology could go awry and have its course diverted from its original trajectory. Technology that has originally been projected to serve the interest not only of its individual users but also of the society which has tolerated and accepted its operation can, therefore, lead to negative impacts when used irresponsibly.

In the post-modern/post-industrial era, post-modern technology has dominated the socio-cultural landscape. There’s no doubt that society has tremendously benefitted from the amazing technology that has continually been invented and innovated in a seemingly uninterrupted direction. Household chores, office works and factory operations that used to be a drag in the past have been transformed by new technology into no-sweat tasks. We are surrounded by amazing gadgets, equipment, and tools at our beck and call–facilities effortlessly operated at our fingertips literally.

In the present dispensation, the Internet dominates the post-modern technological scenario. It has brought us to unprecedented wonders in the cyber-world of instant information and facilitative applications. The exhilaration seems endless as we explore novel and yet uncharted regions that pop up along the information superhighway. We have even discovered recreational activities that enthrall our playfulness to the point of getting ensnared by their challenging offers to go on and on and on until the wee hours of the morning. We are caught flat-footed by the magic of this technology in the “third wave” civilization (with apologies to the late futurologist Alvin Toffler) which is more popularly called the age of information.

But what the Internet offers is not always beneficial to individual persons in particular and to society in general. It has introduced social network sites and exciting applications like online games that have led people to the point of addiction. Time wastage has increased and gainful productivity has decreased. Young people, in particular, would rather spend endless hours beating virtual adversaries, watching rib-tickling videos and comical photos on tablets, mobiles, and laptops at the expense of spending more quality time attending to serious school assignments or job responsibilities. In this kind of situation, the excitement seems endless and the passing of time is something immaterial.

Too much exposure to the aforementioned gadgets affects brain functioning and the circadian rhythm as well. In the process, what is actually affected is the brain as enthusiasts lose their sense of concentration. People in this condition cannot be expected to function effectively and efficiently in more serious undertakings both in society and in the workplace. If worse comes to worst, the whole scenario may even end up to be a serious case of a health hazard as people get too preoccupied with games and social networks so that they simply settle to consume junk foods and find it difficult to schedule a time for physical exertions.

Alone in front of the screen, they have put themselves segregated from their fellow human beings in the context of a community of warm bodies. A face-to-face conversation is no longer a common encounter as sending online messages via email or Whatsapp among others has become the order of the day. In this sense, socialization has been redefined in a way that doesn’t require the actual presence of individual persons in paramount reality.

In conclusion, we say that it’s one thing to cherish the positive effects of technology and it’s another to be conscious of its detrimental impacts on the individual and society. We all want to enjoy the amenities and benefits offered by present-day technology but we should also be aware of their negative aftermath when utilized irresponsibly. We still have a long way to go and it is important to instill the positive value of technology to the youth of this generation and beyond if such technology is used with a high degree of responsibility, creativity, and efficiency.

*

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.

Prof. Ruel F. Pepa is a Filipino philosopher based in Madrid, Spain. A retired academic (Associate Professor IV), he taught Philosophy and Social Sciences for more than fifteen years at Trinity University of Asia, an Anglican university in the Philippines.

Credits to the owner of the photo

In October and the first half of November, the war in Syria remained in a relatively calm phase, which was not marked by any active military actions of the sides involved in the conflict. Nonetheless, this period demonstrated several trends that would shape the further development of the situation in the war-torn country.

Despite the collapse of ISIS’ self-proclaimed Caliphate and repeatedly declared defeat of the group, ISIS cells still remain a major factor of instability in eastern Homs, southern Raqqa, in the countryside of Deir Ezzor and in the areas surrounding the US military garrison in al-Tanf. ISIS cells regularly conduct attacks on civilian and military convoys moving between Homs and Deir Ezzor as well as on patrols and checkpoints of the Syrian Army in the aforementioned areas.

For example, on November 14, ISIS ambushed a convoy of the al-Qatirji security group, which guards government oil shipments in southern Raqqa. The incident took place on the Ithriyah-Raqqa road. 5 pro-government fighters were killed. A day earlier, on November 13, ISIS blew up an oil tanker guarded by al-Qatirji group with an improvised explosive device. The al-Qatirji security group is affiliated with the al-Qatirji Company that imports oil from Syria’s northeastern region, controlled by the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces, to government-controlled areas. The company and its owners are on the US sanction list. On November 11, ISIS cells stormed SAA military positions north of al-Sukhna and blew up a local gas pipeline. The ISIS news agency Amaq claimed that 11 Syrian soldiers were killed in the attack.

ISIS also has a wide network of cells on the eastern bank of the Euphrates, especially near the Omar oil fields area, but it rarely conducted attacks there in recent months. Local sources claim that ISIS members use the eastern bank of the Euphrates and border areas close to al-Tanf as rear bases for operations in central Syria.

The US military is present in northeastern Syria in much larger numbers than the US President Donald Trump used to think. This was an open secret since the very start of the implementation of the Trump-declared troop withdrawal. However, on November 12, this fact was openly confirmed by James Jeffrey, former Special Representative for Syria Engagement, that said that US officials routinely lied to Trump over the number of troops deployed in Syria. Currently, US sources admit that up to 1,000 US troops remain in the conflict zone. Together with military contractors and civilian specialists the real number is most likely closer to 2,000-2,500.

The south of Syria remains one of the points of instability despite the Russia-backed reconciliation efforts there. On November 12, a Tigr vehicle of the Russian Military Police was struck with an improvised explosive device on the road between al-Musayfrah and al-Sahoah in the eastern countryside of Daraa. The incident took place amid a new round of tensions between pro-government forces and former members of reconciled militant groups in the area.

The Syrian Army took control of the region and allowed the relatively moderate part of militant groups there to lay down arms as a part of a wide reconciliation agreement in 2018. However, since then, the local reconciliation process has faced several obstacles, including the resistance of a part of the local elites affiliated with militants. Together with the close proximity to the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights, this turns the province into a permanent headache for the Damascus government.

The de-escalation deal in Greater Idlib and the creation of the demilitarized zone in its south is once again stalled due to the Turkish unwillingness to break its ties with the al-Qaeda-like terrorist groups like Hayat Tahrir al-Sham and the Turkistan Islamic Party because these groups are the core of the so-called Turkish-backed opposition. This situation cannot be changed without another military operation of the Syrian Army or the Turkish will to finally start working against terrorists in Idlib. The second scenario seems unlikely as it does not go in the interests of Ankara.

Nonetheless, it seems that Moscow has not abandoned the idea to motivate Turkey for some constructive actions and during the last 2 months, warplanes of the Russian Aerospace Forces conducted a large number of strikes on infrastructure and training camps of Turkish-backed terrorists.

At the same time, Ankara has evacuated its observation posts in Maar Hattat, Morek and Sher Mughar, and started withdrawing forces from Qabtan al-Jabal and Sheikh Aqil. Most of these positions were surrounded by the Syrian Army during the previous anti-terrorist advances. This move goes contrary to the loud claims of the Turkish leadership that it will withdraw zero posts, even surrounded ones, from Greater Idlib and instead of this will force the Syrian Army to withdraw to positions behind them. This is a visual demonstration that the airstrike diplomacy efforts of the Russian side has a particular effect.

The war in Syria did not end and a comprehensive diplomatic solution has not yet been found due to the serious contradictions between the sides involved in the standoff. Nonetheless, the current format of the conflict allowed to put to an end the wide-scale military confrontations on the ground and moved the main agenda towards counter-terrorism efforts, economic and diplomatic questions.

*

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

After last week’s firing of various Pentagon officials including Sec. of Defense Mark Esper, the Undersecretaries of Intelligence and Policy, and Chief of Staff to the Sec of Defense, Democrats and Republicans, eager to get back to a status quo under a pending-Biden administration that is already stacked with op-ed publishing, arms manufacturer-funded think tankers, were irate with another reckless decision that cuts across the Bush-Obama grade of military thinking.

In Esper’s place come former-Army colonels Christopher Miller to serve as Defense Sec. and Douglas Macgregor to serve as his senior advisor.

In Macgregor there’s a renowned soldier who commanded one of the tank contingents in the famous Battle of 73 Easting in the Gulf War, as well as a man who has called the Iraq wars a failure, and famously said we should “run” rather than walk out of Afghanistan. Around this date two years ago, he published an op-ed of his own on the precarious position of the U.S. forces in Syria, entitled “The Case for Leaving Syria”.

Douglas Macgregor meeting with IDF Chief of the General Staff Lieutenant General Aviv Kochavi (CC BY-SA 4.0)

Miller on the other hand was up until last week the Director of the National Counterterrorism Center, and commander of some U.S. special forces in Afghanistan, with whom he fought al-Qaeda and the Taliban. Upon his appointment, he penned a letter to all Defense Department staff which said “we are not a people of perpetual war – it is the antithesis of everything for which we stand and for which our ancestors fought,” before adding “all wars must end”.

What’s more, his admittance of the costs of war were not included with any of the get out of jail free cards politicians and generals so often use to avoid scrutiny, and that start with something like “I agree we should try to draw down these wars…” and that end with something like “but our withdrawal has to be based around conditions on the ground, not arbitrary timelines,” or “but we have to do it responsibly, in a way that doesn’t endanger our allies and partners,” or “but we have to make sure that when we leave the country won’t be used as a haven to plan attacks against us in the future”.

In part paraphrase, these platitudes have been said by everyone from David Petraeus to Pete Buttigieg, and in leaving them out, Miller substituted only the modest coda that “ending wars requires compromise and partnership. We met the challenge; we gave it our all. Now, it’s time to come home.”

It seems that after 4 years of disastrous foreign policy appointments like Mike Pompeo, John Bolton, Mark Esper, Jim Mattis, Robert O’Brien, and James Jeffery, Trump has finally put some men in important cabinet positions that may actually agree with him on ending wars.

Too Little Too Late

Too little too late as the old saying goes, and the appointments are likely to enrage both supporters and opponents of the lame duck president. Trump has about 60 days left in office, and while he has now appointed someone who wants to “run not walk” out of Afghanistan, a fitting policy stance if Trump wants to fulfill his promise and bring the troops home by Christmas, supporters of Trump’s anti-war stance are left grinding their teeth, wondering why the ever-available Macgregor wasn’t appointed earlier.

Meanwhile, opponents have lined up to criticize the head chopping of Pentagon officials whom White House Spokesmen told the Washington Post were seen as “the leader(s) of the resistance to his agenda [of troop withdrawals]”.

“President Trump’s decision to fire Secretary Esper out of spite is not just childish, it’s also reckless,” House Armed Services Committee Chairman Adam Smith (D-WA) said in a statement.

James Stavridis, former-Supreme Allied Commander of NATO and senior advisor to former-Defense Sec. Donald Rumsfeld, described to Time Magazine that these moves are “significantly diminishing our national security over the next few months until the Biden Administration takes over,” and collectively something that will cause “high fives” from “Beijing to Moscow to Caracas”.

Trump’s anti-war base was found in high war-casualty states like Minnesota, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. It may well have been that it was their votes for Biden, who at least talked a less-hawkish game compared to Hillary, that lost him the election, as a troop reshuffle in Europe, no new wars, and the lagging of the implementation of the pre-peace arrangement with the Taliban couldn’t merit their support in the face of the failure to remove troops from Somalia, Iraq, or Syria.

Furthermore, prospects for future wars look greater now after the last four years than in 2016 in the face of the bitter animosity created with the Iranians and Venezuelans, the assassination of General Soleimani, the continued support for the Saudis and Emiratis in the War in Yemen, and the steady dismantling of nuclear control agreements between the Russian Federation and the United States.

For those anti-war voters familiar with Macgregor, the appointment must be a source of real frustration, as the first chance since Jimmy Carter to break with the tradition of foreign interventionism comes with less than 3 months left in the Trump Presidency.

Instead of simply starting his administration with men like Macgregor and Miller, Trump floundered on with appointments spelled out to him by the military-intelligence-arms manufacturing alliance, with opposition coming from every department if he tried to drawdown anywhere in the world.

His now-retiring Special Envoy to Syria explained in an interview with Defense One that he and his staff would regularly lie to the president about troop numbers in Syria, a war which Trump described as “not our business,” and one which he ordered an end to in his typical fashion, via Twitter, and which caused his first Defense Sec. General Jim Mattis to resign.

These late appointments are infuriating to the establishment who were hoping Trump would roll over and take his election loss, with one report from CNN citing anonymous defense officials saying that Biden could have used the experience of Esper and his undersecretaries, but instead are dealing with less long-serving military bureaucrats.

They are nonetheless, equally infuriating to anti-war Trump sympathizers who gave the ultimate critique of his failed foreign-policy-that-could-have-been in the form of their no-confidence vote on November 3^rd.

*

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.

Andy Corbley is an American writer based in Italy, and the founder and editor of World at Large News, a small news outlet focusing on American foreign policy, travel, health and fitness, and environmental news.

Featured image: CC BY-SA 4.0

From the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, the clarion call has been to test, test and test some more. However, right from the start, serious questions arose about the tests being used to diagnose this infection, and questions have only multiplied since then.

Positive reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) tests have been used as the justification for keeping large portions of the world locked down for the better part of 2020.

This, despite the fact that PCR tests have proven remarkably unreliable with high false result rates, and aren’t designed to be used as a diagnostic tool in the first place as they cannot distinguish between inactive viruses and “live” or reproductive ones.

Dr. Mike Yeadon, former vice president and scientific director of Pfizer, has even gone on record stating¹ that false positive results from unreliable PCR tests are being used to “manufacture a ‘second wave’ based on ‘new cases,'” when in fact a second wave is highly unlikely.

Understanding PCR Tests

Before his death, the inventor of the PCR test, Kary Mullis, repeatedly yet unsuccessfully stressed that this test should not be used as a diagnostic tool for the simple reason that it’s incapable of diagnosing disease. A positive test does not actually mean that an active infection is present. As noted in a U.S. Centers for Disease Control and prevention publication on coronavirus and PCR testing dated July 13 2020:²

• Detection of viral RNA may not indicate the presence of infectious virus or that 2019-nCoV is the causative agent for clinical symptoms.
• The performance of this test has not been established for monitoring treatment of 2019-nCoV infection.
• This test cannot rule out diseases caused by other bacterial or viral pathogens.

So, what does the PCR test actually tell us? The PCR swab collects RNA from your nasal cavity. This RNA is then reverse transcribed into DNA. However, the genetic snippets are so small they must be amplified in order to become discernible. Each round of amplification is called a cycle.

Amplification over 35 cycles is considered unreliable and scientifically unjustified, yet Drosten tests and tests recommended by the World Health Organization are set to 45 cycles.

What this does is amplify any, even insignificant sequences of viral DNA that might be present to the point that the test reads “positive,” even if the viral load is extremely low or the virus is inactive. As a result of these excessive cycle thresholds, you end up with a far higher number of positive tests than you would otherwise.

We’ve also had problems with faulty and contaminated tests. As soon as the genetic sequence for SARS-CoV-2 became available in January 2020, German researchers quickly developed a PCR test for the virus.

In March 2020, The New York Times³ reported the initial test kits developed by the CDC had been found to be flawed. The Verge also reported⁴ that this flawed CDC test in turn became the basis for the WHO’s test, which the CDC ended up refusing to use.

Perhaps most importantly of all, the PCR tests cannot distinguish between inactive viruses and “live” or reproductive ones. What that means is that PCR tests cannot detect infection. Period. It cannot tell you whether you’re currently ill, whether you’ll develop symptoms in the near future, or whether you’re contagious.

The tests may pick up dead debris or inactive viral particles that pose no risk whatsoever to the patient and others. What’s more, the test can pick up the presence of other coronaviruses, so a positive result may simply indicate that you’ve recuperated from a common cold in the past.

An “infection” is when a virus penetrates into a cell and replicates. As the virus multiplies, symptoms set in. A person is only infectious if the virus is actually replicating. As long as the virus is inactive and not replicating, it’s completely harmless both to the host and others.

Chances are, if you have no symptoms, a positive test simply means it has detected inactive viral DNA in your body. This would also mean that you are not contagious and pose no risk to anyone.

For all of these reasons, a number of highly respected scientists around the world are now saying that what we have is not a COVID-19 pandemic but a PCR test pandemic. In his September 20, 2020, article⁵ “Lies, Damned Lies and Health Statistics — The Deadly Danger of False Positives,” Yeadon explains why basing our pandemic response on positive PCR tests is so problematic.

In short, it appears millions of people are simply being found to carry inactive viral DNA that pose no risk to anyone, yet these test results are being used by the global technocracy to implement a brand new economic and social system based on draconian surveillance and totalitarian controls.

Artificially Created Justifications for Totalitarian Controls

As reported by The Vaccine Reaction, September 29, 2020:⁶

“The test’s threshold is so high that it detects people with the live virus as well as those with a few genetic fragments left over from a past infection that no longer poses a risk. It’s like finding a hair in a room after a person left it, says Michael Mina, MD, an epidemiologist at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health.⁷

In three sets of testing data that include cycle thresholds compiled by officials in Massachusetts, New York and Nevada, up to 90% of people testing positive carried barely any virus, a review by The New York Times found⁸ …

‘We’ve been using one type of data for everything, and that is just plus or minus — that’s all,’ Dr. Mina said. ‘We’re using that for clinical diagnostics, for public health, for policy decision-making.’

But ‘yes’ or ‘no’ isn’t good enough, he added. It’s the amount of virus that should dictate the infected patient’s next steps. ‘It’s really irresponsible, I think, to forgo the recognition that this is a quantitative issue,’ Dr. Mina said.”

Again, medical experts agree any cycle threshold over 35 cycles makes the test too sensitive, as at that point it starts picking up harmless inactive DNA fragments. Mina believes a more reasonable cutoff would be 30 or less.

According to The New York Times,⁹ the CDC’s own calculations show it’s extremely unlikely to detect live viruses in samples that have gone through more than 33 cycles, and research¹⁰published in April 2020 concluded patients with positive PCR tests that had a cycle threshold above 33 were not contagious and could safely be discharged from the hospital or home isolation.

Importantly, when officials at the New York state laboratory, the Wadsworth Center, reanalyzed testing data at The Times’ request, they found that changing the threshold from 40 cycles to 35 cycles eliminated about 43% of the positive results. Limiting it to 30 cycles eliminated a whopping 63%.¹¹ The Vaccine Reaction adds:¹²

“In Massachusetts, from 85 to 90% of people who tested positive in July with a cycle threshold of 40 would have been deemed negative if the threshold were 30 cycles, Dr. Mina said. ‘I would say that none of those people should be contact-traced, not one,’ he said.

‘I’m really shocked that it could be that high — the proportion of people with high CT value results,’ said Ashish Jha, MD, director of the Harvard Global Health Institute. ‘Boy, does it really change the way we need to be thinking about testing’¹³ …

In late August, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved the first rapid coronavirus test that doesn’t need any special computer equipment. Made by Abbot Laboratories, the 15-minute test [BinaxNOW] will sell for U.S. $5 but still requires a nasal swab to be taken by a health worker.¹⁴

The Abbot test is the fourth rapid point-of-care test that looks for the presence of antigens rather than the virus’s genetic code as the PCR molecular tests do.¹⁵“

Massive Waste of Resources

As noted by Dr. Tom Jefferson and professor Carl Henegan in an October 31, 2020, article in the Daily Mail,¹⁶ mass PCR testing has been a massive waste or resources, as it doesn’t provide us with the information we actually need to know — who’s infectious, how far is the virus spreading and how fast does it spread?

Instead, it has led to economic devastation from business shutdowns and isolating noninfectious people in their homes for weeks and months on end. Jefferson and Henegan claim they shared their pandemic response plan with British Prime Minister Boris Johnson over a month ago, and just presented it to him again. “We urge him to pay attention and embrace it,” they write, adding:

“There are only two things about which we can be certain: first, that lockdowns do not work in the long term … The idea that a month of economic hardship will permit some sort of ‘reset’, allowing us a brighter future, is a myth. What, when it ends, do we think will happen? Meanwhile, ever-increasing restrictions will destroy lives and livelihoods.

The second certainty is this: that we need to find a way out of the mess that does no more damage than the virus itself … Our strategy would be to tackle the four key failings.”

These four areas are:

1. Addressing the problems in the government’s mass testing program
2. Addressing “the blight of confused and contradictory statistics”
3. Protect and isolate the vulnerable — primarily the elderly, but also hospitalized patients in general and staff — while allowing the rest to maintain “some semblance of normal life”
4. Inform the public about the true and quantifiable costs of lockdown that “kill people just as surely as COVID-19”

“If we do these things, there is real hope that we can learn to live with the virus. That, after all, was supposed to be the plan,” Jefferson and Henegan note. With regard to testing, the pair call “for a national program of testing quality control to ensure that results are accurate, precise and consistent.”

Importantly, we must not rely on positive/negative readings alone. The results must be assessed in relation to other factors, such as the age of the subject and whether they are symptomatic, to determine who actually poses an infectious risk. You can review the full details of their proposed plan at the end of their Daily Mail article.¹⁷

Lockdown Dangers Have Been Kept Out of Public Discussion

Jefferson and Henegan aren’t the only ones highlighting the fact that the global lockdown strategy is causing more harm and destruction than the virus itself. In a June 16, 2020 article in The Federalist, James Lucas, a New York City attorney, wrote:¹⁸

“If we’re going to allow models and modelers to dictate the entire nature of our society, one would hope that the models are as complete as possible. Yet the epidemiological models that have so transformed our world are seriously incomplete, and therefore fundamentally inadequate.

Any medical therapy is supposed to be tested for both efficacy and safety. There have been several studies¹⁹ examining the effectiveness of the lockdowns in combating the spread of the COVID-19 virus, with mixed conclusions.

So far, however, none of these studies or models have analyzed the safety side of the lockdown therapy. In response to questions from physician Sens. Rand Paul and Bill Cassidy, Dr. Anthony Fauci admits²⁰ this side of the equation has not been accounted for in the models now driving our world.

As noted in an open letter²¹ recently signed by more than 600 health-care professionals, the public health costs from the lockdowns — described as a ‘mass casualty incident’ are real and growing.

These models are estimations based on existing research. The constantly changing projections of coronavirus deaths are extrapolations from research on previous epidemics. Yet modelers have no excuse for leaving evaluations of the lockdowns’ massive costs to public health out of their models.”

The Hidden Costs of Lockdowns

How does the “lockdown therapy” affect public safety? In his article, Lucas highlights the following:²²

• Increased chronic disease rates due to unemployment, poverty and putting non-COVID medical care on hold — Research²³ by the Veterans Administration has shown delaying cancer treatment for just one month led to a 20% increase in mortality. Another study²⁴ found each one-month delay in breast cancer diagnosis increased mortality by 10%
• Increased rates of mental health problems due to unemployment and isolation
• Increased mortality rates from suicide — In one study,²⁵ being unemployed was associated with a twofold to threefold higher relative risk of suicide. A more recent study²⁶ estimates “deaths of despair” linked to lockdowns may be around 75,000 in the U.S.
• Reduced collective life span — Extended unemployment is also associated with shorter, unhealthier lives. Hannes Schwandt, a health economics researcher at Northwestern University, estimates an extended economic shutdown could shorten the lifespan of 6.4 million Americans entering the job market by an average of about two years.²⁷ Lucas notes:

As noted by Lucas, in addition to calculating the overall costs on society, modelers must also determine “on whom those costs fall,” because the costs are not borne equally by all. The consequences of the lockdowns disproportionally affect those who are already the most vulnerable — financially and health wise — such as those living near the poverty line, the chronically ill, people with mental illness and minorities in general.

“Contrary to the PR slogan, we are NOT all in this together,” Lucas writes.³⁰ “We need less insipid pro-lockdown propaganda extolling the virtues of the ‘essential’ workers, and more serious analysis of the enormous public health toll the lockdowns are imposing on them. Otherwise, we may come to see the era of coronavirus as simply the time where pro-lockdown elites sacrificed the working class³¹ to protect themselves.”

A Pandemic of Fearmongering

An October 28, 2020, article featured by the Ron Paul Institute points out that:³²

“Ever since the alleged pandemic erupted this past March the mainstream media has spewed a non-stop stream of misinformation that appears to be laser focused on generating maximum fear among the citizenry.

But the facts and the science simply don’t support the grave picture painted of a deadly virus sweeping the land. Yes, we do have a pandemic, but it’ a pandemic of ginned up pseudo-science masquerading as unbiased fact.”

Nine facts that can be backed up with data “paints a very different picture from the fear and dread being relentlessly drummed into the brains of unsuspecting citizens,” the article states. In addition to the fact that PCR testing is practically useless, for all the reasons already mentioned, these data-backed facts include:

All in all, there are many reasons to suspect that continued lockdowns, social distancing and mask mandates are completely unnecessary and will not significantly alter the course of this pandemic illness, or the final death count.

And, with regard to universal PCR testing where individuals are tested every two weeks or even more frequently, whether they have symptoms or not, this is clearly a pointless effort that yields useless data. It’s just a tool to spread fear, which in turn allows for the rapid implementation of the totalitarian control mechanisms required to pull off The Great Reset. Fortunately, more and more people are now starting to see through this plot.

About 45,000 scientists and doctors worldwide have already signed the Great Barrington Declaration,⁴⁰ which calls for the end to all lockdowns and implementation of a herd immunity approach to the pandemic, meaning governments should allow people who are not at significant risk of serious COVID-19 illness to go back to normal life, as the lockdown approach is having a devastating effect on public health — far worse than the virus itself.^41,42 The declaration states:⁴³

“Coming from both the left and right, and around the world, we have devoted our careers to protecting people. Current lockdown policies are producing devastating effects on short and long-term public health …

The most compassionate approach that balances the risks and benefits of reaching herd immunity, is to allow those who are at minimal risk of death to live their lives normally to build up immunity to coronavirus through natural infection, while better protecting those who are at highest risk. We call this focused protection.”

The declaration points out that current lockdown policies will result in excess mortality in the future, primarily among younger people and the working class. As of November 5, 2020, The Great Barrington Declaration⁴⁴ had been signed by 11,791 medical and public health scientists, 33,903 medical practitioners and 617,685 “concerned citizens.”⁴⁵

*

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 The Huntingtonian October 6, 2020

² CDC 2019 Novel Coronavirus RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel July 13, 2020 (PDF)

³ New York Times, March 20, 2020

⁴ The Verge, March 17, 2020, Current Gold Standards

⁵ Lockdownskeptics September 20, 2020

^6, 11, 12 The Vaccine Reaction September 29, 2020

⁷ Daily Mail August 30, 2020

^8, 9, 13 The New York Times August 29, 2020

¹⁰ Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases April 27, 2020; 39(6): 1059-1061

¹⁴ Abbott Press Release August 26, 2020

¹⁵ Business Insider September 21, 2020

^16, 17 Daily Mail October 31, 2020

^18, 22, 30 The Federalist June 16, 2020

¹⁹ National Review May 22, 2020

²⁰ WSJ Opinion May 13, 2020

²¹ Letter from Doctors to President Donald Trump May 19, 2020

²³ Health Services Research 2007 Apr; 42(2): 644–662

²⁴ The ASCO Post April 14, 2016

²⁵ Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health 2003; 57: 594-600

²⁶ Well Being Trust Projected Deaths of Despair During COVID-19

²⁷ Reuters April 3, 2020

²⁸ Pandemic Data and Analytics — Quantifying Years of Lost Life

²⁹ Center on Society and Health February 13, 2015

³¹ The Federalist May 4, 2020

^32, 36, 39 Ron Paul Institute October 28, 2020

³³ Doctors for Disaster Preparedness

³⁴ CDC.gov Pandemic Planning Scenarios Updated September 10, 2020

³⁵ Annals of Internal Medicine September 2, 2020 DOI: 10.7326/M20-5352

³⁷ YouTube, SARS-CoV-2 and the rise of medical technocracy, Lee Merritt, MD, aprox 8 minutes in (Lie No. 1: Death Risk)

³⁸ Technical Report June 2020 DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.24350.77125

^40, 43, 44 Great Barrington Declaration

⁴¹ Sky News October 7, 2020

⁴² Washington Times October 8, 2020

⁴⁵ Great Barrington Declaration Signatures

“Even as many cultural figures in Sweden after his death were quick to witness to his importance, they pissed on his memory by pointing out the many issues they disagreed with him. Their problem was often that they never read what he said correctly”.

The Swedish writer Jan Myrdal, a giant among European intellectuals, has passed away after a 75 year career as a political writer of thousands of articles and more than 100 books. Above all he was a political activist who in the spirit of Karl Marx believed it was more important to change the world than only to understand it. But he was best known for his encyclopedic knowledge of social history and discourse and his constant encouragement to readers to “Go to the sources!” to be able to speak truth to those in power. In his youth he was an organized communist but later chose to describe himself as an independent socialist thinker who could contribute more to popular struggles in his role as a disciplined and factually unchallengeable political writer.

An avid reader as a youngster he credits the influence of a school year in NY as a child with his early exposure to  the debates of class struggle and mass politics in the era of the New Deal and his appreciation of freedom of speech as well as American writers.

Jan Myrdal speaking at a demonstration against the Vietnam War at Medborgarplatsen in Stockholm, 1966. (Public Domain)

One of his first books, The Careerist, exposed the corruption and degeneration afflicting the reformist social democratic movement whose ideals had begun to transform Sweden into a modern welfare state. In the sixties he began producing his travel books which examined societies he stayed long periods in, such as Turkmenistan and Afghanistan  and Angkor Wat as well as the first of a series on Life in a Chinese Village during the Cultural Revolution which was followed by many return visits.

But it was his book Confessions of a Disloyal European that was to have an enormous impact on anti-imperialists and leftists in many countries with its third world perspective. His wife of more than 50 years, the painter and photographer Gun Kessle worked with him in documenting these travels. He returned to Sweden after these travels and became a leading Vietnam activist and supporter of national liberation struggles.

During these years he also finished his monumental work India Waiting.  His anti-imperialism led him to visit the Khmer Rouge held areas during the Vietnamese invasion and the liberated Naxalite controlled areas of India in his 80´s. He participated in the World Tribunal on Iraq in Istanbul in 2005 where he compared the war propaganda used by the imperialists in the two world wars which he had explored in his Selling war like margarine with the false language used by the US in the Iraq invasion and occupation. Al Intiqad, the magazine of Hezbollah, described him as one of Europe´s leading intellectuals and published a long interview with him in which he discussed the historical role of religion and war.

But he was also an important figure in Swedish literature, like the Swedish writer August Strindberg, who he considered his inspiration. His writing had a distinct, direct style, often using spoken and understood language and moving comfortably and without difficulty between tenses so that the past became the present for the reader. His texts were often long, logical reasoning with countless references or asides for further insights. He was as challengeable to read as a Chomsky who did not use commas.

Myrdal was famous for his texts on Balzac, Twain and Dickens, all of whose work he explored and cited in his own writings. He became famous as a prose writer with his I-stories. The first three, The Childhood Trilogy used the perspective of growing awareness of a child growing up to young adulthood. This resulted in his victory in a court case for libel from his Nobel Prize winning parents.

The series continued with Tomorrows, where as a young teenage radical he commits himself to the political and personal discipline that the struggle demanded. of a revolutionary committed to making a better world. His last work in this genre used the perspective of old-age to relook at the recollections of his part. Even that became a bestseller in Sweden.

A true historical materialist all his writings were characterized by an underclass perspective against the superstructure of capitalist politics and culture. He was one of the founders of Folket i Bild/Kulturfront (People in Pictures/the Cultural Front) a broad based movement and magazine to defend People´s culture, freedom of speech and anti-imperialism, in which he continued to have a regular column for almost half a century.

Myrdal was a controversial figure, admired greatly or hated by his detractors. He had no regrets for the positions he took. Even as many cultural figures in Sweden after his death were quick to witness to his importance, they pissed on his memory by pointing out the many issues they disagreed with him. Their problem was often that they never read what he said correctly. For those of us who followed his writings for half a century, he provided inspiration and pointed out a way to understand our world and to act to change it.

*

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: CC BY-SA 3.0

“I expect the prevailing direction of U.S. foreign policy over these last decades to continue: more lawless bombing and killing multiple countries under the cover of “limited engagement,” – Biden Biographer Branko Marcetic 

***

After triumphing in a bitterly contested presidential election, all eyes are on President-Elect Joe Biden and who he will choose to run his new administration. For much of October, media spent their time dissecting the news that, despite living a lavish billionaire lifestyle, Donald Trump paid only $750 in federal income taxes in 2016 and 2017. In contrast, little was made of Biden’s self-published tax documents. This is surprising because the returns show that he is rich. Filthy rich.

The 77-year-old Delawarean likes to paint himself as a man of modest means. “I entered as one of the poorest men in Congress, left one of the poorest men in government — in Congress and as vice-president,” Biden said during the Democratic presidential nomination process. And while that was technically true, since leaving the White House, he and his wife Jill have amassed a fortune of more than $16.7 million. For comparison, the median net worth of U.S. households is $97,300. His tax returns show that he received over $900,000 from the University of Pennsylvania in 2018 and 2019. “When I left the United States Senate, I became a professor,” at the Ivy League institution, he told the country in March. Yet records show he has not taught even a single class during his time there.

Speaking engagements make up the majority of his earnings, where he is often paid princely sums for minutes’ work. For example, his tax returns show that he was paid over $134,000 for a talk in Fort Lauderdale, FL in January 2019. In this sense, he is following in the footsteps of the likes of Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and George W. Bush, who command enormous sums for public appearances — a practice often condemned as little more than payoffs for “good behavior” while in office.

Source | Forbes

Biden is no stranger to the rich and powerful. He kicked off his presidential campaign last year with a dinner for ultra-rich patrons at a Manhattan hotel, insisting that “nothing would fundamentally change” if he were elected, reassuring them that he would never demonize the rich and that they were not at fault for growing inequality. “I need you very badly,” he concluded.

Building Back Better?

The former vice-president’s team is also looking to be made up of extremely wealthy individuals as well. His transition task squad has been, in his website’s words, crafted to ensure they “reflect the values and priorities of the incoming administration,” and includes executives from Lyft, Amazon, Capital One, Uber, Visa, and JP Morgan.

One name being strongly floated for a cabinet position is former mayor of Chicago Rahm Emanuel, a move being met with vocal opposition from the left. Emanuel’s first tour of duty in the White House came under President Bill Clinton, where he was one of the key architects of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), a deal that decimated manufacturing in the Midwest, hobbled union power, and sent well paying blue-collar jobs to Mexico. In 2016, Trump constantly brought up NAFTA as a weapon to attack Hillary Clinton, winning him votes (and states) across the region. Emanuel also pushed through welfare “reform” bills that sharply reduced benefits for the poor and worked with Biden on the now-infamous 1994 Crime Bill, a key accelerator of mass incarceration. He then left politics to pursue a lucrative career in finance — something that quickly netted him a reported $16 million fortune — before returning and becoming President Obama’s advisor and enforcer.

Biden’s war room

Many of the president-elect’s potential picks for foreign policy positions — including Susan Rice and Michele Flourney — have onlookers worried. “With a Biden administration, we can expect a continuation of the Middle East wars and possible escalations in places like Syria. Biden could be better than Trump on Iran and Yemen, but judging by his potential cabinet picks, that should not be expected without significant pressure from antiwar activists and lobbyists in Washington,” Dave DeCamp, assistant news editor of AntiWar.com told MintPress. “His administration will likely be more successful than Trump at expanding the empire, with a more diplomatic and coherent approach at building alliances to face Russia and China.”

Rice, who was the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations and National Security Advisor under Obama, has amassed a fortune of around $40 million. After leaving office, she was given a spot on the board of Netflix, being paid $366,666 as a base salary. On top of that, she was given $2.3 million worth of the company’s stock. However, it is her husband, former ABC News executive producer Ian O. Cameron (whose father was a super-wealthy industrialist), who is the prime source of her wealth. She was a key driver in U.S. action in Libya, and also successfully lobbied Obama to place harsher sanctions on North Korea and Iran.

Ambassador Rice speaks in front of an Israeli missile battery in Tel Aviv during an 2014 visit to Israel. Photo | US Embassy Tel Aviv

Flournoy, meanwhile, was Under Secretary of Defense for Policy from 2009 to 2012 in the Obama administration under Secretaries Robert Gates and Leon Panetta. After “serving the country,” she received lucrative consulting contracts, joined corporate boards, and began her own security think tank, WestExec Advisors. By 2017, she was making a reported $452,000 annually.

“Certainly the possible selection of Michele Flournoy and other WestExec advisors people is concerning,” Biden biographer Branko Marcetic told MintPress.

This isn’t just because of their corporate/financial ties, though of course that’s alarming — can we be sure that people whose private sector career involved leveraging their government experience and contacts to help multinationals secure favorable business conditions will have their intentions calibrated toward good policy and not to their private sector career?”

“Biden claims he wants an end to the Yemen conflict, but again, words are only so much. It’s highly likely that he will have Michele Flornoy as his Secretary of Defense who was one of the voices that stated that weapons should continue to be sold to Saudia Arabia (during the Yemen conflict), under certain conditions, as they have a right to protect themselves. This speaks volumes,” said Mariamne Everett of the Institute for Public Accuracy. Rice and Flournoy, she added, were vocal supporters of the disastrous Iraq War, which does not bode well for those concerned with peace.

Marcetic agreed, noting that, while in office, Flourney was “a major liberal interventionist hawk who not only wants U.S. troops deployed all over the world, but has also publicly advocated for the U.S. to majorly exploit its fossil fuel reserves for global dominance,” something  which would be a “disaster for containing climate catastrophe.”

Back in the game

The recycling of old faces (many of them considerably richer than before) into the new administration suggests that there will be few breaks from the past on policy, and more in the way of continuation. Biden himself has largely acknowledged this, tweeting, “When I’m speaking to foreign leaders, I’m telling them: America is going to be back. We’re going to be back in the game.” To many suffering under U.S. sanctions or hiding from U.S. bombs, these words will likely not comfort them. DeCamp suggested that there will be no great difference in policy between Trump and Biden administrations:

Despite Trump being painted as an ‘isolationist,’ his administration has actually expanded NATO, shored up the support of some Asian countries to counter China, and significantly increased Washington’s military footprint in the Pacific. Biden will continue this as he made clear in recent phone calls with Asian leaders and his tough talk on China’s claims to the South China Sea during the last presidential debate.”

Flournoy meets with Afghan Army personnel during a tour of the Kabul Military Training Center Aug. 7, 2010. Photo | DVIDS

Everett offered a similar analysis, suggesting that, with pro-Israel zealots like Rice advising him, the Biden administration would “expand” on what Trump had done in Palestine as well. Meanwhile, for Latin America, his foreign policy team intends to revive the so-called “anti-corruption drives” of the Obama era, which ultimately overthrew an elected government in Brazil and paved the way for the ascendency of far-right figure Jair Bolsonaro.

Marcetic suggested that Biden would attempt to rejoin many of the international treaties and organizations that the Trump administration had undermined or pulled out of, including NATO and the Paris Climate Agreement.

I expect the prevailing direction of U.S. foreign policy over these last decades to continue: more lawless bombing and killing multiple countries under the cover of “limited engagement,” continuing genocidal sanctions against countries like Iran and Venezuela, ongoing treatment of Latin America as an American fiefdom, and militarism and conflict continuing to be the dominant organising principle of U.S. foreign policy, rather than, say, co-operation and stopping climate change,” he added.

Independent journalist Caitlin Johnstone recently mockingly wrote that Biden will have “the most diverse, intersectional cabinet of mass murderers ever assembled.” If representation is important, it is because it helps assure that people from all walks of life will have a seat at the negotiating table. However, judging by Biden’s wealthy picks, it appears that yet again, no one will be representing the great majority of working-class Americans.

*

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

Alan MacLeod is a Staff Writer for MintPress News. After completing his PhD in 2017 he published two books: Bad News From Venezuela: Twenty Years of Fake News and Misreporting and Propaganda in the Information Age: Still Manufacturing Consent. He has also contributed to Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, The Guardian, Salon, The Grayzone, Jacobin Magazine, Common Dreams the American Herald Tribune and The Canary.

Featured image: Graphic by Anontio Cabrera for MintPress

On 12 March 2020, British PM Boris Johnson, referring to COVID-19, informed the public:

“We’ve all got to be clear; this is the worst public health crisis for a generation.”

Since that time, we have seen lockdowns, on ongoing government-backed fear campaign, fundamental rights being stripped away, dissent censored, inflated COVID-19 death numbers and the use of a flawed PCR test to label perfectly healthy individuals as COVID-19 ‘cases’ in order to fit the narrative of a ‘second wave’.

But, just for a moment, consider an alternative scenario.

The government is extremely worried about a substance that could be contributing to a spiralling public health crisis that has been decades in the making. It has been detected in food and in urine. The government has therefore decided to carry out mass urine testing. It has found millions of ‘cases’. The more it tests, the more ‘cases’ it finds. The government and the media promote the message we are all at risk and should get tested. Hundreds of millions of pounds have been spent to allow for the testing of the entire population.

All cafes, pubs, restaurants and food stores are locked down, aside from those designated to sell only food that is regarded as ‘safe’ by the government. All weddings, parties and get-togethers are banned because contaminated food might be passed around.

Severe restrictions are put in place because this ‘stuff’ is in the air, water, plants, animals, grains, vegetables and meats. And it is in beer and wine, children’s breakfast cereal and snack bars and even in our vaccines. Everyone is under virtual house arrest until this public health crisis is addressed.

Daily government briefings are held on TV with the PM and health officials in attendance. The PM tells everyone that this thing is linked to various conditions, including obesity, depression, Alzheimer’s, ADHD, autism, multiple sclerosis, Parkinson’s, kidney disease, inflammatory bowel disease, brain, breast and prostate cancer, miscarriage, birth defects and declining sperm counts.

Imagine that scenario. But the substance being referred to is very real. It is heavily associated with all the conditions mentioned and is present in our urine and food. But the government does nothing. It does not just do nothing but actively facilitates the marketing of this substance and collude with its manufacturers.

And the name of this ‘stuff’? Glyphosate, the world’s most widely used herbicide. The main culprit – Monsanto’s Roundup. But it is not just glyphosate. It is the cocktail of agricultural chemicals that have been in use for decades.

The real public health crisis

Earlier this year, in a 29-page open letter to Fiona Godlee, editor-in-chief of the British Medical Journal, environmentalist Dr Rosemary Mason spent 11 pages documenting the spiralling rates of disease that she says (supported by numerous research studies cited) are largely the result of exposure to health-damaging agrochemicals, including glyphosate-based herbicides.

The amount of glyphosate-based herbicide sprayed by UK farmers on crops has gone from 226,762 kg in 1990 to 2,240,408 kg in 2016, a 10-fold increase. In her letter, Mason discussed links between multiple pesticide residues (including glyphosate) in food and steady increases in the number of cancers both in the UK as well as allergic diseases, chronic kidney disease, Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, obesity and many other conditions.

Agrochemicals are a major contributory factor for the spikes in these diseases and conditions. This is the real public health crisis affecting the UK. Each year, there are steady increases in the numbers of new cancers in the UK and increases in deaths from the same cancers, with treatments not making any difference to the numbers.

While there is much talk of the coronavirus placing immense strain on an underfunded NHS, the health service is already creaking. And people’s immune systems are already strongly compromised due to what Mason outlines. But do we see a ‘lockdown’ on the activities of the global agrochemical conglomerates? Not at all.

We see governments and public health bodies working hand in glove with the agrochemicals manufacturers to ensure ‘business as usual’.

It might seem strange to many that the UK government is seemingly going out of its way (by stripping people of their freedoms) under the guise of a public health crisis but is all too willing to oversee a massive, ongoing one caused by the chemical pollution of our bodies.

Unlike COVID-19, this is a ‘silent’ crisis that actually does affect all sections of the population and causes immense widespread suffering. It is silent because the mainstream media and various official reports in the UK have consistently ignored or downplayed the role of pesticides in fuelling this situation.

Hundreds of lawsuits are pending against Bayer in the US, filed by people alleging that exposure to Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide caused them or their loved ones to develop non-Hodgkin lymphoma and that Monsanto covered up the risks (Roundup is linked to cancers of the bone, colon, kidney, liver, melanoma, pancreas and thyroid).

The WHO International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has declared glyphosate as a 2A carcinogen. In 2017, in a public hearing in Brussels, Dr Christopher Portier and Dr Kate Guyton defended IARC’s position. Portier drew attention to the significance of statistically significant tumour findings that had not been discussed in any of the existing reviews on glyphosate.

Portier concluded that as the regulatory bodies, the European Food Safety Authority and the European Chemicals Agency’s analyses were scientifically flawed. These organisations had also used industry studies that were not in the public domain for ‘reasons of commercial confidentiality’ to support their case that glyphosate was not carcinogenic.

Mason has written numerous open letters to officials citing reams of statistical data to support the contention that agrochemicals, especially Monsanto’s glyphosate-based Roundup, have devastated the natural environment and have also led to spiralling rates of illness and disease, not least among children.

Regulators around the world have falsely assumed that it is safe to use pesticides at industrial scales across landscapes and the effects of dosing whole regions with chemicals have been largely ignored.

A report delivered to the UN Human Rights Council, says that pesticides have catastrophic impacts on the environment, human health and society as a whole.

Authored by Hilal Elver, UN special rapporteur on the right to food, and Baskut Tuncak, UN special rapporteur on toxics, the report states:

“Chronic exposure to pesticides has been linked to cancer, Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s diseases, hormone disruption, developmental disorders and sterility.”

The authors argue:

“While scientific research confirms the adverse effects of pesticides, proving a definitive link between exposure and human diseases or conditions or harm to the ecosystem presents a considerable challenge. This challenge has been exacerbated by a systematic denial, fuelled by the pesticide and agro-industry, of the magnitude of the damage inflicted by these chemicals and aggressive, unethical marketing tactics.”

Elver says:

“The power of the corporations over governments and over the scientific community is extremely important. If you want to deal with pesticides, you have to deal with the companies.”

Tuncak states:

“Paediatricians have referred to childhood exposure to pesticides as creating a “silent pandemic” of disease and disability. Exposure in pregnancy and childhood is linked to birth defects, diabetes and cancer. Because a child’s developing body is more sensitive to exposure than adults and takes in more of everything – relative to their size, children eat, breathe and drink much more than adults – they are particularly vulnerable to these toxic chemicals.”

According to Tuncak, increasing evidence shows that even at “low” doses of childhood exposure, irreversible health impacts can result. But most victims cannot prove the cause of their disability or disease, limiting our ability to hold those responsible to account.

He concludes:

“The overwhelming reliance of regulators on industry-funded studies, the exclusion of independent science from assessments and the confidentiality of studies relied upon by authorities must change.”

The authors were severely critical of the global corporations that manufacture pesticides, accusing them of the “systematic denial of harms”, “aggressive, unethical marketing tactics” and heavy lobbying of governments which has “obstructed reforms and paralysed global pesticide restrictions”.

Way back in 1962, Rachel Carson’s book Silent Spring raised the red flag about the use of harmful synthetic pesticides; yet, despite the warnings, the agrochemical giants have ever since been poisoning humans and the planet, raking in enormous profits.

Michael McCarthy, writer and naturalist, says that three generations of industrialised farming with a vast tide of poisons pouring over the land year after year after year since the end of the Second World War is the true price of pesticide-based agriculture, which society has for so long blithely accepted.

Power is now increasingly concentrated in the hands of a handful of transnational agribusiness corporations which put profit and market control ahead of food security, health and nutrition and biodiversity. Due to their political influence and financial clout, these companies are waging a chemical warfare on nature and people, while seeking to convince us that their model of agriculture – based on proprietary seeds and chemicals – is essential for feeding a burgeoning global population.

Consider that none of the more than 400 pesticides that have been authorised in the UK have been tested for long-term actions on the brain: in the foetus, in children or in adults.

Theo Colborn’s crucial research in the early 1990s showed that endocrine disrupters (EDCs) were changing humans and the environment, but this research was ignored by officials. Glyphosate is an EDC and a nervous system disrupting chemical.

In the book published in 1996 ‘Our Stolen Future: How Man-made Chemicals are Threatening our Fertility, Intelligence and Survival’ Colborn and colleagues revealed the full horror of what was happening to the world as a result of contamination with EDCs. There was emerging scientific research about how a wide range of these chemicals can disrupt delicate hormone systems in humans. These systems play a critical role in processes ranging from human sexual development to behaviour, intelligence and the functioning of the immune system.

In addition to glyphosate, EDCs include polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). DDT, chlordane, lindane, aldrin, dieldrin, endrin, toxaphene, heptachlor, dioxin, atrazine and dacthal.

In 2007, 25 experts in environmental health from 11 countries (including from the UK) met on the Faroes and contributed to this statement:

“The periods of embryonic, foetal and infant development are remarkably susceptible to environmental hazards. Toxic exposures to chemical pollutants during these windows of increased susceptibility can cause disease and disability in infants, children and across the entire span of human life.”

The Department of Health’s School Fruit and Vegetable Scheme (SFVS) has residues of 123 different pesticides that impact the gut microbiome. Obesity is associated with low diversity of bacteria in the microbiome and glyphosate adversely affects or destroys much of the beneficial bacteria. Roundup (and other biocides) is linked to gross obesity, neuropsychiatric disorders and other chronic diseases, which are all on the rise and adversely impact brain development in children and adolescents.

Moreover, type 2 diabetes is associated with being very overweight. According to NHS data, almost four in five of 715 children suffering from it were also obese.

Graham MacGregor, a professor of cardiovascular health at Queen Mary University of London who is also the chair of the campaign group Action on Sugar, says:

“Type 2 diabetes is a disaster for the child and their family and for the NHS. If a child gets type 2 diabetes, it’s condemning them to a lot of complications of that condition, such as blindness, amputations and kidney disease.”

He went on to explain that we are in a crisis and that the government does not seem to be taking action. UK obesity levels now exceed those of the US.

The human microbiome is of vital importance to human health yet it is under chemical attack. Glyphosate disrupts the shikimate pathway within these gut bacteria and is a strong chelator of essential minerals.

Many key neurotransmitters are located in the gut. Aside from affecting the functioning of major organs, these transmitters affect our moods and thinking. There is strong evidence that gut bacteria can have a direct physical impact on the brain.

Image on the right: Mike Mozart/Flickr/cc

Dr Michael Antoniou of King’s College London has found that Roundup herbicide and its active ingredient glyphosate cause a dramatic increase in the levels of two substances, shikimic acid and 3-dehydroshikimic acid, in the gut, which are a direct indication that the EPSPS enzyme of the shikimic acid pathway has been severely inhibited. Roundup and glyphosate affected the microbiome at all dose levels tested, causing shifts in bacterial populations.

A quarter of all food and over a third of fruit and vegetables consumed in the UK contain pesticide cocktails, with some items containing traces of up to 14 different pesticides. The industry (for it is the industry that does the testing, on behalf of regulators) only tests one pesticide at a time, whereas farmers spray a cocktail of pesticides.

Ian Boyd, the former Chief Scientific Adviser to Defra, says pesticides, once they have been authorised, are never reviewed.

Glyphosate is distributed to every organ of the body and has multiple actions: it is an herbicide, an antibiotic, a fungicide, an antiprotozoal, an organic phosphonate, a growth regulator, a toxicant, a virulence enhancer and is persistent in the soil. It chelates (captures) and washes out the following minerals: boron, calcium, cobalt, copper, iron, potassium, magnesium, manganese, nickel and zinc.

In a paper published in King’s Law Journal –  ‘The Chemical Anthropocene: Glyphosate as a Case Study of Pesticide Exposures’ – the authors Alessandra Arcuri and Yogi Hale Hendlin state:

“As the science against glyphosate safety mounts and lawsuits threaten its chemical manufacture’s profits, the next generation of GMO crops are being keyed to the pesticide dicamba, sold commercially as XtendiMax® – and poised to be the next glyphosate. Regulatory agencies have historically been quick to approve products but slow to reconsider regulations after the decades of accumulated harms become apparent.”

They add that the entrenched asymmetries between public and ecological health and fast-to-market new chemicals is exacerbated by the seeming lack of institutionalised precautionary policies.

Britain and the US are in the midst of a barely reported public health crisis. These countries are experiencing not merely a slowdown in life expectancy, which in many other rich countries is continuing to lengthen, but the start of an alarming increase in death rates across all our populations, men and women alike. People are needlessly dying early.

Research by US-based EWG found glyphosate residues on popular oat cereals, oatmeal, granola and snack bars. Almost 75% of the 45 samples tested had glyphosate levels higher than what EWG scientists consider protective of children’s health with an adequate margin of safety. Disturbing levels of such residues have been detected in the UK too.

There are shockingly high levels of weed killer in UK breakfast cereals. After testing these cereals at the Health Research Institute in Iowa, Dr Fagan, director of the centre, said:

“These results are consistently concerning. The levels consumed in a single daily helping of any one of these cereals, even the one with the lowest level of contamination, is sufficient to put the person’s glyphosate levels above the levels that cause fatty liver disease in rats (and likely in people).”

Glyphosate also causes epigenetic changes in humans and animals: diseases skip a generation. Washington State University researchers have found a variety of diseases and other health problems in the second- and third-generation offspring of rats exposed to glyphosate. In the first study of its kind, the researchers saw descendants of exposed rats developing prostate, kidney and ovarian diseases, obesity and birth abnormalities.

Writing in the journal Scientific Reports, the researchers say they saw “dramatic increases” in several pathologies affecting the second and third generations. The second generation had “significant increases” in testis, ovary and mammary gland diseases as well as obesity. In third-generation males, the researchers saw a 30% incidence of prostate disease — three times the rate of a control population. The third generation of females had a 40% incidence of kidney disease, or four times the rate of the controls.

More than one-third of the second-generation mothers had unsuccessful pregnancies, with most of those affected dying. Two out of five males and females in the third generation were obese.

Researchers call this phenomenon “generational toxicology” and they have seen it over the years in fungicides, pesticides, jet fuel, the plastics compound bisphenol A, the insect repellent DEET and the herbicide atrazine. At work are epigenetic changes that turn genes on and off, often because of environmental influences.

A study published in February 2019 found glyphosate increased the risk of non-Hodgkin lymphoma by as much as 41%. A Washington State University study published in December 2019 found state residents living close to areas subject to treatments with the herbicide are one-third more likely to die an early death from Parkinson’s disease.

Robert F Kennedy Jr, one of the attorney’s fighting Bayer (which has bought Monsanto) in the US courts, has explained that for four decades Monsanto manoeuvred to conceal Roundup’s carcinogenicity by capturing regulatory agencies, corrupting public officials, bribing scientists and engaging in scientific fraud to delay its day of reckoning. He says that Monsanto also faces cascading scientific evidence linking glyphosate to a constellation of other injuries that have become prevalent since its introduction, including obesity, depression, Alzheimer’s, ADHD, autism, multiple sclerosis, Parkinson’s, kidney disease, inflammatory bowel disease, brain, breast and prostate cancer, miscarriage, birth defects and declining sperm counts.

Moreover, strong science suggests glyphosate is the culprit in the exploding epidemics of celiac disease, colitis, gluten sensitivities, diabetes and non-alcoholic liver cancer which, for the first time, is attacking children as young as 10.

And yet, as Mason has described in her work, the UK government had colluded with Monsanto for many years.

Boris Johnson, in his first speech to parliament as PM, said:

“Let’s start now to liberate the UK’s extraordinary bioscience sector from anti-genetic modification rules…”

This could mean the irresponsible introduction of genetically modified Roundup Ready food crops to the UK, which would see the amount of glyphosate in British food reaching new levels (levels which are already disturbing).

So much for protecting public health.

Government collusion

David Cameron appointed Michael Pragnell, founder of Syngenta and former Chairman of CropLife International, to the board of Cancer Research UK (CRUK) in 2010. He became Chairman in 2011. At one time or another, CropLife International´s member list has included BASF, Bayer CropScience, Dow AgroSciences, DuPont, FMC Corp, Monsanto, Sumitomo and Syngenta. Many of these make their own formulated glyphosate.

Syngenta is a member of the European Glyphosate Task Force, which sought to renew (and succeeded in renewing) European glyphosate registration. Not surprisingly, the CRUK website denies that there is any link between pesticides and cancer.

In February 2019, at a Brexit meeting on the UK chemicals sector, UK regulators and senior officials from government departments listened to the priorities of the Bayer Crop Science Division. During the meeting (Westminster Energy, Environment & Transport Forum Keynote Seminar: Priorities for UK chemicals sector – challenges, opportunities and the future for regulation post-Brexit), Janet Williams, head of regulatory science at Bayer Crop Science Division, made her priorities for agricultural chemical manufacturers known.

Dave Bench was also a speaker. Bench is a senior scientist at the UK Chemicals, Health and Safety Executive and director of the agency’s EU exit plan and has previously stated that the regulatory system for pesticides is robust and balances the risks of pesticides against the benefits to society.

That statement was merely for public consumption and the benefit of the agrochemical industry. The industry (for it is the industry that does the testing, on behalf of regulators) only tests one pesticide at a time, whereas farmers spray a cocktail of pesticides.

But such is the British government’s willingness to protect pesticide companies that it is handing agrochemical giants BASF and Bayer enormous pay-outs of Covid-19 support cash. The announcement came just weeks after Bayer shareholders voted to pay £2.75 billion in dividends. The fact that Bayer then went on to receive £600 million from the government speaks volumes of where the government’s priorities lie.

In Mason’s report, ‘Why Does Bayer Crop Science Control Chemicals in Brexit Britain’, she states that Bayer is having secret meetings with the British government to determine which agrochemicals are to be used after Brexit once Britain is ‘free’ of EU restrictions and becomes as deregulated as the US.

Such collusion comes as little surprise as the government’s ‘strategy for UK life sciences’ is already dependent on funding from pharmaceutical corporations and the pesticides industry.

Syngenta’s parent company was in 2010 AstraZeneca. At that time, Syngenta and AstraZeneca were represented on the UK Advisory Committee on Pesticides and the Committee on Toxicity of Chemicals in Foods, Consumer Products and the Environment. The founder of Syngenta, Michael Pragnell, was the Chairman of Cancer Research UK (CRUK) from 2011-2017. CRUK started by giving money (£450 million a year) to the Government’s Strategy for UK Life Sciences and AstraZeneca provided 22 compounds to academic research to develop medicines. AstraZeneca manufactured six different anti-cancer drugs mainly aimed at breast and prostate cancer.

It seems like a highly profitable and cosy relationship between the agrochemical and pharmaceuticals sectors and the government at the expense of public health.

In finishing, let us take a brief look at the Washington-based International Life Sciences Institute (ILSI). Its members have occupied key positions on EU and UN regulatory panels. It is, however, an industry lobby group that masquerades as a scientific health charity.

The ILSI describes its mission as “pursuing objectivity, clarity and reproducibility” to “benefit the public good”. But researchers from the University of Cambridge, Bocconi University in Milan and the US Right to Know campaign assessed over 17,000 pages of documents under US freedom of information laws to present evidence of influence peddling.

ILSI Vice-President, Prof Alan Boobis, is currently the Chairman of the UK Committee on Toxicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment (CoT).

He was directly responsible for authorising chemicals such as glyphosate, chlorothalonil, clothianidin and chlorpyrifos that are impacting human health and creating a crisis in biodiversity. His group and others have authorised glyphosate repeatedly. He and David Coggon, the previous Chairman of CoT (2008-2015), were appointed as experts on Science Advice for Policy by European Academies (SAPEA), a group allied with the agrochemical industry and is fighting for higher pesticide exposure.

The reality of the agrochemical industry is masked by well-funded public relations machinery. The industry subverts official agencies and regulatory bodies and supports prolific lobby organisations and (‘public scientists’) which masquerade as neutral institutions.

And for the record, it is possible to farm productively and profitably without the use of synthetic agrochemicals – and to achieve food security. For instance, see the article ‘A Skeptical Farmer’s Monster Message on Profitability’ based on one US farmers journey from chemical-dependent farming to organic on his 8,000-acre farm (discussed on the AgWeb site) or ‘The Untold Success Story of Agroecology in Africa’ in the journal Development (2015). From the Tigray region of Ethiopia to various high-level (UN) reports that have recommended agroecology there are many examples, too many to discuss here.

The UK government says it cares so much about the nation’s health (the infection mortality rate for COVID-19 appears to be similar to those of a bad seasonal flu) but has presided over and facilitated a genuine public health crisis for years. And it is now pumping billions of pounds of public money into a track, trace and test regime when it could have used it to boost overall NHS capacity; remember when the government stated that the initial lockdown was implemented to protect the NHS?

In fact, the government is spending the equivalent of 77% of the NHS annual revenue budget on an “unevaluated, underdesigned national programme leading to an insufficiently supported intervention – in many cases for the wrong people” says a recent editorial in the BMJ.

In the meantime, it is investing heavily in a (possibly mandatory) vaccine that based on the design of the trials – according to a recent article in the same journal – may have no discernible impact on saving lives or preventing serious outcomes or the transmission spread of infection.

*

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.

Readers can access all Rosemary Mason’s reports on the academia.edu site.

Rosemary Mason is a retired doctor and environmental campaigner.

Colin Todhunter is an independent writer. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image: Global Justice Now /Flickr/CC BY

At the June 2020 Annual Meeting, Council of Canadians’ members voted to endorse and promote a Canadian nominating process for the 2021 Nobel Peace Prize to go the Henry Reeve medical teams from Cuba for their international work in the context of COVID-19. 

In 2005, Cuba’s leaders looked ahead and saw a world increasingly beset by pandemics and natural disasters. This led them to initiate a program to train professional medical personnel to be able to respond quickly to emergency requests from other nations. This initiative resulted in the mobilization of thousands of Cuban medical personnel with the skills and training to deal with a variety of global calamities, known as the Henry Reeve brigades.

When COVID-19 hit in 2020, Cuba responded to emergency requests for trained medical personnel by sending 53 health teams to 39 countries on four continents. The health teams were able to assist countries with fragile health systems that were ill-equipped to deal with COVID-19.

Cuba’s response to COVID-19 eclipses all other front-line efforts from industrialized nations in the fight against COVID-19. This response is more remarkable given that the island nation has been under a decades-long embargo by the United States of America. The U.S. State Department has made it known since the beginning of the pandemic that they might retaliate against any country receiving Cuban medical personnel. Only one country has capitulated to these threats from the U.S., and that country is Canada.

We are fortunate to have Dr. John Kirk as the nominator. As an expert on Cuba’s humanitarian efforts and its medical internationalism and a professor at Dalhousie University’s Department of Spanish and Latin American Studies, Dr. Kirk easily meets all of the strict requirements outlined by Oslo for those individuals heading up a nomination process for the Nobel Peace Prize. Read Dr. Kirk’s nomination.

The Council of Canadians fully supports this nomination effort, and are honoured to be working in solidarity with the endorsers listed below.

Individual Canadian endorsers for the 2021 Nobel Peace Prize Nomination for the international work of Cuban medical personnel

• The Hon. Lloyd Axworthy – Canadian politician, elder statesman and academic served as Canadian Minister of Foreign Affairs under P.M. Chretien, invested as a Companion of the Order of Canada and honoured at a sacred pipe ceremony as Waappski Pinaysee Inini (Free Range Frog Man), Chair of the World Refugee Council, among other prestigious international and academic positions;
• Dr. Anna Banerji – Pediatrics and infectious disease specialist and Associate Professor at University of Toronto Faculty of Medicine, Faculty lead for Indigenous and Refugee Health, invested in the Order of Ontario, 2014 Women’s Courage Award International, among other citations;
• Jane Bunnett – Flautist, saxophonist and bandleader and jazz legend is a five-time Juno Award winner, invested in The Order of Canada and has more than a dozen albums featuring Cuban music, jazz, and classical as well as dance and pop music;
• John Cartwright – Chairperson of the Council of Canadians Board of Directors and a long-time labour leader and social justice advocate. He is also the President of the Toronto and York Region Labour Council, and over the years helped develop the Campaign for Public Education, Public Transit for the Public Good, the Toronto Waterwatch and Toronto Hydro campaigns as well as crafting the “Green Jobs Strategy” for the Canadian Labour Congress.
• George Elliot Clarke – Canadian poet, playwright and literary critic, known for chronicling the experience and history of the Black Canadian communities of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick (“Africadia”), has served as Poet Laureate of Toronto and Canadian Parliamentary Poet Laureate, appointed to the Order of Nova Scotia and as an Officer of the Order of Canada, and has received many other distinctions;
• Bruce Cockburn – Canadian roots-rock legend, 13-time Juno Award winner, Officer of the Order of Canada, recipient of the Governor General’s Performing Arts Award for Lifetime Artistic Achievement, recipient of the environmental Earth Day Award, and many others honours;
• Elizabeth Hay – Prize winning author of numerous novels, short stories, non fiction and essays. Among many honours, she was the co-winner of the Edna Staebler Award for Creative Non-Fiction, received the Ottawa Book Award, won the Giller Prize in 2007, was accorded the 2012 Diamond Jubilee Medal, and most recently won the Hilary Weston Writers’ Trust Prize for Nonfiction. Elizabeth worked for ten years as a CBC radio broadcaster in Yellowknife, and also did radio documentaries for CBC’s Sunday Morning.
• The Rt. Hon. Michaelle Jean – Canadian stateswoman, journalist and a refugee from Haiti, was the 27th Governor General of Canada and the third Secretary-General of the Organisation Internationale de la Francophonie, named member of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada, and has received many Appointments, Medals, and Awards as well as multiple Honorary degrees;
• Dr. Noni E. MacDonald – Paediatrics infectious disease specialist and Professor in the Department of Pediatrics at Dalhousie University, invested in the Order of Nova Scotia and in the Order of Canada, and recipient of the Lifetime Achievement Award by the Canadian Society for International Health, among other honours;
• MP Elizabeth May – Canadian politician who served as leader of the Green Party of Canada from 2006 to 2019. An environmentalist, author, activist and lawyer, May founded and served as Executive Director of the Sierra Club of Canada from 1989 to 2006. Elizabeth has been an officer of the Order of Canada since 2005, and has been named by the United Nations as one of the leading women environmentalists worldwide, among other citations.
• Senator Pierrette Ringuette – The first francophone woman to be elected to the Legislative Assembly of New Brunswick. In the 1993 federal election she won a seat in the House of Commons of Canada as a Liberal Member of Parliament. In 2002 she was appointed to the Senate on the recommendation of Prime Minister Jean Chretien. In 2007 she received the grade of Officer of the Ordre de la Pleiade in recognition of her contribution to the development of francophone and Acadian culture.  In 2016 she chose to sit as part of the Independent Senators Group. Senator Ringuette continues to be a member of several standing committees and is currently a Counselor of The Inter-Parliamentary Forum of the Americas, Co-Chair of the Canada-Cuba Inter-Parliamentary Group.
• Svend Robinson – Canadian politician and Member of Parliament for the New Democratic Party, a strong environmentalist and outspoken advocate for the rights of indigenous peoples both in Canada and internationally, he was adopted into the Haida Nation (“White Swan”), J.S. Woodsworth Resident Scholar at Simon Fraser University, and among several awards…the Elena Iberoamerican Award on Ethics and the Hero Award, Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity;
• David T. Suzuki – Canadian academic, science broadcaster and environmental activist is a Companion of the Order of Canada and invested in the Order of British Columbia, recipient of the Right Livelihood Award and has been awarded honorary degrees from over two dozen universities around the world, and is the host the CBC’s long running series The Nature of Things;

Organizational Canadian endorsers for the 2021 Nobel Peace Prize Nomination for the international work of Cuban medical personnel

• Canadian Coalition for Global Health Research
• Canadian Society for International Health
• Canadian Union of Postal Workers (CUPW)
• Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE) 
• Canadian Unitarians for Social Justice
• Common Frontiers
• Council of Canadians
• Canadian Union of Postal Workers (CUPW)
• Peace Brigades International – Canada
• Public Service Alliance of Canada (PSAC)
• Sisters of Providence of Saint Vincent de Paul
• Unifor
• United Church of Canada 
• United Steelworkers (USW)

*

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 Council of Canadians

Erich Fromm, the renowned German-Jewish social psychologist who was forced to flee his homeland in the early 1930s as the Nazis came to power, offered a disturbing insight later in life on the relationship between society and the individual.

In the mid-1950s, his book The Sane Society suggested that insanity referred not simply to the failure by specific individuals to adapt to the society they lived in. Rather, society itself could become so pathological, so detached from a normative way of life, that it induced a deep-seated alienation and a form of collective insanity among its members. In modern western societies, where automation and mass consumption betray basic human needs, insanity might not be an aberration but the norm.

Fromm wrote:

The fact that millions of people share the same vices does not make these vices virtues, the fact that they share so many errors does not make the errors to be truths, and the fact that millions of people share the same forms of mental pathology does not make these people sane.

Challenging definition

This is still a very challenging idea to anyone raised on the view that sanity is defined by consensus, that it embraces whatever the mainstream prefers, and that insanity applies only to those living outside those norms. It is a definition that diagnoses the vast majority of us today as insane.

When Fromm wrote his book, Europe was emerging from the ruins of the Second World War. It was a time of reconstruction, not only physically and financially, but legally and emotionally. International institutions like the United Nations had recently been formed to uphold international law, curb national greed and aggression, and embody a new commitment to universal human rights.

It was a time of hope and expectation. Greater industrialisation spurred by the war effort and intensified extraction of fossil fuels meant economies were beginning to boom, a vision of the welfare state was being born, and a technocratic class promoting a more generous social democracy were replacing the old patrician class.

It was at this historic juncture that Fromm chose to write a book telling the western world that most of us were insane.

Degrees of insanity

If that was clear to Fromm in 1955, it ought to be much clearer to us today, as buffoon autocrats stride the world stage like characters from a Marx Brothers movie; as international law is being intentionally unravelled to restore the right of western nations to invade and plunder; and as the physical world demonstrates through extreme weather events that the long-ignored science of climate change – and much other human-inspired destruction of the natural world – can no longer be denied.

And yet our commitment to our insanity seems as strong as ever – possibly stronger. Sounding like the captain of the Titanic, the unreconstructed British liberal writer Sunny Hundal memorably gave voice to this madness a few years back when he wrote in defence of the catastrophic status quo:

If you want to replace the current system of capitalism with something else, who is going to make your jeans, iPhones and run Twitter?

As the clock ticks away, the urgent goal for each of us is to gain a deep, permanent insight into our own insanity. It doesn’t matter that our neighbours, family and friends think as we do. The ideological system we were born into, that fed us our values and beliefs as surely as our mothers fed us milk, is insane. And because we cannot step outside of that ideological bubble – because our lives depend on submitting to this infrastructure of insanity – our madness persists, even as we think of ourselves as sane.

Our world is not one of the sane versus the insane, but of the less insane versus the more insane.

Intimate portrait

Which is why I recommend the new documentary I Am Greta, a very intimate portrait of the Swedish child environmental activist Greta Thunberg.

Before everyone gets started, let me point out that I Am Greta is not about the climate emergency. That is simply the background noise as the film charts the personal journey begun by this 15-year-old girl with Asperger’s syndrome in staging a weekly lone protest outside the Swedish parliament. Withdrawn and depressed by the implications of the compulsive research she has done on the environment, she rapidly finds herself thrust into the centre of global attention by her simple, heart-felt statements of the obvious.

The schoolgirl shunned as insane by classmates suddenly finds the world drawn to the very qualities that previously singled her out as weird: her stillness, her focus, her refusal to equivocate or to be impressed.

Footage of her father desperately trying to get her to take a break and eat something, if only a banana, as she joins yet another climate march, or of her curling up in a ball on her bed, needing to be silent, after an argument with her father over the time she has spent crafting another speech to world leaders may quieten those certain she is simply a dupe of the fossil fuel industries – or, more likely, it will not.

But the fruitless debates about whether Thunberg is being used are irrelevant to this film. That is not where its point or its power lies.

Through Thunberg’s eyes

For 90 minutes we live in Thunberg’s shoes, we see the world through her strange eyes. For 90 minutes we are allowed to live inside the head of someone so sane that we can briefly grasp – if we are open to her world – quite how insane each of us truly is. We see ourselves from the outside, through the vision of someone whose Asperger’s has allowed her to “see through the static”, as she too generously terms our delusions. She is the small, still centre of simple awareness buffeted in a sea of insanity.

Watching Thunberg wander alone – unimpressed, often appalled – through the castles and palaces of world leaders, through the economic forums of the global technocratic elite, through the streets where she is acclaimed, the varied nature of our collective insanity comes ever more sharply into focus.

Four forms of insanity the adult world adopts in response to Thunberg, the child soothsayer, are on show. In its varied guises, this insanity derives from unexamined fear.

The first – and most predictable – is exemplified by the right, who angrily revile her for putting in jeopardy the ideological system of capitalism they revere as their new religion in a godless world. She is an apostate, provoking their curses and insults.

The second group are liberal world leaders and the technocratic class who run our global institutions. Their job, for which they are so richly rewarded, is to pay lip service, entirely in bad faith, to the causes Thunberg espouses for real. They are supposed to be managing the planet for future generations, and therefore have the biggest investment in recruiting her to their side, not least to dissipate the energy she mobilises that they worry could rapidly turn against them.

One of the film’s early scenes is Thunberg’s meeting with French president Emmanuel Macron, shortly after she has started making headlines.

Beforehand, Macron’s adviser tries to pump Thunberg for information on other world leaders she has met. His unease at her reply that this her first such invitation is tangible. As Thunberg herself seems only too aware when they finally meet, Macron is there simply for the photoshoot. Trying to make inane small talk with someone incapable of such irrelevancies, Macron can’t help but raise an eyebrow in discomfort, and possibly mild reproof, as Thunberg concedes that the media reports of her travelling everywhere by train are right.

Cynically insane

The third group are the adults who line the streets for a selfie with Thunberg, or shout out their adulation, loading it on to her shoulders like a heavy burden – and one she signally refuses to accept. Every time someone at a march tells her she is special, brave or a hero, she immediately tells them they too are brave. It is not her responsibility to fix the climate for the rest of us, and to think otherwise is a form of infantilism.

The fourth group are entirely absent from the film, but not from the responses to it and to her. These are the “cynically insane”, those who want to load on to Thunberg a burden of a different kind. Aware of the way we have been manipulated by our politicians and media, and the corporations that now own both, they are committed to a different kind of religion – one that can see no good anywhere. Everything is polluted and dirty. Because they have lost their own innocence, all innocence must be murdered.

My latest: The more Greta Thunberg articulates the terrifying emotions of awakening to our impending extinction as a species – as she did at the UN this week – the more many of us dig in our heels to resist her role as an agent of change https://t.co/zEZYMuotZv

— Jonathan Cook (@Jonathan_K_Cook) September 24, 2019

This is a form of insanity no different from the other groups. It denies that anything can be good. It refuses to listen to anything and anyone. It denies that sanity is possible at all. It is its own form of autism – locked away in a personal world from which there can be no escape – that, paradoxically, Thunberg herself has managed to overcome through her deep connection to the natural world.

As long as we can medicalise Thunberg as someone suffering from Asperger’s, we do not need to think about whether we are really the insane ones.

Bursting bubbles

Long ago economists made us aware of financial bubbles, the expression of insanity from investors as they pursue profit without regard to real world forces. Such investors are finally forced to confront reality – and the pain it brings – when the bubble bursts. As it always does.

We are in an ideological bubble – and one that will burst as surely as the financial kind. Thunberg is that still, small voice of sanity outside the bubble. We can listen to her, without fear, without reproach, without adulation, without cynicism. Or we can carry on with our insane games until the bubble explodes.

*

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.

Jonathan Cook won the Martha Gellhorn Special Prize for Journalism. His books include “Israel and the Clash of Civilisations: Iraq, Iran and the Plan to Remake the Middle East” (Pluto Press) and “Disappearing Palestine: Israel’s Experiments in Human Despair” (Zed Books). His website is www.jonathan-cook.net. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from Wikimedia Commons

Even though there was virtually no debate on foreign policy during the recent presidential campaign, there has been considerable discussion of what President Joe Biden’s national security team might look like. The general consensus is that the top levels of the government will be largely drawn from officials who previously served in the Obama administration and who are likely to be hawkish. There has also been, inevitably, some discussion of how the new administration, if it is confirmed, will deal with Israel and the Middle East in general.

Israelis would have preferred a victory by Donald Trump as they clearly understand that he was and still is willing to defer to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on nearly all issues. Indeed, that process is ongoing even though Trump might only have about nine more weeks remaining in office. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo is reportedly preparing to sanction several international human rights organizations as anti-Semitic due to the fact that they criticize Israel’s brutality on the West Bank and its illegal settlement policies. The White House is also prepared to free convicted but paroled Israeli spy Jonathan Pollard from travel restrictions so he can move to Israel, where he is regarded as a hero. Pollard was the most damaging spy in U.S. history and any mitigation of his sentence has been opposed by both the Pentagon, where he worked, and also by the intelligence community.

Finally, it is widely believed that before the end of the year Trump will declare that the United States accepts the legitimacy of Israeli intentions to declare annexation of nearly all the Palestinian West Bank. The White House will actually encourage such an initiative reportedly “to sow hostility between Israel and the Biden administration.” One should note that none of the pro-Israeli measures that are likely to come out of the White House enhance U.S. security in any way and they also do nothing particularly to benefit Trump’s campaign to be re-elected through legal challenges.

If Biden does succeed in becoming president, the special place that Israel occupies in the centers of American power are unlikely to be disturbed, which is why Netanyahu was quick off the mark in congratulating the possible new chief executive. Biden has proudly declared himself to be a “Zionist” and his running mate Kamala Harris has been a featured speaker at the annual gatherings of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) in Washington. Both are strongly supportive of the “special relationship” with the Israel and will make no effort to compromise America’s apparent commitment to protect and nourish the Jewish state.

Though Israel is central to how the United States conducts its foreign policy, the country was invisible in the debates and other discussions that took place among candidates during the recent campaign. American voters were therefore given the choice of one government that panders to Israel at the expense of U.S. security or another party that does exactly the same thing. To be sure, Biden did state that he would work to reinstate the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) relating to Iran’s nuclear program, which was canceled by Trump. But he also indicated that it would require some amendment, meaning that the Iranians would have to include their missile program in the monitoring while also abandoning their alleged propensity to “interfere” in the Middle East region. The Iranian government has already indicated that additional conditions are unacceptable, so the deal is dead in the water. Israel has also privately and publicly objected to any new arrangement and has already declared that it would “save the option” of working through the Republican Senate to thwart any attempts by the Biden Administration to change things.

That Israel would blatantly and openly interfere in the deliberations of Congress raises some serious questions which the mainstream media predictably is not addressing. Jewish power in America is for real and it is something that some Jews are not shy about discussing among themselves. Jewish power is unique in terms of how it functions. If you’re an American (or British) politician, you very quickly are made to appreciate that Israel owns you and nearly all of your colleagues. Indeed, the process begins in the U.S. even before your election when the little man from AIPAC shows up with the check list that he wants you to sign off on. If you behave per instructions your career path will be smooth, and you will benefit from your understanding that everything happening in Washington that is remotely connected to the interests of the state of Israel is to be determined by the Jewish state alone, not by the U.S. Congress or White House.

And, here is the tricky part, even while you are energetically kowtowing to Netanyahu, you must strenuously deny that there is Jewish power at work if anyone ever asks you about it. You behave in that fashion because you know that your pleasant life will be destroyed, painfully, if you fail to deny the existence of an Israel Lobby or the Jewish power that supports it.

It is a bold assertion, but there is plenty of evidence to support how that power is exerted and what the consequences are. Senators William Fulbright and Chuck Percy and Congressmen Paul Findlay, Pete McCloskey and Cynthia McKinney have all experienced the wrath of the Lobby and voted out of office. Currently Reverend Raphael Warnock, who is running against Georgia Loeffler for a senate seat in Georgia demonstrates exactly how candidates are convinced to stand on their heads by the Israel Lobby. Warnock was a strong supporter of Palestinian rights and a critic of Israeli brutality. He said as recently as 2018 that the Israelis were shooting civilians and condemned the military occupation and settlement construction on the Palestinian West Bank, which he compared to apartheid South Africa. Now that he is running for the Senate, he is saying that he is opposed to the Boycotts, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement due to what he calls the movement’s “anti-Semitic overtones.” He also supports continued military assistance for Israel and believes that Iran is in pursuit of a nuclear weapon, both of which are critical issues being promoted by the Zionist lobby.

There is some pushback in Washington to Israeli dominance, but not much. Recent senior Pentagon appointee Colonel Douglas Macgregor famously has pointed out that many American politicians get “very, very rich” through their support of Israel even though it means the United States being dragged into new wars. Just how Israel gains control of the U.S. political process is illustrated by the devastating insider tale of how the Obama Administration’s feeble attempts to do the right thing in the Middle East were derailed by American Jews in Congress, the media, party donors and from inside the White House itself. The story is of particularly interest as the Biden Administration will no doubt suffer the same fate if it seeks to reject or challenge Israel’s ability to manipulate and virtually control key aspects of U.S. foreign policy.

The account of Barack Obama’s struggle with Israel and the Israeli Lobby comes from a recently published memoir written by a former foreign policy adviser Ben Rhodes. It is entitled The World As It Is, and it is extremely candid about how Jewish power was able to limit the foreign policy options of a popular sitting president. Rhodes recounts, for example, how Obama chief of staff Rahm Emanuel once nicknamed him “Hamas” after he dared to speak up for Palestinian human rights, angrily shouting at him “Hamas over here is going to make it impossible for my kid to have his fucking bar mitzvah in Israel.”

Rhodes cites numerous instances where Obama was forced to back down when confronted by Israel and its supporters in the U.S. as well as within the Democratic Party. On several occasions, Netanyahu lecture the U.S. president as if he were an errant schoolboy. And Obama just had to take it. Rhodes sums up the situation as follows: “In Washington, where support for Israel is an imperative for members of Congress, there was a natural deference to the views of the Israeli government on issues related to Iran, and Netanyahu was unfailingly confrontational, casting himself as an Israeli Churchill…. AIPAC and other organizations exist to make sure that the views of the Israeli government are effectively disseminated and opposing views discredited in Washington, and this dynamic was a permanent part of the landscape of the Obama presidency.”

And, returning to the persistent denial of Jewish power even existing when it is running full speed and relentlessly, Rhodes notes the essential dishonesty of the Israel Lobby as it operates in Washington: “Even to acknowledge the fact that AIPAC was spending tens of millions to defeat the Iran deal [JCPOA] was anti-Semitic. To observe that the same people who supported the war in Iraq also opposed the Iran deal was similarly off limits. It was an offensive way for people to avoid accountability for their own positions.”

Many Americans long to live in a country that is at peace with the world and respectful of the sovereignty of foreign nations. Alas, as long as Israeli interests driven by overwhelming Jewish power in the United States continue to corrupt our institutions that just will not be possible. It is time for all Americans, including Jews, to accept that Israel is a foreign country that must make its own decisions and thereby suffer the consequences. The United States does not exist to bail Israel out or to provide cover for its bad behavior. The so-called “special relationship” must end and the U.S. must deal with the Israelis as they would with any other country based on America’s own self-interests. Those interests definitely do not include funding the Israeli war machine, assassinating foreign leaders, or attacking a non-threatening Iran while continuing an illegal occupation of Syria.

*

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.

In lieu of writing reviews of their own books – with the exception of Walt Whitman, who did that with Leaves of Grass – writers often write introductions or prefaces. The purpose of such introductions is to give the prospective readers a sense of what to expect in the pages that follow, as if the author knew exactly what he was writing when he was writing it, as if he weren’t waylaid by words along the way, or could possibly know what a reader may experience when reading them.  In a way, I too have done that, even while knowing that all writing, if it is any good, is a leap into the relative dark, both for the writer and the reader.  We can’t know beforehand how either will affect us.  What changes us in life and in books is always surprising.

Who knows?

The following is the Introduction to my new book, Seeking Truth in a Country of Lies.  I offer it here as an invitation to consider joining me in the book so we may seek together.  Sort of like Whitman’s invitation:

Now I will you to be a bold swimmer,/ To jump off in the midst of the sea, and rise again and nod to me and shout, and /laughingly dash with your hair.

Introduction

In putting together this selection of essays, I was reminded of what Albert Camus once wrote:

“A man’s work is nothing but this slow trek to rediscover, through the detours of art, those two or three great and simple images in whose presence his heart first opened.”

While I do not claim that all these essays are art, they are my efforts to say in the most eloquent way I can what really has mattered to me in recent years, not just politically but personally, since they are entwined. Upon reflection, I see that what matters to me now is what mattered to me when I was young. Although the issues have changed in certain ways as they must, I have not—unless, or because, my wanderings through life with all its changes have paradoxically meant, in Nietzsche’s words, that I have been becoming who I am.

This seems true to me, and the essaying of the words that follow are part of that becoming. Ortega y Gassett once said that “whether he be an original or a plagiarist, man is the novelist of himself.” I agree. While a book of essays is not a  novel, if read in its entirety, it does tell a story that reveals the times and the man who tells them; it expresses two stories simultaneously. And each story, if told well, always has a double dimension, the old and the new. Every life and every event is disclosed in an historical context, now and then and all the time in between.

While hoping I am an original, I know that I have learned and borrowed from many others. My greater hope is that what I say here is said in a way no other could, that it bears my original stamp. That it is novel. For I am convinced that we  cannot grasp the unique nature of our current era simply by repeating straightforward political analyses. That approach is necessary but not enough. For  it leaves out the hidden heart of a world that seems to be spinning madly toward some kind of denouement. It omits all the little thoughts, secrets, fears, and desires of so many people who wish to speak but can’t find the words to express their thoughts.

From a young age, I have been obsessed with truth, death, and freedom. As I recall, those words have been synonymous for God for many thinkers. So I suppose you could say that I have always been intoxicated with God or for God, or maybe God has been intoxicated with me. I don’t know, nor do I care to: knowledge overrated. I know what I feel. My concerns have been those of many writers throughout the ages—poets, rebels, journalists, philosophers, passionate writers of every stripe, desperados for truth and a peaceful world of love and kindness. Those I have admired the most, believers or unbelievers—it is often hard to tell the difference, nor does it matter—were those who  dismissed categories, distinctions, or labels, but who wrote freely because for them to write freely was to live freely and not to be caged by anyone’s restrictions as to what they should be saying or how they were saying it. For them truth was their God, and through the weaving of words down a page they were always seeking to disclose what was hidden from common sight. They used language to open up cracks in the consensus reality that the great poet and writer Kenneth Rexroth called the “social lie”:

“Since all society is organized in the interest of exploiting  classes and since if men knew this they would cease to work and society would fall apart, it has always been necessary, at least since the urban revolutions, for societies to be governed ideologically by a system of fraud.”

Indeed, we live in the era of massive fraud where the trans-national wealthy elites, led by the American war and propaganda machine, continue to try to convince the gullible that they are saviors of humanity even as they lie and cheat and murder by the millions.

So what follows are my efforts to unearth the fraud, while celebrating the beauty of life and telling little stories here and there that I hope exemplify its comedy and tragedy. I am always experimenting every time I sit down to write. Not consciously, since I let inspiration guide me. Often, as I think is evident in many pieces, thoughts come to me when walking, and from those initial thoughts comes the path I follow, not knowing exactly where I am headed. Some of these  essays are highly intellectual and structured; some, straightforwardly political; others are meanderings that seek to express essential truths I sense in the telling.

The process feels physical to me. It has a feel and smell. A rhythm. Like a song. Like a dawdling walk in the woods or by a flowing river. If I call them all essays, it is to indicate that they are my attempts, my experiments, my experience (Latin:  exigere: trial, attempt, try) to disclose to myself and anyone who might read them what is going on in the world that I find important and worth investigating. To use my artistic and sociological imagination to connect the dots between the personal and the social and in so doing to say something worth sharing with others.

Whatever my ostensible starting point—a major event, a book, an experience—you can usually be sure that by the time you have read to the end of the piece, I will have branched off down by-ways that lead to other trails that eventually reconnect to the main path. Or so I hope. While I usually see how the roads all lead back to one, sometimes I only intuit it and the reader is left to do the reconnoitering alone. I think this is good. For while these essays are set in ink within the covers of a book, verbal tenses and ink can be misleading. They suggest  that the author’s quest is over, that what motivated the initial words is past, that   the case is closed and the reader and writer are dead-heads satisfied with their knowingness. For me, that is far from true. The paradox of having written these  essays is that I have tried to do so in language that evokes in the reader the  exhilaration I felt in writing them, and that such aliveness will be carried into the  world as rebellion against war and injustice.

I have arranged the essays in no particular order, except to begin and end with a few that tell you something about me. I think it is always good to have some deeper sense of who the author is whose words you are reading, beyond the brief notices on the back of books.

These essays cover a wide variety of topics: propaganda, wars,  government assassinations, work, nature, time, the CIA, silence, poetry, digital dementia, etc. They range far and wide, as I try to connect the scattered dots to draw a coherent picture of our world today. Since I write with no particular goal in mind except truth as I see it, perhaps readers would be best served by randomly choosing a piece and seeing where it might lead them. As with living, I suspect that reading is best done somewhat randomly in the hope that one experiences a sense of liberation in the process. I have scattered some satirical pieces throughout to add a bit of levity to serious matters and hope the reader will not mistake their “authors” for the real me. But if so, that would add to the humor, something we need to survive.

Three authors whom I hold in high esteem and whose names I mention numerous times in this book are John Berger, Albert Camus, and James W. Douglass.

Berger is often described as a Marxist art critic, but such an appellation is misleading, for he was much more than that. While always situating his analyses in historical and cultural contexts, and never forgetting the class structure that  underlies the cruel capitalistic order, he was acutely aware that consumerism and therefore global capitalism as well as philosophical materialism rested upon a  “materialist fantasy” that denied the spiritual power of evil and the spiritual power of good to respond. As a counter-weight, Berger always made sure to cling close to human reality and include what he called “enclaves of the beyond” in his writing. These were often the marginalized hiding places of hope where the spiritual faith in human love and solidarity was nourished and sustained despite the world’s evil.

Albert Camus was very similar in many ways. An avowed atheist with a spiritual core, he was an artistic anarchist with a passionate spiritual hunger and an austere and moral Don Juan. He could not be pigeonholed. This drove many crazy. His allegiance was to truth, not ideologies. He tried to fight injustice while extolling life’s beauty and the human search for happiness. He grasped the essence of the ever-recurring plague that evil doers inflict upon the world. He was preoccupied with death, freedom, and an absent God, but never gave up hope and insisted that rebellion was the only honorable course. Yet the fight against the plague must go on; that was Camus’ message. If not, you will be destroyed by your own complicity in evil.

James W. Douglass, although a writer of a more overt spiritual sensibility, continues to write brilliantly about “the unspeakable” that has been used to cover-up the U.S. government’s assassinations of its greatest anti-war leaders: JFK, Malcom X, MLK, and RFK. The unspeakable is a term coined by the Trappist monk Thomas Merton in the mid-1960s. He meant it to point to a systemic evil that permeates American society that defies speech: “It is the void that contradicts everything that is spoken even before the words are said; the void that gets into the language of public and official declarations at the very moment when they are pronounced, and makes them ring dead with the hollowness of the abyss. It is the void out of which Eichmann drew the punctilious exactitude of his obedience . . . .” It is, in other words, the plague that is us when we live in the nest of the unspeakable as obedient servants of the American Empire. Douglass makes the plague manifest in order to give us hope, and in speaking the unspeakable, he shows us both the radical evil and the redemptive courage that we are all capable of.

I mention these three brilliant writers here to say how grateful I am for their work. There are many others, of course, whom you will encounter in the course of reading these essays. For even when we write alone, even when we think we walk alone, we are always following in others’ footsteps.

As Camus says in one of his short stories, it is hard to distinguish between solitary and solidary.

*

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, Edward Curtin, Behind the Curtain.

Distinguished author and sociologist Edward Curtin is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization. He is the author of the new book: https://www.claritypress.com/product/seeking-truth-in-a-country-of-lies/

---

Seeking Truth in a Country of Lies

Author: Edward Curtin

ISBN: 9781949762266

Published: 2020

Options: EBOOK – Epub and Kindle, paper, PDF

Click here to order.

.

This article was published more than 13 years ago.

Is it relevant to the ongoing political crisis in the US in the wake of 2020 Presidential Elections.

Read carefully.

The President of the US namely Donald Trump could invoke the John Warner NDAA 07 and thereby call  upon the unrestricted and arbitrary “Use” of the military in police and law enforcement functions, while bypassing the US Congress and the Judiciary.   

This is not the only piece of relevant legislaiton which repeals the Posse Comitatus Act.

Another important piece of legislation (National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) HR 1540) was adopted under the Obama administration:

HR 1540 (signed into law by president Obama on December 31, 2011) set the stage for the repeal of constitutional government,  not to mention the development of the “Surveillance State”, which has recently been the object of heated debate.

The adoption of  the “National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), HR 1540) reinforces NDAA 07. It is tantamount to the militarization of law enforcement, the repeal of the Posse Comitatus Act. 

Michel Chossudovsky, November 18, 2020

***

In October 2006, Bush signed into law the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007, (also known under the title Department of Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007) [The John Warner NDAA 07 was adopted on 17 October 2006]

NDAA 07  includes specific provisions which allow the military to take control of  normal police and law enforcement functions at the Federal and State levels.

Sec. 1076 of the NDAA 07 overturns the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, which prevents the military from intervening in the conduct of civilian government activities, including the conduct of Justice and Law Enforcement. Posse Comitatus has been central to the functioning of constitutional government. (It should be noted that other previous pieces of legislation have already invalidated the substance of Posse Comitatus).

What is significant in these specific provisions of NDAA 07 (Sec. 1076) is that  they dovetail the provisions of Bush’s National Security Presidential and Homeland Directive (NSPD 51, HSPD 20) enacted on May 9, 2007.

NSPD 51 would essentially scrap Constitutional government in the case of a so-called  “Catastrophic Emergency”. .

If an emergency situation were to be called by the President, NSPD 51 would instate martial law under the authority of the White House and the Department of Homeland Security. It would suspend constitutional government under the provisions of Continuity in Government (COG). It would establish extraordinary powers for the president and vice-president.

The provisions of NSPD 51 are consistent with an existing body of legislation and regulations pertaining to alleged terrorist attacks on the Homeland and the declaration of martial law. Sec. 1076 of NDAA 07 (DDAA 07), however, goes much further in defining the role of the Military in the case of a “Catastrophic Emergency.”

Sec 1076 essentially defines the discretionary powers which would be conferred to the president and the vice president if  NSPD 51 were to be applied.

Sec. 1076 of the NDAA 07, which was apparently slipped in at the last minute at the request of the White House as an amendment of Sec. 333, pertains to the  “Use of the Armed Forces in Major Public Emergencies.”

Sec 1076 is extremely explicit; it virtually creates a Pinochet style environment for the mass arrest of political dissidents without trial, the storming of public rallies, etc.

It provides specific details regarding the powers conferred to the President and Vice President in the case of a “Catastrophic Emergency” as envisaged under NSPD 51:

The president “may employ the armed forces … to restore public order and enforce the laws of the United States” 

Unrestricted powers are granted to the White House. The President [Trump] would have the authority to suspend  civilian law enforcement at the federal and state levels and call in the Military, which would be in charge of  suppressing “domestic violence” “insurrection”( e.g. public rallies), or “conspiracy”, meaning anybody who might express dissent, indignation or opposition to the Bush Administration for having scrapped the Constitution.

The emphasis of Sec. 1076 is in relation to actions directed against “domestic enemies” rather than bona fide “defense” in relation to attacks by foreign forces, which is part of the Military’s mandate.

Taken together, NSPD 51 and Sec 1076 of the NDAA 07 define the contours of a “democratic dictatorship” in America  under the authority of the White House.

We are not dealing, however, with “Military Rule” or “Military Government” as normally understood, because the authority to govern under the provisions of NSPD 51 is vested in the President and the Vice President.

What is at stake  is the unrestricted and arbitrary “Use” of the Military by the President /Vice President in the conduct of police and law enforcement functions, while bypassing the US Congress and the Judiciary.

Below is the full text of Sec 1076 of NDAA 07 which amends Sec 333. 

[Please note a correction was brought to this article on June 28, 2007. What was initially reproduced in Annex was Sec.1042 of the initial bill DDAA 07 which amends Sec. 333. In substance Sec 1076 of NDAA 07 with some minor changes in emphasis is similar to Sec 1042 of DDAA 07. Both amend Sec 333.

Below is the relevant excerpt (Sec 1076) of the John Warner NDAA 07 signed into law by President Bush in October 2006. ]  

SEC. 1076. USE OF THE ARMED FORCES IN MAJOR PUBLIC EMERGENCIES.

(a) Use of the Armed Forces Authorized-

(1) IN GENERAL- Section 333 of title 10, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:

`Sec. 333. Major public emergencies; interference with State and Federal law

`(a) Use of Armed Forces in Major Public Emergencies- (1) The President may employ the armed forces, including the National Guard in Federal service, to–

`(A) restore public order and enforce the laws of the United States when, as a result of a natural disaster, epidemic, or other serious public health emergency, terrorist attack or incident, or other condition in any State or possession of the United States, the President determines that–

`(i) domestic violence has occurred to such an extent that the constituted authorities of the State or possession are incapable of maintaining public order; and

`(ii) such violence results in a condition described in paragraph (2); or

`(B) suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy if such insurrection, violation, combination, or conspiracy results in a condition described in paragraph (2).

`(2) A condition described in this paragraph is a condition that–

`(A) so hinders the execution of the laws of a State or possession, as applicable, and of the United States within that State or possession, that any part or class of its people is deprived of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named in the Constitution and secured by law, and the constituted authorities of that State or possession are unable, fail, or refuse to protect that right, privilege, or immunity, or to give that protection; or

`(B) opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws.

`(3) In any situation covered by paragraph (1)(B), the State shall be considered to have denied the equal protection of the laws secured by the Constitution.

`(b) Notice to Congress- The President shall notify Congress of the determination to exercise the authority in subsection (a)(1)(A) as soon as practicable after the determination and every 14 days thereafter during the duration of the exercise of that authority.’.

(2) PROCLAMATION TO DISPERSE- Section 334 of such title is amended by inserting `or those obstructing the enforcement of the laws’ after `insurgents’.

(3) HEADING AMENDMENT- The heading of chapter 15 of such title is amended to read as follows:…

The Imperative to Achieve National Improved Medicare for All

By Margaret Flowers, November 17 2020

Foto : il missile sm-6 della  raytheon da cui la lockheed martin derivera’ il missile balistico nucleare a medio raggio da installare in europa

Oltre cinque anni fa titolammo sul Manifesto (9 giugno 2015) «Ritornano i missili a Comiso?». Tale ipotesi fu ignorata dall’intero arco politico e liquidata da qualche sedicente esperto come «allarmistica». L’allarme, purtroppo, era fondato.

Pochi giorni fa, il 6 novembre, la Lockheed Martin (la stessa che produce gli F-35) ha firmato un primo contratto da 340 milioni di dollari con lo US Army per la produzione di missili a medio raggio, anche a testata nucleare, progettati per essere installati in Europa.

I missili di tale categoria (con base a terra e gittata tra 500 e 5500 km) erano stati proibiti dal Trattato Inf, firmato nel 1987 dai presidenti Gorbaciov e Reagan: esso aveva eliminato i missili balistici nucleari Pershing 2, schierati dagli Stati uniti in Germania Occidentale, e quelli nucleari da crociera Tomahawk, schierati dagli Stati uniti in Italia (a Comiso), Gran Bretagna, Germania Occidentale, Belgio e Olanda, e allo stesso tempo i missili balistici SS-20 schierati dall’Unione Sovietica sul proprio territorio.

Nel 2014, l’amministrazione Obama accusava la Russia, senza alcuna prova, di aver sperimentato un missile da crociera (sigla 9M729) della categoria proibita dal Trattato e, nel 2015, annunciava che «di fronte alla violazione del Trattato Inf da parte della Russia, gli Stati uniti stanno considerando lo spiegamento in Europa di missili con base a terra».

Il testimone è quindi passato all’amministrazione Trump, che nel 2019 ha deciso il ritiro degli Stati uniti dal Trattato Inf, accusando la Russia di averlo «deliberatamente violato».

Dopo alcuni test missilistici, è stata incaricata la Lockheed Martin di realizzare un missile da crociera derivato dal Tomahawk e uno balistico derivato dallo SM-6 della Raytheon. Secondo il contratto, i due missili saranno operativi nel 2023: quindi pronti tra due anni ad essere installati in Europa.

Va tenuto presente il fattore geografico: mentre un missile balistico nucleare Usa a medio raggio, lanciato dall’Europa, può colpire Mosca dopo pochi minuti, un analogo missile lanciato dalla Russia può colpire le capitali europee, ma non Washington. Rovesciando lo scenario, è come se la Russia schierasse missili nucleari a medio raggio in Messico.

Va inoltre tenuto presente che lo SM-6, specifica la Raytheon, svolge la funzione di «tre missili in uno»: antiaerea, anti-missile e di attacco. Il missile nucleare derivato dallo SM-6 potrà quindi essere usato dalle navi e installazioni terrestri dello «scudo» Usa in Europa i cui tubi di lancio, specifica la Lockheed Martin, possono lanciare «missili per tutte le missioni».

In una dichiarazione del 26 ottobre 2020, il presidente Putin riafferma la validità del Trattato Inf, definendo un «grave errore«» il ritiro statunitense, e l’impegno della Russia a non schierare missili analoghi finché gli Usa non schiereranno i loro a ridosso del suo territorio. Propone quindi ai paesi Nato una «reciproca moratoria» e «reciproche misure di verifica», ossia ispezioni nelle reciproche installazioni missilistiche.

La proposta russa è stata ignorata dalla Nato. Il suo segretario generale Jens Stoltenberg ha ribadito, il 10 novembre, che «in un mondo così incerto, le armi nucleari continuano a svolgere un ruolo vitale nella preservazione della pace».

Nessuna voce si è levata dai governi e parlamenti europei, pur rischiando l’Europa di trovarsi in prima linea in un confronto nucleare analogo o più pericoloso di quello della guerra fredda. Ma questa non à la minaccia del Covid e quindi non se ne parla.

L’Unione Europea, di cui 21 dei 27 membri fanno parte della Nato, ha già fatto sentire la sua voce quando, nel 2018, ha bocciato alle Nazioni Unite la risoluzione presentata dalla Russia sulla «Preservazione e osservanza del Trattato Inf», dando luce verde alla installazione di nuovi missili nucleari Usa in Europa.

Cambierà qualcosa una volta che Joe Biden si sarà insediato alla Casa Bianca? Oppure, dopo che il democratico Obama ha aperto il nuovo confronto nucleare con la Russia e il repubblicano Trump lo ha aggravato stracciando il Trattato Inf, il democratico Biden (già vice di Obama) firmerà l’installazione dei nuovi missili nucleari Usa in Europa?

Manlio Dinucci

Introduction

A dangerous, life-threatening sequence of events has unfolded since The Lancet’s fraudulent[i] hydroxychlorquine (HCQ) article appeared May 22, followed by headlines demonizing this ancient anti-malarial drug – aka quinine, aka chloroquine, and known to antiquity as the “sacred bark”.[ii]

The false news that 96,032 hospitalized patients on six continents were at risk for lethal heart rhythms sent shock waves throughout the world. Immediately, many randomized control trials (RCT’s) at the World Health Organization and elsewhere were suspended until the Lancet article was finally retracted two weeks later, June 5.

But the damage was done. The WHO had ordered countries to stop using it, and European Union countries had banned its use (outside clinical trials) for Covid-19 treatment.  Clinical trials themselves, such as the NAID trial announced by the US National Institutes of Health on May 14,[iii] were cancelled.  A hostile press frightened people from re-entering clinical trials that might have cleared it for use.

Worst of all, newly symptomatic people who had formerly benefitted from early outpatient treatment were now progressing to Phase 2 of the disease, during which the dangerous immune system “cytokine” storm[iv] often leads to hospitalization and death.

On May 27, less than a week into this disaster, a top world epidemiology journal, the American Journal of Epidemiology, issued an urgent call from award-winning Yale Professor, Harvey Risch: “Early Outpatient Treatment of Symptomatic, High-Risk Covid-19 Patients that Should be Ramped-Up Immediately as Key to the Pandemic Crisis.”

The abstract reads:

“Hydroxychloroquine+azithromycin has been widely misrepresented in both clinical reports and public media, and outpatient trials results are not expected until September. Early outpatient illness is very different than later hospitalized florid disease and the treatments differ. Evidence about use of hydroxychloroquine alone, or of hydroxychloroquine+azithromycin in inpatients, is irrelevant concerning efficacy of the pair in early high-risk outpatient disease. Five studies, including two controlled clinical trials, have demonstrated significant major outpatient treatment efficacy…These medications need to be widely available and promoted immediately for physicians to prescribe.”(author’s bolding)[v]

A Google News search reveals the astonishing truth that the corporate media, with the exception of Fox News,[vi] did not report this article.

Is the media interested in a cure for Covid-19? Or is it in lockstep with Big Pharma, which seems to have little interest in an existing treatment for the disease?

As one analyst reported,

“The possibility of a cheap and easy treatment for Covid from re-purposed generic drugs, especially hydroxychloroquine, is a mortal threat to these financial interests.[vii] As France Soir put it: the trial management must ‘never put low-cost hydroxychloroquine therapy in direct competition with remdesivir’. Or with mass vaccination.”[viii]

What better strategy than for these financial interests to manufacture a hydroxychloroquine controversy?

A June 17 article titled “Behind the French controversy over the medical treatment of Covid-19: The role of the drug industry,” reveals just how such a tactic has been brought to bear on the issue.[ix]

When did the hydroxychloroquine “controversy” first appear? 

Santa Monica cariologist Dr. Dan Wohlgelernter reported on June 18 that “there was never controversy about hydroxychloroquine right up until March 20, 2020.”[x]

He was referring to Donald Trump’s tweet of March 21:

“HYDROXYCHLOROQUINE & AZITHROMYCIN, taken together, have a real chance to be one of the biggest game changers in the history of medicine. The FDA has moved mountains – Thank You! Hopefully they will BOTH (H works better with A, International Journal of Antimicrobial Agents)…..”[xi]

Dr. Wohlgelernter continues:

“We had data from China and from France well before that in February showing a significant beneficial impact of hydroxychloroquine – yet you saw physicians, politicians, journalists, saying that hydroxychloroquine is all hype and it’s all due to the president pushing it. That’s revisionist history.

The fact is there was a great deal of excitement in the medical community internationally a month before President Trump ever mentioned it, because of the data reported from China and from Dr. Raoult in France and it said that people used whatever political animosity they had towards the President to attack the medication that in fact had helped many people with coronavirus and could have helped many more had it and its reputation not been so sullied by political accusations and by poorly designed studies and by medical journals allowing publications that were negative as far as their conclusions – publications that never should have reached print because they hadn’t been adequately vetted.[xii]

What has been the role of Dr. Raoult in France?

Dr. Didier Raoult (image on the right) was born in Senegal in 1952.  His parents, a nurse and a French military doctor, moved the family to Marseille in 1961, where Raoult later became a physician and microbiologist, holding both M.D. and PhD degrees. He is married to psychiatrist and novelist Natacha Caïn, and they have three children together.

Raoult is the director ofthe Infectious and Tropical Emergent Diseases Research Unit (URMITE) in Marseille (Institut Hospitalo-Universitaire (IHU) Méditerranée Infection), with 200 staff.  He also teaches infectious diseases in the Faculty of Medicine of Aix-Marseille University.

He has received numerous honours and awards, including Officer of the Legion d’honneur, Price Excellence in Clinical Medicine, Netherlands; J.D. Williams Award, United Kingdom; and Award of Excellence from the European Society for Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases.[xiii]

With more than 2,300 indexed publications to his name, he is the most cited microbiologist in France, and is cited seventh in the world. He has 625,000 followers on Twitter.

Raoult is also active in Africa, returning every year to laboratories he set up in Dakar, and conducting tropical disease research all over Senegal.[xiv]

On June 25, Professor Raoult and his COVID-19 Task Force published their much-anticipated research on 3,737 COVID-19 patients, in the journal Travel Medicine and Infectious Disease.[xv]

(The team, knowing their treatment was effective, had decided not to conduct randomized controlled studies, which would have meant denying treatment to large numbers of placebo patients, letting their disease evolve untreated, and sending many to their deaths. The team’s approach reflects the “Ethical Principles for Medical Research” from the Declaration of Helsinki.[xvi])

The long-awaited article reported an overall 1.1% case fatality rate for the patients included in its study. More specifically:

“Our approach of early diagnosis and care of as many patients as possible results in much lower mortality rates than other strategies. The test-and-treat strategy adopted in Marseille also seems capable of shortening the duration of the outbreak when compared to data from France overall by identifying infected people and reducing their viral shedding duration. In fact, more people were tested in Marseille than in most other areas, and the outbreak lasted only 9 weeks…

Conclusion: 

“Results suggest that early diagnosis, early isolation and early treatment of COVID-19 patients, with at least 3 days of HCQ-AZ lead to a significantly better clinical outcome and a faster viral load reduction than other treatments.”

On the day of Raoult’s publication, the Dr. Been Medical Lectures on YouTube, with 176,000 subscribers, explained the study in graphics, but could not find media coverage.[xvii]

On the days following its publication, Google News showed no English-speaking media coverage appearing under Raoult’s name, or under the first words of the title, “Outcomes of 3,737 COVID-19 patients”.

On June 24, the day before the article’s publication, Raoult had testified at the French National Assembly, saying that the article had been refused by The Lancet the very same week that the journal accepted the fraudulent and now retracted anti-HCQ article by Mehra et al.[xviii]

The hydroxychloroquine “controversy” thus shows clear signs of having been manufactured and orchestrated by the immensely wealthy drug industry through its power over the “captured media,”[xix] government agencies,[xx] and reluctant journal editors.[xxi]

How the media’s “randomized control” strategy is fueling the controversy 

The day before the Lancet’s hydroxychloroquine embarrassment[xxii] was published May 22, the New York Times had updated its feature May 12 hit piece on Dr. Raoult Didier – having sent a reporter to France to round up Raoult’s critics and to report, in an epic 7,500 words, on “the man behind Trump’s favorite unproven treatments.”

The article dwelled at length on Raoult’s unorthodox methods and forthright personality, using an ad hominem approach rather than actual evidence against the microbiologist’s position.[xxiii]

The NYT provides a high-level example of the media trivializing hydroxychloroquine on the basis that it has not been proven in randomized control trials (RCTs) – which take months, if not years, to perform.

Meanwhile, the global pandemic is killing hundreds of thousands of people.

There is no vaccine for the common cold, which is caused by strains of the coronavirus and the rhinovirus. If a safe, effective Covid-19 vaccine can even be developed, at least a year will be needed to produce enough for worldwide use.

Four hundred years before randomized control trials existed, quinine, made from the “sacred bark” of the South American quina-quina tree, was used to treat malaria. Pharmacologically, it has been synthesized as chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine (HCQ). This cheap abundant drug has been on the WHO list of essential medicines since the list began in 1977.

Thousands of doctors are reporting that in the early phase of COVID-19, patients given a low dose of this drug in combination with azithromycin and zinc, get better.[xxiv]

However, this ancient gift to humankind was immediately outlawed for Covid-19 use in many countries following the fraudulent May 22nd Lancet study. Treatment is still denied to untold numbers of people, many of whom will have certainly died.

Additionally, HCQ’s bad press from the drug industry’s scare media has driven people away from enrolling in HCQ prophylaxis trials.

Instead, the media is giving good press to randomized control trials.  It is true that in many settings RCT’s are considered to be the gold standard. But what is their value in the midst of a crisis such as Covid-19, when susceptible people require early prevention within days?

Hydroxychloroquine proponents do not claim that HCQ works on seriously ill Covid-19 patients in the hospital setting.  Instead they understand the reality that HCQ+azithromycin succeeds only during Phase 1,[xxv] when people first show symptoms.

But others have been designing studies (including the disgraced Lancet and NEJM studies, and the abandoned NIH study) that examine HCQ in precisely the opposite context to its reported efficacy in Phase 1. And not in combination with zinc and azithromycin, but by itself.

This strategy is known as the “straw-man fallacy” – where you attribute a false position to your opponent, then easily knock it down.

These studies are systematically setting hydroxychloroquine up to fail. As stated by Dr. Wohlgelernter below, it is sabotage, pure and simple.

With the help of a colluding media, confusion now reigns supreme while the world awaits a profitable vaccine from the drug industry.

We will turn now to frontline doctors who have been protesting the suspension of this inexpensive, plentiful, generic drug that they have used successfully – while in some countries their patients are now dying without it.

Frontline doctors testify that HCQ works – and protest its sabotage

An April 2020 survey of 6200 doctors in 30 countries showed that globally, half of the doctors polled said they had used hydroxychloroquine for COVID-19.[xxvi]

On April 6, wider access to the drug was urged in a petition signed by nearly 500,000 French doctors and citizens.[xxvii]

On April 7, U.S. physician Jeffrey A. Singer wrote about prescribing HCQ in an independent (non-corporate-media) magazine:

“The FDA lets doctors prescribe off-label drugs all the time. Now that there’s a pandemic, some governors have decided doctors can’t make those decisions for themselves.

Doctors should not be prohibited from using their best clinical judgment and recommending it to patients—especially considering the fact that these drugs have been around for a long time, which means we are familiar with their risks and complications. The government should stay out of this and let clinicians practice medicine, provided they get their patients’ informed consent.”[xxviii]

On May 5, it was reported in France:

As France scrambles to prepare to lift its 2-month lockdown from 11 May, a group of doctors has published a new study they say proves the efficacy of the controversial malaria drug hydroxychloroquine, combined with the antibiotic azithromycin, in treating Covid-19.

The trial carried out on nearly 100 infected doctors and their families found that an HCQ and azithromycin combination at the first sign of symptoms, substantially reduced the viral load of Covid-19.[xxix]

On May 28, in consternation over the false Lancet article, an open letter from 200 scientists to the authors and The Lancet requested details of the data and an independent audit. The letter was “signed by clinicians, medical researchers, statisticians, and ethicists from across the world.”[xxx]

On June 1, Professor Harvey Risch, at the Yale Schools of Medicine and Public Health, was interviewed about HCQ:

The combination of hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin has been used for decades in hundreds of thousands of people with rheumatoid arthritis. There is a concern that these medications do change the heart pacing a little and could cause cardiac arrhythmias. However, these arrhythmias are still very rare in people using these medications.[xxxi]

Santa Monica cardiologist Dr. Dan Wohlgelernter said in a June 18 interview:

“I’ve prescribed it…recommended it to people…had conversations with physicians literally around the globe in Israel and Italy and England and the east coast of the United States, and I’ve read the literature extensively. Hydroxychloroquine definitely has a role; that role is specific.  It’s an antiviral agent that is effective in early stages of infection; when used in that context it is effective and it is safe.  Unfortunately, there have been studies that have looked at hydroxychloroquine in the wrong context; looked at it in severely critically ill people in the hospital setting.  At that point the antiviral isn’t effective because you’ve gone beyond viral infection to an immune mediated widespread inflammatory reaction, so that was the wrong population to look at hydroxychloroquine.

That kind of study, that sabotage, is the whole story about hydroxychloroquine…it was obvious that hydroxychloroquine would fail in that context. Hydroxychloroquine has been reported to have heart toxicity and as a cardiologist I’m intimately aware of this literature and I’m familiar with hydroxychloroquine.

The study that was most specific in looking at the cardiac issues specifically with rhythm abnormalities was done in the East Coast in the New York area where they looked at 200 patients and carefully monitored their EKGs and looked for arrhythmias and they found no serious arrhythmias in any of those patients.

This is an FDA approved drug for 65 years; it’s generic, cheap, widely available. We give it to pregnant women, to breastfeeding women, to elderly patients, to patients who are immune-compromised…”[xxxii]

On a June 12 radio talk show in St. Louis, Missouri, Doctor Steve Crawford, Medical Director at Festus Manor, reported a 100% survival rate with early administration of hydroxychloroquine.[xxxiii]

On June 25 in India, where the media is not under western corporate control, the New Indian Express reported that Mandya district, which had a record number of Covid-19 cases, “has been recording an impressive turnaround despite continuing arrivals from hot spot states. Health officials claim that one of the reasons is because they are giving hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) to all those quarantined…They also quoted the government guidelines which permit prophylactic usage of HCQ (prevention).” Furthermore, “health workers and police personnel are given seven-week doses of HCQ as a preventive measure.”[xxxiv]

On June 19, the Economic Times in Jaipur, India reported:

“More than 4,300 healthcare workers including doctors and nurses have been given HCQ to help them prevent the infection as there are high chances of them getting infected while treating Covid patients.”[xxxv]

The right-wing medical group, the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS) asked, in a June 17 press release:

“How can we trust the established authorities or prestigious journals when, in this perilous time, trials of an available, inexpensive, long-established drug appear to be designed to fail, while risking the lives of their subjects through deliberate or negligent drug overdoses?”[xxxvi]

The US media did not pick this up.

Nor did it pick up a second AAPS Press Release, June 22, which should have been more than newsworthy:

TUCSON, Ariz., June 22, 2020 /PRNewswire/ — Today the Association of American Physicians & Surgeons files its motion for a preliminary injunction to compel release to the public of hydroxychloroquine by the Food & Drug Administration (FDA) and the Department of Health & Human Services (HHS), in AAPS v. HHS, No. 1:20-cv-00493-RJJ-SJB (W.D. Mich.). Nearly 100 million doses of hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) were donated to these agencies, and yet they have not released virtually any of it to the public…

“Why does the government continue to withhold more than 60 million doses of HCQ from the public?” asks Jane Orient, M.D., the Executive Director of AAPS. “This potentially life-saving medication is wasting away in government warehouses while Americans are dying from COVID-19.”[xxxvii]

Conclusion

When a pandemic is raging across the entire planet, with people social distancing and national economies in turmoil, what is the most urgent approach to drug therapy?

To do nothing while randomized control trials await results months or years later?

Or to follow recommendations that have emerged from infectious disease specialists after treating thousands of cases using a consistent protocol?

The media shapes society’s common reality. This over-arching power carries a pervasive and commensurate responsibility.

The drastic failure to report honestly on HCQ goes far beyond incompetence:  it is abetting the unspeakable forces who do not want people to be reliably cured during this pandemic until they can realize pandemic-level profits.

*

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

[i] Evidence of the origin of this fraudulence is given in: Elizabeth Woodworth, “Leaked: ‘Deadly’ HCQ:  How the world’s top medical journals, The Lancet and NEJM, were cynically exploited by Big Pharma,” Global Research, 14 June 2020 (https://www.globalresearch.ca/leaked-deadly-hcq-world-top-medical-journals-lancet-nejm-exploited-big-pharma/5715859).

[ii] The anti-malarial natural substance quinine, taken from the bark of the South American quina-quina tree, is now sold as chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine. Jane Achan, et al., “Quinine, an old anti-malarial drug in a modern world: role in the treatment of malaria,” Malaria Journal,  24 May 2011 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3121651/).

[iii] “NIH begins clinical trial of hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin to treat COVID-19,”NIH News Release, 14 May 2020 (https://www.nih.gov/news-events/news-releases/nih-begins-clinical-trial-hydroxychloroquine-azithromycin-treat-covid-19). This trial has not been re-instated.

[iv] Amber Dance, “What is a cytokine storm?” Knowledge Magazine, 10 April 2020 (https://www.knowablemagazine.org/article/health-disease/2020/what-cytokine-storm).

[v] Harvey A. Risch, “Early Outpatient Treatment of Symptomatic, High-Risk Covid-19 Patients that Should be Ramped-Up Immediately as Key to the Pandemic Crisis,” Amer. J. Epid, 27 May 2020 (https://academic.oup.com/aje/advance-article/doi/10.1093/aje/kwaa093/5847586). Risch is Professor at the Yale Schools of both Medicine and Public Health.

[vi] “Yale paper finds strong evidence for efficacy of use of hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin as COVID treatment,” Fox News, “The Ingraham Angle,” 29 May 2020 (https://video.foxnews.com/v/6160199007001#sp=show-clips).

[vii] The financial interests referred to were Gilead, Big Data, and Astra-Zeneca, which is “in merger talks with Gilead in a plan to create the world’s largest pharmaceutical company”.

[viii] Edmund Fordham, “RECOVERY: The plot sickens,” The Conservative Woman, June 19, 2020 (https://conservativewoman.co.uk/recovery-the-plot-sickens/).

[ix] Laurent Mucchielli, “Behind the French controversy over the medical treatment of Covid-19: The role of the drug industry,” Journal of Sociology, 17 June 2020 (https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1440783320936740).

[x] “SECOND OPINION: Doctors Discuss the Politicization of Hydroxychloroquine,” June 18, 2020, at 3:42 min. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=7&v=m_JIz780i5w&feature=emb_logo).

[xi] Twitter:  https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1241367239900778501

[xii] SECOND OPINION, at 10:21 min. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=7&v=m_JIz780i5w&feature=emb_logo).

[xiii] Elsevier, “Meet the Editor-in-Chief,” Human Microbiome Journal, 2020 (https://www.journals.elsevier.com/human-microbiome-journal/news/meet-editor-in-chie).

[xiv] Marième Soumaré, “Coronavirus: Didier Raoult the African and chloroquine, from Dakar to Brazzaville,” The Africa Report, 15 April 2020 (https://www.theafricareport.com/26264/coronavirus-didier-raoult-the-african-and-chloroquine-from-dakar-to-brazzaville/).

[xv] Jean-Christophe Lagier, et al, “Outcomes of 3,737 COVID-19 patients treated with hydroxychloroquine/azithromycin and other regimens in Marseille, France: A retrospective analysis,” Travel Medicine and Infectious Disease, 25 June 2020 (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1477893920302817). This investigation by the 19 members of the IHU COVID-19 Task force was conceptualized by Raoult. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

[xvi] Declaration of Helsinki Ethical Principles for Medical Research Involving Human Subjects

HELSINKI WORLD MEDICAL ASSOCIATION STATEMENT – Section No. 32:

“32. In the treatment of a patient, where proven prophylactic, diagnostic and therapeutic methods do not exist or have been ineffective, the physician, with informed consent from the patient, must be free to use unproven or new prophylactic, diagnostic and therapeutic measures, if in the physician’s judgement it offers hope of saving life, reestablishing health or alleviating suffering. Where possible, these measures should be made the object of research, designed to evaluate their safety and efficacy. In all cases, new information should be recorded and, where appropriate, published. The other relevant guidelines of this Declaration should be followed.”  (https://www.who.int/bulletin/archives/79(4)373.pdf?fbclid=IwAR0dyzXSt12H0fvt6xL7Zk-29FPprs7i0EDCPKWk5Ux1UiES17J2Nr0-YjY).

[xvii] “Hydroxychloroquine + Azithromycin Two Studies,” DrBeen Medical Lectures, 25 June 2020 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vgQqT2xbXlo).

[xviii] The Lancet, “RETRACTED: Hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine with or without a macrolide for treatment of COVID-19: a multinational registry analysis, by Mandeep R. Mehra et al,” Lancet,5 June 2020 (https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)31180-6/fulltext).

[xix] Anya Schiffrin, “Government and corporations hinder journalists with ‘media capture,’”Columbia Journalism Review, August 29, 2017 (https://www.cjr.org/watchdog/media-capture.php).

[xx] Laurent Mucchielli, “Behind the French controversy over the medical treatment of Covid-19: The role of the drug industry,” Journal of Sociology, 17 June 2020 (https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1440783320936740).

[xxi] Woodworth, “Leaked: ‘Deadly’ HCQ” (https://www.globalresearch.ca/leaked-deadly-hcq-world-top-medical-journals-lancet-nejm-exploited-big-pharma/5715859).

[xxii] Ibid.

[xxiii] Scott Sayare, “He was a Science Star. Then He Promoted a Questionable Cure for Covid-19,” New York Times, 12 May 2020, updated May 21, 2020 (https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/12/magazine/didier-raoult-hydroxychloroquine.html).

[xxiv] “The esteemed Dr Cristiana Altino de Almeida, who is a specialist in nuclear medicine with over 50 years of experience, is part of a movement of thousands of Brazilian medical doctors who are now treating COVID-19 patients at the early stage of the disease, with hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin, zinc and other medications, mostly through telemedicine, the patients not being hospitalized.” In: “Interview with Dr Altino de Almeida, from Recife, Brazil,” Posted on June 28, 2020 (http://covexit.com/interview-with-dr-altino-de-almeida-from-recife-brazil/?fbclid=IwAR3Q-P3Uml5_5gTAIz33ZZX_RnWPgMsoQfs3Qh5BkHUmT0CVi4oEB4LrP8Y.)

[xxv] Dr. Raoult has explained in relation to the Oxford RECOVERY Trial, that “at the first viral stage, one must give medicines against the virus; in the second inflammatory phase, one needs to give medications against that reaction; and then in the third phase, it’s work to be done in intensive care units. Therefore, the same medication cannot be used for the three stages of the disease. He insists that it was a trial that was designed before one had an understanding of the disease, and that such randomized clinical trials should not be done before one has such an understanding.” Summarized from Didier Raoult, at: “The Marx Brothers are Doing Science: the Example of RECOVERY,” 9 June 2020 (http://covexit.com/professor-raoult-compares-the-oxford-recovery-trial-academics-to-the-marx-brothers/).

[xxvi] Katharina Buchholz, “Prescription Rate of Hydroxychloroquine Varies Widely,” Statista, 21 April 2020

(https://www.statista.com/chart/21411/share-of-doctors-using-hydroxychloroquine-for-covid-19/).

[xxvii] Lee Mclaughlan, “Covid-19 France: petition for wider chloroquine access,” 6 April 2020 (https://www.connexionfrance.com/French-news/Time-wasted-over-use-of-choroquine-coronavirus-drug-says-petition-by-former-French-health-minister).

[xxviii] Jeffrey A. Singer, “Doctors, Not Politicians, Ought To Decide Whether Off-Label Drug Use of Hydroxychloroquine Is Appropriate for COVID-19 Patients,” Reason Magazine, 7 April 2020 (https://reason.com/2020/04/07/doctors-not-politicians-ought-to-decide-whether-off-label-drug-use-of-hydroxychloroquine-is-appropriate-for-covid-19-patients/).

[xxix] Christina Okello, “French doctors renew bid to clear HCQ to treat Covid-19 ahead of lockdown exit,” RFI, 5 May 2020 (http://www.rfi.fr/en/france/20200505-french-doctors-renew-push-to-clear-malaria-drug-hydroxychloroquine-to-secure-covid-19-lockdown-exit).

[xxx] The full-text letter and signatories appear

at https://zenodo.org/record/3862789#.XuQiNmYTGhM

[xxxi] Harvey Risch, “Using Hydroxychloroquine and Other Drugs to Fight Pandemic,” Yale School of Public Health Newsletter, 01 June 2020 (https://publichealth.yale.edu/news-article/25085/).

[xxxii] “SECOND OPINION: Doctors Discuss the Politicization of Hydroxychloroquine,” June 18, 2020, 0:14 min. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=7&v=m_JIz780i5w&feature=emb_logo).

[xxxiii] “Local physician has 100% survival rate with early administration of hydroxychloroquine,” 97.1 FM Talk, Marc Cox Morning Show, 12 June 2020 (https://971talk.radio.com/blogs/the-marc-cox-morning-show/dr-steve-crawford-of-festus-manor-on-hydroxychloroquine?fbclid=IwAR2MjR2RBoJeofbg01eLuuAc3d4X543zpW_G_cClxxikzii3mAq0A3vvUeM).

[xxxiv] M.S. Ajith, “Hydroxychloroquine helped Mandya fight virus: Officials,” New Indian Express, 25 June 2020 (https://www.newindianexpress.com/states/karnataka/2020/jun/25/hydroxychloroquine-helped-mandya-fight-virus-officials-2161022.html).

[xxxv] Economic Times HealthWorld (India Times), 19 June 2020 (https://health.economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/diagnostics/hcq-beneficial-as-preventive-drug-sms-doctors-told-icmr/76464620).

[xxxvi] Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, “Researchers Overdosing COVID-19 Patients on Hydroxychloroquine,” States Association of American Physicians & Surgeons (AAPS), Tucson, Arizona, 17 June 2020 (https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/researchers-overdosing-covid-19-patients-on-hydroxychloroquine-states-association-of-american-physicians–surgeons-aaps-301078986.html).

[xxxvii] Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, “Preliminary Injunction Sought to Release Hydroxychloroquine to the Public, in the Lawsuit by the Association of American Physicians & Surgeons (AAPS),” Tucson, Arizona, 22 June 2020 (https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/preliminary-injunction-sought-to-release-hydroxychloroquine-to-the-public-in-the-lawsuit-by-the-association-of-american-physicians–surgeons-aaps-301081160.html).

Kosovo Albanians via their allies in Tirana are once again attempting to antagonize Serbia, this time through the Self-Determination Movements initiative. The Movement is trying to push through the Albanian Parliament a declaration condemning the so-called “Serbian genocide in Kosovo.” The initiative, launched by the representative of the Self-Determination Movement in Albania, Elvis Hoxha, is a response to the trials in The Hague against the Kosovo Liberation Army’s (KLA) terrorist leaders. It is an attempt to distract attention from Albania’s terroristic role in the 1999 Kosovo War and put it back onto Serbia.

Despite attempts by the Self-Determination Movement to distract indictments against the top KLA leaders, there were nervous reactions in the de facto Kosovo capital of Pristina and in the Albanian capital of Tirana after Serbian President Aleksandar Vučić made a statement comparing the situation in Kosovo to that of Artsakh (Nagorno-Karabakh), i.e. an indigenous population being replaced and ruled over by a later migratory and invading force.

Kosovo Albanians are trying through Tirana what they cannot do alone. It is for this reason that the Self-Determination Movement launched this initiative in the Parliament of Albania and not in the Parliament of Kosovo. This would suggest that the Movement is aware that the self-proclaimed independent state of Kosovo does not have international legal subjectivity, which is why they are trying to see the international aspect of this initiative done through Albania. It is in the belief that because Albania is a NATO member it is afforded extra international privileges that Serbia does not enjoy.

Despite the initiative having no factual basis, if it is accepted and a resolution is passed in the Albanian parliament, it is possible that it will be presented before international forums such as the Council of Europe and the United Nations. If the declaration on genocide were adopted in the Albanian parliament, and later possibly in the European one, the image of the Specialized Court in The Hague would be significantly changed and could lead to accused KLA leaders, such as former Kosovo President Hashim Thaçi, being found innocent.

The indictment against the KLA leadership also mentions three military training camps close to Kukës in northern Albania near the border with Kosovo. It is generally known that the first KLA brigades entered the Serbian province from northern Albania where training centers were located. In addition, active officers of the Albanian military commanded KLA forces. We also cannot forget that Kosovo’s former Prime Minister Ramush Haradinaj is alleged to have been a mastermind behind the kidnapping of Kosovo Serbs who were taken to the infamous “Yellow House” in Albania where their organs were harvested.

The entire Serbian military, political and police leadership were tried and convicted before the Hague Tribunal because of the war in Kosovo. However, now that KLA figures will be tried for their terrorist and human rights breaking activities, the Albanians are attempting to distract The Hague with cheap tricks. Albanian politicians will try to turn the story around by claiming that Serbia is solely responsible for the crimes in Kosovo and not the KLA leadership and certain political structures in Albania.

Considering that the borders between Serbia and Albania have been open since November 10 within the framework of the “Little Schengen,” and that relations between Belgrade and Tirana have never been better, the adoption of such a declaration would lead to a cooling of relations between the two countries. However, despite these attempts by members in the Albanian Parliament, it is unlikely that such a resolution on genocide will be adopted.

Taking into account the insistence of Brussels and Washington that it is necessary for Belgrade and Tirana to raise their level of mutual cooperation, and considering that both countries are EU member candidates, it is doubtful the resolution will be passed in the Albanian Parliament. Given that, except for the former Minister of Defense and the current president of the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the Albanian Parliament, Mimi Kodheli, none of the key political players in Albania support the initiative for now.

As far as Serbian-Albanian relations are concerned, Tirana has already acted as a dosed patron of the Kosovo Albanians. This is not such a significant leap from the usual strategy of Tirana. What can be observed is that Albania’s tactics are hot and cold, especially if we remember the constant inappropriate statements made by Albanian Prime Minister Edi Rama and other Albanian officials, which replaced the so-called conciliatory rhetoric towards Serbia at international conferences and forums.

According to Mimi Kordelja, a similar initiative existed in 1998. However, it failed due to, as she said, the poor coordination of Kosovo and Albanian politics. Therefore, it appears that Albania is far more emboldened today due to its accession into NATO and its advanced pathway into the European Union.

Serbia for the foreseeable future, despite pressure from liberal forces within the country, is neither an EU or NATO member, or in an advance position in the accession processes. Because of this, Albania has the option to utilize its NATO membership and more advanced pathway towards EU membership to continue pressuring Serbia over the Kosovo issue. This is despite the hopes of Brussels and Washington for the two countries to cooperate under their own liberal vision. Despite the Self-Determination Movements initiative to distract The Hague from KLA crimes, which includes ethnic cleansing, drug and human trafficking, organ harvesting and destruction of historical religious sites, it is likely that it will not amount to anything as it is a cheap attempt to make a mockery of the international court.

*

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

Freedom of Information requests submitted by Cherwell have revealed that Oxford University accepted at least £726,706 from the Atomic Weapons Establishment (AWE), the designer and producer of the UK’s nuclear warheads, during the years 2017-19 alone.

The majority of this money was awarded to the Oxford Centre for High Energy Density Science (OxCHEDS), which advertises AWE as one of its “national partners” on its website.

AWE’s funding is mostly used by OxCHEDS to fund individual research projects and studentships, with a substantial portion (£82,863 in 2019) funding the department’s William Penney Fellowship, named after the head of the British delegation for the Manhattan Project and ‘father of the British atomic bomb’. According to the AWE website, William Penney Fellows “act as ambassadors for AWE in the scientific and technical communities in which they operate”.

This fellowship is currently shared by two professors, Justin Wark and Peter Norreys, both of whom collaborate closely with US state laboratories that develop nuclear weapons, the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and the Los Alamos National Laboratory.

AWE donations have also funded projects at the University’s Departments of Chemistry, Engineering, and Physics, a number of which are directly linked to the design of nuclear weapons. One AWE-funded paper, published in 2019, investigated fusion yield production, a vital way of testing the destructive power of a warhead prior to manufacturing, whilst another project researched methods used by nuclear weapons designers for simulating the interior of a detonating warhead.

This research also has civilian applications, and does not in itself point towards the development of nuclear weapons. A spokesperson from Oxford University stated: “Oxford University research is academically driven, with the ultimate aim of enhancing openly available scholarship and knowledge. All research projects with defence sector funding advance general scientific understanding, with a wide range of subsequent civilian applications, as well as potential application by the sector.”

However, AWE is not a civilian organisation. As Andrew Smith of Campaign Against the Arms Trade told Cherwell, “the AWE exists to promote the deadliest weaponry possible. It is not funding these projects because it cares about education, but because it wants to benefit from the research and association that goes with it”. Mr. Smith concluded: “Oxford University should be leading by example, not providing research and cheap labour for the arms industry”.

Responding to Cherwell’s findings, Dr Stuart Parkinson, Director of Scientists for Global Responsibility, described Oxford University’s ties with AWE as “shocking” and called for the work to be “terminated immediately”. He said that the findings “point very clearly to Oxford University researchers being involved in the development of weapons of mass destruction”.

In the face of this criticism, the University spokesperson claimed: “All research funders must first pass ethical scrutiny and be approved by the University’s Committee to Review Donations and Research Funding. This is a robust, independent system, which takes legal, ethical and reputational issues into consideration.”

However, there are growing concerns over the ethics and efficacy of this process, which has seen controversial donations from the Sackler family, Wafic Saïd, and Stephen Schwarzman given the green light despite internal and public protests. The committee’s deliberations are frequently subject to Non-Disclosure Agreements, meaning that they are not accountable to members of the University and to the wider public. Moreover, Freedom of Information requests submitted earlier this year revealed that the committee accepts over 95% of the funding it considers, with congregation members describing the committee as a “smokescreen” and a “fig leaf”.

In recent years, the University has faced increased opposition from student groups such as the Oxford Climate Justice Campaign and Oxford Against Schwarzman over the companies Oxford chooses to affiliate itself with through investments and donations. From this term onwards, a newly formed student group, Disarm Oxford, will be campaigning against the University’s numerous ties with the arms industry. Oxford Amnesty International is working with Disarm Oxford on the global Campaign to Stop Killer Robots, and to strive for the disarmament of the University more broadly.

Dr Rowan Williams, the former Archbishop of Canterbury and Chair of the Trustees of the Council for the Defence of British Universities, told Cherwell: “The recent publicity around university divestment from fossil fuels has highlighted the need for university bodies to be transparent about the ethical standards they apply to their funding, and it is encouraging to see this crucial question being raised also in the context of armaments-related funds and research.”

The combination of Brexit and the coronavirus pandemic has created a particularly difficult time for university research finances. In a marketised higher education system, seeking and welcoming money from industry partnerships seems like an inevitability. However, while some industries rely on academic research to save lives, others are predicated on taking them. With the UK confirmed this year as the world’s second biggest exporter of arms, the University’s significant ties to the development of weaponry has an alarming global significance which is now beginning to be called into question.

*

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.

Former Vice President Joe Biden has not been officially declared the winner of the 2020 presidential election, but that has not stopped him from forming a coronavirus task force. The task force is composed of supporters of increased government control.

One idea Biden and his task force are considering is a four to six weeks nationwide lockdown. However, supporting a nationwide lockdown would violate Biden’s campaign pledge to “listen to the science.” The evidence regarding lockdowns is so overwhelming that even the World Health Organization (WHO) has been forced to admit the truth: lockdowns do more harm than good.

Lockdowns result in more instances of depression, suicide, domestic violence, and alcohol and drug abuse. Lockdowns also cause people to not go to hospitals or doctors’ offices, leading to people dying because they failed to obtain medical assistance in a timely manner.

Biden also is working with governors, mayors, and other state and local officials to create a de facto national mask mandate. Biden has also declared he will mandate mask wearing in all federal buildings and for people traveling interstate. A mask mandate for interstate travel could mean you will be required to wear a mask on airplanes, trains, and even when driving in your own car if you cross state lines.

Yet again, Biden is ignoring the science. In this case the science has demonstrated that most masks are ineffective at preventing the spread of a virus. Medical science also shows that wearing a mask for extended periods of time can cause health problems. For example, mask wearing interferes with proper breathing. Long-term mask wearing may also cause serious dental problems. Ironically, major victims of mask mandates include low-wage workers Biden and his fellow progressives claim to care so much about. Many of these workers are required to wear masks on the job.

Biden has also proposed raising an army of “culturally competent” contact tracers. According to the University of California, San Francisco, which is helping train that California’s contact tracers, contract tracers “….ask questions related to topics that can be sensitive, including health, work, living arrangements and food resources” in order to identify someone who should be quarantined. These contract tracers could also be able to enforce masks or other mandates — including a potential vaccine mandate — by helping ensure that those who refuse to comply are indefinitely quarantined.

Biden is not the only politician pushing authoritarian “solutions” to coronavirus. The government of Washington, DC is considering authorizing vaccinating of children without parental consent. This ignores the science that some people will have a negative reaction even to a generally safe vaccine, so individuals should make their own decision in consultation with their physician. This is especially important these days, as we are dealing with a vaccine that is being rushed into production for political reasons and that even the manufactures admit will have serious side effects.

Lockdowns, masks, and other authoritarian measures do little or nothing to promote health. Instead, they erode freedom and create their own health problems. Those who know the truth must make Joe Biden and other authoritarians listen to the true science. While those more at risk — such as the elderly and people with certain health problems — could be encouraged to take extra precautions, all Americans should be given back the liberty to make their own healthcare decisions.

*

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.

A Muslim prayer app with over 98 million downloads is one of the apps connected to a wide-ranging supply chain that sends ordinary people’s personal data to brokers, contractors, and the military.

***

The U.S. military is buying the granular movement data of people around the world, harvested from innocuous-seeming apps, Motherboard has learned. The most popular app among a group Motherboard analyzed connected to this sort of data sale is a Muslim prayer and Quran app that has more than 98 million downloads worldwide. Others include a Muslim dating app, a popular Craigslist app, an app for following storms, and a “level” app that can be used to help, for example, install shelves in a bedroom.

Through public records, interviews with developers, and technical analysis, Motherboard uncovered two separate, parallel data streams that the U.S. military uses, or has used, to obtain location data. One relies on a company called Babel Street, which creates a product called Locate X. U.S. Special Operations Command (USSOCOM), a branch of the military tasked with counterterrorism, counterinsurgency, and special reconnaissance, bought access to Locate X to assist on overseas special forces operations. The other stream is through a company called X-Mode, which obtains location data directly from apps, then sells that data to contractors, and by extension, the military.

The news highlights the opaque location data industry and the fact that the U.S. military, which has infamously used other location data to target drone strikes, is purchasing access to sensitive data. Many of the users of apps involved in the data supply chain are Muslim, which is notable considering that the United States has waged a decades-long war on predominantly Muslim terror groups in the Middle East, and has killed hundreds of thousands of civilians during its military operations in Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Iraq. Motherboard does not know of any specific operations in which this type of app-based location data has been used by the U.S. military.

The apps sending data to X-Mode include Muslim Pro, an app that reminds users when to pray and what direction Mecca is in relation to the user’s current location. The app has been downloaded over 50 million times on Android, according to the Google Play Store, and over 98 million in total across other platforms including iOS, according to Muslim Pro’s website.

“The Most Popular Muslim App!,” Muslim Pro’s website reads. The app also includes passages and audio readings from the Quran. Another app that sent data to X-Mode was Muslim Mingle, a dating app that has been downloaded more than 100,000 times.

Do you work at Babel Street, X-Mode, Venntel, or one of the apps mentioned in this piece? Did you used to, or know anything else about the location data industry? We’d love to hear from you. Using a non-work phone or computer, you can contact Joseph Cox securely on Signal on +44 20 8133 5190, Wickr on josephcox, OTR chat on jfcox@jabber.ccc.de, or email [email protected].

Some app developers Motherboard spoke to were not aware who their users’ location data ends up with, and even if a user examines an app’s privacy policy, they may not ultimately realize how many different industries, companies, or government agencies are buying some of their most sensitive data. U.S. law enforcement purchase of such information has raised questions about authorities buying their way to location data that may ordinarily require a warrant to access. But the USSOCOM contract and additional reporting is the first evidence that U.S. location data purchases have extended from law enforcement to military agencies.

Read complete article here.

*

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

Featured image is by Cathryn Virginia via Vice

In what critics are calling a parting gift to the fossil fuel industry, the Trump administration on Tuesday will ask oil and gas companies to choose which areas of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska—which is the sacred homeland of the Gwich’in Indigenous people—they would like to drill. 

The Washington Post reports the administration’s call for nominations is a key part of a rush to lock in drilling rights before President Donald Trump leaves office on January 20. The president has made drilling on public lands and waterways a key component of what he calls his “America First” energy agenda, while President-elect Joe Biden has said he opposes such action.

The Republican-controlled Congress approved drilling in the massive, pristine ANWR in 2017. The reserve is home to the Gwich’in people, who call it “Iizhik Gwats’an Gwandaii Goodlit,” or, “the sacred place where life begins.” ANWR boasts some 270 species, including all of the world’s remaining South Beaufort Sea polar bears, 250 musk oxen, Arctic foxes, and hundreds of thousands of snow geese and other birds which fly there from all 50 states and around the world.

The Gwich’in rely on the region’s rich biodiversity, especially its 200,000-strong porcupine caribou herd, for their survival. “What impacts the caribou, impacts the Gwich’in,” Bernadette Demientieff, executive director of the Gwich’in Steering Committee, told Yes!.

Quannah Chasinghorse is continuing the legacy of Gwich’in women working to protect the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.https://t.co/lJdWHtBD7P

— YES! Magazine (@yesmagazine) November 16, 2020

In addition to opening ANWR to oil and gas drilling, the Trump administration is also redefining what constitutes a “critical habitat” for endangered species, as well as when corporations are deemed liable for killing migrating birds.

While the Iñupiat—another Alaska Native people who call ANWR their home—cautiously welcome the possibility of drilling and the economic benefits they believe it will bring, the Gwichin’in and their allies, which include environmental groups and progressive lawmakers, have vowed to fight any attempts to defile the unspoiled land.

🚨 ARCTIC REFUGE NEWS ALERT 🚨
The Trump administration has announced that the sacred and pristine Arctic Refuge is open for a lease sale. RT to voice your opposition! #ProtectTheArctic #StandWithTheGwichin pic.twitter.com/f91h7nJKho

— Sierra Club (@SierraClub) November 16, 2020

House Natural Resources Committee Chairman Raúl Grijalva (D-Ariz.) strongly opposes drilling, telling the Post that “this administration is ending as it began, with a desperate push for oil drilling regardless of the human or environmental costs.”

Rep. Donald McEachin (D-Va.) tweeted that drilling in the refuge “would threaten the climate, wildlife, and Indigenous rights.”

“Despite a last-second push to complete oil leases, it is no wonder major banks are pledging not to finance these destructive drilling projects,” he added.

Indeed, after decades of grassroots pressure from environmentalists and Indigenous activists and in the face of an ever-worsening climate crisis, numerous major banks, including JPMorgan Chase and Goldman Sachs, have announced they will not finance ANWR drilling projects.

We cannot allow Trump to put the fossil fuel industry's short-term profits ahead of the climate and rights of indigenous peoples.

We must stand with the Gwich'in Nation, stop this drilling in the Arctic, and aggressively transition away from fossil fuels. pic.twitter.com/ka69Bq9jGq

— Bernie Sanders (@SenSanders) August 17, 2020

The Gwich’in and several environmental groups including the National Audobon Society, Center for Biological Diversity, Friends of the Earth, and Natural Resources Defense Council (NDRC), have sued the administration in a bid to stop drilling plans from proceeding. Erik Grafe, deputy managing attorney at Earthjustice, an environmental law firm representing the plaintiffs, condemned what he called a “midnight effort to sell off irreplaceable lands in the refuge before a new day dawns.”

“We are already in court challenging the administration’s decision to open the whole coastal plain to leasing, and we’ll hold the line against this rushed attempt to implement the unlawful program,” Grafe said in a statement. “As the majority of Americans know, the Arctic Refuge is no place to drill.”

Gwich’in Nation launches lawsuit in effort to stop oil drilling in #Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.@OurArcticRefuge@bernademientief#StandWithTheGwichin #ProtecttheArctichttps://t.co/D0BMq2JlN6

— Land is Life (@landislife) October 24, 2020

Ellen Montgomery, public lands campaign director for Environment America, issued a statement asserting that “there is no way to do massive, industrial-level oil and gas drilling in the Arctic Refuge without damaging vital habitat.”

“Building roads and bringing in heavy equipment disfigures the landscape before the drilling even begins,” she said. “Once ruined, the refuge cannot be restored.” Montgomery called on fossil fuel companies to “read the tea leaves and take a pass” on ANWR drilling.

However, it is the Gwich’in who are standing the firmest in the face of the administration’s attack on their sacred land.

“Any company thinking about participating in this corrupt process should know that they will have to answer to the Gwich’in people and the millions of Americans who stand with us,” Demientieff told the Post. “We have been protecting this place forever.”

From Common Dreams: Our work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. Feel free to republish and share widely.

*

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

Featured image: Caribou graze on the coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska. (Photo: USFWS/Flickr cc)

Results of the Nagorno-Karabakh war continue shaping the balance of power of the South Caucasus. The ceasefire regime established as a result of the Russian diplomatic intervention and the deployment of the Russian peacekeeping force in the region nears the end of its first week.

As the outcome of the war, Azerbaijan achieved an important victory over Armenian forces and seized the symbolic Armenian stronghold of Shusha. Baku and Yerevan also reached an agreement that is set to allow Azerbaijan to return districts lost during the first Karabakh war excluding the Lachin corridor as well as finally establish a transport link between Azerbaijan’s mainland and the Nakhchivan Autonomous Republic, a landlocked Azerbaijani exclave bordering Armenia, Turkey and Iran. The latest development is in fact even more important for Azerbaijani national interests than any propaganda achievements in the war with the Armenians. This will not only allow to finally establish a ground link between the main territory Azerbaijan and the country’s autonomous region, but also strengthen economic and cultural cooperation with Turkey, a traditional Azerbaijani ally. Ankara, together with Israeli weapon suppliers, played an important role in the Azerbaijani victory through providing its forces with weapons, ammunition, intelligence and military advisers and specialists that helped to plan and turn into reality the Karabakh advance.

For years, Turkey has been employing the “two states, one nation” concept in its relations with Azerbaijan as a part of the wider claim to be the formal, military and spiritual leader of the so-called Turkic world and the Muslims in the Greater Middle East and Central Asia in general. Recep Tayyip Erdogan, who sees himself as the Sultan of the New Neo-Ottoman Empire, does not hide Turkish plans to annex territories of northern Syria and northern Iraq, where Ankara already has a permanent military presence. Azerbaijan is seen by Erdogan and his circle as a logical and important part of this Greater Turkey project with a particular autonomy. Therefore, the Turkish military presence in Azerbaijan and the further expansion of the economic, political and cultural links between the countries is a logical step in this plan. During the past years, Ankara has repeatedly announced the plans to build a new railway road to Nakhchivan. Now, the preparations for the implementation of this project will likely reach their finishing straight.

At the same time, there are some factors often ignored by pro-Turkish analysts boasting about the great Neo-Ottoman victory in Karabakh. First of all, the control over the so desired by Turkey ground link with Azerbaijan will be in the hands of the Russians under the Moscow-brokered deal between Baku and Yerevan. The control over the transport link between Nakhchivan and the Azerbaijani mainland will be exercised by the Border Service of the Russian Federal Security Service (FSB). At the same time, the Russian peacekeeping force will also control the corridor between Nagorno-Karabakh and Armenia, and a large part of the territory of Nagorno-Karabakh, including the largest regional city Stepanakert.

Russian forces supported by combat helicopters, electronic warfare systems, BTR-80A armoured personnel carriers and various armoured vehicles of other types already established 25 observation points (18 permanent and 7 temporary) in the region. One of the posts is in fact located at the gates of Shusha. Additionally to the 1960-strong contingent in Karabakh, the Russian military also created a gathering center, in other words a temporary military base, in the Armenian city of Goris, near the border. Battle tanks and multiple rocket launching systems spotted in the area indicate that the operation there involves additional means and forces. Moscow is also creating a special humanitarian center for Karabakh. The center will be controlled by Russia and overseen by the FSB thus cutting off the possibility of looting of humanitarian aid for the region.

Taking into account the deep crisis of the current pro-Western Armenian government, led by Nikol Pashinyan who is still hiding in some basement in Yerevan, the control over Nagorno-Karabakh territories, which should not been returned to Azerbaijan as the part of the November 10 deal, has been in fact transferred to Russia.

Now, Russia has officially established a military presence on the sovereign territory of Azerbaijan for the next 5 years. This term also can be prolonged under the existing deal. This unprecedented development for the modern South Caucasus caused little happiness in Ankara causing the Turkish attempt to promote the idea of the deployment of some ‘Turkish peacekeepers’ to the combat zone. However, all what it achieved was the draft plan for the creation of a joint Russian-Turkish ceasefire monitoring center on the territory of Azerbaijan. According to the Russian foreign minister, the center will be located in the part of the territory that is not close to Karabakh and no field missions are planned. The posture of Azerbaijan, which did not support the Turkish field deployment in Karabakh, in this unfortunate situation for Ankara became an unpleasant surprise for Turkish commentators.

Furthermore, Baku demonstrated an unexpected softness by shifting the schedule of the Armenian withdrawal from the contested region. Under the initial deal, the Kalbajar district was set to be transferred to Azerbaijan by November 15, a top aide to Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev announced that the deadline was extended till November 25. These steps show the readiness of the Azerbaijani side for the constructive actions in the framework of the existing Yerevan-Moscow-Baku format. Summing up, it seems that Mr. Aliyev is not going to pay back by turning Azerbaijan into the province of Erdogan’s Neo-Ottoman Empire. In this case, the closer cooperation with Russia, which is also an important economic and security partner of Azerbaijan, is an apparent solution.

*

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

Drafted in 2015, the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) was signed in 2016, involving a dozen nations, including the US before Trump pulled in 2017.

It’s now the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP) among seven Asian nations — excluding China and the US — plus Canada, Chile, Mexico, and Peru.

It’s separate from the newly consummated Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP).

Involving 10 ASEAN nations along with Australia, China, Japan, New Zealand and South Korea, it was signed on November 15 in a virtual ceremony, hosted in Hanoi by Vietnam’s Prime Minister Nguyen Xuan Phuc.

The US is not part of the world’s largest ever free trade agreement RCEP or CPTPP.

Nations involved in the former account for nearly a third of world trade, GDP and population.

As Asia’s largest economy, on a path toward surpassing the US as world’s No. One, China is a winner in what was agreed on.

So are other RCEP participating nations, the US a loser for opting out.

It’s rare for the US to be on the sidelines when major international agreements are consummated.

Following Sunday’s virtual signing ceremony, it awaits ratification by nations involved to become effective, a process likely to take months or longer.

Countries involved are among the world’s fastest growing ones, this deal to advance their growth further.

The deal reduces tariffs, prohibits others, unifies rules of origin among participating nations, strengthens supply chains, and establishes e-commerce rules.

Noninvolvement by India in RCEP disadvantages its trade with bloc nations.

The same is true for the US, a regional loser in stark contrast to China’s gain.

Washington’s anti-China agenda under Obama/Biden, hardened by Trump, failed to achieve its objectives.

CNBC noted that “RCEP may cement China’s position more firmly as an economic partner with Southeast Asia, Japan and Korea, putting the world’s second-biggest economy in a better position to shape the region’s trade rules.”

If Biden/Harris succeed Trump in January, what’s most likely but not certain, it’s unclear if the new US regime will pursue membership in what its predecessor rejected.

A joint statement by participating nations said RCEP “is an unprecedented mega regional trading arrangement that comprises a diverse mix of developed, developing and least developed economies of the region.”

China’s Premier Li Keqiang  called RCEP “not only a landmark achievement of East Asian regional cooperation, but also a victory of multilateralism and free trade.”

China’s official People’s Daily broadsheet said the agreement “will play an important role in building the region’s resilience through inclusive and sustainable post-pandemic economic recovery.”

Sunday’s signing ceremony came after 30 rounds of negotiations, begun in November 2012.

China’s Global Times called RCEP’s signing a “framework that works to benefit all Asian economies…a landmark step toward achieving closer economic integration in East and Southeast Asia.”

Noninvolvement by the US leaves it “detach(ed) from the process of Asia’s economic integration.”

Will Dems call RCEP a new China threat? Will Republicans join them to call for US involvement in the CPTPP and/or RCEP?

Terms of both deals were agreed on by member states.

If the US seeks involvement in either or both agreements, it won’t be able to demand changes, favorable to its own interests.

Unilateralism by Trump regime hardliners aimed to contain China on the world stage, wanting its development curtailed, a failed agenda shorter and longer-term.

Will Biden/Harris go a different way or continue waging war on China by other means — the latter approach most likely.

Neither country will hold back the other’s development.

China pursues a longterm winning strategy by seeking cooperative relations with other nations.

It’s in stark contrast to US-sought global dominance by whatever it takes to achieve its aims, including wars by hot and other means.

ASEAN countries initiated RCEP, China and other nations invited to participate, India as well.

The Modi government withdrew from talks in November 2019, a strategic error.

What benefits participating nations through RCEP and CPTPP mutual cooperation excludes the US.

*

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 by Pepe Escobar / Asia Times

Hollywood knows how to put the scare in people. Songbird, a new film produced by Michael Bay and directed by Adam Mason exploits the Covid-19 pandemic which complements the mainstream-media’s (MSM) fear campaign among its audience. Last month, The Guardian reported that the film “portrays a love story between Nico (Riverdale’s KJ Apa) and Sara (Sofia Carson) during America’s 214th week of lockdown in 2024, as a late-stage version of “Covid-23” mutates to infect people’s brains.” The report describes the most disturbing aspects of the film:

The film appears to extract the worst of the past six months, strip it of sensitivity and then paint it on doubly thick in big-budget, Hollywoodized, exaggerated style. In the trailer a Los Angeles billboard ticks up to 8.4m deaths, infected Americans are forced into quarantine camps, and sanitation “police” raid homes for suspected patients. 

This shoehorning of a real and ongoing tragedy which has killed 229,000 Americans and counting has not gone down well with some still in the grips of the pandemic, which is to say: the movie going American public outside of Hollywood

Although it’s just another exaggerated Hollywood-style film that goes beyond today’s reality, it is a film that will sell fear to its audience.

Fear is a weapon used against humanity.

Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, the director-general of the World Health Organization (WHO) said that certain words cause fear, but he decided to use that word, “Pandemic”. USA Today reported back in March that “Tedros said WHO was aware the word could “cause unreasonable fear, or unjustified acceptance that the fight is over,” if incorrectly used.” Words and inflated numbers used by politicians and “health experts” paid by Big Pharma know how to use the pandemic to their advantage in order to gain power and control over the people, especially in modern Western societies.

Hollywood is in partnership with the MSM, therefore both are in the service of the establishment.  If Biden is declared the winner on January, it will mean more lockdowns and facemask mandates because they want total control of the population to enforce its dangerous vaccines.  The MSM and Hollywood use propaganda and fear that is crippling todays society, and because of that, they are complicit in crimes against humanity.

Here is the trailer to Songbird:

*

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.

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

Featured image is from SCN

Russia’s draft deal to open up a Red Sea naval base in Sudan amounts to a strategic recalibration of its careful “balancing” act between the GCC and Turkey after moving more closely to the latter following the end of the Nagorno-Karabakh War, which in turn shows how important Moscow regards its “Ummah Pivot” as being by seeking to maintain equally excellent relations with all majority-Muslim countries without any of its bilateral relations being misperceived as directed against any third country in this civilizational sphere.

***

When Gutenberg introduced the printing press in 1440, the world had no idea that things were about to drastically change. Prior to the release and production of the printing press, books were incredibly expensive, rare, mostly written in Latin, and reserved for royalty and clergy.

The spread of information was kept under lock and key.

However, in just a few decades after its spread throughout the world, Gutenberg’s press had rolled out hundreds of millions of books. The operation of a printing press became synonymous with the enterprise of printing and lent its name to a new branch of media, the press.

The world was becoming informed.

Hailed as one of the most important inventions in human history, the printing press helped societies break free from the ignorance and bondage imposed upon them by the keepers of information. Over the next 400 years, those with access to information about peace and freedom began to rise up against their oppressors. Instead of monarchies and dictatorships, republics and democracies were born.

The world was well on its way to becoming a Land of the Free. Unfortunately, however, with information — comes propaganda and censorship.

Not being able to control the dissemination of information, tyrants decided to control the actual information instead. Certain books were burned, banned, and shunned. Only establishment-supporting nationalistic books were promoted which led to entire societies believing their patriotic stories about how their countries ‘played the key role in the development of the modern world’ — up to and including societies like Nazi Germany who were convinced that murdering millions of Jews was the right thing to do.

For decades, the world was tricked by slick establishment propagandists, who wrote their version of heroic history. Tyrants were painted as saviors; mass murderers hailed as great discoverers. The world was slipping back into a dark age of control and manipulation.

Luckily, there were a few voices who resisted mass censorship, the book banners and burners, and the last century has seen incredible growth and freedom of speech. But, like all empires inevitably do, America is increasingly slipping into despotism and, once again, the alleged “arbiters of truth” are attempting to silence information with which they disagree.

One example of this new “book burning” is taking place in California. Schools in Burbank, California have banned multiple books after a handful of parents expressed concern over them. To be clear, these books do not advocate racism, violence, hatred, or anything of the sort. These books have won multiple awards and have achieved literary godliness.

Burbank schools are now being forced to teach other titles because a small group (exactly 4) of offended parents have succeeded in depriving thousands of other children from reading Harper Lee’s To Kill a Mockingbird, Mark Twain’s The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, John Steinbeck’s Of Mice and Men, Theodore Taylor’s The Cay and Mildred D. Taylor’s Roll of Thunder, Hear My Cry.

That’s right, Roll of Thunder, Hear My Cry — that was written by a black woman about racism in America during the Jim Crow era — was banned because it is supposedly racist. Someone should probably ask Newbery Award-winning author, Mildred DeLois Taylor, how she feels about her book, written about her own life experiences, getting banned for being racist.

To be fair, the parents said their children experienced racism in schools which is unacceptable — but also exceedingly improbable that this racism was derived from a child reading a novel.

As Newsweek reports, Carmenita Helligar said her daughter, Destiny, was approached by a white student in math class using a racial taunt including the N-word, which he’d learned from reading Roll of Thunder, Hear My Cry while both attended the David Starr Jordan Middle School.

“My family used to own your family and now I want a dollar from each of you for the week,” another boy is said to have told Destiny.

“My daughter was literally traumatized,” Helligar said. “These books are problematic … you feel helpless because you can’t even protect your child from the hurt that she’s going through.”

While no one wants their child to experience the horrific scenario described above, the idea of a classic book — that is actually anti-racist — turning a child into a racist is absolutely absurd. If someone is so hateful that they are willing to say this to a child in middle school, blaming a book is asinine. This kid was either brought up as a racist or, he made a tone deaf, disgusting attempt at teasing.

Either way, it doesn’t matter what actually transpired as the results are the same — books are banned in the land of the free. Sadly, it is indeed likely that those calling for banning these books, have never even read them. If they did actually read them, they would understand that they are not at all racist and, in fact, inspire kids to do the right thing, well, because it’s the right thing.

Luckily, the banning of these books did not go unnoticed and the National Coalition Against Censorship (NCAC) sent a letter to BUSD urging the district to allow teaching of the books while the challenges are under review.

“[W]e believe that the books… have a great pedagogical value and should be retained in the curriculum,” read the letter from the NCAC.

Some of the children are speaking out against the banned books as well. Sungjoo Yoon, 15, a sophomore at Burbank High School, also launched an online petition on Change.org to stop what he called a “ban on antiracist books.”

“In a time where racism has become more transparent than ever, we need to continue to educate students as to the roots of it; to create anti-racist students,” Yoon wrote. “These literatures, of which have been declared ‘Books that Shaped America’ by the Library of Congress, won Newbury Medals, and are some of the most influential pieces, cannot disappear.”

PEN America (an acronym for Poets, Essayists, Novelists) also released a petition calling to reinstate the banned books.

“Each of the books in question deal with difficult subject matter from our country’s complicated and painful history, including systemic racism,” an excerpt from the petition reads. “Blocking engagement with these important books is also avoiding the important role that schools can and should play in providing context for why these books inspire and challenge us still today.”

*

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.

Matt Agorist is an honorably discharged veteran of the USMC and former intelligence operator directly tasked by the NSA. This prior experience gives him unique insight into the world of government corruption and the American police state. Agorist has been an independent journalist for over a decade and has been featured on mainstream networks around the world. Agorist is also the Editor at Large at the Free Thought Project. Follow @MattAgorist on Twitter, Steemit, and now on Minds.

Featured image is from The Free Thought Project