The narrative that the Beirut explosion was an exclusive consequence of negligence and corruption by the current Lebanese government is now set in stone, at least in the Atlanticist sphere.
And yet, digging deeper, we find that negligence and corruption may have been fully exploited, via sabotage, to engineer it.
Lebanon is prime John Le Carré territory. A multinational den of spies of all shades – House of Saud agents, Zionist operatives, “moderate rebel” weaponizers, Hezbollah intellectuals, debauched Arab “royalty,” self-glorified smugglers – in a context of full spectrum economic disaster afflicting a member of the Axis of Resistance, a perennial target of Israel alongside Syria and Iran.
As if this were not volcanic enough, into the tragedy stepped President Trump to muddy the – already contaminated – Eastern Mediterranean waters. Briefed by “our great generals,” Trump on Tuesday said: “According to them – they would know better than I would – but they seem to think it was an attack.”
Trump added, “it was a bomb of some kind.”
Was this incandescent remark letting the cat out of the bag by revealing classified information? Or was the President launching another non sequitur?
Trump eventually walked his comments back after the Pentagon declined to confirm his claim about what the “generals” had said and his defense secretary, Mark Esper, supported the accident explanation for the blast.
It’s yet another graphic illustration of the war engulfing the Beltway. Trump: attack. Pentagon: accident. “I don’t think anybody can say right now,” Trump said on Wednesday. “I’ve heard it both ways.”
Still, it’s worth noting a report by Iran’s Mehr News Agency that four US Navy reconnaissance planes were spotted near Beirut at the time of the blasts. Is US intel aware of what really happened all along the spectrum of possibilities?
That ammonium nitrate
Security at Beirut’s port – the nation’s prime economic hub – would have to be considered a top priority. But to adapt a line from Roman Polanski’s Chinatown: “Forget it, Jake. It’s Beirut.”
Those by now iconic 2,750 tons of ammonium nitrate arrived in Beirut in September 2013 on board the Rhosus, a ship under Moldovan flag sailing from Batumi in Georgia to Mozambique. Rhosus ended up being impounded by Beirut’s Port State Control.
Subsequently the ship was de facto abandoned by its owner, shady businessman Igor Grechushkin, born in Russia and a resident of Cyprus, who suspiciously “lost interest” in his relatively precious cargo, not even trying to sell it, dumping style, to pay off his debts.
Grechushkin never paid his crew, who barely survived for several months before being repatriated on humanitarian grounds. The Cypriot government confirmed there was no request to Interpol from Lebanon to arrest him. The whole op feels like a cover – with the real recipients of the ammonium nitrate possibly being “moderate rebels” in Syria who use it to make IEDs and equip suicide trucks, such as the one that demolished the Al Kindi hospital in Aleppo.
The 2,750 tons – packed in 1-ton bags labeled “Nitroprill HD” – were transferred to the Hangar 12 warehouse by the quayside. What followed was an astonishing case of serial negligence.
From 2014 to 2017 letters from customs officials – a series of them – as well as proposed options to get rid of the dangerous cargo, exporting it or otherwise selling it, were simply ignored. Every time they tried to get a legal decision to dispose of the cargo, they got no answer from the Lebanese judiciary.
When Lebanese Prime Minister Hassan Diab now proclaims, “Those responsible will pay the price,” context is absolutely essential.
Neither the prime minister nor the president nor any of the cabinet ministers knew that the ammonium nitrate was stored in Hangar 12, former Iranian diplomat Amir Mousavi, the director of the Center for Strategic Studies and International Relations in Tehran, confirms. We’re talking about a massive IED, placed mid-city.
The bureaucracy at Beirut’s port and the mafias who are actually in charge are closely linked to, among others, the al-Mostaqbal faction, which is led by former Prime Minister Saad al-Hariri, himself fully backed by the House of Saud.
The immensely corrupt Hariri was removed from power in October 2019 amid serious protests. His cronies “disappeared” at least $20 billion from Lebanon’s treasury – which seriously aggravated the nation’s currency crisis.
No wonder the current government – where we have Prime Minister Diab backed by Hezbollah – had not been informed about the ammonium nitrate.
Ammonium nitrate is quite stable, making it one of the safest explosives used in mining. Fire normally won’t set it off. It becomes highly explosive only if contaminated – for instance by oil – or heated to a point where it undergoes chemical changes that produce a sort of impermeable cocoon around it in which oxygen can build up to a dangerous level where an ignition can cause an explosion.
Why, after sleeping in Hangar 12 for seven years, did this pile suddenly feel an itch to explode?
So far, the prime straight to the point explanation, by Middle East expert Elijah Magnier, points to the tragedy being “sparked” – literally – by a clueless blacksmith with a blowtorch operating quite close to the unsecured ammonium nitrate. Unsecured due, once again, to negligence and corruption – or as part of an intentional “mistake” anticipating the possibility of a future blast.
This scenario, though, does not explain the initial “fireworks” explosion. And certainly does not explain what no one – at least in the West – is talking about: the deliberate fires set to an Iranian market in Ajam in the UAE, and also to a series of food/agricultural warehouses in Najaf, Iraq, immediately after the Beirut tragedy.
Follow the money
Lebanon – boasting assets and real estate worth trillions of dollars – is a juicy peach for global finance vultures. To grab these assets at rock bottom prices, in the middle of the New Great Depression, is simply irresistible. In parallel, the IMF vulture would embark on full shakedown mode and finally “forgive” some of Beirut’s debts as long as a harsh variation of “structural adjustment” is imposed.
Who profits, in this case, are the geopolitical and geoeconomic interests of US, Saudi Arabia and France. It’s no accident that President Macron, a dutiful Rothschild servant, arrived in Beirut Thursday to pledge Paris neocolonial “support” and all but impose, like a Viceroy, a comprehensive set of “reforms”. A Monty Python-infused dialogue, complete with heavy French accent, might have followed along these lines: “We want to buy your port.” “It’s not for sale.” “Oh, what a pity, an accident just happened.”
Already a month ago the IMF was “warning” that “implosion” in Lebanon was “accelerating.” Prime Minister Diab had to accept the proverbial “offer you can’t refuse” and thus “unlock billions of dollars in donor funds.” Or else. The non-stop run on the Lebanese currency, for over a year now, was just a – relatively polite – warning.
This is happening amid a massive global asset grab characterized in the larger context by American GDP down by almost 40%, arrays of bankruptcies, a handful of billionaires amassing unbelievable profits and too-big-to-fail megabanks duly bailed out with a tsunami of free money.
Dag Detter, a Swedish financier, and Nasser Saidi, a former Lebanese minister and central bank vice governor, suggest that the nation’s assets be placed in a national wealth fund. Juicy assets include Electricité du Liban (EDL), water utilities, airports, the MEA airline , telecom company OGERO, the Casino du Liban.
EDL, for instance, is responsible for 30% of Beirut’s budget deficit.
That’s not nearly enough for the IMF and Western mega banks. They want to gobble up the whole thing, plus a lot of real estate.
“The economic value of public real estate can be worth at least as much as GDP and often several times the value of the operational part of any portfolio,” say Detter and Saidi.
Who’s feeling the shockwaves?
Once again, Israel is the proverbial elephant in a room now widely depicted by Western corporate media as “Lebanon’s Chernobyl.”
Israel did admit that Hangar 12 was not a Hezbollah weapons storage unit. Yet, crucially, on the same day of the Beirut blast, and following a series of suspicious explosions in Iran and high tension in the Syria-Israeli border, Prime Minister Netanyahu tweeted , in the present tense: “We hit a cell and now we hit the dispatchers. We will do what is necessary in order to defend ourselves. I suggest to all of them, including Hezbollah, to consider this.”
That ties in with the intent, openly proclaimed late last week, to bomb Lebanese infrastructure if Hezbollah harms Israeli Defense Forces soldiers or Israeli civilians.
A headline – “Beirut Blast Shockwaves Will Be Felt by Hezbollah for a Long Time” – confirms that the only thing that matters for Tel Aviv is to profit from the tragedy to demonize Hezbollah, and by association, Iran. That ties in with the US Congress “Countering Hezbollah in Lebanon’s Military Act of 2019” {S.1886}, which all but orders Beirut to expel Hezbollah from Lebanon.
And yet Israel has been strangely subdued.
Muddying the waters even more, Saudi intel – which has access to Mossad, and demonizes Hezbollah way more than Israel – steps in. All the intel ops I talked to refuse to go on the record, considering the extreme sensitivity of the subject.
Still, it must be stressed that a Saudi intel source whose stock in trade is frequent information exchanges with the Mossad, asserts that the original target was Hezbollah missiles stored in Beirut’s port. His story is that Prime Minister Netanyahu was about to take credit for the strike – following up on his tweet. But then the Mossad realized the op had turned horribly wrong and metastasized into a major catastrophe.
The problem starts with the fact this was not a Hezbollah weapons depot – as even Israel admitted. When weapons depots are blown up, there’s a primary explosion followed by several smaller explosions, something that could last for days. That’s not what happened in Beirut. The initial explosion was followed by a massive second blast – almost certainly a major chemical explosion – and then there was silence.
Thierry Meyssan, very close to Syrian intel, advances the possibility that the “attack” was carried out with an unknown weapon, a missile -– and not a nuclear bomb – tested in Syria in January 2020. (The test is shown in an attached video.) Neither Syria nor Iran ever made a reference to this unknown weapon, and I got no confirmation about its existence.
Assuming Beirut port was hit by an “unknown weapon,” President Trump may have told the truth: It was an “attack”. And that would explain why Netanyahu, contemplating the devastation in Beirut, decided that Israel would need to maintain a very low profile.
Watch that camel in motion
The Beirut explosion at first sight might be seen as a deadly blow against the Belt and Road Initiative, considering that China regards the connectivity between Iran, Iraq, Syria and Lebanon as the cornerstone of the Southwest Asia Belt and Road corridor.
Yet that may backfire – badly. China and Iran are already positioning themselves as the go-to investors post-blast, in sharp contrast with the IMF hit men, and as advised by Hezbollah Secretary-General Nasrallah only a few weeks ago.
Syria and Iran are in the forefront of providing aid to Lebanon. Tehran is sending an emergency hospital, food packages, medicine and medical equipment. Syria opened its borders with Lebanon, dispatched medical teams and is receiving patients from Beirut’s hospitals.
It’s always important to keep in mind that the “attack” (Trump) on Beirut’s port destroyed Lebanon’s main grain silo, apart from engineering the total destruction of the port – the nation’s key trade lifeline.
That would fit into a strategy of starving Lebanon. On the same day Lebanon became to a great extent dependent on Syria for food – as it now carries only a month’s supply of wheat – the US attacked silos in Syria.
Syria is a huge exporter of organic wheat. And that’s why the US routinely targets Syrian silos and burns its crops – attempting also to starve Syria and force Damascus, already under harsh sanctions, to spend badly needed funds to buy food.
In stark contrast to the interests of the US/France/Saudi axis, Plan A for Lebanon would be to progressively drop out of the US-France stranglehold and head straight into Belt and Road as well as the Shanghai Cooperation Organization. Go East, the Eurasian way. The port and even a great deal of the devastated city, in the medium term, can be quickly and professionally rebuilt by Chinese investment. The Chinese are specialists in port construction and management.
This avowedly optimistic scenario would imply a purge of the hyper-wealthy, corrupt weapons/drugs/real estate scoundrels of Lebanon’s plutocracy – which in any case scurry away to their tony Paris apartments at the first sign of trouble.
Couple that with Hezbollah’s very successful social welfare system – which I saw for myself at work last year – having a shot at winning the confidence of the impoverished middle classes and thus becoming the core of the reconstruction.
It will be a Sisyphean struggle. But compare this situation with the Empire of Chaos – which needs chaos everywhere, especially across Eurasia, to cover for the coming, Mad Max chaos inside the US.
General Wesley Clark’s notorious 7 countries in 5 years once again come to mind – and Lebanon remains one of those 7 countries. The Lebanese lira may have collapsed; most Lebanese may be completely broke; and now Beirut is semi-devastated. That may be the straw breaking the camel’s back – releasing the camel to the freedom of finally retracing its steps back to Asia along the New Silk Roads.
*
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 so-called Long Peace after 1945 was covered in the blood of innocent people. Americans generally prefer to remember the Cold War as a mostly peaceful triumph punctuated by a handful of debacles, but for many of the people living in non-aligned and newly independent countries after WWII their experience of the Cold War was one of horror and devastation.
Those nations that had the misfortune of being deemed important in the struggle against communism tended to suffer the most. Fanatical anticommunism claimed millions of victims during the Cold War. The atrocities committed against these people are often forgotten in the West, if they were ever known in the first place. That is true most of all in the United States, since it was our government that frequently encouraged and assisted local actors in their crimes against their own people.
We generally ignore this part of the Cold War because it is ugly and because our government bears considerable responsibility for what happened to these countries. It does not square with the “liberal order” mythology that our leaders tell themselves and us. It does not comport with our flattering appraisals of our benevolent role in the world, but it is an important part of the history of our foreign policy that we cannot afford to forget. When politicians and pundits blithely threaten to pursue a new Cold War today against China, we need to understand the destruction that would unleash on unsuspecting people in many other countries. We should not make the same costly errors now.
Indonesia was considered especially crucial during the 1960s as one of the leading non-aligned countries with the largest communist party outside the USSR and China. U.S. officials saw it as a “prize” far more valuable than South Vietnam, and in 1965-66 it was violently yanked into the U.S. orbit by mass murder. The Indonesian military under Suharto and its auxiliaries carried out mass killings against communists and suspected communists, and they murdered up to one million innocent people for nothing more than their presumed political affiliations.
This mass murder and its broader consequences for the rest of the world is the subject of Vincent Bevins’ exceptional The Jakarta Method. Bevins is an international correspondent who worked first in Brazil and then in Indonesia, and while in Indonesia he began to investigate the history of the 1965-66 mass murder that is still officially denied by the government there. As he dug into the stories of the survivors and tracked the consequences of Operation Annihilation (the Army’s internal name for the extermination campaign), he found links between what had happened in Indonesia in the mid-1960s and the brutal campaigns in Latin America by U.S.-aligned dictatorships in the decades that followed. In these other countries, Jakarta became a codeword for massacring the enemies of the fanatical anticommunists, and the mass murder that occurred in Indonesia was held up as a model of what to do.
The U.S. government not only knew about the slaughter in Indonesia, but actively encouraged it and provided the killers with lists of names. Bevins writes:
But after seven years of close cooperation with Washington, the military was already well equipped. You also don’t need advanced weaponry to arrest civilians who provide almost no resistance. What officials in the embassy and the CIA decided the Army really did need, however, was information. Working with CIA analysts, embassy political officer Robert Martens prepared lists with the names of thousands of communists and suspected communists, and handed them over to the Army, so that these people could be murdered and “checked off” the list.
Another million people were rounded up into concentration camps for detention, where they were subjected to starvation, forced labor, torture, and ideological re-education. It was an infamous “victory” that no one wanted to remember.
Bevins recounts this history in a dispassionate, matter-of-fact way, and he carefully weaves together the stories of the individual survivors whom he has found over the course of his investigation. He takes us to the sites of killing fields in Bali where tourist hotels now stand. He introduces us to the Indonesians who lost family and friends in the massacres, and he shows how the survivors are still ostracized and viewed with suspicion all these decades later. One of the survivors he met, an elderly woman named Magdalena, now lives in poverty after her release from prison. He tells how she was “marked for life” because of her past, and she has no family ties because all of these were severed after she was accused of being a communist. As Bevins notes, this “kind of situation if extremely common for survivors of the 1965 violence and repression.” In addition to those that were killed in the violence, there are tens of millions of victims and relatives of victims still alive today.
He also traces the use of the tactics employed against innocent Indonesians to Brazil, Chile, Argentina, and elsewhere in Latin America, and reminds us that people in these countries are still living in the shadow of the U.S.-backed dictatorships that were in power there in the 1970s and 1980s. The Brazilian dictatorship that seized power before Suharto’s takeover later sought to imitate what had happened in Indonesia. The Chilean government under Pinochet did so, albeit on a smaller scale, and the so-called “dirty war” in Argentina followed as well. The trail continues into Central America up to the end of the Cold War. Many of the individual elements of Bevins’ story may be familiar, but he has made connections between them that most Americans do not know.
As he tries to make sense of the horrific events he has described in the book, Bevins leaves us with this grim but fair conclusion:
Looking at it this way, the major losers of the twentieth century were those who believed too sincerely in the existence of a liberal international order, those who trusted too much in democracy, or too much in what the United States said it supported, rather than what it really supported—what the rich countries said, rather than what they did. That group was annihilated.
When he spoke to Winarso, the head of Sekretariat Bersama ’65, the organization that advocates on behalf of survivors of the mass murder, Bevins asked him who won the Cold War. Winarso replied that the United States won. When he followed up by asking how, Winarso replied simply, “You killed us.” What’s more, these people were killed for nothing.
It cannot be emphasized enough that the victims in Indonesia and in the other countries that Bevins reports on were innocent people. They were killed en masse only because they held or were believed to hold certain political beliefs. Bevins writes: “They were sentenced to annihilation, and almost everyone around them was sentenced to a lifetime of guilt, trauma, and being told they had sinned unforgivably because of their association with the earnest hopes of left-wing politics.” They had done nothing wrong. They had the awful luck of being caught in the middle of an international rivalry for power and influence that had nothing to do with them, and they were crushed because it was expedient for our government and its clients that they be crushed.
A few months ago, Hal Brands wrote a column in which he suggested that the U.S. might support covert regime changes as part of a rivalry with China. In one breath, he cited the Suharto takeover in Indonesia as an example of a “cost-effective” success, and then in the next acknowledged the grisly human cost measured in hundreds of thousands of lives. Here is how he described U.S. complicity in mass murder: “CIA support helped the Indonesian military consolidate power after it toppled an increasingly anti-American Sukarno in 1965, thus avoiding the prospect of Southeast Asia’s most important country turning hostile.” He acknowledges that this implicated the U.S. in “horrific violence,” but he remains very vague about what the U.S. did there. If Indonesia is counted as a “win” for the pro-regime change crowd, the idea of promoting regime change is absolutely bankrupt and should never be employed again.
If a strategy relies on policies that lead to the wanton murder of so many innocent people, it is time to throw that strategy out and find another. Supporting regime change in another country is often held up as a quick-fix solution to some problem that the U.S. has in the world, but most of the time this fails on its own terms. Even when regime changes “work” in the near term, they inflict a ghastly toll on the people in the targeted country. The U.S. would do well to reject regime change, covert or otherwise, and to respect the sovereignty and independence of other states instead. The U.S. should also avoid another Cold War with a major power rival that leads to such monstrous crimes as the mass murder in Indonesia.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Daniel Larison is a senior editor at TAC, where he also keeps a solo blog. He has been published in the New York Times Book Review, Dallas Morning News, World Politics Review, Politico Magazine, Orthodox Life, Front Porch Republic, The American Scene, and Culture11, and was a columnist for The Week. He holds a PhD in history from the University of Chicago, and resides in Lancaster, PA. Follow him on Twitter.
Only the most perverse kind of ideology-derived inertia explains the stupidity, incompetence and criminality of current US foreign policy towards Cuba, Nicaragua and Venezuela. Stupid for being based on the insane messianic 19th Century Monroe Doctrine vision of Manifest Destiny, the US, in Nicaragua’s case, has applied for 40 years essentially the same unsuccessful policies that have failed for 170 years, ever since the defeat of William Walker. Now the US authorities have taken up where they left off following the landmark 1986 International Court of Justice ruling condemning US terrorist aggression against Nicaragua.
Having already resumed illegal unilateral coercive measures attacking Nicaragua’s economy, the US government is now openly supplementing its economic aggression with a program intended not just to supplant Nicaragua’s Sandinista government but ultimately to destroy Sandinismo as a viable political movement. They want to turn Nicaragua into Bolivia. Last week, Managua’s Radio La Primerísima revealed the contents of a USAID document with details of this next US government effort at regime change in Nicaragua. The document outlines the main elements of a program called Responsive Assistance in Nicaragua (RAIN). As if it were designed to fail, the thinking behind RAIN is wantonly yankee in practically every sense, bumptious, superficial, self-regarding technocratic nonsense. Its premises are irrational from the start, like an alchemist’s recipe, lost in spurious detail, oblivious to its demented absurdity.
Other writers like Brian Willson, Wiston López, Ben Norton, John Perry and Nan McCurdy have done excellent analysis of the USAID document and its significance. They point out that, in the short to medium term, the plan actually acknowledges likely failure, because USAID’s planners recognize that the Sandinista Front (FSLN) will probably win the national elections in 2021. That likelihood was made very clear this week with the publication of an opinion poll by the widely respected M&R consulting company showing political support for the FSLN at 50% and for the opposition at 10%. In this context, RAIN is clearly a plan for the next decade, establishing a permanent in-country destabilization unit to better manage, coordinate and integrate open and covert regime change activities, both in-house and outsourced.
This aspect of the document suggests that even the monsters-in-human-form running United States’ foreign policy terror programs recognize that Nicaragua cannot be destroyed, pillaged and mismanaged as they have so far got away with doing in Haiti or Honduras. Even so, the plan underestimates the level of traumatic political and social change needed for it to work, unlikely to be achieved by conventional US techniques of softening up countries to overthrow their governments. One sign of this is the way it discounts the profound patriotic strength and robust democratic vision of Nicaragua’s 1987 constitution which even 17 years of US owned neoliberal government between 1990 and 2007 failed to weaken.
This lack of a sense of history and the ensuing inability to understand Sandinismo, along with hopeless tactical timing and poor strategy, are enduring characteristics of US foreign policy failure in Nicaragua. US foreign policy strategists thought the FSLN was finished after losing the 1990 elections, believing the local right-wing US puppets had a long term, unassailable, structural electoral majority. They were wrong. Then they thought Nicaragua’s Sandinista government would succumb to the crisis of 2008-2009. Wrong again. Thanks in large part to Comandante Hugo Chávez and ALBA, President Daniel Ortega’s government actually came out stronger and easily won the national elections in 2011 with a big majority in the legislature as well .
Then, in 2018, the same US foreign policy deadbeat svengalis thought that by coopting youth, threatening private business, weaponizing NGOs and via blitzkrieg-style, industrial scale lying on social media they could wipe out Sandinismo in Nicaragua. Wrong yet again. Now the Sandinista Front is as strong as ever, despite the complex problems provoked by the COVID-19 pandemic. RAIN continues the dysfunctional pattern of sinister US foreign policy derangement with its implicit false premise that the US can secure a more successful outcome than in 2018, if only they can better consolidate, enhance and improve their non-governmental, media, business, religious and political fifth column in Nicaragua. They followed that will-o’-the-wisp from 2006 to 2018 and ended up defeated, just as they have been since 1998 in Venezuela and since 1959 in Cuba.
Even so, the USAID document’s fantasy frame of reference still reflects the involuted narcissism of the US Embassy’s false propaganda that Nicaragua is a hapless dictatorship with a failing economy and inadequate public services. Even a look out of the US embassy window in Managua shows the opposite: brand new infrastructure, vibrant commercial life and a clean environment. The UN’s Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean has just reported that while the rest of Latin America and the Caribbean are suffering drastic falls in their exports, Nicaragua has seen a remarkable 14% increase for the period to May this year over 2019. The report notes, “Nicaragua capitalized on the rise in the price of gold and in the volumes of agricultural and livestock products exported (including coffee, sugar cane, beans and tobacco).”
Pick a sector, any sector, of national life and President Daniel Ortega’s government team have a clear decisive policy plan effectively addressing that sector’s needs within the budgetary imitations of a small impoverished country of 6.5 million people subject to economic attack by the United States. Electricity coverage? Look here. Competitiveness? Look here. Telecommunications? Here. Access to drinking water? Read this. Rural water and sanitation? Look here. Civil defence capacity ? Here. Role of local government? Here. Infrastructure development? Look here, here and here and read this and this. Geoscience technologies? Here. Innovation? Read this. Education? Read this, this, this and this, as well as this and this. Public health and COVID-19? Look here and here and read this and this.
Defending the popular economy? Here. Defending the family, youth and children? Here. Citizen Security? Look here. Community policing? Here. What about overall social spending? Surely that must have suffered given the economic debacle described by the US State Department? Not at all, look here. Food production and food security? Read this and this and look here, here and here. And isn’t Nicaragua hopeless on the environment? Don’t be ridiculous. Look here, here and here and read this. And isn’t property and security to land title in chaos, especially for indigenous peoples? Also absurd, look here.
All these policies reflect the focus of the Sandinista Front’s historic program on realizing the rights of the human person, for everyone living in Nicaragua, brought up to date and carried out successfully despite great difficulties. They make the false claims of the US authorities and the mercenary losers comprising Nicaragua’s opposition, whom the US has bankrolled for over a decade with tens of millions of dollars, look completely out to lunch. M&R’s latest survey shows that over 80% of Nicaraguans would like the country to return to its situation prior to 2018 and 67% of people think Nicaragua is getting back on track to resume the progress it enjoyed before the violent, failed coup attempt of that year.
But isn’t free speech under relentless attack under Nicaragua as freely proclaimed every day by Channel 10, Channel 12, Channel 23, 100% Noticias, Radio Corporación, la Prensa, Confidencial and a plethora of local radio and cable TV outlets? Um… some mistake here surely… And isn’t everyone afraid of “Putin’s, Assad’s, Castro’s, Maduro’s, Gaddhafi’s…surely the caricature is in here somewhere… Ortega’s!” repressive police? Well, according to M&R’s research, 62% of Nicaraguans think their police are highly professional. 62% of people think there is a high level of respect for freedom of expression and human rights and the proportion of people thinking of emigrating has dropped from 45% in April 2019, the low point of the economic impact of the failed 2018 coup attempt, to 28% now. In fact, thousands of Nicaraguans have been desperate to return to Nicaragua after finding their situation unsustainable overseas during the pandemic.
The US government has failed notoriously to meet the needs of its own people during the current pandemic but can still find money to try and destroy a small country whose success makes US social, economic and environmental policy look arbitrary, negligent and criminal. After 170 years, the US ruling class have nothing to forget about Nicaragua because in all that time they never learned a thing. But all they really they need to know is this: the Sandinista Front plans its work, works it plan and then… they win, because they uphold the interests of Nicaragua’s people. Right now, Nicaragua is half way through a rainy season that has blessed the country with what looks like an abundant first harvest with strong indications currently of good second and third harvests too, later in the year. Along with all its other achievements, that’s why, for now anyway, Nicaragua is singin’, just singin’ in the rain…
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
All politicians lie. Rare exceptions prove the rule.
Trump is Exhibit A, a serial liar never to be trusted, a menace to virtually everything just societies hold dear.
Last February 8 he tweeted: “We will not be touching your Social Security and Medicare in Fiscal 2021 Budget.”
On February 9, the Wall Street Journal headlined:
“Trump to Propose $4.8 Trillion Budget With Big Safety-Net Cuts,” saying:
His proposed budget, if reelected in November, includes “steep reductions in social-safety-net programs,” more for militarism and warmaking.
The Journal added that as long as Dems control one or both houses of Congress, his proposed budget is dead on arrival.
He and other hardliners in Washington aim to destroy social justice, notably by weakening and killing Social Security and Medicare by defunding them.
They aim to return America to 19th century harshness, neoliberalism on steroids.
Their scheme includes cutting, then ending welfare for impoverished households, restricting then eliminating food stamps and housing assistance.
It also aims to destroy collective bargaining rights, turning workplaces into sweatshops, paying workers poverty wages, abolishing benefits, allowing child labor, agricultural and other slave labor more than already, along with other dystopian aims.
The centerpiece of their scheme is killing Social Security and Medicare.
According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP), about $1 trillion of the 2019 federal budget went for Social Security.
Another $1.1 trillion funded Medicare, Medicaid, the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), and Affordable Care Act (ACA) marketplace subsidies — nearly two-thirds of this amount for Medicare.
If the above programs and other safety net ones are eliminated in the years ahead, well over $2 trillion more will be available annually for the Pentagon, DHS, the CIA, NSA, other national intelligence, corporate handouts, and more tax cuts for the rich.
In 2017, then-House Speaker Paul Ryan declared war on Social Security and Medicare, saying “that’s really where the problem lies, fiscally speaking.”
They’re “the big drivers of our debt,” falsely calling employer/worker-funded insurance programs “entitlements” which they’re not.
They’re insurance programs financed by payroll tax deductions.
Private citizen Trump earlier said “I’m not going to cut Social Security like every other Republican, and I’m not going to cut Medicare or Medicaid.”
In October 2018, he vowed to keep Medicare “healthy and well.”
Last February at the Davos World Economic Forum billionaire’s ball, he said “at some point,” cuts in Social Security and Medicare will be on the table.
Weeks ahead of Davos, he vowed to “save” Social Security. His proposed budget included cuts to vital social safety net programs — including SS, Medicare and Medicaid.
On Saturday after unconstitutionally breaching congressional appropriations authority, he vowed to “terminate” Social Security if reelected in November.
In response, Social Security Works president Nancy Altman said the following:
Trump “once promised that he would be ‘the only Republican that doesn’t want to cut Social Security.’ ”
“We now know that what he meant is that cutting Social Security doesn’t go far enough for him.”
“He wants to destroy” the vital social safety net program, Medicare, Medicaid, and other social programs along with it.
His unlawful (Saturday) executive order to (defer) Social Security contributions, is bad enough.”
If reelected in November, he vowed “to terminate FICA contributions” that amounts to “a full-on declaration of war against current and future Social Security beneficiaries.”
“Social Security is the foundation of everyone’s retirement security.”
“At a time when pensions are vanishing and 401ks have proven inadequate, Trump’s plan to eliminate Social Security’s revenue stream would destroy the one source of retirement income that people can count on.”
The program “is often the only disability insurance and life insurance that working families have.”
“If reelected, Trump plans to destroy those benefits as well.”
Altman stressed the importance of mass denunciation of “Trump’s unconstitutional (aim to) raid (and destroy) Social Security.”
The same goes for his aim to kill Medicare and other vital social safety net programs.
Everyone “who cares about (these vital programs) must do everything they can to ensure that Trump does not get a second term.”
CBPP’s president Robert Greenstein called Trump’s Saturday actions “woefully inadequate and legally dangerous,” adding:
“(B)y bypassing Congress on major budget and tax decisions and trying to override federal laws on the use of federal funds,” along with “shredding longstanding norms of governance, (he) potentially violate(d) the Constitution.”
“That we have reached this point is a national tragedy. The executive actions raise serious legal issues” — though it’s unclear how Supreme Court justices would rule on his actions if they have final say.
“Nor is it clear (whether his regime) actually can implement” what he ordered.
Congress has exclusive appropriations authority.
Cash-strapped states may be unable to pay 25% of $400 weekly unemployment benefits.
Even if able to do it by diverting funds from other priorities, Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) funds “would run out after about six weeks.”
With its power of the purse, Congress alone can address this issue. Trump’s usurpation of congressional authority made a bad situation worse.
His actions provided no funding to cash-strapped states or the postal service in need of financial help.
His deferral of student loan payments through yearend only applies to federally funded ones.
His so-called extension of the federal evictions moratorium and rental assistance did “neither,” CBPP’s Greenstein explained.
He “merely direct(ed) the Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Secretary to take legally permissible steps to help people avoid eviction or foreclosure.”
“(T)he order notably doesn’t include extending the evictions moratorium in its list of actions for HUD to consider.”
It only “asks the HUD and Treasury secretaries to try to identify any federal funds that (his regime) could use to provide financial assistance to renters and homeowners.”
In other words, no federal funds were identified for this purpose.
Further, deferral of payroll taxes won’t contribute to economic recovery.
Employers and workers still owe and must pay taxes on the suspended amounts at a later date.
Trump’s actions are unrelated to jobs creation. Hiring by firms depends on the demand for their products and services.
Given today’s harder than ever hard times, it’s essential for Congress and the White House to work together on helping ordinary Americans in need, along with actions to stimulate economic growth.
Trump’s actions made an untenable situation worse.
*
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.”
On Saturday, Trump unconstitutionally breached exclusive congressional appropriations authority.
Under Article I, section 9, clause 7 of the US Constitution (the appropriations clause), “(n)o money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law.”
Congress has exclusive legislative power of the purse.
The appropriations clause requires the president and federal agencies to spend only what Congress appropriates.
Spending not congressionally authorized is unconstitutional.
According to Supreme Court rulings on the Constitution’s appropriation clause, the executive branch may not authorize payments from the Treasury beyond congressionally authorized amounts.
Talks between Dem and Republican leaders stalemated.
The White House and GOP controlled Senate leadership agreed only to go along with extending sub-poverty benefits to unemployed workers, nothing to cash-strapped states, limited eviction and student loan protection, and little more.
It’s way less than what’s vitally needed at a time of unprecedented economic collapse with around 30% of working-age Americans left jobless.
Throughout his time in office, Trump consistently showed profound indifference toward public health and welfare — exclusively serving privileged interests at the expense of world peace, equity, justice, the rule of law, and a nation safe and fit to live in.
On Saturday, Trump signed one executive order and three memorandums that circumvented exclusive congressional appropriations authority.
He reduced expired unemployment benefits of $600 to $400 and unlawfully suspended payroll taxes — for workers earning less than $100,000 annually — through year end that fund Social Security and Medicare.
His executive order requires cash-strapped states to cover 25% of $400 weekly benefits —from funds they don’t have. The $300 in weekly federal benefits will only go to recipients in states that pay them $100.
According to Tax Policy Center’s Howard, Gleckman, his action, if sticks, “blow(s) a trillion dollar hole” in the trust funds that provide benefits to eligible recipients.
Other estimates put full calendar year 2020 payroll taxes at about $1.3 trillion, around $108 billion monthly.
Suspending payroll taxes provides no extra income to tens of millions of unemployed working-age Americans.
Given the reality of harder than ever hard times likely to be protracted, the extra amount is unlikely to be used for anything other than essentials to life and welfare.
Trump also extended eviction protection and deferred student loan payments through yearend, the former action not written in stone. See below.
His actions have nothing to do with “sav(ing) American jobs and provid(ing) relief to American workers” as he claimed — everything to do with circumventing the rule of law to do as he pleases, along with failing to do the right thing.
In remarks on Saturday, he added that if reelected in November, he’ll continue to suspend payroll taxes and push for “terminat(ing)” them altogether — a way to expedite termination of Social Security and Medicare when their trust funds are depleted.
Most Republicans failed to criticize Trump’s circumvention of exclusive congressional appropriations authority, GOP Senator Ben Sasse an outspoken exception, saying:
“The pen-and-phone theory of executive lawmaking is unconstitutional slop.”
The Washington Post cited an unnamed unemployment benefits expert, saying Trump’s weekend actions won’t increase unemployment benefits for the nation’s jobless.
Instead, a new federal bureaucracy will be established that could take “months” to begin operating. The same requirement will fall on states.
Trump’s suspension of evictions only calls for federal agencies to “consider” halting them.
Reportedly, he intends using Federal Emergency Management Agency funds to implement his orders.
They’ll be exhausted in weeks if used for this purpose so further funding will be needed he can’t legally authorize on his own but perhaps will do it anyway.
He also failed to say when benefits to recipients will begin.
According to National Employment Law Project’s Michele Evermore, Trump’s action provides no additional funds to the existing federal employment program.
It puts an immense burden on states they’ll be hard-pressed to implement, months likely required before anything can be done that at best will be far less than what’s vitally needed.
Dems so far haven’t indicated whether they’ll challenge his orders judicially. If so, will Supreme Court justices have final say on this issue?
A joint statement by Speaker Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Schumer called his Saturday pronouncements “unworkable, weak and narrow,” adding:
He “does not comprehend the seriousness or the urgency of the health and economic crises facing working families.”
He’s “cutting families’ unemployment benefits and pushing states further into budget crises.”
Actions by both right wings of the one-party state seek political advantage in the run-up to November elections.
As political posturing continues, ordinary Americans are enduring the most severe economic crisis in US history.
While politicians dicker and dither, Rome burns.
*
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.”
The Quincy Institute’s “New Paradigm for the Middle East” calling for a definitive end to the disastrous policy the United States has pursued in the region for nearly two decades offers the first coherent analysis of what is wrong with that policy and the first conceptual framework for a fundamentally different approach. The paper makes it clear, moreover, that the U.S. military presence continues to be a crucial part of the problem.
This paper was, of course, an initial broad outline of such an alternative Middle East policy, which will be followed by a more detailed blueprint of a new policy. But the brief treatment of the central issue of military withdrawal leaves unclear whether the authors intend to call for the definitive end to the permanent stationing of U.S. forces in the region.
The paper refers to “a reduction” in troops rather than a full “withdrawal,” and the penultimate paragraph proposes to begin discussions with regional states hosting a U.S. military presence “to determine a timeline for responsible withdrawal and the contours of continuing relationships that would still permit future U.S. military action, if needed, to stop an aggressor or would-be regional hegemon.”
But as the report itself makes clear, there is no realistic scenario in which a regional or extra-regional state could successfully use military force to dominate the region over the coming decade, because no state is even close to having the capability to do so. And no regional or outside power has had or will have the incentive to disrupt the flow of oil, except in the present circumstances in which the United States itself has prevented Iran from selling its oil worldwide.
The only scenario for such disruption that is remotely realistic — a desperate Iranian move to pressure the United States to end its application of secondary sanctions against its past trade partners — is merely a reflection of the aggressive posture of the United States itself rather than another state seeking to interfere with the free flow of oil.
And if there is no plausible scenario under which the region would be under the threat of domination or disruption from the ambitions of another power, there is no need to reach such new agreements with host countries.
The report suggests a delay in the completed withdrawal of five to 10 years to allow regional governments “sufficient time to take what measures they consider necessary.” But those nations are capable of making rapid adjustments in policy in response to a fundamental shift in U.S. policy, and one response to such a five- to 10 -year delay would certainly be to wait for a new administration to reverse the policy.
There is an even more compelling reason, moreover, to avoid any such delay: U.S. troops and bases in the region are sitting ducks that could be easily hit by Iranian missiles or drones in the event of an Israeli-Iranian war, as was amply demonstrated in September 2019 and again in January 2020. Indeed the report acknowledges this, stating that “[a] standing military presence becomes a target for asymmetric attacks and increases the chance of inadvertent clashes with foreign military forces.”
Their presence gives both Iran and Israel options that are crucial to their respective strategies in the crisis now playing out. Iran hopes to deter U.S. involvement in a war begun by Israel, but Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu hopes that an Iranian attack on a U.S. target in response to an Israeli attack will force the hand of the U.S. president. Thus, forces have become potential triggers for U.S. involvement in another avoidable war. It should be a high priority for the United States to signal to host countries its determination to remove those invitations to war as soon as possible.
But a swift U.S. military withdrawal is not only important for its impact on regional policies. Equally or even more important would be its impact on U.S. policy in the region. During a five- to 10-year transitional period, U.S. military assets in the region — especially aircraft and naval forces — would continue to offer military options that some ambitious senior national security official or bureaucratic coalition may well be tempted to propose for parochial political reasons.
The availability of such options has for many years created the incentive for U.S. officials to use force to advance their personal agendas in the region. When he was trying to pressure the Syrian government to negotiate a political compromise with the armed opposition from 2013 to early 2015, then-Secretary of State John Kerryrepeatedly sought cruise missile strikes on the Syrian air force, which President Obama fortunately repeatedly rejected.
In September 2016, that incentive to use force had more serious consequences. The U.S. Air Force Central Command Combined Air Operations Center at Al-Udeid Airbase in Qatar ordered an airstrike that killed dozens of Syrian Army troops at Deir Ezzor. The decision for the airstrike was said to have been a mistake, but it was no secret that Defense Secretary Ashton Carter had strongly opposed the ceasefire, and an investigation into the bombing found irregularities suggesting it was not accidental.
Furthermore, any U.S. hesitation about withdrawing from its bases in the Gulf states would prolong a serious problem in policy toward the region: U.S. interests in maintaining its access to bases has given host countries political leverage to leave them free to pursue policies that were clearly contrary to fundamental U.S. interests in regard to both suppression of popular demands for democratic rights and support for terrorism.
It has now long been forgotten that in 2011, the Obama administration initially condemned the brutal suppression of Bahraini Shi’a protests demanding fair representation in the fledgeling legislature of the royal government. But, as Robert Gates — who was Obama’s Defense Secretary at the time — chronicled in his memoir, the Obama administration quickly backed off after the Saudis, who exercise tight control over the government of Bahrain, made it clear the U.S. would lose its access to the naval base at Manama.
The Obama administration faced a similar dilemma when it discovered in 2013 that its Qatari allies were providing military assistance to al Qaeda fighters in Syria. The National Security Council proposed a mild form of pressure on Qatar by withdrawing a squadron of U.S. fighter planes from the Al Udeid base, but that was vetoed because of fear of threatening U.S. access to the base.
The Quincy Institute paper suggests that the United States should serve as “balancer from a distance only when balancing is required.” As long as that concept is understood as excluding an effort to maintain a naval presence in Bahrain, it would be a major step toward precluding further efforts to intervene in the region’s conflicts. And It would require firm opposition to the decided preference of the U.S. military and the national security elite for maintaining the naval base at Manama, Bahrain, which has been accepted by some who embrace the “offshore balancing option.”
A key political argument for a prompt and complete military withdrawal from the region is to recall that throughout the entire Cold War period, the only long-term stationing of U.S. military personnel and assets in the Middle East was about 100 sailors and four ships at a very small naval facility in Bahrain. That remarkable fact was the consequence of broad agreement among specialists on the region over more than four decades that stationing troops in the Arab world should be avoided altogether, because it is likely to create instability both in the country where they might be stationed and in the region as a whole.
That rule was first breached after the first Gulf War when then Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney immediately began preparing for future U.S. wars in the region. The subsequent experience of policy in the Middle East that continued to violate that fundamental principle has proven over and over again the folly of ignoring it. Those in the national security elite who now call for continuing to disregard the lesson of the recent past should bear a very heavy political burden in doing so. And the Quincy institute should be out in front in posing a clear choice between those two alternatives.
*
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 government has been caught out lying about evidence on the killing of civilians in Afghanistan by the elite Special Air Service (SAS).
Three years into a civil case in the High Court brought by Saiffulah Yar into the deaths of four family members at the hand of the SAS, the Ministry of Defence (MoD) has finally handed over a tranche of e-mails and documents revealing official concerns about the killing of Afghan civilians. The MoD previously indicated it had no such documents.
The documents, written by SAS officers and military personnel, provide evidence of war crimes. They show that while the government claimed that there was no credible evidence about these events, the evidence had been sitting in Whitehall.
It is a damning confirmation of the criminality of the 2001 US-led invasion and occupation of Afghanistan that has led to more than 175,000 deaths, hundreds of thousands of wounded, and millions forced from their homes.
The intervention in Afghanistan, planned well in advance of the bombing of the twin towers in New York in 2001, was not launched to prosecute a “war on terrorism” but rather to project US military power into Central and South Asia. The US was intent on seizing control of a country bordering on the oil-rich former Soviet republics of the Caspian Basin, as well as China. The UK joined as a willing partner on behalf of its own oil corporations in this criminal venture.
The High Court has now ordered Ben Wallace, the Secretary of State for Defence, to explain why the ministry withheld evidence suggesting SAS soldiers executed 33 civilians in Afghanistan in early 2011. He has until November to reply. The MoD claimed it was not new evidence, as it had been reviewed by the official inquiry—Operation Northmoor—into allegations of civilian killings.
Saifullah brought the case against the MoD to discover what happened to his family and whether the case had been thoroughly investigated by the British authorities. His father, two brothers, and a cousin were killed during a raid on his family’s home in Qala-e-Bost, east of Lashkar Gah in Helmand province in southern Afghanistan, under British occupation in 2011.
After the raid, Saifullah, who was 16 at the time, found his father, Haji Abdul Kaliq, 55, two brothers, Sadam, 23, and Atullah, 25, and a cousin shot dead. One of his brothers and his father had been handcuffed and hooded before being shot as they lay face down on the ground. Royal Military Police (RMP) officers had arrived at his family’s compound by helicopter and handcuffed and fingerprinted him, along with the other male members of his family, before he was taken to a barn with the women and children, where they were guarded by soldiers during the raid. He denies that his family had any weapons or were connected to the Taliban, the ostensible cause of the raid.
According to the 1977 Geneva Conventions, shooting civilians is only lawful if they are participating directly in hostilities. With no precise definition of “direct participation,” civilians are expected to be given the benefit of the doubt. Under UK domestic law, which is applicable to the armed forces, a soldier can use force to defend him/herself and others, including lethal force, only provided it is reasonable in the circumstances.
The MoD had previously maintained that it was unaware of any complaint about the raid until the family launched a legal case in 2013. But six years later, it transpired that the Royal Military Police (RMP) had interviewed 54 soldiers involved in the operation leading up to the raid on Saifullah’s family home, with the government’s lawyers claiming that none of those involved could remember very much about the operation.
The documents, first revealed by BBC TV’s Panorama and the Sunday Times, tell a different story. They confirm claims that the government covered up dozens of allegations—including by UK soldiers—of the killing of innocent civilians in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Philip Alston, the former UN Special Rapporteur on executions, told Panorama,“ I have no doubt that overall many of the allegations [of innocent people being killed] are justified, and that we can conclude that a large number of civilians were killed in night raids, totally unjustifiably.”
One of the e-mails, sent by an SAS officer the morning after the raid, described it as “the latest massacre!” and added, “I’ve heard a couple of rumours.” Another document revealed that there had been a secret review of suspicious killings and a string of related incidents in which the SAS had killed fighting-age men, often during a search of premises, allegedly because they had picked up a weapon.
According to the review that covered the first quarter of 2011, 23 people were killed and 10 guns were recovered in three operations. It was clear a senior officer examining the official reports filed about the SAS’s night raids was sceptical of their veracity, remarking on their similarity in that the detained men suddenly grabbed a weapon. He found at least five separate incidents where more people were killed than weapons were recovered. Taken together, this led him to conclude, “In my view there is enough here to convince me that we are getting some things wrong, right now.”
One SAS commander even wrote to London warning there was “possibly a deliberate policy” and that the SAS troops had potentially strayed into “indefensible behaviour” that could amount to being “criminal.”
His concern was that the killings were jeopardising the support of Afghan forces, which were refusing to accompany the British on night raids, and “put[ting] at risk the [redacted] transition plan and more importantly the prospects of enduring UK influence” in Afghanistan.
While the RMP had launched an investigation called Operation Northmoor into 657 allegations of abuse, mistreatment, and killings, including into the deaths of Saifullah’s family members, at the hands of British forces, the government closed it down in 2017. Once again, a three-year-long official probe, costing at least £10 million, failed to result in a single prosecution.
The corporate media had gone into overdrive, branding the investigations as a witch-hunt. The MoD filed complaints against the lawyers bringing civil suits against it, including against Saifullah’s lawyer Leigh Day. Leigh Day was cleared of wrongdoing after a six-week tribunal in September 2017.
In March, the government introduced legislation proposing a five-year limit on prosecutions for soldiers serving outside the UK. With its “presumption against prosecution” that gives the green light to future war crimes, including the mass murder of civilians, the military will now be above the law.
It was WikiLeaks publisher and journalist Julian Assange who, by publishing the Afghan war logs in 2010, a vast trove of leaked US military documents, first brought to the world’s attention evidence of the criminality of a war that has now lasted 19 years. The Afghan war logs exposed the myth that the occupation of Afghanistan was a “good war,” supposedly waged to defeat terrorism, extend democracy, and protect women’s rights. They revealed the mass killings of civilians by both US and UK forces, detailing at least 21 occasions when British troops opened fire on civilians.
It is not just those soldiers who perpetrated these crimes on behalf of British imperialism that have escaped punishment. The guilty include those at the top of the political and military ladder that planned and executed this criminal war, even as they plot new crimes, including catastrophic conflicts with nuclear-armed powers such as China and Russia.
Instead, the only two people who have faced criminal repercussions are those who reported the crimes: Chelsea Manning, who has endured a decade of persecution, and Julian Assange, who is imprisoned in Britain’s maximum-security Belmarsh Prison awaiting court hearings for his extradition to the US where he faces 175 years of imprisonment under the Espionage Act. The exposures of the horrors of both the Afghan and Iraq wars earned Assange the undying hatred of Britain’s political establishment, which is why they have hounded, intimidated, tortured and imprisoned him.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
This article was originally published in 2012, on the 67th anniversary of the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
August 6, 9, 2012 was the 67th anniversary of the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the whole truth of which has been heavily censored and mythologized starting with the news of the event that created understandable joy because of the end of that awful war.
Hundreds of millions of Americans took in, as gospel truth, the heavily edited stories about the end of the war. To the average American, the war’s end was such a relief that there was no questioning. For the soldiers who were particularly war-weary, no moral questions were raised regarding the justification of their use.
The immediate history was written by the victors, of course, with no balancing input from the losing side. But, several decades later, after intensive research by unbiased historians, we now know that the patriotic narrative contained a lot of false information, often orchestrated by war-justifying militarists – starting with General Douglas MacArthur. MacArthur, aka “the American Caesar”, successfully imposed a virtual total censorship of what really happened at Ground Zero. One of his first acts after taking over as viceroy of Japan was to confiscate and/or destroy all the unpleasant photographic evidence documenting the horrors of the atomic bombings.
Back in 1995, the Smithsonian Institute was preparing to correct the pseudo-patriotic myths by staging an honest, historically-accurate 50th anniversary display exploring all sides of the atomic bombings. This provoked serious right-wing reactionary outrage from veterans groups and other “patriot” groups (including Newt Gingrich’s GOP-dominated Congress) the Smithsonian felt compelled to remove all of the contextually important aspects of the story, especially the bomb-related civilian atrocity stories. So again we had another example of powerful politically-motivated groups that falsified history because of a fear that “unpatriotic” truths, albeit historical, would contradict their deeply-held beliefs – and intolerable psychological situation for many blindered superpatriots.
The Okinawa bloodbath could have been avoided
The Smithsonian historians did have a gun to their heads, of course, but in the melee, the mainstream media – and their easily brain-washable consumers of propaganda – ignored a vital historical point. And that is this: the war could have ended as early as the spring of 1945 without the August atomic bombings, and therefore there could have been averted the 3 month bloody battle of Okinawa that resulted in the deaths of thousands of American Marines with tens of thousands of Japanese military casualties and uncounted thousands of Okinawan civilian casualties.
In addition, if the efforts had succeeded at ending the war via early Japanese efforts for an armistice, there would have been no need for the atomic bombs nor for an American land invasion – the basis of the subsequent propaganda campaign that retroactively justified the use of the bombs.
President Truman, was fully aware of Japan’s search for ways to honorably surrender months before the fateful order to incinerate, without warning, the defenseless women, children and elderly people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, who had not been given a choice by their militarist, fascist government about going to war..
That top-secret intelligence data, de-classified in the 1980s, showed that the contingency plans for a two-stage US invasion of the mainland (the first one no sooner than November 1, 1945 and the second one in the spring of 1946) would have been unnecessary.
Japan was working on peace negotiations through its Moscow ambassador as early as April of 1945 when the battle of Okinawa was just starting. Harry Hopkins, President Truman’s close advisor, was aware of Japan’s desire for an armistice. He cabled the president from Moscow, saying: “Japan is doomed and the Japanese know it. Peace feelers are being put out by certain elements in Japan.”
Truman’s team knew of these and other developments because the US had broken the Japanese code years earlier, and US intelligence was intercepting all of Japan’s military and diplomatic messages. On July 13, 1945, Foreign Minister Togo said: “Unconditional surrender (giving up all sovereignty, thereby deposing Hirohito, the Emperor god) is the only obstacle to peace.”
What did Truman know and when did he know it?
Since Truman and his advisors knew about these efforts, the war could have ended through diplomacy, first with a cease-fire and then a negotiated peace, by simply conceding a post-war figurehead position for the emperor Hirohito – who was regarded as a deity in Japan. That reasonable concession was – seemingly illogically – refused by the US in their demands for “unconditional surrender”, which was initially demanded at the 1943 Casablanca Conference between Roosevelt and Churchill and reiterated at the Potsdam Conference (July 1945) between Truman, Churchill and Stalin.
When General Douglas MacArthur heard about the demand for unconditional surrender, he was appalled. He recommended dropping that demand to facilitate the process of ending the war peacefully. William Manchester, in his biography of MacArthur, American Caesar, wrote: “Had the General’s advice been followed, the resort to atomic weapons at Hiroshima and Nagasaki might have been unnecessary.”
Even Secretary of War Henry Stimson, said: “the true question was not whether surrender could have been achieved without the use of the bomb but whether a different diplomatic and military course would have led to an earlier surrender. A large segment of the Japanese cabinet was ready in the spring of 1945 to accept substantially the same terms as those finally agreed on.” In other words, Stimson felt that the US prolonged the war, including the battle for Okinawa, and could have made using the bombs unnecessary if it had engaged in honest negotiations.
Shortly after WWII, military analyst Hanson Baldwin wrote: “The Japanese, in a military sense, were in a hopeless strategic situation by the time the Potsdam Declaration (insisting on Japan’s unconditional surrender) was made.”
Admiral William Leahy, top military aide to President Truman, said in his war memoirs, I Was There: “It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons. My own feeling is that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages.”
And General Dwight D. Eisenhower, in a personal visit to President Truman a couple of weeks before the bombings, urged him not to use the atomic bombs. Eisenhower said: “It wasn’t necessary to hit them with that awful thing . . . to use the atomic bomb, to kill and terrorize civilians, without even attempting [negotiations], was a double crime.”
After the bombings of August 6 and 9, the “unconditional” surrender terms were quietly dropped
Ironically – and tragically – after the war ended, the emperor was allowed to remain in place as spiritual head of Japan, the very condition that made the Japanese leadership refuse to accept the humiliating “unconditional surrender” terms.
So the two essential questions that need answering (to figure out what was going on behind the scenes) are these: 1) Why did the US refuse to accept Japan’s only concession concerning their surrender (Japan’s ability to retain their emperor) and 2) with the end of the war in the Pacific already a certainty why were the bombs still used?
The factors leading up to the decision to use the bombs
Scholars have determined that there were a number of factors that contributed to Truman’s decision to use the bombs.
1) The US had made a huge investment in time, mind and money (a massive 2 billion in 1940 dollars) to produce three bombs, and there was no inclination – and no guts – to stop the momentum.
2) The US military and political leadership – not to mention most war-weary Americans – had a tremendous appetite for revenge because of the surprise attack at Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941. Of course, mercy isn’t a consideration for any wartime military force, and that includes the US military. The only factor to be considered was ending the war by any means necessary, no matter what methods are used. So, in the elation of the end-of-war moment, the public asked no questions and no explanations were demanded by the relieved citizens who quite willingly accepted the propaganda that justified the hideous end.
National security typically allows – indeed, demands – stealing, cheating and lying about what really happens at the ground zeroes of history. The absurd old saying that “all’s fair in love and war” applies most emphatically to war.
3) The fissionable material in Hiroshima’s bomb was uranium and Nagasaki’s was plutonium. Scientific curiosity about the differences between the two weapons was a significant factor that pushed the project to its completion. The Manhattan Project scientists and the US Army director of the project, General Leslie Groves, wanted answers to a multitude of questions raised by the project, including “what would happen if an entire city was leveled by a single nuclear bomb?” The decision to use both bombs had been made well in advance of August 1945. Harry Truman did not specifically order the bombing of Nagasaki.
The three-day interval between the two bombs was unconscionably short. Japan’s communications and transportation capabilities were in shambles, and no one, either the US military or the Japanese high command, fully understood what had happened at Hiroshima, particularly the short-term or long-term after effects of the radiation. The Manhattan Project was so top secret that even MacArthur had been kept out of the loop until a few days before Hiroshima was reduced to ashes.
4) The Soviet Union had proclaimed its intent to enter the war with Japan 90 days after V-E Day (Victory in Europe Day, May 8, 1945), which would have been Aug. 8, two days after Hiroshima was bombed. Indeed, our Russian allies did declare war on Japan on August 8 and was advancing eastward across Manchuria, eager to reclaim territories lost to Japan in the 1904-05 Russo-Japanese War. The US didn’t want Japan surrendering to Russia (soon to be the only other superpower and a future enemy) so the first nuclear threat “messages” of the Cold War were “sent”, loud and clear.
Russia indeed received far less of the spoils of war than they had hoped for, and the two superpowers were instantly and deeply mired in the arms-race stalemate that eventually resulted in their mutual moral (and fiscal) bankruptcies that occurred a generation or two later.
The reality for the victims
An estimated 80,000 innocent, defenseless civilians, plus 20,000 essentially weaponless young Japanese conscripts died instantly in the Hiroshima bombing. Hundreds of thousands more suffered slow deaths from agonizing burns, radiation sickness, leukemias and virtually untreatable infections for the rest of their shortened lives; and generations of the survivor’s progeny were doomed to suffer horrific radiation-induced illnesses, cancers and premature deaths that are still on-going at this very hour. Another sobering reality that has been covered up is the fact that 12 American Navy pilots, their existence well known to US command, were instantly incinerated in the Hiroshima jail on August 6, 1945.
The 75,000 victims who died in the huge fireball at Nagasaki on August 9 were virtually all civilians, except for the inhabitants of an allied POW camp near Nagasaki’s ground zero. They were instantly liquefied, carbonized and/or vaporized by an experimental weapon of mass destruction that was executed by obedient, unaware scientists and soldiers, and blessed by Christian military chaplains who were just doing their duty. The War Dept. knew of the existence of the Nagasaki POWs and, when reminded of that fact before the B-29 fleet embarked on the mission, simply replied: “Targets previously assigned for Centerboard (code name for the Kokura/Nagasaki mission) remain unchanged.”
So the official War Department.National Security State-approved version of the end of the war in the Pacific contained a new batch of myths that took their places among the long lists of myths by which nations make war. And such half-truth versions are still standard operating procedure that are continuously fed to us by the corporate, military, political and media opinion leaders that are the war-makers and war profiteers of the world.
The well-honed propaganda of the war machine manufactures glory out of inglorious gruesomeness, as we have witnessed in the censored reportage of the US military invasions and occupations of sovereign nations like North Korea, Iran, Viet Nam, Laos, Cambodia, Lebanon, Granada, Panama, the Philippines, Chile, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Guatemala, Honduras, Haiti, Colombia, Kuwait, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc, etc. And this list doesn’t even start to uncover the uncountable Pentagon/CIA covert operations and assassination plots in the rest of the known world, where as many as150 nations have been bribed – or threatened – to host, usually against the population’s will, American military and CIA bases, secret torture (euphemistically called “rendition”) sites and other covert operations.
But somehow most of us Americans still hang on to a shaky “my country right or wrong” patriotism, desperately wanting to believe the cunningly-orchestrated myths that say that the war-profiteering 1%, the exploitive ruling elite and the ChickenHawk politicians, military leaders and media talking heads that are in their employ, only work for peace, justice, equality, liberty and spreading democracy, all the while being blind to the fact that America has historically supported right-wing fascist dictatorships that make the world unsafe for democracy all the while ensuring easy access for vulture capitalists, high finance, multinational corporations and other exploiters to be able to do their dirty work.
While it is true that the US military has faced down the occasional despot (usually the ones who won’t cooperate with the “interests” of the 1%), more often than not the rationalization for going to war is the same as those of the anti-American “freedom fighters”, ”insurgents” or the other “evil empires” that are on the other side of the battle line. The justification of the atrocities of August 6 and 9, 1945 are symbolic of the brain-washing that goes on in all “total wars”, which always result in other varieties of mass human slaughter in war known as “collateral damage” and “friendly fire”.
Is it too late to resuscitate the humanitarian, peace-loving America?
It might already be too late to rescue and resuscitate the humanitarian, peace-loving America that we used to know and love. It might be too late to effectively confront the corporate hijacking of liberal democracy in America. It might be too late to successfully bring down the arrogant and greedy ruling elites who are selfishly exploiting the resources of the world and dragging the planet and its creatures down the road to destruction. The rolling coup d’etat of the Friendly American Fascists may already have happened.
But there is always hope. Rather than being silent about the wars that the soulless and ruthless war-mongers are provoking all over the planet (with the very willing pushes by the Pentagon, the weapons industry and their conservative lapdogs in Congress), people of conscience need to ramp up their resistance efforts and teach the whole truth of history, in spite of the painful lessons that will be revealed.
We need to start owning up to the uncountable war crimes that have been hidden from history, including the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. And then we need to go to the streets, publicly protesting and courageously refusing to cooperate with those who are transforming America into a criminal rogue nation that will eventually be targeted for its downfall by the billions of suffering victims outside our borders, just as happened to Nazi Germany and Fascist Japan.
Doing what is right for the whole of humanity for a change, rather than just doing what is profitable or advantageous for our over-privileged, over-consumptive and unsustainable American way of life, would be real honor, real patriotism and an essential start toward real peace.
*
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.
August 9th, 2020 by Institute for Middle East Understanding
First published on September 17, 2012
The Gaza massacre is part of longstanding process of Israeli crimes against humanity. This article describes one of the worst atrocities in modern Middle Eastern history committed against the people of Palestine. This article was first posted on Global Research in 2016.
***
On September 16, 1982, Christian Lebanese militiamen allied to Israel entered the Palestinian refugee camp of Shatila and the adjacent neighborhood of Sabra in Beirut under the watch of the Israeli army and began a slaughter that caused outrage around the world. Over the next day and a half, up to 3500 Palestinian and Lebanese civilians, mostly women, children, and the elderly, were murdered in one of the worst atrocities in modern Middle Eastern history. The New York Times recently published an op-ed containing new details of discussions held between Israeli and American officials before and during the massacre. They reveal how Israeli officials, led by then-Defense Minister Ariel Sharon, misled and bullied American diplomats, rebuffing their concerns about the safety of the inhabitants of Sabra and Shatila.
Lead Up
On June 6, 1982, Israel launched a massive invasion of Lebanon. It had been long planned by Israeli Defense Minister Ariel Sharon, who wanted to destroy or severely diminish the Palestine Liberation Organization, which was based in Lebanon at the time. Sharon also planned to install a puppet government headed by Israel’s right-wing Lebanese Christian Maronite allies, the Phalangist Party.
Israeli forces advanced all the way to the capital of Beirut, besieging and bombarding the western part of city, where the PLO was headquartered and the Palestinian refugee camp of Shatila and the adjacent neighborhood of Sabra are located.
Israel’s bloody weeklong assault on West Beirut in August prompted harsh international criticism, including from the administration of US President Ronald Reagan, who many accused of giving a “green light” to Israel to launch the invasion. Under a US-brokered ceasefire agreement, PLO leaders and more than 14,000 fighters were to be evacuated from the country, with the US providing written assurances for the safety of hundreds of thousands of Palestinian civilians left behind. US Marines were deployed as part of a multinational force to oversee and provide security for the evacuation.
On August 30, PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat left Beirut along with the remainder of the Palestinian fighters based in the city.
On September 10, the Marines left Beirut. Four days later, on September 14, the leader of Israel’s Phalangist allies, Bashir Gemayel, was assassinated. Gemayel had just been elected president of Lebanon by the Lebanese parliament, under the supervision of the occupying Israeli army. His death was a severe blow to Israel’s designs for the country. The following day, Israeli forces violated the ceasefire agreement, moving into and occupying West Beirut.
The Massacre
On Wednesday, September 15, the Israeli army surrounded the Palestinian refugee camp of Shatila and the adjacent neighborhood of Sabra in West Beirut. The next day, September 16, Israeli soldiers allowed about 150 Phalangist militiamen into Sabra and Shatila.
The Phalange, known for their brutality and a history of atrocities against Palestinian civilians, were bitter enemies of the PLO and its leftist and Muslim Lebanese allies during the preceding years of Lebanon’s civil war. The enraged Phalangist militiamen believed, erroneously, that Phalange leader Gemayel had been assassinated by Palestinians. He was actually killed by a Syrian agent.
Over the next day and a half, the Phalangists committed unspeakable atrocities, raping, mutilating, and murdering as many as 3500 Palestinian and Lebanese civilians, most of them women, children, and the elderly. Sharon would later claim that he could have had no way of knowing that the Phalange would harm civilians, however when US diplomats demanded to know why Israel had broken the ceasefire and entered West Beirut, Israeli army Chief of Staff Rafael Eitan justified the move saying it was “to prevent a Phalangist frenzy of revenge.” On September 15, the day before the massacre began, Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin told US envoy Morris Draper that the Israelis had to occupy West Beirut, “Otherwise, there could be pogroms.”
Almost immediately after the killing started, Israeli soldiers surrounding Sabra and Shatila became aware that civilians were being murdered, but did nothing to stop it. Instead, Israeli forces fired flares into the night sky to illuminate the darkness for the Phalangists, allowed reinforcements to enter the area on the second day of the massacre, and provided bulldozers that were used to dispose of the bodies of many of the victims.
On the second day, Friday, September 17, an Israeli journalist in Lebanon called Defense Minister Sharon to inform him of reports that a massacre was taking place in Sabra and Shatila. The journalist, Ron Ben-Yishai, later recalled:
‘I found [Sharon] at home sleeping. He woke up and I told him “Listen, there are stories about killings and massacres in the camps. A lot of our officers know about it and tell me about it, and if they know it, the whole world will know about it. You can still stop it.” I didn’t know that the massacre actually started 24 hours earlier. I thought it started only then and I said to him “Look, we still have time to stop it. Do something about it.” He didn’t react.”‘
On Friday afternoon, almost 24 hours after the killing began, Eitan met with Phalangist representatives. According to notestaken by an Israeli intelligence officer present: “[Eitan] expressed his positive impression received from the statement by the Phalangist forces and their behavior in the field,” telling them to continue “mopping up the empty camps south of Fakahani until tomorrow at 5:00 a.m., at which time they must stop their action due to American pressure.”
On Saturday, American Envoy Morris Draper, sent a furious message to Sharon stating:
‘You must stop the massacres. They are obscene. I have an officer in the camp counting the bodies. You ought to be ashamed. The situation is rotten and terrible. They are killing children. You are in absolute control of the area, and therefore responsible for the area.’
The Phalangists finally left the area at around 8 o’clock Saturday morning, taking many of the surviving men with them for interrogation at a soccer stadium. The interrogations were carried out with Israeli intelligence agents, who handed many of the captives back to the Phalange. Some of the men returned to the Phalange were later found executed.
About an hour after the Phalangists departed Sabra and Shatila, the first journalists arrived on the scene and the first reports of what transpired began to reach the outside world.
Casualty Figures
Thirty years later, there is still no accurate total for the number of people killed in the massacre. Many of the victims were buried in mass graves by the Phalange and there has been no political will on the part of Lebanese authorities to investigate.
An official Israeli investigation, the Kahan Commission, concluded that between 700 and 800 people were killed, based on the assessment of Israeli military intelligence.
An investigation by Beirut-based British journalist Robert Fisk, who was one of the first people on the scene after the massacre ended, concluded that The Palestinian Red Crescent put the number of dead at more than 2000.
Following international outrage, the Israeli government established a committee of inquiry, the Kahan Commission. Its investigation found that Defense Minister Sharon bore “personal responsibility” for the massacre, and recommended that he be removed from office. Although Prime Minister Begin removed him from his post as defense minister, Sharon remained in cabinet as a minister without portfolio. He would go on to hold numerous other cabinet positions in subsequent Israeli governments, including foreign minister during Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s first term in office. Nearly 20 years later, in March 2001, Sharon was elected prime minister of Israel.
In June 2001, lawyers for 23 survivors of the massacre initiated legal proceedings against Sharon in a Belgian court, under a law allowing people to be prosecuted for war crimes committed anywhere in the world.
In January 2002, Phalangist leader and chief liaison to Israel during the 1982 invasion, Elie Hobeika, was killed by a car bomb in Beirut. Hobeika led the Phalangist militiamen responsible for the massacre, and had announced that he was prepared to testify against Sharon, who was then prime minister of Israel, at a possible war crimes trial in Belgium. Hobeika’s killers were never found.
In June 2002, a panel of Belgian judges dismissed war crimes charges against Sharon because he wasn’t present in the country to stand trial.
In January 2006, Sharon suffered a massive stroke. He remains in a coma on life support.
The United States
For the United States, which had guaranteed the safety of civilians left behind after the PLO departed, the massacre was a deep embarrassment, causing immense damage to its reputation in the region. The fact that US Secretary of State Alexander Haig was believed by many to have given Israel a “green light” to invade Lebanon compounded the damage.
In the wake of the massacre, President Reagan sent the Marines back to Lebanon. Just over a year later, 241 American servicemen would be killed when two massive truck bombs destroyed their barracks in Beirut, leading Reagan to withdraw US forces for good.
The Palestinians
For Palestinians, the Sabra and Shatila massacre was and remains a traumatic event, commemorated annually. Many survivors continue to live in Sabra and Shatila, struggling to eke out a living and haunted by their memories of the slaughter. To this day, no one has faced justice for the crimes that took place.
For Palestinians, the Sabra and Shatila massacre serves as a powerful and tragic reminder of the vulnerable situation of millions of stateless Palestinians, and the dangers that they continue to face across the region, and around the world.
Iranian-backed militias and the Syrian National Defense Forces (NDF) have launched a joint security operation against ISIS cells in the area between the towns of al-Mayadin and al-Bukamal, on the western bank of the Euphrates. According to pro-government sources, hundreds of fighters and 120 military vehicles are involved. Liwa Fatemiyoun, which is funded, trained, and equipped by the Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, is reportedly leading the operation.
Pro-government forces once again resumed active anti-ISIS efforts following another increase of ISIS attacks in the desert area. According to pro-government sources, on August 6, the terrorists attacked positions and checkpoints of the Syrian Arab Army and the National Defense Forces around the town of Jundya. Government forces repelled the attack after several hours of heavy clashes. On August 4, ISIS terrorists stormed a Syrian Army position near the town of Jub Abyad. The previous attack, on August 1, also happened in the countryside of Deir Ezzor killing at least 2 NDF members and injuring several others.
On August 6, a combat drone of the Turkish Armed Forces struck an electric cable factory in the district of Qanat al-Suis, east of the city of al-Qamishli in the province of al-Hasakah. The targeted factory reportedly employs dozens of locals and produces only civilian products. At least one civilian was severely injured in the strike, which also caused material damage.
A day earlier, on August 5, Turkish artillery strikes killed at least 2 members of the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) near the towns of Ayn Issa and Sida. While Turkish-backed forces and the SDF do not conduct active offensive actions against each other, they regularly engage each other in firefights and artillery duels.
The security situation continues to deteriorate in the southern part of the Idlib de-escalation zone. Since August 5, clashes between the Syrian Army and Turkish-backed militants, mostly Hayat Tahrir al-Sham, have been ongoing in northern Lattakia and northwestern Hama. This significantly intensified on the evening August 6 in the area of the al-Kurd Mountian. Army troops reportedly tried to advance towards al-Hadadah hill, but their attack was repelled. According to pro-militant sources, at least 9 Syrian soldiers and 5 militants were killed in the clashes.
The London-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights also claimed that several Russian service members were injured in militant artillery strikes near the village of Kinsabba. If this report is confirmed, it may finally force the Russian Aerospace Forces and special operations units to provide more active assistance to the Syrian Army in its current standoff with the terrorists. This support will likely guarantee success in the field for pro-government forces, but at the same time it will lead to a new round of tension with Turkey, which actively protects Idlib radicals. Therefore, a new round of escalation in Greater Idlib still requires some large incident that would force the main backers of the warrying sides to switch from mostly diplomatic efforts to direct military actions.
*
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 sonic blast at the Port of Beirut on August 4 produced a huge white mushroom cloud that enveloped the port and then rose into the evening sky just after 6 pm. However, the cloud of confusion and disbelief still fogs the minds of the Lebanese people, who demand answers and accountability.
President Trump’s favorite news source, “Fox News”, falsely reported that the Port of Beirut was controlled by Hezbollah, the Lebanese political party and resistance movement. Hassan Koraytem is the General Manager of the Port Authority of Beirut, and a member of former Prime Minister Saad Hariri’s “Future Party”, which controls access to the Port. During the street protests which rocked Beirut from October 2019, and continued until the COVID-19 lockdown began, fireworks were used extensively as a weapon directed against the police and security forces, and it was reported that the “Future Party” had distributed the fireworks. The “Future Party” is opposed to Hezbollah, and is aligned with the US and Saudi Arabia.
On August 3, the Israeli Defense Forces had announced that it had suspected Hezbollah of an attempted operation on the Israeli border, and PM Netanyahu had threatened Hezbollah with retaliation.
United States Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s 2019 meetings in Lebanon, which included sessions with President Michel Aoun and the then Prime Minister Saad Hariri, were for the express purpose to denounce Hezbollah and its allies in the government. Pompeo’s trip was seen as appeasement for Israel.
“Lebanon and the Lebanese people face a choice: bravely move forward as an independent and proud nation or allow the dark ambitions of Iran and Hezbollah to dictate your future,” Pompeo said.
The Foreign Minister, Gebran Bassil, who is an ally of Hezbollah, countered Pompeo saying,
“For us, Hezbollah is a Lebanese party, not terrorists. Its members of parliament were elected by the Lebanese people, with high popular support.”
On August 7 in a televised speech, Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah denied claims that the armed group had any weapons stored at the warehouse.
“We have nothing in the port: not an arms depot, nor a missile depot nor missiles nor rifles nor bombs nor bullets nor ammonium nitrate,” Nasrallah said. He called for accountability and the need for a just and transparent investigation.
“First, how the explosive material entered and was stored, second whether the explosion was a result of negligence or an accident, and third the possibility that there was external interference.”
On April 28, 2012, the Lebanese Navy seized three containers of weapons destined for the Syrian terrorists aboard the “Letfallah II”. The load consisted of heavy machine guns, shells, rockets, rocket launchers, and explosives loaded in Libya, and had made a port call at Alexandria, but was seized by Lebanese authorities on its way to Tripoli, Lebanon. Labeling on one box said it contained fragmentation explosives, and one was marked Tripoli/Benghazi, Libya. Three containers of weapons were taken to the Port of Beirut while under military and helicopter escort.
On May 4, 2012, a military prosecutor Judge indicted 21 people, including customs agents and crew members of the “Letfallah II”, and they were charged with buying and shipping large quantities of weapons, munitions and explosive supplies from Libya to Lebanon and with forming an evil group, and with the intention of carrying out terrorist acts by means of these weapons. The Syrian ambassador to Lebanon, Ali Abdel Karim Ali, accused Qatar and Saudi Arabia of involvement.
Youssef Shehadeh, an employee at the Port of Beirut, reported his first-hand account that the explosion of August 4 involved the Letfallah II, which had been at berth 10, and near to warehouse 12, which was home to the 2,700 tons of ammonium nitrate.
Boris Prokoshev, the former captain of the ship MV Rhosus that brought almost 3,000 tons of ammonium nitrate to Beirut, recalled he started on September 23, 2013, from the port of Batumi in Georgia on the way to Mozambique and reached the port of Beirut to take on several pieces of heavy machinery; however, the machinery proved too heavy to load, and the ship was impounded by the Lebanese authorities for failing to pay port fees, and never left the port again.
WHO spokesman told the UN that containers with thousands of personal protection equipment (PPE) items used to prevent the spread of COVID-19 have also been destroyed in the Port blast, which also wiped out 500 beds from local hospitals.
The US has pledged over $17 million in initial disaster aid for Lebanon, according to the US embassy. The European Union announced the release of 33 million euros ($39m) in emergency aid to Lebanon.
Russian military expert Viktor Morahofski raised doubt as to the exact amount of ammonium nitrate present in the explosion. He estimated about 300 tons had exploded because nearly 3,000 tons would have leveled the city. If his estimate is correct, it begs the question: who had been selling off the ammonium nitrate stored between 2014 to 2020, and to whom?
*
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.
Four days after the Beirut Blast of 4th August 2020, the Lebanese president, Michel Aoun, has attempted to explain what caused the largest explosion since the end of the Second World War. He attributes it to either the accidental ignition of 2750 tons of Ammonium Nitrate (AN) stored in a warehouse at Beirut port or a planned attack by some external entity. There is maybe a nexus between the two causes.
If the blast was an accident, its impact has been devastating. More than a 160 people have died so far and at least 6000 have been injured. Most observers agree that the storage of the fertilizer did not adhere to safety procedures. Negligence and incompetence appear to have scarred the 6 year storage of the AN. Besides, it is alleged that fireworks were also stored close to the warehouse recently.
A number of officials connected to the port and customs have been arrested. The elected government made up largely of representatives from the Shia and Christian communities is determined to show that it will not tolerate gross dereliction of duty and ineptitude. At the same time it is aware that it should not scapegoat any individual or group in order to protect the real culprits behind the blast.
It is quite conceivable that the real culprits are linked to the second likely cause — a planned attack. This theory which has different variations has been advanced by some respected commentators. One such variation by the French writer, Thierry Meyssan argues that “Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu authorized a strike against a Hezbollah arms depot using a new weapon that has been tested for seven months in Syria.” The weapon which “is a missile with a tactical nuclear component in its warhead – causes a smoke mushroom characteristic of nuclear weapons “ but “is obviously not an atomic bomb in the strategic sense. “It has also been deployed against Iranian military vessels in the Persian Gulf
Israel has of course denied that it was behind the Beirut blast. The Hezbollah leader, Hassan Nasrallah, has also insisted that his group has no arms depot at the Beirut port. In this regard it should be noted that it was Netanyahu who in a speech at the UN General Assembly on 27 September 2018 alluded to alleged Hezbollah arms at a warehouse in Beirut port. The allegation has never been proven.
This is why there has to be an impartial inquiry into the Beirut Blast of 4th August President Aoun and the Hezbollah are against internationalizing the inquiry. They fear that given US and Western influence within the international system such an inquiry will be manipulated to exonerate Israel. A way out of this situation would be for the UN Secretary-General Antonio Gutteres to establish a small Committee of Inquiry comprising a representative each from the US, France, China and Russia with the UNSG as the chair whose main objective would be to determine who was responsible for the blast. The Committee will report its findings directly to the UN General Assembly.
The Committee should look deeply at the two causes which President Aoun referred to. In examining the second possibility— an external attack — the Committee one hopes will have the courage and the principles to reveal why Lebanon has been under tremendous pressure in the last few months, both economic and political, aimed at emasculating the government in Beirut and bringing about a regime change that will benefit Israel and Western interests
Without such an understanding of the geopolitical forces at work in the region where Lebanon is located, it will not be possible to fathom why the Beirut Blast occurred.
*
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.
Today, August 9, 2020, we commemorate the 7th anniversary of the bombing of Nagasaki.
This article was first published by Global Research in August 2013 as a commemoration of the egregious lie on the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. See article below. (minor updates)
73 years ago, at 11:02 am on August 9th, 1945, an all-Christian bomber crew dropped a plutonium bomb, on Nagasaki, Japan. That bomb was the second and last atomic weapon that had as its target a civilian city. Somewhat ironically, as will be elaborated upon later in this essay, Nagasaki was the most Christian city in Japan and ground zero was the largest cathedral in the Orient.
These baptized and confirmed airmen did their job efficiently, and they accomplished the mission with military pride. There was no way that the crew could not have known that what they were participating in met the definition of an international war crime (according to the Nuremberg Principles that were very soon to be used to justify the execution of many German Nazis).
It had been only 3 days since the August 6th bomb, a uranium bomb, had decimated Hiroshima. The Nagasaki bomb was dropped amidst considerable chaos and confusion in Tokyo, where the fascist military government had been searching for months for a way to honorably end the war. The only obstacle to surrender had been the Roosevelt/Truman administration’s insistence on unconditional surrender, which meant that the Emperor Hirohito, whom the Japanese regarded as a deity, would be removed from his figurehead position in Japan – an intolerable demand for the Japanese that prolonged the war and kept Japan from surrendering months earlier.
The Russian army had declared war against Japan on August 8, hoping to regain territories lost to Japan in the disastrous Russo-Japanese war 40 years earlier, and Stalin’s army was advancing across Manchuria. Russia’s entry into the war represented a powerful incentive for Japan to end the war quickly and they much preferred surrendering to the US rather than to Russia. A quick end to the war was important to the US as well. It did not want to divide any of the spoils of war with Russia.
The Target Committee in Washington, D.C. had made a list of relatively un-damaged Japanese cities that were to be excluded from the conventional fire-bombing (using napalm) campaigns that had burned to the ground 60+ major Japanese cities during the first half of 1945. That list of protected cities included, at one time or another Hiroshima, Niigata, Kokura, Kyoto and Nagasaki. These relatively undamaged cities were off-limits from incendiary terror bombings but were to be preserved as possible targets for the new “gimmick” weapons of mass destruction.
Scientific curiosity was a motivation in choosing the targeted cities. The military and the scientists needed to know what would happen to intact buildings – and their living inhabitants – when atomic weapons were exploded overhead. Ironically, prior to August 6 and 9, the residents of Hiroshima and Nagasaki considered themselves lucky for not having been bombed as much as other cities. Little did they know.
Early in the morning of August 9, 1945, a B-29 Superfortress that had been christened Bock’s Car, took off from Tinian Island in the South Pacific, with the prayers and blessings of its Lutheran and Catholic chaplains, and headed for Kokura, the primary target. Bock’s Car’s plutonium bomb was in the bomb bay, code-named “Fat Man,” after Winston Churchill.
The only field test (blasphemously code-named “Trinity”) of a nuclear weapon had occurred just three weeks earlier (July 16, 1945) at Alamogordo, New Mexico. The molten lava rock that resulted from the heat of that blast (twice the temperature of the sun) can still found at the site today. It is called trinitite.
The reality of what had happened at Hiroshima was only slowly becoming apparent to the fascist military leaders in Tokyo. It took 2 – 3 days after Hiroshima was incinerated before Japan’s Supreme War Council was able to even partially comprehend what had happened there, to make rational decisions and to discuss again the possibility of surrender.
But it was already too late, because by the time the War Council was meeting that morning in Tokyo, Bock’s Car and the rest of the armada of B-29s was already approaching Japan – under radio silence. The dropping of the second bomb had initially been planned for August 11, but bad weather had been forecast, and the mission was moved up to August 9.
With instructions to drop the bomb only on visual sighting, Bock’s Car arrived at the primary target, but Kokura was clouded over. So after futilely circling over the city three times, there was no break in the clouds, and, running seriously low on fuel in the process, the plane headed for its secondary target, Nagasaki.
The history of Nagasaki Christianity
Nagasaki is famous in the history of Japanese Christianity. Not only was it the site of the largest catholic church in the Orient, St. Mary’s Cathedral (completed in 1917), but it also had the largest concentration of baptized Christians in all of Japan. It was the megachurch of its time, with 12,000 baptized members.
Nagasaki was the location where the legendary Jesuit missionary, Francis Xavier, established a mission church in 1549. The Christian community survived and prospered for several generations. However, soon after Xavier’s planting of the church in Japan, it became obvious to the Japanese rulers that Portuguese and Spanish commercial interests were exploiting Japan, and it didn’t take too long for all Europeans to be expelled from the country – as well as their foreign religion. All aspects of Christianity, including the new Japanese converts, became the target of brutal persecutions.
By 1600, being a Christian was a capital crime in Japan. The Japanese Christians who refused to recant of their new religion suffered torture and even crucifixions similar to the Roman persecutions in the first three centuries of Christianity. After the reign of terror was over, it appeared to all observers that Japanese Christianity was extinct.
However, 250 years later, in the 1850s, after the coercive gunboat diplomacy of Commodore Perry forced open an offshore island for American trade purposes, it was discovered that there were thousands of baptized Christians in Nagasaki, living their faith in a catacomb existence, completely unknown to the government – which immediately started another purge. But because of international pressure, the persecutions were soon stopped, and Nagasaki Christianity came up from the underground. And by 1917, with no help from the government, the growing Japanese Christian community had built the massive Urakami Cathedral, in the Urakami River district of Nagasaki.
Now it turned out, in the mystery of good and evil, that the massive Cathedral was one of two Nagasaki landmarks that the Bock’s Car bombardier had been briefed on, and looking through his bomb site 31,000 feet overhead, he identified the cathedral through a break in the clouds and ordered the drop.
At 11:02 am, during morning mass, Nagasaki Christianity was boiled, evaporated and carbonized in a scorching radioactive fireball that exploded 500 meters above the cathedral. Ground Zero was the persecuted, vibrant, surviving center of Japanese Christianity.
The Nagasaki Christian death count
Since the Cathedral was the epicenter of the blast, most Nagasaki Christians did not survive. 6000 of them died instantly, including all who were at confession that morning. Of the 12,000 church members, 8,500 died as a direct result of the bomb. Three orders of nuns and a Christian girl’s school disappeared into black smoke or chunks of charred remains Tens of thousands of innocent Shinto and Buddhist Japanese also died instantly and hundreds of thousands were mortally wounded, some of whose progeny are still in the process of slowly dying from the trans-generational malignancies and immune deficiencies caused by the deadly plutonium.
What the Japanese Imperial government could not do in over 200 years of persecution, destroy Japanese Christianity, American Christians did in 9 seconds. Even today those who are members of Christian churches in Japan represent a fraction of 1% of the population, and the average attendance at Christian worship services is 30. Surely the decimation of Nagasaki at the end of the war crippled what at one time was a thriving church.
The COVID-19 crisis at a time of deteriorating economic conditions caused what in hindsight may be known as a Greater Depression — exceeding the worst of the 1930s.
For 20 straight weeks, new claims for unemployment insurance exceeded one million.
Prior to March, the highest ever weekly total was 695,000. What’s unfolding in real time in the US is unprecedented and then some.
The Labor Department’s reported 1.2 million new filings was fake news like earlier weekly reports.
According to the Economic Policy Institute (EPI), 1.6 million US workers applied for unemployment benefits in the last week — not seasonally adjusted.
The number includes 984,000 who applied for state unemployment benefits — another 656,000 seeking Pandemic Unemployment Assistance (PUA).
In the past 20 weeks, a previously unimaginable 55 million Americans filed initial claims for unemployment benefits.
Nearly one-third of US working-age Americans currently have no jobs.
Over 30% of laid off US workers who regained employment were furloughed again because of Depression-level economic conditions at a time of zero federal jobs creation programs.
While only Cassandra excelled at predicting future events, what’s going on suggests harder than ever hard times may worsen ahead before improving at an unknown future time.
Federally approved unemployment insurance (UI) benefits of $600 weekly to eligible recipients expired at end of July.
Republicans want benefits slashed to $200 weekly, along with no financial aid to cash-strapped states, no funds for emergency workplace health and safety protections, nothing to prevent landlords from evicting jobless tenants with no ability to pay rent.
Through Thursday, Republicans and Dems failed to agree on a package of vital benefits for unemployed Americans.
According to White House chief of staff Mark Meadows, “(w)e’re still a considerable amount apart.”
Dems expressed “disappoint(ment)” over failure to resolve differences with Republicans.
Treasury Secretary Mnuchin said if stalemated talks continue, Trump will act unilaterally by executive order that surely will fall far short of what’s needed by a president who time and again showed indifference toward public health and welfare — serving privileged interests exclusively throughout his tenure.
Dems said they’ll legally challenge unilateral action by Trump to resolve major differences if he takes this step.
Both sides blame each other for impasse on major issues at a time of unprecedented US unemployment armageddon when vital aid to the needy is essential without delay.
For the past week, jobless Americans got no UI.
EPI called slashing benefits from $600 to $200 weekly, as Senate Republicans demand, “not just cruel, it’s terrible economics,” adding:
“These benefits are supporting a huge amount of spending by people who would otherwise have to cut back dramatically.”
“The spending made possible by the $400 that the Senate wants to cut is supporting 3.4 million jobs.”
“If you cut the $400, you cut those jobs.”
If (now expired) benefits are cut to $400 weekly, $1.7 million jobs will be lost.
May and June employment gains “reversed. Now is not the time to cut benefits that are supporting jobs,” EPI stressed.
GOP leadership claims that UI benefits of $600 disincentivise unemployed Americans from returning to work have no merit.
EPI called the claim “massively overblown,” adding:
“(R)igorous empirical studies show that any theoretical disincentive effect has been so minor that it cannot even be detected.”
Data show that over two-thirds of UI recipients who returned to work in May and June earned more from unemployment benefits than on-the-job pay.
Slashing benefits when most needed amounts to cruel and unusual punishment, an 8th Amendment breach.
In his second (January 1937) inaugural address to the nation, Franklin Roosevelt said the following:
“I see tens of millions of its citizens—a substantial part of its whole population—who at this very moment are denied the greater part of what the very lowest standards of today call the necessities of life.”
“I see millions of families trying to live on incomes so meager that the pall of family disaster hangs over them day by day.”
“I see millions whose daily lives in city and on farm continue under conditions labeled indecent by a so-called polite society half a century ago.”
“I see millions denied education, recreation, and the opportunity to better their lot and the lot of their children.”
“I see millions lacking the means to buy the products of farm and factory and by their poverty denying work and productiveness to many other millions.”
“I see one-third of a nation ill-housed, ill-clad, ill-nourished.”
The state of the nation today for most Americans is more dire than during the 1930s.
No FDR era alphabet soup of jobs creation programs exists to put Americans back to work, none planned by Republicans or Dems.
Will things change for the better if Biden succeeds Trump in January and if Dems control both houses of Congress?
No evidence suggests it other than perhaps some tinkering around the edges when massive relief and jobs creation programs are vitally needed to turn things around — at a time of unprecedented economic and unemployment armageddon.
What’s going on is likely to be protracted and painful for countless millions of Americans — what I call the hardest of hard times in a nation serving privileged interests exclusively, uncaring about the vast majority of ordinary people.
*
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.”
Upon reading Australia’s new defense strategy, one might think its authors believe they are surrounded by nations invaded and destroyed by China with Australia next in line.
The “threat” of China – the articles and the new defense strategy argue – requires Australia to spend billions on weapons bought from the United States and to depend more heavily on the US for Australia’s protection.
Yet in the same breath, Australia’s media openly admits that up until now, Australia’s military has spent much of its time contributing to America’s many and still-ongoing wars of aggression around the globe from Libya and Syria to Iraq and Afghanistan. Most recently, Washington has recruited Australia to help bolster its presence in the Strait of Hormuz in an effort to menace Iran as well.
In one of the above mentioned articles it’s admitted that:
For decades Australia has been quick to send troops, naval vessels and planes to help the United States wage wars on distant shores.
Despite all but admitting the US – not China – is engaged in a global campaign of armed aggression and that Australia is a willing accomplice – Australia’s new defense strategy points the finger at China as the ultimate global threat.
A likely explanation for this contradictory worldview among Australian policymakers is the possibility that deep-pocketed lobbyists from Washington still hold more sway over Australia’s political levers than Australian businesses and certainly the Australian public – and plan to collectively squeeze Australia for billions in arms sales for missiles and other weapon systems pointed at what is otherwise Australia’s largest and most important economic partner – China.
Not only does this fill up the coffers of corporations like Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, and others, but Australia’s apparently hostile posture toward China will most certainly taint relations between the two nations, creating further conflict, and requiring continued and increased weapon sales well into the future.
Should any conflict erupt between the US and China, Australia will find itself a much closer target than the US – a sacrificial pawn of sorts that will bear the full brunt and consequences of any potential US-Chinese hostilities.
Well-Timed “Cyber Attacks” Help Sell an Otherwise Unappealing Defense Strategy
The new defense strategy – long in the works – was unveiled only after a healthy dose of recent and mysterious “cyber attacks” Australian security agencies attributed with no evidence to China.
Again – the irony here is that the US has by far demonstrated itself to be as much a threat in cyberspace as it is to sovereign nations and their physical territory, and much more so than China.
Regarding Australia specifically, a 2013 Guardian article titled, “NSA considered spying on Australians ‘unilaterally’, leaked paper reveals,” would note that a:
The US National Security Agency has considered spying on Australian citizens without the knowledge or consent of the Australian intelligence organisations it partners with, according to a draft 2005 NSA directive kept secret from other countries.
The US National Security Agency (NSA) has been revealed to have compromised communications worldwide, hacked the phones of national leaders both friend and foe, infiltrated and created backdoors in Western-manufactured high tech hardware, and carried out offensive cyber attacks against nations around the globe.
There is also a growing body of evidence that suggests many attacks attributed to nations like Russia and China – like the one recently carried out against Australia – were either fabricated entirely, or in fact carried out by actors in the US itself.
But what better way is there to sell the otherwise unpopular idea of Australia buying billions of dollars of weapons from America and poisoning relations with China than to cite an alleged act of aggression from China that is nearly impossible to attribute one way or the other? The Western media’s clout has in the past and continues to be much more persuasive than fact or common sense in the short-term.
Other analysts have pointed out Australia’s new defense policy is out of touch with reality. It will also do much more to undermine Australia’s national security than underwrite it.
While it is sensible for nations to ensure they have a credible deterrence against all forms of aggression regardless of the nation of origin, Australia’s defense posture has it facing a nation clearly more interested in economics than conquest, and facing away from a nation not only openly and repeatedly carrying out aggression worldwide, but one increasingly turning on its own allies for not exhibiting enough zeal against its many and multiplying enemies.
While Australia commits billions to buying American weapons and buying into Washington’s continued and growing confrontation with China – in the end – Australia will need to pick between fading with the US economically or finally accepting China’s rise regionally and globally and Australia’s role as a partner with China rather than part of America’s “primacy” over it.
Again – the irony here is of course that the most likely threat to Australia’s national security will not be from a rising China eager to do business with Australia, but a scorned Washington seeking increasingly aggressive means to force Australia back into its traditional role of buttressing US primacy.
*
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.
Tony Cartalucci is a Bangkok-based geopolitical researcher and writer, especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook” where this article was originally published. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.
Dr. Judy Mikovits is a top U.S. scientist who has played key roles in saving millions of lives. Instead of lauding her achievements and honoring her, Western governments and their agencies have sought to destroy her.
Why? Because corruption infests Western governments. It destroys, subverts, and censors humanity-serving truths. Big Pharma and associated monopolies have captured legislatures and their agencies.
Mikovits was part of the team that created curative therapy for H-cell Leukemia.
Her award-winning PhD thesis in 1991 changed the scientific paradigm through its focus on preventing dormant viruses from being activated.
She worked under Dr F. Ruscetti who discovered one of the first cancer-causing retroviruses.
She was part of the team that isolated HIV from saliva and blood, which confirmed Luc Montagnier’s discovery of the HIV virus as a possible causative agent for AIDS. Montagnier would later win the Nobel Prize in 2008 for discovering the HIV virus.
Mikovits played a seminal role in identifying and isolating the XMRV retrovirus, and found close links between it and Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (CFS) (1). Additional studies have linked it to leukemia, prostate cancer, autoimmune disease, and Alzheimers.
Important discoveries such as those were transformative. Mikovits also discovered that the blood supply had been contaminated by dangerous retroviruses. Lab-derived animal cell cultures were contaminating vaccines and causing myriad chronic diseases, often years after the original vaccination.
It was at this point that her boss, Dr. Anthony Fauci, took steps to end her career and destroy her reputation.
Instead of declaring a National Emergency, putting a moratorium on vaccines, and addressing this discovery, with a view to saving lives, Western governments and their agencies subverted and censored the findings.
Fauci’s career continued to rise, and now he is playing a key role in the global COVID Operation against humanity, in which bad science and destructive state measures are predominant.
*
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.
Mark Taliano is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG) and the author of Voices from Syria, Global Research Publishers, 2017. Visit the author’s website at https://www.marktaliano.net where this article was originally published.
Order Mark Taliano’s Book “Voices from Syria” directly from Global Research.
Mark Taliano combines years of research with on-the-ground observations to present an informed and well-documented analysis that refutes the mainstream media narratives on Syria.
There are few more righteous sights than the paunchy US Secretary of State savaging the People’s Republic of China with his next volley on Chinese territorial aspirations. In July, Mike Pompeoreleased a statement putting any uncertain minds at ease on where Washington stood on the matter.
“We are making clear: Beijing’s claims to offshore resources across most of the South China Sea are completely unlawful, as is its campaign of bullying to control them.”
International politics, for all that confidence, rides on the stead of hypocrisy. The more vehement a condemnation regarding a course of conduct, the more likely the stead is about to turn. For all the promises of freedom of navigation and repudiation of Chinese claims to the South China Sea, the United States nurses its own questionable readings of international law. The term “rule based order” is a lovely one seemingly shorn of realpolitik (nothing of the sort), but collapses on closer inspection.
When it comes to the matter of alleged Chinese violations of maritime law in the South China Sea, odd messages bubble from the mouths of US officials on, for instance, violations of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. Pompeo speaks of preserving “peace and stability”, upholding “freedom of the seas in a manner consistent with international law, maintain the unimpeded flow of commerce” and opposing “any attempt to use coercion or force to settle disputes.” He also refers to UNCLOS, a document the United States has not ratified despite President Barack Obama’s previous plea that the Senate, were it to do so, “should help strengthen our case [against China’s actions in the South China Sea].” Smugly, Pompeo cites the ruling of the Arbitral Tribunal constituted in accordance with UNCLOS, as its finding on July 12, 2016 rejecting “the PRC’s maritime claims as having no basis in international law.”
The same can be said of the enormous air base known as Diego Garcia, located in the Chagos Archipelago in the Indian Ocean. It is worth noting that predatory behaviour was very much part of the policy towards the indigenous populace of the island, which had been a dependency of the British colony of Mauritius. In 1965, the Chagos Islands was separated from Mauritius in exchange for an “indemnity” of £3 million. What was created in its place was a legal misnomer of some nastiness: the British Indian Ocean Territory.
In 1966, the US was promised a strategic tenancy on Diego Garcia for five decades. The UK Permanent Under-Secretary promised to be “tough about this. The object of the exercise was to get some rocks which will remain ours; there will be no indigenous population except seagulls who have not yet got a Committee (the Status of Women does not cover the rights of Birds.” Very droll.
This brutal endeavour was done as part of Britain’s continued need to feel relevant in the post-colonial power game, a supposedly sagacious proxy for the projection of US power. It was also done against the spirit of decolonisation stressed in UN General Assembly Resolution 1514 (XV), which noted that “[a]ny attempt aimed at the partial or total disruption of the national unity and the territorial integrity of a country is incompatible with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations.”
The British authorities were true to their word: the indigenous population between 1967 and 1973 was forcibly relocated to Mauritius and the Seychelles, with the US paying $14 million for the effort. The way for the establishment of a military base was cleared but only after pockets of Chagossian resistance were crushed through threats and intimidation.
Analysts from the US perspective look at this situation as one forced upon the United States and find China, as tends to be the pattern these days, the catalyst of encouragement.
“The policy trigger,” writes retired Rear Admiral Michael McDevitt, “was the 1962 Sino-Indian war, when Indian Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru had pressed Washington for military assistance to India.”
The Kennedy administration obliged by sending the USS Kitty Hawk, an aircraft carrier with the express purpose of deterring China in the event of any push towards Calcutta. The analysis by McDevitt is bloodless, mechanical, and makes no mention of the Chagossians. Absent are US methods of terroristic pummelling. What he does describe is the indispensable nature of the base, “perfect … for US Navy maritime patrol aircraft and especially US Air Force heavy bombers.”
These were not views shared by many members of the UN General Assembly. In June 2017, the General Assembly, in resolution 71/292, requested an advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice on whether the decolonisation of Mauritius had been lawfully completed with regards the separation of the Chagos Archipelago. A second question also arose on the legal consequences of the UK’s “continued administration … of the Chagos Archipelago including with respect to the inability to implement a programme for the resettlement on the Chagos Archipelago of its nationals, in particular those of Chagossian origin”.
In its February 25, 2019 opinion, the ICJ found that “the process of decolonisation of Mauritius was not lawfully completed when that country acceded to independence”. The UK was “under an obligation to bring to an end its administration of the Chagos Archipelago as rapidly as possible.” The judges acknowledged resolution 1514 (XV) as “a defining moment in the consolidation of State practice on decolonisation” and that “[b]oth State practice and opinio juris at the relevant time confirm the customary law character of the right to territorial integrity of a non-self-governing territory as a corollary of the right to self-determination.” No evidence of approval of the practice of an administering power’s detachment of part of a non-self-governing territory, certainly for the purposes of maintaining colonial rule over it, was shown. “States have consistently emphasised that respect for the territorial integrity of a non-self-governing territory is a key element in the exercise of the right to self-determination under international law.”
The UN affirmed the 13-1 opinion in May 2019, calling upon Britain to “withdraw its colonial administration” within six months and duly acknowledge Chagos as forming “an integral part” of Mauritius. Eviction orders received that month were ignored by the British, showing that the Anglo-American reverence for the sacred “rules-based international order” can be selectively profane when it needs to be. “The United Kingdom is not in doubt about our sovereignty over the British Ocean Territory,” insistedBritain’s ambassador to the UN, Karen Pierce. The territory had never been part of Mauritius and it had “freely entered into an agreement” covering fishing rights and marine resources. The question left begging here was how the entity could lawfully enter into any arrangements with Britain over Chagos if the territory had never formed the basis of Mauritian control. The spirit of Neville Chamberlain, one approving the ceding and dividing of territory not his own, is still very much alive.
It is worth nothing that the approval of the ICJ findings, along with international law bodies in general, is very much dependent on favourability towards the great power. Playground bullies are always bound to ignore them; small states, less likely to. Just as China refuses to acknowledge the legitimacy of international judicial rulings on its maritime claims, the US and Britain refuse to acknowledge determinations regarding the status of Diego Garcia and the Chagossians. That’s the rules-based order in international relations for you.
*
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]
On 5 August, 2020, the Brazilian Supreme Court ordered President Jair Bolsonaro to institute measures aimed at protecting indigenous people from the Covid-19 pandemic. This ruling is the legal recognition of the totally disastrous anti-indigenous policies of the Bolsonaro government. Like other indigenous people living in the Peruvian jungles, eastern Bolivia, the Ecuadorian Amazon and the Colombian Amazon, Brazilian collectivities too have been disproportionately impacted by the Covid-19 pandemic. More than 23,000 members of 190 indigenous groups in the Amazon basin have been infected by the virus and all of these communities share a commonality – they suffer from structural inequalities.
According to the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UN DESA), “Indigenous peoples, in particular indigenous women and girls are often disproportionately affected by epidemics and other crises. Indigenous peoples are nearly three times as likely to be living in extreme poverty as their non-indigenous counterparts. They account for almost 19 per cent of the extreme poor”. In Latin America, more specifically, it is estimated that 43% of the 44.7 million indigenous people are poor (living on less than $5.50 a day in 2011 purchasing power parity prices (PPP))and 24% are extremely poor (living on less than $1.90 a day in 2011 PPP prices).
“Indigenous peoples in nearly all countries fall into the most “vulnerable” health category. They have significantly higher rates of communicable and non-communicable diseases than their non-indigenous counterparts, high mortality rates and lower life expectancies. Contributing factors that increase the potential for high mortality rates caused by COVID-19 in indigenous communities include mal – and undernutrition, poor access to sanitation, lack of clean water, and inadequate medical services. Additionally, indigenous peoples often experience widespread stigma and discrimination in healthcare settings such as stereotyping and a lack of quality in the care provided, thus compromising standards of care and discouraging them from accessing health care, if and when available.”
While Brazilian communities do experience the disadvantageous effects of structural inequalities, their plight has been politically amplified by the Bolsonaro administration which has accelerated extractivism during the Covid-19 pandemic. With more than 23,000 cases and 600 deaths, indigenous Brazilians are dying at a higher rate than the general population and it is estimated that they die of the virus twice as often as the non-indigenous people. Some communities, such as the Arara people, living near the Xingu river basin and the Xicrin in southwest Para state, are on the verge of extermination due to Coronavirus.
These high death rates among the indigenous population are killing knowledgeable elders, the main transmitters of indigenous culture. The recent death of the famous leader, Aritana Yawalapiti of the Yawalapiti people, on August 5, 2020, underscores the cultural loss taking place as the diffusers of traditional knowledge die and the wisdom of indigenous people gets lost.
Behind the soaring statistics on the death of indigenous people in Brazil, one can observe the unmistakable presence of Bolsonarian extractivism. The UN Special Rapporteur on the rights of indigenous peoples, José Francisco Cali Tzay, has said,
“In some countries, consultations with indigenous peoples and also environmental impact assessments are being abruptly suspended in order to force through megaprojects relating to agribusiness, mining, dams and infrastructure.”
José Francisco Cali Tzay’s statement, while not explicitly referring to Brazil, accurately describes the consequences of Bolsonarian politics.
In the Brazilian region of Rondônia, “Indigenous organizations have reported the presence of garimpeiros (illegal gold miners) and madeireiros (timber traffickers) who have used the current health crisis as a cover to intensify their profit-driven invasions in the territories where the Karipuna people lives.” Rondônia is a region where, ever since the election of Bolsonaro as the president, the National Mining Agency (ANM) has granted mining permits even for demarcated indigenous lands i.e. lands that have been legally regularized through the federal government and presidential authorization. In 2013, for example, “the Ariquemes Small-Scale Miners Cooperative (Cooperativa Mineradora dos Garimpeiros de Ariquemes or COOMINGA) obtained a small-scale gold mining permit for an area that includes part of the Uru-Eu-Wau-Wau Indigenous Territory [which was officially demarcated in 2006]. The cooperative is now the third-largest producer of tin in the country, according to the ANM’s 2018 Annual Mining Report. In 2016, the Rondônia Tin Cooperative (Cooperativa Estanífera de Rondônia) acquired a mining permit to mine cassiterite, the main tin ore, in an area that included segments of the Uru-Eu-Wau-Wau territory. The largest open-air cassiterite mine in the world is located in Ariquemes, Rondônia.”
The events in Rondônia are directly driven by the extractivist agenda of Jair Bolsonaro which glorifies anti-indigenous hatred and allows extractive capital to exploit previously protected territories. Under his administration, applications to mine on indigenous lands in Amazon have increased by 91% and 4,000 requests have been submitted for mining on 31 indigenous reserves. Moreover, the number of invasions of indigenous areas has increased from 111 in 2018 to 160 in 2019 and in July 2019, 20,000 illegal gold miners had invaded the Yanomami Park, the largest indigenous reserve in Brazil. These illegal miners were “well funded, likely by entrepreneurs, who pay workers and provide them with earthmoving equipment, supplies and airplanes. Three illegal air strips and three open-pit goldmines are in operation within the Yanomami indigenous territory.” As a natural result of the extension of extractivism into ecologically fragile areas, deforestation astronomically increased and “year-on-year deforestation of the Brazilian Amazon rose by 34% between August 2018 and July 2019, felling an area of forest about as big as Jamaica.” All the invasions have been punctuated by regular violence and according to the Human Rights Watch, “Indigenous people who have organized themselves to defend their forests—in the absence of adequate law enforcement—have been threatened, attacked, and, according to community leaders, murdered by people engaged in illegal deforestation.” In July 2019, for instance, 10-15 heavily armed men had invaded the village Yvytotõ of the Wajãpi community and killed one indigenous individual to access the gold reserves located in the village.
The ecocide, ethnocide and genocide of 2019 have continued in 2020 and in the first few weeks of the year, 5 indigenous people have been murdered due to land conflicts. Deforestation has persisted with 529 square kilometers of forest being destroyed in April, 2020, representing an increase of 171% when compared to the same month the previous year. Mining invasions, too, have progressed unabated and the Triunfo Do Xingo area, where many indigenous people live, has been witnessing the aggressive and repeated incursion of miners, cattle ranchers and other commercial actors. In June and July 2020, 3,842 fire alerts have been reported in Triunfo Do Xingo, linked to illegal land grabbing and mining activities, significantly increasing the Covid-19 risks of indigenous people whose co-infection of Covid-19 with other high-prevalence diseases can lead to high mortality rates.
Mining magnates in Brazil have been emboldened to murder indigenous people and invade ancestral lands by the Bolsonaro administration which has secured a suitable investment climate for extractivism. Through the fusion of anti-indigenist rhetoric and pro-mining policies, Bolsonaro has unleashed a war against the 900,000 indigenous people living in Brazil. In terms of rhetoric, the following statements are adequate to show how Bolsonaro has discursively activated the extermination and dispossession of indigenous people:-
(1) “The Indians do not speak our language, they do not have money, they do not have culture. They are native peoples. How did they manage to get 13% of the national territory”.
(2) “There is no indigenous territory where there aren’t minerals. Gold, tin and magnesium are in these lands, especially in the Amazon, the richest area in the world. I’m not getting into this nonsense of defending land for Indians”.
(3) “This unilateral policy of demarcating indigenous land by the Executive will cease to exist. Any reserve that I can reduce in size, I will do so. It will be a very big fight that we’re going to have with the UN”.
(4) “It’s a shame that the Brazilian cavalry hasn’t been as efficient as the Americans, who exterminated the Indians.”
In terms of policies, Bolsonaro has attempted to implement a “dream” initiative by sending a bill to the Brazilian Congress in February 2020. This bill would open Brazilian indigenous reserves to “commercial mining, oil and gas exploration, cattle ranching and agribusiness, new hydroelectric dam projects, and tourism — projects that have been legally blocked under the country’s 1988 Constitution.” Marcio Santilli, a former head of FUNAI (National Indian Foundation), the agency responsible for indigenous affairs, has said that the dream initiative will “not promote the economic development of the Indians, but guarantee the exploitation by third parties of their natural resources. It would encourage Indians to live from royalties while watching the dispossession of their lands.”
Bolsonaro’s staunch and brutal opposition to indigenous people has continued during the Covid-19 pandemic and in July 2020, the Bolsonaro government vetoed provisions of a law that entailed the government to provide disinfectants, drinking water and a guarantee of hospital beds to indigenous people amid the pandemic. Bolsonaro also “vetoed funding for the states and local governments with emergency plans for indigenous communities, as well as provisions to help give them more information on coronavirus, including greater internet access.” Along with the orchestrated genocide of indigenous population, Bolsonaro is also busy protecting illegal mining from environmental actions. On 6 August, 2020, Bolsonaro’s Defence Ministry suspended operations by the environmental protection agency Ibama against illegal miners on an indigenous reserve in Amazon.
The Defence Ministry has said that the suspension occurred on the request of the Munduruku tribe who apparently want marauding miners to steal their lands. This claim is false insofar that the Munduruku tribe have protested against illegal gold mining operations in their territories in 2019 and have promised to keep on fighting against extractive elites. In fact, a statement released by the Munduruku tribe unequivocally expressed opposition to mining and made it clear that the indigenous group will never request miners to dispossess them: “You are destroying our sacred sites and disturbing our spirit world. This is bringing diseases and death to our people. We will not accept this destruction anymore…Gold mining is dividing our people, introducing new diseases, and contaminating our people with mercury. Mining brings drugs, alcohol, weapons, and prostitution. And greed.”
At the opening of the 74th United Nations general assembly, Jair Bolsonaro has declared that he is representing “a new Brazil, resurgent after being on the brink of socialism.” Now, we can observe how Brazil, revived by Bolsonaro after the supposed curse of socialism, is slaughtering indigenous people for the penetration of extractivism into the entrails of Amazon and other protected regions. Instead of installing sanitary cordons around indigenous territories and efficiently carrying out essential Covid-19 practices – isolation, laboratory confirmation, contact tracing, efficient detection of suspected cases – Bolsonaro has called Coronavirus a “little flu” and a “cold”, denied the infection and death rates and hysterically advanced the interests of the mining sector. Instead of these anti-science and extractivist policies, a science-based and socialist response would have been much better.
In addition to the proper protection of indigenous people living in remote regions, much could have been done to alleviate the conditions of the urban indigenous population which, in the case of Brazil, constitutes half of the indigenous population. This urban population serves as an expendable reserve army of labor for capitalism and consequently, experiences high levels of inequalities in the form of informal employment and gender pay gap. The rate of informal employment for indigenous women and men is 85% and 81%, respectively, compared to 52 per cent and 51 per cent for non-indigenous women and men. Furthermore, indigenous women’s hourly earnings are less than a third of those of non-indigenous men with the same level of education. During the pandemic, it is this indigenous reserve army of labor which is experiencing exploitation along with the indigenous people living in the protected regions.
The present-day mass deaths of Brazilian indigenous people are similar to the colonial ethnocide of late fifteenth and early sixteenth century that dramatically reduced the population from 150 million before 1492 to less than 11 million 100 years later. A native commentary on the colonial conquest of Guatemala and the consequent outbreak of smallpox plague terrifyingly encapsulates the contemporary indigenous situation: “Great was the stench of the dead. After our fathers and grandfathers succumbed, half of the people fled to the fields…The mortality was terrible. Your grandfathers died…we became orphans, oh, my sons! So we became when we were young. All of us were thus. We were born to die!”
As Brazil progresses into the Covid-19 pandemic, it is necessary that Bolsonaro’s extermination campaign be stopped. Brazilian indigenous people suffer from malnutrition and other immune-suppressive conditions, thus increasing their susceptibility to Coronavirus infection. The high immunological vulnerability of indigenous communities has been compounded by Bolsonaro’s crony capitalism that allies itself with extractive elites. While the FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization) has urged “Governments to intensify protection measures to stop external farmers, settlers, private firms, industries and miners from entering indigenous peoples´ territories taking advantage of the present crisis”, Bolsonaro has clashed head-on with these organizations, opening indigenous territories for extractive robbery. But indigenous resistance to Bolsonaro and his extractive power bloc is in the offing and the statement released by the Brazil’s Indigenous People Articulation (APIB) sets the tone for the future revolt: “we remain firm, as our ancestors did, who for more than 520 years have resisted, fighting, whether for the right to territory, to overcome dictates of the dictatorship, as well as other epidemics, the landowners’ bullets or the lengthy attempt to make our cultures and ways of life invisible.”
*
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.
Yanis Iqbalis a student and freelance writer based in Aligarh, India and can be contacted at [email protected]. His articles have been published by numerous magazines and websites such as Monthly Review Online, ZNet, Institute of Latin American Studies, Green Social Thought, Weekly Worker, People’s World, LA Progressive, News and Letters Weekly, Economic and Political Weekly, Arena, Eurasia Review, Coventry University Press, Culture Matters, Dissident Voice, Countercurrents, Counterview, Hampton Institute, Ecuador Today, People’s Review, Eleventh Column, Karvaan India, Clarion India, OpEd News, The Iraq File and Portside.
There are two world-class scientists at the center of the Covid-19 hydroxychloroquine storm.
They are Dr. Didier Raoult at the IHU Medical Institute in Marseille, and Dr. Harvey Risch at Yale University.
The present article confronts a shabby injustice to Dr. Risch.
On August 4, 2020, a group of 24 Yale professors signed a public letter of “grave concern,” and posted it to medium.com. It opens with:
“We write with grave concern that too many are being distracted by the ardent advocacy of our Yale colleague, Dr. Harvey Risch, to promote the assertion that hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) when given with antibiotics is effective in treating COVID-19, in particular as an early therapeutic intervention for the disease.”[i]
Dr. Harvey Risch is a distinguished professor of epidemiologic methods in both the Yale School of Medicine and the Yale School of Public Health. Over his career, he has been cited 40,000 times in Google Scholar, and his h-index (89) makes him “a truly unique individual.”[ii]
Because Dr. Risch’s specialty is cancer epidemiology, the Yale professors object that “he is not an expert in infectious disease methodology.”
It is strange, however, that the list of 24 detractors includes professors of bioethics, biology, economics, engineering, law, nursing, and radiology, who are not epidemiologists of anykind.
Stranger yet is that these signatories evidently failed to check for errors in their open letter – posted and seemingly crafted by former AIDS activist-turned epidemiologist, Asst. Prof. Gregg Gonsalves, who received his PhD from Yale Graduate School of Arts and Sciences/School of Public Health in 2017.[iii]
The Groundless Charges Against Dr. Risch
Image on the right is Dr. Risch
To understand the context of these charges, it is first important to grasp the simple, common-sense Covid-19 strategy advanced by Dr. Risch:[iv]
it applies to the outpatient treatment of symptomatic, high-risk Covid-19 patients
it applies to the early days of the infection, while Covid-19 is still basically a cold
it involves a short treatment course of low doses of hydroxychloroquine/azithromycin, and possibly zinc
its purpose is to prevent hospitalization, where second stage pneumonia becomes much more dangerous for high-risk patients.
In terms of Dr. Risch’s strategy above, the following quoted charges against him are false and irrelevant:
“He has not been swayed by the body of scientific evidence from rigorously conducted clinical trials, which refute the plausibility of his belief and arguments. Over the last few weeks, all of us have spent considerable time explaining the evidence behind HCQ research, as it applies to early and late stage COVID-19 patients to the scientific community and general public, and now are compelled to detail the evidence in this open letter.”
Comment: There are currently 68 HCQ studies in existence, 41 of them peer-reviewed, arguing both for and against hydroxychloroquine.[v] Very few examine its outpatient efficacy in early stage (days 1-5) Covid-19 infection in combination with azithromycin, which is what Dr. Risch has been talking about all along.[vi]
The charge that he is not “swayed” in his specific claim by their less precise and less expert perspective, is immaterial.
“We are seriously alarmed for the safety of patients and the coherence and effectiveness of our national COVID-19 emergency response when misinformation about HCQ is spread and when rigorous scientific evidence and consensus produced by the community of expert researchers in infectious diseases, federal agencies and national and global health organizations are not heeded…[alluding to Dr. Risch]
…the evidence thus far has been unambiguous in refuting the premise that HCQ is a potentially effective early therapy for COVID-19.” (my emphasis)
Comment: The italicized statement, repeated several times throughout the letter, is utterly and demonstrably false.
For example, a recent 22-author study of 3,737 patients, led by France’s top microbiologist Dr. Didier Raoult, has been published and stored in a U.S. National Institutes of Health database: “Outcomes of 3,737 COVID-19 patients treated with hydroxychloroquine/azithromycin and other regimens in Marseille, France: A retrospective analysis.”[vii]
This study lists other studies of the efficacy of early use hydroxychloroquine+azithromycin.
“Finally, we point to the recent memorandum from the US Food and Drug Administration revoking the Emergency Use Authorization for HCQ that has assembled the data on the drug as of June 2020 (Food and Drug Administration Memorandum[viii] Explaining Basis for Revocation of Emergency Use Authorization for Emergency Use of Chloroquine Phosphate and Hydroxychloroquine Sulfate).”
Comment: The 24 signatories evidently did not read the revoked FDA memorandum, which clearly states that its focus was hospitalized patients, whereas Dr. Risch has been talking about outpatients: The revoked memorandum reads:
“Current U.S. treatment guidelines do not recommend the use of CQ or HCQ in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 outside of a clinical trial, and the NIH guidelines now recommend against such use outside of a clinical trial.”[ix]
On July 30, FDA Commissioner Stephen Hahn clarified this critically important point for all the non-investigating journalists and professors who continue to parrot the falsity that the revoked Emergency Use Authorization revoked on June 15 had community application in the doctor-patient relationship.[x]
“The FDA has rescinded the EUA for HCQ for a reason: the vast preponderance of the evidence suggests that the drug is without merit in clinical care for COVID-19 and presents real dangers to patients by its continued use.”
Comment: To repeat, Dr. Risch recommends low-dosage HCQ for outpatient care during the first 5 days, not for hospital care.
Regarding the alleged “real dangers” of HCQ, the current CDC travel advisory for travelers in malaria countries says:
“Hydroxychloroquine can be prescribed to adults and children of all ages. It can also be safely taken by pregnant women and nursing mothers.”[xi]
“It is critical that we follow the science and where the evidence leads us on a quest to treat and prevent COVID-19. In this climate, it’s important to rely on the data above all else when making clinical or regulatory decisions. Making these kinds of choices guided by personal endorsements outside of the context of the existing scientific evidence is medicine by testimonial and risks people’s lives…
While minority opinions, anecdotal evidence, novel interpretations and challenges to orthodoxies in a field can be important, at some point, the application of the scientific method generating evidence from multiple, well-designed clinical trials and observational studies does matter and should be heard over the noise of conspiracy theories, purported hoaxes, and the views of zealots.”
Comment: It takes many months to conduct randomized clinical trials. Indeed, most Covid-19 hydroxychloroquine trials were halted after the Lancet’s May 22 five-continent heart-risk hit piece on hydroxychloroquine, identified by Lancet editor-in-chief Dr. Richard Horton as “a fabrication” and “a monumental fraud.”[xii]
With most of the RCTs halted, there are still many observational studies (as called for in the letter’s quotation immediately above) reporting HCQ+Azithromycin efficacy.[xiii]
The insulting final remarks above presumably round out the introductory statement of “grave concern” about “the ardent advocacy” of outpatient hydroxychloroquine+azithromycin promoted by Dr. Harvey Risch.
Rather than representing “the noise of conspiracy theories, purported hoaxes, and the views of zealots,” Dr. Risch recently won a major public health reward for his specialty, cancer epidemiology, and for his epidemiologic methods in general.[xiv]
In summary, in this matter it is clear that these 24 relatively inexperienced people are way out of their depth.
The betrayal behind their appalling act of public condemnation against a fellow university colleague brings Shakespeare to mind.
It is the worst thing I have seen in the area of medical discourse since I began my career as a medical/public health librarian in 1978.
During the years when accuracy, respect, and civility prevailed in the United States, a rude and ignorant public letter such as this would have been disciplined by a university dean or president or board, and placed on the human resources files of all involved.
*
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.
Elizabeth Woodworth is a frequent contributor to Global Research.
Notes
[i] “Statement from Yale Faculty on Hydroxychloroquine and its Use in COVID-19,” 4 August 2020
[ii] Dr. Risch’s 40,067 citations and his h-index of 89, as of August 6, 2020, are shown at https://scholar.google.ca/citations?user=E1US9ucAAAAJ&hl=en. The h index is a metric for evaluating the cumulative impact of an author’s scholarly output and performance; measures quantity with quality by comparing publications to citations. “An h index of 60 after 20 years, or 90 after 30 years, characterizes truly unique individuals.” (https://www.pnas.org/content/102/46/16569).
(His Twitter identity is: I work @Yale focusing on operations research/epidemiology for infectious disease. In the real world: been an AIDS activist for ~30 yrs. Asst Prof YSPH.)
[vi] 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). The American Journal of Epidemiology is the world’s top epidemiology journal.
[vii] 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 Med Infect Dis. 2020 July-August; 36: 101791; Published online 2020 Jun 25. doi: 10.1016/j.tmaid.2020.101791 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7315163/).
[viii] U.S. Food and Drug Administration, “Memorandum Explaining Basis for Revocation of Emergency Use Authorization for Emergency Use of Chloroquine Phosphate and Hydroxychloroquine Sulfate,” 30 June 2020 (https://www.fda.gov/media/138945/download).
[ix] U.S. Food and Drug Administration, “Memorandum Explaining Basis for Revocation of Emergency Use Authorization for Emergency Use of Chloroquine Phosphate and Hydroxychloroquine Sulfate,” 30 June 2020 (https://www.fda.gov/media/138945/download)
Today, August 7, 2020 negotiations on an economic stimulus package between US House Democrats and the White House broke down and broke off. What’s behind it?
In recent days the Democrats’ leaders, Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Shumer, reportedly reduced the cost of their original ‘Heroes Act’ proposals by $1 trillion. Instead of the original cost of $3T in the Heroes Act passed last June, they were willing to agree to a reduced package of $2 trillion. Never mind the attempt to reach a compromise on some middle ground. The White House, Thru his assigned negotiator, staffer Mark Meadows, Trump rejected the Dems offer. Meadows reportedly slammed the table (a two-bit amateur negotiating tactic) and walked out of negotiations with Pelosi-Shumer in a huff. Meadows’ walkout appears a well planned set up in the works for some time.
What does this mean? Politically and for the economy, now showing clear signs of the mild rebound of May-June dissipating in recent weeks?
On one level it’s clearly a typical Trump negotiating tactic: Bring a deal to a near close, then make a big show and angrily walk away. Trump’s done that before on numerous occasions. We saw it in the trade negotiations with China in 2018 and again 2019. It didn’t work then with the Chinese trade negotiators, and will likely not work here again—assuming the Dems don’t lose their backbone and fall for the set up, which has been known to happen in the past.
Trump coyly stayed on the sidelines in the early phase of the negotiations between the Dems and McConnell in the Senate and Mnuchin at Treasury.
He let McConnell in the Senate carry the early bargaining water. But McConnell’s extreme ideologue wing, led by Rand Paul and others, revolted. They said they couldn’t support any kind of new stimulus because of its impact on the government’s deficit and debt. However, this same Rand Paul-led crew in just one day last week quickly approved a record $760B Pentagon spending bill. Nor did these same folks have any problem approving tax cuts worth $5 trillion in the past two years under Trump. Nothing said about that impact on the budget and national debt.
And its these same hypocrites in the Senate who have been arguing the $600/wk. unemployment benefits for workers under the March 2020 Cares Act were ‘too generous’. The benefit was keeping workers from returning to work, although at least a half dozen university studies—from Harvard, Yale and Princeton—concluded it’s not so.
McConnell’s withdrawal to the sidelines in negotiations in early July—allowing Trump, Meadows and Mnuchin to take the lead in negotiations on the stimulus—may be part of the Republican strategy as well. UP until recent weeks, McConnell and Mnuchin were respectively playing ‘hard cop’ and ‘soft cop’ with Pelosi-Shumer. McConnell wouldn’t budge, which let the Dems pursue compromise with Mnuchin as lead for the Trump negotiations. Mnuchin and the Dems actually made some headway and some compromises. Mnuchin sucked them in, getting them to reduce their original Heroes Act $3T proposals to $2T. They were being set up.
Then Mark Meadows, Trump’s hatched man, joined in taking over the negotiations and played hard cop to Mnuchin’s soft cop. Now Meadows broke off discussions and stomped out today, August 7. The tactic is transparently designed to get the Dems to reduce their position even further. Propose more than the $1 trillion concessions already made this past week as the cost of getting Meadows to return to the bargaining table. If they do, it makes Trump look tough and in control of the negotiations agenda. And if they don’t, then Trump moves on to legislative by executive action—which also puts him in the appearance of control and the sole person producing the stimulus package.
Trump also wants to put his ‘mark’ on the negotiations, as is always the case. He wants it to look like the parties couldn’t come together, but he was able to hammer out a deal. ‘The Art of the Deal’, right?
And there’s another more insidious objective here. Trump’s been signaling for weeks he’d like to inject his own pet demands and is ready to do so by executive order once again if necessary. He wants to legislate by executive order. He pulled it off before, setting a precedent. That was when he spent money for his wall by shifting it from the Defense Dept., prepared to restore the diverted funds back to the Defense Dept. at a later date. Republican proposals on the table, by the way, provide another $29 billion for the Pentagon—over and above the just awarded Pentagon spending of $760 billion. Now he’ll make a similar move: he’ll divert funds by executive action to pay for his new tax cuts and other measures taking money from some other pot, present or future, to pay for it. Dems in Congress will be left standing saying ‘hey, you can’t do that’, but it’ll already be done.
Breaking off negotiations now gives Trump the opportunity to introduce his proposals by executive order. To do so is clearly unconstitutional but that means nothing to Trump. He’ll soon announce his own stimulus proposals and start executive orders implementation . He’ll use that fait accompli to force the Dems to agree to them if they want to be part of any final stimulus deal. And if they don’t,” so what” he’ll say. “They couldn’t get it passed. I did.”
But as the failure to pass a new fiscal stimulus drags on, 14 million workers will lose their supplemental $600/wk. unemployment benefits. That’s roughly $85 billion a month taken out of US GDP, in reduced household consumption. Failure to pass a stimulus also means that 12.3 million renters will be evicted before November, according to the most conservative survey. Some surveys estimate as many as 28 million will be evicted. And no more money for state and local governments facing a growing fiscal crisis that will soon require them to start mass layoffs in September.
The McConnell-Trump strategy is not to bail out state and local governments. It’s about making the high urban population centers—located largely in ‘blue’ states—to bear the brunt of the continuing economic crisis. If they need more money, let them go to the municipal bond market and borrow more. It’s a blue state problem, they argue. Let them sink with it is the Republican view. Or else cut their too generous public employee benefits and pensions.
To sum up, the strategic objectives behind Trump’s ordering his man, Meadows, to break off negotiations are several: inject Trump to the center of the negotiations in the last phase of bargaining so he can take credit for any subsequent deal. Second, allow Trump to raise his pet proposals—like making the payroll tax cut permanent—to the top of the bargaining agenda with the Dems. Third, let McConnell off the hook and avoid creating a split within his Republican ranks over deficits in order to forge a deal. Fourth, expand Trump’s attack on the legislative and purse strings authority of the US House of Representatives, and thereby push the presidency toward usurping legislative authority still further than it already has.
Trump is not only a tyrant—i.e. someone who sees himself above the law—as witnessed by his recent pardons and his own numerous public statements about himself as president; he is also a classic usurper, attempting to shift legislative authority via executive action from Congress to himself; and he is also moving toward rule by decree—aka a dictator—which is a hallmark of all authoritarian and would-be fascist rulers.
And we should watch out for more ‘rule by decree’ attempts in coming months as he invokes one or more ‘national emergency declarations’ to deal with America’s current triple crises—political as well as economic and health.
With Trump forcing a break-up of the recent fiscal stimulus negotiations, and his to be announced executive orders, the political-constitutional and economic crises in America are becoming increasingly entangled. It almost seems as if Trump’s grand strategy may be to exacerbate the deepening crises as much as possible before November 3, in order to create a pretext for him to declare the election void and challenge the results.
*
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.
Jack Rasmus writes on his own blog site where this article was originally published. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.
Massive uncontrolled unprecedented wild fires are consuming portions of the Amazon rainforest and several regions of the Arctic. Somebody somewhere must be asking why all of a sudden in unison, all over creation, two of the planets largest ecosystems are going up in smoke. It’s eerily spine chilling.
“Major fires have hit the Amazon and the Arctic for the second year in a row.” (Source: NewScientist, June 26, 2020)
Where’s the world’s largest fire alarm when so desperately needed?
Sure, all of mainstream press covers the fires and people hear about the fires and read about the fires. But that’s the end of any sort of impact because the sensationalism of reading about and hearing about massive fires thousands of miles away in vast wilderness areas doesn’t move the needle enough for people to express serious concern or even go so far as to panic. Maybe they should.
These are not regular ole run of the mill fires. Rather, these are firestorms so powerful that they create their own wind systems and self-perpetuate. More to the point, the world is on a biblical fire alert that posits the Book of Revelations 16:8 smack dab into contemporary society, to wit: Then the fourth angel poured out his bowl on the Sun, and power was given to him to scorch men with fire, and men were scorched with great heat.
For example, recent bushfires in Australia (2019) were not just unprecedented. They were “deadly catastrophic,” thus leaving some ecosystems “forever changed.” The conflagrations obliterated landscapes, not just patches of landscape but entire landscapes.
Why obliteration? Climate change is the villain. It supercharged the wildfires by turning landscapes into tinder. As such, and contrary to political opinions by right-wing whacko nutcases, climate change does not constitute surreal events in thin air, rather, it’s power-packed hard-hitting damage to our “one and only” planet. It’s authentic.
Australia’s wildfires convulsed above and beyond any known scale of normal fires, from which animals are usually able to escape. They didn’t. They couldn’t run fast enough! The fires took out entire landscapes, not patches of landscape that leave behind pockets of safety untouched for scampering animals. Nothing was left untouched by the hot lapping flames.
The wildfires permanently crippled iconic habitats that make Australia an ecological wonder for all to behold. From loss of crucial plant life to decimation of species that serve as a meal for a higher species, the ripple effects remain unaccountable, extensively beyond human calculation.
Now, two of the world’s largest, and most significant, ecosystems are on fire like never before, similar to Australia’s biblical fires of a year ago, as more, and more, precious natural resources suffer waves of obliteration. Of course, normal fires in the wild are healthy; however, these fires are anything but normal. They’re truly biblical in scale.
“Six months of record-breaking temperatures have sparked massive fires in the Siberian Arctic this year. Great plumes of smoke were visible on satellite… temperatures more than 5°C above average over much of Siberia… A Met Office-led international study has concluded this period of exceptional weather would have been impossible had the world not been warmed by man-made greenhouse gas emissions. (Source: New Warning Over Climate Change From Siberian Arctic, BBC News, July 15, 2020)
“What we’re seeing really is unprecedented… we’ve never seen the probability of a change of an event of more than 600 times. We’ve never seen a result like that, Professor Peter Stott, Met Office,” Ibid.
“Looking at the geologic record, we don’t think we’ve ever seen CO2 levels this high in about 5 million years… We are in uncharted territory, Dr. Katharine Hendry,” Ibid.
Meanwhile, bad vibes with strong undertones of contempt upend civilized society, as follows: America’s president Don Trump has tweeted 120 posts that variously poke fun at, and ridicule, climate change. Moreover, he has issued dozens of tweets claiming that “cold weather” disproves climate change. It should be noted that 62 million people voted for Trump in 2016 and many “live by his words.”
At the same time, in the real world of the Amazon rainforest, Brazil’s National Institute for Space Research reported 6,803 fires in the Amazon in July 2020 alone, nearly 30% more than July 2019 when the Western world went bananas over the loss of rainforest due to human-set fires. When in fact fires are not a regular feature of rainforests.
Now, environmentalists are going batty because August is traditionally the start of the human-generated fire season, but it already has a roaring head of steam. Not only that, but according to INPE data, the first six months of 2020 are already the worst on record for deforestation. Yes, “the worst on record.”
Sure enough, the Amazon rainforest, similar to landscapes in Australia in 2019, is subjected to obliteration forces, and it’s not just deforestation as the root cause. Climate change has kicked into high gear all across the magnificent rainforest with devastating drought conditions galore!
Excessive drought conditions, in part, originate early in the morning in garages around the world as fossil-fueled gasoline engines crank up, spewing out CO2, and the whir of a jet engine igniting, the blast of a diesel train engine cranking up, the murmur of a jet ski, ignition of hot coals for an electricity-generating plant, a furnace blast molding steel, all are the basis, the origin, of greenhouse gases that blanket the atmosphere, in turn, enhancing devastating severe droughts.
According to a landmark Amazonian rainforest in-depth analysis: “Several studies indicate that the region has been suffering severe drought since the end of the last century, as in 1997/1998, 2005, 2010 and 2015. The intensity and frequency of these extreme drought episodes in the AB during the last years, approximately one episode every five years with a significant increase in the coverage area, is remarkable.” (Beatriz Nunes Garcia, et al, Extreme Drought Events Over the Amazon Basin: The Perspective from the Reconstruction of South American Hydroclimate, Departamento de Meteorologia, Instituto de Geociências, Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, Nov. 7, 2018)
Back-to-back-to-back-to-back 100/yr. drought events, every 5 years, are not normal, meaning something somewhere is horribly wrong. After all, major ecosystems that profoundly influence all aspects of the planet’s health and well-being are burning, collapsing, melting like there’s no tomorrow. The message is clear.
Along the way, Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro feigns attempts to limit rainforest damage, but experts say the government’s response has been largely ineffective, more symbolic than real. In truth, he’s the primary driving force behind record-setting deforestation. Similar to Trump, on the world stage he’s a laughing stock and archenemy of the planet.
According to NASA, this year’s dry season will be more prone to fires than last year’s record-setting affair. Moreover, according to NASA, warmer ocean surface temps in the North Atlantic (global heating at work) create conditions for more extreme drought in the Amazon, as excessive ocean heat brings on far-flung damage. Everything in nature is somehow connected.
“The world on fire” is merely a prelude to a climate “gone berserk” disaster scenario that’s almost certain to eventually take civilization down to its knees, by all appearances sooner than mainstream science suggests, but frankly scientists don’t make such predictions.
Yet, isn’t a climate gone berserk scenario already playing out in real time, e.g., in Siberia, in the Amazon, in Australia?
Meanwhile, climate-related crises on a grand scale never before recorded throughout human history continue building to a crescendo, in earnest, right before society’s “eyes wide shut.”
Postscript: Reports out of the London School of Economics claim one-half of the Arctic fires are peat soil, normally too wet and too cold to burn, but now burning because of powerful intense heat… peat soil is carbon-rich and can burn for months/years, emitting carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane (CH4). (Source: Arctic Fires Released More Carbon in Two Months Than Scandinavia Will All Year, Grist, Aug. 4, 2020)
Speechless, once again!
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Robert Hunziker, MA, economic history DePaul University, awarded membership in Pi Gamma Mu International Academic Honor Society in Social Sciences is a freelance writer and environmental journalist who has over 200 articles published, including several translated into foreign languages, appearing in over 50 journals, magazines, and sites worldwide. He has been interviewed on numerous FM radio programs, as well as television.
When the new flu season arrives in autumn 2020, our western governments and mainstream news media are preparing to go into overdrive and declare (without evidence) that the 2nd wave of the COVID-19 pandemic is here. The fact is, they’re already pushing this narrative by declaring that there’s an uptick in COVID-19 cases and so governments around the world are now imposing mandatory mask laws on the population (see here and here) with added threats of national lock-downs!
The entire COVID-19 narrative has been hyped up beyond stupid and bulled through on the global population by national governments around the world without providing any credible evidence, and when actual data is provided by Investigative Journalists, doctors and professionals on social media for all to see, they are censored and removed by YouTube, Facebook, Twitter and major Internet search engines such as Google. The practice is Orwellian, as it censors free speech and is in collusion with the U.N. World Health Organization and its corporate financiers.
To make things worse, the fear driven COVID-19 narrative is being pushed by mainstream media that does not provide investigative journalism. Together, they are all working against the population of the world and our communities by silencing professionals and their data on COVID-19, a virus that has proven to be no worse than the seasonal flu.
In reality, there will be no second wave, however, there will be a continuing flu cycle with the beginning of the annual flu season set to kick off when schools reopen in late August or early September 2020…and classes will not be going back to normal as social distancing rules are already in place including half classes with half of the year at home and online. This whole COVID event has embedded fear, worry and panic within the minds of our children. What this amounts to is psychological terrorism on our children!
The fear mongering on COVID-19 has already sparked public panic and anger in many countries, but in particular, there has been, and will continue to be, a huge backlash on all the people who are protesting government over-reaction and media propagation of mandatory mask wearing, social distancing, vaccines and the lock-down of society.
The lack of real investigation by mainstream media into the facts of COVID-19, the economic lock-down and mandatory mask laws imposed by government are major failures within our communities. They prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that we do not live in a just and moral democracy because a just and moral democracy requires that the government engage the doctors and professionals and investigate all aspects and positions, while investigative journalism, as an uncompromised media, informs the population. We have none of that.
The fallout and backlash by mainstream news believers on those opposed to the COVID-19 narrative is ramping up because those in fear of COVID-19 are feeling empowered by the government and media propaganda to publicly attack those not wearing masks or attack those who question the mainstream narrative. Violence will become more common and a deeper division within our communities will result if this COVID fear campaign is not ended soon.
The majority of people who continue to believe the COVID-19 narrative, are also in favour of the government push for mandatory vaccinations from vaccines that will miraculously appear from the “for profit only” pharmaceutical corporations embedded in collusion with the World Health Organization, Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the World Economic Forum and the Western Economic Cartel.
Division of society by the western economic cartel is carried out through their close economic relationship with the mainstream media, political parties at all levels of government…and their collusion with the social media platforms and the major Internet search engines which have censored all opposing opinion.
Censorship has been rampant across the Internet over the past two years but since the COVID-19 narrative began, censorship on social media has been in overdrive silencing doctors, professionals and all voices that bring real data and a differing opinion on COVID-19.
Economic Trends and Fallout
What will also ensue during this false second wave will be more lock-downs and restrictions that will further the bankruptcy of small businesses which directly affects our communities. After all, the economy is made up of 60% small business; i.e. restaurants, bars, taverns, pubs, hair salons, barber shops, corner stores and a host of many mom and pop shops that cater to everything else.
Unemployment and bankruptcy will also affect the fraudulent real estate market that continues to inflate housing prices way past the point of affordability. All of this points to a major economic crash that will take everything away from the people and put it in the pockets of the banking and corporate economic cartel.
Those that stand to gain from the resulting economic crash are major corporations and / or billionaires with deep pockets looking to usurp all small enterprises to meet their growth requirements or to simply create a new corporate UBER industry out of the ashes of small business bankruptcies such as, for example, a consolidated hair salon / barber shop industry…all connected to a digital monetary banking system that will account for all revenue, taxes and tips…And of course, mega fast food corporations will certainly benefit from the closure of the many family restaurants that compete against them. In fact, Ontario Canada has just imposed a new law where all patrons of restaurants will have to give up their personal information on who they are, where they’ve been, who they’ve been with, and all their info will be held by the restaurant for 30 days! That will definitely hurt small business restaurants, especially when they do not have a drive through or delivery service.
And what to do with the hundreds of thousands of grounded planes? What about the millions of jobs in the airline Industries? There is only one trend and direction that can happen here without total bankruptcy, and that is consolidation of the Industry with a huge reduction in services.
The Airlines not bailed out during this COVID-19 scam will eventually be consumed by larger corporate airlines through economic consolidation…the aviation Industry will not return to peak business levels again unless by some miracle the economy suddenly grows and puts everyone back to work…but when the global economy severely contracts due to the over reaction of COVID-19 with no end in sight, well then its safe to assume that growth is not going to come back anytime soon. Besides, the economic system was already on its way to collapse before the false pandemic was enacted.
As a result of closed borders and mandatory two-week isolation, tourism is still on hiatus in most of the World and of course that affects small business as well.
If you believe that your government is acting in your best interests, think again. Ask yourself, what was the last thing they did that didn’t involve corporate or banking profits?
Vaccines
Big Pharma companies are “for profit only” organizations that have no concern for the human population. The only things they are concerned about is their bottom line and profit margins. Would you really trust a corporation who’s very existence is to make money from you anyway they can with a vaccine that could earn them hundreds of billions of dollars?
Like all other corporate Industries tied to the economic cartel, Pharmaceutical companies have a long history of dishonesty and criminal behaviour when it comes to their economic viability. Any corporation whose viability depends on a vaccine rushed to market during an economic collapse due to the very flu the vaccine was designed for, is going to be a fraud and a huge money maker for the corporation that produces it…and the sad thing is, people will believe that a vaccine will save them from a corona virus that has already mutated and evolved…the thing is, everyone has probably already had COVID-19 and didn’t know it since the symptoms for the 2019 corona virus in the majority of people is mild. People must not think they have an immune system.
If we look at elderly care homes, where most of deaths from COVID-19 happened, there are rules that force all residents to have mandatory flu shots once or twice a year. And so as I look back on my own experience of having had a parent in an elderly care home, residents had their mandatory vaccination during the flu season. As I visited my mother 4 or 5 times a week over a six-month period, I noticed an uptick in resident deaths shortly after the flu vaccine was administered. Familiar faces were gone and new ones appeared, ambulances were a common sight during this time and that was 2015. That is not to say that the vaccine alone causes death in the elderly even though by taking the vaccine you are injecting your system with a virus including additional poisonous ingredients within the vaccine, but the annual flu also claims lives in exactly the same manner and numbers every year.
The flu vaccine is created by a for profit pharmaceutical company and its product is always a guesstimate with a 70% miss rate. That’s because the virus always mutates into a new virus every year…and every year the very young with undeveloped immune systems and the elderly who have additional medical conditions die from the annual flu.
Given that all vaccines contain harmful toxins to humans including mercury, and aluminum, there is a real concern that vaccines do more harm than good to everyone especially the young and elderly.
Most people are unaware of vaccine risks because the mainstream media does not do their job with investigative journalism, health organizations discount the risks and our governments refuse to investigate and would rather rubber stamp corporate products that generate revenue while exempting pharmaceutical companies from liability.
Masks
Mandatory Mask laws are going into effect in nation after nation as the fear-mongering by government and mainstream media begins its second wave.
It’s bad enough that censorship of doctors and professions is raging across the Internet and removing any dialog or real information on masks and COVID-19; but it is another thing to see and experience fearful people harassing and lashing out at those not wearing masks. People have become so entrenched in their beliefs that they are actually fist fighting each other over mask wearing. Society has been divided and increasingly, we are at war with each other over a mask. We are being conditioned to “Obey” government directives regardless of how dystopian those directives are and those who obey feel empowered to lash out at those who do not.
The World Economic Forum has just released a very disturbing video on how they will proceed with opening up society while maintaining that COVID-19 is here to stay. Their vision is fear based and totalitarian and proves what many of us in the alternative news have been saying; that our future will be locked down in submission to government directives which will force people to be tested often, vaccinated annually, and provide proof of these soon to be mandatory measures or you will not be allowed to participate in society. i.e. Schools, work, sports, entertainment venues and sports stadiums, shopping malls, food stores or access to any buildings including courts, banks and government offices without feeling the penalty of the law.
This is a classic move by dictatorships where a problem (COVID-19) is created to raise fear levels for a while and then they provide you with their planned dystopian solution for society to remedy the fears…at the expense of your freedom.
All of this for a virus that has a 99.98% survival rate. This COVID-19 operation is not about your health, it is about absolute control of the global population!
Masks Are a Psychological Preparation for Mandatory Vaccinations
Conclusion
Humanity is being corralled and forced into obedience by the state whose directives come from the United Nation’s World Health Organization which is compromised and funded by Pharmaceutical corporations, banks and special interests such as the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation within the western economic cartel. To continue down the path that they prescribe is to march humanity straight into global totalitarianism without any means of redress.
Border closings, travel restrictions and lock-downs, have put an end to our freedom of movement. Shutting down investigative journalists including Doctors and professionals by censoring real data on COVID-19, virology, corona virus’s, vaccines and the dangers of prolonged mask wearing is an attack on press freedom and free speech. The act itself closes down all avenues of redress.
Anyone who opposes the oppressive COVID laws that governments have imposed on their citizens is met with severe punishment, jail and or heavy fines…
The economic depression that will unfold has the potential to cause a massive die off due to mass unemployment, evictions, food shortages, isolation, forced compromise on the immune system, collapsing health care systems and the repression of the population by economically compromised governments.
We no longer have our freedom of movement or freedom of speech nor is there real democracy anymore when all political parties are compromised by the corporations and private banks of the economic cartel. Human rights are limited to what our governments dictate, and freedom of the press has long since been removed from mainstream media while alternative Independent press is heavily censored. The freedoms we once experienced in North America and Europe are gone…
What is happening around the world right now is the deliberate destruction of the global economy and the most affected are the small businesses that make up the bulk of economics in our communities. It’s the final act of consolidation and consumption of our communities by large corporate and private banking interests where any form of resistance will be crushed by the state. The actual face of the monster that controls our world has been revealed and it is pure evil…is this the world you want to live in or leave to your children and grandchildren?
*
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 interview serves as a reminder regarding the diabolical timeline of America’s hegemonic project. Is Iran the next target “to be taken out”?
All these countries including Lebanon and Iran are on the Pentagon’s drawing board. These seven countries have directly or indirectly been the object of US aggression.
America’s hegemonic military agenda has reached a dangerous threshold: The assassination of IRG General Soleimani ordered by Donald Trump in early January was tantamount to an Act of War against Iran.
The Beirut explosion of August 4th. Is this tragic event part of a Middle East War Timeline?
Washington’s stated objective (according to General Wesley Clark) is to take Lebanon and Iran, with the support of Israel.
And Israel’s diabolical objective is “To Take Out” Palestine, with the support of the US, as part of “The Greater Israel Project”.
Michel Chossudovsky, January 4, 2019, August 9, 2020
.
***
General Wesley Clark. Retired 4-star U.S. Army general, Supreme Allied Commander of NATO during the 1999 War on Yugoslavia .
Complete Transcript of Program, Democracy Now.
Today we spend the hour with General Wesley Clark, the retired four-star general. He was the Supreme Allied Commander of NATO during the Kosovo War. In 2004 he unsuccessfully ran for the Democratic presidential nomination. He recently edited a series of books about famous U.S. generals including Dwight Eisenhower and Ulysses Grant – both of whom became president after their military careers ended.
Complete Video Interview:
Well for the rest of the hour we are going to hear General Wesley Clark on the possibility of a U.S. attack on Iran, the impeachment of President Bush, the use of cluster bombs, the bombing of Radio Television Serbia during the Kosovo War and much more. I interviewed Wesley Clark on Tuesday at the 92nd Street Y in New York.
Short version of video interview:
Gen. Wesley Clark. Retired 4-star US Army general. Supreme Allied Commander of NATO during the Kosovo War.
AMY GOODMAN: Today, an exclusive hour with General Wesley Clark, the retired four-star general. He was Supreme Allied Commander of NATO during the Kosovo War. He has been awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom. In 2004, he unsuccessfully ran for the Democratic presidential nomination. He recently edited a series of books about famous US generals, including Dwight Eisenhower and Ulysses Grant, both of whom became president after their military careers ended.
On Tuesday, I interviewed Wesley Clark at the 92nd Street Y Cultural Center here in New York City before a live audience and asked him about his presidential ambitions.
AMY GOODMAN: What do you think of these generals who run for president?
GEN. WESLEY CLARK: I like them. It’s happened before.
AMY GOODMAN: Will it happen again?
GEN. WESLEY CLARK: It might.
AMY GOODMAN: Later in the interview, I followed up on that question.
AMY GOODMAN: Will you announce for president?
GEN. WESLEY CLARK: Well, I haven’t said I won’t.
AMY GOODMAN: What are you waiting for?
GEN. WESLEY CLARK: I’m waiting for several different preconditions, which I’m not at liberty to discuss. But I will tell you this: I think about it every single day.
AMY GOODMAN: Well, for the rest of the hour, we’ll hear General Wesley Clark in his own words on the possibility of a US attack on Iran; the impeachment of President Bush; the use of cluster bombs; the bombing of Radio Television Serbia during the Kosovo War under his command; and much more. I interviewed General Clark on Tuesday at the 92nd Street Y in New York.
AMY GOODMAN: Now, let’s talk about Iran. You have a whole website devoted to stopping war.
AMY GOODMAN: Do you see a replay in what happened in the lead-up to the war with Iraq — the allegations of the weapons of mass destruction, the media leaping onto the bandwagon?
GEN. WESLEY CLARK: Well, in a way. But, you know, history doesn’t repeat itself exactly twice. What I did warn about when I testified in front of Congress in 2002, I said if you want to worry about a state, it shouldn’t be Iraq, it should be Iran. But this government, our administration, wanted to worry about Iraq, not Iran.
I knew why, because I had been through the Pentagon right after 9/11. About ten days after 9/11, I went through the Pentagon and I saw Secretary Rumsfeld and Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz. I went downstairs just to say hello to some of the people on the Joint Staff who used to work for me, and one of the generals called me in. He said, “Sir, you’ve got to come in and talk to me a second.” I said, “Well, you’re too busy.” He said, “No, no.” He says, “We’ve made the decision we’re going to war with Iraq.” This was on or about the 20th of September. I said, “We’re going to war with Iraq? Why?” He said, “I don’t know.” He said, “I guess they don’t know what else to do.” So I said, “Well, did they find some information connecting Saddam to al-Qaeda?” He said, “No, no.” He says, “There’s nothing new that way. They just made the decision to go to war with Iraq.” He said, “I guess it’s like we don’t know what to do about terrorists, but we’ve got a good military and we can take down governments.” And he said, “I guess if the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem has to look like a nail.”
So I came back to see him a few weeks later, and by that time we were bombing in Afghanistan. I said, “Are we still going to war with Iraq?” And he said, “Oh, it’s worse than that.” He reached over on his desk. He picked up a piece of paper. And he said, “I just got this down from upstairs” — meaning the Secretary of Defense’s office — “today.” And he said, “This is a memo that describes how we’re going to take out seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and, finishing off, Iran.” I said, “Is it classified?” He said, “Yes, sir.” I said, “Well, don’t show it to me.” And I saw him a year or so ago, and I said, “You remember that?” He said, “Sir, I didn’t show you that memo! I didn’t show it to you!”
AMY GOODMAN: I’m sorry. What did you say his name was?
GEN. WESLEY CLARK: I’m not going to give you his name.
AMY GOODMAN: So, go through the countries again.
GEN. WESLEY CLARK: Well, starting with Iraq, then Syria and Lebanon, then Libya, then Somalia and Sudan, and back to Iran. So when you look at Iran, you say, “Is it a replay?” It’s not exactly a replay. But here’s the truth: that Iran, from the beginning, has seen that the presence of the United States in Iraq was a threat — a blessing, because we took out Saddam Hussein and the Baathists. They couldn’t handle them. We took care of it for them. But also a threat, because they knew that they were next on the hit list. And so, of course, they got engaged. They lost a million people during the war with Iraq, and they’ve got a long and unprotectable, unsecurable border. So it was in their vital interest to be deeply involved inside Iraq. They tolerated our attacks on the Baathists. They were happy we captured Saddam Hussein.
But they’re building up their own network of influence, and to cement it, they occasionally give some military assistance and training and advice, either directly or indirectly, to both the insurgents and to the militias. And in that sense, it’s not exactly parallel, because there has been, I believe, continuous Iranian engagement, some of it legitimate, some of it illegitimate. I mean, you can hardly fault Iran because they’re offering to do eye operations for Iraqis who need medical attention. That’s not an offense that you can go to war over, perhaps. But it is an effort to gain influence.
And the administration has stubbornly refused to talk with Iran about their perception, in part because they don’t want to pay the price with their domestic — our US domestic political base, the rightwing base, but also because they don’t want to legitimate a government that they’ve been trying to overthrow. If you were Iran, you’d probably believe that you were mostly already at war with the United States anyway, since we’ve asserted that their government needs regime change, and we’ve asked congress to appropriate $75 million to do it, and we are supporting terrorist groups, apparently, who are infiltrating and blowing up things inside Iraq — Iran. And if we’re not doing it, let’s put it this way: we’re probably cognizant of it and encouraging it. So it’s not surprising that we’re moving to a point of confrontation and crisis with Iran.
My point on this is not that the Iranians are good guys — they’re not — but that you shouldn’t use force, except as a last, last, last resort. There is a military option, but it’s a bad one.
AMY GOODMAN: I wanted to get your response to Seymour Hersh’s piece in The New Yorker to two key points this week, reporting the Pentagon’s established a special planning group within the office of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to plan a bombing attack on Iran, that this is coming as the Bush administration and Saudi Arabia are pumping money for covert operations into many areas of the Middle East, including Lebanon, Syria, and Iran, in an effort to strengthen Saudi-supported Sunni Islam groups and weaken Iranian-backed Shias — some of the covert money has been given to jihadist groups in Lebanon with ties to al-Qaeda — fighting the Shias by funding with Prince Bandar and then with US money not approved by Congress, funding the Sunnis connected to al-Qaeda.
GEN. WESLEY CLARK: Well, I don’t have any direct information to confirm it or deny it. It’s certainly plausible. The Saudis have taken a more active role. You know, the Saudis have —
AMY GOODMAN: You were just in Saudi Arabia.
GEN. WESLEY CLARK: Hmm?
AMY GOODMAN: You just came back from Saudi Arabia.
GEN. WESLEY CLARK: Yeah. Well, the Saudis have basically recognized that they have an enormous stake in the outcome in Iraq, and they don’t particularly trust the judgment of the United States in this area. We haven’t exactly proved our competence in Iraq. So they’re trying to take matters into their own hands.
The real danger is, and one of the reasons this is so complicated is because — let’s say we did follow the desires of some people who say, “Just pull out, and pull out now.” Well, yeah. We could mechanically do that. It would be ugly, and it might take three or four months, but you could line up the battalions on the road one by one, and you could put the gunners in the Humvees and load and cock their weapons and shoot their way out of Iraq. You’d have a few roadside bombs. But if you line everybody up there won’t be any roadside bombs. Maybe some sniping. You can fly helicopters over, do your air cover. You’d probably get safely out of there. But when you leave, the Saudis have got to find someone to fight the Shias. Who are they going to find? Al-Qaeda, because the groups of Sunnis who would be extremists and willing to fight would probably be the groups connected to al-Qaeda. So one of the weird inconsistencies in this is that were we to get out early, we’d be intensifying the threat against us of a super powerful Sunni extremist group, which was now legitimated by overt Saudi funding in an effort to hang onto a toehold inside Iraq and block Iranian expansionism.
AMY GOODMAN: And interestingly, today, John Negroponte has just become the number two man, resigning his post as National Intelligence Director to go to the State Department, Seymour Hersh says, because of his discomfort that the administration’s covert actions in the Middle East so closely echo the Iran-Contra scandal of the 1980s, and Negroponte was involved with that.
GEN. WESLEY CLARK: Well, I’m sure there are a lot of reasons why John would go back to the State Department. John’s a good — he’s a good man. But, you know, the question is, in government is, can you — are you bigger than your job? Because if you’re not bigger than your job, you get trapped by the pressures of events and processes into going along with actions that you know you shouldn’t. And I don’t know. I don’t know why he left the National Intelligence Director’s position. He started in the State Department. Maybe he’s got a fondness to return and finish off his career in State.
AMY GOODMAN: Can you talk about — do you know who the generals are, who are threatening to resign if the United States attacks Iran?
GEN. WESLEY CLARK: No, I don’t. No, I don’t. And I don’t want to know.
AMY GOODMAN: Do you agree with them?
GEN. WESLEY CLARK: Well, I’ll put it this way. On Labor Day weekend of 1994, when I was the J5 — I was a three-star general. I was in the Pentagon. And it was a Saturday morning, and so I was in the office. Walt Kross was the director of the Joint Staff, and he was in the office. And I think it was either Howell Estes or Jack Sheehan who was the J3 at the time. The three of us — I think it was Jack still on the job for the last couple of days. And the three of us were in Shalikashvili’s office about 11:00 in the morning on a Saturday morning, and he had just come back from a White House meeting. And he was all fired up in the way that Shali could be. And he said, “So,” he said, “we will see who will be the real soldiers this weekend! There’s much work to be done! This operation on Haiti has to be completed! The planning must be done correctly, and it must be done this weekend! So we will see who are the real soldiers!”
Then the phone buzzed, and he got up from this little round table the four of us were sitting at to take the call from the White House. We started looking at each other. We said, “Gosh, I wonder where this came from.” I mean, we were all getting ready to check out of the building in an hour or so. We had finished off the messages and paperwork. And we just usually got together because there was normally a crisis every Saturday anyway, and so we normally would come in for the Saturday morning crisis. And so, Shali came back, and so I said to him, I said, “Well, sir, we’ve been talking amongst ourselves, and we’re happy to work all weekend to get all this done, but this is just a drill, right, on Haiti?”
He looked at me, and he said, “Wes,” he said, “this is no drill.” He said, “I’m not authorized to tell you this. But,” he said “the decision has been made, and the United States will invade Haiti. The date is the 20th” — I think it was this date — “of the 20th of September. And the planning must be done, and it must be done now. And if any of you have reservations about this, this is the time to leave.” So I looked at Jack, and I looked at Walt. They looked at me. I mean, we kind of shrugged our shoulders and said, “OK, if you want to invade Haiti, I mean, it’s not illegal. It’s not the country we’d most like to invade. The opposition there consists of five armored vehicles. But sure, I mean, if the President says to do it, yeah, we’re not going resign over it.” And so, we didn’t resign. Nobody resigned.
But Shali was a very smart man. He knew. He knew he was bigger than his job, and he knew that you had to ask yourself the moral, legal and ethical questions first. And so, I’m encouraged by the fact that some of these generals have said this about Iran. They should be asking these questions first.
AMY GOODMAN: General Wesley Clark. He says he thinks about running for president again every day. We’ll come back to my interview with him in a minute.
[break]
AMY GOODMAN: We go back to my interview with General Wesley Clark.
AMY GOODMAN: What about the soldiers who are saying no to going to Iraq right now?
GEN. WESLEY CLARK: Iraq?
AMY GOODMAN: To going to Iraq. People like First Lieutenant Ehren Watada, first commissioned officer to say no to deploy. And they just declared a mistrial in his court-martial. He will face another court-martial in a few weeks. What do you think of these young men and women — there are now thousands — who are refusing? But, for example, Ehren Watada, who says he feels it’s wrong. He feels it’s illegal and immoral, and he doesn’t want to lead men and women there.
GEN. WESLEY CLARK: Well, I think, you know, he’s certainly made a personally courageous statement. And he’ll pay with the consequences of it.
AMY GOODMAN: Do you think he should have to go to jail for that?
GEN. WESLEY CLARK: Well, I think that you have to have an effective armed forces. And I think that it’s not up to the men and women in the Armed Forces to choose where they’ll go to war, because at the very time you need the Armed Forces the most is — there will be a certain number of people who will see it the other way. And so, I support his right to refuse to go, and I support the government’s effort to bring charges against him. This is the way the system works.
Now, the difference is, the case that I described with Shalikashvili is, we would have been given the chance to retire. We would have left our jobs. We might not have retired as three-star generals, because we hadn’t done our duty. But we weren’t in the same circumstance that he is, so there wasn’t necessarily going to be charges brought against us.
But an armed forces has to have discipline. It’s a voluntary organization to join. But it’s not voluntary unless it’s illegal. And you can bring — the trouble with Iraq is it’s not illegal. It was authorized by the United States Congress. It was authorized by the United Nations Security Council resolution. It’s an illegitimate war, but not an illegal war.
AMY GOODMAN: Do you think it’s wrong?
GEN. WESLEY CLARK: It’s wrong to fight in Iraq? Well, I think it’s a mistake. I think it’s a bad strategy. I think it’s brought us a lot of grief, and it will bring us a lot more grief. I think it’s been a tremendous distraction from the war on terror, a diversion of resources, and it’s reinforced our enemies. But on the other hand, his case is a moral case, not a legal case. And if you’re going to be a conscientious objector morally like this, then what makes it commendable is that you’ll take your stand on principle and pay the price. If there’s no price to be paid for it, then the courage of your act isn’t self-evident. So he’s taken a very personally courageous stand. But on the other hand, you have to also appreciate the fact that the Armed Forces has to be able to function.
So, you know, in World War I in France, there were a series of terribly misplaced offensives, and they brought — they failed again and again and again. The French took incredible losses. And these were conscript armies. And after one of these failures, a group of thousands of soldiers simply said, “We’re not doing this again. It’s wrong.” You know what the French did? They did what they call decimation. They lined up the troops. They took every tenth soldier, and they shot them. Now, the general who ordered that, he suffered some severe repercussions, personally, morally, but after that the soldiers in France didn’t disobey. Had the army disintegrated at that point, Germany would have occupied France. So when you’re dealing with the use of force, there is an element of compulsion in the Armed Forces.
AMY GOODMAN: But if the politicians will not stop it — as you pointed out, the Democrats joined with the Republicans in authorizing the war — then it’s quite significant, I think, that you, as a general, are saying that this man has taken a courageous act. Then it’s up to the people who are being sent to go to say no.
GEN. WESLEY CLARK: Yeah. But the courage that we need is not his courage. We need the courage of the leaders in the United States government: the generals who could affect the policy, the people in Congress who could force the President to change his strategy. That’s the current — that’s the courage that’s needed.
AMY GOODMAN: And how could they do that?
GEN. WESLEY CLARK: Well, you start with a non-binding resolution in the United States Congress, and you build your momentum from there. And you keep hammering it. The Congress has three principal powers. It has the power to appoint, power to investigate, power to fund. And you go after all three. On all three fronts, you find out what the President needs, until he takes it seriously. I think it’s a difficult maneuver to use a scalpel and say, “Well, we’re going to support funding, but we’re not going to support funding for the surge,” because that’s requiring a degree of micro-management that Congress can’t do.
But you can certainly put enough squeeze on the President that he finally calls in the leaders of the Congress and says, “OK, OK, what’s it going to take? I’ve got to get my White House budget passed. I’ve got to get thirty judges, federal judges, confirmed. I’ve got to get these federal prosecutors — you know, the ones that I caused to resign so I could handle it — they’ve got to get replacements in place. What do I have to do to get some support here?” I mean, it could be done. It’s hard bare-knuckle government.
AMY GOODMAN: Do you think Congress should stop funding the war?
GEN. WESLEY CLARK: I think Congress should take a strong stand to get the strategy changed. I don’t think that if you cut off funding for the war, it’s in the — right now that’s not in the United States’ interest. What is in the United States’ interest is to change the strategy in the war. You cannot succeed by simply stopping the funding and saying, “You’ve got six months to get the Americans out.” That’s not going to end the misery in Iraq. It’s not going to restore the lives that have been lost. And it’s not going to give us the power in the region to prevent later threats.
What we do have to do is have a strategy that uses all the elements of America’s power: diplomatic, economic, legal and military. I would send a high-level diplomatic team into the region right now. I’d have no-holds-barred and no-preconditioned discussion with Iran and Syria. And I would let it be known that I’ve got in my bag all the tricks, including putting another 50,000 troops in Iraq and pulling all 150,000 troops out. And we’re going to reach an agreement on a statement of principles that brings stability and peace and order to the region. So let’s just sit down and start doing it. Now, that could be done with the right administrative leadership. It just hasn’t been done.
You know, think of it this way. You’re on a ship crossing the Atlantic. It’s a new ship. And it’s at night. And you’re looking out ahead of the ship, and you notice that there’s a part of the horizon. It’s a beautiful, starry night, except that there’s a part of the horizon, a sort of a regular hump out there where there are no stars visible. And you notice, as the ship plows through the water at thirty knots, that this area where there are no stars is getting larger. And finally, it hits you that there must be something out there that’s blocking the starlight, like an iceberg. So you run to the captain. And you say, “Captain, captain, there’s an iceberg, and we’re driving right toward it.” And he says, “Look, I can’t be bothered with the iceberg right now. We’re having an argument about the number of deck chairs on the fore deck versus the aft deck.” And you say, “But you’re going to hit an iceberg.” He says, “I’m sorry. Get out of here.” So you go to the first officer, and he says, “I’m fighting with the captain on the number of deck chairs.”
You know, we’re approaching an iceberg in the Middle East in our policy, and we’ve got Congress and the United States — and the President of the United States fighting over troop strength in Iraq. It’s the wrong issue. The issue is the strategy, not the troop strength.
AMY GOODMAN: General Clark, do you think Guantanamo Bay should be closed?
GEN. WESLEY CLARK: Absolutely.
AMY GOODMAN: If Congress cut off funds for the prison there, it would be closed. Should they?
GEN. WESLEY CLARK: Well, I think the first thing Congress should do is repeal the Military Commissions Act. I’m very disturbed that a number of people who are looking at the highest office in the land have supported an act which advertently or inadvertently authorizes the admission into evidence of information gained through torture. That’s not the America that I believe in. And the America that I believe in doesn’t detain people indefinitely without charges. So I’d start with the Military Commissions Act.
Then I’d get our NATO allies into the act. They’ve said they don’t like Guantanamo either. So I’d like to create an international tribunal, not a kangaroo court of military commissions. And let’s go back through the evidence. And let’s lay it out. Who are these people that have been held down there? And what have they been held for? And which ones can be released? And which ones should be tried in court and convicted?
You see, essentially, you cannot win the war on terror by military force. It is first and foremost a battle of ideas. It is secondly a law enforcement effort and a cooperative effort among nations. And only as a last resort do you use military force. This president has distorted the capabilities of the United States Armed Forces. He’s used our men and women in uniform improperly in Guantanamo and engaged in actions that I think are totally against the Uniform Code of Military Justice and against what we stand for as the American people.
AMY GOODMAN: Do you think that President Bush should be impeached?
GEN. WESLEY CLARK: Well, I think we ought to do first thing’s first, which is, we really need to understand and finish the job that Congress started with respect to the Iraq war investigation. Do you remember that there was going to be a study released by the Senate, that the senator from Iowa or from Kansas who was the Republican head of the Senate Intelligence Committee was going to do this study to determine whether the administration had, in fact, misused the intelligence information to mislead us into the war with Iraq? Well, I’ve never seen that study. I’d like to know where that study is. I’d like to know why we’ve spent three years investigating Scooter Libby, when we should have been investigating why this country went to war in Iraq.
AMY GOODMAN: The Center for Constitutional Rights has filed a complaint against Donald Rumsfeld, General Miller and others in a German court, because they have universal jurisdiction. Do you think that Donald Rumsfeld should be tried for war crimes?
GEN. WESLEY CLARK: Well, I’d like to see what the evidence is against Rumsfeld. I do know this, that there was a lot of pressure put on the men and women in uniform to come up with intelligence. I remember — I think it was either General Sanchez or General Abizaid, who stated that we don’t need more troops — this is the fall of 2003 — we just need better information. Well, to me, that was immediate code words that we were really trying to soak these people for information.
And it’s only a short step from there to all the kinds of mistreatment that occur at places like Abu Ghraib. So we know that Al Gonzales wrote a couple of really — or authored, or his people authored and he approved, a couple of outrageous memos that attempted to define torture as deliberately inflicted pain, the equivalent of the loss of a major bodily organ or limb, which is — it’s not an adequate definition of torture. And we know that he authorized, to some degree, some coercive methods, which we have — and we know President Bush himself accepted implicitly in a signing statement to a 2005 act on military detainees that he would use whatever methods were appropriate or necessary. So there’s been some official condoning of these actions.
I think it’s a violation of international law and a violation of American law and a violation of the principles of good government in America. There have always been evidences of mistreatment of prisoners. Every army has probably done it in history. But our country hasn’t ever done it as a matter of deliberate policy. George Washington told his soldiers, when they captured the Hessians and the men wanted to run them through, because the Hessians were brutal and ruthless, he said, “No, treat them well.” He said, “They’ll join our side.” And many of them did. It was a smart policy, not only the right thing to do, but a smart policy to treat the enemy well. We’ve made countless enemies in that part of the world by the way we’ve treated people and disregarded them. It’s bad, bad policy.
AMY GOODMAN: I wanted to ask — you’re a FOX News contributor now?
GEN. WESLEY CLARK: Oh, at least.
AMY GOODMAN: I wanted to ask you what you think of the dean of West Point, Brigadier General Patrick Finnegan, together with a military interrogator named Tony Lagouranis and the group Human Rights First, going to the heads of the program 24, very popular hit show on FOX, to tell them that what they’re doing on this program, glorifying torture, is inspiring young men and women to go to Iraq and torture soldiers there, and to stop it?
GEN. WESLEY CLARK: And not only that, but it doesn’t work. Yeah, Pat Finnegan is one of my heroes.
AMY GOODMAN: So what do you think about that?
GEN. WESLEY CLARK: I think it’s great.
AMY GOODMAN: And have you been involved in the conversation internally at FOX, which runs 24, to stop it?
GEN. WESLEY CLARK: Well, as far as I know, they actually put out a call to all the writers in Hollywood. My son’s a writer, and he was one of them who got a call. They were all told: stop talking about torture. It doesn’t work. So I think it was an effective move by Pat Finnegan.
AMY GOODMAN: So you support it?
GEN. WESLEY CLARK: Absolutely.
AMY GOODMAN: General Wesley Clark. I’m interviewing him at the 92nd Street Y. We’re going to come back to the conclusion of that interview in a minute.
[break]
AMY GOODMAN: General Wesley Clark recently edited a series of books about famous US generals: Grant, LeMay, Patton and Eisenhower. When I interviewed him at the 92nd Street Y, I asked him a question about the presidency of General Dwight Eisenhower
AMY GOODMAN: 1953 was also a seminal date for today, and that was when Kermit Roosevelt, the grandson of Teddy Roosevelt, went to Iran and led a coup against Mohammed Mossadegh under Eisenhower.
GEN. WESLEY CLARK: People make mistakes. And one of the mistakes that the United States consistently made was that it could intervene and somehow adjust people’s governments, especially in the Middle East. I don’t know why we felt that — you can understand Latin America, because Latin America was always an area in which people would come to the United States, say, “You’ve got to help us down there. These are banditos, and they don’t know anything. And, you know, they don’t have a government. Just intervene and save our property.” And the United States did it a lot in the ’20s. Of course, Eisenhower was part of that culture. He had seen it.
But in the Middle East, we had never been there. We established a relationship during World War II, of course, to keep the Germans out of Iran. And so, the Soviets and the Brits put an Allied mission together. At the end of World War II, the Soviets didn’t want to withdraw, and Truman called their bluff in the United Nations. And Eisenhower knew all of this. And Iran somehow became incorporated into the American defense perimeter. And so, his view would have been, we couldn’t allow a communist to take over.
AMY GOODMAN: But wasn’t it more about British Petroleum?
GEN. WESLEY CLARK: Oh, it’s always — there are always interests. The truth is, about the Middle East is, had there been no oil there, it would be like Africa. Nobody is threatening to intervene in Africa. The problem is the opposite. We keep asking for people to intervene and stop it. There’s no question that the presence of petroleum throughout the region has sparked great power involvement. Whether that was the specific motivation for the coup or not, I can’t tell you. But there was definitely — there’s always been this attitude that somehow we could intervene and use force in the region. I mean, that was true with — I mean, imagine us arming and creating the Mujahideen to keep the Soviets out of Afghanistan. Why would we think we could do that? But we did. And, you know, my lesson on it is, whenever you use force, there are unintended consequences, so you should use force as a last resort. Whether it’s overt or covert, you pay enormous consequences for using force.
AMY GOODMAN: I wanted to ask you about what you think of the response to Jimmy Carter’s book, Peace, Not Apartheid.
GEN. WESLEY CLARK: Well, I’m sorry to say I haven’t read the book. And it’s one of the things I’ve been meaning to read, and I just haven’t. I will tell you this, that we’re in a very, very difficult position in Israel. I say “we,” because every American president has committed to the protection and survival of the state of Israel. And I think that’s right. And I certainly feel that way, and I’m a very strong supporter of Israel.
But somehow we’ve got to move off top dead center in terms of these discussions with the Palestinians. And this administration has failed to lead. They came into office basically determined not to do anything that Bill Clinton did. I think that was the basic guideline. And so, they have allowed unremitting violence between Israel and the Palestinians with hardly an effort to stop that through US leadership. And now, it’s almost too late. So Condi was over there the other day, and she didn’t achieve what she wanted to achieve, and people want to blame the Saudis. But at least the Saudis tried to do something at Mecca by putting together a unity government. So I fault the administration.
Jimmy Carter has taken a lot of heat from people. I don’t know exactly what he said in the book. But people are very sensitive about Israel in this country. And I understand that. A lot of my friends have explained it to me and have explained to me the psychology of people who were in this country and saw what was happening in World War II, and maybe they didn’t feel like they spoke out strongly enough, soon enough, to stop it. And it’s not going to happen again.
AMY GOODMAN: General Clark, I wanted to ask you a tough question about journalists.
GEN. WESLEY CLARK: Well, now, that would be the first tough question you’ve asked me tonight.
AMY GOODMAN: There are more than a hundred journalists and media workers in Iraq who have died. And particularly hard hit are Arab journalists. I mean, you had Tariq Ayoub, the Al Jazeera reporter, who died on the roof of Al Jazeera when the US military shelled Al Jazeera, then went on to shell the Palestine Hotel and killed two reporters, a Reuters cameraman and one from Telecinco in Spain named Jose Couso. Many Arab journalists feel like they have been targeted, the idea of shooting the messenger. But this tough question goes back to your being Supreme Allied Commander in Yugoslavia and the bombing of Radio Television Serbia. Do you regret that that happened, that you did that?
GEN. WESLEY CLARK: No, I don’t regret that at all. That was part of the Serb command and control network. And not only that, I was asked to take out that television by a lot of important political leaders. And before I took it out, I twice warned the Serbs we were going to take it out. We stopped, at one news conference in the Pentagon, we planted the question to get the attention of the Serbs, that we were going to target Serb Radio and Television.
AMY GOODMAN: RTS.
GEN. WESLEY CLARK: Yeah. And that night, in fact, Milosevic got the warning, because he summoned all the foreign journalists to come to a special mandatory party at RTS that night. But we weren’t bombing that night. We put the word out twice before we actually I did it.
AMY GOODMAN: You told CNN, which was also there, to leave?
GEN. WESLEY CLARK: I told — I used — I think I used CNN to plant the story and to leak it at the Pentagon press conference. But we didn’t tell anyone specifically to leave. What we told them was it’s now a target. And it was Milosevic who determined that he would keep people there in the middle of the night just so there would be someone killed if we struck it. So we struck it during the hours where there were not supposed to be anybody there.
AMY GOODMAN: But you killed civilians.
GEN. WESLEY CLARK: Six people died.
AMY GOODMAN: I think sixteen. But I think it’s the media — it’s the beauticians, the technicians. It was a civilian target.
GEN. WESLEY CLARK: Yeah, they were ordered to stay there by Milosevic. Yeah.
AMY GOODMAN: But it was a civilian target.
GEN. WESLEY CLARK: It was not a civilian target. It was a military target. It was part of the Serb command and control network
AMY GOODMAN: What do you think of Amnesty International calling it a war crime?
GEN. WESLEY CLARK: Well, I think it was investigated by the International Criminal Tribunal in Yugoslavia and found to be a legitimate target. So I think it’s perfectly alright for Amnesty International to have their say, but everything we did was approved by lawyers, and every target was blessed. We would not have committed a war crime.
AMY GOODMAN: Upon reflection now and knowing who died there, the young people, the people who worked for RTS, who — as you said, if Milosevic wanted people to stay there, they were just following orders.
GEN. WESLEY CLARK: Well, it was a tragedy. But I’ll tell you something. If you want to talk about tragedies, how about this one? We bombed what we thought was a Serb police station in Kosovo. We saw the Serb vehicles. We flew unmanned aerial vehicles over it. And we did everything we could to identify it. And we found that there were Serb police vehicles parked there at night, so we sent an F-16 in, dropped two 500-pound laser-guided bombs and took it out. We killed eighty Albanians who had been imprisoned by the Serbs there. They were trying to escape, and the Serbs locked them up in this farmhouse and surrounded them with vehicles. So, I regret every single innocent person who died, and I prayed every night that there wouldn’t be any innocent people who died. But this is why I say you must use force only as a last resort.
I told this story to the high school kids earlier, but it bears repeating, I guess. We had a malfunction with a cluster bomb unit, and a couple of grenades fell on a schoolyard, and some, I think three, schoolchildren were killed in Nish. And two weeks later, I got a letter from a Serb grandfather. He said, “You’ve killed my granddaughter.” He said, “I hate you for this, and I’ll kill you.” And I got this in the middle of the war. And it made me very, very sad. We certainly never wanted to do anything like that. But in war, accidents happen. And that’s why you shouldn’t undertake military operations unless every other alternative has been exhausted, because innocent people do die. And I think the United States military was as humane and careful as it possibly could have been in the Kosovo campaign. But still, civilians died. And I’ll always regret that.
AMY GOODMAN: Do you think cluster bombs should be banned?
GEN. WESLEY CLARK: You know, we used, I think 1,400-plus cluster bombs. And there’s a time when you have to use cluster bombs: when they’re the most appropriate and humane weapon. But I think you have to control the use very carefully. And I think we did in Yugoslavia.
AMY GOODMAN: Right now, the US has rejected an international call to ban the use of cluster bombs. On Friday, forty-six countries were in Oslo to develop a new international treaty to ban the use of cluster munitions by — I think it’s 2008. Would you support that?
GEN. WESLEY CLARK: Well, you know, people who are against war often make the case by trying to attack the weapons of war and stripping away the legitimacy of those weapons. I’ve participated in some of that. I’d like to get rid of landmines. I did participate in getting rid of laser blinding weapons. And I was part of the team that put together the agreement that got rid of laser blinding weapons. I’d like to get rid of nuclear weapons. But I can’t agree with those who say that force has no place in international affairs. It simply does for this country. And I would like to work to make it so that it doesn’t. But the truth is, for now it does. And so, I can’t go against giving our men and women in uniform the appropriate weapons they need to fight, to fight effectively to succeed on the battlefield, and to minimize their own casualties.
AMY GOODMAN: Well, we’ll have to leave it there. I thank you very much, General Wesley Clark.
GEN. WESLEY CLARK: Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you.
AMY GOODMAN: General Wesley Clark. I interviewed him at the 92nd Street Y, the cultural center here in New York, on the publication of the Great General Series, on Grant, LeMay, Patton and Eisenhower.
H. Ealy, M. McEvoy, M. Sava, S. Gupta, D. Chong, D. White, J. Nowicki, P. Anderson
***
Key Findings For Data Through July 12th
According to the CDC, 101 children age 0 to 14 have died from influenza, while 31 children have died from COVID-19.
No evidence exists to support the theory that children pose a threat to educational professionals in a school or classroom setting, but there is a great deal of evidence to support the safety of in-person education.
According to the CDC, 131,332 Americans have died from pneumonia and 121,374 from COVID-19 as of July 11th, 2020.
Had the CDC used its industry standard, Medical Examiners’ and Coroners’ Handbook on Death Registration and Fetal Death Reporting Revision 2003, as it has for all other causes of death for the last 17 years, the COVID-19 fatality count would be approximately 90.2% lower than it currently is.
Abstract
The CDC has instructed hospitals, medical examiners, coroners and physicians to collect and report COVID-19 data by significantly different standards than all other infectious diseases and causes of death.
These new and unnecessary guidelines were instituted by the CDC in private, and without open discussion among qualified professionals that are free from conflicts of interest.
These new and unnecessary guidelines were additionally instituted despite the existence of effective rules for data collection and reporting, successfully used by all hospitals, medical examiners, coroners, and physicians for more than 17 years.
As a result, elected officials have enacted many questionable policies that have injured our country’s economy, our country’s educational system, our country’s mental and emotional health, and the American citizen’s personal expression of Constitutionally-protected rights to participate in our own governance.
***
This paper will present significant evidence to support the position that if the CDC simply employed their 2003 industry standard for data collection and reporting, which has been successfully used nationwide for 17 years; the total fatalities attributed to COVID-19 would be reduced by an estimated 90.2%, and questions would be non-existent regarding schools reopening and whether or not Americans should be allowed to work.
Is It Safe for Students & Teachers to Return to School?
While the current question gripping the nation is, ‘Should schools reopen in the fall?’ The crucial data available through the CDC, but not being actively promoted by the CDC, asks a different question, ‘Should schools have ever closed in the first place?’
According to the CDC’s Provisional COVID-19 Death Counts By Sex, Age & State, we know the following data from Feb 1, 2020 through July 11th, 2020.1
Three times as many children in the 0 to 14 age demographic have died from influenza (101) compared to COVID-19 (31).
In the 0 to 14 age demographic, there have been 11,158 reported fatalities from all causes.
Thus, COVID-19 fatalities in the 0 to 14 age demographic make up a very small 0.0278% of all fatalities.
There is more data when looking at the 15 to 24 age demographic.
41.2% more teens and college age young adults, in the 15 to 24 age demographic, have died from pneumonia (267) compared to COVID-19 (157).
In the 15 to 24 age demographic, there have been 13,721 reported fatalities from all causes.
Thus, COVID-19 fatalities in the 15 to 24 age demographic make up only 1.14% of all fatalities.
We would not consider closing in-person educational institutions for typical seasonal flu or pneumonia fatalities, so why did we close them when COVID-19 numbers are even lower?
Some have argued for concern and caution in the 25 to 54 age demographic, which makes logical sense, so let’s look again at the current data available.
More work force age adults, in the 25 to 54 age demographic, have died from pneumonia (9,268) compared to COVID-19 (9,034).
In the 25 to 54 age demographic, there have been 146,663 reported fatalities from all causes.
Thus, COVID-19 fatalities in the 25 to 54 age demographic make up 6.16% of all fatalities. The risk of fatality for COVID-19 is on par with the risk of fatality associated with contracting pneumonia, 6.32% in this age demographic.
As encouraging as this data is, we have concerns regarding data collection and reporting that we will discuss below that potentially lowers current fatality counts by 90.2%. It is very possible that state health departments have been instructed by the CDC to over-count COVID fatalities, cases, and hospitalizations, and we will present that evidence shortly.
As we have demonstrated in our first 2 research articles, ‘Are Children Really Recovering 99.9584% of the Time From COVID-19,’ and ‘COVID-19…Have You Heard? There Is Good News!’ there is a very real concern for Americans over the age 50 and especially over 65 years of age. Risk of fatality increases substantially for Americans over age 50 with at least 1 of the following comorbidities: Hypertension, Diabetes, Elevated Cholesterol, Kidney Disease, Dementia, Heart Disease. For perspective, according to the CDC, is the risk of dying from pneumonia higher than the risk of dying from COVID-19 in the 55 to 64 age demographic?
Pre-retirement adults, in the 55 to 64 age demographic, had a slightly higher chance of dying from pneumonia (16,469) compared to COVID-19 (14,963).
In the 55 to 64 age demographic, there have been 178,884 reported fatalities from all causes.
Since February 1st, fatalities in the 55 to 64 age demographic had a 12% greater risk of dying from pneumonia than COVID-19. COVID-19 fatalities in the 55 to 64 age demographic make up 8.21% of all fatalities and the risk of fatality due to COVID-19 is on par with the risk of fatality associated with contracting pneumonia, 9.21%.
The reported fatalities from the CDC’s Provisional COVID-19 Death Counts by Sex, Age & State webpage:
Include ‘Probable’ fatalities, unconfirmed by testing, for COVID but not for influenza or pneumonia;
Does not have accompanying data to detail how many of the fatalities had significant underlying, pre-existing, or comorbid medical conditions;
Does not have accompanying data to determine if any of the fatalities were treated in a hospital setting and if the subsequent fatality was a result of the treatment.
What this data does reveal, however, is that there is no more significant risk of fatality from contracting the SARS-CoV-2 virus than from contracting influenza for children & teens. It also reveals that there is no more significant risk of fatality from contracting the SARS-CoV-2 virus than there is for developing pneumonia for teens & young adults.
We would not consider prohibiting in-person education when presented with infection rates and medical conditions at these rates, so why are we considering doing it for an infection that poses even less of a risk?
What this data reveals for adults working with children, teens, and young adults is that COVID-19 has a lower risk of fatality than pneumonia and the data suggests that other options should be created for both parents and educational professionals to allow them to choose which style of education they are currently comfortable with (1) traditional in-person education; (2) hybrid online/in-person education; or (3) virtual online education.
There are many questions that need to be addressed with the current situation.
Should each school district give parents and professionals options for in-person education, hybrid education, and/or online education this fall?
Should parents and professionals be allowed to decide where their comfort level is, and act accordingly given the data presented?
Or, should in-person students and professionals be forced to adhere to guidelines from the CDC that not only compromise the educational experience, but also place undue, unrealistic burdens upon them for something with a lower risk than pneumonia for all and influenza for the 0 to 14 age demographic?
We leave these questions for each American to answer.
More Scientific Evidence that It’s Safe for Children to Go Back to School
A genetic project in Iceland revealed interesting findings about children infecting adults.
“Children under 10 are less likely to get infected than adults and if they get infected, they are less likely to get seriously ill. What is interesting is that even if children do get infected, they are less likely to transmit the disease to others than adults. We have not found a single instance of a child infecting parents.”2 See this
Sweden kept schools open with no demonstrative adverse impact upon children in school settings compared to Finland that elected to close in-person education.
“Sweden’s decision to keep schools open during the pandemic resulted in no higher rate of infection among its schoolchildren than in neighboring Finland, where schools did temporarily close, their public health agencies said in a joint report…In conclusion, (the) closure or not of schools had no measurable direct impact on the number of laboratory confirmed cases in school-aged children in Finland or Sweden.” 3 See this
A German study found that children are unlikely vectors of COVID-19.
“Prof Reinhard Berner, the head of pediatric medicine at Dresden University Hospital and leader of the study, said the results suggested the virus does not spread easily in schools. “It is rather the opposite,” Prof Berner told a press conference. “Children act more as a brake on infection. Not every infection that reaches them is passed on.” The study tested 2,045 children and teachers at 13 schools — including some where there have been cases of the virus.” 4 See this
No evidence of children infecting teachers in Australia.
“Our investigation found no evidence of children infecting teachers…In contrast to influenza, data from both virus and antibody testing to date suggest that children are not the primary drivers of COVID-19 spread in schools or in the community.” 5 See this
School environments are low risk and in-person education resuming should begin.
“Our report includes both the primary and secondary school setting, with no transmission in either setting. The limited evidence of transmission in school settings supports the re-opening of schools as part of the easing of current restrictions. There are no zero risk approaches, but the school environment appears to be low risk.” 6 See this
Infected children do not spread the virus to other children, teachers or administrators.
“The main new finding is that the infected children did not spread the virus to other children or to teachers or other school staff…there was no secondary transmission of the virus to other children at the school, or from children to teachers.” 7 See this
Why Did the CDC Decide to Create Unique Reporting Rules for COVID-19 When Successful Reporting Rules Already Existed?
A double standard exists for how COVID-19 data is collected and reported versus all other infectious diseases and causes of death. Let’s examine three essential data categories; Fatalities, Cases & Hospitalizations for all infectious diseases because there are significant flaws in what constitutes a COVID-19 case, hospitalization and fatality.
On March 24th, the CDC decided to ignore universal data collection and reporting guidelines for fatalities in favor of adopting new guidelines unique to COVID-19. The guidelines the CDC decided against using have been used successfully since 2003.
After all, based upon the July 11th data from the CDC’s Provisional COVID-19 Death Counts by Sex, Age & State webpage, if COVID-19 is an epidemic (122,374 Fatalities), then shouldn’t pneumonia (131,372 Fatalities) also be an epidemic?1
Fatality Data
It is important to note that COVID-19 data is collected and reported by a much different standard than all other infectious diseases and causes of death data. This unique standard for COVID-19 was used, despite the existence of guidelines that have been successfully used since 2003 for data collection across all infective, comorbid, and injurious situations.
This begs the question, if the CDC already has well established guidelines for reporting fatalities then why make up new guidelines for COVID-19?
COVID-19 data is collected and reported based upon the March 24th National Vital Statistics Systems (NVSS) Guidelines and the April 14th CDC adoption of a position paper authored by the Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists (CSTE). 8,9
However, the data for all other causes of death is based upon the 2003 CDC’s Medical Examiners’ & Coroners’ Handbook on Death Registration and Fetal Death Reporting and the CDC’s Physicians’ Handbook on Medical Certification of Death. 10,11
On March 24th, the NVSS, under the direction of the CDC and National Institute of Health (NIH), instructed physicians, medical examiners, and coroners that COVID-19 would:
be recorded as the underlying cause of death “more often than not;”
be recorded as the cause of death listed in Part I of the death certificate even in assumed cases;
be recorded as the primary cause of death even if the decedent had other chronic comorbidities. All comorbidities for COVID-19 would be listed now in Part II, rather than in Part I as they had been since 2003 for all other causes of death.
March 24th, 2020 – NVSS COVID-19 Alert No. 2
“Will COVID-19 be the underlying cause? The underlying cause depends upon what and where conditions are reported on the death certificate. However, the rules for coding and selection of the underlying cause of death are expected to result in COVID19 being the underlying cause more often than not.”
“Should “COVID-19” be reported on the death certificate only with a confirmed test? 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 the decedent had other chronic conditions such as COPD or asthma that may have also contributed, these conditions can be reported in Part II. (See attached Guidance for Certifying COVID-19 Deaths)”
It’s worth noting that Part I of a death certificate is the immediate cause of death listed in sequential order from the official cause on line item (a) to the underlying causes that contributed to death in descending order of importance on line item (d), while Part II is/are the significant conditions NOT relating to the underlying cause(s) in Part I.
As we will demonstrate shortly, comorbid conditions are always listed on Part I of death certificates as causes of death per the 2003 CDC Handbook, so that accurate reporting can be developed. Comorbidities are seldom placed in Part II, as this is typically the place where coroners and medical examiners can list recent infections as underlying factors.
Prior to the March 24th and April 14th decisions, any comorbidities would have been listed in Part I rather than Part II and initiating factors, like recent infections, would have been listed on the last line in Part I or in Part II.
Why does this matter?
This matters because the Part I causes of death are statistically recorded for public health reporting, while Part II does not hold nearly the same statistical significance in reporting. This March 24th NVSS guideline essentially allows COVID-19 to be the cause of death when the actual cause of death should be the comorbidity according to the industry-standard 2003 CDC Handbook. It can be a bit confusing, so we will present an example shortly for clarity.
On April 14th, the CDC in conjunctions with approval from the National Institute of Health (NIH), adopted the CSTE position paper that authorized the following guidelines for data collection and reporting which are completely unique for COVID-19 and had never been done before which:
allowed for ‘Probable’ cases, hospitalizations, and fatalities [section A5];
created a pathway for the minimum standards of evidence to be a single cough [section A1];
created a pathway for completely bypassing laboratory testing in order to classify a COVID-19 case as positive [section A5];
created a pathway for the minimum standard of evidence necessary for determining a COVID-19 case to be positive as being within 6 feet of a ‘Probable’ case for 10 minutes or traveling to an area with outbreaks [section A3];
declined to create any methodology for ensuring the same COVID-19 positive person would not be counted multiple times as a new case upon being tested multiple times [section B].
April 14th, 2020 – CDC Adopts CSTE Interim-20-ID-01
Title: Standardized surveillance case definition and national notification for 2019 novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19)
“VII. Case Definition for Case Classification
Narrative: Description of criteria to determine how a case should be classified.
A1. Clinical Criteria At least two of the following symptoms:
fever (measured or subjective), chills, rigors, myalgia, headache, sore throat, new olfactory and taste disorder(s) OR
At least one of the following symptoms: cough, shortness of breath, or difficulty breathing OR
Severe respiratory illness with at least one of the following:
Clinical or radiographic evidence of pneumonia, or
Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). AND
No alternative more likely diagnosis
A2. Laboratory Criteria Laboratory evidence using a method approved or authorized by the FDA or designated authority:
Confirmatory laboratory evidence:
Detection of SARS-CoV-2 RNA in a clinical specimen using a molecular amplification detection test
Presumptive laboratory evidence:
Detection of specific antigen in a clinical specimen
Detection of specific antibody in serum, plasma, or whole blood indicative of a new or recent infection*
*serologic methods for diagnosis are currently being defined
A3. Epidemiologic Linkage One or more of the following exposures in the 14 days before onset of symptoms:
Close contact** with a confirmed or probable case of COVID-19 disease; or
Close contact** with a person with:
clinically compatible illness AND
linkage to a confirmed case of COVID-19 disease.
Travel to or residence in an area with sustained, ongoing community transmission of SARS-CoV2.
Member of a risk cohort as defined by public health authorities during an outbreak.
**Close contact is defined as being within 6 feet for at least a period of 10 minutes to 30 minutes or more depending upon the exposure. In healthcare settings, this may be defined as exposures of greater than a few minutes or more. Data are insufficient to precisely define the duration of exposure that constitutes prolonged exposure and thus a close contact.
A4. Vital Records Criteria A death certificate that lists COVID-19 disease or SARS-CoV-2 as a cause of death or a significant condition contributing to death.
A5. Case Classifications
Confirmed:
Meets confirmatory laboratory evidence.
Probable:
Meets clinical criteria AND epidemiologic evidence with no confirmatory laboratory testing performed for COVID-19.
Meets presumptive laboratory evidence AND either clinical criteria OR epidemiologic evidence.
Meets vital records criteria with no confirmatory laboratory testing performed for COVID19.
Criteria to distinguish a new case of this disease or condition from reports or notifications which should not be enumerated as a new case for surveillance
N/A until more virologic data are available”
Additionally, the CSTE position paper gave no definition as to what constitutes a COVID-19 recovery for all state and country health departments to follow.
While the, seemingly independent, CSTE position paper was authored by five accomplished professionals from the Idaho, Alabama, Michigan, Hawaii, and Iowa state health departments; 5 of the 7 Subject Matter Experts who contributed to the position paper were directly employed by the CDC which raises ethical concerns about conflicts of interest.
It stands to reason that each of the professionals who contributed to the CSTE position paper were aware of the existence of the 2003 guidelines for reporting fatalities.Additionally, no subject matter experts from universities, medical examiners, coroners or private industry appear to have been consulted on the production of this highly questionable document.
So, why does all of this matter?
It matters for several reasons:
The minimum standards defy accepted professional standards for differential diagnosis in medical practice;
Section A3 empowers contact tracers, who are unlikely to have any medical training, to illegally diagnose patients without even examining them, which is a violation of medical law in every state and constitutes practicing medicine without a license;
The CSTE position paper opens the door for any fatality to be listed as COVID-19 without any reasonable standard of evidence, while mandating that comorbidities simultaneously be deemphasized and moved to Part II, so as not to appear as a cause of death;
Simultaneous testing for all other infectious diseases, with similar respiratory symptom profiles like Coccidioidomycosis for Valley Fever, is not required. We therefore have no clinical or statistical means of knowing if a co-infection was present along with a positive finding of the SARS-CoV-2 virus in the differential diagnosis process.
Why was all of this necessary with a successful methodology for physicians, medical examiners, and coroners already in place since 2003?
The CDC’s 2003 Handbook suggests that COVID-19 should be listed either at the bottom of Part I or in Part II of a death certificate, rather than as the top line item in Part I, despite Dr. Fauci’s describing in multiple press interviews, that medical examiners and coroners would not be doing this, which disregards any knowledge of the March 24th orders by the NVSS to do so.
Let’s review what would have happened had the CDC decided to use their 2003 Handbook rather than adopting new rules for COVID-19 reporting.
2003 – CDC Medical Examiners’ and Coroners’ Handbook on Death Registration
“Because statistical data derived from death certificates can be no more accurate than the information provided on the certificate, it is very important that all persons concerned with the registration of deaths strive not only for complete registration, but also for accuracy and promptness in reporting these events.”.
“The principal responsibility of the medical examiner or coroner in death registration is to complete the medical part of the death certificate.”
“The cause-of-death section consists of two parts. Part I is for reporting a chain of events leading directly to death, with the immediate cause of death (the final disease, injury, or complication directly causing death) online (a) and the underlying cause of death (the disease or injury that initiated the chain of events [SARS-CoV-2 in this case] that led directly and inevitably to death) on the lowest used line.Part II is for reporting all other significant diseases, conditions, or injuries that contributed to death but which did not result in the underlying cause of death given in Part I.”
Under these guidelines, the highest COVID-19 could be listed in the presence of an established comorbidity would be Part I, line item (d) or lower, or in Part II.
“The cause-of-death information should be the medical examiner’s or coroner’s best medical OPINION. Report each disease, abnormality, in-jury, or poisoning that the medical examiner or coroner believe adversely affected the decedent.”
The ability for medical examiners and coroners to register their best medical opinion was neutered by the March 24th NVSS guidelines.
“If an organ system failure (such as congestive heart failure, hepatic failure, renal failure, or respiratory failure) is listed as a cause of death, always report its etiology on the line(s) beneath it (for example, renal failure due to Type I diabetes mellitus or renal failure due to ethylene glycol poisoning).”
Based upon the 2003 CDC Handbook, Part I for COVID-19 fatalities should contain any comorbidities first. Under these guidelines, COVID-19 would only be listed as a cause of death in Part I if there were no comorbidities and therefore the fatality counts for COVID-19 would be much lower than they currently are.
Here is the comorbidity data we have compiled from the only 7 states currently publishing this data in a manner that can be analyzed statistically. Note that 90.2% of fatalities had at least 1 comorbidity and therefore these fatalities would not be counted as COVID-19 fatalities under the 2003 CDC Handbook, but instead are counted based upon the NVSS guidelines and CSTE position paper adopted by the CDC on March 24th and April 14th respectively.
Keep in mind that while the number of fatalities with published comorbidity data is significant (N=44,562), we were unable to obtain comorbidity information on all fatalities from all states because the majority of states have not been publishing this data, if they are collecting it at all.
If each state were publishing comorbidity data, and if each state used the CDC’s 2003 Revision Handbook as they do for all other death certificates, the actual COVID-19 fatality totals would be approximately 90.2% LOWER than they currently are based upon an extrapolation of the data that is available.
2003 – CDC Medical Examiners’ and Coroners’ Handbook on Death Registration [continued]
“Only one cause is to be entered on each line of Part I. Additional lines should be added between the printed lines when necessary. For each cause, indicate in the space provided the approximate interval between the date of onset (not necessarily the date of diagnosis) and the date of death. For clarity, do not use parenthetical statements and abbreviations when reporting the cause of death. The underlying cause of death should be entered on the LOWEST LINE USED IN PART I. The underlying cause of death is the disease or injury that started the sequence of events leading directly to death or the circumstances of the accident or violence that produced the fatal injury. In the case of a violent death, the form of external violence or accident is antecedent to an injury entered, although the two events may be almost simultaneous.”
These clear guidelines from the CDC’s 2003 Handbook state that the highest COVID-19 would be able to be placed for comorbid conditions is on the lowest line in Part I without the March 24th NVSS guidelines and April 14th CSTE position paper. This means that while the SARS-CoV-2 virus may have initiated the process of death, the cause was actually the comorbidity as it should always be.
Additionally…
Without the March 24th NVSS guidelines or the April 14th CSTE position paper adoption, COVID-19 would NOT be allowed to be listed on a death certificate at all WITHOUT A POSITIVE LAB TEST or confirmatory pathologic autopsy findings.
Let’s take a look at how different the cause of death reporting can be for similar situations.
If we have a person who died from renal failure due to type 1 diabetes mellitus, but in scenario 1 the initiating factor was the H1N1 influenza virus while in scenario 2 the initiating factor was the SARS-CoV-2 virus, how would that look?
Here are 2 visuals of just how different these 2 very similar situations are to be recorded based upon March 24th NVSS guidelines.
Scenario 1 – H1N1 Influenza as Initiating Factor
Scenario 2 – COVID-19 as Initiating Factor
As you can see, these similar situations are reported dramatically different. As a result, the statistical reporting for fatalities will be dramatically different as well, for all people with known comorbidities, which makes up approximately 90.2% of all reported fatalities due to COVID-19 according to the US State Health Departments reporting this data.
Why is all of this important?
The CDC knew in early March that the vast majority of fatalities would be in people over 60 with comorbidities according to Dr. Nancy Messonnier, director of the CDC’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases and reported by CNBC on March 9th, 2020.6
“This seems to be a disease that affects adults and most seriously older adults. Starting at age 60, there is an increasing risk of disease and the risk increases with age. People with diabetes, heart disease, lung disease and other serious underlying conditions are more likely to develop “serious outcomes, including death.”
Why would the CDC adopt new rules for reporting fatalities when they already had successful guidelines?
Was the CDC and Dr. Fauci, the head of the NIAID (a division of the NIH), aware of the potential implications that adopting these guidelines would create in terms of fatality reporting?
And perhaps the most important question of them all… Is SARS-CoV-2 a naturally evolved microorganism or is it the result of gain of function experiments?
These are questions Americans deserve answers to, for hopefully obvious reasons.
Why does this matter for schools reopening?
The fatality data being reporting has clearly been inflated in multiple ways due to the adoption of recording and reporting rules that were unnecessary. As a result, this has greatly skewed public perception of this crisis, cost more than 50 million Americans their jobs, and created a tremendous amount of undue fear regarding the SARS-CoV-2 virus.
Even with the March 24th NVSS guidelines and the April 14th adoption of the CSTE position paper, COVID-19 has a lower risk of fatality than pneumonia in all age demographics and a lower risk of fatality than influenza in the 0 to 14 age demographic according to the CDC.
If the fatality data reporting guidelines inflate COVID-19 fatalities while holding all other causes of death to a different and higher standard, then why are we even considering forcing children to study from home?
That is a question every American must answer for themselves as well.
So Why Are Cases & Hospitalizations Continuing to Rise?
It is important to understand the difference between SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19. The scientific name of the new strain of coronavirus is SARS-CoV-2. After much naming instability, the disease caused by this new strain is called Coronavirus Disease 2019 or COVID-19.
Thus, it is important to realize that once testing is done to determine whether a person is positive for SARS-CoV-2, the patient must then have symptoms consistent with COVID-19 before being counted as a COVID case.
Professional medical training and practice dictates that for a person to be diagnosed with an infection, they must have lab evidence of the infection AND symptoms to support the diagnosis.
This distinction is very important as a person can have detectable levels of the SARS-CoV-2 virus and NOT present with any symptoms. This is possible in the case of a person who had contracted the virus as much as 6 weeks prior, gone through natural adaptive immunity processes to defeat the infection, and now has harmless remnant proteins still present in their body.
For example, an individual may test positive for Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) and not have AIDS. Similarly, an individual may test positive for SARS-CoV-2 and not have COVID-19.
In order for a case to be classified as COVID-19 there must be symptoms to support the diagnosis by a licensed professional. Lab testing alone and symptom evaluation alone violates accepted professional standards for differential diagnosis in medical practice.13
In addition to what is stated above, there are several factors to consider regarding why we are seeing increases in cases and hospitalizations in addition to what was stated above:
The dramatic increase in testing;
Contact Tracers diagnosing Americans as COVID-19 positive without examination, evidence, or even being required to speak to a patient as allowed for by the CDC’s April 14th adoption of the CSTE’s position paper;
June 13th CDC changes to hospital guidelines for testing in hospitals that creates the opportunity for the same patient being counted multiple times as a new case;
Confirmed & Probable COVID-19 hospitalized cases being counted as COVID-19 cases regardless of the reason for their admission into the hospital.
Increases in Testing
This graph shows how the number of PCR molecular tests processed continues to increase almost daily. Monthly Testing Averages:
April – 167,477 people tested per day;
May – 345,361 people tested per day;
June – 547,480 people tested per day;
July – 696,396 people tested per day thru July 12th.
More people are testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 per day, and thousands more people are being tested per day. Due to the significant increase in number of people being tested, the overall percentage of people testing positive dropped from a peak of 19.6% on April 12th to 7.8% on July 12th.
Contact Tracers Can Diagnose Without Contact
During our investigation, one of the most concerning pieces of information our team has come across is the empowerment of Contact Tracers (CTs) to diagnose without medical training, medical licensure, medical examination, or even being required to make physical or verbal contact with the prospective patient as allowed for by the CDC’s April 14th adoption of the CSTE position paper [section VII.A3].9
The CDC followed up this dubious authorization with guidance issued on June 17th, 2020.14
“The development and implementation of a robust data management infrastructure will be critical for assigning and managing investigations, linking clients with confirmed and probable COVID-19 to their contacts, and evaluating success and opportunities for improvement in a case investigation and contact tracing program. COVID-19 case investigations will likely be triggered by one of three events:
A positive SARS-CoV-2 laboratory test or
A provider report of a confirmed or probable COVID-19 diagnosis or
Identification of a contact as having COVID-19 through contact tracing
If testing is not available [or declined], symptomatic close contacts should be advised to self-isolate and be managed as a probable case. Self-isolation is recommended for people with probable or confirmed COVID-19 who have mild illness and are able to recover at home.”
What this reveals is that CTs are authorized to diagnose a New COVID-19 case without being medically trained or legally licensed to do so. Even more concerning is that CTs are empowered to do this without needing to examine or take a health history from a prospective patient.
If a person does not answer the call from a CT, then they are able to list that person as a Probable COVID-19 case and report their findings to their state health department for inclusion in reporting data.
This explains why Probable Cases have been rising daily since June 17th despite the dramatic increases in testing.15
Changes In Hospital Testing Protocols & The Inclusion Of COVID-19 Probable Hospitalizations
With the abundant availability of PCR molecular testing, most hospitals in the country have adopted the policy of testing all hospital admissions for the SARS-CoV-2 virus upon admission to the hospital regardless of why that person is being admitted.
People admitted for elective surgeries are required to be tested. People admitted for injuries or accidents are being tested. People in need of care for chronic comorbid conditions are being tested, and so forth.
If a person tests positive for presence of the SARS-CoV-2 virus, regardless of symptom presentation or reason for admission, they are now officially counted as a COVID-19 hospitalized case. This change in policy, never undertaken before, makes it now almost impossible to distinguish between people being admitted for COVID-19 symptoms and people being admitted who simply tested positive for SARS-CoV-2, but are being admitted for reasons other than COVID-19 symptomatology.
As a result, under this methodology of data categorization, hospital numbers have risen and will continue to rise until there are substantive changes to how data is being reported that allows everyone to clearly distinguish between the two vastly different new patient scenarios.
Even worse is the reality that an unacceptable percentage of hospital admissions are ‘Probable’ (‘Suspected’) and not lab confirmed. This is exemplified in this graphic provided by the Massachusetts Department of Public Health on July 12th that shows roughly 70-80% of COVID-19 Hospital Admissions are not lab confirmed. Be aware that the Massachusetts Department of Public Health is doing one of the best jobs in reporting among all state health departments despite the highly questionable CDC guidelines they are being confined to adhere to.
These severe breakdowns in accurate, clear data collection and reporting were initiated by the CDC on March 24th, reinforced again in their adoption of the CSTE’s April 14th position paper, and then reinforced yet again with a June 13th update of hospital testing guidelines for the safe discharge of COVID-19 positive patients.16,17
Per the CDC June 13th Update:
“Recommended testing to determine resolution of infection with SARS-CoV-2
A test-based strategy, which requires serial tests and improvement of symptoms, can be used, as an alternative to a symptom-based or time-based strategy, to determine when a person with SARS-CoV-2 infection no longer requires isolation or work exclusion. This strategy could be considered in three situations: Discontinuation of Transmission-Based Precautions and Disposition of Patients with COVID-19 in Healthcare Settings
Test-based strategy
Resolution of fever without the use of fever-reducing medications and
Improvement in respiratory symptoms (e.g., cough, shortness of breath), and
Negative results of an FDA Emergency Use Authorized COVID-19 molecular assay for detection of SARS-CoV-2 RNA from at least two consecutive respiratory specimens collected ≥24 hours apart (total of two negative specimens)”
What this reveals is that if a person is admitted to a hospital, they must be tested every 24 hours until they produce 2 consecutive negative PCR tests regardless of whether they have the serologic presence of antibodies or there is no serologic detection of the virus in the bloodstream.
Why is this important?
This is important because the PCR test has been reported to be inaccurate 50% of the time it is used according to Dr. Lee as reported in the International Journal of Geriatrics and Rehabilitation published on July 17th, 2020. In this study, up to 30% of PCR tests resulted in false positives and up to 20% resulted in false negatives, which means that PCR may only be accurate for detection 50% of the time it is used.18
The generally accepted medical standard for lab test accuracy is 95% and above, but in a situation like this 70 to 80% would likely be deemed as acceptable by most medical professionals.
Additionally, the mere presence of viral nucleic acids does not necessarily indicate active viral infection nor viral replication. Nucleic acid fragments from a viral entity may exist in patient tissues because of immunological destruction of the virus, which is supposed to happen and potentially occurred several weeks prior to specimen collection. What PCR testing may be discovering is not evidence of a current infection, but rather the remnants of a prior infection that the patient has already recovered from.
Conclusion
Clearly, we have to make significant changes to our case, hospitalization, and fatality definitions, data collection and reporting as a country, if the ultimate goal is accuracy in reporting for policy-level decision making in the best interests of all Americans.
Had the CDC used the well-established and successful methodology for recording COVID-19 related fatalities, as it does for all other causes of death, the fatality counts would be significantly lower.
How much lower?
We may never know. However, when we base our estimates upon the comorbidity data being published by New York, Massachusetts, Georgia, Oklahoma, Utah, Pennsylvania and Iowa the data suggests that accurate fatality rates could drop by approximately 90.2%.
How much would using the Medical Examiners’ and Coroners’ Handbook on Death Registration and Fetal Death Reporting rather than the March 24th NVSS guidelines and the April 14th CSTE position paper completely reshape the way we see COVID-19?
How much would it address the fear of the SARS-CoV-2 virus, and the implications, which so many media outlets have attempted to instilled within us?
And would any objective American have any worry for our children’s safety if they knew that pneumonia and influenza have each claimed more lives in the 0 to 14 age demographic than COVID-19?
We have serious professional and ethical concerns with empowering people with limited medical training to diagnose any medical condition without examining the prospective patient and reviewing a full health history with them as Contact Tracers are doing.
We have serious professional and ethical concerns with hospitals admitting patients as COVID-19 case without definitive evidence.
We have serious professional and ethical concerns with licensed physicians and nurses being required to classify all hospitalizations as COVID-19, regardless of reason for admission, or if the patient tests positive or is suspected to have contracted the SARS-CoV-2 virus. Making this a requirement prevents trained medical professionals from using their best judgment in determining diagnosis.
We have serious professional and ethical concerns with COVID-19 having much lower standards of evidence and much broader categories for inclusion into reports as Probable compared to reporting for all other infectious diseases.
In medicine, we are taught not to guess when we can know, but that basic ethos for safe practice and the sharing of accurate information has not been applied to COVID-19 in our professional opinions.
And we have serious professional and ethical concerns with medical examiners and coroners being required to list COVID-19 on Part I line item (a) as the cause of death in the clear presence of comorbid conditions with verifiable medical history, rather than trusting our healthcare professionals to do the job they are trained to do and have done so well, for so many years.
Medical examiners and coroners play a crucial role in saving lives by producing accurate data licensed healthcare professionals to use in clinical settings.
There is something to be learned in every loss of life. Sadly, what we are learning with COVID-19 is that accuracy in reporting does not matter as much as inflating the data and fanning the flame of fear.
Should American children, educational professionals, small business owners, workers and our country as a whole have to suffer because critical mistakes were made in the adoption of unnecessary new reporting rules?
Should public health officials, with no expertise in public education and economic policy, be given unchecked power to create policies that adversely impact the mental, emotional, and social development of our children, suppress small-business economic opportunity, and threaten to destroy the livelihoods of tens of millions of Americans in the name of safety?
These are questions all Americans deserve an answer to and questions we all must answer for ourselves…our collective future depends upon it.
Mahalo.
***
Updated Probability of Recovery & Age Demographics Data
Probability of Recovery continues to improve for all age demographics from our initial June 21stresearch article.
While the relative percentages of Fatalities with 1+ Comorbidity and age demographics for Fatalities, Hospitalizations, and Cases remains relatively unchanged, there has been a slight redistribution of age demographic percentages for cases, as more children in the Age 0 to 19 demographic are being tested for COVID-19.
Funding & Conflict of Interest Statement
This statistical research paper has been developed, composed and published without any funding, and thanks in part to a strictly, 100% volunteer community effort made by a diverse array of qualified professionals who care deeply about children and the health of every American. The authors of this paper confirm no conflicts of interest, financial, political or otherwise.
*
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.
An important transition in nuclear doctrine occurred in the immediate wake of 9/11.
The Cold War MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) doctrine was scrapped by the Bush Jr administration in 2002, replaced by the first strike pre-emptive use of nuclear weapons as a means of self defense. (2001 Nuclear Posture Review, adopted by the US Senate in 2002).
America’s use of nuclear weapons on a first strike basis is no longer considered as a weapon of total annihilation. Quite the opposite, the preemptive use of nuclear weapons is upheld as a means to ensuring global peace and security.
In contrast to the Truman era, however, today’s US thermonuclear bombs are several hundred times more powerful (in terms of yield) than the atom bomb dropped on Hiroshima on August 6, 1945, which resulted in the death of some 100,000 people in a matter of seven seconds.
And in the US, there is a 1.2 trillion dollar nuclear weapons program in support of Donald Trump’s “fire and fury”, comparable in some regards to Truman’s diabolical 1950 narrative pertaining to the use of the atomic bomb “as a means of self defense”against both China and North Korea.
While the US has waged countless wars in what is euphemistically described as “the post war era” (1945- present), the issue of “self defense” is erroneous: in the course of the last century, the national security of the United States of America has never been threatened.
Financing the Culture of War
Trump’s 1.2 trillion dollar nuclear weapons program constitutes a financial bonanza for the defense contractors. US media reports suggest that the nuclear weapons program “makes the World safer”.
And there are more than 5000 US nuclear weapons deployed. And now the US is committed to developing a generation of “more usable” low yield tactical nuclear weapons (bunker buster bombs) which are “harmless to the surrounding civilian population because the explosion is underground”.
“Making America Great again”…
“Blowing up the Planet” on a first strike basis as a instrument of peace and global security.
Those who decide on the use of nuclear weapons believe their own lies.
Quando estive pela primeira vez em Hiroshima em 1967, a sombra na escada ainda estava lá. Era uma impressão quase perfeita de um ser humano bem à vontade: pernas abertas, costas flexionadas, uma mão ao lado do corpo, esperando que o banco abrisse.
Às oito e quinze da manhã de 06 de agosto de 1945, ele e sua silhueta foram gravadas a fogo no granito.
Fiquei olhando para a sombra por uma hora, pouco mais, depois fui para a beira do rio, onde os sobreviventes ainda vivem em barracos.
Conheci um homem chamado Yukio, que teve gravado no peito o padrão da camiseta que vestia quando a bomba atômica explodiu.
Ele descreveu o brilho intenso sobre a cidade “uma luz azulada, parecida com um curto circuito” em seguida um vento violento como um tornado e uma chuva negra.
“Fui atirado contra o chão e percebi que só restaram os talos de minhas plantas. Tudo estava silencioso e quando me levantei, havia pessoas nuas, ninguém dizia nada. Alguns deles não tinham pele ou cabelo. Tive a certeza de ter morrido”.
Tentei encontrá-lo ao retornar nove anos depois, mas ele tinha morrido de leucemia.
O jornal The New York Times estampou a seguinte manchete em 13 de setembro de 1945:
“Não há radioatividade nas ruínas de Hiroshima”, um exemplo clássico de desinformação. William H. Lawrence relatou que “o General Farrel negou categoricamente que [a bomba atômica] produzira radioatividade duradoura.”
Apenas um repórter australiano, Wilfred Burchett, teve a coragem de fazer a perigosa viagem para Hiroshima logo após a explosão da bomba, desafiando as autoridades que ocupavam o Japão e controlavam os “dossiês da imprensa”
“Escrevi para alertar o mundo”, relatou Burchett no jornal londrino Daily Express em 05 de setembro de 1945. Sentado nas ruínas com sua pequena máquina de escrever, descreveu as enfermarias cheias de pessoas sem feridas aparentes que morriam do que ele apelidou de “praga atômica”.
Isso motivou a perda de sua credencial de imprensa, ele foi ridicularizado e difamado. Porém seu testemunho da verdade jamais foi esquecido.
O bombardeio atômico de Hiroshima e Nagasaki foi um ato premeditado de assassinato em massa, desencadeado por uma arma de criminalidade intrínseca. Tentou-se justificar a ação através de mentiras que formam a base da propaganda de guerra no século 21, mas desta vez visando um novo inimigo e alvo – a China.
Nestes 75 anos desde Hiroshima, a mentira mais resiliente é que a bomba atômica foi lançada para acabar com a Guerra no Pacífico e para salvar vidas.
A Investigação dos Bombardeios Estratégicos pelos Estados Unidos de 1946 concluiu que “mesmo sem os ataques nucleares, a supremacia aérea sobre o Japão poderia ter exercido pressão suficiente para levar a uma rendição incondicional e evitar a necessidade de invasão. Baseado em uma investigação detalhada de todos os fatos e com o apoio do testemunho de líderes japoneses sobreviventes envolvidos na questão, é opinião desta investigação que … o Japão teria oferecido rendição mesmo se as bombas atômicas não fossem lançadas, mesmo se a Rússia não tivesse entrado na guerra [contra o Japão] e mesmo se não houvesse invasão planejada ou prevista.”
O Arquivo Nacional em Washington contém documentos que atestam as tentativas de paz pelo Japão desde 1943. Não foram levadas em conta. Um telegrama enviado em 05 de maio de 1945 pelo embaixador da Alemanha em Tóquio e interceptado pelos Estados Unidos torna claro que os japoneses estavam desesperados pela paz, aceitando até a “capitulação, mesmo que os termos sejam duros”. Nada foi feito.
O Secretário de Guerra, Henry Stimson, disse ao presidente Truman que temia que a Força Aérea dos EUA tivesse bombardeado tanto o Japão que a nova arma não conseguiria “mostrar sua força”. Mais tarde, admitiu que “nenhum esforço foi feito e nada foi seriamente considerado nem levado em conta em relação à eventual rendição, apenas para poder usar a bomba [atômica].”
Os pares de Stimson na política externa – mirando na era pós guerra que estavam moldando “à nossa imagem”, como o planejador da Guerra Fria George Kennan disse em frase famosa – tornaram claro que estavam ansiosos para “atemorizar a Rússia com a bomba [atômica], feita exclusivamente às nossas custas”. O general Leslie Groves, diretor do Projeto Manhattan, que fez a bomba atômica, testemunhou: “da minha parte nunca houve ilusão de que não fosse a Rússia nosso inimigo. O projeto foi conduzido nessa premissa.”
No dia após a obliteração de Hiroshima, o presidente Harry Trumam vocalizou sua satisfação com o “sucesso total” do “experimento”.
O “experimento” continuou por muito tempo depois da guerra. Entre 1946 e 1958, os Estados Unidos explodiram 67 bombas nucleares nas ilhas Marshall no Pacífico: o equivalente a mais que uma Hiroshima por dia durante 12 anos.
As consequências para seres humanos e meio ambiente foram catastróficas. Durante a filmagem de meu documentário A Guerra Iminente Contra a China aluguei uma pequena aeronave e voei para o Atol de Bikini nas Marshall. Foi nesse local que os EUA explodiram a primeira Bomba de Hidrogênio. Ainda é uma terra envenenada. Meus sapatos atingiram o nível “inseguro” pelo contador Geiger. As palmeiras ostentam formas bizarras. Não há pássaros.
Caminhei através da floresta até o bunker de concreto onde o botão foi apertado às 06h45 de primeiro de março de 1954. O Sol, que havia nascido, nasceu novamente e vaporizou toda uma ilha na lagoa, deixando um enorme buraco preto, que visto do ar mostra um espetáculo aterrorizante: um vazio mortal rodeado pela beleza.
A precipitação radioativa caiu rápida e “inesperadamente”. A história oficial afirma que “o vento mudou subitamente”. Foi a primeira de uma série de mentiras, como mostram os testemunhos das vítimas e os documentos confidenciais agora revelados.
Designado para monitorar o local do teste, o meteorologista Gene Curbow disse:
“eles sabiam que a precipitação radioativa ocorreria. Mesmo no dia do teste, eles ainda tinham a oportunidade de evacuar a população, mas isso não aconteceu; o povo não foi evacuado… Os Estados Unidos precisavam de alguns porquinhos da índia para estudar os efeitos que a radiação causaria.”
Exatamente como em Hiroshima, o segredo das Ilhas Marshall é que era um experimento calculado sobre as vidas de grande número de pessoas. Foi chamado de projeto 4.1, que começou com um estudo científico de ratos e se tornou uma experiência com “seres humanos expostos à radiação de uma arma nuclear”.
Os habitantes das Ilhas Marshall que conheci em 2015 – exatamente como os sobreviventes de Hiroshima que entrevistei nos anos 60 e 70 – sofreram muito com o câncer, comumente câncer da tireoide. Milhares já morreram. Os abortos espontâneos e os natimortos abundavam; os bebês que nasciam vivos frequentemente sofriam deformações horríveis.
Ao contrário de Bikini, o atol vizinho de Rongelap não tinha sido evacuado durante o teste com a bomba H. Localizado na direção do vento a partir de Bikini, os céus de Rongelap escureceram e choveu o que no início pareciam flocos de neve. Comida e água ficaram contaminados e a população adoeceu com câncer. A doença ataca até hoje.
A nuvem Wilson do teste Baker, situada próximo à costa da Ilha Bikini, no topo da foto. (Fonte: US Army Photographic Signal Corps / Public Domain)
Conheci Nerje Joseph, que me mostrou uma foto ainda criança em Rongelap. Tinha queimaduras faciais terríveis e grande parte de sua cabeça não tinha cabelo.
“Nós estávamos tomando banho nos poços no dia em que a bomba explodiu. Poeira branca começou a cair do céu. Peguei um pouco do pó. Usamos como sabonete para lavar a cabeça. Dias depois, meu cabelo começou a cair.”
Lemoyo Abon relatou: “alguns de nós caíram em agonia. Outros tinham diarreia. Estávamos apavorados. Pensei que era o fim do mundo”.
Um filme de arquivo oficial dos EUA que coloquei em meu documentário chama os ilhéus de “selvagens dóceis”. Na sequência da explosão, um agente da Agência de Energia Atômica dos Estados Unidos foi visto se vangloriando que Rongelap “é de longe o local mais contaminado do Planeta Terra”, acrescentando que “será bem interessante ter uma medida da capacidade de absorção de radiação pelos seres humanos que vivem em meio ambiente tão contaminado”.
Cientistas (norte)americanos, entre eles médicos, construíram carreiras brilhantes estudando a “capacidade de absorção humana”. Eles foram vistos em filmes bruxuleantes, com seus jalecos brancos, atentos com suas pranchetas. Quando um ilhéu adolescente morria, sua família recebia um cartão de pêsames dos cientistas que o estudavam.
Fiz relatos sobre cinco “zonas de impacto” nucleares através do mundo – no Japão, nas Ilhas Marshall, em Nevada, Polinésia e Maralinga, na Austrália. Ainda mais que com minha experiência de correspondente de guerra, o que isso me ensinou foi a crueldade e imoralidade das grandes potências: isto é, o poder Imperial, cujo cinismo é o grande e real inimigo da humanidade.
Fiquei muito impressionado quando filmei a zona de impacto de Taranaki em Maralinga, no deserto australiano. Numa cratera achatada havia um obelisco onde estava escrito: “uma bomba atômica britânica foi testada em uma explosão aqui, em 09 de outubro de 1957”. Na beira da cratera havia uma placa:
CUIDADO: PERIGO DE RADIAÇÃO
O nível de radiação por centenas de metros
A partir deste ponto pode estar acima do considerado
Seguro para ocupação permanente
Até onde a vista alcançava o terreno estava irradiado. Pó de plutônio bruto jazia no chão como talco: o plutônio é tão perigoso para o ser humano que um terço de miligrama traz 50% de possibilidade de resultar em câncer.
Os únicos que poderiam ver o cartaz seriam os indígenas australianos, mas para estes não havia avisos. De acordo com um relatório oficial, quando tinham sorte, eram “enxotados como coelhos”.
Hoje, uma campanha de propaganda sem precedentes está nos enxotando como coelhos. Sequer nos questionamos sobre a torrente diária de retórica contra a China, que está rapidamente ultrapassando a retórica contra a Rússia. Qualquer coisa chinesa é má, anátema, uma ameaça: Wuhan… Huawei. É ainda mais confuso quando tudo isso é dito pelos nossos líderes sabidamente vis.
Foi Barack Obama e não Trump quem começou a fase atual dessa campanha em 2011 quando voou para a Austrália para deslanchar o maior crescimento das forças navais dos Estados Unidos na região da Ásia/Pacífico desde a segunda guerra mundial. De repente, a China virou “ameaça”. Não tem sentido, é claro. O que estava ameaçada era na realidade a visão indiscuvelmente psicopata dos EUA que se veem como os mais ricos, os mais bem sucedidos, a nação mais “indispensável”.
O que nunca foi colocado em questão foram suas proezas como arruaceiro – com mais de trinta países membros da ONU sofrendo sanções de algum tipo dos EUA e uma trilha de sangue que corre de países indefesos bombardeados, que viram seus governos derrubados, sofreram interferências em suas eleições e tiveram seus recursos saqueados.
A declaração de Obama tornou-se conhecida como “o pivô para a Ásia”. Um dos advogados mais ferrenhos desse movimento foi a então Secretária de Estado Hillary Clinton, que, como mais tarde revelado pelo WikiLeaks, queria mudar o nome do Oceano Pacífico para “Mar Americano”.
Na medida em que Clinton nunca escondeu seu belicismo, Obama foi um mestre do marketing. “Declaro com convicção e clareza” afirmou o novo presidente em 2009, “que o compromisso dos Estados Unidos é buscar um mundo de paz e segurança, sem armas nucleares”.
Obama elevou os gastos com armas nucleares mais rapidamente que qualquer outro presidente desde o fim da Guerra Fria. Desenvolveu-se uma arma nuclear “utilizável” conhecida como B61 Modelo 12 o que significa, de acordo com o General James Cartwright, antigo vice presidente do Estado Maior das Forças Armadas que, tornando-se menor [faz seu uso] mais “pensável”.
O alvo, claro, é a China. Hoje, mais de 400 bases militares dos EUA cercam quase totalmente a China com mísseis, bombardeiros, navios de guerra e armas nucleares, do norte da Austrália através do Pacífico até o sudoeste da Ásia, Japão e Coreia e através da Eurásia até o Afeganistão e Índia, as bases formam, como me disse um estrategista, “um cerco perfeito”.
Um estudo da Corporação RAND – a qual, desde o Vietnã, planeja as guerras dos Estados Unidos – intitula-se Guerra com a China: Pensando no Impensável. Contratados pelo exército dos Estados Unidos, os autores evocam o infame grito de guerra de seu principal estrategista na Guerra Fria, Herman Kahn – “pensando o impensável”. O livro de Kahn, Sobre a Guerra Termonuclear, construía um plano para uma guerra nuclear “vencível”.
A visão apocalíptica de Kahn é compartilhada pelo Secretário de Estado de Trump, Mike Pompeo, um evangélico fanático que acredita no “arrebatamento final”. Trata-se provavelmente do homem vivo mais perigoso da Terra. “Fui diretor da CIA” gaba-se ele. “Nós mentimos, nós enganamos, nós roubamos. Era se como isso viesse de cursos completos de formação”. Pompeo é obcecado pela China.
O objetivo final do extremismo de Pompeo raramente é mencionado pela mídia, que é onde os mitos e invencionices sobre a China tornam-se norma padrão, assim como as mentiras sobre o Iraque. Um racismo virulento é o texto nas entrelinhas dessa propaganda. Chamados de “amarelos” embora sejam brancos, os chineses são o único grupo étnico que foi banido por uma “lei de exclusão” de entrar nos Estados Unidos, porque são chineses, A cultura popular os descreve como sinistros, não confiáveis, “traiçoeiros”, depravados, doentes e imorais.
Existe uma revista australiana, The Bulletin, que se dedica a espalhar o medo do “perigo amarelo”, como se toda a Ásia fosse desabar pela força da gravidade sobre a colônia só de brancos.
Como escreve o historiador Martin Powers, reconhecer o modernismo da China, sua moralidade secular e “contribuições para o pensamento liberal enfraquece a narrativa europeia. Assim, tornou-se necessário retirar o papel chinês no debate sobre o iluminismo … por séculos a ameaça da China ao mito da superioridade ocidental faz dela um alvo fácil para a provocação”.
No jornal Sydnei Marning Herald, o incansável contestador da China Peter Hartcher descreve aqueles que espalham a influência chinesa na Austrália como “ratos, moscas, mosquitos e pardais”. Hartcher, que cita favoravelmente o demagogo (norte)americano Steve Bannon, gosta de interpretar os “sonhos” da atual elite chinesa, como se privasse da intimidade dela. Seriam inspirados por ilusões do “Mandato dos Céus”, de 2000 atrás. Ad nauseam.
Para combater o tal “mandato”, o governo australiano de Scott Morrison comprometeu um dos países mais seguros do mundo, cujo maior parceiro comercial é a China, com centenas de bilhões de dólares em mísseis dos EUA que podem ser lançados contra a China.
A tendência já é evidente. Num país marcado historicamente pelo racismo violento contra asiáticos, australianos de origem chinesa formaram um grupo de vigilantes para proteger entregadores. Vídeos mostram um entregador atingido na face e um casal chinês abusado racialmente dentro do supermercado. Entre abril e junho, houve quase 400 ataques racistas contra australianos de descendência asiática.
“Nós não somos seus inimigos” disse-me um estrategista de alto nível na China, “mas se vocês [ocidentais] decidirem que somos, temos que nos preparar sem mais delongas”.
O arsenal chinês é pequeno quando comparado com o dos EUA, mas cresce com rapidez, especialmente o desenvolvimento de mísseis marítimos destinados a destruir frotas de navios.
“Pela primeira vez” conforme escreveu Gregory Kulacki, da União dos Cientistas Engajados, “a China está discutindo colocar seus mísseis nucleares em alerta vermelho, que assim poderiam ser lançados rapidamente em caso de alerta de ataque.” Pode ser uma mudança perigosa na política chinesa…”
Falei com Amitai Etzioni em Washington, um ilustre professor de questões internacionais na Universidade George Washington, que escreveu que “um ataque às cegas contra a China” foi planejado “com impactos que poderiam ser percebidos equivocadamente [pelos chineses] como uma tentativa preemptiva de anular suas armas nucleares, encurralando o país no terrível dilema de ou usar ou perder [que poderia] levar à guerra nuclear”.
Em 2019 os Estados Unidos realizaram seu maior exercício militar desde a Guerra Fria, grande parte realizado em segredo férreo. Uma armada de navios com bombardeiros de longo alcance ensaiou conceitos de “Guerra aérea e marítima contra a China” – ASB (Air-Sea Battle, em inglês) – bloqueando linhas marítimas no Estreito de Malaca, cortando em consequência o acesso chinês a petróleo e gás, além de outras matérias primas do Oriente Médio e da África.
É por temer esse tipo de bloqueio que a China desenvolveu seu projeto Iniciativa Cinturão e Estrada ao longo da antiga Rota da Seda para a Europa e construiu em regime de urgência pistas de pouso em recifes e ilhotas nas águas disputadas das Ilhas Spratly.
Conversei em Xangai com Lijia Zhang, uma jornalista e novelista de Pequim, representante típico de uma nova classe de rebeldes sinceros. Seu best seller tem o título irônico de “Socialism Is Great!” Tendo crescido em plena Revolução Cultural, caótica e brutal, ela viajou e viveu nos Estados Unidos e na Europa.
“Muitos (norte)americanos pensam” disse ela, “que o povo chinês vive uma vida miserável e reprimida sem qualquer tipo de liberdade. O [pensamento sobre] perigo amarelo nunca os abandonou… eles sequer têm ideia de que há 500 milhões de pessoas que foram retiradas da pobreza, e há quem calcule que seriam na realidade 600 milhões.”
As conquistas épicas da China moderna, que derrotou a pobreza em massa, o orgulho e alegria de seu povo [medidas com perícia por pesquisadores (norte)americanos como a Pew] são totalmente desconhecidas ou mal interpretadas no ocidente. Isso basta para lamentar o estado e o abandono de reportagens honestas pelo jornalismo ocidental.
Só nos permitem ver exclusivamente a fachada de um suposto lado sombrio de China, que gostamos de chamar de “autoritarismo”. É como se estivéssemos mergulhados eternamente em contos do super vilão Dr. Fu Manchu. Agora, é tempo de se perguntar a razão disso, antes que seja muito tarde para impedir a próxima Hiroshima.
The number of positive RT-PCR tests, which diagnose the presence of pieces [fragments] of the SARS-CoV-2 virus, is equated in the press and government reports with the number of new COVID-19 cases. This is not entirely true. This is misleading. It suggests a resurgence of the disease. COVID-19 is the name of the disease.
The RT-PCR test is just a means of detecting SARS-CoV-2, and that test is unreliable. Some people are asymptomatic, or with mild symptoms. Testing positive, which is already subject to interpretation, does not mean “sick”. Other doctors, including virologists, say so and warn of the current danger of this confusion maintained by official bodies.
The tests (screening, diagnosis, immunity) symbolize the blind and total belief in the omnipotence of technical medicine and technology. This illusion is maintained by industry, by some doctors and by the media.
As in the case of vaccination, there is an oversimplification on this subject which is a breeding ground for the manipulation of public opinion.
An example of oversimplification is to summarize human immunity to antibodies or to make people believe that a positive RT-PCR test is synonymous with COVID-19 disease.
RT-PCR
A positive RT-PCR test [1] is not synonymous with COVID-19 disease.
Today, as authorities test more people, there are bound to be more positive RT-PCR tests. This does not mean that COVID-19 is coming back, or that the epidemic is moving in waves. There are more people being tested, that’s all.
Are these tests reliable? [2].
Beware of false positives [3]. This weakness of the PCR test in virus testing has been known for years [4]. For Kary Mullis, the inventor of the PCR technique which enabled him to win the Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 1993, this test was above all qualitative and intended to answer the question: is the element there, yes or no, not at all to be quantified?
Moreover, these tests detect viral particles, genetic sequences, not the whole virus.
In an attempt to quantify the viral load, these sequences are then amplified several times through numerous complex steps that are subject to errors, sterility errors and contamination [5-6].
Positive RT-PCR is not synonymous with COVID-19 disease! PCR specialists make it clear that a test must always be compared with the clinical record of the patient being tested, with the patient’s state of health to confirm its value [reliability] [7].
The media frighten everyone with new positive PCR tests, without any nuance or context, wrongly assimilating this information with a second wave of COVID-19.
Serologies and immunities
Serology is the determination of protein in the blood. In COVID-19, we look for antibodies (immunoglobulins or Ig) specific to the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus.
In this case, IgG.
Each test can look for a particular type of antibody. Antibodies are produced after recovery and can be directed against hundreds of virus antigens, which explains the inconsistent results depending on the type of antibody chosen for the test.
The first thing you need to know, in order to know what you are talking about, is the type of antibody that the test is measuring.
The RT-PCR test, a molecular technology based on a sample of cells from the upper respiratory tract, tries to detect the presence of viruses.
Serological tests look to see if the person has developed humoral (antibody-based) immunity (protection) to the virus.
Indirectly, a positive serology would confirm that the person, at some point, has been in contact with the virus.
That’s not entirely true.
The reality is neither so simple nor so obvious!
Many doctors themselves do not know how human antiviral immunity works.
Cross-immunity, non-specific innate immunity and cell specific immunity are not measured by serology. Yet they are essential.
In immunopathology, the notion of field (patient’s condition) conditions the body’s response to COVID-19 [8].
“In this era of astounding progress in the field of lymphocyte molecular and cellular biology, it is easy to forget that our perception of immunology at the systemic level is still at an embryonic stage. Modern immunology has only a very limited understanding of the myriad complex physiological events that, in vivo, constitute the immune response, whether protective or pathological.”
[Fundamentals Immunology, 1600 pages, Louis J Picker & Mark H. Siegelmen, Pathologists, University of Texas.]
Summarizing it all down to SARS-CoV-2 specific antibodies alone is a dangerous lure, a dramatic simplification that distorts all reasoning and therefore any future policy blinded by an obsession with a vaccine.
CROSS-IMMUNITY
SARS-CoV-2 is a coronavirus related to other coronaviruses, most of which, in humans, cause only “common” colds. Most of us have developed good immunity to these coronaviruses since childhood. It is this cross-immunity that may have protected most of us from SARS-CoV-2 before any vaccine was developed.
Cross-immunity between cold coronaviruses and SARS-CoV-1 has already been demonstrated. This is cell-based immunity (not antibody-based).
This protection by natural cell-based immunity persists much longer (> 10 years) than antibody-mediated humoral immunity (< 3 years).
Cellular immunity uses a type of cell, T-lymphocytes, the best known of which are called CD4+ and CD8+. This T-cell immune response plays a major role in the defence against infection.
Cross-immunity between common cold coronaviruses and SARS-CoV-2 is highly likely, mediated by this T-cell immunity, directed against antigens common to all coronaviruses.
Dosing for antibodies (Ig immunoglobulins) specific to a particular SARS-CoV-2 antigen misses out on this immunity, which is nevertheless very present and very effective.
INNER IMMUNITY
Innate immunity is non-specific, not antibody-mediated.
It is the first response to an infection; it destroys the infectious agent.
It is an important anti-viral barrier that IgG serologies do not detect either. This innate immunity is capable of defending us against a virus without the need for specific immunity, provided we are healthy.
It has probably contributed to the low incidence of COVID-19 disease in young and healthy older individuals. This innate immunity destroys the virus very quickly. It does not need to develop antibodies to manage the infection, at least not enough for a test to detect them. Instead, it activates a cellular response to T-cells. This innate immunity persists throughout life, unlike humoral (memory) specific immunity, which declines with age.
It is possible to be immunized against COVID-19 through our innate immunity and these memory T cells, even in the absence of neutralizing antibodies.
A Swedish study reported that individuals affected by COVID-19 developed a cellular T cell immune response in the absence of detectable antibodies [9]. It is therefore highly likely that this T-cell immune response is sufficient to protect against a new SARS-CoV-2 infection.
However, none of this is demonstrated by current serological tests!
COVID-19 acts as an indicator of our state of health.
Health status is not only related to our standard of living or the quality of our health care services, far from it. Rather, they tend to mask poor health.
Good health is linked to the quality of our diet, our physical activity and, above all, our state of mind.
The importance of good mental health is paramount in our quality of life and in our ability to cope with illness.
Fear, total confinement, social distancing, constant wearing of a mask, all contribute to a serious deterioration of our mental health.
The relationship between psychology and the endocrine (hormones), nervous and immune systems has been proven for a long time [9].
The media, their daily anxiety-provoking announcements, the total confinement and the deadly atmosphere have stressed populations to the point of astonishing and lasting damage to their health.
It is paradoxical to advocate life-saving measures while ignoring the catastrophic consequences of such measures.
The relationship between stress and immunity is well demonstrated [10-11-12].
The field (state of health) is a fundamental notion in immunopathology.
The severity of an infection, of COVID-19 in particular, is determined by the terrain, by the state of health of the patient.
This relationship is not only due to the presence of one or more co-morbidities that weaken the organism.
It involves the decline (with age) of specific acquired immunity (of which humoral antibody immunity is a part).
In unhealthy individuals, the normal protective immune defence is diverted to an inadequate, deleterious overreaction through the production of antibodies that facilitate infection and a Th2 (inflammatory cytokine storm) rather than a protective Th1 (T-cell) response [8].
This is why the sickest people suffer from the most severe forms of the disease, especially if they are older (ageing of specific immunity): because of an inadequate immune response.
Healthy young people and adults are protected because their immune ground is healthy.
This is what people should be told rather than using fear to better prepare them to accept a hastily prepared vaccine.
The innate cellular immunity of most people is competent and sufficient.
In the case of SARS-CoV-2, a coronavirus of the cold virus family, T-cell cross-immunity is effective as well.
That’s all kinds of solid scientific information that will reassure most people.
Why do the media prefer to continue to frighten and misinform?
This information tells us that a large part of the population will be protected from an infection like COVID-19 without having to wait for a vaccine or maintain measures whose deleterious effects eventually outweigh any benefits (such as the continued wearing of a mask).
Instead, authorities and mainstream media continue to perpetuate the psychosis and do not fully inform people.
They incorrectly translate “positive RT-PCR tests” into “new COVID-19 cases”.
They wrongly propagate the dogma that immunity is only antibodies.
They incorrectly suggest that PCR tests and serologies help to separate “infected” and “uninfected”.
They falsely claim that only a vaccine can save us.
The fear is terrible!
Not only does it astound (paralyze) our immune system, it also freezes our analytical and thinking abilities.
In conclusion, keep in mind that human technologies are limited, sometimes sources of error. The precision of words in science, in medicine, is crucial. The RT-PCR technique can give false positives and a positive RT-PCR test is not synonymous with COVID-19 disease. More than the number of positive tests, the actual hospitalization rate remains the indicator of choice for a resurgence of disease.
What matters is the presence or absence of signs, symptoms (cough-fever-respiratory difficulties-impaired taste or smell) that should lead you to stay home, be quarantined, or even see a doctor if these symptoms worsen.
If you have to go out, respect the social distance and wash your hands. Many RT-PCR-positive people will have no symptoms, they must trust their healthy innate and cross immunity.
As for serologies, keep in mind that they only measure a specific neutralizing type of antibody and that the absence of this antibody (negative or low serology) does not mean that you have not been in contact with SARS-CoV-2.
Without even noticing or barely noticing it, you may have been able to eliminate this virus by using your innate immunity, cross-immunity to other cold coronaviruses, and/or T-type cellular immunity, without having to produce antibodies.
Dr. Pascal Sacré, physician specialized in critical care, author and renowned public health analyst based in Charleroi, Belgium. Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG)
Translation by Maya, Global Research
Notes:
[1] Reverse-Transcriptase-Polymerase Chain Reaction, Réaction polymérase en chaîne utilisant une transcriptase inverse pour produire de l’ADN à partir de l’ARN viral.
[9] https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.06.29.174888v1 Sekine et al. 29 juin 2020. Robust T cell immunity in convalescent individuals with asymptomatic or mild COVID-19 : Our collective dataset shows that SARS-CoV-2 elicits robust memory T cell responses akin to those observed in the context of successful vaccines, suggesting that natural exposure or infection may prevent recurrent episodes of severe COVID-19 also in seronegative individuals.
[9] Psycho-neuro-endocrino-immunologie, les fondamentaux scientifiques de la relation corps-esprit ou les bases rationnelles de la médecine intégrée, Francesco Bottaccioli, Editions Résurgence, 2011, 664 pages.
Silicon Valley continues to sprawl in influence, and its modern robber barons bestride the globe with a confidence verging on contempt. The technology giants that mark that region of California are praised as “virtuosos of ingenuity,” to use Steve Forbes’ words, “creating and supplying products and services that were once unimaginable and that have been enabling us to survive the COVID lockdowns and working from home”.
For the most part, they have been encouraged to do so by those in Congress, who have been their handmaidens and coddlers. Now, big and bold, the likes of Google, Apple, Amazon and Facebook look at the globe as theirs, and theirs lone, to be divided in the manner that Spain and Portugal divvied the New World between them at the Treaty of Tordesillas in 1494.
The Big Tech oligarchs, potentates of the online economy, appeared via video before the House Judiciary antitrust subcommittee on July 29 keen to explain why they had no reason being there. They existed for the good, had done good and would continue doing good. For Facebook and Google, that was in advertising; for e-commerce, Amazon. Apple took the side of applications.
The members of the subcommittee had busied themselves for 13 months investigating the anti-competitive practices of the Big Four, though the hearing did nothing to affect their financial results or reveal much we did not already know. On July 30, the four companies reported a combined profit of $28.6 billion for the second quarter. The political inquisitors had been shown up to be bullishly theatrical but strikingly ineffectual.
The questioning by the subcommittee also did nothing to sully the names of the tech behemoths. According to a survey conducted by Harris Poll for Fast Company, almost half of 18- to 34-year-olds claimed that their perception of the companies improved with the hearing. Within that age group, 63% claimed to have increased their usage of the services and products supplied by those companies. Sod anti-competitive practices, they seemed to say.
Tim Cook threw a blanket over the policy of Apple’s App Store to rivals, insisting that it did not exclude parental control apps made by other companies for the express purpose of nabbing greater market share for its own Screen Time app. “We were concerned, Congresswoman,” explained Apple’s CEO to Democratic Rep. Lucy McBath of Georgia, “about the privacy and security of kids.” One such example of a rival app that was given its marching orders by the company was OurPact. It was supposedly prone to third-party takeovers.
Those kicked off the app store, ostensibly for being inadequately vested with privacy protections, were admitted six months later with no noticeable changes made on their part. What mattered was the time lag, which McBath noted was “an eternity for small businesses”. She duly produced an email from a concerned mother to an Apple employee keen to make her download Screen Time. “I am deeply disappointed,” went the well informed maternal note, “that you have decided to remove this app and others like it, thereby reducing consumer access to much-needed services to keep children safe and protect their mental health and well-being.”
Cook was unmoved. Any app might be removed from the palace that is App Store for any number of reasons. None of them, it seemed, were because of predatory practices on the part of his company. All were treated equally, though this did not square with the very select treatment afforded Amazon, which secured a deal with Apple to get its Prime Video app on Apple TV. Instead of paying Apple the standard 30% cut of sales in using the platform, Amazon CEO Jeff Bezosmanaged to negotiate a 15% cut with Eddy Cue, Apple’s VP in charge of Apple TV.
Bezos was made to listen to the accounts of various small-business owners who claimed they were steamrolled by the Amazon juggernaut. Democratic subcommittee chair David Cicilline of Rhode Island quoted the words of one disgruntled seller who had benefited in using Amazon’s platform till the company allegedly copied a version of his product to market at lower cost. “We called it Amazon heroin. You had to get your next fix, but this person was ultimately going to be your downfall.” For his part, Bezos was dismissive. His company did not stoop to “bullying” the small. “That is not how we operate the business.”
Mark Zuckerberg of Facebook faced questioning on the acquisition of Instagram, with his tactical state of mind outlined in disclosed emails and documents. In an email to the company’s chief financial officer David Ebersman in February 2012, Zuckerberg considered the idea of buying smaller competitors such as Path and Instagram, “nascent” businesses with “the networks established”, meaningful brands that, were “they to grow to a large scale … could be very disruptive to us.” New York Democratic Rep. Jerry Nadley felt he had his man. “Facebook, by its own admission … saw Instagram as a threat that could potentially siphon business away from Facebook.” Instead of competing with it, Facebook purchased it. “This is exactly the type of anti-competitive acquisition the antitrust laws were designed to prevent.”
Faced with such a paper trail, the Facebook CEO succumbed to a moment of candour. “I’ve made it clear that Instagram was a competitor in the space of mobile photo sharing.” Zuckerberg spoke of the “subset of the overall space of connecting that we exist in”, teeming with disruptive rivals. By “having them” join Facebook, they got bigger on the company’s largesse.
Google faced a now familiar accusation that its search engine laid waste to all before them. Cicilline was more specific in his volley, charging the company with building its business on “stolen content” that disadvantaged rivals. Not so, countered Google and Alphabet CEO Sundar Pichai.
“Today we support 1.4 million small businesses supporting over $385 billion in the core economic activity.” There was even a humanitarian element to it. “We see many businesses thrive, particularly even during the pandemic.”
Like the hefty digital companies they are meant to target, antitrust measures must be unconventional. Patrick Leblond of the Centre for International Governance Innovation at the University of Ottowa suggests throwing out the traditional copy book if a “feasible solution for taming Big Tech’s market power in the data-driven economy” is to be found. Breaking up such companies simply will not do. Divided, they will not fall, regrouping and re-emerging on the very source of their power. It is therefore fundamental to target the source of the power itself: data. Make it more easily accessible to those with “legitimate” purposes under a “strict regulatory regime modelled on securities regulation that protects the integrity and anonymity of publicly available data.”
These are ideas that have yet to mark the often incurious, rusted minds of those in Congress. But Cicilline was happy with issuing a grand threat. “Our founders would not bow before a king. Nor should be bow before the emperors of the online economy.” For the moment, the bucking beasts that make the Big Four may not expect any bowing, but nor will they expect too much in the way of a substantive threat.
*
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]
Big Pharma in cahoots with Big Media and Big Government want a known COVID-19 cure suppressed.
Why? Because an effective treatment is readily available, cheap, and if widely used to treat the disease or taken prophylactically to prevent it, Big Pharma’s aim to cash in big from harmful to human health mass-vaxxing will fail.
A potential multi-billion dollar market potential is at stake, a prize Big Pharma profiteers don’t want to lose — aided and abetted by government officials and establishment media.
A campaign is underway — ClinicalTrials.gov — to manipulate the public mind with fake news about vaccines in development that are likely to be available in the coming months.
Suppressing potential hazards to human health from mass-vaxxing, information about a safe and effective COVID-19 cure is suppressed.
Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) combined with either azithromycin or doxycycline and zinc is highly effective.
HCQ has been around for decades. It’s widely available in generic form, cheap, and safe when used early after COVID-19 infection is diagnosed.
Emergency care physician Simone Gold MD founded America’s Frontline Doctors.
She was fired after appearing with other HCQ truth-telling physician members of the group by video in a White Coat Summit that went viral — explaining the drug’s effectiveness.
On August 2, she tweeted:
“After our press conference (via video), I was defamed by the media, censored by social media companies, terminated from employment, and viciously attacked, all for advocating for the right of physicians to prescribe what they believe is best for their patients.”
She and other White Coat Summit doctors explained HCQ’s effectiveness based on their own experience in using it to treat COVID-19 patients.
By video, Gold said
“(w)e’re here because we feel as though the American people have not heard from all the expertise that’s out there, all across our country.”
“We’re America’s Frontline Doctors…here only to help American patients, and the American nation.”
White Coat Summit participant Dr. Stella Immanuel’s remarks were dramatic and important for everyone to know, saying the following:
“Any study that says hydroxychloroquine doesn’t work is fake science.”
“…I want them to show me how it doesn’t work. How is it going to work for 350 patients for me, and they are all alive, and then somebody says it doesn’t work?”
“These so-called (establishment media promoted) studies (are) fake science.”
She and other White Coat Summit participating physicians debunked what they called a “massive disinformation campaign” against safe and effective HCQ in favor of hazardous to human health mass-vaxxing.
Immanuel explained that she had 100% success in treating 350 COVID-19 patients by using HCQ combined with azithromycin and zinc.
She slammed politicians for trying to prevent doctors from being doctors, free to treat patients with medications known to work.
She criticized doctors fearful of going against recommended medical establishment practices, saying:
“You’re like the ‘good’ Nazis, the ‘good’ Germans, who watched Jews get killed and didn’t speak up.”
She and other doctors she knows are taking HCQ prophylactically.
Despite being in direct contact with COVID-19 ill patients regularly, none contracted the disease.
After going viral, the video by America’s Frontline Doctors was suppressed by You Tube, Facebook, Twitter and Google — in cahoots with Big Pharma, Big Government and Big Media that are promoting mass-vaxxing.
After debunking HCQ’s effectiveness in May, the Lancet published a retraction of its report that falsely claimed the drug is ineffective and risks death for users, saying:
“Based on (new information and dubious research methodology), we can no longer vouch for the veracity of the primary data sources. Due to this unfortunate development, the authors request that the paper be retracted.”
“We deeply apologize to you, the editors, and the journal readership for any embarrassment or inconvenience that this may have caused.”
Data cited by the Lancet initially came from non-peer-reviewed for accuracy Surgisphere Corporation misinformation.
The International Journal of Infectious Diseases (IJID) published results experienced by southeast Michigan’s Henry Ford Health System (HFHS) — comprised of six hospitals, including in Detroit.
IJID reported the following:
“The results of this study demonstrate that in a strictly monitored protocol-driven in-hospital setting, treatment with hydroxychloroquine alone and hydroxychloroquine + azithromycin was associated with a significant reduction in mortality among patients hospitalized with COVID-19.”
Early-stage treatment is highly effective. Later-stage treatment is less effective but still beneficial to most patients.
Patients treated with HCQ or azithromycin alone “had the highest cumulative hazard”— why combining them is essential.
IJID stressed that study results show that HCQ and azithromycin “may have an important role to play in reducing COVID-19 mortality.”
Big Media are heavily involved in debunking HCQ, while indefensibly promoting mass-vaxxing.
In mid-June, the NYT headlined: “What to Know About the Malaria Drug (HCQ) Trump Says He Is Using,” saying the following:
“Here are the facts (sic) on hydroxychloroquine, which the president has promoted to fight Covid-19 despite warnings from the FDA that it can cause heart problems (sic).”
“(S)tudies of hydroxychloroquine have found that it failed to prevent or treat influenza and other viral illnesses (sic).”
Studies that claim HCQ is effective “were small and did not use proper control groups (sic).” They were “discredited (sic).”
“There is no evidence that hydroxychloroquine can prevent coronavirus infection (sic).”
The NYT report was fake news, similar reports republished by other establishment media.
In mid-July, the Washington Post falsely claimed that HCQ “studies show the drug is not effective for early treatment of mild covid-19 (sic),” adding:
“(R)andomized trials found the drug didn’t reduce severity of symptoms among outpatients (sic).”
The Wall Street Journal published the same disinformation, falsely claiming HCQ is ineffective in treating COVID-19.
In late July, CNN falsely claimed that “the anti-malarial drug hydroxychloroquine does not help Covid-19 patients (sic).”
The WHO, FDA, and NIH falsely claimed HCQ is ineffective in treating or preventing COVID-19.
The WHO claimed “interim trial results show(ed) that (HCQ) produce(d) little or no reduction in mortality of hospitalized COVID-19 patients when compared to standard of care (sic).”
The FDA “caution(ed) against the use of” HCQ or chloroquine for COVID-19… due to risk of heart rhythm problems (sic).”
In late June, the NIH halted a clinical trial of HCQ, falsely claiming it “provides no benefit…to hospitalized patients with COVID-19 (sic).”
In late June, Harvard Medical School’s Harvard Health Publishing reported the following:
“Currently there is no specific antiviral treatment for COVID-19 (sic),” adding:
“The jury is still out regarding whether (HCQ and azithromycin), alone or in combination, can treat COVID-19 viral infection (sic).”
“(R)esults of a clinical trial…published in the New England Journal of Medicine found that it did not prevent infection (sic).”
“However, how this study was conducted has been questioned by some experts.”
“Where does that leave us? The recommendation has not changed.”
“Chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine with or without azithromycin should not be used to prevent or treat COVID-19 infection (sic) unless it is being prescribed in the hospital or as part of a clinical trial.”
Ahead of the likely rollout of COVID-19 vaccines in the coming months, a full-court press blitzkrieg promoting their use will likely precede their availability.
At the same time, demeaning HCQ continues, a campaign of lies and deception to denigrate what’s effective in treating COVID-19 when used as directed.
Trust reliable alternative media reports on this and other issues.
Ignore establishment media managed news misinformation and disinformation.
*
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.”
The heated debate within Western governments about the best way to fight what they regard as “propaganda” has recently taken a disturbing turn towards intimidation of the outlets accused of peddling such information products and even discussions about their possible censorship, but if they were really sincere in combating this menace while staying true to their “democratic” principles, then they’d work on improving their citizens’ media literacy so that they could make up their own minds about the veracity of the various articles that they come across expressing non-mainstream views on contentious topics.
One of the cornerstones of Western soft power is the notion that people within this part of the world have the “freedom” to live as they like so long as they do so responsibly in ways that don’t endanger others, yet this idea is being discredited by Western governments themselves in their fight against what they regard as “propaganda”. The outlets accused of peddling such vaguely defined information products have recently been victimized by a coordinated intimidation campaign that disturbingly hints at their possible censorship after they’ve been defamed as allegedly participating in a far-reaching Russian military intelligence operation across cyberspace. Even though no charges have been filed against the individuals supposedly connected to this plot, that hasn’t stopped the Western governments from trying to ruin their lives.
On Wednesday afternoon, however, the intimidation campaign was expanded to include several other sites after the US State Department’s “Global Engagement Center” released a special report about “Russia’s Pillars Of Disinformation And Propaganda“. OneWorld, InfoRos, InfoBRICS, and Observateur Continental weren’t mentioned in this one like in the previous reports, but this time the Strategic Culture Foundation, New Eastern Outlook, Global Research, News Front, South Front, Geopolitica.Ru, and Katehon were defamed as part of the same general plot. The report also explicitly claimed that “The Kremlin bears direct responsibility for cultivating these tactics and platforms as part of its approach to using information as a weapon.” It’s worth noting that all of this is taking place against the backdrop of increased social media shadow blocking of Alt-Media and calls to outright censor such sites, as well as the European Commission’s proposed “European Democracy Action Plan” for “countering disinformation and at adapting to evolving threats and manipulations”, which could be abused for the same purposes. Unmistakably, the trend of Western governments is to intimidate all of Alt-Media.
Dangerous Defamation
Not only does this go against their self-professed value of “free speech”, but it also embodies the same thuggish tactics that they often accuse their geopolitical rivals of employing against dissident voices considering that some of the contributors that were defamed whether directly or indirectly as part of this alleged Russian military intelligence scheme are Western nationals. In other words, Western governments are launching a worldwide intimidation campaign against some of their dissident nationals at home and abroad, one that’s being actively propagated across the entire world in the highest profile way possible by their Mainstream Media surrogates such as the AP and NYT. The defamatory allegations that they’re connected to a foreign intelligence agency are extremely dangerous too since they might incite misguided “patriots” to harm those individuals, to say nothing of the ominous suggestion that they’re under investigation by their own governments simply for sharing their personal views about contentious topics. As such, some of them might fear being hit with false criminal charges as a last-ditch effort to revive the debunked Russiagate narrative.
The Media Literacy Solution
It certainly seems like Western governments are intent on manufacturing the false pretexts upon which they can impose the censorship of the Alt-Media sites in question, but if they were truly sincere about simply “protecting” their people from what they regard as “propaganda”, then they’d focus on improving their media literacy instead. What’s meant by this is educating the populace about the different types of information products freely available to them on the internet so that they can then make up their own minds about the veracity of the various articles that they come across expressing non-mainstream views on whatever controversial issue it may be. This solution would help safeguard the West’s soft power notion that people within this part of the world have the “freedom” to live as they like so long as they do so responsibly in ways that don’t endanger others. After all, what someone voluntarily chooses to read in their free time and most often in the privacy of their homes is their own business, not the government’s, except of course if it’s child pornography, material published by officially designated terrorist organizations, or an entirely made-up fake news event that could incite the reader to violence, for example.
Discerning The Various Information Products
What follows is a brief overview of the most common information products available on the internet and a brief description thereof. It’s by no means exhaustive, nor is it meant to be, since the purpose is simply to help others discern the sometimes subtle differences between these materials, which occasionally overlap into hybrid ones depending on the article in question. No value judgement is being made about these information products, and it should be understood that they can be created and disseminated by both state (governments, government-organized NGOs or GONGOs, etc) and non-state actors (regular people, civil society organizations, etc.) alike, the latter category of which might not even be conscious of the specific products that they’re creating nor aware that they’re sharing something which might not be exactly what they think it is (e.g. sharing propaganda that they mistakenly believe is journalism). Without further ado, here are the most common information products that casual readers most often come across online, in order of assumed objectivity:
Journalism:
In its theoretically purest sense, journalism is supposed to restrict itself to solely reporting the facts without any interpretation or innuendo. Regrettably, pure journalism is extremely rare nowadays, but the average person’s unawareness of this allows those who are pushing other information products to disguise their works as such considering the fact that many people are subconsciously more receptive to the message being put forth by anything affiliated with that label. In short, most products calling themselves journalism aren’t real journalism.
Investigations:
Closely related to journalism, investigations attempt to dive deep into a particular topic and are supposed to be as objective as possible, hence why many people are subconsciously receptive to anything that uses this label. Nevertheless, just like journalism, investigations have also started to employ interpretation and innuendo, the most tell-tale signs of which are whenever an adjective or narrative is introduced that’s meant to provoke an emotional reaction from the reader or renders a value judgement that’s meant to influence them.
Analysis:
The interpretation of facts is what constitutes analysis, and it’s among the most common information products nowadays alongside activism and propaganda. Many readers don’t have the background knowledge required to confidently form conclusions about complex topics (especially those related to foreign policy) without some sort of guidance, hence this product’s popularity. That said, disguising analysis as journalism is a deception on the part of the author or outlet involved, even if it’s done so out of ignorance.
Op-Eds:
Opinion-editorials are located between analysis and activism, and they explicitly inform the reader that what they’re coming across is someone’s personal opinion. Usually, op-eds aren’t too sophisticated and tend to incorporate a lot of rhetoric and even sometimes demagoguery. The difference between op-eds, activism, and propaganda is that there’s no question about the first-mentioned’s intentions while the latter’s might be more ambiguous and difficult to discern depending on how well they’re disguised.
Activism:
Many people feel very strongly about something and therefore want to promote whatever their cause may be, which is activism. It differs from analysis since it’s less objective (the extent to which is entirely subjective though, paradoxically enough) and is intended to guide the reader towards a certain conclusion. When successful, the reader then supports or opposes something either actively or passively. This is usually associated with animal, environmental, and human rights but increasingly involves international politics too.
Propaganda:
Propaganda is very similar to activism but it’s even less objective and usually contains a consistent narrative thread throughout the product in question and every other one associated with it. It also commonly disguises itself as journalism or an investigation, but sometimes even analysis nowadays as well. Unlike the other five aforementioned information products, it’s generally “cruder”, more “direct”, and often “lies by omission” by leaving out key facts that could make all the difference in influencing the reader.
Fake News:
This term is just as commonly misused as journalism is nowadays, and it refers to the assertion of an entirely fabricated news event as true, such as a political or military development, or an individual’s reported words. Modern-day activist and propaganda products tend to eschew fake news since it’s usually easily — or at least eventually — detected and thus discredits both the author and outlet that shared it. It should also go without saying that analyses (interpretations) and/or conclusions that someone disagrees with are not fake news.
Useful Tips To Keep In Mind
It’s not enough for one to only be able to discern the various information products available since they should also keep a few tips in mind when determining the aforesaid’s veracity and whether it’s worth taking anything mentioned within it seriously. For starters, the author should ideally be a real person who shares their face on the internet unless they’re using a pseudonym for security reasons related to the sensitivity of whatever they’re writing about. Secondly, it should raise a red flag if the reader determines that an information product has been mislabeled, for example, if the Mainstream Media pushes propaganda under the cover of journalism like the AP and NYT’s earlier cited pieces did. It’s also extremely suspicious whenever someone cites unnamed sources since there’s no way of confirming whether they really exist. Finally, the financing of the outlet and/or author in question is also relevant since it might influence the purpose of an information product, though one shouldn’t automatically be suspicious of an article just because of that. As a case in point, the author himself has a historyofconstructivelycritiquingRussianforeignpolicy despite earlier being employed by publicly financed Sputnik.
Disagreements Over Designation Are Proof Of Democracy
Having said all of that, it’s perfectly normal for there to be disagreements over which designation a certain information product should have. That’s actually very healthy for a democratic civil society to debate, though so long as this is being done by members of the said society instead of having a designation imposed upon them by their governments. It is against Western countries’ democratic traditions and soft power notions for their authorities to intimidate those who express dissident views — especially if they’re their nationals — and push to censor their work. As earlier explained, it’s also very dangerous for the government to directly state or imply that those who contribute to platforms that have been designated by the authorities as “propaganda” are involved in a foreign intelligence influence operation. Considering the fact that none of the individuals connected to these claims have been charged with a crime, it is the definition of defamation by most Western countries’ own legal standards to to accuse them of such, though it wouldn’t be surprising if many lawyers are reluctant to take up their possible cases out of fear of getting on their government’s bad side.
The Alt-Media Action Plan
Faced with unprecedentedly intense pressure from Western governments for the very fact that their information products don’t conform with Mainstream Media narratives, the members and outlets that constitute the Alt-Media Community must urgently band together to survive this dangerous anti-democratic onslaught against them. There’s nothing wrong with networking more closely with one another and sharing their work on an even more frequent basis in response as a sign of solidarity with each other, which is a normal thing to do despite such cross-platform cooperation being defamed by Western governments as so-called “proof” of a Russian military intelligence operation. They should also actively encourage more of their readers to contribute to their platforms if they’re so inclined, with these new writers possibly following the author’s advice that he shared with aspiring analysts in his May 2018 piece for Global Research titled “Political Analysis In Today’s Interconnected Globalized Society: Seven Steps“. No matter what, however, nobody should get demoralized or give up since the newfound attention being given to the Alt-Media Community by Western governments and their Mainstream Media surrogates proves just how effective everyone’s work has been.
Concluding Thoughts
Western governments have stepped out of line after recently launching their latest campaign of intimidation against the dissident voices that share their work in the Alt-Media Community. It’s extremely dangerous to either allege or imply that these individuals and their sites are cooperating with a foreign intelligence agency such as Russia’s. Just as disturbing are the steps that those governments are progressively taking towards the seemingly inevitable conclusion of censoring their work, which goes against the “freedom of speech” that those countries and their societies claim to support. It’s also patronizing to deprive their people of the right to read non-mainstream views “for their own protection”. The solution should be to improve media literacy, but it’s unlikely to happen since people might then realize how much propaganda their own governments spread.
*
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.
If you look to Global Research as a resource for information and understanding, to stay current on world events, or to experience honesty and transparency in your news coverage, please consider making a donation or becoming a member. Your donations are essential in enabling us to meet our costs and keep the website up and running. Click below to become a member or to make a donation to Global Research now!
On August 6 and 9, 1945, the U.S. military bombed the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki with nuclear weapons. Over 200,000 people, mostly civilians, died instantly or later succumbed from burns, malnutrition, and radiation-related illnesses, and their cities levelled to the ground. Many of their descendants carry the affected genes and pass them onto their children. Those notorious acts will forever be remembered as the first time the devastating impact of nuclear warfare was unleashed.
Seventy-five years ago, the United States waged the only nuclear war in history. Among the truths held self-evident by millions of Americans is the notion that the atomic destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki saved lives, both American and Japanese. The choice, Americans are told starting as school children and throughout their lives by largely uncritical media, was between nuclear war and an even bloodier protracted invasion of Japan, whose fanatical people would have fought to the death defending their homeland and their divine emperor.
What rained down on those two Japanese cities seventy-five years ago was destruction on a scale never seen before or since. People exposed within half a mile of the atomic fireball were seared to piles of smoking char in a fraction of a second as their internal organs boiled away. The small black bundles stuck to the streets and bridges and sidewalks of Hiroshima numbered in the thousands.
A little boy was reaching up to catch a red dragonfly with his hand against the blue sky when there was a blinding flash and he disappeared. He turned into gas and left his shadow behind on the pavement, a haunting relic later moved to the Hiroshima Museum. A woman was running while holding her baby; she and the baby were turned into a charcoal statue.
All major cities of the Soviet Union were included in the list of 66 “strategic” targets. The tables below categorize each city in terms of area in square miles and the corresponding number of atomic bombs required to annihilate and kill the inhabitants of selected urban areas.
Six atomic bombs were to be used to destroy each of the larger cities including Moscow, Leningrad, Tashkent, Kiev, Kharkov, Odessa.
Was President Harry Truman “a murderer,” as the renowned British analytic philosopher Gertrude Elizabeth Anscombe once charged? Were the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki indeed a war crime and a crime against humanity, as she and other academic luminaries have publicly claimed? A Distinguished Professor of Philosophy and Ethics at Oxford and Cambridge, who was one of the 20th century’s most gifted philosophers and recognizably the greatest woman philosopher in history, Dr. Anscombe openly called President Truman a “war criminal” for his decision to have the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki leveled by atomic bombs in August 1945 (Rachels & Rachels 127). According to another academic critic, the late American historian Howard Zinn, at least 140,000 Japanese civilians were “turned into powder and ash” in Hiroshima. Over 70,000 civilians were incinerated in Nagasaki, and another 130,000 residents of the two cities died of radiation sickness in the next five years (Zinn 23).
The extent of devastation inflicted upon Japan by the American military during World War II is not broadly known, even today. In reprisal for the attack over Pearl Harbor, which killed almost 2,500 Americans, US aircraft first began unloading bombs on Japan during the afternoon of 18 April 1942 – attacking the capital Tokyo, and also five other major cities, Yokohama, Osaka, Nagoya, Kobe and Yokosuka.
The atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was an act of premeditated mass murder that unleashed a weapon of intrinsic criminality. It was justified by lies that form the bedrock of America’s war propaganda in the 21st century, casting a new enemy, and target – China.
During the 75 years since Hiroshima, the most enduring lie is that the atomic bomb was dropped to end the war in the Pacific and to save lives.
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
On Tuesday 4th of August, an explosion at the Lebanese harbour in the heart of the capital Beirut caused devastating human casualties and material destruction. Over 140 people died instantly, 80 are still missing under the rubble, and over 5000 were wounded. More than 300,000 homes were destroyed and many more were damaged. 2,750 tons of Ammonium Nitrate (AN) (an equivalent of 1,000 tons of TNT) somehow ignited and registered the largest explosion since the end of World War II. Many theories, accusing Israel or Hezbollah or the CIA, are circulating like wildfire in the Lebanese capital. Where is the truth? Cui bono?
The Rhosus, a ship flying the Moldavian flag was sailing from Georgia to Mozambique carrying (among other merchandise) 2,750 tons of Ammonium Nitrate destined for the Fabrica de Explosives in Mozambique. This shipment was paid for by the Banco Internacional De Mozambique. It stopped in Beirut on 20/11/2013 to offload agricultural machines and was expected toload goods from Lebanon for Jordan on its way to Mozambique. An inspection concluded the ship was unfit to sail, and local Lebanese authorities effectively prevented the Rhosus from sailing. Lebanese port authorities discharged the cargo into Port Warehouse no.12 and later confiscated the cargo due to bills unpaid by the ship owner.
Ammonium Nitrate has many properties, notably as a component of explosive mixtures (Mellor, 1922; Elvers 1989, Suslick 1992). Pure AN is very stable and should meet specified quality requirements to be used in the production of industrial explosives. According to the European Fertilizer Manufacturers Association, AN is especially difficult to detonate and does indeed need a substantial stimulus for this to happen. But it must be stored in a dry, well-ventilated and sealed storage area. Moreover, any electrical installation in the storage area must be resistant to ammonia vapour.
For over six years, the 2,750 tons of AN remained in the Lebanese warehouse without any plans to relocate or re-sell it. Moreover, the storage area chosen is subject to the changing weather of the Lebanese climatic seasons, which include suffocating heat in the summer. The storage area was of metal construction with no proper ventilation.
Last year, Captain Naddaf who works at the harbour under the National Security Service, called his superior to inform him about the presence of a “dangerous cargo at warehouse no. 12.” His superior officer, General A. instructed the young officer to provide a written report and take pictures of the warehouse and the contents. The warehouse construction had a breach big enough for the passage of a man, which would facilitate entry or even theft.
How is the Lebanese harbour organised? It is controlled by a kind of local mafia composed of high ranking officers, customs directors, administrators and security officials. Each person in charge has been appointed by a political leader offering his men immunity and protection. The harbour produces immense amounts of money and bribes are the daily bread of all those who run this “show”. In the face of such corruption, it is now clear that scientific expertise about what is happening to stored AN and the conditions in which 2,750 tons of it are stored counted for little. Actually, many officers in this Port have no competence for the jobs they do and are appointed, as we have seen, by favouritism and through political connections. This is indeed the case for the Director of Customs and the Army intelligence, General S., responsible for harbour movements and contents. So, given all that, when a problem or a disaster occurs, as it did on Tuesday, it will obviously be very difficult to find those really responsible. So how did the conditions for this AN explosion arise?
On the 4th of August, at 15:00 local time, a blacksmith was asked to close the holes in the warehouse to prevent potential smuggling of the content. The blacksmith was not informed about the hazardous content of the warehouse, nor he was told to take the necessary precautions to prevent the spread of metal particles that produce fragments and can trigger fire. He was working at a distance no more than a few centimetres from the AN bags that were lying on the floor, from which a clear substance was leaking. Once the job was done, between 16:30 and 17:00, smoke was seen coming from the warehouse.
Firemen were called to deal with the potential fire. At 18:08 the first explosion was heard, followed by the second one over a minute later. After the first explosion, a fire ignited inside the warehouse. The fire generated more heat, enough for the entire stock of AN to blow up and create a vacuum (negative pressure). The pressure of the explosion caused the many casualties and devastating destruction in the city.
Who called the blacksmith and allocated the budget for his work? Was he informed of the hazard of welding next to Ammonium Nitrate? Why were the 2,750 tons of AN left for more than six years in non-regulation storage for no justifiable reason whatsoever?
The question has to be asked: “who benefits from the explosion?” The affected area belongs mainly to people who are not generally friendly to Hezbollah. Therefore, it would not have been in Israel’s interest nor in that of the US to bomb and cause so much damage to the properties and businesses of friendly parties. Destroying this part of Beirut in order to impose a “new Middle East” or a “new Lebanon” makes no sense either, because the anti-Hezbollah population is currently weaker than ever and is not in a position to confront Hezbollah. France and the US are in no better position to influence the population.
Speculation about Hezbollah storing weapons at warehouse 12 is ridiculous and unfounded- because the place was under constant surveillance by cameras controlled by the security forces themselves. Hezbollah would certainly not store weapons in an area both unfriendly and not under its own control.
Hezbollah, in fact, is currently waiting for the Special Tribunal for the assassination of the ex-Prime Minister Rafic Hariri to announce its verdict. This is how the US, to please Israel, is trying to curb Hezbollah’s influence in Lebanon- but to no avail. Indeed, the US and Israel have tried everything in their power in Syria, in Iraq and in Lebanon but failed in their attempts. The US is imposing harsh sanctions on Syria and Lebanon (preventing Gulf and European countries from assisting with the severe Lebanese financial crisis) but the outcome is the same: Hezbollah won’t submit.
The many “conspiracy theories” fail to line up with the facts of this accident. Ignorance, incompetence, favouritism and bureaucracy are the reasons for the loss of so many lives and the destruction of Beirut, a capital where people have not learned to stand together. This is a huge national tragedy. The Lebanese hold property in many foreign countries, west and east. This expresses the lack of a sense of belonging- because this is a country where elected politicians have amassed and stolen all the country’s wealth, where they hoard power, and where they pass it on to their sons.
*
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.
Elijah J. Magnier is a veteran war correspondent Senior Political Risk Analyst with over 35 years’ experience covering Europe, Africa & the Middle East. He blogs at ejmagnier.com.
When US President Harry S. Truman made the decision to drop the atomic bomb on Hiroshima on August 6, 1945, followed by another on Nagasaki a few days later, he was not acting as an agent untethered from history. In the wheels of his wearied mind lay the battered Marines who, despite being victorious, had received sanguinary lashings at Iwo Jima and Okinawa.
A fear grew, and US military sources speculated about, the slaughter that might follow an invasion of the Japanese homeland. They also pondered the future role of the Soviets, and wondered whether there were other means by which Japan’s involvement in the war might be terminated before Moscow got its hands on the battered remains of North East Asia.
Much is made about the moral dilemma Truman faced. He knew there was the nastiest of weapons at hand, born from the race to acquire it from Nazi Germany. But on a certain level, it was merely another weapon, one to use, a choice sample in the cabinet of lethal means and measures. By that stage of the war, killing civilians from the air, not to mention land, was banal and common place; enemy populations were to be experimented upon, burned, torched, gassed, shelled and eradicated in the program of total war.
By the time Truman made his decision, Japan had become a graveyard of strategic aerial bombing. General Curtis E. LeMay (image on the right) of the US Air Force prided himself on incinerating the enemy, and was encouraged by various study commissions advocating the use of incendiary bombs against Japan’s flammable urban architecture. He was realising the dreams of such figures as the pioneering US aviator and air power enthusiast Billy Mitchell, who fantasised in the 1920s about Japanese cities being “the greatest aerial targets the world has ever seen”. In 1941, US Army chief of staff George Marshallspread the word to journalists that the US would “set the paper cities of Japan on fire”. Civilians would not be spared.
Towards the end of the war, daylight precision bombing had fallen out of favour; LeMay preferred the use of Boeing B-29 Superfortresses, heavily laden with firebombs, to do the work. His pride of joy in conflagration was Tokyo. During the six-hour raid over the night of March 9 and 10, 1945, the US Strategic Bombing Survey concluded that 87,793 had perished, with 40,918 injuries.
There was little novel in LeMay’s blunt approach. Britain’s Air Force Marshal Arthur “Bomber” Harris fertilised the ground, and the air, for such an idea. He made it his mission to not only kill Germans but kill German civilians with a cool determination. He did so with a workmanlike conviction so disturbing it chilled the blood of many Britons. As he put it, “The cities of Germany, including their working populations, are literally the heart of Germany’s war potential.” It was his intention to, he explained to personnel, “in addition to the horrors of fire … to bring masonry crashing down on top of the Boche, to kill the Boche and to terrify the Boche”. The Teutonic enemy came, not so much in all shades, but one. Saturation bombing, regarded after the Second World War as generally ineffective, a ghastly failure to bring the population to its knees, received its blessing in Bomber Command.
This entire process neutered the moral compass of its executioners. Killing civilians had ceased to be a problem of war, one of those afterthoughts which served to sanction mass murder. Britain’s chief of the air staff for a good deal of the war, Charles Portal, called it a “fallacy” that bombing Germany’s cities “was really intended to kill and frighten Germans and that we camouflaged this intention by the pretence that we would destroy industry. Any such idea is completely false. The loss of life, which amounted to some 600,000 killed, was purely incidental.” When 600,000 becomes an incidental matter, we are well on the way to celebrating the charnel houses of indiscriminate war.
When the issue of saturation bombing creased the legal minds behind the Nuremberg and Tokyo war crimes trials, an admission had to be made: all sides of the Second World War had made the air a realm of convenience in the killing of humanity, uniformed or not. To win was all that mattered. While the Nuremberg Charter left it open to criminalise German aerial tactics, the International Military Tribunal hedged. As chief of the Luftwaffe, Hermann Göring was singled out for air attacks on Poland and other states but the prosecutors refrained from pushing the point, likely reflecting the cold fact, as Matthew Lippmann puts it, “that both Germany and the Allies engaged in similar tactics.”
It is true that Germany and Japan gave a good pioneering go at indiscriminate aerial slaughter. But the Allied powers, marshalling never before seen fleets of murderous bombers, perfected the bloody harvest. The war had to be won, and, if needed, over the corpses of the hapless mother, defenceless child and frail grandparent. As the historian Charles S. Maier notes with characteristic sharpness, a tacit consensus prevailed after the Second World War that the ledger of brutality was all stacked on one side. German bombings during the Spanish Civil War, notably of Guernica; Warsaw, Rotterdam, London and Coventry during the world war that followed, were seen as “acts of wanton terror”. The Allied attacks on Italian, German and Japanese urban centres, in proportion and scale far more destructive, were seen as “legitimate military actions”.
Distinctions about civilian and non-civilian vanished in the atomic cloud. Hiroshima’s tale is the apotheosis of eliminating distinctions in war. It propagated such dangerous beliefs that nuclear wars might be won, sparing a handful of specialists and breeders in bunkers planning for the new post-apocalyptic dawn. It normalised, even as it constituted a warning, the act of annihilation itself.
Prior to the twin incinerations of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the redoubtable nurse and writer Vera Brittain issued a warning that remains salient to those who wish to resort to waging death from the sky: “If the nations cannot agree, when peace returns, to refrain from the use of the bombing aeroplane as they have refrained from using poison gas, then mankind itself deserves to perish from the epidemic of moral insanity which today afflicts our civilisation.”
*
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]
Russia has deployed an advanced S-300 air defense system to Libya to support the forces of Field Marshal Khalifa Haftar against the Turkish military and its proxies, local media reported on August 5.
According to photos surfacing online, the supposed S-300 system is deployed near the town of Ras Lanuf, a key oil export port controlled by the Libyan National Army (LNA). The town is located more than 200km away from the port city of Sirte, which the LNA is defending against Turkish-led forces.
The circulating photos supposedly show a 96L6E Cheese Board radar and a transporter erector launcher (TEL) similar to those used in S-300 and S-400 air-defense systems. This 3D early-warning and acquisition radar has a range of 300 km and can track up to 100 targets simultaneously.
Last month, several Arab sources already reported that an S-300 system had bee deployed in Libya. Egypt, an ally of the LNA, operates a variant of the system that is different from the one allegedly spotted near Ras Lanuf.
Turkish sources are already crying foul about the cowardly Russians who are aiming to shoot down peaceful Turkish combat drones democratically bombing LNA-controlled cities. At the same time, it should be noted that the photos from the Ras Lanuf area are yet to be verified. In particular, the pictured radar also looks similar to those of the Iranian-made Khordad-15 air defense system, which was used in 2019 to shoot down a RQ-4A Global Hawk BAMS-D surveillance drone of the United States over the Strait of Hormuz. In any case, if any of these versions is confirmed, it will be sad news for the Erdogan sultanate and its proxies.
Despite active preparations for an attack on Sirte, the Turkish Armed Forces, pro-Turkish Syrian militants and Tripoli forces have not yet launched an attack on the port city, likely fearing a direct military response by Egypt to such a move. Sporadic clashes regularly erupt west of Sirte and sides exchange isolated airstrikes, but the general situation on the frontline has stabilized.
This means that the conflict has at least temporarily entered into a positional war stage. In these conditions, the main backers of Field Marshal Khaftar – Egypt and the UAE, partially supported by France and Russia, have every chance to take the upper hand in this standoff even without the direct involvement of Russia or other major powers at their side.
*
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.
In 1950, Chinese volunteer forces dispatched by the People’s Republic of China were firmly behind North Korea against US aggression.
China’s act of solidarity with The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) was carried out barely a few months after the founding of the PRC on October 1, 1949.
Truman had contemplated the use of nuclear weapons against both China and North Korea, specifically as a means to repeal the Chinese Volunteer People’s Army (VPA) which had been dispatched to fight alongside North Korean forces. [Chinese Volunteer People’s Army, 中國人民志願軍; Zhōngguó Rénmín Zhìyuàn Jūn].
VPA Poster, 1950
It is important to stress that US military action directed against the DPRK was part of a broader Cold War military agenda against the PRC and the Soviet Union, the objective of which was ultimately to undermine and destroy socialism. As early as 1945, “the Pentagon had speculated that it would take a few hundred atomic bombs to subdue Russia”.
Who is the aggressor: Confirmed by US military documents, both the PRC and the DPRK have been threatened with nuclear war for sixty-seven years.
The Soviet Union had tested it’s first atomic bomb on August 29, 1949. According to analysts, the Soviet atomic bomb was instrumental in the Truman administration’s decision to eventually stall US nuclear war preparations against North Korea and China. The project was scrapped in June 1951.
The NSC Memorandum 8/2 paved the way for the June 1949 guerrilla attacks on the DPRK:
“Inquiry uncovers secret of series of attacks by South on North. South Korean troops attacked the North a year before the Korean war broke out, researchers have claimed in the latest disturbing revelation about the conflict which almost led to global war. More than 250 guerrillas from the South are said to have launched an attack on North Korean villages along the east coast in June 1949. The incident has been confirmed by a South Korean army official. (John Gittings, Martin Kettle, The Guardian, 17 January 2000)
Washington’s objective was to extend it’s geopolitical zone of influence over the entire Korean Nation, with a view to taking over all the Korean colonial territories which had been annexed to the Japanese Empire in 1910. The Korean war was also directed against the People’s Republic of China as confirmed by president Truman’s November 1950 statements (see transcript below), which intimated in no uncertain terms that the atomic bomb was intended to be used against the People’s Republic of China.
In late November [1950], communist China began to turn over its cards. It had already covertly sent troops into North Korea. …
With the Chinese intervention, the United States confronted a hard truth: Threatening a nuclear attack would not be enough to win the war. It was as if the Chinese hadn’t noticed—or, worse, weren’t impressed by—the atomic-capable B-29s waiting at Guam.
President Truman raised the ante. At a November press conference [1950], he told reporters he would take whatever steps were necessary to win in Korea, including the use of nuclear weapons.Those weapons, he added, would be controlled by military commanders in the field.
In April of the next year, Truman put the finishing touches on Korea’s nuclear war. He allowed nine nuclear bombs with fissile cores to be transferred into Air Force custody and transported to Okinawa. Truman also authorized another deployment of atomic-capable B-29s to Okinawa. Strategic Air Command set up a command-and-control team in Tokyo.
This spate of atomic diplomacy coincided with the end of the role played by Douglas MacArthur. … Truman replaced him with General Matthew Ridgway, who was given “qualified authority” to use the bombs if he felt he had to.
In October, there would be an epilogue of sorts to the Korean nuclear war. Operation Hudson Harbor would conduct several mock atomic bombing runs with dummy or conventional bombs across the war zone. Called “terrifying” by some historians, Hudson Harbor merely tested the complex nuclear-strike machinery, as the Strategic Air Command had been doing for years over American cities.
But the nuclear Korean war had already ended. In June 1951, the atomic-capable B-29s flew home, carrying their special weapons with them. (emphasis added)
THE PRESIDENT. We will take whatever steps are necessary to meet the military situation, just as we always have.
[12.] Q. Will that include the atomic bomb ?
THE PRESIDENT, That includes every weapon that we have.
Q. Mr. President, you said “every weapon that we have.” Does that mean that there is active consideration of the use of the atomic bomb?
THE PRESIDENT. There has always been active consideration of its use. I don’t want to see it used. It is a terrible weapon, and it should not be used on innocent men, women, and children who have nothing whatever to do with this military aggression. That happens when it is used.3
3Later the same day the White House issued the following press release:
“The President wants to make it certain that there is no misinterpretation of his answers m questions at his press conference today about the use of the atom bomb. Naturally, there has been consideration of this subject since the outbreak of the hostilities in Korea, just as there is consideration of the use of all military weapons whenever our forces are in combat.
“Consideration of the use of any weapon is always implicit in the very possession of that weapon.
“However, it should be emphasized, that, by law, only the President can authorize the use of the atom bomb, and no such authorization has been given. If and when such authorization should be given, the military commander in the field would have charge of the tactical delivery of the weapon.
“In brief, the replies to the questions at today’s press conference do not represent any change in this situation.”
…
Q. Mr. President, I wonder if we could retrace that reference to the atom bomb? Did we understand you clearly that the use of the atomic bomb is under active consideration?
THE PRESIDENT. Always has been. It is one of our weapons.
Q. Does that mean, Mr. President, use against military objectives, or civilian–
THE PRESIDENT. It’s a matter that the military people will have to decide. I’m not a military authority that passes on those things. [refutes his earlier statement on not using it “against civilians”]
Q. Mr. President, perhaps it would be better if we are allowed to quote your remarks on that directly?
THE PRESIDENT. I don’t think–I don’t think that is necessary.
Q. Mr. President, you said this depends on United Nations action. Does that mean that we wouldn’t use the atomic bomb except on a United Nations authorization ?
THE PRESIDENT. No, it doesn’t mean that at all. The action against Communist China depends on the action of the United Nations. The military commander in the field will have charge of the use of the weapons, as he always has. [intimates that the use of atomic bomb is “against Communist China”]
[15.] Q. Mr. President, how dose are we to all-out mobilization.
THE PRESIDENT. Depends on how this matter we are faced with now works out.
[16.] Q. Mr. President, will the United Nations decide whether the Manchurian border is crossed, either with bombing planes or–
THE PRESIDENT. The resolution that is now pending before the United Nations will answer that question.
Q. Or with troops? … (emphasis added
Mutually Assured Destruction
The doctrine of mutually assured destruction (MAD) evolved in the wake of the launching of the Soviet atom bomb in August 1949. Prior to that, the US resolve was to use nukes on a first strike basis against the Soviet Union, the People’s Republic of China and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK).
However, at the outset of the Korean war in 1950, confirmed by Truman’s statements, no clearcut distinction was made between a nuclear weapon and a conventional weapon. The Truman administration’s nuclear doctrine consisted in using nuclear weapons within the framework of a conventional war theater.
The concept of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) which characterized the Cold War was based on the recognition that the use of nuclear weapons “by two or more opposing sides would cause the complete annihilation of both the attacker and the defender”.
China was first threatened by the US with nuclear war in 1950, a year after the inauguration of the People’s Republic of China. Some 14 years later in October 1964, China tested its first 16-ton nuclear bomb.
Pre-emptive Nuclear War (2002- )
An important transition in nuclear doctrine occurred in the immediate wake of 9/11. The Cold War MAD doctrine was scrapped by the Bush Jr administration in 2002, replaced by the first strike pre-emptive use of nuclear weapons as a means of self defense. (2001 Nuclear Posture Review, adopted by the US Senate in 2002).
image source: The New Republic
America’s use of nuclear weapons on a first strike basis is no longer considered as a weapon of total annihilation. Quite the opposite, the preemptive use of nuclear weapons is upheld as a means to ensuring global peace and security.
This is the doctrine which prevails today under Donald Trump’s “fire and fury”, comparable in some regards to Truman’s diabolical 1950 narrative pertaining to the use of the atomic bomb (“as a means of self defense”) against China and North Korea, both of which at the time were non nuclear states.
In contrast to the Truman era, however, today’s US thermonuclear bombs are several hundred times more powerful (in terms of yield) than the atom bomb dropped on Hiroshima on August 6, 1945, which resulted in the death of some 100,000 people in a matter of seven seconds.
Screenshot Popular Mechanics, October 10, 2016
And there are more than 4000 US nuclear weapons deployed.
“Making America Great again”…
Blowing up the Planet” on a first strike basis as a instrument of peace and global security.
When the USS Ronald Reagan and USS Nimitz carrier strike groups recently engaged in “operations” in the South China Sea, it failed toescape cynics that the US Pacific Fleet was doing its best to turn the infantile Thucydides trap theory into a self-fulfilling prophecy.
The pro forma official spin, via Rear Admiral Jim Kirk, commander of the Nimitz, is that the ops were conducted to “reinforce our commitment to a free and open Indo-Pacific, a rules-based international order, and to our allies and partners.”
Nobody pays attention to these clichés, because the real message was delivered by a CIA operative posing as diplomat, Secretary of State Mike “We Lie, We Cheat, We Steal” Pompeo.
“The PRC has no legal grounds to unilaterally impose its will on the region,”he proclaimed, in a reference to the nine-dash line that lays claim to most of the disputed sea.
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Pepe Escobar is a frequent contributor to Global Research.
Former Israeli Member of the Knesset Moshe Feiglin gleefully hailed yesterday’s devastating explosion in Beirut as a “gift” from God in time for the Jewish festival Tu B’Av.
Feiglin posted on Facebook that he thanked God that the deadly blast took place in Beirut, and claimed it was just in time for Tu B’Av, which is a festival of love, and in modern times has become a romantic Jewish holiday for dancing, handing out flowers and singing.
“Today is Tu B’Av, a day of joy, and a true and huge thank you to G-d and all the geniuses and heroes really (!) who organized for us this wonderful celebration in honor of the day of love.”
He went on to speculate that the explosion was no accident, claiming he had “experience” in explosives. He said:
“You don’t really believe that this was some messy fuel warehouse, yeah? Do you understand that this hell was supposed to fall on us as a rain of missiles?! I have some experience with explosives. The largest explosion I took part in was 2.5 tons of TNT.”
He added:
“What we saw yesterday at the Port of Beirut was much bigger. The destructive effect (without the radiation) was like a nuclear bomb.”
In an interview with local radio, the former Likud MK said he hoped Israel was responsible for the blast, and that he was allowed to “rejoice” that it was Beirut and not Tel Aviv.
He said:
“If it was us, and I hope it was us, then we should be proud of it, and with that we will create a balance of terror. By avoiding saying it’s us – we are putting ourselves on the dark side of morality.”
He continued:
“We are all allowed to rejoice that it exploded in the port of Beirut and not in Tel Aviv.”
A warehouse in Beirut exploded on 4 August , injuring thousands and killing at least 100, with the death toll rising.
The blast was initially attributed to a shipment of fireworks, but it was later revealed to be 2,750 tonnes of highly explosive ammonium nitrate sitting in a warehouse which ignited, causing the huge explosion.
The massive blast was said to be heard from Cyprus.
*
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: Former Israeli Member of the Knesset Moshe Feiglin, 13 April 2017 [safa]
Moscow announced the unilateral termination of the transnational agreement with Cyprus on the avoidance of double taxation. Effectively, Cyprus will no longer be a tax haven for Russia’s rich. Russia seems to be moving in this direction without compromise so it can settle the taxation of its citizens and companies abroad, but this has angered many in the Cypriot capital of Nicosia. The news, although expected, has left bitterness in Nicosia since Moscow’s decision to terminate the bilateral agreement to avoid double taxation does not bode well for the Cypriot economy.
Russia has long sought to negotiate with Nicosia on the issue of Russian companies registered in Cyprus that continue to make use of the tax haven. These actions by Russian companies have resulted in big losses for the Russian economy but have been a gain for Cyprus.
Last March, Russian President Vladimir Putin proposed an increase of taxes on company profits that were made abroad. The increase was from 2% to 15%. To do this, changes in intergovernmental agreements with other states had to be prioritized. Putin proposed to start this process from countries where huge Russian funds arrived, and therefore the process is unsurprisingly beginning in Cyprus.
In 2019, direct investments made by Russia in Cyprus amounted to $14.5 billion. In the same year, Cyprus reinvested in the Russian economy $8.1 billion. Surprisingly, despite being a small island of only a little over a million people, Cyprus is consistently in the top four countries with the largest investments in the Russian economy. Most of the foreign direct investments from Cyprus are in fact Russian capital hidden for tax purposes.
Putin made a logical bracket – 15% tax to those who take out their profits that they acquired in Russia and presented them as supposed investments. Indeed, the corresponding taxes in Cyprus, based on the double taxation agreement, are around 5%. This is a serious tax evasion that the Russian leadership is now seeking to put in order.
The Cypriot Ministry of Finance tried for several months to maneuver as much as it could, asking Moscow for guarantees that similar treatment will be given to other countries that maintain offshore zones, such Malta, Luxembourg and the Netherlands. Russia’s position is clear, it will unilaterally withdraw from all double taxation agreements if its terms are not accepted.
According to Yuri Szeklov, a lawyer with extensive experience in setting up companies in offshore zones, it seems that
“we have reached the end of the era when Russians made tens of billions of dollars abroad every year, taking huge benefits from free zones and leaving gaps in the Russian economy.”
However, things are not simple. Investment experts explain that Russia, in addition to the consolidation of its tax system, is calling for Russian businesses from the offshore zones to return. Similar free trade zones have already been set up in Vladivostok in the Far East, but also in the Russian enclave within Europe, Kaliningrad.
In the end, the unilateral termination of the agreement with Cyprus is clearly a negative development for the island country. Nicosia, which at first strongly refused to change the terms of the agreement as demanded by Moscow, may make a compromise that will satisfy both sides. Despite the bitterness that prevails in the ranks of the Cypriot government, Nicosia seems to understand that times are changing and Moscow is moving on a new tax path.
Although some in Nicosia are angered by the tax changes, there is little chance that this will negatively impact Cypriot-Russian relations. Cyprus has not only benefitted from Russia for effectively doing nothing for several decades, but Moscow remains a major supporter for Cypriot national interests. Russia strongly backs Cyprus’ national sovereignty and integrity in the face of Turkey’s illegal occupation of the northern portion of the island, and is also Cyprus’ main weapon supplier as the U.S. has an arms embargo against it.
Any differences between Nicosia and Moscow will surely be resolved when Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov visits Cyprus on September 8. This year is the sixtieth anniversary of Cyprus’ independence from the British Empire, and Cypriots remember that the Soviet Union was one of the very first countries to recognize the independence of the Republic of Cyprus. It is likely that in September new major deals will be made between Russia and Cyprus and the tax change will be a non-issue.
*
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.
What we put in our bodies and our children’s developing bodies is the most important and most personal choice we make as human beings. But when it comes to damaging levels of radiation, that right to choose has been stolen from us. The Children’s Health Defense (CHD) mission to protect children from toxic exposure reached a major milestone on Wednesday, July, 29 with the filing of the principal brief in our case against the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. Our case also seeks justice for parents of kids who have suffered health impacts from wireless radiation.
The case challenges the agency’s refusal to review its 25-year-old obsolete wireless “health guidelines” and adopt scientific, biologically based radio frequency emissions rules that adequately protect public health. Robert F. Kennedy Jr., CHD’s chairman and chief legal counsel, said,
“We are committed to making our government accountable, and giving a voice to injured children, their parents and doctors, and the scientists who have spoken out for justice on this issue.” Read our full press release.
The FCC guidelines ignore human biology and are based on an obsolete, false and disproven scientific assumption that wireless radiation is not harmful unless causing thermal change in tissue. But CHD’s brief proves that scientific and human evidence of harm from wireless and 5G well below thermal levels was presented to the FCC, but the agency officially closed the docket on the issue last year and ignored all submitted reports. Therefore, CHD contends the FCC’s decision not to review the “health guidelines” is capricious, arbitrary, not evidence-based and an abuse of discretion.
“The most important evidence is the human evidence,” says Dafna Tachover, director of 5G and Wireless Harms Project at Children’s Health Defense. “Those who have been injured and died because of the FCC’s abuse of power, have been invisible to the FCC like the wireless radiation that harms them. The purpose of our case is to make this invisible problem visible.” Read Dafna Tachover’s Affidavit on behalf of the CHD
CHD’s principal brief cites thousands of studies and medical reports, including those conducted by U.S. government agencies, and references hundreds of testimonials by people who have been injured. The brief shows clear evidence of harm from wireless radiation from exposure to wireless radiation sources such as cell phones, Wi-Fi and cell towers at levels well below current FCC emission limits. It also outlines scientifically the established mechanisms of harm from wireless radiation.
The petitioners in the case include parents of children injured, including a mother whose son died from a brain tumor from cell phones and cell tower exposure, Virginia Farver, who stated,
“If the FCC does its job now perhaps other mothers will not experience the pain and suffering I face every day. But the public is being told there is no evidence of harm, that these devices are safe.”
When a Petitioner in this case, Michele Hertz, developed Microwave Sickness and contacted the FCC to seek help, the man she spoke to responded,
“We don’t deal with humans, only frequencies.” and hung up.
Petitioners in this case also include physicians who see the epidemic of sickness in their clinics daily, like Dr. David Carpenter, a renowned professor, scientist and public health expert, who reports,
“The scientific consensus is that the FCC guidelines have no validity and are causing widespread illness and death,” Prof. David Carpenter is the director of the Institute for Health and Environment at the University of Albany and co-editor of the BioInitiative Report, the most extensive review of the science on wireless health impacts written by 29 of the world’s leading scientists.
The outdated and false guidelines have enabled the uncontrolled proliferation of wireless technology, including 5G. The fast-tracked deployment of 5G will exponentially increase the forced exposure to this proven harmful radiation with 800,000 more cell towers, 50 billion devices that will be wirelessly interconnected and 1,000,000 on the ground antennas to communicate with 50,000 satellites.
In its decision not to review the guidelines, the FCC also astoundingly dismissed the results of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s funded National Toxicology Program study, a $30 million, 10-year study that was supposed to give the American people the final answer as to whether or not wireless is harmful. This study, the largest of its kind, found “clear evidence” of cancer and DNA damage. The results should have put to rest the notion that non-ionizing radiation cannot break DNA. The World Health Organization already classified wireless radiation as a “possible” (2B) carcinogen in 2011. The National Toxicology Program study is the “missing link” needed to classify it as a human carcinogen. Courts, including Italy’s Supreme Court, already determined that cell phones cause brain tumors.
*
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.
Being blamed for disseminating “conspiracy theories” and therefore being a “conspiracy theorist”, is an extraordinary and smart tactic used by the true conspirators against the truth seekers.
It works most of the time with often more than 90% of the people. “Conspiracy theory” goes hand-in-hand with “fake news”. It also goes along with censorship by those who control the mass media and social media – Google, Youtube, Facebook… those who want to eradicate the truth from the internet under the pretext to protect people from “fake news”.
Linking somebody to a conspiracy theory, is weaponizing language. It consists in silencing the alleged “conspiracy theorist” (CT). He or she becomes speechless.
There is no immediate argument against it, even though the accuser has used no proof at all, just the unfounded term “fake news” and “conspiracy theory”. It automatically stamps the accused as ‘crazy’, or worse, as a liar – as out of his/her mind, not knowing what he/she is talking about, an unstable person, following rumors and disseminating untruths based on rumors – therefore, a very dangerous person.
In some cases, it has happened, people become so “dangerous” for the established system, that they are at least temporarily confined to a psychiatric hospital. Also, a measure of dissuasion for others to speak the truth.
The subliminal message is “rumors” or conspiracy theories are lies – and lies fly high and multiply with the broader public. These folks are to be given only the (official) “truth” – and truth comes from the mainstream media (MSM), obtained from the elected – and more often than not – unelected authorities.
Unelected authorities range from the European Commission, an unelected panel that calls mostly the shots on what’s to happen in the EU – to the WEF, or World Economic Forum, a mere NGO that boasts power over world economic and political policies, way above the UN, not to mention the Washington based establishment “think tanks”.
The MSM knows best, because they get the fake and manipulated “real news” directly from the horse’s mouth – namely the officials as well as self-proclaimed authorities.
Do you know that the term and the various variations of “conspiracy theory”, or “conspiracy theorist” (CT), was used by US intelligence. Just after World War II in order to shut up opponents to the Cold War, they invented the clever term conspiracy theory. It was supposed to silence all those who knew that the Cold War was fake, was a mere fear propaganda for the Western World.
The weaponized term ” conspiracy theorist” (CT) addresses mostly those who are seeking the truth against the ever more common, and ever more blatant lies from governments and their mouthpieces, the propaganda media, against their own people. Covid-19 is a notorious example.
The “false covid pandemic”, or the “covid hoax” – these expressions are in most people’s minds as “insolent conspiracy theory”. Well, this pandemic has been used to closing down the national economies (with some exceptions) of 193 UN member countries, and that simultaneously.
In the course of human history, a pandemic has never happened at the same time around the entire world. Something is not quite right. This cannot be a coincidence. For it to be implemented simultaneously in a large number of countries, national governments had to be coopted possibly with carrot and stick methods, whereby the sticks may be pretty sinister, so each government better pursue the “sweet carrot” (corruption) …. Whatever that may be.
There were nevertheless some semi-exceptions, like Sweden and Belarus. They went their own way – no total lockdown, and they did quite well, compared with the rest of the world. And especially, their economy remained pretty much intact.
This narrative, countries being better off not following the lockdown, is a “conspiracy theory”. Never mind, that the total lockdown around the globe has proven to be the worst ever socio-economic disaster humanity has known and from which it may never recover. Hundreds of millions unemployed, livelihoods destroyed – “fake news” or conspiracy theory, right??
Indeed, the true “fake news” comes from the mainstream propaganda media – the fearmongers. That’s “fake news” – or “conspiracy theory”.
Those who have you believe that infections increase by the day, and death rates increase steadily – and that you are in absolute danger of life if you do not wear masks and don’t respect “social distancing”.
Independent, because all those who are employed by the government, by universities, hospitals or have otherwise a status of employment, may risk losing their jobs, if they don’t follow the official narrative.
Medical doctors, virologists and biologists usually know their science, but are afraid for their income, they don’t speak up, or follow the “lockstep discourse”. Some do talk, but will not make public statements. Most of those who are not afraid of the omnipotent establishment do come forward and say, for example that the common masks are worthless and may even be harmful because they give you a sense of false security and you breath your own CO2.
Many also refer to the ultra-invisible submicroscopic virus, much smaller than bacteria, on average between 5 to 300 nanometers (nm), easily slip through the fabric of a mask. A nanometer is a unit of length equal to one billionth of a meter. Imagine, a common mask stopping such a virus, on either way, in or out. The common mask may protect against bacteria and other microbes, but viruses? – But since the virus is invisible and we don’t know better, we believe the “authority”. According to Dr. Pascal Sacré:
“The air, once exhaled, is heated, humidified and charged with CO2. It becomes a perfect culture medium for infectious agents (bacteria, fungi, viruses).
Studies have shown that the porosity (microscopic holes) of the masks allows exhaled germs to accumulate on the external surface of the mask. Not only do we re-inhale our own CO2, but by touching our mask all the time (an inevitable gesture), we spread germs everywhere!”
“A number of vaccines are now in phase three clinical trials and we all hope to have a number of effective vaccines that can help prevent people from infection. However, there’s no silver bullet at the moment — and there might never be.”
Is this just instilling more fear in the population, preparing for the next lockdown, preparing the people that Covid will stay with us for a long time, keeping people fearfully on their toes, so as to be prepared for any “orders”, i.e “repression” from the authorities?
Or is it sheer demagoguery to make people more pliable and manipulable for future crackdowns or disastrous lockdowns? – Would that “official” announcement fall into the category of fake or conspiracy news? – You be the judge.
The virus has been around for decades, in different variations or mutations. Every common flu, for example, contains between 7% and 20% of coronaviruses. Dr. Anthony Fauci, NIH, has actually stated in a peer-reviewed article called “Navigating the Uncharted” in the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM), that:
”the case fatality rate may be considerably less than 1%. This suggests that the overall clinical consequences of Covid-19 may ultimately be more akin to those of a severe seasonal influenza (which has a case fatality rate of approximately 0.1%) or a pandemic influenza (similar to those in 1957 and 1968) rather than a disease similar to SARS or MERS, which have had case fatality rates of 9 to 10% and 36%, respectively”.
If you and me say so, and even cite Fauci, we are CTs. Well, Dr. Fauci, in his “official” position as an authority in virology, actually went on CNN and other mainstream news channels to propagate the contrary of what he said in the NEJM.
Dr. Fauci promotes the fearmongering narrative, what the system wants you to hear and believe from the mouth of a national authority, namely that the US may experience up to half a million covid-deaths.
With such a message you will be kept at home under confinement, no contact with other people, and a lockdown of the economy is fully justified to save lives. And your personal social and psychological destruction is guaranteed.
And now, US hospitals and other health services are racing to reach that figure.
This race includes falsified data, deaths that have nothing to do with Covid being attributed to Covid, hospitals being paid to admit patients as Covid patients (US$19,000), and for putting patients on a ventilator (US$39,000), knowing very well that up to 80% of patients die when put in a ventilator. This is real conspiracy against the very people the medical services are supposed to help and cure. Instead they betray their patients’ confidence bitterly.
This info was fully available here but the hospital payment part was edited out. And worse, many internet entries of Dr. Scott Jensen, Medical Doctor and State Senator of Minnesota, statements are now marked with “fact check”, denied or censored.
Watch the interview below with Sen. Dr. Scott Jensen
The Economic and Social Impacts
Never mind the millions of jobs lost, bankruptcies, livelihoods destroyed. Deaths caused around the globe from famine and despair – and from other diseases (e.g. cancer, heart failure, diabetes, others) not treated due to the authority imposed covid hysteria – far outreach the alleged global death toll from covid-19 (which is based on manipulated estimates).
You are not allowed to criticize or even question the authorities, for following the orders emanating from authority. If you do, you are condemned for spreading “false news”, or you are tagged as a CT. That’s become the common discourse.
But then how would you categorize the lies, the social engineering, the forced lockdowns and confinements imposed by the “authorities”?
Do they fall into the categories of fake news or conspiracies – or both?
China has brought covid under control without a vaccine, but to a large extent by using common and inexpensive existing drugs, like hydroxychloroquine a (60-year-old) drug used to fight malaria, and the Cuban developed interferon alpha-2b, and possibly other drugs and combinations thereof.
There is also Dr. Andreas Kalckder’s chlorine dioxide solution (CDS) highly effective not only for treating the corona virus, but also a myriad of other diseases, if appropriately apportioned. These simple and effective treatments have been blocked by health authorities as well as by Big Pharma.
Even medical doctors are forbidden under punishment to use and apply them on their patients. It is partly the result of the powerful pharma lobby, led by GAVI, the Vaccine Alliance or Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunization, and supported by WHO, and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, but it is also partly due to our governments’ compliance with an ultra-corrupt public and private healthcare sector.
These interest groups, whose orders WHO follows, are only interested in promoting their billion if not trillion-dollar vaccine business, vaccines that have been largely untested and remain highly controversial.
In fact, many of those who have been tested, especially those of the Seattle based pharma-company “Moderna” (which is supported by the Gates Foundation), have experienced serious side effects. According to Bill Gates the vaccine will be ready in the Fall of 2020 to be applied on a large scale. In fact, he says that at least two shots – not just one – may be needed to reach effectiveness. See this.
Bill Gates has stated that the world is over populated. In a 2010 TED Talk in Southern California, he stated: “if we do a real good job vaccinating, we may reduce the world population by 10% to 15%…” (see this).
.
Vaccines
Parents, teachers and doctors should think twice, or three times, before recommending, or worse, forcing, children and people to be covid-vaccinated. See the Gates Foundation WHO-approved vaccination campaigns (polio, for example in India) and sterilizing young women (Kenya, with modified tetanus vaccines).
Lots of people in Canada fell sick after receiving the H1N1 ArepanrixTD vaccine.
And that vaccine killed a little girl called Amina Abu, which then led to a ten year lawsuit against GSK.
A vaccine was rushed to market, and the five year old was among millions of Canadians to get the shot, amid widespread fears about the new pathogen.
Five days later, Amina’s older brother found her lying unconscious in the bathroom of the family’s east-end Toronto home. She was dead.
it is worth noting that Google with its “Fact Check” has removed reference to these disastrous vaccines.
Because WHO stands behind it, the world governments accept it – the higher orders of the Deep State “command these rules.” WHO is the messenger of sorts. WHO is about two thirds funded by extra-budgetary resources from interest groups, like the pharma industry, the Gates foundation and telecom corporations.
If you divulge the truth revealing a state-sponsored lie, you are automatically tagged as spreading conspiracy theories or fake news.
Data manipulation over covid cases, infections, diseases and death rates is rampant. Each country seems to be in a “race’ to compete, the more cases the better, as it allows and justifies the “Authorities” representing the wealthy elites to tighten the belt of oppression, surveillance and social control, leading to the militarization of law enforcement as in the US.
Resistance
This past weekend, on August 1, 2020 in Berlin, 1.3 million people (according to the organizers) took to the streets and demonstrated against the government’s repressive and anti-constitutional covid policies. Never before has Berlin seen such an impressive demonstration.
Myriads of videos clearly show that people and entire families with children and grandparents participated in this PEACEFUL protest in Berlin.
And it will not go away. They demand justice. Germany may possibly lead the way for Europe to wake up.
.
Towards Totalitarian Government? .
.
If President Trump manages to establish Martial Law in the US by invoking the so-called Continuity of Government (COG) or Continuity of Operations (COOP), as he has already Twitter-insinuated, there is a danger that Europe may attempt to follow suit.
If the German vigor, protest and drive for freedom and self-determination prevails and spreads to the rest of Europe, we may be spared.
Concluding Remarks
The insulting conspiracy or false news spreading defamation doesn’t stop with the plandemic covid debacle and disaster, nor did this ‘new’ wave of weaponizing “false news” start with corona. Far from it.
When it is convenient for the system to bash ‘inconvenient’ people, those who are trying to inform the public at large about what is really going on, then the term conspiracy theory or fake news is readily at hand.
Anybody who is presenting the well-researched and analyzed truth confronting the steady western mainstream media drum-beat of anti-Russia, anti-China, anti-Iran, anti-Syria, anti-Venezuela, anti-Cuba, anti-North Korea, and-so-on… is likely to be labeled CT accordingly.
Or, if anybody dares questioning the official 9/11 version.
Or questions the usefulness of NATO, and instead presents its true purpose, the aggression and warrior nature, steadily and ever more severely menacing the east, notably Russia and China – then one is also stamped a CT.
We need a critical mass to become conscious of what is going on, of what the plans are behind Covid-19, of connecting the dots between corona, Black Lives Matter (BLM), the Woke movement, Antifa protests.
We have to recognize that most of these protest movements are funded and co-sponsored by corporate foundations, by the Ford, Rockefeller, Gates, Open Society foundations – and more – by the very affluent ultra-capitalists that would like us to believe they are on our side – fighting for freedom and against racial discrimination.
We have to be alert to the WEF’s (World Economic Forum) call for a Great Global Reset – leading to a New Green (capitalist) Deal – a new shift of assets from the lower income groups to the – now green shaded – billionaires.
When we start understanding the Big Picture, then we understand covid, and then we are safe.
We have all the elements to understand our constitutional and human rights and stand up for them.
***
Watch below Michael Moore’s latest film “Planet of the Humans”.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Peter Koenig is 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 Global Research; ICH; New Eastern Outlook (NEO); RT; Countercurrents, Sputnik; PressTV; The 21st Century; Greanville Post; Defend Democracy Press; The Saker Blog, the and other internet sites. 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. He is also a co-author of The World Order and Revolution! – Essays from the Resistance. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization.
Due to technical issues, our daily newsletter sent out via e-mail is currently suspended. We will be able to resume the send-out within the next week or so. We thank you for your patience.
In the meantime, as a large part of our funding comes from our readers, if you are in the position to make a donation or become a member of GlobalResearch.ca, please do so by clicking below:
The COVID-19 virus. Does it exist? Is it a novel virus? Is there a Pandemic?
If you ask any doctor or scientist in the world to show you a scientifically-verified proof, they will not be able to show you one.
Given that it has not been scientifically established that the COVID-19 novel virus exists, it is therefore clear that everything being done supposedly in the effort to tackle the ‘virus’ is being done for another purpose and COVID-19 is being used to conceal this fact.
However, with the elite-driven narrative being endlessly promoted by the World Health Organisation, governments, the medical and pharmaceutical industries, along with the corporate media, the truth is being obliterated.
And the reason for this is obvious: Any serious consideration of the underlying evidence, as I have documented previously, clearly indicates that the global elite is conducting a coup against humanity and using the fear it generates around COVID-19 to distract people from paying attention to what is happening in the background. For this reason, the coup continues to gain pace with only an insignificant number of people yet aware of the coup and its ongoing and increasingly devastating impacts.
‘How is the elite doing this?’ you might ask. Far too easily, unfortunately.
In essence, key individuals in the World Health Organisation (WHO), governments, the medical and pharmaceutical industries, as well as the corporate media are lying to you about this. They are lying to you, consciously or unconsciously, for essentially one of three reasons (essentially determined by where the individual fits in relation to the elite’s ongoing execution of its coup):
they are lying as an outcome of their complicity in the coup (given the perceived benefits to them personally, at least in the short term),
they are lying as an outcome of their ignorance (by not investigating and considering the evidence for themself and submissively accepting the elite narrative), or
they are lying as an outcome of their fear (of the adverse personal repercussions they would expect for resisting the elite narrative that there is indeed a virus).
And, so far, the elite is successfully executing its coup because the many voices contradicting its narrative – such as those individual doctors powerful enough to present the truth about the so-called ‘virus’ – are being denied a forum in any elite-controlled outlet such as the corporate media or they are being censored (including removed from accessible sites on the internet).
If what I have written above sounds incredible given the worldwide response supposedly to tackle the ‘virus’, the evidence presented below, together with the references to further documentation, will give you plenty to consider (provided your own fear will allow you to do so).
But before presenting this evidence, it is worth being aware of some of the existing adverse impacts of the coup:
There has been a dramatic increase in violence against children and women all over the world and particularly in some contexts with a recent United Nations Population Fund report highlighting that an ‘additional 5.6 million child marriages can be expected because of the coronavirus pandemic, which resulted in a short-term increase in poverty and the shutdown of schools’. In addition, the ‘current pandemic is also expected to have a massive impact on the projected growth of harmful practices on women’s bodies’ including female genital mutilation (FGM). See ‘Child Marriage, FGM and Harmful Practices on Women’s Bodies to Increase Because of COVID-19’.
The lockdowns have imprisoned people in their homes (with its seriously adverse psychological, social and physical repercussions) and laws have been introduced regarding ‘social distancing’ and other measures (including mask-wearing which I will discuss below) that have eviscerated rights and freedoms it took centuries to win. For the details, see ‘The Elite’s COVID-19 Coup against a Terrified Humanity: Resisting Powerfully’.
As Dr Stefan Lanka has explained about vaccines generally:
Only ignorant people who blindly trust in the state authorities who are ‘testing’ and approving the vaccines can regard vaccination as a ‘small harmless prick’. The verifiable facts demonstrate the danger and negligence of these scientists and politicians, who claim that vaccines are safe, have little or no side-effects and would protect from a disease. None of these claims is true and scientific.See‘The Misconception Called “Virus”: Measles as an example’.
Other measures to expand surveillance (apart from through vaccination) are being introduced. These include ‘contact tracing’ despite the fact that even ‘A WHO study on influenza pandemics in 2019 came to the conclusion that contact tracing is not useful from an epidemiological point of view and “is not recommended in any circumstances”.’ See ‘Facts about COVID-19’. But that is precisely the point: Contact tracing is not about epidemiological usefulness; it is about surveillance.
While much human activity has been brought to a standstill, this has not included any of the violence which has not only continued unchecked but has expanded. Apart from the dramatic increase in violence against children and women all over the world noted above, wars, threats of war, sanctions, the military violence of occupations in places such as Palestine, Tibet and West Papua, the structural violence that systematically exploits (that is, loots) countries in Africa, Asia and Central/South America, the ecological violence that destroys lands, oceans and atmosphere have all proceeded as usual with the caveat that there has been a reduction in the emissions of some industrial and other waste products although this is hugely problematic in one critical sense. See ‘Will COVID-19 Trigger Extinction of All Life on Earth?’
Despite these and many other adverse impacts already happening in response to the COVID-19 crisis, as noted at the beginning, it has never been scientifically established that the COVID-19 virus actually exists. More fundamentally, according to Dr Stefan Lanka:
‘Contrary to what most people believe, there are no pathogenic viruses.… All claims about viruses as pathogens are wrong and are based on easily recognisable, understandable and verifiable misinterpretations…. A real and complete virus does not exist anywhere in the entire “scientific” literature.’ See ‘The Misconception Called “Virus”: Measles as an example’.
As Dr Kaufman explains: Early scientific papers on the subject suggested an association (not causation) between a novel coronavirus ‘with human to human transmission and severe human infection’ whereas a subsequent key ‘scientific’ paper that made a claim which helped drive the global response to COVID-19 ‘flat out lied’ about their results: ‘Following the first outbreaks of unexplained pneumonia in Wuhan, China, in late 2019, a new coronavirus was identified as the causative agent in January 2020.’ See ‘Identification of Coronavirus Isolated from a Patient in Korea with COVID-19’. In fact, Dr Kaufman points out:
‘they cannot reference any science to back that up whatsoever’.
Finally on this point, pathologist Dr Stoian Alexov, President of the Bulgarian Pathology Association, has stated that he and his colleagues across Europe:
have not found any evidence of any deaths from the novel coronavirus on that continent.
But it is clear that the engineered crisis and the measures supposedly being taken to combat the non-existent ‘virus’ are being used to mask the truth, including the elite coup, and so actions aimed at elite agents, such as governments, must inevitably fail.
Unscientific Responses to the Non-existent Virus
The unscientific nature of the supposed threat posed by the ‘virus’ is, of course, matched by the unscientific response with countries imposing lockdowns suffering far worse outcomes – measured psychologically, socially, economically and otherwise – than countries, such as Japan, South Korea, Belarus and Sweden which did not follow this course. In any case, countries that did impose lockdowns could only use lies and statistical manipulation to make it appear that COVID-19 has been the cause of death among some of those who are recently deceased. For a taste of the extensive documentation, see ‘Facts about COVID-19: July 2020 Update’ and ‘COVID 19 Is A Statistical Nonsense’.
But another way in which this unscientific response to the non-existent ‘virus’ is manifesting is immediately obvious if one examines the scientific evidence in relation to the effectiveness of masks in preventing cross infection. As it turns out, as explained in a long series of documented scientific studies, as distinct from the inaccurate claims promulgated by elite agents, the research demonstrates that masks are at best ineffective, and at worst horribly counterproductive; that is, masks cannot achieve the purpose for which they are, supposedly, intended but they can achieve some very unhealthy outcomes. But who among the general population is seeking out and considering this evidence (which the WHO, governments, the medical and pharmaceutical industries, the education systems and the corporate media are not going to present)?
For just a sample of the evidence about the ineffectiveness and dangers of wearing a mask, see the following:
‘Nevertheless, the question of the effectiveness of masks can be asked. In the case of influenza epidemics, the answer is already clear from a scientific point of view: masks in everyday life have no or very little effect. If used improperly, they can even increase the risk of infection.’ See ‘Facts about COVID-19: July 2020 Update’.
In a recent study published in The New England Journal of Medicine, the five co-authors stated ‘We know that wearing a mask outside health care facilities offers little, if any, protection from infect
ion.’ See ‘Universal Masking in Hospitals in the Covid-19 Era’.
No RCT [randomized controlled trial] study with verified outcome shows a benefit for HCW [health care workers] or community members in households to wearing a mask or respirator. There is no such study. There are no exceptions.
Likewise, no study exists that shows a benefit from a broad policy to wear masks in public.
Furthermore, if there were any benefit to wearing a mask, because of the blocking power against droplets and aerosol particles, then there should be more benefit from wearing a respirator (N95) compared to a surgical mask, yet several large meta-analyses, and all the RCT, prove that there is no such relative benefit.
Masks and respirators do not work.
By making mask-wearing recommendations and policies for the general public, or by expressly condoning the practice, governments have both ignored the scientific evidence and done the opposite of following the precautionary principle.
After reviewing more than 50 articles on masks in the medical literature and documenting her case, concludes as follows:
There are NO randomized, controlled trials (RCT) with verified outcomes that show a benefit to healthcare workers or community members for wearing a mask or a respirator. There is no such definitive study. Likewise, no study exists that shows a benefit from a broad policy to wear masks in public.See ‘Coronavirus Pt 4: Masks Don’t Protect’and, for your convenience, Tenpenny has cited the relevant passage from 35 of the articles she researched in this document: ‘Conclusion Regarding Masks: They Do Not Work’.
And it is largely working with most people projecting their fear onto the non-existent ‘virus’ and then ignorantly endeavouring to ‘protect’ themselves from it by wearing a mask (or going along with other measures supposedly intended to ‘prevent infection’).
So if you are wondering why virtually everyone is being caught up in this, there are very good psychological reasons. One of them is that virtually all humans are terrorized into obedience as children. Consequently, resisting orders from those considered to be ‘in authority’ is virtually unthinkable. I have explained this submissive obedience in the article ‘Contemplating Human Extinction Terrifies Most People: A Strategy for Survival’.
But there is another, more subtle, reason too.
COVID-19 and the Psychology of Projection
For the vast bulk of the human population, considering the fundamental evidence of what is taking place – and acknowledging that the global elite is conducting a coup against us with all that this entails – is truly terrifying. Moreover, recognizing that if we are to resist this coup, we will need to make a courageous and strategically-focused stand to defend ourselves is frightening for most people as well.
And the global elite knows this. It is for this reason that they are terrorizing us in the first place. The elite does not want people resisting the coup and it certainly does not want them resisting the coup effectively.
Hence, the global elite is exploiting our fear – by projecting it onto COVID-19 – so that we submissively go along with its coup. How is the elite doing this? Let me explain the psychology of projection, very simply.
If, when you are a child, you are scared of something but that ‘something’ is truly terrifying and inescapable – that is, you are denied any safe opportunity to feel your terror and to take action in response to it so that you can make yourself safe – your mind will precipitate one response and, if necessary, a second response to defend you in the short term.
The first response will be to significantly dampen (and possibly completely suppress) your awareness of just how terrifying the ‘something’ that is scaring you actually is so that you are not overwhelmed to such an extent that you become incapacitated. This response is intended to enable you to act powerfully to get yourself out of the terrifying situation and into a context in which you feel safe.
Ideally, following any such incident when you again feel safe, you need time to recover emotionally. Fundamentally, this means that you need time to focus on feeling the terror and other feelings that were raised during the incident so that these feelings are fully felt and expressed, rather than suppressed more deeply into your unconscious.
If, however, there is no opportunity for this emotional recovery, your mind will have no choice but to more deeply suppress your awareness of these feelings so that you can resume functioning more or less as previously. I say ‘more or less’ because you won’t be functioning precisely as previously because the unconscious terror will now be playing a part in your emotional life and, therefore, playing a part in shaping your behaviour.
However, your unconscious mind – which is enormously powerful – has not given up on enabling you to heal from the terrifying incident and, therefore, its second response is to later trick you into believing that something else, that is far less frightening, is what is really scaring you so that you can safely access and feel your terror in relation to the original incident. Your mind does this so that the terror that was initially suppressed, in order to allow you to devise and implement a strategy for immediate survival, can now be released.
By using these two responses, your mind enables you to survive in a terrifying environment so that, hopefully at some point soon, you can devise and implement a strategy to escape that environment. But also by allowing you to subsequently believe that something that is actually quite safe by comparison is what was really scaring you in the first place, it gives you the opportunity to feel your fear and act it out without (or with profoundly reduced) fear of the consequences.
In the short term, this pair of responses by your mind can enable you to survive something truly terrifying: it minimizes the risk that you will be immobilized (frozen) in terror and thus unable to survive a dangerous situation. In essence, in evolutionary terms, these responses have tremendous survival value in the short term.
If, however, you are not able to escape the truly terrifying situation in the short term and you remain trapped in the situation indefinitely, your unconscious mind will continue to both suppress awareness of the terror and ‘trick’ you into subsequently believing that it is something else that is frightening you.
Unfortunately, beyond the very short term, this mental trick is highly dysfunctional. It leads the individual to eventually ‘forget’ (deeply suppress their awareness of) the original and true source of what is terrifying them and to believe that the safe ‘target’ they unconsciously chose subsequently is actually the genuine threat.
In the jargon of psychology, this is called ‘projection’ or ‘transference’ because the victim is now blaming something other than the true cause of their terror.
This has profound societal consequences too for the simple reason that an elite can effectively nominate the ‘something’ onto which our terror is projected. And it can do this very easily by simply parading a target or ‘legitimized victim’ as terrifying which, in effect, gives ‘permission’ for us to feel scared of the target it has nominated. But in directing our fear in a certain direction, they are also invariably intent on manipulating our behaviour in response.
Historically, this has been demonstrated rather endlessly with the manipulation of our fear crucial to the achievement of certain elite ends, politically and otherwise. For example, racism (fear of other far less frightening Africans) exploded to justify the slave trade, Nazism exploited fears to mobilize Germans against far less frightening Jews (among others), Israeli leaders project the fear of Israelis to exploit far less frightening Palestinians and the entire US ‘war on terror’ has been conducted on the basis of projecting people’s unconscious terror at far less frightening Muslims. As I mentioned, however, the list of possible examples is virtually endless.
In each and every case, however, the terror exploited had its origin in something much earlier in the life of these individuals than the current circumstance exploited by elites. It had its origin during early childhood.
And this origin can be traced directly back to the parenting and teaching models virtually universally used by human beings. As I have explained many times previously, but to briefly reiterate here: virtually all human beings are terrified for the same reason: the child-raising process that sociologists like to label ‘socialization’ should be more accurately labeled ‘terrorization’. This is because from the moment of a child’s birth, parents, teachers, religious leaders and adults generally regard themselves as responsible for terrorizing the child into obedience of the commands, rules, conventions and laws that define the nature of permissible behaviour in their society.
But because evolutionary pressures do not predispose any individual to obey the will of another – for the simple reason that obedience has no evolutionary functionality – it takes enormousterrorization during childhood to ensure that the child surrenders their Self-will at the alter of obedience. To achieve this outcome and largely unknowingly, parents, teachers, religious leaders and other adults in the child’s life use a large range of behaviours from the three categories of violence that I have labeled ‘visible’ violence, ‘invisible’ violence and ‘utterly invisible’ violence. See ‘Why Violence?’and ‘Fearless Psychology and Fearful Psychology: Principles and Practice’.
At its most obvious, all children are routinely threatened with violence and actually punished with violence (usually in each of its three forms: ‘visible’, ‘invisible’ and ‘utterly invisible’) for ‘disobedience’ (that is, for following their own Self-will rather than obeying orders to submit). See ‘Punishment is Violent and Counterproductive’.
And, as preposterous as I know this sounds to those reading it for the first time: The fundamental outcome of this process is that all children end up utterly but unconsciously terrified of their parents, teachers, religious figures and other significant adults in their life.
But never given adequate safe opportunities to feel this terror, each child ends up projecting it onto something or a series of targets including those ‘legitimized victims’ approved by an elite, local or otherwise.
The elite does this by triggering our unconscious fear through endless reporting of the ‘threat’ posed by COVID-19, issuing warnings, announcing deaths supposedly caused by the ‘virus’ (and concealing that the death rates are not even comparable to deaths caused by a serious influenza), and placing increasingly onerous limits on our rights and freedoms (through such measures as lockdowns and mask-wearing). And because virtually everyone has so much suppressed terror and needs outlets onto which this can be projected, the coup is being conducted virtually without resistance.
As I have explained before, just because the global elite is able to do this does not mean that it is sane. In fact, it is completely insane and that is precisely why it is conducting this coup but unable to see its catastrophic outcome for the elite as well. See ‘The Global Elite is Insane Revisited’.
So what can we do?
Well, if we are to effectively resist the elite coup and fight for human survival, it would be useful to start by giving yourself time to focus on feeling your emotional responses – fear, anger, sadness, pain, dread…. – to whatever is generating an emotional reaction: COVID-19, the elite coup, the imminent threats of extinction or anything else. See ‘Putting Feelings First’.
This is necessary so that you can engage meaningfully and strategically in the effort, whatever issue you choose to fight.
So once you have a clearer sense of your emotional reactions to this knowledge and have allowed yourself time to focus on feeling these feelings, you will be in a far more powerful position to consider your response to the situation. And, depending on your interests and circumstances, there is a range of possible responses that will each make an important difference.
Fundamentally, you might consider making ‘My Promise to Children’ which will include considering what an education for your children means to you, particularly if you want powerful individuals – not ones who are submissively obedient and project their terror – who can perceive reality and resist violence. See ‘Do We Want School or Education?’
If you wish to strategically resist the elite coup against humanity, you can read about nonviolent strategy, including strategic goals for doing so, from here: Coup Strategic Aims.
Remaining pages on this website fully explain the twelve components of the strategy, as illustrated by the Nonviolent Strategy Wheel, as well as articles and videos explaining all of the vital points of strategy and tactics, such as those to help you understand ‘Nonviolent Action: Why and How it Works’.
Given the complexity of the configuration of this conflict, however, which involves the need to fight simultaneously to retain our essential humanity, defeat the elite coup and avert near-term human extinction, it is important that our tactical choices are strategically-oriented (as are those listed at the Strategic Aims page nominated above). Hence, three further considerations assume importance.
First, choose/design tactics that have strategic impact, that is, they fundamentally and permanently alter, in our favor, the power relationship between the elite and us.
Second, when tactical choices are made, focus them on undermining the elite coup, not just features of it, such as ‘social distancing’ or the lockdowns. At its most basic, this can be achieved by using tactical choices that mobilize people to act initially, as is happening, but then inviting them to consider taking further, more focused, action as well (such as those nominated in the strategic goals referenced above). This is important because existing actions will have little impact on key underlying measures, such as those being taken by the elite to advance the fourth industrial revolution.
Third, choose/design tactics that also have strategic impact on the greatest threats to human survival, including the collapsing biodiversity on Earth, the threat of nuclear war, the climate catastrophe and the deployment of 5G. Given the incredibly short timeframe in which we are now working to avert human extinction, while people are mobilizing it is important to use this opportunity to give them the chance to perceive the ‘big picture’ of what is taking place – beyond lockdowns and other measures supposedly being used to tackle COVID-19 – and to act powerfully in response.
Fortunately, as more people become aware of the deeper strands of what is taking place, the energy to break the lockdowns, resist other limitations on our rights and freedoms (such as contact tracing, COVID-19 testing/temperature checks, mask-wearing and vaccinations) as well as resist the coup itself will gather pace. As I have previously outlined, using a locally relevant focus, or perhaps several, for which many people would traditionally be together – a cultural, religious or sporting event, a nonviolent action, a community activity such as working to establish a community garden to increase local self-reliance, a celebration and/or a return to work – we can mobilize people to collectively resist.
If you wish to focus on powerfully resisting one of the primary threats to human existence – nuclear war, the deployment of 5G, the collapse of biodiversity and/or the climate catastrophe – you can read about nonviolent strategy, including strategic goals to focus your campaigns, from here: Campaign Strategic Aims.
You might also consider joining those who are powerful enough to recognize the critical importance of reduced consumption and greater self-reliance as essential elements of these strategies by participating in ‘The Flame Tree Project to Save Life on Earth’. While you over-consume or are dependent on the elite for your survival, in any way, you are vulnerable.
Under cover of a ‘virus’ that does not exist, the global elite is social engineering a massive restructuring of world society to suit their own ends. If they achieve their aim, your existence as any sort of individual with meaningful rights and freedoms will have been terminated.
Apart from these ongoing disastrous outcomes, the elite coup is also unwittingly accelerating four paths to human extinction: nuclear war, the climate catastrophe, the deployment of 5G and biodiversity collapse.
To have any chance of defeating the elite coup and fighting effectively to avert our own extinction, we must fight strategically.
Fundamentally, this means recognizing that lobbying (that is, begging) elite agents, such as governments, simply reinforces the power of the elite to control us. It is only when we take action ourselves to both build our own power (which includes that of our children and those with whom we work) while campaigning strategically to undermine the power of the global elite itself that we take crucial steps to liberate ourselves from its violence, in all of the forms that this violence takes.
Given that the elite coup is jeopardizing our individuality, our liberty and our future, it is time for us to decide whether we are human beings or a planet of sheep.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Robert J. Burrowes has a lifetime commitment to understanding and ending human violence. He has done extensive research since 1966 in an effort to understand why human beings are violent and has been a nonviolent activist since 1981. He is the author of ‘Why Violence?’ His email address is [email protected] and his website is here. He is a frequent contributor to ‘Global Research’.
ANNEX
Or, if you want something simpler, consider committing to:
The Earth Pledge
Out of love for the Earth and all of its creatures, and my respect for their needs, from this day onwards I pledge that:
I will only eat organically/biodynamically grown food
I will minimize the amount of fresh water I use, including by minimizing my ownership and use of electronic devices
I will not own or use a mobile (cell) phone
I will not buy rainforest timber
I will not buy or use single-use plastic, such as bags, bottles, containers, cups and straws
I will not use banks, superannuation (pension) funds or insurance companies that provide any service to corporations involved in fossil fuels, nuclear power and/or weapons
I will not accept employment from, or invest in, any organization that supports or participates in the exploitation of fellow human beings or profits from killing and/or destruction of the biosphere
I will not get news from the corporate media (mainstream newspapers, television, radio, Google, Facebook, Twitter…)
I will make the effort to learn a skill, such as food gardening or sewing, that makes me more self-reliant
I will gently encourage my family and friends to consider signing this pledge.
US Secretary of State, John Kerry, of the Obama administration, created a mantra for the media: “There is no military solution to Syria.” He said it so many times, he seemed to convince everyone. However, after 9 years of conflict it appears there is neither a military, nor political solution for Syria. Despite the fact that the Syrian government under President Assad, with help from Russia, has regained 70% of the territory, and all the major cities are calm, still there is no possibility for recovery or reconstruction of hospitals, schools, homes and lives due to the US sanctions.
President Erdogan of Turkey, a close ally of President Trump, and NATO member, ensured that a military solution was impossible for Syria. By Turkey’s invasion and occupation of Idlib, and the northeast region, the Syrian Arab Army was prevented from clearing out the Al Qaeda terrorists who occupy Idlib. On a second track, Turkey prevented the Kurdish northeast, who are US allies, from coming to an agreement with the Damascus government. Erdogan’s invasion and continuing occupation of Syria was for Erdogan’s benefit, as well as the strategic goals of his ally Trump, who has also invaded and continues to occupy the main oil and gas wells in Syria, thus preventing the Syrian government from using their own resources to recover and reconstruct after almost 10 years of war.
The United Nations has tried to negotiate a peaceful resolution to the conflict through the UN resolution 2254 process. There are five goals to be addressed in the 2254 implementation: dialog between the Syrian government and the opposition to build trust; prisoners or kidnapped persons to be released from both sides; involvement of widely varied Syrian persons in the process; a balanced constitutional committee; involvement of foreign countries who are actors in the conflict, as well as other foreign nations not directly involved.
The western media covering the US-NATO region is focused on the Syrian government as if they were in a conflict alone. There is little mention of the Syrian opposition who are the other party to the conflict, which has killed hundreds of thousands of Syrians. A political dialog between two sides requires both sides to be clearly identifiable and responsible. The mainstream media portrays the Syrian government, and its allies, as the “bad guys”, but never explains who are the “good guys” they are cheering for. If we examine the armed opposition in Syria from 2011 to 2020 it includes various Islamist militias following Radical Islam, a political ideology which is neither a religion, nor a sect.
The UN assesses that 11.7 million people inside Syria require humanitarian assistance, and that more than 5.6 million Syrians live as refugees in neighboring countries.
Syria’s Ambassador to the UN said that the US and its allies are seeking to create a “New Middle East” by supporting terrorists, foreign fighters and others who attack Syria’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. The US attack and invasion of Iraq in 2003 caused the Al Qaeda opposition uprising, and Idlib is under the occupation of Hayat Tahrir al-Sham, formerly known as Jibhat al-Nusra, the Syrian branch of Al Qaeda. US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has repeatedly demanded that Idlib be protected from any attack, regardless that it harbors thousands of terrorists from numerous countries, including the US.
Ambassador James Roscoe, UK official to the UN, briefed the Security Council on April 29. He said that the Syrian government and its allies should engage seriously with UN Special Envoy Pedersen and the UN resolution 2254 process to achieve a peaceful end to the Syrian conflict. However, he failed to acknowledge that the Damascus government has attended every meeting in Geneva, Astana and Sochi, and has sent a constitutional drafting committee to every meeting, and has met with every UN official who has visited Damascus.
“We need to see a political solution to the conflict in Syria. So the Assad regime and Russia must end their offensive. Respect international law. And support UN efforts for a peaceful solution.”
However, he failed to acknowledge that Syria and Russia support the UN 2254 process. He mentions international law, but fails to acknowledge NATO members Turkey, and the US have broken international law by invading and occupying Syria. He demands that the Syrian Arab Army with support of the Russian air force must not fight Al Qaeda in Idlib, even though all UN nations have committed to the fight against global terrorism. Many may like to know if Jens Stoltenberg would be in favor of fighting an Al Qaeda attack and occupation of Paris, or London?
“Above all, it is a question of continuing the fight against international terrorism.”
Erdogan said Turkey’s “fundamental priorities are to safeguard Syria’s political unity and territorial integrity, restore peace on the ground and find a lasting political solution to the conflict”. He is focused on the northeast Kurdish region who set up their own semi-autonomous administration, independent of Damascus, and allied themselves with the US, who bankrolled them and provided weapons and military training to their armed wing, the SDF. Erdogan will not allow armed militias aligned with the PKK to be operating with impunity on the Turkish border. The US will not allow the Kurds to reconcile with the Damascus government, and this sets Turkey and the US at cross-purposes.
The US sanctions are the toughest set of measures to be imposed on Syria, preventing anyone from doing business with Syrian officials or state institutions, or from participating in the country’s reconstruction. While the US Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin tries to qualify the prohibitions as only targeting the Syrian government, the actual target is every person living in Syria, including private citizens who have no involvement with the government. For example, an Aleppo businessman who saw his factory dismantled and taken to Turkey by the Radical Islamic terrorists who were supported by Erdogan may need to order new machines from Germany, and replacement parts from the UK, and other technical items from Italy. However, the US and EU sanctions prevent him from ordering anything to rebuild his business, which would employ workers, and support his family. The companies are afraid of selling even a tooth-pick to anyone in Syria, for fear that the US Treasury will hunt them down and exact costly punishment on the transaction. There are humanitarian exemptions, but they have to be legislated through Sec. Mnuchin’s office directly, and the process is laborious and costly. The WHO director, Elizabeth Hoff, said this laborious process prevents replacement parts for medical machines sitting idle in hospitals across Syria from being ordered.
Recently, 6 account, threatening any foreign company who would sell any products to anyone in Syria:
“Those looking to invest in the corrupt reconstruction efforts of the Assad regime are on notice; the US will continue to expose anyone seeking to profit from the regime’s attacks against the Syrian people. Today,@USTreasury took further action.”
US Deputy Assistant Secretary of State and Special Envoy for Syria Joel Rayburn said last week that this is the summer of Syrian sanctions.
Lebanon has submitted a request for a waiver to the sanctions to Mnuchin’s office in order to continue to buy electricity from the Syrian government’s electricity grid. However, Rayburn said, “The Assad regime is not the answer to Lebanon’s electricity difficulties.” Lebanon is facing a national blackout, as they are now prevented from buying electricity from Damascus because of the sanctions, which will affect Lebanese civilians without refrigeration in the hottest days of summer.
Last month, Syria held parliamentary elections with 2,100 candidates competing for 250 seats, and voters cast their ballots in 7,313 polling stations nationwide. Candidates were running on promises of reconstruction, restoring infrastructure and bringing home millions of refugees. However, the US sanctions will prevent any reconstruction efforts which require materials or parts made abroad.
The new parliament will be expected to approve a new constitution and support candidates for the upcoming presidential election, which will require written approval from at least 35 members of parliament.
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 United States national election is now only three months away and it should be expected that the out-and-out lies emanating from both parties will increase geometrically as the polling date nears. One of the more interesting claims regarding the election itself is the White House assertion that large scale voting by mail will permit fraud, so much so that the result of the voting will be unreliable or challenged. To be sure, it is not as if voter fraud is unknown in the United States. The victory of John F. Kennedy 1960 presidential election has often been credited to all the graveyards in Mayor Richard Daley’s Chicago voting to swing Illinois into the Democratic camp.
The Democrats are insisting that voting by mail is perfectly safe and reliable, witness the use of absentee ballots for many years. The assertions by Democratic Party-affiliated voting officials in several states and also from friends on the federal level have been played in the media to confirm that fraud in elections has been insignificant recently. That may be true, up until now.
The Democrats, of course, have an agenda. For reasons that are not altogether clear, they believe that voting by mail would benefit them primarily, so they are pushing hard for their supporters to register in their respective states and cast their ballots at the local mail box. Nevertheless, there should be some skepticism whenever a major American political party wants something. In this case, the Democrats are likely assuming that people at lower income levels who will most likely vote for them cannot be bothered to register and vote if it requires actually going somewhere to do it. They have spoken of “expansion of voting,” presumably to their benefit. The mail is a much easier option.
“Can’t we just have this one moment to vote for one candidate every four years, and show up and put a ballot in without licking an envelope or pressing on a stamp? If you can shop for food, if you can buy liquor, you can vote once every four years.”
The fundamental problem with the arguments coming from both sides is that there is no national system in the United States for registering and voting. Elections are run at state level and the individual states have their own procedures. The actual ballots also differ from voting district to voting district. To determine what safeguards are actually built into the system is difficult as how electoral offices actually function is considered sensitive information by many, precisely because it might reveal vulnerabilities in the process.
To determine how one might actually vote illegally, I reviewed the process required for registering and voting by mail in my own state of Virginia. In Virginia one can both register and vote without any human contact at all. The registration process can be accomplished by filling out an online form, which is linked here. Note particularly the following: the form requires one to check the box indicating U.S. citizenship. It then asks for name and address as well as social security number, date of birth and whether one has a criminal record or is otherwise disqualified to vote. You then have to sign and date the document and mail it off. Within ten days, you should receive a voter’s registration card for Virginia which you can present if you vote in person, though even that is not required.
But also note the following: no documents have to presented to support the application, which means that all the information can be false. You can even opt out of providing a social security number by indicating that you have never been issued one, even though the form indicates that you must have one to be registered, and you can also submit a temporary address by claiming you are “homeless.” Even date of birth information is useless as the form does not ask where you were born, which is how birth records are filed by state and local governments. Ultimately, it is only the social security number that validates the document and that is what also appears on the Voter’s ID Card, but even that can be false or completely fabricated, as many illegal immigrant workers in the U.S. have discovered.
In a state like Virginia, the actual mail-in ballot requires your signature and that of a witness, who can be anyone. That is also true in six other states. Thirty-one states only require your own signature while only three states require that the document be notarized, a good safeguard since it requires the voter to actually produce some documentation. Seven states require your additional signature on the ballot envelope and two states require that a photocopy of the voter ID accompany the ballot. In other words, the safeguards in the system vary from state to state but in most cases, fraud would be relatively easy.
And then there is the issue of how the election commissions in the states will be overwhelmed by tens of thousands of mail-in ballots that they might be receiving in November. That overload would minimize whatever manual checking of names, addresses and social security numbers might otherwise take place. Jim Bovard has speculated how “The American political system may be on the eve of its worst legitimacy crisis since the Civil War. Early warning signals indicate that many states could suffer catastrophic failures in counting votes in November… Because of the pandemic, many states are switching primarily to mail-in voting even though experiences with recent primaries were a disaster. In New York City, officials are still struggling to count mail-in ballots from the June primary. Up to 20% of ballots ‘were declared invalid before even being opened, based on mistakes with their exterior envelopes,’ the Washington Post noted, thanks largely to missing postmarks or signatures. In Wisconsin, more than 20,000 ‘primary ballots were thrown out because voters missed at least one line on the form, rendering them invalid.’ Some states are mailing ballots to all the names on the voting lists, providing thousands of dead people the chance to vote from the grave.”
Add into the witch’s cauldron the continued use of easily hacked antiquated voting machines as well as confusing ballots in many districts, and the question of whether an election can even be run with expectations of a credible result becomes paramount. President Trump has several times claimed that the expected surge in mail-in voting could result in “the most corrupt vote in our nation’s history.” Trump is often wrong when he speaks or tweets spontaneously, but this time he just might be right.
*
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 is a former CIA counter-terrorism specialist and military intelligence officer who served nineteen years overseas in Turkey, Italy, Germany, and Spain. He was the CIA Chief of Base for the Barcelona Olympics in 1992 and was one of the first Americans to enter Afghanistan in December 2001. Phil is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest, a Washington-based advocacy group that seeks to encourage and promote a U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East that is consistent with American values and interests. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.
Seventy-five years ago, an act of international criminality and infamy took place, the consequences of which have posed an existential threat to humanity ever since. For the first time ever, a species had created the capacity to not only bring about its own extinction, but also to potentially threaten all life on our planet.
On August 6 and 9, 1945, the U.S. military bombed the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki with nuclear weapons. Over 200,000 people, mostly civilians, died instantly or later succumbed from burns, malnutrition, and radiation-related illnesses, and their cities levelled to the ground. Many of their descendants carry the affected genes and pass them onto their children. Those notorious acts will forever be remembered as the first time the devastating impact of nuclear warfare was unleashed.
There was absolutely no justification for this wanton attack – the worst crime against humanity in history (paralleled only by the Holocaust). Unclassified documents have since confirmed that there was no truth to the constructed ‘myth’ that the atomic attack was necessary to spare the lives of U.S. servicemen and end the war. In fact, Imperial Japan was already on the verge of collapse and surrender by early August 1945, its industries and war-making capacities destroyed or exhausted by repeated conventional air raids.
We now know that the U.S. Truman Administration proceeded with the nuclear attack anyway because it was anxious to unveil its awesome new weaponry while it still could, thus ‘showcasing’ U.S. global military superiority in the post-war period. It is now known, for instance, that the Targeting Committee of the U.S. military’s “Manhattan Project” specifically chose the two cities – Hiroshima and Nagasaki – not because they were important military centres, but rather because these two cities had been scarcely bombed by conventional air raids, so it would be easier to document the full destructive power of the atomic blasts, and to monitor the number of ‘kills’ among the largely civilian populations of those urban centres. The callousness and racially-tinged inhumanity of such calculations is undeniable.
More specifically, the U.S. nuclear attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were intended to send an unmistakable message to the Soviet Union – its erstwhile ally during WWII – that U.S. imperialism, with its monopoly on nuclear weaponry, would be top dog and ‘world policeman’ in the post-war era. Most history books claim the opening salvo of the “cold war” which was to dominate international politics and spur the nuclear arms race for the next half-century was launched by Winston Churchill in his “Iron Curtain” speech in Fulton, Missouri in March 1946. But there is every reason to conclude that it actually came seven months earlier, in Hiroshima.
75 years later, those nuclear weapons arsenals remain the principle threat – a sword of Damocles – hanging over the heads of all humanity and our global environment. Despite the hopes and demands of the world’s people for the complete elimination of all nuclear stockpiles, disarmament talks remain stalled and important treaties, such as the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) and the Intermediate Nuclear Forces (INF) treaties, and the Iranian nuclear deal (JCPOA) have been unilaterally cancelled by Washington, setting the stage for another devastating round of the arms race.
Instead the leading nuclear states – in the first place, U.S. imperialism – are pressing forward with plans to modernize nuclear arsenals and extend the arms race into outer space (in the form of the Ballistic Missile Defence system and Trump’s “Space Command”). For this reason, the anniversary of Hiroshima and Nagasaki assumes even greater significance and urgency this year.
This is especially so because we can all see another ‘cold war’ – this time directed against the People’s Republic of China – looming on the horizon. Actually, it is already here, and is being ratcheted up daily by the U.S. Administration and its Western allies, including Canada. The last ‘cold war’ had devastating effects. Not only did it bring humanity to the brink of mutually assured destruction, and consume trillions of dollars (in today’s currency) on arms spending instead of peaceful development and the elimination of poverty, homelessness, illiteracy and social inequality. It also led to witch-hunts, fostered xenophobia and racism, and suppressed academic freedom and the right to dissent.
For the sake of the future of humanity and our environment, we must not allow fear-mongering and McCarthyism to gain the upper hand again.
We are not powerless in the face of this alarming drift toward nuclear calamity and environmental devastation. We need to take mass action to demand Canada take a firm stand promoting peace, disarmament, mutual respect and understanding, rejecting militarism, aggression and war.
For starters, we must demand that Canada sign and ratify the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW). And we must call for a massive cut in arms spending, for Canada’s withdrawal from the aggressive NATO military alliance, and for full respect for – and compliance with – the principles of the UN Charter and international law
The real challenge is to re-build a grassroots peace constituency in this country made up of working people, women, youth, indigenous peoples, those living below the poverty line, the homeless and disenfranchised, environmental and social activists and all who cherish peace. One that is powerful and united around a “Peace Alternative” that would take our country in a fundamentally different direction, and win a truly independent Canadian foreign policy based on disarmament and peace.
That is the best way to remember and pay tribute to the victims of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and to all victims of economic and military aggression, occupation and war!
*
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.
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
Again this week, he claimed to have “a lot of…executive powers,” adding:
“(W)e’re looking…very seriously” at suspending payroll taxes.
The US Constitution’s Article II covers executive powers. They include nothing about circumventing matters over which Congress has exclusive authority, including matters relating to taxes.
At the same time, the supreme law of the land doesn’t deter sitting presidents from doing as they wish.
They and congressional leaders lie, connive, misinterpret and pretty much operate ad libitum in discharging their duties as they wish to serve their own self-interest and other powerful ones they support.
The spirit of the Constitution’s general welfare clause was long ago abandoned, especially since both wings of the one-party state instituted neoliberal harshness to widen the wealth gap between ordinary Americans and the privileged few.
The supreme law of the law is whatever lawmakers, the executive, and courts say it is.
US government of, by, and for the people excludes the vast majority.
Ordinary Americans are exploited, not served — left unprotected by international, constitutional and US statute laws.
Falsely called the father of the Constitution, James Madison, the nation’s 4th president, wrote the following after its adoption, saying:
“I am not of the number if there be any such, who think the Constitution…is a faultless work.”
(It’s) the best that could be obtained from the jarring interests of the states…Something, anything, was better than nothing.”
The Bill of Rights, comprising the first 10 amendments, was deliberately omitted at first, later added to serve privileged interests exclusively.
Octogenarian Benjamin Franklin at the time was an observer to proceedings, not a participant in drafting the supreme law of the land.
He reportedly said the following when things concluded:
“I agree to this Constitution with all its faults.”
“I think a general government (is) necessary for us (and) may be a blessing…if well-administered.”
“I (further) believe that (over time things) can only end in despotism as other forms have done (earlier) when the people shall have become so corrupted as to need despotic government, being incapable of any other.”
Things turned out worse than Franklin imagined — a nation permanently at war on invented enemies, an unparalleled menace to everyone everywhere.
Today the nation is led by a billionaire, reality TV, geopolitical know-nothing president who’s dedicated to exclusively serving wealth and power interests at the expense of ordinary people he disdains while waging war on humanity at home and abroad.
Throughout his time in office, he’s operated extrajudicially in pursuing domestic and foreign policy.
Despite no legal authority to suspend payroll tax collections on his own, he may do it anyway.
According to Tax Policy Institute director Mark Mazur, no one in Washington “has the authority to not collect taxes.”
Section 7508(a) of the tax code was used by the IRS to extend this year’s filing deadline from April 15 to July 15.
It does not apply to suspending payroll or other federal tax payments.
If Trump takes this action on his own, it’ll be another constitutional breach on top of numerous others he’s responsible for.
Payroll taxes fund Social Security and Medicare. He and other regime hardliners want both programs weakened and eventually eliminated, along with social justice overall.
Ahead of November elections, most congressional members oppose suspension of payroll taxes.
According to the Tax Foundation, suspending them would deprive the Social Security and Medicare Trust funds of about $100 billion in monthly revenue, stressing:
Taking this action will not turn around dismal economic conditions, based on past experience.
In 2010 when payroll taxes were reduced for 2011 and 2012, “general revenue was used to replace the revenue loss for the Social Security trust fund over those two years.”
The partial tax holiday was “saved by households,” not spent to stimulate economic growth.
In 1977, a New Jobs Tax Credit of 4% of Social Security applied to payroll taxes paid by companies failed to create additional jobs.
The credit was phased out the following year.
According to the Social Security Fact Sheet, about 65 million Americans are receiving benefits this year.
Around 68 million Americans are Medicare beneficiaries in 2020. They’ll receive no economic benefits from a temporary cut or suspension of payroll taxes.
The Tax Foundation explained that “payroll tax reductions are not well-targeted toward taxpayers most likely to spend the additional funds.”
“(W)ell-targeted direct government spending may be…more cost-effective, and a payroll tax reduction only directly helps those who are working.”
It provides no help for around a third of unemployed working-age Americans.
“Temporary tax policy should be viewed skeptically, as there is a large literature suggesting that temporary changes in tax policy do not spur long-run changes in saving and investment decisions,” the Tax Foundation stressed, adding:
“While temporary tax policy may help improve a shortfall in aggregate demand, this must be balanced with the mixed economic record, revenue impact, and unintended consequences such policies create.”
Most tax policy experts share the view that US policymakers should consider fiscally stimulative policies other than cutting or suspending payroll taxes.
*
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.”
Keeping us preoccupied with a phony virus which was supposed to kill millions and landed-up causing no more deaths than the normal winter flu, sure was a useful way of directing attention away from the earthly and upward deployment of the 5G microwave weapon.
While billions were under home arrest in semi suffocation from airless apartments, ridiculous masks and insane social distancing, Mr Elon Musk, megalomaniac extraordinaire, had hired Cape Canaveral and was enjoying his own private launch pad parties in celebration of his ‘Space X’ company blasting hundreds of 5G satellites into the ionosphere fifty miles above the Earth.
Multi billionaire Elon Musk likes to believe that smothering every last inch of the planet in a blanket of beamed toxic electromagnetic pulsed ‘arrays’, is exactly what we have all been praying for.
Mr Musk claims to be the ‘inventor’ of the electric car – the forthcoming models of which just happen to need no drivers but lots of electricity – 5G electricity to be precise. Autonomous cars steered by 5G microwave beams with transmitters situated along every major road and street in the world.
Musk’s great ‘vision of the future’ is to marry his obscene wealth to the most advanced artificial intelligence technologies for the ultimate enslavement of humanity. He wears his vision just like obsessed Covid believers wear their obscene masks. Just like that other multi billionaire Bill Gates wears his vaccination death wish.
Multi millionaires have a way of smiling as they explain their dystopian visions of suffocated life on Earth. Their sad minds can only see the perfect algorithmic march of a super cyborg AI civilisation stretching out in front of them ad infinitum.
So when Mr Musk, adored guru of ardent technophiles, tells us how his twenty thousand satellites are going to spray our planet with a perfect wall of 5G weaponised electromagnetic laser beams from satellites put into orbit in the delicate protective atmosphere of the ionosphere – we are supposed to fall on our knees and cry “Thank you, Mr Musk! We always believed a saviour would come at this time and rescue us from what remains of our deeply upsetting urge to live.”
Elon Musk and fellow 5G satellite corporation owners and believers, have been ‘on the money’ almost from the day they were born. But once on the roller coaster of what constitutes ultimate ‘success’, their ambition – rather than being slated – simply wants more of the same. And when it gets that, it then wants an even more grandiose expression of its unquenchable desire for godliness.
Musk, and his techno-cronies, want absolute control of surveillance operations on planet Earth. Gates wants absolute control over population numbers. The two combine to produce a marriage from hell.
Arthur Fairstenberg explains in his most recent circular ‘Putting the Earth in a High Speed Computer’
“The threat to life comes from the fact that all these satellites are located in the ionosphere. The ionosphere is a source of high voltage that controls the global electric circuit, which in turn provides the energy of life.” He explains further “Every living thing is part of this circuit. It provides us with energy for life and information that organises our bodies. If you pollute this circuit with billions of digital pulsations, you will destroy all life.”
Those who feel powerless to put an end to the reign of megalomaniacs who set out to destroy our common home with complete impunity, must now cease to accept this as a reason to do nothing other than wallow in their own sense of tragedy. Man and nature are one. A tragedy in one is a tragedy in both.
There are initiatives we can and must take that will play their part in putting an end to this nightmare and they should start immediately by using the law courts in order to directly challenge the global purveyors of destruction.
Further actions of an indirect nature can be equally valuable. In this particular case, abandoning your cell phone is the number one action to be undertaken by individuals honest enough to act on what they know to be necessary. Like everything else in the world of commerce, ceasing to buy-in to the offending product, destroys the industry that produces it.
A steady decline in the market for the latest cell phone will do more than anything else to prevent the domination of near space by weapons of mass radiation destruction.
All aspects of modulated WiFi radiation emitted by the EM towers and smart grids asphyxiating human and planetary life today must, for the sake of the species, be put an end to without delay.
If we are to come through this period of unprecedented top-down technophobic deception and manipulation, we will only do so because we saw fit to challenge its manifestations face to face, at every opportunity possible.
Giving-up one’s latest toxic toy must be first on the list of contributions to preventing the outright destruction of the great cyclical electrical circuit which supports all life on Earth.
As Arthur Fairstenberg states
“There is no more important task on Earth right now – not climate change, not deforestation, not plastics in the ocean, and not stopping 5G on the ground. None of that will matter if Space X is allowed to go forward with Starlink.”
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Julian Rose is an early pioneer of UK organic farming, writer, international activist, entrepreneur and teacher. His latest book ‘Overcoming the Robotic Mind – Why Humanity Must Come Through’ is particularly prescient reading for this time: see www.julianrose.info. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.
August 6th, 2020 by Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity
The lack of detail demanded by Pelosi may simply mean the absence of credible evidence of Russian interference as well as the absence of Clapperesque officials to conjure it up.
***
MEMORANDUM FOR: Speaker Nancy Pelosi
FROM: Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity
SUBJECT: Did Russia Hack the DNC Emails?
Dear Madam Speaker:
After your intelligence briefing Friday, Politico reported that you were sharply frustrated by the lack of detail presented on “Russia’s continued interference in the 2020 election campaign.” You were quoted as saying you thought the administration was “withholding” evidence of foreign election meddling and added, “What I am concerned about is that the American people should be better informed.” We share your concern and, having followed this issue closely from the perspective of non-partisan, veteran intelligence officials, we are able to throw considerable light on it.
The narrative that Russia hacked Democratic National Committee emails in 2016 and gave them to WikiLeaks to hurt Hillary Clinton’s candidacy has become an article of faith for about half of Americans — somewhat fewer than the number misled into believing 18 years ago that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq — but it is still considerable.
Because of a bizarre, but highly instructive media lapse these past three months, most Americans remain unaware that the accusation that Russia “hacked” the DNC has evaporated.It turns out the accusation was fabricated — just like the presence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. In fact, some of the same U.S. officials were involved in both deceptions. For example, James Clapper, Obama’s director of national intelligence, played a key role 18 years ago in covering up the fact that no WMD had been identified in satellite imagery of Iraq; more recently he helped conjure up evidence of Russian hacking.
We quote below the horse’s-mouth testimony of Shawn Henry, head of CrowdStrike, the cyber security outfit paid by the DNC, and certified as a “high-class entity” by FBI Director James Comey, to look into the “hacking” of the DNC. Mr. Henry admitted in sworn testimony on December 5, 2017 that his firm has no concrete evidence that the DNC emails were hacked — by Russia or anyone else. This testimony was finally declassified and released on May 7, 2020, but you will not find a word about it in The New York Times, Washington Post or other “mainstream” outlets. (We wonder if you yourself were made aware of Henry’s testimony.)
The original accusation achieved its purpose in fostering the belief that President Trump owed his election to President Putin, and thus is beholden to him. It also provided a degree of verisimilitude — as well as faux-righteous indignation — to support a host of punitive measures. “Russian hacking” was immediately used to justify President Obama’s expulsion of 35 Russian diplomats/intelligence officers at the end of 2016. Those with a sharp anti-Russia axe to grind no doubt deemed this unnecessary diplomatic step felicitous, welcome collateral damage to ties between Washington and Moscow.
Parallels Today
Now to the present — and specifically your suspicion that the administration is “withholding” evidence of foreign election meddling.
Full Disclosure: We veteran national security and intelligence professionals are nonpartisan and have a tendency to be blunt. We have been closely watching the play-by-play over the past four years and strongly doubt that our former intelligence colleagues are withholding evidence of Russian interference. We see a simpler explanation. The intelligence officials who trotted out copious “evidence” of Russian interference four years ago may still be writing op-eds and even books, but they are also under investigation. So a “once-burned-twice-shy” attitude is probably one factor in play.
More important, for obvious reasons the intelligence chiefs appointed by President Trump lack the incentive shared by their predecessors to hyperbolize and even manufacture “evidence” of Russian meddling in favor of Trump. In our view, this factor accounts largely for what you see as the lack of detail. In contrast, the legacy media, with a transparently shoddy record to defend on their “Russiagate” coverage, is still both hyperbolizing and manufacturing. Easy to do when you have a corner on the media market, as we indicate below.
In sum, this time around, senior intelligence and law enforcement officials have little incentive to manufacture/embellish evidence of “Russian meddling”, as was done four years ago by the former crew. And, again, to remind: the same thing happened in 2002/03 regarding the WMD alleged to be in Iraq, with some of the same dramatis personae responsible — but not held accountable.
It is sad to have to remind folks 18 years after the fact that the “intelligence” on WMD in Iraq was not “mistaken;” it was fraudulent from the get-go. The culprits were finally exposed but never held to account. Announcing on June 5, 2008, the bipartisan conclusions from a five-year study by the Senate Intelligence Committee, Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) asserted that the attack on Iraq was launched “under false pretenses.” He described the intelligence conjured up to “justify” war on Iraq as “uncorroborated, contradicted, or even non-existent.”
Non-existent?
No Consequences for ‘Finding What Wasn’t There’
There were no consequences for those officials who lied about WMD in Iraq. Donald Rumsfeld had put one of them, James Clapper, in charge of imagery analysis which, as you know, was the key to finding WMD. Clapper made a stunning admission in his memoir, Facts and Fears: Hard Truths From a Life in Intelligence. He wrote that “intelligence officers, including me, were so eager to help [Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld] that we found what wasn’t really there.”
Nevertheless, with a glowing recommendation from Obama confidant John Brennan, President Obama appointed Clapper director of national intelligence in 2010. He remained in that post for the remainder of Obama’s term despite having misled the Senate in March 2013 about what he later admitted was a “clearly erroneous” testimony, under oath, regarding NSA surveillance of Americans.
Here’s the rub: Clapper and those he conspired with have gone from blissful sans souci to apprehension, acutely aware that they may not have a stay-out-of-jail card this time around. With bloodhounds like U.S. Attorney John Durham sniffing around there is now the possibility of consequences for intelligence leaders who make stuff up — as they did during Russiagate v.1. Perhaps also consequences for former CIA Director Brennan who, together with Clapper orchestrated a rump Memo by “handpicked analysts” and called it an “Intelligence Community Assessment.” The “ICA” cannot bear close scrutiny.
Election “meddling” and “interference” are stretchy elastic terms. Your Democratic colleagues are correct in pointing out that recent intelligence warnings of election interference by China, Russia and Iran are so vague as to be “almost meaningless”. Given the reluctance of today’s intelligence leaders to create “non-existent” intelligence (as on Iraq and more recently on Russia), those members of Congress who insist that they be more “specific” on Russian interference are bound to become increasingly frustrated.
What we suggest is the obvious: namely, that the lack of desired detail may simply betoken the absence of credible specifics on significant Russian interference, and the absence of Clapperesque officials to conjure it up. In a word, today’s intelligence managers — unlike their predecessors — are not likely to find Russia-indicting evidence that “wasn’t really there.”
‘Specifics’ in 2016: Russian Hacking
Four years ago, we had specifics. Yes, they were specifically wrong, but at least they were specifics. Those whose reading on these issues is limited to The New York Times and other Establishment media perforce lack adequate understanding about the shenanigans of 2016. If we want the American people to be better informed, this is a big problem — the more so, since many of the main culprits in corporate media are still at it. In an interesting coincidence on Friday, when you had your intelligence briefing, NY Times’s chief Washington correspondent David Sanger threw a long kitchen-sink smear at President Trump in a piece titled “Trump Still Defers to Putin, Even as He Dismisses U.S. Intelligence …”
You may recall that it was Sanger, together with NY Times colleague Judith Miller, who blew the loudest bugles to “charge” into Iraq to destroy the (non-existent) WMD there. Sanger is still taking dictation from his anonymous “current and former officials.” In Friday’s article, he noted that “four years ago this week, the CIA was coming to the conclusion that Russia was responsible for the hacking of the DNC’s servers”, and linked to an article he co-authored at the time titled “Spy Agency Consensus Grows That Russia Hacked D.N.C.”
The Times highlighted Sanger’s article on Friday with a small front-page squib: “On Russia, He’s Consistent; President Trump Brushes Off U.S. Intelligence, and resurrects same mantras from the 2016 campaign. Page A11”. On that inside page Sanger repeats his own consistent mantra about Trump’s consistency: “Say this about Mr. Trump’s approach to Moscow. It has been consistent.”
Sanger’s observation amounts to a poignant, if unintended, irony. His mantra regarding “Russian hacking” has been nothing if not consistent. We are reminded of Emerson’s observation: “A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines” … and, one might add, adored also by journalists with an important line to defend — in the face of growing evidence to the contrary of its speciousness.
Sanger and other media sophists that have insisted that the Russians hacked the DNC are unlikely to relent any time soon — truth be damned. The “Russian hack of the DNC”, after all, was the cornerstone of the Russia-gate story; it is simply too big to fail.
Verifying the absence of WMD in Iraq, it turns out, was a relatively discrete issue that had to be acknowledged — however grudgingly — because, in Clapper’s own words, he had “found what wasn’t really there.” So even Rumsfeld’s nostrum that “the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence” had to be discarded. There were no WMD in Iraq. Period.
Not As Easily Grasped As No WMD
The issue is not so clear-cut regarding the unrelenting Sangeresque claims that Russia hacked the DNC. We continue to encounter questions like, “Are you saying the Russians don’t hack, and that they did not try to hack the DNC!?” No, the Russians hack all the time,as do other major powers, including the United States, and the DNC presumably was one important target.
What we in VIPS have been asserting since late 2016, though, is that there was/is no evidence that the Russians hacked those DNC emails, which were so prejudicial to Mrs. Clinton, and gave them to WikiLeaks. Sorry, we are aware that James Clapper “handpicked” (his word) some analysts from CIA, FBI, and NSA, who in turn “assessed” — sans evidence — that Russia did it. That does not do it for us.
The bombshell admission by CrowdStrike’s Shawn Henry on December 5, 2017 — not made public until May 7, 2020 — that CrowdStrike has no concrete evidence that the DNC emails were hacked is definitive. That this revelation has been suppressed by The New York Times and other “mainstream media” for three months now speaks volumes.
VIPS’ Record
Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity cut its teeth on February 5, 2003 with an afternoon Memorandum for President Bush critiquing Colin Powell’s UN speech earlier that day. We explained to President Bush the inadequacies of Powell’s remarks, and pointedly warned that, were the U.S. to attack Iraq, “the unintended consequences are likely to be catastrophic”. (We know that in October 2002 you had voted against authorizing Bush to make war, but also that 81 of your Democratic colleagues voted for it.)
Skipping ahead to 2016, when we saw allegations, withoutconvincing evidence, that the Russians were responsible for “hacking” the DNC emails to influence the election, we immediately smelled a rat. We issued our first related VIPS Memo expressing our misgivings on December 12, 2016.
Embedded in that memo is a short tutorial on the difference between a hack and a leak. Included also were eight charts, most of them disclosed by Edward Snowden, depicting the relevant NSA collection programs and how emails are traced over the Internet. What we already knew of the technology (two former NSA technical directors are VIPS members and were heavily involved in our analysis) presaged what we learned on May 7 from CrowdStrike’s boss Shawn Henry. Here is the introductory sentence for our Memo of December 12, 2016:
“As the hysteria about Russia’s alleged interference in the U.S. election grows, a key mystery is why U.S. intelligence would rely on “circumstantial evidence” when it has the capability for hard evidence, say U.S. intelligence veterans.”
Our most recent VIPS Memo was addressed to Attorney General Barr on June 5, 2020. See this excerpt:
“Not until May 7, 2020, when secret testimony to the House Intelligence Committee from late 2017 was made public, did it become completely clear that CrowdStrike has no concrete evidence that the DNC emails published by WikiLeaks on July 22, 2016 were hacked — by Russia or by anyone else. Seventeen months earlier, on Dec. 5, 2017, the president of CrowdStrike, former FBI cyber-crimes unit director Shawn Henry, admitted this in sworn testimony to the House Intelligence Committee. This is how he answered a leading question from ranking member Adam Schiff:
Mr. Schiff: Do you know the date on which the Russians exfiltrated the data from the DNC? … when would that have been?
Mr. Henry: Counsel just reminded me that, as it relates to the DNC, we have indicators that data was exfiltrated from the DNC, but we have no indicators that it was exfiltrated (sic). … There are times when we can see data exfiltrated, and we can say conclusively. But in this case, it appears it was set up to be exfiltrated, but we just don’t have the evidence that says it actually left.”
Technology Phobia: Not an Excuse
In both of those memos, and in several others between 2016 and 2020, we made a concerted effort to explain the technical details in terms most non-technical people can easily grasp. We had become painfully aware of the widespread tendency to avoid reading our analyses on the assumption (pretense?) that the technical detail was too complicated. It isn’t.
Again, full disclosure: we are, of course, aware that the Russia-hacked-the-DNC-emails-and-gave-them-to-WikiLeaks mantra has acquired the status of near-papal infallibility. And we know that our forensic analyses, even though unrefuted and based on the principles of science, will continue to strike a discordant note — not only with the Clappers of this world but also with many among many otherwise well informed members of Congress. (We have just about given up on the corporate media.)
We also foresee that our findings will probably not be welcome. As hardened veterans analyzing these kinds of sensitive issues over decades, we are accustomed to being forced into the role of the proverbial skunk at a picnic. We are not deterred. We still adhere to the old ethos for intelligence analysis (in contrast to intelligence operations) of telling it like it is, without fear or favor. The truth is what matters; and, again, we share your desire that the American people become better informed.
Should you have any follow-up questions, we are at your disposal.
With respect,
Steering Group, Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS)
William Binney, former Technical Director, World Geopolitical & Military Analysis, NSA; co-founder, SIGINT Automation Research Center (ret.)
Richard H. Black, Senator of Virginia, 13th District (2012-2020); Colonel US Army (ret.); Former Chief, Criminal Law Division, Office of the Judge Advocate General, the Pentagon (associate VIPS)
Bogdan Dzakovic, Former Team Leader of Federal Air Marshals and Red Team, FAA Security, (ret.) (associate VIPS)
Philip Giraldi, CIA, Operations Officer (ret.)
Mike Gravel, former Adjutant, top secret control officer, Communications Intelligence Service; special agent of the Counter Intelligence Corps and former United States Senator.
Karen Kwiatkowski, Lt. Col., US Air Force (ret.), at Office of Secretary of Defense watching the manufacture of lies on Iraq, 2001-2003
Edward Loomis, NSA Cryptologic Computer Scientist and Technical Director (ret.)
Ray McGovern, former US Army infantry/intelligence officer & CIA presidential briefer (ret.)
Elizabeth Murray, former Deputy National Intelligence Officer for the Near East & CIA political analyst (ret.)
Scott Ritter, former MAJ., USMC, former UN Weapon Inspector, Iraq
Sarah Wilton, Commander, U.S. Naval Reserve (retired) and Defense Intelligence Agency (retired)
Ann Wright, U.S. Army Reserve Colonel (ret) and former U.S. Diplomat who resigned in 2003 in opposition to the Iraq War
*
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.
“More than a thousand people responded to the call for a rally in front of the National Assembly on Sunday to protest against the mandatory wearing of masks in Quebec and more broadly for the preservation of their rights and freedoms. (Rémi Rémillard, “Plus d’un millier de personnes manifestent à Québec à Québec contre le port du masque,” Radio-Canada, July 26, 2020).
In Quebec the wearing of masks is mandatory in all public places closed since Saturday, July 18. Quebec has also invested in an advertising campaign to encourage citizens to wear face coverings.
The Legault government is contradicting itself. In March, the Quebec Ministry of Health formally opposed the wearing of masks in a message to all citizens.
The Director of Public Health, Horacio Arruda, had demonstrated at a press conference the uselessness of covering one’s face.
Truth or Lie? Political opportunism? Today he refutes what he said, even though his statements were based on scientific studies approved by the Quebec National Health Centre.
Dr. Horacio Arruda has been the National Director of Public Health of Quebec since 2012. This is the same individual who has just ordered the mask to be worn throughout Quebec in enclosed spaces, businesses, libraries, medical clinics, restaurants, grocery stores, shopping malls, hardware stores, etc., even in areas where no case of Covid infection has ever been reported. The question arises. Why do they make you wear the mask? (…)
See the video of July 16, 2020 where Dr Arruda defends the wearing of the compulsory mask by clicking HERE
Press conference by Quebec Premier François Legault on the obligation to wear a mask
The video (duration 13 seconds) starts. A woman’s voice says, “Sophie”. Then, making the gesture of putting his mask back on for the photo shoot, PM Legault said to the journalists and cameramen, “THANK THE EVERYBODY … GOOD, WE’RE GETTING IT ON“. AND… JULIE, DO YOU HAVE ENOUGH PICTURES WITH MY MASK ON? »
“Coup against the people” of Quebec?
Several demonstrators denounced the journalists who help spread lies and government propaganda.
Radio-Canada broadcasts only one version of the facts on the so-called Covid-19 pandemic. Journalists never question specialists who have a different version of the virus epidemic (tests, masks, statistics on the so-called Covid-19 mortality, etc.). For example, Radio-Canada will only interview lawyer Julius Grey (a specialist in rights and freedoms) who supports government measures and denies the restriction of freedoms while advocating the right to security (Radio-Canada, July 26, 2020).
“Alexis Cossette-Trudel, named by several demonstrators as the movement’s spokesperson, denounced the mandatory wearing of the mask, calling it a “coup d’état against the people” (…)
“Some organizers and several demonstrators stress the fear of a dictatorship. Among the slogans drawn on the placards are “COVID-19: Preparation for a police state”, “No to dictatorship” and “What rights do we want to retain in 2021”. According to the demonstrators, the compulsory wearing of the mask is an infringement of fundamental rights and freedoms. “(See article by Léa Harvey, Demonstration against the wearing of masks in Quebec City, Le Soleil (via Le Droit), July 26, 2020).
In addition, it is important to note that there is a lawsuit in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice against Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and his government for their actions in violation of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This lawsuit confronts the decision of Canadian authorities to impose the wearing of masks, social distancing and policies of closure on the Canadian economy. According to lawyer Rocco Galati:
We have the testimony of 43 experts from Canada and around the world who argue that these measures are not supported by any scientific fact, that they have not been the subject of any prior clinical trial that could have proven their effectiveness, and that they are extreme in the circumstances.
The lawsuit, which began on July 6, is also directed at CBC-Radio-Canada, the federal government entity responsible for misinformation about the “Covid-19 pandemic”. The government of Ontario Premier Doug Ford is also being sued.
Lies and corruption.
After the mandatory mask, the mandatory vaccine?
Micheline Ladouceur
Note to readers: please click on the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your mailing lists. Publish this article on your blog site, web forums, etc.
Translated from French by Maya, Global Research
The original source of this article is Mondialisation.ca, 2020
This informative article focusses on the China-US confrontation regarding 5G. it does not address the impacts of 5G on health.
***
First-generation mobile technology offered only analogue calls and no browsing, data transfer or SMS. Even though today’s 4G long-term evolution (LTE) networks, which started to roll out a decade before, featured all these key services and represented both evolution and revolution, 5G will be a real sensation.
Newer series of cellular network technology introduces driverless cars and healthcare systems built on top of it and brings faster downloads and uploads, reduced lag time, smarter devices and rapider streaming for Netflix or YouTube with predicted speeds of up to 100x compared to 4G, round-trip transmission of data taking less than five milliseconds and increased bandwidth.
As of early 2020, US-disseminated security concerns had bungled to stem the rise of Chinese telco Huawei that led global market with 91 commercial contracts and shipped 600,000 5G Massive MIMO Active Antenna Units (AAUs) while Swedish Ericsson and Finish Nokia trailed behind with 81 and 63 deals across world.
Washington has two major concerns with the world’s largest telecoms firm, Huawei. One, there is no company in American trillion-dollar Silicon Valley that can compete with low-cost, niche quality services provided by Shenzhen-based tech goliath. Two and indeed most excruciating for the US, it’s a whale from a strategic competitor that is supercharged and cruising along.
The underlying forebodings in an era of 5G infrastructure development last year pushed the US Commerce Department to add Huawei and its affiliates to the entity list for advancement of America’s national security and foreign policy objectives and promotion of its strategic technology leadership.
But by granting and continuously extending 90-day reprieve to Huawei through Temporary General License (TGL) as late as May 2020, allowing domestic consumers and companies to working with it, US admitted that it had no better replacement for Chinese telco giant and whatever there were, they lacked mettle to really challenge most valuable brand and innovative enterprise in world.
The US confronts another critical issue. Owing to low population and high infrastructure installation cost, major 5G infrastructure vendors are often shy to work in US rural areas. Huawei not only has invested and provided services in remote locations globally, in fact most of its customers in the US are rural Americans.
In February, US Senate unanimously passed bill to pay rural telecom carriers $1 billion to “rip and replace” any gear in their networks from Huawei and ZTE. While the amount was only half of what FCC head Geoffery Starks estimated, users might resist plans to revise or eliminate TGL after August 13.
Additionally As 5G is a more integrated and intelligent network than 3G or 4G that will technically sit on existing infrastructure so removing Huawei completely, from core of any network or even phasing it out won’t be an easy task over huge costs and massive delays and eventually, same set of security threats will occur when companies other than Huawei would be contracted.
Of Five Eyes nations, the US has so far swayed Australia, New Zealand and lately the UK to ban telecoms equipment purchases from Huawei whereas Canada is yet to decide. As Washington presses Europe to drop it from building their 5G networks, the sanctions – like Britain set to suffer $3.6 billion losses and delay 5G rollout by three years – could cost the region to endure $62 billion and defer deployment by 18 months.
Experts warn efforts to coerce and damage Huawei would reciprocate in at least equal costs, if not greater, to the US. They believe that due to the global system – characterized by complex and deep interdependence in economic, security and political relationships – current US policy against Huawei has a very little chance to succeed.
Whole structure being constructed around Huawei is thus internally hollow, plagiarized and brimmed with illusionary and perfidious ruses. In reality, the US anti-Huawei campaign is driven by fear of Chinese technological dominance, the cost of which would result in only delayed global access to 5G technology.
*
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.
Azhar Azam works in a private organization as “Market & Business Analyst” and writes on geopolitical issues and regional conflicts.
My birthday is August 7, sandwiched between the anniversary dates for the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki (on August 6 and August 9, 1945, respectively). I was six years old when the first bomb fell. My course in life was predetermined.
On September 2, 1945, when the local fire siren suddenly blared, my teacher asked, “What is that?” and I knew: The war was over.
It had been a really scary time in Melbourne, Australia, as the Japanese had threatened to invade us. Dad dug an air-raid shelter in our back garden, and the windows were blacked out while the city’s searchlights scanned the skies at night.
Elated, I walked home on that lovely sunny afternoon picking flowers along the way. It would be years later before I learned the awful truth about how the war ended.
What rained down on those two Japanese cities seventy-five years ago was destruction on a scale never seen before or since. People exposed within half a mile of the atomic fireball were seared to piles of smoking char in a fraction of a second as their internal organs boiled away. The small black bundles stuck to the streets and bridges and sidewalks of Hiroshima numbered in the thousands.
A little boy was reaching up to catch a red dragonfly with his hand against the blue sky when there was a blinding flash and he disappeared. He turned into gas and left his shadow behind on the pavement, a haunting relic later moved to the Hiroshima Museum. A woman was running while holding her baby; she and the baby were turned into a charcoal statue.
In all, about 120,000 people were killed immediately by the two bombs, and tens of thousands more died later due to radiation exposure.
In 1957, when I was eighteen, I read a book by Nevil Shute, an English novelist who ended up in Australia. On the Beach described how the city of Melbourne awaited a deadly cloud of radiation from a nuclear war that was triggered by an accident in the northern hemisphere, killing everything. Men drank their last gin and tonics in the Melbourne Club while the government dispensed cyanide capsules so parents could kill their children quickly to avoid the agonizing symptoms of radiation poisoning.
At the time, I was in medical school, where I learned about radiation biology—the classic experiments of Hermann J. Muller, who in the 1920s irradiatedDrosophila fruit flies inducing genetic mutations and morphological abnormalities. Concurrently, the United States and the Soviet Union were testing nuclear weapons in the atmosphere, bombarding huge populations with radioactive fallout.
In my naiveté, I couldn’t understand what these men thought they were doing because the mutagenic and carcinogenic effects of ionizing radiation were well known in scientific circles. Madame Curie had died of aplastic anemia secondary to radium, an alpha emitter polluting her bones; her daughter died of leukemia, and many of the early radiologists who exposed themselves randomly to X-rays died from malignancies.
Einstein wrote: “The unleashed power of the atom has changed everything save our modes of thinking and we thus drift toward unparalleled catastrophe.” Robert Oppenheimer, watching the world’s first nuclear explosion in Alamogordo, New Mexico, in 1945, muttered to himself, “I am become death, the destroyer of worlds” from the Hindu scripture, the Bhagavad Gita.
The scientists knew that they had discovered the seeds of human destruction.
So, in full awareness of its newfound ability to destroy the human race, what did the world do next?
The United States and the Soviet Union decided to outdo each other by conducting a nuclear arms race, building tens of thousands of nuclear weapons. Between 1945 and 1998, the United States conducted more than 1,000 nuclear tests, producing cancer in tens of thousands of people. It has built more than 70,000 atomic and hydrogen bombs; the Soviets and later the Russian Federation had tried to keep up, building at least 55,000 of their own.
Image on the right is from the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons
Arms control agreements over the years have managed to reduce stockpiles to about 14,000 nuclear weapons today, in the possession of nine nations: the United States, Russia, the United Kingdom, France, China, India, Pakistan, Israel, and North Korea. The United States and Russia still lead the pack, each with more than 6,000 total weapons, including about 1,600 each that are actively deployed.
A nuclear “exchange” between these two superpowers would take little over one hour to complete. A twenty-megaton bomb (the equivalent of twenty million tons of TNT) would excavate a hole three-quarters of a mile wide and 800 feet deep, converting all buildings and people into radioactive fallout that would be shot up in the mushroom cloud. Within six miles in all directions every living thing would be vaporized. Twenty miles from the epicenter, huge fires would erupt, as winds of up to 500 miles per hour would suck people out of buildings and turn them into missiles traveling at 100 miles per hour. The fires would coalesce, incinerating much of the United States and causing most nuclear power plants to melt down, greatly exacerbating radioactive fallout.
Potentially billions of people would die hideously from acute radiation sickness, vomiting, and bleeding to death. As thick black radioactive smoke engulfed the stratosphere, the Earth would, over time, be plunged into another ice age—a “nuclear winter,” annihilating almost all living organisms.
Seventy-five years after the dawn of the nuclear age, we are as ready as ever to extinguish ourselves. The human race is clearly an evolutionary aberrant on a suicidal mission. Our planet is in the intensive care unit, approaching several terminal events.
Will we gradually burn and shrivel life on our wondrous Earth by emitting the ancient carbon stored over billions of years to drive our cars and power our industries, or will we end it suddenly by creating a global gas oven?
The International Energy Agency said recently that we only have six months left to avert the effects of global warming before it is too late. Earlier this year, the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientistsmoved its Doomsday Clock to 100 seconds to midnight, the closest it’s ever been.
In truth, the U.S. Department of Defense is a misnomer; it is actually the Department of War, Death, and Suicide. Hundreds of billions of dollars of U.S. taxpayer money are spent annually by corporations such as Lockheed Martin, Boeing, BAE Systems, and Raytheon Technologies Corporation to create and build the most hideous weapons of destruction.
Brilliant people employed by these massive corporations, mostly men, are deploying their brainpower to devise better and more hideous ways of killing.
President Donald Trump is right when he says we need to make friends with the Russians, for it is Russian bombs that might well annihilate the United States. Indeed, we need to foster friendship with all nations and reinvest the trillions of dollars spent on war, killing, and death, saving the ecosphere by powering the world with renewable energy including solar, wind, and geothermal, and planting trillions of trees.
Such a move would also free up billions of dollars that could be reallocated to such purposes as providing free medical care for all U.S. citizens, along with free education, housing for the homeless, and care for those with mental illness.
The United States needs to rise to its full moral and spiritual height and lead the world to sanity and survival. I know this is possible because, in the 1980s, millions of wonderful people rose up, nationally and internationally, in opposition to the arms race and the Cold War.
But what is the present reality in the United States?
There are 450 Minuteman III missiles operational on the Great Plains—in Montana, North Dakota, and Wyoming. In each missile silo are two missileers, who control and launch the missiles which contain one or two hydrogen bombs. Planes armed with hydrogen bombs stand ready to take off at any moment, and nuclear submarines silently plow the oceans ready to launch.
Both the United States and Russia have nuclear weapons targeted at military facilities and population centers. Nuclear war could happen at any time, by accident or design. The late Stephen Hawkingwarned in 2014 that artificial intelligence, now being deployed by the military, could become so autonomous that it could start a nuclear war by itself.
This threat is largely ignored by politicians and the mainstream media, who continue to practice psychic numbing as we stumble blindly toward our demise.
How come the physicists, engineers, and military personnel who have laced the world with nuclear weapons ready to launch never factored into their equations the probability that an immature, petulant man-baby could hold the trigger for our destruction in his hands?
*
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.
Helen Caldicott is a pediatrician and founder of the 1978 iteration of Physicians for Social Responsibility, which won the 1985 Nobel Peace Prize as part of International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War.
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
Arthur Cecil Pigou (1877-1959), a British economist, is well known for his contributions to welfare economics. One of the most prolific writers of his time, Pigou wrote over a dozen books and more than 100 articles and pamphlets dealing with both theoretical and practical aspects of welfare economics. His writings cover a wide range of human welfare issues from unemployment to housing to taxation.
Some of his most famous books include Wealth and Welfare (1912), The Economics of Welfare (1920), A Capital Levy and a Levy on War Wealth (1920), The Political Economy of War (1921), and The Theory of Unemployment (1933).
The Pigouvian Taxes
In the 1920s, Pigou gave an analytical solution to the concept of externalities that occur when external costs and benefits spill over to third parties. He advocated a tax on any market activity that creates negative externality (spillover costs to third parties). A typical example of a negative externality is pollution. A variety of Pigouvian taxes are prevalent today to address negative externalities. Carbon taxes on fossil fuels are an excellent example of a Pigovian tax. Similarly, taxes on tobacco, sugary drinks, and plastic bags are imposed to reduce consumption and to create a more socially optimal outcome.
On the other hand, a positive externality occurs when benefits spill over to third parties. Pigou advocated that governments should encourage positive externalities by subsidizing goods and services (such as education and health) that generate spillover benefits. In sum, the Pigouvian taxes and subsidies are aimed at maximizing economic welfare.
A Levy on Capital
The four years of the First World War (1914-18) left Britain mired in debt. By the end of the war, Britain’s national debt stood at £7.1 billion, and the interest payments alone were equal to nearly one-third of government revenue. In 1920, Britain’s debt-to-GDP ratio was five times as large as it was in 1914. The key reason behind deteriorating public finance was heavy reliance by the British government on borrowings (rather than taxation) to finance wartime expenditure. The bulk of borrowings were in the form of floating debt and long-term loans. Taxes only contributed to just one-fourth of total wartime expenditure.
Right from the beginning of World War I, Pigou extensively contributed to domestic policy discussions on managing the fiscal burden of war finances. One of Pigou’s key recommendations was a one-time capital levy of 25 percent on the owners of capital or other wealth to reduce Britain’s fiscal burden. He elaborated on this idea at great length in several publications, including his two books (A Capital Levy and a Levy on War Wealth and The Political Economy of War).
The idea of a one-time capital levy to settle the war debt received broad political support in Britain after the end of the war. The proposal was endorsed by the Labour Party, Trade Union Congress, and others. The Labour Party fought the 1924 election on the platform of the capital levy.
Pigou’s capital levy proposal was severely criticized over the concerns related to administrative costs, disincentives for savings, and an exodus of capital from Britain. In response to such concerns, Pigou gave a point-by-point rebuttal and forcefully argued that a one-time capital levy would not affect the total amount of capital but would only transfer income and wealth from rich individuals to others via taxation. In his opinion, a one-time capital levy is a much better option than facing the prospect of at least five decades of heavy taxation. However, the Treasury rejected the levy proposal on the grounds that it would depress asset prices.
Taxing the Rich
Pigou called for a more progressive tax system in Britain. He was unequivocally in favor of imposing higher tax rates on the rich, albeit temporarily. In his view, higher taxes on the rich were the best way to raise financial resources and should be “levied on an exceptional occasion for the purpose of financing an unprecedented war.” He contended that just like stronger men are needed to fight the battle, the economically stronger should also bear the extra tax burden.
He firmly believed that the British government had “committed a serious mistake in taxing so little and borrowing so much” to finance wartime expenditure. He was against indiscriminate government borrowing as it would necessitate higher taxes on the shoulders of poor people. Pigou wanted to shift the tax burden to those with the broadest shoulders. He explained that taxing the wealthy individuals would be the best option to reduce the war debt at once as the government cannot generate substantial additional revenue by taxing the poor.
In the words of Pigou: “In the present cataclysmic and exceptional war, the very rich and the rich ought to bear a proportion of the objective burden very much larger than that [in peacetime]. There is one way, and one way only, in which this result can be brought about. The ratio in which the war is financed with money borrowed from people with large incomes should be much diminished: and the ratio in which it is financed with money collected from them under some form of progressive taxation should be much increased.”
Pigou’s proposals for a capital levy and higher taxes on the wealthy individuals need to be revisited in the light of triple crises of coronavirus: a health crisis, an economic crisis, and a financial crisis.
Covid-19: An Existential Threat
Many world leaders have described the Covid-19 pandemic as the greatest threat faced by their countries since World War II. The UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterresrecently warned that the Covid-19 pandemic is “the most challenging crisis we have faced since World War II” and “it has an economic impact that will bring a recession that probably has no parallel in the recent past.” In India, some state governments (including Delhi and Karnataka) have set up dedicated ‘Covid-19 War Rooms’ to closely monitor and manage the Covid-19 pandemic.
Pundits have often used the war metaphor to explain the gravity of the health pandemic and its associated economic challenges. Even though the comparisons of coronavirus pandemic to war have inherent limitations, it is not hard to imagine that the economic damage caused by the Covid-19 pandemic worldwide could be far greater than the damage caused by World War II.
If not a war, Covid-19 is undoubtedly a public health emergency that has brought the global economy to a standstill and pushed the world into a recession that would be much worse than the 2008 global financial crisis.
Bigger Economic Challenges Lie Ahead
In many important ways, the Covid-19 pandemic has dramatically exposed the existing fault lines in societies and economies around the world. Presently, we are witnessing only the beginning of social and economic impacts. More significant social and economic challenges lie ahead, especially for the poor and developing countries.
There are growing fears that the Covid-19-induced recession may last longer than initially anticipated – potentially into 2021 and even beyond. Although it is difficult to predict the shape of economic recovery, most economists foresee a ‘U’ or ‘W’ shaped economic recovery, rather than a ‘V’ shaped.
While it is too early to comprehend the full impact of the Covid-19 crisis on the global poverty levels, the World Bank has recently estimated that the crisis could potentially push 71 million to 100 million into extreme poverty. In particular, South Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa regions would witness a substantial increase in the number of poor people.
The International Labour Organization has estimated that nearly 400 million full-time jobs (based on a 48-hour working week) were lost in the second quarter of 2020, and the labor market recovery will remain uncertain and incomplete during the second half of 2020. Needless to add, the ambitious Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) set out by the UN are under threat from the coronavirus pandemic.
The governments around the globe are struggling with a “scissors effect” of decreasing tax revenues due to sudden stop in economic activity and rising expenditure due to a higher demand for health and social protection in the wake of the Covid-19 pandemic. Apart from strengthening public health infrastructure, there have been renewed demands across countries for ensuring basic minimum income for the poor and most vulnerable households.
To mitigate the economic catastrophe, governments need plenty of money. Now the moot question is: Where will the money come from? A country may choose to borrow money from official or private lenders, but it would entail a higher debt burden on future generations. Another option is to print money and spend it, albeit with some constraints. Another option is to introduce a wealth tax or impose higher taxes on the rich. As discussed in Briefing Paper # 37, governments could raise substantial revenues in a fair and efficient manner by introducing wealth taxes on wealthy individuals to meet Covid-19-related costs, without placing additional burdens on future generations.
Covid-19 Crisis: An Opportune Time for a Wealth Tax
Contrary to popular perception, wealth taxes are not new. Many countries (from India to South Africa to Canada) levied a variety of wealth taxes in the past. With the advent of neoliberal economic policies in the 1990s, wealth taxes went out of fashion. Some European countries (Norway, Spain, Switzerland, and Belgium) still enforce a wealth tax.
Wealth taxes could be applied to a variety of assets, including cash, bank deposits, stocks, real estate, personal cars, etc. Wealth taxes could be levied sporadically (in the form of a capital levy) or an annual or regular basis. They could be levied on an individual’s wealth as well as on a transfer of wealth.
The imposition of a wealth tax on wealthy individuals becomes even more critical in the present time as the wealth of global billionaires is rapidly increasing since the onset of Covid-19. Amid the pandemic, the net worth of the world’s leading billionaires spiked while millions of poor people across the globe lost their jobs and livelihoods.
According to a recent report by the Institute of Policy Studies, US billionaires saw their total wealth surged by over $755 billion between March 18 and July 23, 2020, while over 52.4 million Americans filed for unemployment benefits during the same period. Somewhat similar trends could also be seen across countries. In India, for instance, Mukesh Ambani added $15.5 billion (Rs 1.16 lakh crore) to his fortune in July alone following a series of capital raising deals with global investment and technology firms. As per the Bloomberg Billionaires Index, Ambani is the fifth-wealthiest person in the world with a net worth of $78.9 billion as of July 30, 2020. In contrast, the pandemic could push 260 million Indians into poverty, according to the estimates by the United Nations and Oxford Poverty and Human Development Initiative.
The Revenue Potential
So what could be the revenue-generating potential of a capital levy in the US? Ian Kumekawa has estimated in a back-of-the-envelope exercise that a 5 percent levy on the US’s richest 1 percent could raise $1tn and an additional 5 percent levy on the wealthiest 0.1 percent could furnish half a trillion more, thereby covering half of the US’s pandemic fiscal stimulus. If carefully designed and implemented, a one-time levy or a continued wealth tax could mobilize a portion of funds needed to tackle the Covid-19 pandemic in other countries too.
Although Pigou had proposed the wealth tax as a one-time levy to pay off the national debt, the idea of a continued wealth tax on super-wealthy is gaining traction in Latin America. In April 2020, Peru announced a solidarity tax on wealthy Peruvians with an objective that they should shoulder a larger share of the economic burden of the Covid-19 pandemic. Similar wealth taxes have also been endorsed by opposition candidates and parties in Brazil, Bolivia, Chile, and Ecuador to fill the massive fiscal holes created by the pandemic.
In the US, even before Covid-19, the Democratic presidential candidate hopeful Senator Elizabeth Warren and Senator Bernie Sanders advocated wealth taxes to increase tax revenues and to reduce inequality.
The unprecedented nature of the Covid-19 pandemic offers a new window of opportunity to governments to introduce wealth taxes on wealthy sections of society. Specifically targeted only at wealthy individuals, wealth taxes (in myriad forms) need immediate consideration by policymakers to mobilize the resources required to mitigate the social and economic impacts of the Covid-19 pandemic.
*
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.
Kavaljit Singh is Director of Madhyam, a policy research think-tank, based in New Delhi.
A secretive agreement has been struck between a US oil company, Delta Crescent Energy, and the so-called Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) in North Eastern Syria in order to develop and export the region’s oil.
Months after US president Donald Trump contradicted officials by suggesting that US forces were there “only for the oil” and vowing that it would “secure the oil”, the controversial deal lays bare the American strategy in the region.
The pact has been approved directly by the US government.
America backs the SDF militia in Syria which is dominated by the PYD/YPG. The YPG is the Syrian offshoot of the PKK, a group recognised by Turkey, as well as the US and the EU, as a terrorist organisation.
Who is Delta Crescent Energy?
The little known company at the heart of this agreement is led by former US government officials and includes James Reese, an ex officer in the Army’s elite Delta Force; former US ambassador to Denmark James Cainand and John P. Dorrier Jr., a former executive at GulfSands Petroleum, a UK based company that had previously worked in northeastern Syria.
Reese, one of the partners of Delta Crescent Energy, has been a strong advocate of US military presence in Syria. In 2018, he declared on Fox News“We own the whole eastern part of Syria…That’s ours. We can’t give that up.”
This deal also exposes how, under the Trump administration, the US has blurred the lines between private and public sectors, raising questions about ethics and business dealings.
The former political insiders now leading Delta Crescent Energy were helped in sealing the deal by the US State Department, which, in turn, helped to broker it.
During a committee hearing in Washington, Republican Senator Lindsey Graham asked Secretary of State Mike Pompeo whether the Trump administration was in favour of the deal or not.
“We are,” Pompeo responded during the hearing. “The deal took a little longer … than we had hoped, and now we’re in implementation.”
The oil agreement has been condemned by the Assad regime which does not recognise the American occupation of northeastern Syria, nor the legitimacy of its local proxies, the SDF.
Syria’s foreign ministry called the deal illegal and that it was aimed at “stealing” Syria’s crude oil.
The statement went on to add that the Damascus government “condemns in the strongest terms the agreement signed between al-Qasd militia (SDF) and an American oil company to steal Syria’s oil under the sponsorship and support of the American administration”, it went on to conclude that “This agreement is null and void and has no legal basis.”
The Trump administration is unlikely to approve oil sales to the Damascus regime.
Equally, Turkey has condemned the deal that has been struck by the US based oil company.
“We deeply regret the US support to this step, disregarding international law, violating territorial integrity, unity and sovereignty of Syria, as well as being considered within the scope of financing terrorism,” Turkey’s Foreign Ministry said on Monday in a statement.
“This act, which cannot be justified by any legitimate motive, is utterly unacceptable,” the ministry added.
Turkey therefore is an unlikely buyer of Syrian crude oil, especially if it directly supports an organisation designated as a terrorist one.
The most likely outlet for the oil in northeastern Syria, is likely to be through Northern Iraq, in particular the Kurdish Regional Government. Since 2014, a murky yet highly lucrative trade has developed providing a crucial lifeline for the isolated SDF militia.
According to reports, the delegation asked the PKK leadership to step back from northeastern Syria, as well as its financing and support of the SDF, and in return the US will take over as the main sponsor of the militia.
America is already known to enjoy close ties with the SDF leader, Mazloum Kobani, who is also a member of the PKK.
Kobani, whose real name is Ferhat Abdi Sahin, is one of Turkey’s most wanted terrorists.
The US support for the YPG in Syria has become one of the stumbling blocks in bilateral ties between the two NATO allies.
The Turkish military has launched three incursions into Syria to fight Daesh and the PKK/YPG.
*
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.
On the evening of August 4th, a massive explosion rocked the port of the Lebanese capital of Beirut, causing devastating damage and leaving thousands of casualties. The explosion sent a shockwave across the city and blew out windows up to 10 kilometers away. It was felt as far away as Cyprus in the Mediterranean Sea.
As of the morning of August 5th, the number of reported fatalities exceeded 100, with at least 4,000 people reported injured. At least 48 staff members of the United Nations and 27 members of their families were among the injured. 10 rescuers involved in the operation to contain the damage and to help people have been reported killed.
Initial reports suggested that the explosion may have been caused by an incident in the firework storage area. However, later, Lebanon’s Prime Minister Hassan Diab said that 2,750 metric tons of ammonium nitrate, which is typically used as an agricultural fertilizer, had been stored for six years at a port warehouse without proper safety measures, “endangering the safety of citizens.”
This statement was backed by General Security chief Abbas Ibrahim, who said a “highly explosive material” had been confiscated years earlier and stored in the warehouse, just minutes’ walk from Beirut’s shopping and nightlife districts.
It is still unclear what caused the explosion itself thus laying the ground for various speculations in mainstream media outlets and on social media platforms. In particular, reports suggested that a number of Hezbollah members were in the port area at the moment of the explosion. This immediately caused reports that this may have been a result of some Israeli attack, for example sabotage actions or a somehow unnoticed missile strike, and that the site of the explosion was in fact a part of the Hezbollah military infrastructure.
The Israeli Defense Forces did not officially comment on these speculations. Israeli media, which are often eager to promote supposed Israeli military victories, claimed that Israeli forces did not attack Beirut. In their turn, Hezbollah denounced reports that the explosion happened on one of their sites saying that there was no Israeli attack on August 4.
Nonetheless, it seems that the US leadership has a quite different point of view. Commenting on the situation after a meeting with military officials, President Donald Trump claimed that the incident was an attack.
“They seem to think it was an attack. It was a bomb of some kind,” Trump said.
Whatever the real cause of the tragedy turns out to be, the Beirut explosions have already fueled tensions in the region. And despite comments by Hezbollah and Israeli media that it was not a military incident, the warring sides are actively accusing each other. Comments by the US President about a supposed attack on the Beirut port do not make the situation any easier.
Taking into account the recent series of military incidents on the Israeli-Lebanese contact line, and in the Israeli-occupied area of the Golan Heights, any new border provocation may easily lead to a larger escalation. The years of war propaganda and military confrontations together with increased tension within Israeli and Lebanese society respectively have already created conditions in which a further, even small, military incident may appear to be enough to provoke a larger war in the region. This large war is in no interest of Tel Aviv or Hezbollah because it will obviously have a devastating impact on both Israel and Lebanon. In this light, it is especially interesting that the Trump administration is making statements that would contribute to this scenario. There is a chance that in a time of a deepening social and political crisis in the US on top of a complicated economic situation in the runup to the next US Presidential election, some hotheads may believe that a new, theoretically ‘victorious’ war in the Middle East, could help them to remain in power.
*
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.
Ann Garrison: Most of us have heard that the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act is full of handouts to huge corporations, but I heard you say, in an interview on WNHN-New Hampshire, that most of that money hasn’t yet gone out the door. If so, why not?
Bart Naylor: It’s not clear. The Federal Reserve and the Treasury decide where the $500 billion under Title IV of the CARES Act goes. They’ve put some conditions on it, such as no buybacks. Buybacks are where the company buys its own stock. Doing that is a complete declaration of failure that the CEO can’t find use for the firm’s cash to further employ people and stimulate the economy. But it raises the stock price, and since CEOs are paid in stock options, that raises CEO pay. The perversion of taxpayer-funded buybacks is one thing we have to be vigilant to prevent.
Image is from the author
AG: How else might CEOs misuse stimulus funds?
BN: The list of what management can do wrong is as long as the daily newspaper: Boeing crashes, mine disasters, monopolistic practices, drug price gouging. Some of this is illegal. Who pays the fine? Shareholders. When these companies misbehave going forward, it is literally going to be the taxpayers paying the fines, since it’s their/our money funding the firms—and their inevitable misconduct.
AG: Are funds allocated in the CARES Act going to more prosperous and therefore whiter neighborhoods?
BN: Absolutely. One study found that a Black Congressional district in Missouri got one-eighth the amount of Paycheck Protection Program funding that a white district in Idaho did. Same number of people, one eighth the help.
AG: Is this because stabilization, not change, is the goal of the Paycheck Protection Program? Because it therefore aids districts with higher rates of employment and pay?
BN: It’s a black box. It’s not clear why banks approved PPP funds for white businesses over black businesses. But they did.
AG: What do you think is most needed in the next stimulus bill?
BN: There’s desperate need for more aid for the unemployed. Even the Republicans agree. Hopefully more conditions will be established in this next iteration of a trillion dollar package, including limits on CEO pay, so they can’t siphon it off.
BN: As of now, there will be no HEROES Act. That’s a House bill. The Senate bill is the Health, Economic Assistance, Liability Protection and Schools (HEALS) Act. All the negotiations are about the Senate. Once again, to get anything, the House will have to pass what the Senate agrees to.
AG: Will the HEALS Act be another huge cash payout to the already rich with crumbs for the rest of us?
BN: Yes. Maybe not crumbs, but too much will go to the 1 percent.
AG: Shouldn’t the money go more directly to the people in the form of cash grants, a universal basic income, and much needed infrastructural projects like those undertaken during the New Deal?
BN: Yes. We need a national industrial commission, a permanent one, so that the next time this happens, we don’t pass a multi-trillion-dollar law in 11 days, written by sleep-deprived staff and inattentive lawmakers who are making this all up on the fly.
AG: Before the CARES Act passed, Alexandria Ocasio Cortez, Bernie Sanders, and probably a few others wailed that they were being forced to vote for the giveaway just to get the crumbs for the rest of us? Do you think, as many angry leftists said, that they shouldn’t have voted for it? And do you think they should refuse if the HEALS Act does the same?
BN: I’ve never run for political office and I would be paralyzed by such a Sophie’s Choice, but in the end, I would not vote for either.
AG: On July 10, the CNBC reported that 28 million Americans are facing eviction and foreclosure due to the depression caused by the coronavirus. Twenty days later, on July 30, they reported that 40 million are. What can be done to stop this?
BN: Very tough situation. That’s one reason that more aid for the unemployed is desperately needed. Also, landlords need revenue to maintain rental property, so Congress must pass landlord help, but only on the condition that evictions are halted.
*
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.
Videos of the devastating explosion at the port of Beirut that left over 70 people dead and thousands wounded continue to emerge, painting a comprehensive picture of the destruction – though shedding no light on its cause.
A mega-compilation of 15 different videos from witnesses to Tuesday’s catastrophic explosion in Lebanon’s capital has been compiled by RT. The synced clips give some idea of the far-reaching devastation caused by the blast, which authorities have traced to a 2,750-ton stash of explosive ammonium nitrate in a warehouse by the port (certainly not an Israeli missile, Lebanese and Israeli authorities as well as Hezbollah have stressed).
The casualty count continues to climb and hospitals in Beirut are said to be exceeding capacity. The blast was reportedly heard as far away as Cyprus, some 150 miles away from the port.
Despite the explanations supplied by Lebanese authorities, US President Donald Trump apparently felt compelled to weigh in on the incident during a press conference Tuesday evening, suggesting – “based on the explosion” – that it was an “attack, it was a bomb of some kind” after consulting with Pentagon generals.
*
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.
Two luminaries in the African American struggle which emerged during the 1950s and 1960s, Rev. C.T. Vivian and Congressman John Lewis, passed away on July 17.
Both figures played a prominent role in the efforts to destroy legalized segregation, commonly referred to as Jim Crow, through nonviolent direct action, mass mobilizations and electoral politics.
Nonetheless, since the 1960s, the corporate media and other elements within the capitalist ruling class including the leaderships of the Democratic and Republican parties have never been able to come to grips with the rapid social changes brought about by the political intervention of oppressed peoples. Many contend that the victories surrounding the desegregation of retail outlets, educational institutions, residential areas and access to the franchise would have never occurred if not for the benevolent and perhaps enlightened support of liberals within the Democratic Party.
Former United States Senator and two-time unsuccessful presidential candidate in 2008 and 2016, Hillary Clinton, said as much during her first race to win the nomination when the-then Democratic Senator Barack Obama decisively won the primaries to go on to be elected for two terms. Clinton asserted that if former President Lyndon B. Johnson had not been in office, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 would not have passed in the Congress.
Advancing such notions is tantamount to robbing the masses of their own history. It was the African American people themselves who initiated the Montgomery Bus Boycott of 1955-56, representing a turning point in the quest for equality and self-determination since the conclusion of the Civil War.
Image on the right: Rosa Parks being booked after arrest for violating the segregation laws of Alabama on Dec. 1, 1955
The Montgomery Women’s Political Council under the leadership of organizers such as Mary Fair Burks, Jo Ann Robinson, Irene West, Thelma Glass, and Uretta Adair, printed flyers and made telephone calls leading up to the beginning of the boycott on December 1955. The boycott was prompted by the arrest of Mrs. Rosa L. Parks, a seamstress and veteran activist in various struggles involving civil rights and labor organizing. Parks was arrested on December 1 after refusing to give up her seat in the segregated section of a city bus to a white man. Parks was charged with violating the segregation laws of Alabama. (See this)
In a matter of days, a young minister recently out of graduate school in Boston, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., was catapulted into national and international prominence after the Montgomery Improvement Association (MIA) unanimously selected him as the spokesperson for the Black community during the boycott. The homes of King and a neighbor of Parks, Lutheran Minister Rev. Robert Graetz (a white pastor sympathetic to civil rights), were bombed by racists during the boycott, signaling the intransigent resistance to the advancement of African Americans which has continued well into the 21st century. (See this)
From Freedom Now to Black Power
Yet the attempts to revise the actual history of the Civil Rights and Black Power Movements are ongoing as exemplified by the remarks made by former President Bill Clinton at a memorial service for Congressman Lewis. Clinton, known for his signing of the 1994 Crime Bill which resulted in the incarceration of millions of African Americans and other oppressed peoples, suggested the replacement of John Lewis as Chairman by Stokely Carmichael and his supporters in the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC) at its May 1966 annual conference was a mistake.
Clinton said at the memorial that:
“It must have been painful to lose, but he showed as a young man there’s some things that you just cannot do to hang on to a position because if you do, then, you won’t be who you are anymore. And I say there were two or three years there, where the movement went a little too far towards Stokely, but in the end, John Lewis prevailed.”
Carmichael, later known as Kwame Ture, a graduate of Howard University, had been a member of SNCC since 1960 while studying for his degree. He had been active in various Southern struggles including being sentenced to serve time at the notorious Parchman Prison as a Freedom Rider in 1961, the SNCC campaign in Greenwood, Mississippi, and most famously his organizational work in Lowndes County, Alabama during 1965-66, when the Lowndes County Freedom Organization (LCFO) was formed as the original Black Panther Party.
After the Mississippi Freedom Democratic Party (MFDP) was betrayed by the Johnson administration at the 1964 Democratic National Convention in Atlantic City along with the ratification of the Voting Rights Act the following year, the Watts Rebellion erupted in Los Angeles in August 1965. Both the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC) founded by Dr. King as well as SNCC headed during 1966-1967 by Carmichael, shifted resources to northern and western urban areas to address the emerging struggles in Chicago, Cleveland, Los Angeles, Philadelphia, etc. The urban rebellions and the widespread registration of African Americans as voters were pivotal factors in increasing the numbers of Black people holding elective offices on a local, statewide and national level.
A leading online publication serving the African American community, Grio.com, quoted several social media responses to Clinton where the former president was condemned for his inappropriate comments. The article said:
“It didn’t take long for Black Twitter to drag the so-called ‘first Black president’ for his remarks. Many felt he had no right to even offer his opinion, much less at the services for Lewis.”
Two Lives Well Lived
Cordy Tindell Vivian was born in Boonville, Missouri in 1924 and later migrated with his family to Macomb, Illinois where he attended elementary and high school. He later matriculated Western Illinois University (WIU) where he worked as a sports editor for the campus newspaper.
C.T. Vivian became involved in the resistance to segregation as early as 1947 when he participated in sit-ins against segregation in Illinois. Vivian later studied for the ministry at the Baptist Theological Seminary in Nashville where he met Rev. James Lawson, a key figure in the crafting of nonviolent direct action tactics. Lawson, who had visited India, was influenced by Ghandi.
Lawson was instrumental in recruiting Vivian, John Lewis, Diane Nash, Bernard Lafayette, among others into the Civil Rights Movement whose student sector would emerge fully in early 1960 in Nashville and other areas of the South. Vivian helped to establish the Nashville Christian Leadership Conference, an affiliate of the SCLC headed by Dr. King.
Alabama state troopers and Dallas County police attack marchers in Selma on March 7, 1965
Vivian was brutally beaten at the aegis of Sheriff Jim Clark in Selma during the early 1965 struggles which led to the passage of the Voting Rights Act. In later years, Vivian served in numerous capacities as a public speaker, co-founder of the National Anti-Klan Network, later known as the Center for Democratic Renewal, along with being a board member of a Black-owned bank based in Atlanta where he eventually settled.
At the time of their deaths, Vivian was 96 and Lewis, 80. Lewis was born as the son of sharecroppers in Troy, Alabama. Lewis was inspired by news of the Montgomery Bus Boycott and the ministry of Dr. King. Lewis also attended the Theological Seminary in Nashville and joined with other youth in initiating the student movement of the 1960s.
Rosa Parks being booked after arrest for violating the segregation laws of Alabama on Dec. 1, 1955
It is important that these historical personalities be placed with the social and political context under which they emerged. The African American struggle for liberation has utilized numerous tactics and strategies since the era of enslavement through the Civil War, Reconstruction and the more modern day efforts to eradicate racism, national oppression and economic exploitation.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Abayomi Azikiwe is the editor of Pan-African News Wire. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.
Featured image: Nashville Mayor West with C.T. Vivian and Diane Nash in 1960; all images in this article are from the author
Two decades after a political earthquake, a powerful aftershock that should be rocking Brazil apart is being met with thunderous silence.
What is now termed “the Banestado leaks” and “CC5gate” is straight out of vintage WikiLeaks: a list, published for the first time in full, naming names and detailing one of the biggest corruption and money laundering cases in the world in the past three decades.
This scandal allows for the healthy practice of what Michel Foucault characterized as the archeology of knowledge. Without understanding these leaks, it’s impossible to place in proper context events ranging from the sophisticated assault by Washington on Brazil – initially via NSA spying on President Dilma Roussef’s first term (2010-2014) – all the way to the “Car Wash” corruption investigation that jailed Luis Inácio Lula da Silva and opened the way for the election of neofascist patsy Jair Bolsonaro as president.
Credit for the scoop on this George Orwell-does-hybrid-war plotline is due, once again, to independent media. The small website Duplo Expresso, led by young, daring, Bern-based international lawyer Romulus Maya, first published the list.
An epic five-hour podcast assembled the three key protagonists who denounced the scandal in the first place, back in the late 1990s, and now are able to re-analyze it: then-governor of Parana state Roberto Requiao, federal prosecutor Celso Tres and now retired police superintendent Jose Castilho Neto.
Previously, in another podcast, Maya and anthropologist Piero Leirner, Brazil’s foremost analyst of hybrid war, briefed me on the myriad political intricacies of the leaks while we discussed geopolitics in the Global South.
The CC5 lists are here, here , and here . Let’s see what makes them so special.
The mechanism
Way back in 1969, the Brazilian Central Bank created what was described as a “CC5 account” to facilitate foreign companies and executives to legally wire assets overseas. For many years the cash flow in these accounts was not significant. Then everything changed in the 1990s – with the emergence of a massive, complex criminal racket centered on money laundering.
The original Banestado investigation started in 1997. Federal prosecutor Celso Tres was stunned to find that from 1991 to 1996 Brazilian currency worth no less than US$124 billion had been wired overseas. Eventually the total for the whole life of the racket (1991-2002) ballooned to a whopping $219 billion – placing Banestado as one of the largest money laundering schemes in history.
Tres’s report led to a federal investigation focused in Foz do Iguacu in southern Brazil, strategically situated right at the Tri-Border of Brazil, Argentina and Paraguay, where local banks were laundering vast amounts of funds through their CC5 accounts.
Here is how it worked. US dollar dealers in the black market, linked to bank and government employees, used a vast network of bank accounts under the names of unsuspecting smurfs and phantom companies to launder illegal funds from public corruption, tax fraud and organized crime, mainly through the Banco do Estado do Parana branch in Foz do Iguacu. Thus “the Banestado case.”
The federal investigation was going nowhere until 2001, when then-police superintendent Castilho ascertained that most of the funds were actually landing in accounts at the Banestado branch in New York. Castilho arrived in New York in January 2002 to turbo-charge the necessary international money tracking.
Through a court order, Castilho and his team reviewed 137 accounts at Banestado New York, tracking $14.9 billion. In quite a few cases, the beneficiaries’ names were the same as those of Brazilian politicians then serving in Congress, cabinet ministers and even former presidents.
After a month in New York, Castilho was back in Brazil carrying a hefty 400-page report. Yet, despite the overwhelming evidence he was removed from the investigation, which was then put on hold for at least a year. When the new Lula government took power in early 2003, Castilho was back in business.
In April 2003, Castilho identified a particularly interesting Chase Manhattan account named “Tucano” – the nickname of the PSDB party led by former president Fernando Henrique Cardoso, who had been in power before Lula and who always kept very close ties to the Clinton and Blair political machines.
Castilho was instrumental in the setup of a parliamentary inquiry commission over the Banestado case. But, once again, this commission led nowhere – there was not even a vote on a final report. Most companies involved negotiated deals with the Brazilian Internal Revenue Service and thus ended any possibility of legal action in regard to tax evasion.
Banestado meets Car Wash
In a nutshell, the two largest political parties – Cardoso’s neoliberal PSDB and Lula’s Workers’ Party, neither of which ever really faced down imperial machinations and the Brazilian rentier class – actively buried an in-depth investigation.
Moreover Lula, coming right after Cardoso, and mindful or preserving a minimum of governability, made a strategic decision not to investigate “Tucano” corruption, including a slew of dodgy privatizations.
New York prosecutors went so far as to prepare a special Banestado list for Castilho with what really mattered for criminal prosecution to go through: the full circle of the money laundering scheme, with funds first illegally remitted out of Brazil using the CC5 accounts, next passing through the New York branches of the Brazilian banks involved, then reaching offshore bank accounts and trusts in tax havens (e.g., Cayman, Jersey, Switzerland) and finally going back to Brazil as – fully laundered – “foreign investment,” for the actual use and enjoyment of the final beneficiaries who had first removed the not-accounted-for money from the country using the CC5 accounts.
But then Brazilian Justice Minister Marcio Thomaz Bastos, appointed by Lula, nixed it. As superintendent Castilho metaphorically puts it, “This deliberately prevented me from going back to Brazil with the murdered body.”
While Castilho never got hold of this critical document, at least two Brazilian congressmen, two senators and two federal prosecutors who would later on rise to fame as Car Wash investigation “stars” – Vladimir Aras and Carlos Fernando dos Santos Lima – did get it. Why and how the document – call it the “body bag” – never found its way into the criminal proceedings back in Brazil is an extra mystery wrapped up inside the whole enigma.
Meanwhile, there are “unconfirmed” reports (several sources would not go on record on this) that the document might have been used for outright extortion of the individuals, mostly billionaires, featured on the list.
Extra sauce in the judicial sphere comes from the fact that the provincial judge in charge of burying the Banestado case was none other than Sergio Moro, the self-serving Elliot Ness figure who in the next decade would rise to superstar status as the capo di tutti i capi of the massive Car Wash investigation and subsequent justice minister under Bolsonaro.
Moro ended up resigning and is now de facto already campaigning to be elected president in 2022.
And here we hit the toxic Banestado-Car Wash connection. Considering what is already public domain about Moro’s modus operandi on Car Wash, as he altered names in documents with the single-minded objective of sending Lula to jail, the challenge now would be to prove how Moro “sold” non-convictions related to Banestado. He had a very convenient legal excuse: With no “body” brought back to criminal proceedings in Brazil, no one could be found guilty.
As we plunge into excruciating details, Banestado increasingly looks and feels like the Ariadne’s thread that may reveal the beginning of the destruction of Brazil’s sovereignty. A tale full of lessons to be learned by the whole Global South.
Black market dollar king
Castilho, in that epic podcast, did ring alarm bells when he referred to $17 million that had transited in the Banestado branch in New York and then was sent to, of all places, Pakistan. He and his team found that out only a few months after 9/11. I’ve sent him some questions about it, and his answered, through Maya, is that his investigators will dig it all up again, as a report did indicate the origin of these funds.
This is the first time such information has surfaced – and the ramifications may be explosive. We’re talking about dodgy funds, arguably from drugs and weapons operations, leaving the Triple Border, which happens historically to be a top site for CIA and Mossad black ops.
Financing may have been provided by the so-called king of the black market dollars, Dario Messer, via CC5 accounts. It’s no secret that black market operators at the Tri-Border are all connected to cocaine trafficking via Paraguay – and also to evangelicals. That is the basis of what Maya, Leirner and I have already described as Cocaine Evangelistan.
Messer is an indispensable cog in the recycling mechanism built into drug trafficking. Money travels to fiscal paradises under imperial protection, is duly laundered, and is gloriously resurrected on Wall Street and in the City of London, with the extra bonus of the US easing some of its current account deficit. Cue to Wall Street’s “irrational exuberance.”
What really matters is free circulation of cocaine. Why not, hidden in the odd soya cargo, something that comes with the extra benefit of securing the well being of agro-business. That’s a mirror image of the CIA heroin ratline in Afghanistan that I detailed here.
Most of all, politically, Messer is the notorious missing link to Moro. Even mainstream O Globo newspaper was forced to admit, last November, that Messer’s shadowy businesses were “monitored” nonstop for two decades by different US agencies out of Asuncion and Ciudad del Este in Paraguay. Moro for his part is an asset for two different US agencies – FBI and CIA – plus the Department of Justice.
Messer may be the joker in this convoluted plot. But then there’s the Maltese Falcon: There’s only one Maltese Falcon, as the John Huston classic immortalized it. And it’s currently lying in a safe in Switzerland.
I’m referring to the original, official documents submitted by construction giant Odebrecht to the Car Wash investigation which have been undisputedly “manipulated,”“allegedly” by the company itself. And “maybe”, in collusion with then-judge Moro and the prosecution team led by Deltan Dallagnol.
Not only, possibly, for the purpose of incriminating Lula and persons close to him, but also – crucially – deleting any mentions of individuals who should never be brought to light. Or to justice. And, yes, you guessed it right if you thought about the (US-backed) black market dollar king.
The first serious political impact after the release of the Banestado leaks is that Lula’s lawyers Cristiano and Valeska Zanin have finally, officially requested Swiss authorities to hand over the originals.
The real, not adulterated Odebrecht list of people involved in corruption is crammed with big names – including the judiciary elite.
Confronting the two versions, Lula’s lawyers may finally be able to demonstrate the falsification of “evidence” that led to the jailing of Lula and also, among other developments, to the exile of Ecuador’s former president Rafael Correa, the imprisonment of his former vice-president, Jorge Glas, the imprisonment of Peru’s former president Ollanta Humala and wife and, most dramatically, the suicide of Peru’s former two time president Alan Garcia.
Brazilian Patriot Act
The big political question now is not to uncover the master manipulator who buried the Banestado scandal two decades ago.
As anthropologist Leirner detailed it, what matters is that the leaking of the CC5 accounts focuses on the mechanism of the corrupted Brazilian bourgeoisie, with the help of their political and judicial partners – national and foreign – to solidify itself as a rentier class, but still always submissive to and kept in check by “secret,” imperial files.
Banestado leaks and the CC5 accounts should be seen as a political opening for Lula to go for broke. This is all-out (hybrid) war – and blinking is not an option. The geopolitical and geoeconomic project of destroying Brazil’s sovereignty and turning it into an imperial sub-colony is winning – hands down.
A measure of the explosiveness of Banestado leaks and CC5gate has been the reaction by assorted limited hangouts: thundering silence, and that encompasses leftist parties and alternative, supposedly progressive media. Mainstream media, for which former judge Moro is a sacred cow, at best spin it as “old story,” “fake news” and even a “hoax.”
Lula is facing a fateful decision. With access to names so far shadowed by Car Wash, he may be able to unleash a neutron bomb and pull off a reset of the whole game – exposing a rash of Car Wash-linked Supreme Court judges, prosecutors, district attorneys, journalists and even generals who received funds from Odebrecht overseas.
Not to mention bring black market dollar king Messer – who controls the fate of Moro – to the frontline. This means directly pointing a finger at the US deep state. Not an easy decision to make.
It’s now clear that creditors of the Brazilian state were, originally, debtors. Confronting different accounts it’s possible to square the circle on Brazil’s legendary “fiscal imbalance” – exactly as this plague is brought up, once again, with the intent of decimating the assets of the ailing Brazilian state. Finance Minister Paulo Guedes, a neo-Pinochetist and Milton Friedman cheerleader, has already warned he’ll keep selling state companies like there’s no tomorrow.
Lula’s plan B would be to clinch some sort of deal that would bury the whole dossier – just the way the original Banestado investigation was buried two decades ago – to preserve the leadership of the Workers’ Party as domesticated opposition, and without touching on the absolutely essential issue: how Guedes is selling out Brazil.
That would be the line favored by Fernando Haddad, who lost the presidential election to Bolsonaro in 2018 and is a sort of Brazilian version of Michelle Bachelet, Chile’s former President. He’s an ashamed neoliberal sacrificing everything to have yet another shot at power possibly in 2026.
Were Plan B to happen it would galvanize the wrath of trade unions and social movements – the flesh and blood Brazilian working classes, which are on the verge of being totally decimated by neoliberalism on steroids and the toxic collusion of the US-inspired Brazilian version of the Patriot Act with military schemes to profit from Cocaine Evangelistan.
And all that after Washington – successfully – nearly destroyed national champion Petrobras, an initial objective of NSA spying. Zanin, Lula’s lawyer, also adds – maybe too late – that the “informal cooperation” between Washington and the Car Wash op was in fact illegal, according to decree number 3.810/02.
What will Lula do?
As it stands, as a development of the Banestado leaks, a first Banestado “VIP list” was gathered. It includes the current President of the Supreme Electoral Tribunal, who also serves as a Supreme Court justice, Luis Roberto Barroso, bankers, media tycoons and industrialists. Car Wash prosecutor Deltan Dallagnol happens to be very close to the neoliberal Supreme Court justice in question.
The VIP list should be read as the road map for the money laundering practices of the Brazilian 0.01% – roughly estimated to be 20,000 families who own the close to one trillion dollar Brazilian internal debt. A large part of those funds had been recycled back to Brazil as “foreign investment” through the CC5 scheme back in the 1990s. And that’s exactly how Brazil’s internal debt exploded.
Still no one knows where the Banestado-enabled torrent of dodgy money actually landed, in detail. The “body bag” was never formally acknowledged to have been brought back from New York and never made its way into the criminal proceedings. Yet money laundering is almost definitely still in progress – and thus the limitation period does not apply – so somebody, anybody, would have to be thrown in the slammer. It doesn’t seem that will be the case anytime soon, though.
Meanwhile, enabled by the US deep state, transnational finance and local comprador elites – some in uniform, some in robes – the slow-motion hybrid war coup against Brazil keeps rambling on, day by day inching closer to full spectrum dominance.
Which bring us to the key, final question: what will Lula do about 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.
The Southeast Asian nation of Thailand has in recent years “tilted” too far toward China for Washington’s liking.
Now, the familiar signs of US-backed covert regime change are evident in Thailand’s streets. Protests are openly targeting Thailand’s current government as well as its military and constitutional monarchy. Protests are similar to US-backed unrest seen recently in Hong Kong and are becoming more frequent despite their poor attendance and an overall protest-weary public.
Despite the superficial and deliberately ambiguous stated goals of protesters – the real goal of US-backed unrest in Thailand is similar to its motivations for sowing chaos in Hong Kong – to pressure Beijing by attacking China’s stability directly and the stability of its most important trading partners and military allies which currently includes Thailand.
Thailand – with the second largest economy in ASEAN – has boosted ties with China significantly in recent years – China being Thailand’s primary export and import partner, providing Thailand the majority of its foreign direct investment, tourism, the majority of its arms purchases in a recent bid to modernize it military, and in the construction of major infrastructure projects including a high-speed railway system that will extend China’s One Belt, One Road (OBOR) initiative deep into Southeast Asia.
Thailand has also openly and repeatedly refused to join US efforts to pressure Beijing regarding issues like the South China Sea.
It is obvious why the US would want to pursue regime change in Thailand – and failing that – what lies behind its desire to plunge the nation into disastrous chaos denying it and China any prospect of stability or prosperity.
Western Media Seeks Secrecy for Protest Leaders, Sponsors
The Western media was all too happy to report on a “Harry Potter” themed protest at Democracy Monument in Bangkok on August 3. Protest leader Anon Nampa openly criticized Thailand’s key independent institutions including the military and the monarchy.
US government-funded front – Prachatai – extensively covered the small protest in its article, “The revolution will be magical: Harry Potter-themed protest calls for monarchy reform” despite the protest clearly drawing less than 100 people.
What the Western media and US-funded fronts didn’t mention was who Anon Nampa is, his role in leading protests, who funds his activities, or why. More specifically, nothing is mentioned about the real motivations people like Anon Nampa have for targeting Thailand’s military and monarchy specifically.
Obviously the US would prefer a client regime completely dependent on Washington financially and politically – something much more preferable to strong Thai institutions like the military and monarchy which do not answer to Washington and have the resources and ability to act independently.
Despite occasionally mentioning Anon Nampa and other leaders by name, the Western media and their local partners have insisted the protests are “organic” and “leaderless” and aimed at achieving superficial and deliberately ambiguous goals like “democracy” and “human rights.”
The Protests are not “Leaderless”
Anon Nampa is a lawyer and member of Thai Lawyers for Human Rights (TLHR). The front has been funded since it was created in 2014 by the US State Department via the notorious National Endowment for Democracy (NED) long-since exposed as an arm of US-backed regime change efforts around the globe.
…[TLHR] receives all its funding from international donors including the EU, Germany and US-based human rights organisations and embassies of the UK and Canada.
One of TLHR’s founding members – Sirikan “June” Charoensiri – was later awarded the US State Department’s “2018 International Women of Courage Award,” presented to her by US First Lady Melania Trump.
The US embassy in Bangkok also openly praised TLHR in its own post celebrating the award, exclaiming:
The U.S. Embassy in Bangkok is proud of Sirikan “June” Charoensiri’s work as a lawyer and human rights defender, and for being recognized by the Secretary of State as an International Women of Courage award recipient. Ms. Sirikan is a co-founder of Thai Lawyers for Human Rights (TLHR), a lawyers’ collective set up to provide pro bono legal services for human rights cases and to document human rights violations.
TLHR staff are also regularly accompanied by US and European embassy staff when hearing charges regarding their overt foreign-funded sedition.
It is clear that the US government and its European partners have invested heavily in TLHR and groups like it in Thailand.
It is also clear that TLHR and other US government-funded fronts in Thailand are leading current protests and that the Western media is deliberately attempting to nonetheless portray the protests as “leaderless,” never asking obvious questions regarding money trails and political motivations.
Why?
Secrecy an Obvious Prerequisite for Covert Regime Change
The Diplomat is an explicitly pro-Western policy journal partnered with other journals and organizations openly funded by and/or affiliated with various governments in the West including the United States government itself.
In its article, “As US-China Competition Grows, Will Covert Regime Change Make a Return?,” academics admitted that growing US-Chinese tensions provide ample motivations for Washington to pursue Cold War-style covert regime change operations against “regimes that tilt too close to China.”
The article would admit (emphasis added):
As the rivalry between the United States and China intensifies against the backdrop of a pandemic and (dis)information wars about culpability, some have wondered whether covert regime change might make a comeback. During the Cold War, the the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), almost always at the direction of the president, quietly engineered the overthrow of numerous regimes who drifted — or were perceived to be drifting — too close to the Soviet Union. It is not hard to imagine how competition with China for the allegiances of other countries might create similar incentives.
The article notes that while the Cold War saw the height of such operations carried out by the US government, such operations have most certainly continued until present day – citing US-led regime change efforts in Syria as a specific example.
Under an entire section of the article titled, “The Appeal of Secrecy,” the authors would note (emphasis added):
The ongoing battle over the rules of international order also means that U.S. policymakers may be especially keen on hiding violations of existing laws governing intervention — laws that they helped create. Given China’s own embrace of the principles of non-intervention and non-interference, brazen violations could cede the moral high ground and result in greater support for the Chinese model. It is conceivable that these dynamics could play out in regions like Africa where the United States and China continue to compete for economic and military influence.
Finally, any consideration of using the quiet option to topple regimes that tilt too close to China must include a full accounting of the inherent risks. These include the prospect that a covert operation will become public knowledge prematurely and the possibility that it could destabilize the target state and create longstanding ill-will in the process.
Thus – by the West’s own admission – pretending obviously US-funded subversion in Thailand aimed at a Thai government that “tilts too close to China” is “organic” and “leaderless” is all part of the “covert regime change” playbook.
TLHR – brought into existence by the US embassy in Bangkok in 2014 and funded by the US government ever since – has openly led anti-government protests in Thailand alongside other similarly US-backed fronts with Anon Nampa taking on a more visible role physically leading protests in recent weeks.
Without the millions of dollars provided to Anon Nampa, TLHR, and other fronts like it by the US government their ongoing activities would be impossible and these protests would never have materialized.
Eliminating Thailand’s military and monarchy – two institutions with independent means to fund themselves and with full agency over their own decisions – and replacing them with opposition groups entirely dependent on US and European funding and political support is the surest means to rectify Thailand’s “tilt to China.”
An opposition installed into power by the US would lack any means to make its own decisions and would represent its sponsors in Washington rather than the Thai people it claims to champion for.
Obviously keeping Washington’s role in current Thai protests as quiet as possible for as long as possible is meant to protect the illusion of legitimacy the protests have been given by the Western media. It helps prevent any revelations or public outcry that “could cede the moral high ground and result in greater support for the Chinese model.”
It is neo-colonialism dressed up as a pro-democracy movement meant to end Thailand’s ability to decide for itself its own foreign policy, economic partners, and military allies. It couldn’t be any less “pro-democracy” – which is precisely why maintaining “secrecy” regarding the protest’s real sponsors and agenda is so important.
*
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.
On Friday, July 31, in a column ostensibly dealing with health care “misinformation,” Washington Post media critic Margaret Sullivan opened by lambasting “fringe doctors spouting dangerous falsehoods about hydroxychloroquine as a COVID-19 wonder cure.”
Actually, it was Sullivan who was spouting dangerous falsehoods about this drug, something the Washington Post and much of the rest of the media have been doing for months. On May 15, the Post offered a stark warning to any Americans who may have taken hope in a possible therapy for COVID-19. In the newspaper’s telling, there was nothing unambiguous about the science — or the politics — of hydroxychloroquine: “Drug promoted by Trump as coronavirus game-changer increasingly linked to deaths,” blared the headline. Written by three Post staff writers, the story asserted that the effectiveness of hydroxychloroquine in treating COVID-19 is scant and that the drug is inherently unsafe. This claim is nonsense.
Biased against the use of hydroxychloroquine for COVID-19 — and the Washington Post is hardly alone — the paper described an April 21, 2020, drug study on U.S. Veterans Affairs patients hospitalized with the illness. It found a high death rate in patients taking the drug hydroxychloroquine. But this was a flawed study with a small sample, the main flaw being that the drug was given to the sickest patients who were already dying because of their age and severe pre-existing conditions. This study was quickly debunked. It had been posted on a non-peer-reviewed medical archive that specifically warns that studies posted on its website should not be reported in the media as established information.
Yet, the Post and countless other news outlets did just the opposite, making repeated claims that hydroxychloroquine was ineffective and caused serious cardiac problems. Nowhere was there any mention of the fact that COVID-19 damages the heart during infection, sometimes causing irregular and sometimes fatal heart rhythms in patients not taking the drug.
To a media unrelentingly hostile to Donald Trump, this meant that the president could be portrayed as recklessly promoting the use of a “dangerous” drug. Ignoring the refutation of the VA study in its May 15 article, the Washington Post cited a Brazil study published on April 24 in which a COVID trial using chloroquine (a related but different drug from hydroxychloroquine) was stopped because 11 patients treated with it died. The reporters never mentioned another problem with that study: The Brazilian doctors were giving their patients lethal cumulative doses of the drug.
On and on it has gone since then, in a circle of self-reinforcing commentary. Following the news that Trump was taking the drug himself, opinion hosts on cable news channels launched continual attacks on both hydroxychloroquine and the president. “This will kill you!” Fox News Channel’s Neil Cavuto exclaimed. “The president of the United States just acknowledged that he is taking hydroxychloroquine, a drug that [was] meant really to treat malaria and lupus.”
Washington Post reporters Ariana Cha and Laurie McGinley were back again on May 22, with a new article shouting out the new supposed news: “Antimalarial drug touted by President Trump is linked to increased risk of death in coronavirus patients, study says.” The media uproar this time was based on a large study just published in the Lancet. There was just one problem. The Lancet paper was fraudulent and it was quickly retracted.
However, the damage from the biased media storm was done and it was long-lasting. Continuing patient enrollment needed for early-use clinical trials of hydroxychloroquine dried up within a week. Patients were afraid to take the drug, doctors became afraid to prescribe it, pharmacies refused to fill prescriptions, and in a rush of incompetent analysis and non-existent senior leadership, the FDA revoked its Emergency Use Authorization for the drug.
So what is the real story on hydroxychloroquine? Here, briefly, is what we know
When the COVID-19 pandemic began, a search was made for suitable antiviral therapies to use as treatment until a vaccine could be produced. One drug, hydroxychloroquine, was found to be the most effective and safe for use against the virus. Federal funds were used for clinical trials of it, but there was no guidance from Dr. Anthony Fauci or the NIH Treatment Guidelines Panel on what role the drug would play in the national pandemic response. Fauci seemed to be unaware that there actually was a national pandemic plan for respiratory viruses.
Following a careful regimen developed by doctors in France, some knowledgeable practicing U.S. physicians began prescribing hydroxychloroquine to patients still in the earlyphase of COVID infection. Its effects seemed dramatic. Patients still became sick, but for the most part they avoided hospitalization. In contrast — and in error — the NIH-funded studies somehow became focused on giving hydroxychloroquine to late-presenting hospitalized patients. This was in spite of the fact that unlike the drug’s early use in ambulatory patients, there was no real data to support the drug’s use in more severe hospitalized patients.
By April, it was clear that roughly seven days from the time of the first onset of symptoms, a COVID-19 infection could sometimes progress into a more radical late phase of severe disease with inflammation of the blood vessels in the body and immune system over-reactions. Many patients developed blood clots in their lungs and needed mechanical ventilation. Some needed kidney dialysis. In light of this pathological carnage, no antiviral drug could be expected to show much of an effect during this severe second stage of COVID.
On April 6, 2020, an international team of medical experts published an extensive study of hydroxychloroquine in more than 130,000 patients with connective tissue disorders. They reaffirmed that hydroxychloroquine was a safe drug with no serious side effects. The drug could safely be given to pregnant women and breast-feeding mothers. Consequently, countries such as China, Turkey, South Korea, India, Morocco, Algeria, and others began to use hydroxychloroquine widely and early in their national pandemic response. Doctors overseas were safely prescribing the drug based on clinical signs and symptoms because widespread testing was not available.
However, the NIH promoted a much different strategy for the United States. The “Fauci Strategy” was to keep early infected patients quarantined at home without treatment until they developed a shortness of breath and had to be admitted to a hospital. Then they would they be given hydroxychloroquine. The Food and Drug Administration cluelessly agreed to this doctrine and it stated in its hydroxychloroquine Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) that “hospitalized patients were likely to have a greater prospect of benefit (compared to ambulatory patients with mild illness).”
In reality just the opposite was true. This was a tragic mistake by Fauci and FDA Commissioner Dr. Stephen Hahn and it was a mistake that would cost the lives of thousands of Americans in the days to come.
At the same time, accumulating data showed remarkable results if hydroxychloroquine were given to patients early, during a seven-day window from the time of first symptom onset. If given during this window, most infections did not progress into the severe, lethal second stage of the disease. Patients still got sick, but they avoided hospitalization or the later transfer to an intensive care unit. In mid-April a high-level memo was sent to the FDA alerting them to the fact that the best use for hydroxychloroquine was for its early use in still ambulatory COVID patients. These patients were quarantined at home but were not short of breath and did not yet require supplemental oxygen and hospitalization.
Failing to understand that COVID-19 could be a two-stage disease process, the FDA ignored the memo and, as previously mentioned, it withdrew its EUA for hydroxychloroquine based on flawed studies and clinical trials that were applicable only to late-stage COVID patients.
By now, however, some countries had already implemented early, aggressive, outpatient community treatment with hydroxychloroquine and within weeks were able to minimize their COVID deaths and bring their national pandemic under some degree of control.
In countries such as Great Britain and the United States, where the “Fauci-Hahn Strategy” was followed, there was a much higher death rate and an ever-increasing number of cases. COVID patients in the U.S. would continue to be quarantined at home and left untreated until they developed shortness of breath. Then they would be admitted to the hospital and given hydroxychloroquine outside the narrow window for the drug’s maximum effectiveness.
In further contrast, countries that started out with the “Fauci-Hahn Doctrine” and then later shifted their policy towards aggressive outpatient hydroxychloroquine use, after a brief lag period also saw a stunning rapid reduction in COVID mortality and hospital admissions.
Finally, several nations that had started using an aggressive early-use outpatient policy for hydroxychloroquine, including France and Switzerland, stopped this practice when the WHO temporarily withdrew its support for the drug. Five days after the publication of the fake Lancet study and the resulting media onslaught, Swiss politicians banned hydroxychloroquine use in the country from May27 until June 11, when it was quickly reinstated.
The consequences of suddenly stopping hydroxychloroquine can be seen by examining a graph of the Case Fatality Ratio Index (nrCFR) for Switzerland. This is derived by dividing the number of daily new COVID fatalities by the new cases resolved over a period with a seven-day moving average. Looking at the evolution curve of the CFR it can be seen that during the weeks preceding the ban on hydroxychloroquine, the nrCFR index fluctuated between 3% and 5%.
Following a lag of 13 days after stopping outpatient hydroxychloroquine use, the country’s COVID-19 deaths increased four-fold and the nrCFR index stayed elevated at the highest level it had been since early in the COVID pandemic, oscillating at over 10%-15%. Early outpatient hydroxychloroquine was restarted June 11 but the four-fold “wave of excess lethality” lasted until June 22, after which the nrCFR rapidly returned to its background value.
Here in our country, Fauci continued to ignore the ever accumulating and remarkable early-use data on hydroxychloroquine and he became focused on a new antiviral compound named remdesivir. This was an experimental drug that had to be given intravenously every day for five days. It was never suitable for major widespread outpatient or at-home use as part of a national pandemic plan. We now know now that remdesivir has no effect on overall COVID patient mortality and it costs thousands of dollars per patient.
Hydroxychloroquine, by contrast, costs 60 cents a tablet, it can be taken at home, it fits in with the national pandemic plan for respiratory viruses, and a course of therapy simply requires swallowing three tablets in the first 24 hours followed by one tablet every 12 hours for five days.
There are now 53 studies that show positive results of hydroxychloroquine in COVID infections. There are 14 global studies that show neutral or negative results — and 10 of them were of patients in very late stages of COVID-19, where no antiviral drug can be expected to have much effect. Of the remaining four studies, two come from the same University of Minnesota author. The other two are from the faulty Brazil paper, which should be retracted, and the fake Lancet paper, which was.
Millions of people are taking or have taken hydroxychloroquine in nations that have managed to get their national pandemic under some degree of control. Two recent, large, early-use clinical trials have been conducted by the Henry Ford Health System and at Mount Sinai showing a 51% and 47% lower mortality, respectively, in hospitalized patients given hydroxychloroquine. A recent study from Spain published on July 29, two days before Margaret Sullivan’s strafing of “fringe doctors,” shows a 66% reduction in COVID mortality in patients taking hydroxychloroquine. No serious side effects were reported in these studies and no epidemic of heartbeat abnormalities.
This is ground-shaking news. Why is it not being widely reported? Why is the American media trying to run the U.S. pandemic response with its own misinformation?
*
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.
Steven Hatfill is a veteran virologist who helped establish the Rapid Hemorrhagic Fever Response Teams for the National Medical Disaster Unit in Kenya, Africa. He is an adjunct assistant professor in two departments at the George Washington University Medical Center where he teaches mass casualty medicine. He is principle author of the prophetic book “Three Seconds Until Midnight — Preparing for the Next Pandemic,” published by Amazon in 2019.
For just a sample of the evidence about the ineffectiveness and dangers of wearing a mask, see the following:
