It wasn’t supposed to take this long to eliminate the independence movement of the backward land of the living Bible. A coalition of the world’s major military powers, led by the US, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Britain and Israel, expected Yemen’s Houthi movement to fall in a matter of weeks after their attacks started on March 25th, 2015. Five years later, it is only the hidden member of the Coalition leaders, Israel, that is motivated to continue the genocidal bombing and blockade that has created “the world’s greatest humanitarian catastrophe”. It is arguably because of Israel’s hidden role that the genocide is continuing despite the attempts of the other Coalition leaders to end their roles in the Yemeni slaughter.
Until 2015, Yemen, one of the poorest countries on earth, was a fabulous, unspoiled country of ancient cities, thousand-year-old buildings and pristine islands; some scholars believe that Yemen may have been the site of the Old Testament. Socotra island, called the Galapagos of the Gulf, was one of Yemen’s four UNESCO World Heritage sites. The small, spectacular country had another ten tentative World Heritage sites.
Yemen has the misfortune to inhabit strategic real estate. Lying at the southern end of the Arabian peninsula, Yemen is bordered by Saudi Arabia to the north, the Red Sea down to the Bab el-Mandeb strait to its west, the Gulf of Aden to the south and Oman to its east. Its territory also includes islands in the Red Sea and around the Bab el-Mandeb strait. The strait, an 18-mile gap between the east coast of Africa and the Arabian peninsula, is a potential chokepoint for the heavily-used shipping route from the Suez Canal and the Red Sea to the Gulf of Aden and Indian Ocean.
Yemen’s struggle for independence from Saudi/western control
Yemen’s conflict with western powers arose when many Yemenis, like those in the Houthi movement, wanted to end their Saudi-controlled government’s support for the West’s so-called “war on terror”, such as its support for the destruction of Iraq and its approvals for U.S. drone strikes on Yemenis. The Houthis, also referred to as the Ansarullah movement, is a north Yemen Shi’ite sect that first organized politically to protest regional discrimination; they are more oriented to justice issues than to religion.
Yemeni independence from Saudi control seemed to be within reach after a successful Arab Spring rebellion in 2011 ended the 33-year presidency of Ali Abdullah Saleh (image on the right). Vice President Abdrabbuh Mansour Hadi replaced Saleh with a two-year term to oversee the transition to an independent government. In order to produce a new constitution and an electoral process for the upcoming 2014 election, a National Dialogue Conference was held in 2013-2014. Yemenis were disappointed with the results; the constitution resembled Iraq’s and the electoral process was not workable for Yemen’s parties. The conference results had been hijacked by the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) (1), an economic and security coalition of Gulf states allied with western interests. At the end of the conference, representatives of Yemen’s parties met to vote on whether to extend Mansour Hadi’s term to January, 2015; the Houthi representative, the dean of Sana’a University law school, was assassinated en route to the meeting. Negotiations between the Houthis and Hadi’s government broke down in the fall of 2014, at which point the Houthis, along with allies, started to take control of the government.
It was at this point, that the coalition of states that wanted Yemen to remain under Saudi/western control must have coalesced. The leaders of the Coalition, the US, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, the UK and secretly, Israel, recruited other allies which have included France, Sudan, Egypt, Pakistan, Qatar, Bahrain, Morocco, Jordan, and Somalia. Tens of thousands of experienced mercenaries were hired, primarily from Sudan but also from Columbia and Nepal, as well as specialized organizations such as Blackwater and the Navy Seals.
It is ironic that the US, Britain and Israel, which claim to stand for democracy, were leaders in a coalition to ensure that Yemen would not be permitted its own democratic government.
President Mansour Hadi was forced to resign in January 2015, after his extended term had expired, and the Houthis started to put a new government together with other parties. In early February, the UN envoy to Yemen, Jamal Benomar, reported to the UN Security Council that all of Yemen’s factions were negotiating together to form a unity government. The news spurred the Coalition to action.
The Coalition sets United Nations Security Council up to destroy Yemen’s independence movement
The Coalition immediately acted to end the possibility of an independent Yemeni government by obtaining legal cover to protect its planned aggression. Just one week after Jamal Benomar had reported that Yemen’s factions were negotiating to form a government, UN SC Resolution 2201 was passed, which permitted military action to force the return of Hadi’s Saudi- backed government and the implementation of the (Yemeni-rejected) GCC- backed constitution and electoral plan. Hadi quickly withdrew his resignation, creating a legal morass. The Coalition attacks started several weeks later, on March 25, 2015, just before Hadi fled to Saudi Arabia and called on it to bomb Yemen to reinstate him.
Three weeks after the start of the attacks, the UN SC passed Resolution 2216 which grotesquely blamed the Houthis for the violence, insisted that the GCC- backed plan of government be implemented, that the “legitimate” Mansour Hadi (image on the left) government be restored, and it called for an arms embargo on the Houthis.
While giving lip service to Yemeni sovereignty and territorial integrity, the Security Council resolutions gave the Coalition the tools and the legal cover for its destruction of Yemen.
The various motives of Coalition leaders
While the Coalition was supposedly attacking Yemen in order to restore the Saudi-backed government, it soon became apparent that some Coalition leaders had the ulterior motive of grabbing Yemen’s strategic real estate. Saudi Arabia quickly occupied Yemen’s Hanish islands in the Red Sea, and part of Socotra island, at the mouth of the Bab el Mandeb.
The UAE created Yemen’s separatist Southern Transitional Council (STC) party, aiming to assume ultimate control of the south of Yemen, including Aden and other ports. “President” Hadi gave the UAE a 95-year lease of Socotra island and the UAE offered Emirati citizenship to its residents. The UAE is building a base on the island; the U.S. and Saudi Arabia are expected to follow suit.
As its price for participating in the Coalition, Israel demanded that it be given the use of Yemen’s strategic Tariq air base, near Yemen’s third largest city of Taizz. Israel, which usually invokes its “security” to justify bombing Syria or occupied Gaza, claims that control of the Bab el-Mandeb strait is another “security” requirement because most Israeli shipping passes through that strait. To monitor strait traffic, Israel has already acquired bases in Eritrea and has the apparent use of Yemen’s Perim island in the strait (2).
Israel’s role in the coalition
Yemenis discovered Israel’s role in the coalition soon after the attacks started. When they downed two planes in an initial attack on its air defense system, they noticed that something didn’t add up: while the planes were marked as belonging to the Saudi air force, they were F-16s that Saudi Arabia had never possessed. In fact, they were Israeli planes with Israeli pilots disguised to appear Saudi. (3) Days later, what many observers identified as a neutron bomb was dropped on Yemen (4); while no country admitted responsibility for it, there were few countries other than Israel with the ability or motive to commit such an act. Israel’s ongoing participation was confirmed a couple of months later when a Yemeni attack on a Saudi base killed 20 Mossad officers along with 63 Saudi military planners.
It appeared that while Saudi Arabia, along with the UAE, were paying the bills, the attacks were directed by American and Israeli surveillance and military planners. Israeli “cyber companies, gun traders, terror warfare instructors and even paid hit men” were part of the coalition’s workforce. When the Saudis decided to take control of Houdaydah port, through which an estimated 90% of Houthi food and humanitarian aid passed, it was Israel Defense Force instructors that trained Coalition mercenaries in Israel’s Negev desert.Although there has been no subsequent publicized evidence of Israeli air attacks on Yemen — since Yemen is no longer able to down planesto identify them — many of the hundreds of thousands of “Saudi” bombing attacks could be Israeli. While Saudi Arabia claimed it was offering a unilateral ceasefire on April 8th as a peace gesture, there was strangely no let up in “Saudi” air attacks on Yemen.
Yemen crucified:“Yemen has all but ceased to exist as a state”
Since the vicious western-backed invasion of Yemen started, the Houthis have become more popular than ever in Yemen. But the cost to Yemen has been horrific, with the magnificent ancient land and infrastructure not only in ruins but, like parts of Iraq and Vietnam, too contaminated with radioactivity and toxic chemicals to support life.
Yemen is now divided in three parts, with the Houthis controlling the northern third of the country with 70% of the population, the separatist STC, backed by the UAE, declaring its session of the south of Yemen, including Aden and southern ports, and the east of Yemen under Hadi’s contested control.
The UN calls Yemen “the world’s greatest humanitarian catastrophe”. A quarter of a million of Yemen’s 30 million population have died and significantly more than that have been injured. An estimated 10 million are starving; 80% need aid to survive. Hundreds of thousands of children have died of starvation and many have died after being forcibly recruited as child soldiers by Saudi Arabia.
The Coalition’s members should face the International Criminal Court because most of their attacks indicate a genocidal intent. Only a third of the 250,000 bombing attacks have targeted the Houthi’s military: the majority target civilians and infrastructure, such as the bombing of over 1,000 mosques, most of the hospitals and medical facilities, farms, food markets and food storage buildings, factories, water treatment plants, schools and school busses, weddings, funerals, and even a rally of 100,000 in support of the Houthis. The UAE and the Saudis prevent Yemeni fishermen from fishing and have destroyed thousands of fishing boats. The UAE and Saudi Arabia have operated unmonitored torture facilities in Yemen in which an unknown number have perished.
The Coalition has used illegal, banned weaponry against civilians such as skin-melting white phosphorus. Despite holding international aid events to raise money for humanitarian aid for Yemen, Saudi Arabia blockades the food and humanitarian aid from land, sea and air — and has been documented stealing food that did reach Yemen. When Yemen suffered the worst cholera outbreak in history, the Coalition tried to block medicine. To ensure that Yemenis caught the COVID-19 virus, Saudis dropped what were believed to be infected masks on the most densely- populated Houthi areas and had infected people go to Yemen. Yemen’s health system collapsed.
Every two hours one Yemeni woman loses her life in labor because of the lack of obstetric help. (5)
The destruction of Yemen’s cultural heritage is reminiscent of the US destruction and theft of Iraq’s antiquities. Despite UNESCO providing the Coalition with the coordinates of the World Heritage Sites, these sites — often remote– were bombed, as well as major Yemeni museums. There has been a lively market for Yemen’s antiquities, which have been appearing in auction houses and museums, with Judaica particularly popular in Israel.
Sabotaging peace
Because the purpose of the Coalition’s attack on Yemen is to ensure a western puppet government, the Coalition has sabotaged all peace initiatives that would have included the Houthis in future governments. The Houthis were blamed in 2018 for not attending peace talks in Geneva: the Saudis, who controlled the airspace, would not allow them to attend! The Dec. 2018 Stockholm peace agreement on Houdaydah between the Houthis and the Coalition was not implemented despite the Houthis immediate compliance. The UN claimed the wording was too fuzzy to actually enforce.
Media misrepresentation
The Coalition claims that its war on Yemen’s Houthis is actually a “proxy” war with Iran, which, it claims, controls the Houthis: a claim that both the Houthis and Iran deny. While Iran sympathizes with the Houthis, there has been no evidence of control. Leaked State Department cables show that the U.S. government was well aware that the Houthis are not controlled by Iran. (6) The claim of Iran’s control, even if it had been legitimate, could not justify the Coalition’s devastation of Yemen and its people because Iran has not threatened any country. Some articles on war crimes in Yemen describe the guilt of “both/all parties”, ignoring the fact that the Coalition has no moral right to attack Yemenis, who have been forced to defend themselves.
Despite the Houthi’s overwhelming popularity in Yemen, mainstream media presents only the Coalition’s position as legitimate. The Houthis are described as the “Iran-backed Houthis” or the “Houthi rebels” even though 60% of Yemen’s military forces supports them. The rejected president and government is described variously as “legitimate President Hadi”, “the internationally recognized government”, or “Yemen’s government”. In reality, Yemenis would not accept Hadi’s return because of his demand that Saudi Arabia bomb Yemen to reinstate him.In 2017, Yemenis convicted Hadi of treason and sentenced him, in absentia, to death; he is widely reviled.
Yemen’s voice has been largely silenced: almost 300 Yemeni reporters have been killed and 23 media outlets damaged since 2015. The most recent murder, award-winning RT and AFP photojournalist Nabil Hasan al-Quaety, was shot by unidentified gunmen leaving his home on June 4, 2020.
Coalition members want out: so why is it still attacking Yemen?
Pictures of starving children in Yemen’s ruins as well as the Houthis spirited defense finally shamed the Coalition’s western members. The British Parliament and the U.S. Congress both tried to extricate their governments’ involvement in the Coalition bypassing legislation that includes ending weapons sales to it.
The UAE announced in August, 2019, that it was finished with its role in the Coalition: it had what it wanted. Besides its 99-year lease on Socotra island, the UAE is expected to assume protectorate status of south Yemen if its STC party is successful in its secession attempts.
Saudi Arabia is in financial trouble and has long wanted a face-saving way to end its participation in the Coalition. It has not only paid $200 billion for weaponry and mercenaries, but it continues to cost Saudi Arabia over $53 million every day that it continues; it can no longer afford the bills and it has little to show for it. In May, 2020, it announced that it will no longer cover the Hadi government’s living expenses in Saudi Arabia.
Since the Coalition leaders want to end the war on Yemen, why is it continuing?
The answer came in award-winning journalist Vanessa Beeley’s March, 2020, interviews with Yemeni leaders. She was told the various ways in which the United Nations continues to betray the interests of Yemenis. While the UN praises Coalition leaders for pledged donations of $2 billion — at least 80% of which disappears or is skimmed off the top — the UN does not criticize the same leaders for their theft of $15 billion/year from Yemen’s oil and gas resources. The move of Yemen’s bank from Sana’a to Coalition-controlled Aden prevents Houthis from accessing bank services such as social assistance and paying for various kinds of aid.
The most stunning information came from Beeley’s interview with Yemen’s ambassador to Damascus, Naif Ahmed Al Qanes, who told her that that the initial coalition attack on Yemen started at dawn of March 25th, 2015 — the day that five Yemeni representatives, under the auspices of the UN and including Al Qanes, were to have met at noon to choose their new president. The timing of the attack ensured that the leaders of Yemen’s parties could not name a legitimate president or proceed with an independent government.
Al Qanes told her that only two Coalition leaders refuse to allow its war on Yemen to end: the United States and Israel, who will continue “until they get what they want”. (7)
The U.S. and Israel are forcing the Coalition to continue. To assign blame where it is due, the Coalition should now be referred to as the “US/Israel-led Coalition”.
Because of its hidden role in the Coalition, Israel has nothing to lose and everything to gain from the Coalition’s continuing attacks on Yemen. If Yemen’s independence movement is wiped out, Israel gains its base near Taizz as well as the silencing of a critical regional voice. In the meantime, Israel wants the supportive American military presence in the region.
Israel also has good reason to keep its role in Yemen hidden because it is responsible for the other “world humanitarian catastrophe” in Gaza. Israel is facing boycott, divestment and the threat of sanctions because of its treatment of the indigenous Palestinians: ethnic cleansing and apartheid in the occupied West Bank and East Jerusalem and in occupied Gaza, genocidal treatment as well as the theft of major gas resources off Gaza’s coast. Israel has blockaded food, fuel, medicine and other humanitarian aid since September, 2006, for two million incarcerated on land that a UN report declared too contaminated to support life. Israel’s ongoing attacks on Gazans since June, 2006, have killed thousands and demolished Gaza’s infrastructure.
Is Trump’s defiance of Congress for Israel’s agenda treasonous?
Trump won the presidency on a popular platform that included extricating the US from Middle East wars, and Congress has repeatedly passed legislation to end the American role in the Coalition. It cannot be clearer that Americans want to end the U.S. role in Yemen.
Congress has the right and the obligation to check the executive powers of the President when he oversteps them. President Trump appeared to overstep those rights when he fired the State Department Inspector General Steve Linick when he was about to publish a report criticizing Secretary of State Mike Pompeo‘s “emergency” lie to circumvent Congress’s ban on selling arms to the Coalition. Congress caught the Government sneaking further arms sales to the Coalition in June, 2020. Trump is defying Congress and the American public to satisfy Israel’s demand that the war on Yemen continue until the Houthis are defeated and Yemen has a puppet government.
Americans have been led to believe that the US and Israel share identical interests: they don’t. President Trump’s accommodation with Israel’s demand is not only destroying an innocent people fighting for independence, but it is damaging the Constitutional underpinnings of the American government.
*
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.
Karin Brothers is a freelance journalist. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.
“We are slipping back from the age of reason into the mire of mystery, into a world of gods and devils, ghouls and angels. The difference this time is that we have chosen ignorance over knowledge, vapidity over insight, folly over realism. Consequently, we only have ourselves to blame when the rich and powerful take advantage of us.” – Andrew Davenport
Introduction
Why do we need to talk about Romanticism? What is Romanticism? And how does it affect us in the 21st century? The fact is that we are so immersed in Romanticism now that we cannot see the proverbial wood for the haunted-looking trees. Romanticism has so saturated our culture that we need to stand back and remind ourselves what it is, and examine how it has seeped into our thinking processes to the extent that we are not even aware of its presence anymore. Or why this is a problem. The Romanticist influence of intense emotion makes up a large part of modern culture, for example, in much pop music, cinema, TV and literature, e.g. genres such as Superheroes, Fantasy, Horror, Magical realism, Saga, Westerns. I will look at the origins of Romanticism, and its negative influence on culture and politics. I will show how Enlightenment ideas originally emerged in opposition to an absolute monarchy and the fixed dogmas of the Church and led to the formation of a working class ideology and culture of resistance.
Romanticism and the modern world
“The whole exuberance, anarchy and violence of modern art … its unrestrained, unsparing exhibitionism, is derived from [Romanticism]. And this subjective, egocentric attitude has become so much a matter of course for us … that we find it impossible to reproduce even an abstract train of thought without talking about our own feelings.” Arnold Hauser
Romanticism arose out of the Enlightenment in the eighteenth century as a reaction to what was perceived as a rationalisation of life to the point of being anti-nature. The Romantics were against the Industrial Revolution, universalism and empiricism, emphasising instead heroic individualists and artists, and the individual imagination as a critical authority rather than classical ideals.
The Enlightenment itself had developed from the earlier Renaissance with a renewed interest in the classical traditions and ideals of harmony, symmetry, and order based on reason and science. On a political level the Enlightenment promoted republicanism in opposition to monarchy which ultimately led to the French revolution.
The worried conservatives of the time reacted to the ideas of the Enlightenment and reason with a philosophy which was based on religious ideas and glorified the past (especially Medieval times and the ‘Golden Age’) – times when things were not so threatening to elites. This philosophy became known as Romanticism and emphasised medieval ideas and society over the new ideas of democracy, capitalism and science.
Romanticism originated in Europe towards the end of the 18th century, and in most areas was at its peak in the approximate period from 1800 to 1890. It was initially marked by innovations in both content and literary style and by a preoccupation with the subconscious, the mystical, and the supernatural. This period was followed by the development of cultural nationalism and a new attention to national origins, an interest in native folklore, folk ballads and poetry, folk dance and music, and even previously ignored medieval and Renaissance works.
The Romantic movement “emphasized intense emotion as an authentic source of aesthetic experience, placing new emphasis on such emotions as apprehension, horror and terror, and awe—especially that experienced in confronting the new aesthetic categories of the sublimity and beauty of nature.” The importance of the medieval lay in the pre-capitalist significance of its individual crafts and tradesmen, as well as its feudal peasants and serfs.
Thus Romanticism was a reaction to the birth of the modern world: urbanisation, secularisation, industrialisation, and consumerism. Romanticism emphasised intense emotion and feelings which over the centuries came to be seen as one of its most important characteristics, in opposition to ‘cold’, ‘unfeeling’ Enlightenment rationalism.
Origins of Enlightenment emotion
“Whence this secret Chain between each Person and Mankind? How is my Interest connected with the most distant Parts of it?” – Francis Hutcheson (1694–1746)
However, this ‘cold’, ‘unfeeling’ scenario is actually very far from the truth. In fact, the Enlightenment itself had its origins in emotion. Enlightenment philosophers of the eighteenth century tried to create a philosophy of feeling that would allow them to solve the problem of the injustice in the unfeeling world they saw all around them.
Anthony Ashley Cooper, 3rd Earl of Shaftesbury (1671 – 1713) believed that all human beings had a ‘natural affection’ or natural sociability which bound them together, Francis Hutcheson (1694 – 1746) wrote that “All Men have the same Affections and Senses”, while David Hume (1711 – 1776) believed that human beings extend their “imaginative identification with the feelings of others” when it is required. Similarly, Adam Smith (1723 – 1790), the writer of Wealth of Nations, believed in the power of the imagination to inform us and help us understand the suffering of others. [1]
Image on the right: Portrait of Denis Diderot (1713-1784), by Louis-Michel van Loo, 1767
For the Enlightenment philosophers the relationship between feeling and reason was of absolute importance. To develop ideas that would progress society for the better, a sense of morality was essential. Denis Diderot (1713–1784) a prominent French philosopher of the Enlightenment in France, for example, had strong views on the importance of the passions. As Henry Martyn Lloyd writes:
“Diderot did believe in the utility of reason in the pursuit of truth – but he had an acute enthusiasm for the passions, particularly when it came to morality and aesthetics. With many of the key figures in the Scottish Enlightenment, such as David Hume, he believed that morality was grounded in sense-experience. Ethical judgment was closely aligned with, even indistinguishable from, aesthetic judgments, he claimed. We judge the beauty of a painting, a landscape or our lover’s face just as we judge the morality of a character in a novel, a play or our own lives – that is, we judge the good and the beautiful directly and without the need of reason. For Diderot, then, eliminating the passions could produce only an abomination. A person without the ability to be affected, either because of the absence of passions or the absence of senses, would be morally monstrous.”
Moreover, to remove the passions from science would lead to inhuman approaches and methods that would divert and alienate science from its ultimate goal of serving humanity, as Lloyd writes:
“That the Enlightenment celebrated sensibility and feeling didn’t entail a rejection of science, however. Quite the opposite: the most sensitive individual – the person with the greatest sensibility – was considered to be the most acute observer of nature. The archetypical example here was a doctor, attuned to the bodily rhythms of patients and their particular symptoms. Instead, it was the speculative system-builder who was the enemy of scientific progress – the Cartesian physician who saw the body as a mere machine, or those who learned medicine by reading Aristotle but not by observing the ill. So the philosophical suspicion of reason was not a rejection of rationality per se; it was only a rejection of reason in isolation from the senses, and alienated from the impassioned body.”
Michael L. Frazer describes the importance of Enlightenment justice and sympathy in his book The Enlightenment of Sympathy. He writes:
“Reflective sentimentalists recognize our commitment to justice as an outgrowth of our sympathy for others. After our sympathetic sentiments undergo reflective self-correction, the sympathy that emerges for all those who suffer injustice poses no insult to those for whom it is felt. We do not see their suffering as mere pain to be soothed away when and if we happen to share it. Instead under Hume’s account, we condemn injustice as a violation of rules that are vitally important to us all. And under Smith’s account, we condemn the sufferings of the victims of injustice as injustice because we sympathetically share the resentment that they feel toward their oppressors, endorsing such feelings as warranted and acknowledging those who feel them deserve better treatment.” [2]
Cooper, Hume and Smith were living in times, not only devoid of empathy, but also even of basic sympathy. Robert C. Solomon writes of society then in A Passion for Justice: “There have always been the very rich. And of course there have always been the very poor. But even as late as the civilized and sentimental eighteenth century, this disparity was not yet a cause for public embarrassment or a cry of injustice. […] Poverty was considered just one more “act of God,” impervious to any solution except mollification through individual charity and government poorhouses to keep the poor off the streets and away from crime.” [3]
Enlightenment emotion eventually gave rise to social trends that emphasised humanism and the heightened value of human life. These trends had their complement in art, creating what became known as the ‘sentimental novel’. While today sentimentalism evokes maudlin self-pity, in the eighteenth century it was revolutionary as sentimental literature
“focused on weaker members of society, such as orphans and condemned criminals, and allowed readers to identify and sympathize with them. This translated to growing sentimentalism within society, and led to social movements calling for change, such as the abolition of the death penalty and of slavery. Instead of the death penalty, popular sentiment called for the rehabilitation of criminals, rather than harsh punishment. Frederick Douglass himself was inspired to stand against his own bondage and slavery in general in his famous Narrative by the speech by the sentimentalist playwright Sheridan in The Columbian Orator detailing a fictional dialogue between a master and slave.”
As Solomon notes:
“What distinguishes us not just from animals but from machines are our passions, and foremost among them our passion for justice. Justice is, in a word, that set of passions, not mere theories, that bind us and make us part of the social world.”[4]
Writers such as the Scottish author Henry Mackenzie tried to highlight many things that he perceived were wrong during his time and showed how many of the wrongs were ultimately caused by the established pillars of society. In his book, The Man of Feeling, he has no qualms about showing how these pillars of society had, for example, abused an intelligent woman causing her to become a prostitute (p44/45), destroyed a school because it blocked the landowner’s view (p72), and hired assassins to remove a man who had refused to hand over his wife (p91), etc. [5] Mackenzie shows again and again the injustices of British military and colonial policy, and who is responsible. As Marilyn Butler writes:
“Henry Mackenzie’s The Man of Feeling (1771), is pointedly topical when it criticizes the consequences of a war policy – press-ganging, conscription, the military punishment of flogging, and inadequate pensions – and when, like the same author’s Julia de Roubigné (1777), it attacks the principle of colonialism. An interest in such causes was the logical outcome of art’s frequently reiterated dedication to humanity. It was a period when the cast of villains was drawn from the proud men representing authority, downwards from the House of Lords, the bench of bishops, judges, local magistrates, attorneys, to the stern father; when readers were invited to empathize with life’s victims”. [6]
It took a long time for the ideas of sentimentalism (emotions against injustice) to filter down to the Realism (using facts to depict ordinary everyday experiences) that Dickens used in the nineteenth century to finally evoke some kind of empathy for people impoverished by society. As Solomon notes: “It wasn’t until the late nineteenth century that Dickens shook the conscience of his compatriots with his riveting descriptions of poverty and cruelty in contemporary London, […] that the problem of poverty and resistance to its solutions [e.g. poorhouses] has become the central question of justice.” [7]
Dickens’s Dream by Robert William Buss, portraying Dickens at his desk at Gads Hill Place surrounded by many of his characters
European literary sentimentalism arose during the Enlightenment, and partly as a response to sentimentalism in philosophy. In England the period 1750–1798 became known as the Age of Sensibility as the sentimental novel or the novel of sensibility became popular.
Romanticist emotionalism: the opposite of Enlightenment sentimentalism
“Classicism is health, romanticism is sickness.” – Johann Wolfgang Von Goethe (1749-1832)
However, sensibility in an Enlightenment sense was very different from the Romanticist understanding, as Butler notes: “It is, in fact, in a key respect almost the opposite of Romanticism. Sensibility, like its near-synonym sentiment, echoes eighteenth-century philosophy and psychology in focusing upon the mental process by which impressions are received by the senses. But the sentimental writer’s interest in how the mind works and in how people behave is very different from the Romantic writer’s inwardness.” [8]
She writes that ‘neither Neoclassical theory nor contemporary practice in various styles and genres put much emphasis on the individuality of the artist’ (p29). This is a far cry from the apolitical, inward-looking, self-centered Romantic artists who saw themselves outside of a society that they had little interest in participating in, let alone changing for the better. Butler again:
“Romantic rebelliousness is more outrageous and total, the individual rejecting not just his own society but the very principle of living in society – which means that the Romantic and post Romantic often dismisses political activity of any kind, as external to the self, literal and commonplace. Since it is relatively uncommon for the eighteenth-century artist to complain directly on his own behalf, he seldom achieves such emotional force as his nineteenth-century successor. He is, on the other hand, much more inclined than the Romantic to express sympathy for certain, well-defined social groups. Humanitarian feeling for the real-life underdog is a strong vein from the 1760s to the 1790s, often echoing real-life campaigns for reform.” [9]
This movement over time towards the Romanticist inward-looking conception of emotion and feelings has had knock-on negative effects on society’s ability to defend itself from elite oppression (through cultural styles of self-absorption, escapism and diversion rather than exposure, criticism and resistance), and retarded ‘art’s frequently reiterated dedication to humanity’. Solomon describes this process:
“What has come about in the past two centuries or so is the dramatic rise of what Robert Stone has called “affective individualism,” this new celebration of the passions and other feelings of the autonomous individual. Yet, ironically, it is an attitude that has become even further removed from our sense of justice during that same period of time. We seem to have more inner feelings and pay more attention to them, but we seem to have fewer feelings about others and the state of the world and pay less attention to them.”[10]
Thus while Enlightenment sentimentalism “depicted individuals as social beings whose sensibility was stimulated and defined by their interactions with others”, the Romantic movement that followed it “tended to privilege individual autonomy and subjectivity over sociability”.
Romanticism as a philosophical movement of the nineteenth century had a profound influence on culture which can still be seen right up to today. Its main characteristics are the emphasis on the personal, dramatic contrasts, emotional excess, a focus on the nocturnal, the ghostly and the frightful, spontaneity, and extreme subjectivism. Romanticism in culture implies a turning inward and encourages introspection. Romantic literature put more emphasis on themes of isolation, loneliness, tragic events and the power of nature. A heroic view of history and myth became the basis of much Romantic literature.
Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, painted by Jean-Jacques-François Le Barbier
It was in Germany that Romanticism took shape as a political ideology. The German Romanticists felt threatened by the French Revolution and were forced to move from inward-looking ideas to formulate conservative political answers needed to oppose Enlightenment and republican ideals. According to Eugene N. Anderson:
“In the succeeding years the danger became acutely political, and the German Romanticists were compelled to subordinate their preoccupation with the widening of art and the enrichment of individual experience to social and political ideas and actions, particularly as formulated in nationalism and conservatism. These three cultural ideals, Romanticism, nationalism and conservatism, shared qualities evoked by the common situation of crisis. […] The Germans had to maintain against rationalism and the French a culture which in its institutional structure was that of the ancien régime. German Romanticism accepted it, wished to reform it somewhat, idealized it, and defended the idealization as the supreme culture of the world. This was the German counter-revolution. […] They endowed their culture with universal validity and asserted that it enjoyed the devotion of nature and God, that if it were destroyed humanity would be vitally wounded.” [11]
The reactionary nature of German Romanticism was demonstrated in its hierarchical views of society, its chauvinist nationalism, and extreme conservatism which would have serious implications for future generations of the German populace. As Anderson writes:
“The low estimate of rationalism and the exaltation of custom, tradition, and feeling, the conception of society as an alliance of the generations, the belief in the abiding character of ideas as contrasted with the ephemeral nature of concepts, these and many other romantic views bolstered up the existing culture. The concern with relations led the Romanticists to praise the hierarchical order of the Ständestaat and to regard everything and every-one as an intermediary. The acceptance of the fact of inequality harmonized with that of the ideals of service, duty, faithfulness, order, sacrifice – admirable traits for serf or subject or soldier.” [12]
Anderson also believes that the Romanticists remained swinging “between individual freedom and initiative and group compulsion and authority” and as such could not have brought in fundamental reforms, because: “By reverencing tradition, they preserved the power of the backward-looking royalty and aristocracy.” [13]
Thus Romanticist self-centredness in philosophy translated into the most conservative forms for maintaining the status quo in politics. Individual freedoms were matched by authoritarianism for the masses. The individual was king alright, as long as you weren’t a ‘serf or subject or soldier’.
Beyond morality: Working Class perspectives on Reason and Sentiment
“We have never intended to enlighten shoemakers and servants—this is up to apostles.” – Voltaire (1694–1778)
Around the same time of the early period of Romanticism, Karl Heinrich Marx (1818–1883) and Friedrich Engels (1820–1895) were born. They grew up in a very different Germany. Capitalism had become established and was creating an even more polarised society between extremely rich and extremely poor as factory owners pushed their workers to their physical limits. On his way to work at his father’s firm in Manchester, Engels called into the offices of a paper he wrote for in Cologne and met the editor, Marx, for the first time in 1842. They formed a friendship based on shared values and beliefs regarding the working class and socialist ideas. They saw a connection between the earlier Enlightenment ideas and socialism. For example, as Engels writes in Anti-Duhring: “in its theoretical form, modern socialism originally appears ostensibly as a more logical extension of the principles laid down by the great French philosophers of the eighteenth century. Like every new theory, modern socialism had, at first, to connect itself with the intellectual stock-in-trade ready to its hand, however deeply its roots lay in economic facts.” [14]
However, once they had connected themselves to the Enlightenment they soon saw the limitations of both Enlightenment concepts of reason and sentiment. They realised that the new bourgeois rulers would be limited by their conceptions of property, justice, and equality, which basically meant they only applied universality to themselves and their own property. The new rulers were buoyed up by the victory of their ideological fight over the aristocracy but incapable of applying the same ideas to the masses who helped them to victory. Thus Marx and Engels viewed the struggle for reason as important but limited to the new ruling class’ world view, just like the aristocracy before them:
“Every form of society and government then existing, every old traditional notion was flung into the lumber room as irrational; the world had hitherto allowed itself to be led solely by prejudices; everything in the past deserved only pity and contempt. Now, for the first time, appeared the light of day, henceforth superstition, injustice, privilege, oppression, were to be superseded by eternal truth, eternal Right, equality based on nature and the inalienable rights of man. We know today that this kingdom of reason was nothing more than the idealised kingdom of the bourgeoisie; that this eternal Right found its realisation in bourgeois justice; that this equality reduced itself to bourgeois equality before the law; that bourgeois property was proclaimed as one of the essential rights of man; and that the government of reason, the Contrat Social of Rousseau, came into being, and only could come into being, as a democratic bourgeois republic. The great thinkers of the eighteenth century could, no more than their predecessors, go beyond the limits imposed upon them by their epoch.” [15]
As for sentiment, they were well aware of the Realist critical nature of modern writers (the Realist movement rejected Romanticism) and indeed praised them (e.g. G. Sand, E. Sue, and Boz [Dickens]), but limited themselves to offering some advice. While recognising that progressive literature had a mainly middle class audience (and were happy enough with these authors just ‘shaking the optimism’ of their audience), they knew that this was not by any means a socialist literature and were well aware of sentimentalist limitations. Engels states:
“I think however that the purpose must become manifest from the situation and the action themselves without being expressly pointed out and that the author does not have to serve the reader on a platter — the future historical resolution of the social conflicts which he describes. To this must be added that under our conditions novels are mostly addressed to readers from bourgeois circles, i.e., circles which are not directly ours. Thus the socialist problem novel in my opinion fully carries out its mission if by a faithful portrayal of the real conditions it dispels the dominant conventional illusions concerning them, shakes the optimism of the bourgeois world, and inevitably instills doubt as to the eternal validity of that which exists, without itself offering a direct solution of the problem involved, even without at times ostensibly taking sides.” [16]
Sentimental literature focused on individual misfortune, and constant repetition of such themes certainly appeared to universalise such suffering, so that, as David Denby writes, “In this weeping mother, this suffering father, we are to read also the sufferings of humanity.” Thus, “individualism and universalism appear to be two sides of the same coin”. Sentimental literature gives the reader the ‘spectacle of misfortune’ and a representation of the reaction of a ‘sentient and sensible observer’ who tries to help with ‘alms, sympathy or indeed narrative intervention.’ Furthermore, the literature of sentiment “mirrors eighteenth-century theories of sympathy, in which a spontaneous reaction to the spectacle of suffering is gradually developed, by a process of generalisation and combination of ideas, into broader and more abstract notions of humanity, benevolence, justice.” [17]
Workers in the fuse factory, Woolwich Arsenal late 1800s
This brings us then to the problem of interpretation, as Denby suggests: “should the sentimental portrayal of the poor and of action in their favour be read as an attempt to give a voice to the voiceless, to include the hitherto excluded? Or, alternatively, is the sentimentalisation of the poor to be interpreted, more cynically, as a discursive strategy through which the enlightened bourgeoisie states its commitment to values of humanity and justice, and thereby seeks to strengthen its claims to universal domination?” [18]
While such ideas of giving a ‘voice to the voiceless’ was a far cry from monarchical times, and claims of commitment to humanity and justice were laudable, the concept of universality had a fundamental flaw: “The universal claims of the French Revolution are opposed to a [aristocratic] society based on distinctions of birth: it is in the name of humanity that the Revolution challenges the established order. But for Sartre this does not change the fact that the universal is a myth, an ideological construct, and an obfuscation, since it articulates a notion of man which eliminates social conflict and disguises the interests of a class behind a facade of universal reference.” [19]
Striking teamsters battling police on the streets of Minneapolis, Minnesota, June 1934
Thus for Marx and Engels defining concepts such as good and evil, right and wrong, virtue and vice, justice and crime, that is, a universal moral theory, could not be achieved while society is divided into classes:
“We maintain […] that all moral theories have been hitherto the product, in the last analysis, of the economic conditions of society obtaining at the time. And as society has hitherto moved in class antagonisms, morality has always been class morality; it has either justified the domination and the interests of the ruling class, or ever since the oppressed class became powerful enough, it has represented its indignation against this domination and the future interests of the oppressed. That in this process there has on the whole been progress in morality, as in all other branches of human knowledge, no one will doubt. But we have not yet passed beyond class morality. A really human morality which stands above class antagonisms and above any recollection of them becomes possible only at a stage of society which has not only overcome class antagonisms but has even forgotten them in practical life.”
Marx and Engels worked towards that morality through their activism with working class movements and culture. Their critical writing also formed an essential part of working class ideology and culture of resistance and has remained influential in resistance movements the world over.
The culture of resistance today still uses realism, documentary, and histories of oppression to show the harsh realities of globalisation. Like during the Enlightenment, empathy for those suffering injustice forms its foundation. And unlike Romanticism, reason and science are deemed to be important tools in its struggle for social emancipation and progress.
Conclusion: Enlightenment and Romanticism today
“When we are asked now: are we now living into an enlightened age? Then the answer is: No, but in an age of Enlightenment.”– Immanuel Kant (1724-1804)
There is no doubt that the influence of Romanticism has become ever stronger in twentieth and twenty-first century culture. Romanticist-influenced TV shows on Netflix are watched world wide. Love songs dominate the pop industry and superheroes are now the mainstay of cinema. Even Romanticist nationalism is making a comeback. Now and then calls for a new Enlightenment are heard, but like the original advocates of the Enlightenment, they are limited to the conservative world view of those making the call and whose view of the Enlightenment could be compared to a form of Third Way politics, that is, they avoid the issue of class conflict.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Caoimhghin Ó Croidheáin is an Irish artist, lecturer and writer. His artwork consists of paintings based on contemporary geopolitical themes as well as Irish history and cityscapes of Dublin. His blog of critical writing based on cinema, art and politics along with research on a database of Realist and Social Realist art from around the world can be viewed country by country here. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization.
Notes
[1] Anthony Pagden, The Enlightenment: And Why it Still Matters (Oxford Uni Press, 2015) p72/73
[2] Michael L Frazer, The Enlightenment of Sympathy: Justice and the Moral Sentiments in the Eighteenth Century and Today (Oxford Uni Press, 2010)p126/127
[3] Robert C Solomon, A Passion for Justice: Emotions and the Origins of the Social Contract (Rowman and Littlefield Pub., 1995) p13
[4] Robert C Solomon, A Passion for Justice: Emotions and the Origins of the Social Contract (Rowman and Littlefield Pub., 1995) p45
[5] Henry Mackenzie, The Man of Feeling ( Oxford World’s Classics Oxford Uni Press, 2009)
[6] Marilyn Butler, Romantics, Rebels and Reactionaries: English Literature and its Background 1760-1830(Oxford Uni Press, 1981) p31
[7] Robert C Solomon, A Passion for Justice: Emotions and the Origins of the Social Contract (Rowman and Littlefield Pub., 1995) p13
[8] Marilyn Butler, Romantics, Rebels and Reactionaries: English Literature and its Background 1760-1830(Oxford Uni Press, 1981) p29/30
[9] Marilyn Butler, Romantics, Rebels and Reactionaries: English Literature and its Background 1760-1830(Oxford Uni Press, 1981) p30/31
[10] Robert C Solomon, A Passion for Justice: Emotions and the Origins of the Social Contract (Rowman and Littlefield Pub., 1995) p37
[11] Eugene N. Anderson, German Romanticism as an Ideology of Cultural Crisis, p301-312. Source: Journal of the History of Ideas , Jun., 1941, Vol. 2, No. 3 (Jun., 1941), pp. 301-317. Published by: University of Pennsylvania Press. Stable URL: http://www.jstor.com/stable/2707133
[12] Eugene N. Anderson, German Romanticism as an Ideology of Cultural Crisis, p313/314 Source: Journal of the History of Ideas , Jun., 1941, Vol. 2, No. 3 (Jun., 1941), pp. 301-317. Published by: University of Pennsylvania Press. Stable URL: http://www.jstor.com/stable/2707133
[13] Eugene N. Anderson, German Romanticism as an Ideology of Cultural Crisis. p316. Source: Journal of the History of Ideas , Jun., 1941, Vol. 2, No. 3 (Jun., 1941), pp. 301-317. Published by: University of Pennsylvania Press. Stable URL: http://www.jstor.com/stable/2707133
[14] Marx and Engels, On Literature and Art (Progress Publishers: Moscow, 1978) p270
[15] Marx and Engels, On Literature and Art (Progress Publishers: Moscow, 1978) p271
[16] Marx and Engels, On Literature and Art (Progress Publishers: Moscow, 1978) p88
[17] David J. Denby, Individual, universal, national: a French revolutionary trilogy? (Studies of Voltaire and the Eighteenth Century, 335, Voltaire Foundation, 1996) p28/29
[18] David J. Denby Sentimental Narrative and the Social Order in France, 1760–1820 (Cambridge Studies in French, 1994) p117
[19] David J. Denby, Individual, universal, national: a French revolutionary trilogy? (Studies of Voltaire and the Eighteenth Century, 335, Voltaire Foundation, 1996) p27
Featured image: Satire on Romantic Suicide (1839) by Leonardo Alenza y Nieto (1807–1845)
Facebook has removed a video posted by Breitbart News earlier today, which was the top-performing Facebook post in the world Monday afternoon, of a press conference in D.C. held by the group America’s Frontline Doctors and organized and sponsored by the Tea Party Patriots.
The press conference featured Rep. Ralph Norman (R-SC) and frontline doctors sharing their views and opinions on coronavirus and the medical response to the pandemic. YouTube (which is owned by Google) and Twitter subsequently removed footage of the press conference as well.
The video accumulated over 17 million views during the eight hours it was hosted on Facebook, with over 185,000 concurrent viewers.
The livestream had accumulated over 17 million views by the time of its censorship by Facebook.
In terms of viral velocity, the post was beating content from many other prominent accounts on Facebook today, including Hillary Clinton, Rev. Franklin Graham, and Kim Kardashian.
Over 185,000 viewers were concurrently watching the stream when it aired live Monday afternoon.
The event, hosted by the organization America’s Frontline Doctors, a group founded by Dr. Simone Gold, a board-certified physician and attorney, and made up of medical doctors, came together to address what the group calls a “massive disinformation campaign” about the coronavirus. Norman also spoke at the event.
“If Americans continue to let so-called experts and media personalities make their decisions, the great American experiment of a Constitutional Republic with Representative Democracy, will cease,” reads the event’s information page.
The event was organized and sponsored by the Tea Party Patriots.
“We’ve removed this video for sharing false information about cures and treatments for COVID-19,” a Facebook company spokesman, Andy Stone, told Breitbart News. The company did not specify what portion of the video it ruled to be “false information,” who it consulted to make that ruling, and on what basis it was made.
Stone replied to New York Times tech columnist Kevin Roose on Twitter regarding the video:
Interestingly, the fact that a news org posted this video may be why it's still up on FB. (Breitbart could claim it was just covering a newsworthy press conference, not promoting the views of the doctors.)
Stone then added that the platform would direct users who had interacted with the post to information on “myths debunked by the WHO.”
As Mark recently wrote about newsworthiness: "A handful of times a year, we leave up content that would otherwise violate our policies if the public interest value outweighs the risk of harm." It being from a publisher has zero to do with it."
Facebook’s decision to censor the livestream was quickly followed by YouTube, the Google-owned video-sharing platform. The video had over 80,000 views on YouTube prior to its removal.
Following Facebook and YouTube’s removal of the video, Twitter followed suit, removing Breitbart News’s Periscope livestream of the press conference. Jack Dorsey’s platform also then limited the Breitbart News official account, indicating that tweets containing links to multiple stories about the press conference violate the platform’s COVID-19 policies.
Twitter limits Breitbart News account
*
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 million doses of HCQ are being sent by the Trump Administration to Brazil to help medical workers there safeguard themselves against the spread of the virus. But at the same time the FDA continues to block Americans’ access to this medication.
More than 150 million doses have been donated to the strategic national stockpile controlled by the federal government, but unjustified FDA restrictions limit its use to only hospitalized patients for whom a clinical study is unavailable. Hospitals are even returning HCQ to the stockpile because they are not able to use it effectively.
“It is shocking that medical workers in Brazil will have access to HCQ as a prophylaxis while Americans are blocked by the FDA from accessing the same medication for the same use,” observes AAPS Executive Director Jane Orient, M.D.
“There is no legal or factual basis for the FDA to limit use of HCQ,” states AAPS General Counsel Andrew Schlafly. “The FDA’s restrictions on HCQ for Americans are completely indefensible in court.”
Many foreign nations, including China, India, South Korea, Costa Rica, United Arab Emirates, and Turkey, use HCQ for early treatment and prevention of COVID-19, AAPS points out.
“Entrenched, politically biased officials at the FDA should not be allowed to interfere with Americans’ right to access medication donated to the federal government for public use,” Schlafly says. “By preventing Americans’ use of HCQ as a prophylaxis, the FDA is infringing on First Amendment rights to attend religious services or participate in political events such as political conventions, town halls, and rallies in an important election year.”
“FDA Commissioner Stephen Hahn states that the FDA does not interfere with physicians’ ability to prescribe HCQ, and yet at the same time the FDA denies access by millions of Americans to 150 million doses of it in the national stockpile,” Schlafly adds. “This irrational hoarding by government is an abuse of 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.
The American people are under attack, the country is under attack, and democracy is under attack. At present, the enemy is conducting a three-pronged assault on the presidency the objective of which is to remove the existing administration and install their own sock-puppet replacement. This has been the goal from the very beginning although the great swirl of events has confused many as to the true nature of what is actually taking place. What we are seeing is a dirty tricks campaign (Russiagate) inflated into a full-blown, scorched earth, winner-take-all assault on the presidency.
Ostensibly, the target of the attack is Donald Trump, the brash New York real estate tycoon who was swept into office in November 2016. The real target, however, is the office itself, the universally-recognized “seat of power” which the enemy believes should remain under the control of the people who own the country. These are the ruthless oligarchs whose octopus-like tentacles are wrapped around Wall Street, the MSM, the courts, the Congress, the Democratic Party, and powerful elements within the National Security State. They own it all and they have no intention of putting it up for grabs by honoring the results of an arbitrary and scattershot election that failed to produce the outcome they sought.
Once again, this isn’t about Trump, it’s about the unscrupulous people behind the scenes who have secretly worked the levers of power for the last 4 years in order to roll back the 2016 elections and install the candidate of their own choice. If the new revelations about Obama’s involvement in the spying operation aimed at removing Trump from office have not yet convinced you that senior-level officials (in the administration, the FBI, the CIA, the NSA, the DOJ, the DNC and MSM) were all actively engaged in a coup on the elected government, then you should probably stop reading this article now and put your head back in the sand where it belongs. This is for the people who know how to pick through the disinformation and figure out, in broad terms, what is actually going on. And what’s going on is a cold-blooded, take-no-prisoners power struggle, pure and simple.
The Confluence of Destabilizing Crises; Coincidence or Calculated Treachery?
At present, the country is beset by multiple crises: A public health crisis (Covid-19), an economic crisis (Ballooning unemployment and impending Depression), and widespread social unrest. All of these crises are real but–at the same time– all of them are clearly being manipulated for political advantage. The presidency is just one of many targets in this vast operation, in fact, the entire society is being leveled and made-over before our very eyes. Every institution down to public education and the nature of work itself is being challenged, revised and callously savaged. Our history, our icons, our heroes, our customs and our traditions are all under fire. We’re no longer one people sharing a mutual culture, background and ideology, but contemptable slave traders and racists undeserving of basic security, undeserving of respect, and undeserving of even our own account of how the country was formed, who assisted in its creation, and upon which principles the state was built. All of that is now being wiped clean, erased by faceless group of scheming elites who operate behind the smokescreen of media propaganda, political chicanery and, now, a “racial justice” movement.
Do you believe as I do that most of these crises will miraculously vanish just hours if not days after the November balloting? Suddenly a life-saving vaccine will appear from the ether, the legions of BLM activists will decide to pack it in and go home, and the economy will magically rebound when the Dems take office promising another round of grueling austerity followed by lavish handouts to Wall Street. Is that too cynical or are our rulers really devious enough to concoct such a plan?
That question would be better put to the tens of thousands of victims of US barbarism around the world. They’re the ones who understand the lengths to which these mercenary puppet-masters will go to tighten their grip on power to ensure that US multinationals continue to rake in obscene profits. As Harold Pinter opined in 2005 in his Nobel acceptance speech:
“The crimes of the United States have been systematic, constant, vicious, remorseless, but very few people have actually talked about them. You have to hand it to America. It has exercised a quite clinical manipulation of power worldwide while masquerading as a force for universal good. It’s a brilliant, even witty, highly successful act of hypnosis.”
Only it’s not so witty when the weapons are turned on Americans themselves and we suddenly find our own tenuous existence in the globalist crosshairs. No one really expected that, but then, here we are.
Have you watched the escalating street violence in Seattle and Portland? Have you wondered why the police have stood down while black-hooded thugs destroy public property, topple monuments and launch attacks on police precinct headquarters? Have you wondered why the mayor and media continue to applaud the hooliganism and downplay the vast destruction to public and private property? Is this really about George Floyd, police brutality and racial justice or is this a premeditated insurrection executed by DNC shock troops aimed at destabilizing the country in order to get rid of Trump and usher in an authoritarian police-state?
Who is served by BLM-generated violence and destruction? Who benefits from Antifa? A comment by an anonymous reader at The Unz Review summed it up pretty well. He said:
“Antifa is supported by the State. FBI and CIA have long term contacts with them and they are allowed to operate as a street militia for Neoliberalism against people the State actually hates. The plan was to cause a civilian massacre to be used against Trump, so far that has not panned out.
It is a joke. Antifa could be rolled up in days if the State turned against them. Antifa operates with impunity on social media and chat servers because the FBI views them as friendlies. This could change if Antifa ever did anything against the System, but for now they are the attack dog of the Deep State.”
There’s no doubt that the government knows who these troublemakers are. There’s also no doubt that the riots and looting are part of a political agenda aimed at spreading chaos and racial violence far and wide in order to convince the weary public that the country is rapidly devolving into an ungovernable free-fire zone. Of course, the danger for the Democrats is that they might overshoot their goal and persuade voters that they’re stealthily spearheading the nation’s descent into mayhem. And that’s where the media comes in, it’s their job to shape the narrative by removing the Dems fingerprints from the murder weapon. So far, the strategy appears to be working.
In short, the widening social unrest is not a spontaneous eruption of pent-up indignation over the treatment of blacks in America. It’s part of a sinister political ploy to beat Trump and to discredit his mainly-white, working class supporters from the de-industrialized American heartland that have been pummeled by the Democrats immigration and free trade policies for the last 30 years, and who now represent the biggest obstacle to the globalist plan to reduce the economy to rubble, rewrite the nation’s history, and reassemble the state so that balanced budgets and the free movement of Capital are adopted as the government’s primary organizing principles. In other words, elites are prosecuting a war on America to pave the way to Capitalist Valhalla, the majestic temple of the insatiable Monopolists.
This also explains why the Dems are not emphasizing inclusion or assimilation in their cynical analysis of the BLM phenom. It’s because the Dems don’t want inclusion or assimilation, they want to use “identity” and “diversity” as truncheons to batter their nationalist opponents, that is, the working class people who used to vote Democrat but switched sides when they realized that the party would no longer give them even tables scraps for their support. Keep in mind, nationalism or patriotism (whatever you choose to call it.) is the arch enemy of globalism which envisions a borderless world in which multinationals dominate and Capital flows unobstructed to any potential source of profit or investment around the planet. A recent post by Paul Craig Roberts helps to clarify the conflict between “assimilation and diversity”. Here’s what he said:
“Multiculturalism might have worked in America if the emphasis had stayed on assimilation and had not been intentionally shifted to diversity.…It was the white liberals who destroyed the prospects of multiculturalism by teaching blacks to hate whites for oppressing them. And it was the global corporations that dismantled the ladders of upward mobility….
Multiculturalism can work if there are no strains and no animosities, but when strains and animosities are intentionally created, there is no prospect of successful multiculturalism. Antifa, Black Lives Matter, the white liberal media, and the white liberal Democrats and professors are furiously at work making certain that multiculturalism in America fails. This means, obviously, that the America that they hate will also fail.” (“White Liberals Have Destroyed the Prospects of US Multiculturalism”, Paul Craig Roberts)
He’s right, isn’t he? And he’s also right to suggest that the Democrats are fueling racial animosities. They’re not feeding these polarizing feelings because they intend to improve black lives through better education, universal health care, higher-paying jobs, or basic security. Oh no, in fact they won’t even talk about these things. It’s like they don’t even exist. Instead, BLM, Covid-19 and the sinking economy are being used to obliterate Trump’s prospects for victory and prepare the American people for the shocking economic reckoning that will take place soon afterwards. It’s all part of the Great Reset, an elitist scheme to restructure the economy so more wealth flows upward to the parasite class.
The Covid-19 Scamdemic is an even more vile component of the 3-pronged offensive. The “fairly mild” infection (that kills between 1 in every 200 to 1 in every 1,000) has been greatly exaggerated by the media to scare the public, undermine normal relations, prevent physical intimacies, and inflict maximum damage of the fragile psyches of millions of people worldwide. It’s a terror campaign aimed at isolating people so they become more fearful, more dependent, and more easily controlled by the monsters who concocted this pernicious psyops. Check out this excerpt from an article by Russ Bangs at the Off-Guardian:
“Western civilization, led by the US government and media, has embarked upon a campaign of mass psychological terrorism designed to cover for the collapsing economy, set up a new pretext for Wall Street’s ongoing plunder expedition, radically escalate the police state, deeply traumatize people into submission to total social conformity, and radically aggravate the anti-social, anti-human atomization of the people…..
So far, the people are submitting completely to a (Covid-19) terror campaign dedicated to the total eradication of whatever community was left in the world, and especially whatever community was starting to be rebuilt…Any kind of human relations, from personal friendship and romance to friendly social gatherings and clubs to social and cultural movements become impossible under such circumstances. This threatens to be the end of the very concept of shared humanity..…As Hannah Arendt said in The Origins of Totalitarianism:
‘It has frequently been observed that terror can rule absolutely only over people who are isolated against each other and that therefore one of the primary concerns of tyrannical government is to bring this isolation about. Isolation may be the beginning of terror; it certainly is its most fertile ground; it always is its result…. isolated people are powerless by definition.” (“The Ultimate Divide and Conquer“, The Off-Guardian)
Indeed, the goal of Covid conditioning is to create a population of frightened, compliant and powerless people willing to do whatever wretched task is asked of them for skimpy sweatshop wages. It’s all about money and power.
We believe that the American people and their institutions are under attack and that Covd-19, BLM, and the planned demolition of the economy are part of a 3-pronged offensive designed to splinter the country, rewrite its history, enslave its people, and set the stage for an alternate system in which the bulk of the nation’s wealth will be controlled by a handful of power-mad Mandarins who will stop at nothing to achieve their ambitions.
It will take a colossal effort to scupper the plan.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
This article was originally published on The Unz Review.
Mike Whitney is a frequent contributor to Global Research.
The book of hours on Julian Assange is now being written. But the scribes are far from original. Repeated rituals of administrative hearings that have no common purpose other than to string things out before the axe are being enacted. Of late, the man most commonly associated with WikiLeaks’ publication project cannot participate in any meaningful way, largely because of his frail health and the dangers posed to him by the coronavirus. Having already made an effort to attend court proceedings in person, Assange has come across as judicial exotica, freak show fodder for Judge Vanessa Baraitser’s harsh version of Judge Judy. He was refused an application to escape his glass commode when he could still attend in person, as permitting him to descend and consult his defence team in a court room would constitute a bail application of some risk. This reading by the judicial head was so innovative it even puzzled the prosecutors.
What we know to date is that restrictions and shackles on Assange’s case are the order of the day. Restricted processes that do nothing to enable him to see counsel and enable a good brief to be exercised are typical. Most of all, the ceremonial circus that we have come to expect of British justice in the menacing shadow of US intimidation has become gloomily extensive. On July 27, that circus was given yet another act, another limping performance. As before, the venue was the Westminster Magistrates’ Court in London.
During the proceeding, Assange did appear via video link from Belmarsh Prison, albeit it an hour late, and only at the insistence of his legal team. The Guardian report on his presence reads like an account of a sporting engagement. “Wearing a beige sweater and a pink shirt, Assange eventually appeared from Belmarsh prison after an earlier attempt was aborted.”
Others were alarmed. During his call-over hearing, noted Martin Silk of the Australian Associated Press, “neither the Australian, nor his guards, were wearing face masks. I don’t understand the reason for that given we have to wear them inside shops.” This point was also made by Assange’s partner, Stella Moris: “Belmarsh hasn’t provided Julian with a face mask throughout this #covid crisis. The prison guards he interacts with don’t wear them either.” WikiLeaks supporter Juan Passarelli also felt that Assange “was having trouble following the proceedings due to the Judge and lawyers not speaking loud enough and into the microphones.”
Arrangements for the hearing for observers proved characteristically sloppy. Freelance journalist Stefania Maurizi was unimpressed by being on the phone for two hours during which she “couldn’t understand more than 20 percent of what has been discussed.” She was adamant that “UK authorities don’t care at all about international reporters covering” the Assange proceedings. “Dial in system is, as usual,” agreed Passarelli, “a shambles!”
The topic of discussion during this administrative hearing was what was announced by the US Department of Justice on June 24, namely the second superseding indictment. That document proved to be a naked exercise of political overreach, adding no further charges to the already heavy complement of eighteen, seventeen of which centre on the US Espionage Act. The scope of interest, however, was widened, notably on the issue of “hacking” and conferencing. Assange is painted as devilish recruiter and saboteur of the international secret order, a man of the conference circuit keen to open up clandestine governments and make various reasons for doing so. “According to the charging document, Assange and others at WikiLeaks recruited and agreed with hackers to commit computer intrusions to benefit WikiLeaks.”
Edward Fitzgerald QC, in representing Assange, fulfilled his norm, submitting that the recently revised document did little to inspire confidence in the nature of clarified justice. “We are concerned about a fresh request being made at this stage with the potential consequences of derailing proceedings and that the US attorney-general is doing this for political reasons.” Fitzgerald reminded the court that US President Donald Trump had “described the defence case as a plot by the Democrats.”
This should have been obvious, but Baraitser’s court would have none of it. To admit at this point that Assange is wanted for political reasons would make it that much harder to extradite him to the United States, given that bar noted in the US-UK Extradition Treaty. Whilst it was good of Fitzgerald to make this point, he should know by now that his audience is resolutely constipated and indifferent to such prodding. Assange is to be given the sharpest, rather than the most balanced, of hearings. Accordingly, Baraitser insisted that Fitzgerald “reserve his comments” – she, in the true tradition of such processes, had not been supplied, as yet, with the US indictment. This made the entire presence of all the parties at the Westminster Magistrates’ not merely meaningless but decidedly absurd.
Assange’s defence team could draw some cold comfort from Baraitser’s comments that July 27 was the deadline for any further evidence to be adduced by the prosecution before the September extradition hearing. One exception was permitted: psychiatric reports.
The current chief publisher of WikiLeaks Kristinn Hrafnsson had a few choice words for the prosecutors of Wikileaks. “All the alleged events have been known to the prosecution for years. It contains no new charges. What’s really happening here is that despite its decade start the prosecution are still unable to build a coherent case.” The scrapping of the previous indictments suggested that they were “flagrantly disregarding proper process.”
Assange is facing one of the most disturbing confections put together by any state that claims itself to be free. Should this stratagem work, the publisher will find himself facing the legal proceedings of a country that boasts of having a free press amendment but is keen on excluding him from it. What is even more troubling is the desire to expand the tent of culpability, one that will include press outlets and those who disseminate classified information.
To the next circus instalment we go: a final call-over hearing in Westminster Magistrates’ Court on August 14, then the September 7 extradition hearing, to be held at the Central Criminal Court most of us know as the Old Bailey. Will justice prove blind, or merely blinded?
*
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]
Fast advances in brain science, supported by government’s fundings of billions of dollars and euros, resulted since the begining of the 21st century in the birth of a new branch of science – neuroetics. In publications on this topic are engaged scientists, who are familiar with the advances in brain research and realize the risks which those advances mean for the life of society. James Girodano, a Georgetown University professor and the employee of the American research agency for advanced military technologies DARPA proposed in the article in the magazine Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists that the U.S. Government should monitor brain research around the world in order to prevent the development of neuroweapons.
As well he stated that the U.S. Government and its allies should “support efforts to improve the Biological Weapons Convention to account for neuroweapons threats“. At the end of the article he admitted that he is not expressing the opinions of the DARPA agency or American Department of Defense. However as an employee of DARPA he must have been aware that the CIA and different U.S. Defense agencies are working on this type of weapon since the 1950’s of the past century (see this). As an employee of the American state he could not talk about it in order to not disclose U.S. National security information. He only wrote that the governments are hiding their research by “state-secret classifications“.
Dr. Sarah Lisanby from the National Institute of Mental Health in Maryland can produce movements in different parts of the human body, which the subjects of her experimentation can not suppress, by magnetic stimulation of their brain (see this). She only needs to send frequencies of magnetic pulses corresponding to frequencies of neuronal activities in those brain locations which control body movements, and it does not depend on the subject’s free will any more, what movement his or her body parts will perform. There are several technologies, which can be used to control the activity of the human brain (see this), behavior and thoughts even at a distance, but they remain classified, because the governments are not willing to admit to their citizens that they are in possesion of such technologies. The reason is that they are aware that their citizens would demand their immediate ban.
The only government official who admitted the existence of those weapons was Polish minister of defense Antoni Macierewicz in 2016. When after several months the Polish journalists asked the Polish Department of Defense, whether there was established the investigation commission, which was supposed to investigate electromagnetic attacks on Polish citizens, as was promised by Antoni Macierewicz, the department of defence replied that this is a matter of state secret, connected with the defense of the nation (see this).
Robert MC Creight, who worked for 35 years at the U.S. State Department among others as a U.S. delegate at the United Nations Organisation in negotiations on arms control (see this), wrote:
“What nation would hesitate to develop and field a weapon that could control, shape, or redirect human thoughts and actions—given the power such a weapon would yield?… The power to influence or direct the thoughts and behaviors of others without them knowing crosses a threshold in human behavior and criminal conduct we have never seriously encountered or examined…. Can we know whether civil insurrections, staged coups, urban riots, or border uprisings were naturally occurring or externally induced?“.
He added that production of neuroweapons does not require such a wide scientific and technological knowledge as the production of nuclear weapons and concurred with James Giordano that international agreements are necessary to prevent the abuse of discoveries of neuroscience to deform human free will. He concluded:
“The fact is that unless a globally enforceable mechanism is devised and agreed upon for controlling the conduct and outcomes of neuroscience research itself, we can expect to find no real safeguards and no guarantees“ (see this).
Professor of philosophy and psychiatry at the prestigious German university in Heidelberg Thomas Fuchs wrote:
“Researchers are beginning to identify brain processes that are related to experiences and concepts such as free will, agency, moral judgment, self and personality.
At the same time, those processes become increasingly accessible to specific modifying techniques. This development raises ethical problems whose importance is likely to surpass even the implications of modern genetics. What are the social and cultural consequences of technologies that enable humans to manipulate their own minds?“ and “new methods and techniques, by laying bare neural correlates of personal identity, cause problems of individual rights of privacy, noninterference and inviolability“ (of personal identity) (see this and this).
Askin Sokman, who specializes at Istanbul University among others in international security and arms control wrote in the article “Using Nano Technologies and Neuroscience Technologies in Combating Terrorism“ that it is possible to use neuroscientific research “to increase the capacity of soldiers (such as fighting for an extended period, courage) as well as to collect intelligence, to wipe-out the enemy’s capacity to fight, to direct the behavior of masses in psychological operations and to make them surrender without fighting“ (see this).
As early as 1997 the Institute of Strategic Studies at the U.S. Army War College published a study, where the following picture of the future was described:
”Potential or possible supporters of the insurgency around the world were identified using the comprehensive Interagency Integrated Database. These were categorized as ”potential” or ”active”, with sophisticated personality simulations used to develop, tailor and focus psychological campaigns for each (see this)”.
The system, which should be able to find those people, is already being designed in the USA (see this and this).
Those methods of remote control of human thinking can be used in advertisement as well. A group of Canadian and American scientists wrote that there are already at least ten companies whose explicit goal is to use those advanced technologies to start offering neuromarketing (see this).
In this way a human being and its “free will“ can easily become a subject of manipulations by state, industrial and commercial organizations or foreign intelligence services. The fact that the existence of those technologies is not published only contributes to the impression that the governments are getting ready to use them and turn their citizens into slaves (or as the Russian politician Vladimir Lopatin put it – into biorobots (see this)), which will implement the elites’ ideas about the next development of mankind. If this was not the case the governments should be able to come to an agreement and ban internationally weapons enabling remote control of human brains. Instead they are taking advantage of the fact that their citizens are not aware of the existence of those weapons and for that matter do not apply any pressure on them to work on legislations banning remote manipulation of human minds at home as well as internationally.
In the meantime even the brain research that is not classified advances in more than a fast pace. Scientists work on a silicon chip containing living neurons, which could be inserted in the brain and then used to produce false memories (see this) (in 2006 they already produced false memories in mice brain using electrodes.
According to the non-profit organization Institute of Electric and Electronic Engineers (IEEE), following the development of technologies benign to mankind, at Berkeley University in 2018 a “stimulation dust“ was produced. Those are particles 3 to 4 times smaller than a grain of rice containing piezzo crystal as an atenna. It is possible to transport this “dust“ into the brain and then communicate with it using a computer and “read“ the activity of the brain and control it. It is capable, for example, of preventing epileptic seizures or a heart arythmia. When scientists placed this particle on a motion neuron of a rat, they were capable to move its leg independently of its situation or its will (see this).
Cell phone companies develop devices which could transport the brain activity directly into the cell phones or computers and from there to the Internet (see this). To take down one’s ideas without using the keyboard and to execute one’s thoughts without using mouse or keyboard will certainly accelerate every action. People eager to be effective in their office work will not be able to avoid use of this technology if they will wish to remain competitive. It is expected that the sixth generation of cell phones will connect the brain to the Internet (see this) and already the fifth generation will be omnipresent and there will be no chance for the human being to escape from its reach.
Scientists have also developed “nanobotes“ – particles which they would insert in the blood and through which the brain could communicate with the Internet. In this way the brain will be able to draw knowledge without learning. Professor of mechanical engineering at the University in San Diego James Friend believes that effective use of “nanobotes“ could start within five years (see this).
As soon as the brain is connected to Internet it will be possible to control its activity from Internet as well. Hackers will just have to expand their activities in order to play with the brain waves using the internet. Will politicians decide to ban, in a verifiable manner, the remote control of the activity of the human brain and as well the control of its activity from the Internet? So far there are no hints that anywhere in the world the governments would be working on legislation to protect the brain activity from external manipulation.
It is good to know that to interfere with the brain activity energies more than hundred times smaller are needed than the energies needed to produce firing of neurons (see this) and that, in experiments with remote control of the animal nervous system, more than hundred times smaller energies were needed to produce its activity, than are the limits of exposure to electromagnetic fields set by the majority of the world governments (see this).
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Featured image: Neurotechnology could help people with disabilities use their thoughts to control devices in the physical world. It may also be useful in weapons systems. Private companies, militaries, and other organizations are funding neurotechnology research. Credit: US Army.
Revelations by a former police spy upend the official story blaming Iran for the 1994 bombing of a Jewish community center in Buenos Aires, and suggest a cover-up by dirty war elements may have let the real culprits off the hook.
***
The July 18, 1994 bombing of the Argentine Israeli Mutual Association (AMIA) Jewish community center in Buenos Aires, Argentina was one of the worst pre-9/11 terrorist attacks in the Western hemisphere, killing 85 and injuring 300.
For over a quarter century, the US and Israeli governments have blamed Iran for the bloodshed, citing it as primary evidence of Tehran’s role as the world’s largest sponsor of terrorism.
This narrative remains part of the propaganda offensive against Iran, and has been exploited by the Donald Trump administration to justify a campaign of economic strangulation aimed at either destabilizing the Islamic Republic or achieving regime change.
Soon after the bombing, the United States and Israel placed heavy pressure on the Argentine government to implicate Iran. At the time, however, officials in the embassy in Buenos Aires were well aware there was no hard evidence to support such a conclusion.
In an August 1994 cable to the State Department, US Ambassador James Cheek boasted of the “steady campaign” the embassy had waged that “kept the Iranians in the dock where they belong.” In a striking comment to this writer in 2007, Cheek conceded, “To my knowledge, there was never any real evidence” of Iranian responsibility.
Bill Brencick, the chief of the political section in the US embassy from 1994 to 1997, also acknowledged in a 2007 interview that US insinuations of Iranian responsibility were based solely on a “wall of assumptions” that had “no hard evidence to connect those assumptions to the case.”
Brencick recalled that he and other US officials recognized “enough of a Jewish community [in Buenos Aires] and a history of anti-Semitism that local anti-Semites had to be considered as suspects.” But this line of investigation was never pursued in any official capacity, likely because it contradicted the interests of a US national security state that was dead-set on indicting Iran for the bombing.
However, a dramatic development has threatened to upend the official US-Israeli narrative on the AMIA attack. In 2014, the public learned that a former spy who had infiltrated the Jewish community in Buenos Aires on behalf of Argentina’s Federal Police had revealed to two investigative journalists that he had been ordered to turn over blueprints to the AMIA building to his Federal Police case officer.
The spy was convinced the building plans were used by the real culprits behind the bombing. His stunning revelation prompted a series of articles in the Argentine press.
The former infiltrator’s account provided the first clear indication that anti-Semitic veterans of Argentina’s “Dirty War” and their allies in the Argentine police and intelligence service orchestrated the explosion.
But Argentina’s legal system — still heavily influenced by the intelligence agency that influenced the official investigation to blame Iran and a prosecutor whose career had been based on that premise — stubbornly refused to investigate the former police spy’s account.
Infiltration, torture, anti-Semitic conspiracies
Image on the right: Jose Alberto Perez infiltrated Argentina’s Jewish community on behalf of the Federal Police. He went by the name “Iosi.”
The former police infiltrator, Jose Alberto Perez, believed the AMIA building blueprints he had provided to the Federal Police were used by those who planned the bombing. He had learned from his police counter-terrorism training course that such building plans could be valuable tools for planning such an operation.
Perez was also convinced that the bomb had detonated inside the building, rather than in front, and had been placed in the interior of the AMIA building through a gap between it and a neighboring building. Experts of Argentina’s Gendarmerie had come to the same conclusion, and leaked it to Clarin, Argentina’s largest tabloid, just two days after the bombing.
Perez also provided crucial evidence that those who had used him to spy on Jewish community leaders were motivated by the same anti-Semitic beliefs that had led the Argentine military dictatorship to single out Jews for especially cruel treatment during the “dirty war” in the 1970s: his case officer, whom he knew only as “Laura”, had ordered him to find out as much he could from the Jewish community about the so-called “Andinia Plan.”
According to that alleged plan, Jewish immigrants and foreign Zionists had been secretly plotting to take control of the vast Patagonia region of southern Argentina and create a Jewish state to be called “Andinia.”
The myth of the “Andinia Plan” followed the rise of anti-Semitism as a major social force in Argentina during the 1930s and became a staple of the anti-Semitic right’s narrative during the heyday of military domination of the Argentine society and politics from the 1960s through the “dirty war” against leftists in the 1970s.
At least 12 percent of those subjected to interrogation, torture, and murder during the dirty war were Jews, according to an investigation by the Barcelona-based Commission of Solidarity with Relatives of the Disappeared, although they represented only 1 percent of the population. Nearly all were interrogated about the “Andinia Plan.”
The crusading Argentine journalist Jacobo Timerman, who was born to Jewish parents and whose newspaper provided critical coverage of the military regime’s “dirty war,” was among those detained in the junta’s secret prisons.
Timerman recalled in his memoir how he was asked repeatedly to reveal what he knew about the “Andinia Plan” during extended interrogation and torture sessions. His interrogator refused to accept his answer that it was merely a fiction.
Jose Alberto Perez, for his part, was wracked with guilt about having enabled the AMIA terror bombing. He had become an integral part of the Jewish community, studying Hebrew for three years, marrying a Jewish woman who was the secretary of an Israeli Embassy official and even taking the Jewish version of his Spanish surname, Jose. Within the Jewish community, he was known as “Iosi” Perez.
As he fell into despair, Iosi contacted investigative journalists Miriam Lewin and Horacio Lutzky to ask their help. The two journalists had tried for years to find a foreign sponsor to grant the former spy asylum abroad but to no avail.
Meanwhile, Iosi had secretly taped a video with the prominent Argentine journalist Gabriel Levinas in which he narrated his work penetrating the Jewish community and the unusual request for the blueprints. Levinas posted the video online in early July 2014, just prior to the publication of the second edition of his own book on the AMIA bombing, which included Iosi’s story.
The release of that video prompted Lewin and Lutzky to arrange for Iosi to join Argentina’s Witness Protection Program. The two journalists also urged Argentine prosecutor Alberto Nisman (image on the left), who had spent a decade accusing Iran of the bombing, to meet Iosi in person.
But according to Lewin, Nisman would only agree to speak with Iosi on the phone. The prosecutor insisted on having three of his employees interview Iosi in person, she recalled in an interview with The Grayzone, then signed a declaration about that July 2014 meeting as though he had been present, and “did not show interest in interrogating him any further.” Iosi entered the Witness Protection Program the same day as the interview, according to Lewin.
Iosi’s Federal Police case officer “Laura,” who was retired by then, was released by the minister of security from the normal secrecy requirement about Iosi’s work. But she rejected Iosi’s testimony, according to Lewin, claiming his reports had been judged “poor.” Her claims stood in stark contrast to the actual reports obtained by prosecutors which clearly showed his findings had been evaluated as “excellent” year after year.
Lewin told The Grayzone she was confident that Iosi would have been able to provide “solid information about the local connection of the bombing,” but none of the four prosecutors who inherited the unsolved AMIA case after Nisman’s death were willing to follow up on the leads he provided.
Lewin noted that several of the senior Federal Police officials who would have been involved in the decisions to infiltrate the Jewish Community and request the AMIA blueprints were still active in 2015. That fact helps to explain why the case was left to die despite Iosi’s explosive revelations.
SIDE covers the junta’s back
Another key factor in the corruption of the AMIA investigation was the role of the state intelligence agency, known as SIDE, in influencing the lead prosecutor, Judge Juan Jose Galeano. Not only was a special unit within SIDE tasked with overseeing the Galeano’s investigation, another SIDE unit operated directly inside Galeano’s office, as journalist Sergio Kiernan reported.
SIDE proceeded to exploit its power to divert attention away from the logical suspects within the junta, circling the wagons to protect its own.
As Sergio Moreno and Laura Termine reported in the daily La Prensa, November 28, 1994, the SIDE unit handling the AMIA investigation was notorious for its hatred of Jews. The group consisted of veterans of the dirty war known as the “Cabildo” group, their name inspired by a right wing anti-Semitic magazine published in the early 1980s that had republished an infamous tract detailing the “Andinia Plan” conspiracy.
The chief of the Cabildo group unsuccessfully sued Moreno and Termine for labeling his unit anti-Semitic. Following complaints by Jewish community leaders about the Cabildo group’s role in the AMIA investigation, it was removed from the case – but not before it deflected public attention away from leaders of the dirty war and onto an alleged Iranian conspiracy.
SIDE’s PR strategy depended on the theory that the AMIA explosion emanated from a vehicle-born suicide bomb, thereby casting suspicion on Iran and its ally, Hezbollah.
The intelligence services claimed a white light commercial van had been used in the bombing. Its engine was supposedly found in the rubble on July 25, a week after the explosion.
The identification number on the engine was traced to Carlos Alberto Telleldin (image on the right), the Shia owner of a shady “chop shop” operation that rebuilt damaged cars for sale. Telleldin was accused of being an accessory to the terror plot and jailed on other charges.
But the official AMIA case files revealed that Telleldin had been targeted before the AMIA bombing. This stunning fact was noticed by a “private prosecutor” hired by the organization of AMIA victims Memoria Activa.
According to a close analysis of the official evidence by Alberto L. Zuppi, a request by Federal Police to wiretap Telleldin’s phone was issued on July 20 — at least five days before the alleged discovery of the engine that led investigators to blame Telleldin.
In the weeks that followed the AMIA explosion, more evidence surfaced that pointed to Telledin’s role as a patsy.
In September 1994, five Lebanese nationals were detained as they tried to leave Argentina for Paraguay. Through a series of leaks, SIDE planted stories in the media suggesting the suspects were linked to a terrorist network.
The following month, a part-time agent for SIDE and former chief of a notorious prison camp where suspects were tortured during the “dirty war,” Captain Hector Pedro Vergez, began visiting Telleldin in prison.
In four meetings between September 1994 and January 1995, Vergez offered the jailed suspect $1 million and his freedom if he would identify two of the Lebanese nationals who were then detained in Paraguay as having purchased the van from him — thus making it possible to accuse them of the bombing. But Telleldin refused to lie, and the SIDE plan was derailed.
It was not long, however, before SIDE and Galeano initiated a new plan to implicate two Buenos Aires provincial policemen as Iranian-sponsored culprits.
Resorting to bribery, Mossad info, and MEK sources to blame Iran
In July 1996, Juan Jose Galeano personally visited Carlos Telleldin in prison and offered him $400,000 to blame the two police officers. The scandalous scene was captured in a video shown on Argentine television in 1997.
The case against the two policemen was thrown out in court in 2004, but Galeano and Anzorreguy went unpunished for another 15 years. It was not until 2019 that they were sentenced to prison terms for their role in the affair, highlighting the culture of impunity that surrounded SIDE.
Once the Galeano case imploded, Alberto Nisman attempted to craft yet another narrative blaming Iran for the bombing. For this, he depended on information provided by Israel’s Mossad to Jaime Stiuso, the SIDE official in charge of counterintelligence.
Nisman’s 2006 indictment of seven Iranian officials for the terror plot relied completely on the claims of senior members of the Mujahedin-E-Khalq (MEK), the Israeli and Saudi-backed Iranian exile cult.
Not only were none of the MEK members in any position to provide reliable information about a supposedly high-level Iranian plot because they had been actively engaged in a terrorist campaign of their own against the Islamic government by helping Iraq’s then-President Saddam Hussein select targets in Iran.
Nisman’s reliance on such unscrupulous sources demonstrated his own apparent determination to reach preordained conclusions about Iran’s guilt. It was hardly a surprise, then, that Nisman ignored Iosi’s revelatory testimony.
Nisman’s other major source, Jaime Stiuso of SIDE, was a notorious manipulator who had spent years collecting wiretaps on Argentine politicians. In 2014, the intelligence chief was working to build a case against President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner for supposedly conspiring with Iran to eliminate the official Argentine accusation of Iranian guilt. Few observers believed the case would hold up under close scrutiny.
In January 2015, Nisman was found dead in his apartment of a gunshot wound to the head. Though political opponents of Kirchner were convinced the prosecutor’s death was the result of a government-sponsored murder, a recent documentary detailing the various investigations of his death, “Nisman: el fiscal, la presidenta y el espía,” concluded that he had committed suicide.
By the time of his death, Nisman was helping direct a disinformation campaign that allowed SIDE to cover for shadowy figures from Argentina’s violently anti-Semitic past, and to bury their likely role in the AMIA bombing.
Iosi’s testimony should have ended that cover-up, but Nisman, SIDE, and the Federal Police colluded to quash a serious investigation.
A quarter-century after the bombing, impunity for the real AMIA terrorists continues.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Gareth Porter is an independent investigative journalist who has covered national security policy since 2005 and was the recipient of Gellhorn Prize for Journalism in 2012. His most recent book is The CIA Insider’s Guide to the Iran Crisis co-authored with John Kiriakou, just published in February.
China has been increasing its soft power in Latin America since it began heavily investing in the region since the mid-2000s. The administration of U.S. President Donald Trump has taken an ineffective and aggressive approach to try and counter Beijing in Latin America, a region that Washington calls its “own backyard.” Relations between China and Latin American countries are flourishing, but at the same time they face new challenges as the region deals with several crises. Meanwhile, the influential Brookings Institute think tank has concluded that the U.S. is losing its influence in the region.
The U.S. began to pay attention to China’s growing influence in Latin America and came to understand that its historic role as the main power in the region was at risk. The Washington D.C.-based think tank highlighted that the Trump administration has failed to change this trend, with the author of the article, Ted Piccone, emphasizing that Washington needs a more generous and sophisticated approach. With Trump coming into power, Latin American countries began to perceive China as an even more viable partner since the U.S. president repeatedly resorted to nationalist and anti-immigration rhetoric.
Beijing seeks to secure energy, metal and food flows to feed its robust economy and its growing middle class. In 2000, the volume of trade between China and Latin America was $12 billion. In 2019 it had reached almost $315 billion. Today, Beijing is the main trading partner of Brazil, Chile, Uruguay, Peru and Argentina. China lends money in large quantities to Latin American governments and is reimbursed by some countries with raw materials such as oil.
However, the elites of Latin America continue to be divided between those who have benefited from closer economic relations with Beijing and those who have suffered from cheap imports that affects local manufacturing. Despite all adversities, China’s economic activity appears to have a positive effect on the region.
There is no denying that China’s actions in Latin America have led to the enrichment of the upper class and, therefore, have increased inequality. Beijing’s presence however is a counterweight to U.S. domination of the region. Most Latin American governments, according to the Brookings study, recognize that they cannot get out of the severe recession caused by the coronavirus outbreak without Chinese investments and trade.
The author argues that “after decades of interventionist and hegemonic behavior in the region, the United States after the Cold War shifted to playing a more benign, pro-reform role.” However, “after three years of the Trump administration, the United States is practically displaced, largely absent, or has reverted to type as the threatening hegemon” that forced a decline in “favorable opinions toward Washington and a renewal of ‘Yanqui go home’ antagonism.”
This was in major contrast to the administration of President Bill Clinton, according to the study, that advocated an ambitious agenda that would involve the entire Western Hemisphere – a policy of uniting the region on the basis of representative liberal democracy, free trade and the market economy as a way to achieve sustainable development. The George W. Bush administration, especially after September 11 attacks, took a more costly approach to national security and the fight against terrorism in the region. At the same time, it remained faithful to the financing of development aid for Latin American countries. The Obama administration, focused on the immigrant crisis in Central America, made significant progress in ties with governments in the region. Piccone points out that the Obama administration improved relations with Cuba and facilitated the signing of a peace agreement in Colombia between the government and communist rebels.
In general, U.S. influence in Latin America and the Caribbean significantly improved in the years preceding Trump, but this has begun to wane. The study argued that Trump has “revived the interventionist rhetoric of the Monroe Doctrine of two centuries ago.”
Joe Biden, the Democrat presidential candidate for the upcoming November presidential elections, blames his own country more than Beijing for the deplorable state of relations between Washington and Latin America, but says that the U.S. has a great advantage in the region. According to Biden, China and Russia do not have the same ties and common history with the Latin American peoples, something that is objectively true, and in which Piccone highlights by stating that “natural geographic, cultural, familial, security, educational, and historic ties to its neighbors” gives the U.S. “a distinct advantage over China.”
Piccone concludes that Washington must provide alternatives to Latin American countries that do not resort to an “us or them” ultimatum in their relations with China.
“The bipolar world has arrived at the U.S. doorstep — it can build walls and threaten sanctions, or it can find ways to help [Latin American] governments address their countries’ deep problems, with or without China,” he said.
As China engages in a no-strings attached diplomacy and trade with Latin America, it will continue gaining influence in the U.S.’ “backyard.” Therefore, Piccone’s suggestion that the U.S. is no longer a hegemon of Latin America, as he terms it, is an honest assessment and one that Washington must acknowledge if it does not want to lose more influence in the region. China is in Latin America to stay, and Washington must acknowledge this.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
This article was originally published on InfoBrics.
Paul Antonopoulos is an independent geopolitical analyst.
A flurry of recent news shows that international development banks have ramped up public money to factory farms and mega-dairies in the last decade. The World Bank alone spent US$1.8 billion on these operations, with over half of the funds going to Big Dairy, contributing to both rising emissions and increasing corporate concentration. IATP’s Milking the Planet report shows that 13 of the largest dairy producers increased their greenhouse gas emission by 11% in just two years, their combined emissions greater than U.K.’s annual emissions. They did this as rural dairy producers went out of business due to debt and disenfranchisement. These publicly funded institutions, such as the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) and the World Bank’s private arm, the International Finance Corporation (IFC), with missions to reduce poverty and help countries develop, have instead spent billions funneling money into some of the most powerful dairy and meat corporations in the world.
The EBRD took a stake in Danone’s subsidiaries in eastern Europe and central Asia. These “investments” made 10 years ago were intended to expand Danone’s business in Russia, Ukraine, Belarus and Kazakhstan. Danone’s sales generated 25.9 billion euros last year. Global pork giant Smithfield Foods, Inc. (subsidiary of WH Group) received $60 million for its subsidiary in Romania. In 2009, The New York Times reported: “In Romania, the number of hog farmers has declined 90 percent — to 52,100 in 2007 from 477,030 in 2003 — according to European Union statistics, with ex-farmers, overwhelmed by Smithfield’s lower prices, often emigrating or shifting to construction.” Poor use of development money combined with EU farm policy has led to the loss of thousands of small farms in Romania. And yet, this is not the first time Smithfield Inc. has gained from taxpayers. The company received millions of U.S. taxpayer money in 2018 through the Trump administration’s bailout during its trade war with China.
IATP joined 30 organizations this month in an open letter to the heads of the IFC and EBRD stating:
“In a time of climate crisis, public finance institutions such as the Multilateral Development Banks (MDBs) have an urgent responsibility to align their lending with the goals of the Paris Agreement. As calls come from economists and environmentalists alike to ‘build back better’ following the pandemic, it is essential that we include agriculture in considerations of how we finance a sustainable future.”
The European Investment Bank is the lending arm of the European Union and self-described as the “largest multilateral financial institution in the world and one of the largest providers of climate finance.” It has pledged to raise its share of finance for climate and environmental sustainability to 50% of its overall funding by 2025 in support of the European Green Deal. As part of this Climate Bank Roadmap for 2021-2025, it sought input from various entities. In its position paper on the roadmap, the EIB states that it is considering investment support to the meat and dairy industry that is “based on sustainable animal rearing contributing to improved GHG efficiency.” IATP and the Global Forest Coalitionprovided our input last week on its lending to the meat and dairy industry, stating:
“Improved GHG efficiency” is simply an inadequate indicator for mitigation and adaptation of the sector. The EIB must integrate both concepts (mitigation and adaptation) into its agricultural investment portfolio. The EIB is right to include socio-economic, environmental and animal welfare impacts in its definition of sustainability, however a narrow metric of resource efficiency should be altered to integrate ecosystem restoration as a definition of sustainability which includes GHGs but also vital additional metrics for transformative change.
Such metrics include 1) measures for ecosystem restoration 2) biodiversity generation 3) soil health 4) water retention and 5) trajectory of absolute emissions. The EIB’s approach to both the meat and dairy sector and the bioeconomy overall should be reframed to prioritize ecosystem restoration following ecosystem-based approaches (EBA) with significant mitigative and adaptive potential.
The EIB asks in the consultation paper, “how can the EIB best support the meat and dairy industry to be consistent with a low-carbon pathway?” to which we responded:
The EIB should define what it means by the “meat and dairy industry” it intends to support. Numerous livestock producers in the Global South and North are dramatically impacted by different aspects of the industry — for instance, market concentration in various parts of the supply chain, including processing and production. The range of intensive/extensive animal production systems are incentivized or thwarted by the inordinate level of market power that different parts of the industry wields on the supply chain. This market power combined with significant political power prevents transformative change in the livestock sector. The EIB’s investment strategy that incentivizes transformation of agricultural practices towards the metrics suggested above can help send a clear market and political signal towards such transformation. It can also help EIB focus in on the parts of the supply chain, including producers and workers and not simply its middlemen, that need support to transform the sector. EIB should refrain from investments that facilitate perverse incentives to expand livestock production and which lead directly or indirectly to deforestation and land degradation.
We suggested that the EIB take a two-pronged approach to their investment strategy on livestock. They must take away investments from the meat and dairy industry where further intensification leads to rising absolute emissions and perverse incentives for expansion of livestock production, declining biodiversity and negative impacts on the metrics identified above. Second, the EIB should support agricultural practices, food hubs, decentralized food markets that support rights-based approaches and restore ecosystems. The goal should be climate resilience and mitigation that helps empower local communities, indigenous peoples and workers while diminishing market power of oligopolies in agribusiness that drives social and environmental standards towards a race to the bottom.
The EIB will publish the results of its consultations in the last quarter of this year with the aim to have the new lending roadmap in place by next year. The EIB’s lending will play a critical role in public money going to either transformative change of the livestock sector or compounding the problems we face with public handouts to Big Meat and Dairy. Choosing transformative change could also send the right signals to EU institutions tasked with the roll out of the EU’s Farm to Fork Strategy under the European Green Deal and reforming its Common Agriculture Policy (CAP). The CAP funnels 18-22% percent of the EU budget towards livestock, largely benefitting Big Meat and Dairy. Public sops for this powerful global industry, whether international or national, must stop if we want real food system transformation for the planet.
*
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.
“I’m automatically attracted to beautiful [women]—I just start kissing them. It’s like a magnet. Just kiss. I don’t even wait. And when you’re a star they let you do it. You can do anything … Grab them by the pussy. You can do anything.”
Channel surfing this AM I caught a meeting of ‘Evangelicals for Trump’ on C-Span. White House Spiritual Advisor Paula White-Cain was addressing the group on the importance of re-electing Trump.
Funny, how I have heard from more than one acquaintance that Trump was actually ‘Sent by God’. Where? I asked. Here? Donald Trump AKA THE DONALD, who makes the late John Gotti look like an amateur in the area of Teflon? HE was sent by God to do what, perhaps hasten up the coming Armageddon? After all, those phony ‘Love Israel while we await the Rapture’ Christians care as much for Jews as the Israeli Jews care for the Palestinians: ZERO! No, Trump represents what all those right wing Christians (Perhaps including Trump’s press secretary with her always visible crucifix?) really care about: Family values, no abortions and freedom from the Blacks and Browns… except when they need a Nanny or landscape worker on their estates. Oh yeah, and of course making sure that Amerika’s jackboot is permanently on the neck of those 3rd world countries… especially where the A-Rabs live.
So, Mr. Trump has had a history of misogynist behavior. The transcript from the conversation he had in 2005 about those ‘Kitty cats’ he just loved to grab and dominate could come straight out of what, The New Testament? Yet, those Bible thumping fools who think They own both Jesus AND our flag seem to overlook all he has said and done… for decades! I mean, because Trump said he made those comments in a ‘Private conversation’ trumps (no pun intended) any critique of it. It is like when we played stoopball, and someone yelled out ‘Hindu’ and said ‘Do over’. After all, this writer comes from Brooklyn, NYC and was blue collar all the way. I have made many foolish comments at times, but never speaking of women in that manner. Never!! I have had many wild times as a young man, but never behaved insuch a low class and savage manner. For it is low class and savage to grab a woman by her genitals and have with her. Oh, I forgot, Trump was such a star that the woman in question would not mind being manhandled that way. I have known ‘Working Women’ as they call them, who would not put up with that behavior… even at a price! Yet, the holy rollers just loved him in 2016 and again this year.
When the economy sinks faster than ‘A speeding bullet, more powerful than a locomotive..’ we won’t have Superman to save the day. If the ‘Trump thumping Evangelicals have their way, like it or not, we will step into a Fascist/Neo Nazi rabbit hole that will assure that the coming Time of Tribulation is before us!
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Philip A Farruggio is a contributing editor for The Greanville Post. He is also frequently posted on Global Research, Nation of Change, Countercurrents.org, and Off Guardian sites. He is the son and grandson of Brooklyn NYC longshoremen and a graduate of Brooklyn College, class of 1974. Since the 2000 election debacle Philip has written over 400 columns on the Military Industrial Empire and other facets of life in an upside down America. He is also host of the ‘It’s the Empire… Stupid‘ radio show, co produced by Chuck Gregory. Philip can be reached at [email protected].
Featured image: Donald Trump on the campaign trail in March 2016. Credit: Windover Way Photography
The Middle East is rapidly moving towards a new round of confrontation between the US-Israeli bloc and Iranian-led Shiite forces.
On July 26, the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) deployed M109 Doher howitzers near the separation line with Lebanon. The deployment of howitzers became the latest in a series of broad measures employed by the IDF near Lebanon recently. Earlier, the 13th “Gideon” Infantry Battalion of the IDF’s elite 1st “Golani” Brigade reinforced troops near the border. The number Israeli Hermes 450 drone reconnaissance flights also significantly increased over southern Lebanon. Additional IDF units were also deployed in the occupied Syrian Golan Heights. On top of this, the IDF announced that it will hold the Lebanese government responsible “for all actions emanating from Lebanon”.
These measures followed the July 20 Israeli strike on Syria, which resulted in the death of a member of Lebanese Hezbollah. Over the past years, Hezbollah has been one of the main supporters of Syrian Army operations against ISIS and al-Qaeda. Tel Aviv increases its strikes on what it calls Hezbollah and Iranian-affiliated targets in Syria every time when the Syrian Army launches active actions against terrorists and seems to be very concerned by the possibility of a Hezbollah response to the July 20 attack.
If Israel is really set to conduct strikes on Hezbollah targets in Lebanon to the retaliatory action by Hezbollah, this scenario could easily evolve into a wider border confrontation between Hezbollah and the IDF.
At the same time, tensions between local resistance groups and the US-led coalition grew in Iraq. On July 24, the Islamic Resistance in Iraq, Ashab al-Kahf, announced that its forces had shot down an unmanned aerial vehicle of the US military over the province of Saladin. The group claimed that the UAV was downed by some ‘new weapon’ and released a photo showing the launch of what appears to be an anti-aircraft missile, likely a man-portable air-defense system.
On the same day, four unguided rockets struck the Pasmaya military camp, which is located 60km south of Baghdad. One of the rockets hit a garage for armoured vehicles, while another one targeted the barracks of the security unit. Two other rockets landed in an empty area. Despite causing some material damage, the rocket attack did not result in any casualties. No group has claimed responsibility for the attack.
The Pasmaya military camp is known to be hosting troops of the U.S.-led coalition and is used for training of Iraqi troops. On July 25, the coalition withdrew its forces from the camp and handed it over to the Iraqi military. According to the official statement, the coalition trained 50,000 personnel and invested $5 million into the creation of training infrastructure there.
Earlier in 2020, the US-led coalition withdrew its forces from several smaller military camps across the country. Some sources tried to present this as a withdrawal from Iraq due to the increasing attacks on coalition forces by anti-US Shiite paramilitary groups. These attacks increased significantly after the assassination of Iraqi Popular Mobilization Units Deputy Commander Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis and Iranian Quds Force Commander Qasem Soleimani in a US drone strike on Baghdad International Airport on January 3, 2020. The attack put the region on the brink of the US-Iranian war and caused a public outcry against the US military presence in Iraq. However, in fact, the US has not been withdrawing its troops from the country, but rather redeploying them to larger bases. The US military even brought Patriot surface-to-air missile systems to provide additional protection to its forces. It also continues isolated attacks on positions of the Popular Mobilization Units, an official branch of the Iraqi Armed Forces that Washington describes as terrorist groups and Iranian proxies.
On July 26, several large explosions rocked the al-Saqer military camp near the district of Dora south of Baghdad. The Al-Saqer military camp hosts forces of the Popular Mobilization Units (PMU) as well as the Iraqi Federal Police. Large quantities of ammunition, which were stored in the camp, exploded. Iraqi Security Media said the ammunition exploded as result of “high heat” and “poor storage”. Nevertheless, sources affiliated with the PMU rejected these speculations. Local sources claimed that the explosions were caused by US drone strikes. An MQ-1 Predator combat drone was spotted over the al-Saqer military camp just after the incident. This was the second situation of this kind that happened in al-Saqer. In 2019, a US drone strike hit a weapon depot at the camp.
The current situation sets almost no prospects for a de-escalation in Iraq. The main goal of attacks by local Shiite groups is to force the US to withdraw troops from the country. At the same time, the US is not planning to withdraw its forces and uses these attacks to justify the increase of its campaign against pro-Iranian forces in the Middle East.
*
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.
Trump militarized Portland last week and then threatened to send federal police and military forces to Chicago and other Democrat Party-led cities. Then Democrats squealed in opposition. But it’s phony. Both political parties are playing a cynical game designed to keep the public’s attention on the drama of Trump while they work together to advance the agenda of the ruling class.
The public has been told the two parties can’t seem to agree on vital issues facing the working class, such as extending unemployment protection and a moratorium on rent and mortgage evictions. But there didn’t seem to be much problem for the parties in the U.S. House of Representatives when they decided a pathetic proposal to reduce the Department of Defense budget by 10 percent was too dangerous. In fact, 139 Democrats joined Republicans in voting down that amendment to the 2021 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) before approving another obscene military budget of $740 billion.
Rep. James Clyburn (D-SC), the Black mouthpiece for the right-wing neoliberal corporate wing of the Democratic Party, took the lead on advising Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-WA) that her proposal for a federal “paycheck guarantee,” while efficient in that it would cover workers’ salaries for three months, was much too expensive. The cost? For six months of coverage, it was estimated at $654 billion.
The priorities are clear. Money is available for the military-industrial complex, but lifesaving support for workers is just too expensive.
And yet the games continue. Trump shut down the Chinese consulate in Houston as both parties are in fierce competition to demonstrate their toughness on China. Neither party can explain to the people why China is such a threat today. Just a few months ago, Russia was the main threat.
That is why the Black Alliance for Peace (BAP) takes the unequivocal and unambiguous position that we will never allow the U.S. state and its ideological henchmen to push us into opposition against any external enemy. We say, “no to a new cold war with China,” no to militarism, no to domestic repression, and no to the continued neglect of millions of workers and poor people in the United States.
*
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 13 July an international newscast reported that the European Commission will discuss as a priority on how the EU should react to China’s national security law for Hong Kong, a sovereign decision taken by Beijing to protect the citizens of the Chinese territory, Hong Kong, from western instigated riots and acts of terror. This is apparently an issue close to the heart of the German Foreign Minister, Heiko Maas, as he raised the issue as a priority for the EC to be discussed.
Can you imagine! The audacity of the EC to even suggest debating on what should be the reaction of Europe on an entirely internal affair of Sovereign China?
What would Europe, Germany, France, or any other EU member state say if China would comment on their EU-collective or individual sovereign internal affairs? – It’s not difficult to see the hypocrisy of the west, vis-à-vis the east, especially China and Russia.
Or, in the words of RT:
The economic sanctions imposed on China in the Huawei affair will be returned several-fold by Beijing. If the Queen Elizabeth goes too far, the Chinese Navy has more than what it takes to sink her.
And if the three million Chinese arrive from Hong Kong, it is not immediately clear where they will be housed or where they will work in Britain’s broken economy. In fact, perhaps the most cunning plan would be for China to open the Hong Kong floodgates now and force London to own up to its words.
Why is the west so much interested in Hong Kong? – Could it be that Hong Kong has been serving mostly western oligarchs and corporate and financial giants for illegal fiscal transactions, like money laundering and tax evasion? Why not shifting dubious financial transactions simply to Singapore? – Hong Kong is much closer still to the British Crown (until 1997), than Singapore which was dissolved as Crown colony in 1963, when it became a state of Malaysia, ending 144 years of British rule. In August 1965, Singapore became officially the independent Republic of Singapore. Since then Singapore has built up a strictly controlled financial and fiscal regime.
This – just as an introduction to the Big Picture that China may want to keep in mind for their future economic policy and planning vision. The west cannot be counted on. The west, under the leadership of the dying Anglo-American empire is in its last breath hell-bent to stop, to destroy China’s economic advances – if it could. But it can’t.
Mind you, China’s are fully legitimate economic advances that do no harm anybody, to the contrary, China keeps seeking peaceful cooperation with the west. A prime example is President Xi’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), the New Silk Road – designed as bridge that spans the world with projects and initiatives intended to bring humanity closer together, developing jointly her economic potential, attempting to respect and better understand cultural differences and learn from the variety of their richness. A “win-win” for all.
In the words of famous Russian economist, Mikhail Khazin, While the world economy is collapsing as it never did in the history we can remember – maybe by as much as 50%, the Chinese economy is growing.
When SARS-2-Cov, later renamed by WHO to COVID-19 – was first discovered in Wuhan, China, Wuhan and Chinese authorities reacted immediately with a total lockdown, extending from Wuhan (11 million population) to the entire Hubei Province (60 million) – and subsequently beyond, covering the whole country. China’s reaction was decisive, immediate and with full discipline of the population.
The origin of the “new” corona virus, is still debated, but all substantiated evidence leads to conclude that the virus originated outside of China and was transported to China in one way or another. Patient zero was with high probability somewhere in the United States and emerged likely sometime between August and October 2019.
We also know about the 2010 Rockefeller Report that predicted a pandemic outbreak at the beginning of 2020 – with what the report calls “The Lockstep Scenario” – precisely what the world is living now and has been going through since the beginning of 2020, especially since the worldwide lockdown of everything in mid-March 2020. This already looks like a meticulously planned global “pandemic”. Something that has never happened since the existence of mankind- that a pandemic virus hits the world population at the very same time, at once. This in itself is already too much of a coincidence to be a natural occurrence.
Now, add to this, Event 201 of 18 October 2019, sponsored by the Johns Hopkins University School of Health, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF) and the cream of the elite, the WEF (World Economic Forum), an event, whose key purpose was to computer simulate – yes, you guessed it – a corona pandemic that not only killed (by computer simulation) over a period of 18 months, 65 million people, but also destroyed the stock market and by and large the world economy, leaving behind uncountable bankruptcies, untold misery, poverty, famine and desperation – a way of transferring wealth from the “grassroots” to the top.
Doesn’t the current global economic annihilation that is uprooting the world as we know it, look very similar? From mid-March to mid-May 2020 – two intense Covid-months – US billionaires have added US$ 434 billion to their wealth, according to an CNBC report. And we haven’t even seen the tip of the iceberg yet in terms of bankruptcies, unemployment, misery and famine, nor in terms of asset transfers from the bottom to the top. Let alone what’s to follow over the coming one to three years.
Whoever directs this “coincidental” covid-scenario, may have a multi-purpose in mind. For example, creating a new world economic paradigm of a fear-infested broken society of poverty and slavehood, led by a corporate financial elite – and, perhaps equally or more important – eliminating the perceived Chinese competition for world hegemony. Western perceived and propagated, of course. Devoid of reality. As China doesn’t have hegemonic ambitions. Never had such ambitions, as thousands of years of Chinese history indicate. It’s not part of her Tao philosophy. With the endless bashing of China, who could expect the west having the slightest idea of Chinese history and Taoism?
China’s disciplinary lockdown wiped out – temporarily – more than two thirds of her production apparatus. Yet, this very lockdown and discipline was also what saved China from total disaster, as has happened in other countries, notably the US.
As of 13 July 2020, China had 83,602 cases of infection and 4,634 deaths, out of a total population of 1.4 billion. Compare this to the US, with 3.4 million infections and 137,000 deaths, by 13 July and according to official US statistics. The US has a population of about 330 million, less than a fourth of the Chinese population.
The consequential halt to the Chinese economy – a vital supply chain to western economies, especially the US but also Europe – plus the western border and harbor closings due to Covid, had a disastrous impact on the world economy. Once the corona peak was reached in China and the disease slowly abated, around May / June 2020, China gradually re-opened her borders and restarted her economy. Today, the Chinese economy has basically fully recovered. The outlook for China is good.
The IMF initially predicted an unrealistic global GDP contraction of 3%, later adjusted to 5.5%, for 2020 with a slight growth for 2021. This is far from reality. In truth, nobody can predict the full global calamity at this point. But the social dimension of global misery, poverty, famine and the related death toll is a human disaster way outranking the 1929-33 Great Depression; a socioeconomic blow unheard of in human history.
Outlook and Forward Strategy
Realizing China’s rapid recovery, but also taking into account the western trade war against China, the IMF predicted a 1% growth for 2020 and rising in 2021 to maybe 3%. Given China’s preparedness for western aggressions, economic and otherwise, China estimates a 2020 growth of around 3.5% and reaching 5% to 6% in 2021.
Western propaganda media would like the world to believe that the decline of China’s phenomenal growth of 12% and higher, to a “mere” 5% to 6% is an indication for China’s big economic problems. Never mind that an expansion of 5% to 6% is still more than double that of the west. China has decided to convert vertical growth – based on production and consumption and the use of natural resources – to horizontal or “quality growth”, meaning using her extensive network of public banking and other public financial institutions to address territorial and sectorial weak spots and inequalities in the country.
This approach allows dealing specifically with local (mostly western China) infrastructure shortcomings which have sustained inequalities of living standards between the eastern Pacific Rim and the country’s interior, notably the western and north-western provinces. Many of these local investments, by local public banks may be based on long-term financing at highly favorable conditions. What the west would call “subsidies”, a derogatory term in western neoliberal economies which function on the concept of ‘instant profit’.
China sees this differently. A long-term financial instrument at favorable conditions is a contribution to the communal, regional and national economy. It increases the general welfare and productivity of people, the “happiness factor” – which is an indicator of the overall improvement of a country’s equilibrium and wellbeing.
China is currently confronted with western aggressions of several kinds – all led by Washington and supported by its subservient allies. One is the on-and-off but seemingly never-ending trade war by the Trump Administration against China. The US knows, of course, that the trade war in reality has nothing to do with trade, but rather with launching bad publicity against China, and bashing China’s currency – meaning, attempting to destroy world confidence in the yuan. This will not happen.
Most of the United States’ still functioning industries (those not yet outsourced) and the biggest contributor to US GDP – consumption – depend largely on the Chinese supply chains. They all need Chinese goods and inputs to survive, in particular, the medical industry which depends to 80% on imports from China. This refers especially to pharmaceuticals and inputs to pharmaceutical products, manufactured in the US or Europe. In the case of antibiotics, the percentage is a s high as 90%. This is only one sector. Imagine, China would stop selling iPads and iPhones – or other computer parts to the US, what that would mean for the US economy, let alone for the US consumer’s wellbeing and comfort.
China knows the threat of trade war and of cutting off China’s supply chains, is a bluff, but China is ready to call the bluff, by reorienting and enhancing her trade relations with Asia and the members of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), which include, in addition to China and Russia, most Central Asian countries, and also India, Pakistan, with Iran, Malaysia and Mongolia in observer status, preparing to be fully incorporated.
China is also boosting trade among the ASEAN+3 countries (Association of Southeast Asian Nations – Brunei, Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, and Vietnam; plus 3 = Japan, South Korea and China). Monetary transactions will take place mostly in yuan and local currencies, not the US dollar.
In the first three months of 2020, China’s trade with ASEAN countries surpassed both the EU and the United States. During this period, ASEAN-China trade increased by 6 percent year-on-year to US$140 billion and accounting for 15 percent of China’s total trade volume, expected to increase to 30% or higher by 2025. Some of this shift may be due to the EU’s almost total covid-lockdown during this period. However, the reoriented and intensified trade with ASEAN+3, away from the western aggression, is sustainable with a visible tendency to grow.
Screenshot from ASEAN Briefing
Trading with ASEAN and SCO countries, monetary transfers will be carried out in yuan or local currencies, outside the dollar domain and avoiding the SWIFT payment scheme. Instead, monetary transfers will use the Chinese CIPS (Cross-Border Interbank Payment System), or, alternatively, the Russian MIR (meaning ‘peace’), at present mostly used for Russian internal transactions, but gradually being internationalized.In addition, the Chinese People’s Bank of China controlled crypto yuan is just about ready to be launched internationally – see below for more details.
SCO and ASEAN+3 account for about half the world population and for one third of the globes economic output. While continuing offering partnerships with the west, as China non-belligerently does, China is no longer dependent on the west’s good will. Far from it.
China may also expand its concentration onto the super-continent of Eurasia which is connected to Africa and includes the Middle East. To serve this enormous landmass no seas have to be crossed. Its easy trading, friendly relations, no conflicts, because equal partners strive for the real meaning of trade, no losers, only win-win.
Not to forget, Eurasia has been for the past century a thorn in Anglo-American empire’s eye. It is a huge market, covering about 55 million square kilometers (21 million sq. mi), or around 36.2% of the Earth’s total land area; with a population of about 5 billion people (2020 est.), about 65% of the world population. In addition, the supercontinent harbors enormous riches of natural resources. An estimated at least two thirds of still available natural resources are located in Eurasia. This is a formidable resource and market.
Dominating Eurasia is part of the self-declared Anglo-American hegemon’s objective – and it is a key reason for Washington’s relentless aggression against China and Russia. One of the strategies Washington applies is the thousands of years-old “divide to conquer” – separating Western Europe from Russia and China. For hundreds of years before the ascent of the Anglo-American empire, western European countries and territories were natural trading partners of Russia, as well as of China, the latter largely thanks to the old (2100-year-old) Silk Road.
WWII and the subsequent Cold War with its “Iron Curtain” was supposed to “finish” the socialist Soviet Union and at the same time sever western Europe from her traditional alliance with the Eurasian Continent, notably with Russia, but also with more distant China. The elaborate construct of building a post WWII united Europe with eventually a unique currency, an idea initiated by the CIA with European Atlantists of the Club of Rome in the 1950s – was supposed to finally make Western Europe a US ally and to separate Europe definitely from the concept of socialism, notably from the Soviet Union.
The plan almost succeeded. But dynamics sometime seek out justice and equilibrium. The Soviet Union was finally destroyed by the west, starting in the mid-1980s with the final collapse in 1991, helped by such traitors as Mikhail Gorbachev (1985-1991) and Boris Yeltsin (1991-1999). Yeltsin sold out much of the riches of the Soviet Union to the western-allied Russian elite and through them, to the west.
However, in 2000 Vladimir Putin was elected as Russia’s new President. He saw through this western fraud – and changed it all. He took firm control over Russia and successfully ended western usurpation of Russia. Today, under President Putin, and despite endless western sanctions, Russia has regained full sovereignty and has become self-sufficient in the three life-pillars, food, education and health. Russia has also become one of the world’s foremost food grain exporters, like wheat, as well as a military power with technologically the most advanced defense systems in the world. In alliance with China, a solid pact between the two countries – the East, the Eurasian Continent is unbeatable by the west.
This politico-socioeconomic success of Mr. Putin’s, away from western exploitation and for the benefit of the Russian people, has unleashed a firestorm of wrath by the Occident against Putin and Russia. There is hardly a day when Putin or Russia bashing – and also China bashing, for that matter – is not on the western news menu.
Europe, still oscillating somewhere in between west and east, may eventually join (or re-join) her natural partners in the east. Indications to that end are the clearest in Germany, where the corporate world is already allied with Russia and by extension, with China – and this despite Madame Merkel, whose official position has until recently been fully pro-Washington. However, more recently she has also been propagating independence from Washington.
Without much ado, pioneered by Greece and Italy, and against protests from Washington, Europe is gradually also becoming part of China’s BRI. Predictably, new alliances will emerge and that with the idea of a multi-polar world. Both Beijing and Moscow have been propagating moving away from a unipolar hegemonic system towards a multi-polar world, favoring peace and cooperation.
Away from the sanction-prone west, a priority for China is also developing her own internal market and infrastructure.This has already begun, addressing primarily China’s western and north-western provinces. It is the conversion from China’s traditional vertical growth, reaching in the past at times 12% or more per year, to what is called “quality growth”, bringing about socioeconomic development to the Chinese “hinterland” – people’s wellbeing and more equilibrium of the Chinese economy, comparing the country’s eastern and western regions.
Another territorial area of contention is the South China Sea. This is nothing new. Already under Obama’s infamous “Pivot to Asia” (2012 onward) – a political disaster – he “occupied” the South China Sea with about 60% of the US navy fleet, yes, almost two thirds of US war ships were menacingly circulating and watching over Chinese movements and activities – in what is China’s historically sovereign territory. Under President Trump, the aggression has become even fiercer.
On 14 July RT reports China’s Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Zhao Lijian as saying to reporters that the US has been “the troublemaker and the disruptor of peace and stability in the region”. He added,
“China enjoys indisputable sovereignty over the South China Sea and the islands. China’s stand is based on historical facts and international law. China’s sovereign rights and positions are formed in the course of history and this position has been held by Chinese Government for long.” And further, “Beijing has never sought to establish “an empire” in the region. However, he argued that China’s territorial claims and interests“have sufficient historical and legal basis,” and are legal under international law.”
What are the real bones of contention of China’s rightful territorial claims to much of the South China Sea? – There are between 42 and 70 billion barrels of oil under the South China Sea, possibly more – and close to 300 trillion cubic feet (tcf) of gas.
China is less wary about her territorial partners in the South China Sea (Brunei, Taiwan, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, and Vietnam.), than about western / NATO interference and bullying of these partners into conflicts and belligerence with China. The non-confrontational approach of China is bound to find resources sharing arrangements with these regional partners.
***
A key issue for the US is China’s strong currency, the yuan. The yuan is poised to gradually replace the US-dollar as a major world reserve currency. The international strength of the yuan is being enhanced by a blockchain-based and gold-backed People’s Bank of China (PBC) controlled crypto-yuan.
China’s central bank (PBC) has launched a trial run in a number of cities, including Shenzhen, Suzhou, Chengdu, and Xiong’an, of her new crypto-currency, the e-RMB (Ren Min Bi, meaning People’s Money), or Yuan. So far it has been fully accepted by the people and is used virtually for everything, from salary deposits, to on-line purchases, to rent payments, street shopping and more.
Eventually the new cyber money will be rolled out internationally for trade, commodity pricing – and even to be used as a safe and stable reserve currency. The digital blockchain money assures the users total security, no interference from outside. It is a protection from ”sanctions” and arbitrary confiscation of financial assets. As such, the new cyber yuan may become an attractive international trading / transfer alternative to the US-dollar. This will add a new dimension to China’s economic strength. Not only will her economy soon outrank that of the United States, the yuan may also gradually become one of the main reserve currencies of the world.
With sanctions and threats of war – from trade, to biological, to cyber, to hard warfare by missiles and bombs – China is once again on her way to a new autonomy, a trustworthy Asian market – even including Australia and Japan – as well as a large potential internal market. The west, the US and Europe, may continue to depend on China’s supply chains, but these can no longer be used as instruments for sanctions and coercion.
China is embedded in a solid alliance with Russia and in a strategic coalition with the SCO. In addition, President Xi’s Belt and Road Initiative – BRI, or also called the New Silk Road – is about to become the world’s economic development revolution of the 21st Century. In this sense, China will continue to relentlessly work in a non-aggression style forward, towards a world community with a shared future for mankind.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
This article was originally published on New Eastern Outlook.
Peter Koenig is an economist and geopolitical analyst. He is also a water resources and environmental specialist. He worked for over 30 years with the World Bank and the World Health Organization around the world in the fields of environment and water. He lectures at universities in the US, Europe and South America. He writes regularly for 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.
On Monday, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell introduced the so-called Health, Economic Assistance, Liability Protection and Schools (HEALS) Act.
It’s long on benefitting US business interests, woefully short on helping tens of millions of jobless, homeless, food insecure, and other needy Americans.
Below is what’s in it:
$1,200 for single taxpayers and heads of household, $2,400 for married couples filing jointly, plus an additional $500 per child up to age-17 and other dependents in recipient households with no income of their own.
The amount is identical to the months earlier CARES Act adopted in March.
The above amounts apply to singles earning $75,000 or less, heads of households with income of $112,500 or less, and married couples earning up to $150,000.
Scaled down amounts go to households earning up to $99,000/$198,000 for married couples.
Amounts received are free from federal and state debt collection — except for past due child support payments.
So-called now expired Federal Pandemic Unemployment Compensation (FPUC) benefit of $600 weekly to qualified recipients is cut to $200 through September.
Beginning October 1, this amount would be replaced by 70% of lost wages — combined with state unemployment insurance (UI) up to a maximum of $500 weekly.
States would be given $2 billion to upgrade their UI systems — to be more able to handle a surge in claims of over one million weekly for 18 straight weeks.
Companies with 300 or fewer workers that experienced at least a 50% reduction in revenues would get $190 billion to prevent layoffs — even though CARES Act recipient firms used earlier amounts gotten for other purposes, including executive pay and bonuses.
HEALS Act recipient firms would be able to borrow up to 2.5 times their monthly payroll amounts up to $2 million.
The amount received would be forgivable if at least 60% of the total is used to pay workers.
The Small Business Administration (SBA) would also be authorized to provide up to $100 billion in 20-year maturity/1% interest loans to so-called “recovery sector businesses.”
They include firms in low-income areas with 500 or fewer workers who’ve had at least a 50% decline in revenues.
The so-called Employee Retention Tax Credit (ERTC) will increase from 50% on certain wages to 65% for qualified firms.
The HEALS Act would permit the ERTC for firms up to 500 employees on all their wages.
The GOP bill would also temporarily expand the work opportunity tax credit (WOTC) to employers hiring individuals in qualified groups, including COVID-19 unemployment recipients.
A new refundable 50% payroll tax credit of firms’ qualified employee protection expenses would be created, including for COVID-19 testing and personal protection equipment (PPE).
Current federal tax law permits 50% of business meals to be expensed. The HEALS Act increases the deduction to 100%.
$306 billion would be provided for so-called health-related emergencies, including $105 billion for schools to reopen in the coming weeks.
Companies, hospitals, and schools would get COVID-19-related liability protection — preventing lawsuits except in cases of gross negligence.
The GOP bill largely excludes aid to states and local governments.
GOP and the Dems so-called Health and Economic Recovery Omnibus Emergency Solutions HEROES legislation are $2 trillion dollars apart in benefits.
On Monday, Dem House Speaker Pelosi issued a statement saying:
“I call upon the Republican leadership of the House and Senate and representatives of the President to come to the Speaker’s Office and join Leader Schumer and me within a half an hour of releasing their plan today to negotiate and get the job done.”
The GOP bill largely favors business, offering crumbs alone to tens of millions of jobless Americans.
Congress is scheduled to recess on August 7, a week from Friday, leaving around 10 days for Republicans and Dems to resolve major differences in their bills.
At a time of unprecedented hardships to countless millions of US households because of economic collapse not likely to ease any time soon, vital aid is needed to help ordinary Americans get by as long as crisis conditions last.
Note: The GOP HEALS Act omits mention of extending a moratorium on evictions from residences with federal guaranteed mortgages.
It’s essential in a final bill to prevent a potential explosion of the nation’s homeless.
*
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.”
Current Western human rights industry practice has nothing to do with establishing the truth. Increasingly in recent years, US and allied elites have sought to legitimize illegal aggression by exploiting human rights motifs in their attempts to recolonize the majority world.
In any given crisis, human rights NGOs funded by the US and allied corporate elites and governments deploy sensationalist false claims, for example of police murdering peaceful protestors, so as to create a cognitive limbo of doubt and suspicion aimed at disabling opposition to the West’s recolonization campaigns. Over the medium and long term, the steady drip of false accusations against countries resisting recolonization, like Syria and Iran, or Cuba, Venezuela and Nicaragua, creates false memories, corrupting and distorting the historical record and obscuring the West’s crimes against those and so many other countries in the majority world.
Western ruling elites have corrupted human rights organizations and institutions at practically every level using corporate grant making and government funding. The practical results of this corruption mirror corporate techniques of control fraud and strategic avoidance of regulation. Economics writers like Michael Hudson and William Black, among others, have explained how corrupt US and allied corporations have exploited these fraudulent abuses for decades. Control fraud is essentially no different from ancient practices like debasing coins, adulterating food products or selling defective goods as fit for use. They all fool people into accepting something that causes them loss, hurt and damage.
In the United States, powerful corporations control US political and institutional life sufficiently to be able to co-opt justice and escape criminal prosecution. This reality crowds out honest, socially responsible business and financial practice. Parallel to control fraud by major financial institutions, other multinational corporations, for example oil, mining or information technology corporations, operate what various writers call a “veil of tiers” strategy misrepresenting their earnings so as to avoid tax or other regulation, and legal prosecution. More legitimately, in the field of insurance, the “veil of tiers” strategy spreads risks associated with potential litigation. The international human rights industry uses similar techniques to justify and cover up Western attacks against the peoples of the majority world.
The dependence of international human rights NGOs on corporate and government funding and on publicity via corporate media and public relations over time has generated the osmosis of corrupt corporate practice into the human rights industry. Writers like Cory Morningstar have analyzed exhaustively how this takeover by corporate culture of the “non-profit industrial complex serves hegemony as a sophisticated fine-tuned symbiotic mechanism in a continuous state of flux and refinement. The ruling elite channel an immeasurable amount of resources and tools through these organizations to further strengthen, protect and expand existing forms of power structures and global domination.”
In a human rights context, control fraud takes the form of politically motivated, false, sensationalist accusations based on egregiously one-sided, often fact-free research, sometimes using fake pseudo-scientific reconstructions. Accountability for these false accusations is rendered negligible by means of a “veil of tiers” strategy starting at a low level with small, local or national human rights NGOS, progressing via larger international human rights NGOs and auxiliary private contractors to regional human rights institutions, then reaching United Nations organizations and ultimately the highest levels of the international human rights legal system. By excluding independent corroboration, the interchange from one level to the next imparts spurious mutual legitimacy of varying degrees between the organizations and institutions involved.
The process is quasi-judicial with zero accountability, such that attempting to counteract false accusations is extremely difficult if not impossible, especially in the short term. If anything, the human rights industry is even less accountable than multinational corporations. Two recent examples, among innumerable others, confirm the creeping monopolization of the human rights industry by corrupt corporate practice. Against both the Ukraine government in February 2014 and against the Nicaraguan government in May 2018, Western human rights NGOs made very similar accusations that their police forces murdered peaceful protestors indiscriminately. In both cases, the accusations were false.
The context of the killings in both cases was a violent attempt at regime change by a US government funded political opposition. In Ukraine’s case, the opposition had been supported for over twenty years with US government funding amounting to over US$5 billion as confirmed in 2013 by Victoria Nuland, then US Assistant Secretary of State. That US government finance was in addition to funding from US corporate oligarchs like Pierre Omidyaar andGeorge Soros. The most notorious event in the regime change campaign in Ukraine took place over February 18th-20th in 2014 when over 70 people were killed in Kiev’s Maidan square during violent confrontations between police and protestors. The massacre led to the overthrow of the legitimate government and its replacement by a fascist US client regime.
After the event, even CNN felt bound to report a leaked conversation between Estonia’s Foreign Minister Urmas Paet and Catherine Ashton, High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs in which Paet confirmed that a pro-opposition doctor treating wounded protestors claimed opposition snipers, not government security forces, had shot the protestors. That report was followed by the broadcast from Italy’s Mediaset Matrix television channel of interviews, here and here, with mercenary snipers confessing they had fired on both protestors and police during the Maidan protests in February 2014. The mercenaries had come forward aggrieved at not getting paid by the opposition aligned figures who hired them. Even so, the Ukraine authorities announced their investigation into the shootings was complete, simply repeating the false accusations against the former Ukrainian government despite categorically clear evidence to the contrary.
A prominent part of the Ukraine prosecutors’ false case was a virtual reconstruction of events by a private New York contractor called SITU Research whose human rights work is funded by US oligarch owned grant making bodies, like the MacArthur Foundation, the Oak Foundation and the Open Society Foundations. Ivan Katchanovski of the University of Ottawa has exposed as phony the SITU Research reconstruction of the Maidan shootings, demonstrating, for example, that in various cases SITU Research’s imaging moved wound locations indicated in the respective forensic autopsy reports in order to suit the video’s conclusions. Katchanovksi’s detailed analysis draws on other evidence omitted by SITU Research which also contradicts their claims, for example witness testimony from 25 wounded opposition supporters that they were shot from opposition controlled buildings.
Katchanovski points out that numerous video and TV footage shows opposition snipers and shooters in buildings controlled by the opposition. That footage is supported by over 150 witness testimonies confirming snipers were firing from those locations. Katchanovski also notes that Brad Samuels, founding partner of SITU Research “said in a video [start at 55:16] that ‘…eventually, there is a consensus that there was a third party acting. It is clear from forensic evidence that people were shot in the back. Somebody was shooting from rooftops.’ ” Katchanovski remarks that Samuels’ “striking observation was not included anywhere in the SITU 3D model report that he produced.” Katchanovski’s critical analysis of SITU Research’s material and of the broader official Ukraine investigation into the Maidan massacre has never been seriously challenged.
Similar false accusations ignoring readily available contradictory evidence and also using SITU Research modeling were made against Nicaragua’s government earlier this year. On May 30th the Organization of American States subsidiary body the Interdisciplinary Group of Independent Experts (GIEI), the Argentinian Forensic Anthropology Team and SITU Research jointly published a video allegedly proving that Nicaragua’s police shot and killed unarmed protesters at a demonstration on May 30th 2018. But detailed analysis of the video shows that in this case too SITU Research have misrepresented data, namely the distance between the police and the protestors which was in fact about 175 metres, in order to harmonize the reality of what happened with their virtual reconstruction which claims police snipers fired from a distance of around 250 metres.
The video footage of the protests in Nicaragua contains no scenes where Nicaraguan police use their firearms. Similarly, just as in their false reconstruction of events in Kiev’s Maidan square, SITU Research omitted a substantial body of information contradicting their account of the shootings in Managua on May 30th. The context in this case too was of extremely violent protests by organizations funded by the US government with over US$15 million just in 2017-2018. For example, local human rights organizations received over US$3 million from the US government that year as did local media NGOs. Although, two solidarity organizations wrote and published an open letter to the organizations who produced the video, respectfully questioning their findings, to date the letter has received only a formal acknowledgment without replying to the questions.
In both Ukraine and Nicaragua, the US government funded local opposition aligned NGOs to make false allegations of very serious human rights violations. A private company contractor was funded by US corporate interests to produce false pseudo-scientific material unfairly incriminating the governments for those violations. International human rights NGOs repeated the false accusations on the basis of that same false evidence. Regional human rights institutions accused the governments concerned on the basis of that same material.
The accusations are false but the Nicaraguan government and accused members of the former Ukrainian government are denied a fair defense. This same process has been repeated over and over again against governments resisting US and allied policies. Western human rights organizations share the same corrupt methodology as their corporate and government patrons. They make false claims, suppress inconvenient evidence, do all they can to avoid independent scrutiny and systematically evade accountability.
*
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 scientists conclusions are damning: They said,
“the January to June 2020 prolonged heat was made at least 600 times more likely as a result of human-induced climate change.”
They warned that the region, which is warming at least three times faster than the rest of the world, could experience a worse case scenario of seven degrees of warming by 2050.
They added,
“by 2050 the Siberian region could expect to have temperatures increase by at least 2.5 degrees compared to 1900, but this increase could be as high as 7 degrees.”
If this happens, the region as we know it will be no more, with a spiraling chaos of extreme heat, fires, methane releases, and the decimation of iconic species.
This extreme heat is impacting the sea ice. Yesterday an article in Mashable warned that the Arctic sea ice just crashed to an extreme, record low. In total, Mashable warned “Arctic sea ice is about 500,000 square kilometers (some 193,000 square miles) under the previous record low for this time of year.”
Walt Meier, a senior research scientist at the National Snow and Ice Data Center, told the site, “right now it’s quite extreme.” He is not the only one worried. Meteorologist Simon Lee tweeted:
The unprecedented disappearance of sea ice in the Arctic this summer is a mind-blowing manifestation of the changes we are causing to Earth's climate. pic.twitter.com/NZmcCt5wlZ
The loss of sea ice is having a devastating impact on polar bears, who use it to hunt for seals.
A new study, published in Nature Climate Change, warns that under a business as usual scenario, polar bears could nearly be extinct by the end of the century, now only present in the Queen Elizabeth Islands, the northernmost cluster in Canada’s Arctic.
“It’s been clear for some time that polar bears are going to suffer under climate change,” Péter Molnár, a biologist at the University of Toronto, and lead author of the study, told the Guardian. “Even if we mitigate emissions, we are still going to see some subpopulations go extinct before the end of the century.”
The news from the South Pole, Antarctica, is equally depressing, with scientists discovering active leaks of methane, the most potent greenhouse gas, from the sea floor. This is deeply troubling as Antarctica is estimated to contain as much as a quarter of earth’s marine methane reserves. If this escapes into the atmosphere it could seriously worsen our climate emergency.
“It is not good news…The methane cycle is absolutely something that we as a society need to be concerned about. I find it incredibly concerning.”
We all need to be worried. As the Independent added about the research, “as the climate crisis means ice shelves retreat, the release of methane from subsurface marine reservoirs is expected to become increasingly common.”
*
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 Supreme Court decided on June 15 that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects gay and transgender workers from workplace discrimination. Discrimination ‘because of sex’ is unlawful. But what is it that makes discrimination morally wrong? It is useful to examine this from a Kantian standpoint because Immanuel Kant lays the foundation for recognizing the inherent dignity of every individual – and discrimination is indeed an affront to human dignity.
Kant’s moral philosophy – or deontology (‘deon’ referring to duty) – maintains that what makes an act right is that it is done for the sake of the moral law. Consequences, intended or otherwise, are irrelevant in determining the moral worth of an action. What matters is whether the action is motivated by duty, which is to say, respect for the moral law.
Kant offered several formulations of the moral law which he described as a categorical imperative, as opposed to a hypothetical imperative. A hypothetical imperative says “If you want to accomplish x… then you must do y.” A categorical imperative on the other hand says, “Do x!” Your ends, aims or desires are irrelevant. That is what makes it categorical: it is not conditional upon anything. It commands us all the same irrespective of empirical or psychological contingencies.
Two formulations of the categorical imperative are particularly important. The first is the principle of human dignity and it says, never treat another rational being merely as a means but always as an end-in-themselves. In other words, treat every human being as possessing intrinsic value and never simply as a means to your own ends. From this standpoint, slavery is wrong precisely because it reduces the human being to a mere object, a thing, an instrument for satisfying another’s interests and fails to recognize their infinite and intrinsic worth as an end-in-themselves.
The second formulation of the categorical imperative is the principle of universalizability. It tells us to act only on those maxims that we can universalize. In other words, ask yourself if the action I am about to take can be rationally universalized – could I rationally, self-consistently will that everyone act in the same way as I am about to? Suppose I want to break a contract and renege on my promise: could I rationally will that everyone act on the maxim, renege on your promise when it suits you? The answer is no. I cannot rationally universalize the maxim, break your contract whenever it suits you, because in that case the entire institution of making contracts would collapse. No one would enter into a contract if there was not a reasonable expectation that it would be honored. When I renege on an agreement what I am actually doing is making an exception of myself – I am saying that everyone else should abide by their agreements but the same rule does not apply to me.
In fact, it is fair to say that the capital sin from a Kantian standpoint is precisely making an exception of myself, failing to recognize that the same rules apply to me as they do to anyone else. Discrimination therefore violates the very core of Kantian moral theory. When I discriminate against another person or group, I am saying that they do not count as much as I do. Discrimination is always morally wrong from a Kantian standpoint because it means that I allow myself to count more than the other does: the same rules do not apply to us equally. But morality requires that no one, and no group, counts more than any other. The rules apply to us all equally and no one is permitted to make an exception of themselves or the group to which they happen to belong.
There is another aspect to the deontological critique of discrimination. Kant famously writes in the Conclusion to his Critique of Practical Reason (1788): “Two things fill the mind with ever new and increasing admiration and reverence… The starry heavens above me and the moral law within me.” What is so wonderful about the moral law? There is something about it which gives humanity a touch of the divine and the reason has to do with autonomy.
To say that we are capable of acting on the basis of the moral law is to say that we are capable of autonomy – that is, literally, self-lawgiving. If we are able to give the law to ourselves then we are truly free. There is no freedom without autonomy. Freedom is not being able to do whatever you want. It is being able to act on a law that you legislate to yourself.
The alternative to autonomy is heteronomy. I may be physically free but if I live my life satisfying every base inclination then I am not really free at all. In that case, I am heteronomous – ruled by an other. I am still being ruled by an other, even if that other is my own inclinations and desires. As Martin Luther King observed, “An individual has not started living until he can rise above the narrow confines of his individualistic concerns to the broader concerns of all humanity.” Freedom is being able to govern yourself through a kind of self-legislation.
Kant admits that we may never know whether anyone ever truly acted solely out of respect for the moral law: “One need not be an enemy of virtue but only a cool observer… to become doubtful at certain moments… whether any true virtue is to be found in the world.” We can say of any act that it was partially motivated by self-interest or inclination. But if it is impossible to act on the basis of the moral law then freedom is also impossible. When we act on the basis of self-interest or inclination we are not acting with true freedom. Although we cannot know that any act consistent with duty was motivated solely by the moral law, neither can we know that it was not. And not only are we permitted to think that moral freedom is indeed possible, in fact we have to assume it is possible for morality to make any sense at all.
We cannot arrive at any theoretical knowledge pertaining to freedom, according to Kant, because our knowledge is limited to the world of phenomena, or appearances. To the extent that our knowledge is bound by phenomena, nothing in the world including ourselves is free – as Kant observed: “[If] I were only a part of the world of sense [all my actions] would be assumed to conform wholly to the natural law of desires and inclinations, i.e., to the heteronomy of nature.” But it is also because our knowledge is limited that we are allowed to think of ourselves as free; and indeed, for the sake of morality we have to. We do not know what we are in ourselves, so to speak: “Even as to himself, the human being cannot claim to cognize what he is in himself…” – for we cannot know things in themselves, or the world as noumena. And since we cannot know, it is possible that we are free as noumenal beings.
What then is morally wrong with discrimination from a Kantian standpoint? When we discriminate against persons what we are effectively doing is saying this person or group of people lack moral worth. We have moral worth because we have the capacity for autonomy or freedom. That is why one is to be treated always as an end-in-itself, because we are rational agents capable of acting on the basis of a law that reason itself legislates. When I am prejudiced against someone I am, consciously or not, denying their capacity for moral freedom.
But we have also seen that Kant denies that we can have any such knowledge about others or even ourselves. Therefore, when I deny another’s capacity for autonomy I am assuming a knowledge I do not possess. I have to assume that all rational beings are capable of freedom, and as such they possess infinite worth. Discrimination is morally wrong then because it is based on a false premise – namely, that I can truly know the other.
Kant teaches that we have to acknowledge the limits of human knowledge. When I recognize that the other as a noumenal being eludes me I have to admit that I can no more deny their freedom then I can deny my own. And if they are free then they possess infinite self-worth and must be treated as end-in-themselves and never simply as a means.
From a Kantian standpoint discrimination based on race – or religion, or gender – is fundamentally wrong. It is wrong, first of all, because it is dehumanizing, a denial of human dignity. When I racially discriminate, I am denying the person’s intrinsic self-worth, I am, in fact, denying their very right to exist, whether I know it or not. The moral law demands that I treat every individual as a free person equal to everyone else. If the moral law grants each of us a kind of infinite worth, it does not grant someone greater worth than anyone else.
As Patrick Linden, a professor of philosophy at New York University, said to me in an email, it is “more consonant with Kant’s ethics to disregard group membership – black, white, sex, tribe, etc. – and focus on the person as a source of freedom and value. To treat a person on the basis of their essential humanity rather than according to other categories they may be members of. That is what we want to be the universal law. This is why Kant is usually seen as morally opposed to affirmative action whatever its expedience may be. It also contradicts traditionalist understandings of workplace gender segregation.”
Discrimination is morally egregious when we use it to justify treating another human being as anything less than a human being, as anything less than a person possessed with inherent dignity, and immeasurable intrinsic value. Each one of us is an end-in-itself, a citizen within a “kingdom of ends,” as Kant put it. When I discriminate, I do not treat that person any longer as an end-in-themselves – I identify them with some group of which they are a member and allow that to define who and what they are. What I have invariably overlooked is their humanity: when I respect their humanity, I treat them with dignity, because I know they have the capacity for moral freedom and therefore infinite worth.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Sam Ben-Meir is a professor of philosophy and world religions at Mercy College in New York City. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.
“Americans should not blame others in vain,” Iranian general Esmail Gha’ani has declared, “this is a fire they have lit and today has engulfed them.” Gha’ani, a veteran military commander who heads the Quds Force, the branch of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) responsible for extraterritorial operations, was speaking about the massive fire that has overtaken a U.S. navy vessel in San Diego.
Gha’ani chose his words carefully. He skirted suggesting that Iran had a role in the blaze, instead saying it was the “result of the actions and crimes of the American government” and was “carried out by American elements” themselves. But he signaled American actions abroad will have costs at home, saying that “very difficult days and harsh incidents lie ahead” for the U.S. and Israel.
The repeat incidents suggest a broader sabotage operation at play. Israel and the U.S. are not strangers to such operations in Iran. However, coming months before the U.S. presidential election, such actions smack of desperation and a last-ditch effort to goad Iran into overreaction and dangerously spike U.S.-Iran tensions yet again.
Israel’s Drive for a U.S. War with Iran
“This is a historic opportunity,” an aid to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told journalist Ben Caspit late last year. “You have no idea what we can wheedle from the Americans now, what a golden opportunity we face when the US is about to enter an election year—if we have a unity government headed by [Prime Minister Benjamin] Netanyahu.”
That government has now been formed and Netanyahu is at its helm despite his ongoing trial on corruption charges. But what might the “historic opportunity” look like? Caspit asserts: “Netanyahu’s people, headed by minister Yuval Steinitz clearly state that a widespread war is likely to erupt in the next six months between Iran and its adversaries in the region, including Israel.” Caspit adds that Israeli defense minister Naftali Bennet has been “ramping up the warmongering” and “threatens Iran on an almost daily basis.”
Netanyahu has a long history of agitating for war with Iran. Former U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry has said that during the nuclear negotiations that led to the July 2015 nuclear accord, the Israeli leader “urged” then-U.S. President Barack Obama to “bomb Iran.” Netanyahu himself nearly attacked Iran at least three times in 2010 and 2011, but was blocked to a large degree by President Obama, who opposed such strikes and feared they would lead to a region-wide conflict that the U.S. would be dragged into.
The situation could not be more different with the Trump administration. President Trump has given carte blanche to Netanyahu, whether on annexation of the West Bank, recognizing Jerusalem as the Israeli capital, or adopting a regime change policy toward Tehran. Trump has boasted that reneging on the Iran nuclear deal was “probably the biggest thing I did for Israel.”
According to John Bolton, Trump’s former national security advisor turned nemesis, Trump has already greenlighted Israeli military strikes against Iran. Trump for his part believes a war with Iran would be short.
“I’m not talking boots on the ground,” he proclaimed last year. “I’m just saying if something would happen, it wouldn’t last very long.”
He has also said that he would not need an “exit strategy” in the event of a war with Iran.
As one Trump administration official has stated, the “ultimate goal” of the current U.S. pressure campaign against Iran is to “draw Iran into an armed conflict with the United States.” But for all the Trump administration’s efforts, the Iranian government has neither taken the bait nor imploded or capitulated.
Iranian Restraint Being Tested
In the face of overt aggression from the Trump administration, Iran has alternated between restraint and careful counter-escalation. As the Iranian economy has come under a brutal chokehold, Iran has responded in calibrated fashion to demonstrate the costs of maximum pressure while isolating the U.S. internationally and keeping the nuclear deal alive.
Iran is widely believed to be responsible for attacks on Emirati oil tankers last summer and Saudi oil facilities last fall, which occurred after the U.S. ended sanctions waivers for importers of Iranian oil. After the U.S. drone strike that killed Iranian General Qassem Soleimani, Iran also retaliated by launching a ballistic missile barrage at a base that houses U.S. troops in Iraq. Significantly, there were no fatalities in any of these incidents (Iran reportedly gave forewarning to Iraqi officials regarding the Iraq attack).
Iran has enjoyed widespread international support for its efforts to preserve the nuclear deal and restraint in the face of U.S. and Israeli provocations. The U.S. is currently fixated on a far-fetched plan to reimpose United Nations sanctions on Iran, but remains extraordinarily isolated on Iran, including from its European allies. This was exemplified at a recent UN Security Council meeting on Iran, where one country after another lined up to voice support for the nuclear accord and rebuke the U.S. for its approach to Iran.
It now seems possible that the nuclear deal will survive Trump’s sabotage and be resuscitated. Trump is dwindling in the polls and Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden has pledged to return to the accord and get the U.S back on a diplomatic track toward Iran. For Netanyahu and his allied hawks in Washington, this is the worst-case scenario. Despite all their efforts, they will have lost the “golden opportunity” of the Trump presidency to decisively kill the nuclear deal and trigger a head-on U.S.-Iran war. It is perhaps for this reason that Bolton, longtime ally of Netanyahu and staunch advocate of war against Iran, recently proclaimed that “the next few months are an optimal time for Israel to act in its own national security interests.”
A Hot Summer Ahead
The string of blasts on mostly civilian infrastructure throughout Iran should be seen in the context of ongoing efforts to ratchet up U.S.-Iran hostilities. The pernicious pressure campaign against Iran being taken inside the country’s borders tests the limits of Iran’s restraint and invites more fierce reprisals. Already, a media narrative has taken hold that Iran’s “limited response” to U.S. actions “could be an incentive for further operations against it,” as the New York Times has stated.
The recent remarks of Gha’ani, who is Soleimani’s successor, indirectly warns the U.S. of increased costs to America if it continues its current policy. However, Netanyahu and his allies in Washington have likely pinned their hopes on Iran providing a casus belli for further escalation. Any violent reaction from Iran could be seized upon to shift global opinion and engulf the U.S. in a conflict that a Biden administration could not easily undo.
President Trump remains committed to escalating against Iran even as the U.S. battles a worsening pandemic, an economic depression, and internal discord not seen in decades. In May, Trump even vetoed legislation that would prevent military actions against Iran without Congressional authorization. As Trump’s prospects for re-election fade, a dangerous stage has been set for conflict in the months ahead.
*
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.
Brazil’s Trade Union Network UniSaude filed a complaint in the International Criminal Court (ICC) against President Jair Bolsonaro for crimes against humanity and genocide during the COVID-19 crisis.
“Bolsonaro’s management of the pandemic has been criminal and negligent. He has risked the lives of health professionals and the people,” UniSaude denounced.
Despite testing COVID-19 positive, the far-right politician refuses to take preventive measures to protect citizens. He has also been seen greeting his supporters without wearing a mask, promoting meetings, and minimizing the pandemic’s impact in the country.
On Saturday, after learning that he had already overcome the disease, Bolsonaro drove his motorcycle without a mask around the Alvorada Palace.
"Bolsonaro is more than a political problem, he became a public health problem," leaders of Brazilian opposition parties said. https://t.co/lnHP6yqjpt
UniSaude has also condemned the fact that Brazil has been without a health minister for over two months. Since the last health minister resigned from office in May, the inexperienced General Eduardo Pazuello has temporarily occupied this position.
“Brazil’s situation is extremely serious, and this has happened because of Bolsonaro’s unreliable decisions,” UniSaude said.
“Our accusation shows the people’s pain and concern about the health crisis,” nurse Jhuliana Rodrigues assured.
As of Monday, Brazil recorded 2,419,091 COVID-19 infections and 87,004 deaths. Among the infected people, 195,516 are health workers.
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.
Venezuela’s Foreign Ministry hit back at the Trump administration after it offered US $5 million for information leading to the arrest of Supreme Court President Maikel Moreno last week.
“The Venezuelan government once again rejects the Donald Trump administration’s illegal and coercive actions against the Venezuelan people…by way of false accusations and bounties in the style of cowboys and the Wild West,” Caracas said in a statement.
“The US people… deserve institutions dedicated to resolving the serious problems in society, including the justice system, such as determining the truth and perpetrators… in the Epstein case,” the statement continued, referring to notorious paedophile Jeffrey Epstein and his high-profile establishment connections.
The Foreign Ministry also pledged to include the move as additional evidence in its case before the International Criminal Court, in which Caracas argues that Washington’s sanctions constitute “crimes against humanity.”
Last week, the US State Department accused Moreno of “participating in transnational organized crime” and of “personally receiv[ing] money or property as bribery payments to influence the outcome of civil and criminal cases in Venezuela.” Moreno has categorically dismissed the allegations as “unfounded.”
The bounty is the latest in a series of similar compensations offered for the arrest of high-profile Venezuelan officials, including US $15 million for President Nicolas Maduro and US $10 million for other important figures, including National Constituent Assembly President Diosdado Cabello and Oil Minister Tareck El Aissami. All three men, alongside Moreno, were indicted by US federal prosecutors in March.
Moreno, who took over as Supreme Court president in 2017, was blacklisted by the US and Canada the same year, alongside dozens of other top officials, including President Maduro. The top judge was likewise sanctioned by Switzerland, Panama and the European Union in 2018.
Since declaring Venezuela an “unusual and extraordinary threat” to US national security in 2015, Washington has targeted scores of senior Venezuelan officials, freezing their foreign assets and imposing travel bans. Beginning in 2017, the Trump administration levied crippling financial sanctions, which it later escalated into an oil embargo and sweeping ban on dealings with Venezuelan state entities, enforced via secondary sanctions against third parties.
*
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: Venezuela’s chief justice Maikel Moreno, who now has a US $5 million bounty on his head, addresses the Supreme Court. (@MaikelMorenoTSJ / Twitter)
If some Congress members get their way, the Federal Reserve may soon be able to track many of your purchases in real time and share that information with government agencies. This is just one of the problems with the proposed “digital dollar” or “fedcoin.”
Fedcoin was initially included in the first coronavirus spending bill. While the proposal was dropped from the final version of the bill, there is still great interest in fedcoin on Capitol Hill. Some progressives have embraced fedcoin as a way to provide Americans with a “universal basic income.”
Both the Senate Banking Committee and the House Financial Services Committee held hearings on fedcoin in June. This is the first step toward making fedcoin a reality.
Fedcoin would not be an actual coin. Instead, it would be a special account created and maintained for each American by the Federal Reserve. Each month, Fed employees could tap a few keys on a computer and — bingo — each American would have dollars added to his Federal Reserve account. This is the 21st century equivalent of throwing money from helicopters.
Fedcoin could effect private cryptocurrencies. Also, it would limit the ability of private citizens to protect themselves from the Federal Reserve-caused decline in the dollar’s value.
Fedcoin would not magically increase the number of available goods and services. What it would do is drive up prices. The damage this would do to middle- and lower-income Americans would dwarf any benefit they receive from their monthly “gift” from the Fed. The rise in prices could lead to Congress regularly increasing fedcoin payments to Americans. These increases would cause prices to keep rising even more until we face hyperinflation and a dollar crisis. Of course, we are already on the path to an economic crisis thanks to the Fed. Fedcoin will hasten and worsen the crisis.
Fedcoin poses a great threat to privacy. The Federal Reserve could know when fedcoin is used, who is using it, and what they use it for. This information could be shared with government agencies, such as the FBI or IRS.
The government could use the ability to know how Americans are spending fedcoin to limit our ability to purchase goods and services disfavored by politicians and bureaucrats. Anyone who doubts this should recall the Obama administration’s Operation Choke Point. Operation Choke Point involved financial regulators “alerting” banks that dealing with certain businesses, such as gun stores, would put the banks at “reputational risk” and could subject them to greater regulation.
Is it so hard to believe that the ability to track purchases would be used in the future to “discourage” individuals from buying guns, fatty foods, or tobacco, or from being customers of corporations whose CEOs are not considered “woke” by the thought police? Fedcoin could also be used to “encourage” individuals to patronize “green” business, thus fulfilling Fed Chair Jerome Powell’s goal of involving the Fed in the fight against climate change.
Fedcoin could threaten private cryptocurrencies, increase inflation, and give government new powers over our financial transactions. Fedcoin will also speed up destruction of the fiat money system. Whatever gain fedcoin may bring to average Americans will come at terrible cost to liberty and prosperity.
*
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.
By its own admission, Israel’s IDF conducted numerous airstrikes on Syrian targets in recent years.
Last week, Lebanon’s Al-Manar television reported that an Israeli strike near Damascus International Airport killed Hezbollah fighter Ali Kamel Mohsen and four others.
In response, Hezbollah MP Sheikh Hassan Ezzedine said “war between us and this enemy (Israel) will continue, and this path that the martyrs have taken with their blood will continue.”
Along with Iranian military advisors and Russian air support, Hezbollah fighters are involved in aiding Syria combat US aggression, including its ISIS, al-Nusra and other jihadist proxies.
Israeli airstrikes in Syria killed Hezbollah fighters before. Its leadership vowed to retaliate against Israeli aggression when any of its personnel are harmed.
For days, tensions along the Lebanese/Israeli border remain heightened.
On Monday, Lebanese Al-Manar television reported the following:
Israel’s IDF “claim(ed) that “Hezbollah attempted to carry out an infiltration operation and that the Israeli army frustrated the attack and killed a number of its fighters,” adding:
“Hezbollah then issued a statement to refute the Israeli claims and stress that the Israeli army unilaterally opened fire for fear of Hezbollah response to the killing of the martyr Ali Mohsen in the latest raid on Syria.”
Netanyahu regime claims otherwise “are absolutely untrue and aim at fabricating fake victories.”
“The Islamic Resistance did not engage in any clash, nor did it open fire during (the border) incident.”
Gunfire was “from (the Israeli) side only…”
Israeli aggression “will not remain unanswered.”
Last weekend, Lebanon’s military reported that numerous Israeli surveillance drones entered the country’s airspace illegally.
On Monday, explosions and gunfire were heard along the Lebanese/Israeli border — in illegally occupied Sheba’a Farms.
From its 1982 preemptive war on Lebanon until May 2000, Israeli illegally occupied the country’s south to the Litani River.
It still illegally occupies the Ghajar Lebanese village bordering Golan, along with Sheba’a Farms, a 14-square mile water-rich area near Syria’s Golan.
In 1982, Oded Yinon’s document titled “A Strategy for Israel in the Nineteen Eighties” laid out a divide and conquer strategy.
It was and remains all about wanting the Middle East map redrawn in cahoots with the US so both countries can dominate the region.
For Israeli hegemonic plans to succeed, it believes Arab states and Iran must be partitioned along ethnic and sectarian lines, transformed into client states.
Israel’s preemptive June 1967 Six Day War followed the plan — illegally seizing the West Bank, East Jerusalem, Syria’s Golan and Lebanese territory.
Both countries have the misfortune of bordering the Jewish state with designs on expanding into their territory.
Israel preemptively attacked Lebanon in 1978, 1982, 1993, 1996, and 2006, along with subsequent Jewish state initiated cross-border incidents.
Does Netanyahu have another war in mind, a possible wag the dog scenario to distract attention from his ongoing corruption trial and days of street protests calling for him to resign?
According to deputy Hezbollah leader Sheikh Naim Qassem,
“(t)he atmosphere does not indicate a war…in the next few months,” adding:
“There is no change of rules of engagement and the deterrent equation with Israel exists and we are not planning to change it.”
Last summer after two Hezbollah fighters were killed by the IDF in Syria, its leader Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah vowed to respond defensively if Israeli attacks strike its forces again.
On Monday, Southfront reported that Israel deployed “M109 Doher howitzers” along its border with Lebanon, adding:
Gideon infantry and Golani brigade troops were also sent to the border area in Occupied Golan.
The Netanyahu regime warned that it holds Lebanon’s government responsible “for all actions emanating from” the country — ignoring its own hostile cross-border actions.
If further clashes with Hezbollah fighters occur, retaliation will be highly likely, risking more war in this tinder box part of the world.
Israel and the US partner in each each other’s preemptive wars.
Last week, US Joint Chiefs chairman General Mark Milley met with his IDF counterpart General Aviv Kochavi, former IDF chief/current Netanyahu regime war minister Benny Gantz, and other Israeli officials on a visit to an airbase in country to coordinate regional strategy ahead.
Netanyahu was involved by videoconference.
The Jerusalem Post asked if beleaguered Netanyahu seeks US support for striking Iran before US November elections while the most pro-Israel ever Trump regime remains in office.
AP News reported that Milley visited Israel at a time of heightened Middle East tensions — punctuated by the Israeli/Lebanon border incident that could escalate to something more serious.
While Israeli war with Lebanon is unlikely, beleaguered Netanyahu might try anything to stay in power and out of prison.
*
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.”
Medical doctors at an event in front of the US Supreme Court are accused of making false statements.
The video was removed by Youtube and Facebook. They are accused by the corporate media of spreading “fake science”:
“(CNN Business) A video featuring a group of doctors making false and dubious claims related to the coronavirus was removed by Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube after going viral online Monday.
The video, published by the right-wing media outlet Breitbart News, featured a group of people wearing white lab coats calling themselves “America’s Frontline Doctors” staging a press conference in front of the US Supreme Court in Washington, DC. …
During the press conference, a speaker who identifies herself as a doctor makes a number of dubious claims, including that “you don’t need masks” to prevent spread of the coronavirus, and that recent studies showing hydroxychloroquine is ineffective for the treatment of Covid-19 are “fake science” sponsored by “fake pharma companies.”<
“This virus has a cure, it’s called hydroxychloroquine, zinc, and Zithromax,” the woman claims. “You don’t need masks, there is a cure.”
The claims run contrary to multiple studies on the anti-malarial drug and advice from public health officials to prevent spread of the virus.” (CNN, Business, emphasis added)
Here we have a REAL CASE OF FAKE CNN NEWS which is involved in CENSORING “DUBIOUS CLAIMS” by medical doctors. A desperate attempt to silence American medical doctors, smearing medical professionals. It’s cheap dirty journalism. It’s fake corporate news at its best, applauding outright censorship of medical professionals. Why, because their statement goes against the multibillion interests of Big Pharma.
According to the CNN report, Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ), is allegedly sponsored by “Fake Pharma companies”. What utter nonsense. Who are these fake pharmaceutical companies?The corporate fake media did not even show up to ask questions to the medical doctors.
The Video is down but we have the entire transcript below. (Scroll down). You can check the credentials of the doctors.
Guess Who is behind this censorship?
Dr. Anthony Fauci, advisor to Donald Trump, portrayed as “America’s top infectious disease expert” has played a key role in smearing the HCQ cure which had been approved years earlier by the CDC. Dr. Fauci has been the head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) since the Reagan administration. He is known to act as a mouthpiece for Big Pharma.
In late June, Dr. Fauci launched Remdesevir a “corona wonder drug” developed by Gilead Sciences Inc. It’s a $1.6 billion dollar bonanza. It is $3200 treatment per patient. HCQ has been banned by Fauci. Medical doctors are threatened of loosing their licences if they prescribe HCQ.
Read more on LancetGate. How a peer reviewed May report in The Lancet was used to “kill HCQ”, portraying it as a dangerous drug. It was then discovered that the data to support these claims had been fabricated. The authoritative article was retracted by The Lancet. The Harvard Medical Doctor in charge of the study apologized, “I am sorry”:
It is now clear to me that in my hope to contribute this research during a time of great need, I did not do enough to ensure that the data source was appropriate for this use. For that, and for all the disruptions – both directly and indirectly – I am truly sorry. (emphasis added)
Dr. Mehra’s report is fake science. Fake data used to undermine HCQ in favor of Big Pharma’s Remdesivir.
This is the unspoken truth, Read it carefully:
The Lancet study on HCQ was allegedly based on data analysis of 96,032 patients hospitalized with COVID-19 between Dec 20, 2019, and April 14, 2020 from 671 hospitals Worldwide. The database had been fabricated. The objective was to kill the Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) cure on behalf of Big Pharma.
The US corporate media was instructed not to cover Lancetgate. And Fauci gave the green-light to Gilead Sciences Inc. to distribute Remdesevir, a $1.6 billion dollar bonanza.
Dr. Fauci is in “conflict of interest”. He suppresses HCQ while endorsing Gilead Sciences Inc.
Read the transcript below. We must ensure that the voice of medical doctors be upheld.
CNN is fake. The Medical doctors are real.
Below is the summary as well as the transcript. The video has been removed by Youtube and Facebook.
Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research, July 28, 2020
***
Listen to the testimony of American medical doctors.
Thousands of American physicians have been silenced.
“Americans are captured by Fear”.
We cannot live with a spiderweb of fear.
We’re being held down by the spider web of fear. That spiderweb is all around us and it’s constricting us and it’s draining the lifeblood of the American people, American society, and American economy.
Fear is sustained Worldwide by the media and the governments.
But HCQ is being suppressed by Anthony Fauci, who is behind the “Spiderweb of Fear” campaign.
When you apply the lockdown. People are confined. It creates health problems. It triggers alcoholism and drug addiction.
In turn, with the closing down of the national economy, this creates unemployment and poverty. Inevitably the closing down of the economy also triggers a public health crisis.
Thank you. Thank you so much congressmen. So we’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 do have some experts speaking, but there’s lots and lots of experts across the country. So some of us decided to get together. We’re America’s Frontline Doctors. We’re here only to help American patients and the American nation heal. We have a lot of information to share. Americans are riveted and captured by fear at the moment. We are not held down by the virus as much as we’re being held down by the spider web of fear. That spiderweb is all around us and it’s constricting us and it’s draining the lifeblood of the American people, American society, and American economy.
Scroll down for complete transcript
VIDEO
The video was censored all over Facebook, Google, Youtube, Twitter.
Thank you. Thank you so much congressman. So we’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 do have some experts speaking, but there’s lots and lots of experts across the country. So some of us decided to get together. We’re America’s Frontline Doctors. We’re here only to help American patients and the American nation heal. We have a lot of information to share. Americans are riveted and captured by fear at the moment. We are not held down by the virus as much as we’re being held down by the spider web of fear. That spiderweb is all around us and it’s constricting us and it’s draining the lifeblood of the American people, American society, and American economy.
This does not make sense. COVID-19 is a virus that exists in essentially two phases. There’s the early phase disease, and there’s the late phase disease. In the early phase either before you get the virus or early, when you’ve gotten the virus, if you’ve gotten the virus, there’s treatment. That’s what we’re here to tell you. We’re going to talk about that this afternoon. You can find it on America’s Frontline Doctors, there’s many other sites that are streaming it live on Facebook. But we implore you to hear this because this message has been silenced. There are many thousands of physicians who have been silenced for telling the American people the good news about the situation, that we can manage the virus carefully and intelligently, but we cannot live with this spider web of fear that’s constricting our country.
So we’re going to hear now from various positions. Some are going to talk to you about what the lockdown has done to young, to older, to businesses, to the economy, and how we can get ourselves out of the cycle of fear. Dr. Hamilton.
Thank you, Simone. And thank you all for being here today. I’m Dr. Bob Hamilton. I’m a pediatrician from Santa Monica, California. I’ve been in private practice there for 36 years. And today I have good news for you. The good news is the children as a general rule are taking this virus very, very well. Few are getting infected. Those who are getting infected are being hospitalized in low numbers. And fortunately the mortality rate of children is about one fifth of 1%. So kids are tolerating the infection very frequently, but are actually asymptomatic.
I also want to say that children are not the drivers of this pandemic. People were worried about, initially, if children were going to actually be the ones to push the infection along. The very opposite is happening. Kids are tolerating it very well, they’re not passing it on to their parents, they’re not passing it onto their teachers. Dr. Mark Woolhouse from Scotland, who is a pediatric infectious disease specialist and epidemiologist said the following. He said, “There has not been one documented case of COVID being transferred from a student to a teacher in the world.” In the world.
I think that is important that all of us who are here today realize that our kids are not really the ones who are driving the infection. It is being driven by older individuals. And yes, we can send the kids back to school I think without fear. And this is the big issue right now, as Congressman Norman alluded to, this is the really important thing we need to do. We need to normalize the lives of our children. How do we do that? We do that by getting them back in the classroom. And the good news is they’re not driving this infection at all. Yes, we can use security measures. Yes, we can be careful. I’m all for that. We all are. But I think the important thing is we need to not act out of fear. We need to act out of science. We need to do it. We need to get it done.
Finally, the barrier, and I hate to say this, but the barrier to getting our kids back in school is not going to be the science, it’s going to be the national unions, the teachers union, the National Education Association, other groups who are going to demand money. And listen, I think that it’s fine to give people money for PPE and different things in the classroom. But some of their demands are really ridiculous. They’re talking about, where I’m from in California, the UTLA, which is United Teachers Union of Los Angeles, is demanding that we defund the police. What does that have to do with education? They’re demanding that they stop or they shut all private charter schools, privately funded charter schools. These are the schools that are actually getting the kids educated.
So clearly there are going to be barriers. The barriers will not be science. There will not be barriers for the sake of the children. That’s going to be for the sake of the adults, the teachers, and everybody else, and for the union. So that’s where we need to focus our efforts and fight back. So thank you all for being here and let’s get our kids back in school.
Hello, I’m Dr. Stella Emmanuel. I’m a primary care physician in Houston, Texas. I actually went to medical school in West Africa, Nigeria, where I took care of malaria patients, treated them with hydroxychloroquine and stuff like that. So I’m actually used to these medications. I’m here because I have personally treated over 350 patients with COVID. Patients that have diabetes, patients that have high blood pressure, patients that have asthma, old people … I think my oldest patient is 92 … 87 year olds. And the result has been the same. I put them on hydroxychloroquine, I put them on zinc, I put them on Zithromax, and they’re all well.
American doctors are holding a “White Coat Summit” in Washington, D.C. to address “a massive disinformation campaign” by the media about coronavirus.
Watch as Dr. Stella Immanuel tackles the media's narrative about hydroxychloroquine 👇 pic.twitter.com/5oymtU7TQV
For the past few months, after taking care of over 350 patients, we’ve not lost one. Not a diabetic, not a somebody with high blood pressure, not somebody who asthma, not an old person. We’ve not lost one patient. And on top of that, I’ve put myself, my staff, and many doctors that I know on hydroxychloroquine for prevention, because by the very mechanism of action, it works early and as a prophylaxis. We see patients, 10 to 15 COVID patients, everyday. We give them breathing treatments. We only wear surgical mask. None of us has gotten sick. It works.
So right now, I came here to Washington DC to say, America, nobody needs to die. The study that made me start using hydroxychloroquine was a study that they did under the NIH in 2005 that say it works. Recently, I was doing some research about a patient that had hiccups and I found out that they even did a recent study in the NIH, which is our National Institute … that is the National … NIH, what? National Institute of Health. They actually had a study and go look it up. Type hiccups and COVID, you will see it. They treated a patient that had hiccups with hydroxychloroquine and it proved that hiccups is a symptom of COVID. So if the NIH knows that treating the patient would hydroxychloroquine proves that hiccup is a symptom of COVID, then they definitely know the hydroxychloroquine works.
I’m upset. Why I’m upset is that I see people that cannot breathe. I see parents walk in, I see diabetic sit in my office knowing that this is a death sentence and they can’t breathe. And I hug them and I tell them, “It’s going to be okay. You’re going to live.” And we treat them and they leave. None has died. So if some fake science, some person sponsored by all these fake pharma companies comes out say, “We’ve done studies and they found out that it doesn’t work.” I can tell you categorically it’s fixed science. I want to know who is sponsoring that study. I want to know who is behind it because there is no way I can treat 350 patients and counting and nobody is dead and they all did better.
I know you’re going to tell me that you treated 20 people, 40 people, and it didn’t work. I’m a true testimony. So I came here to Washington DC to tell America nobody needs to get sick. This virus has a cure. It is called hydroxychloroquine, zinc, and Zithromax. I know you people want to talk about a mask. Hello? You don’t need mask. There is a cure. I know they don’t want to open schools. No, you don’t need people to be locked down. There is prevention and there is a cure.
And let me tell you something, all you fake doctors out there that tell me, “Yeah. I want a double blinded study.” I just tell you, quit sounding like a computer, double blinded, double blinded. I don’t know whether your chips are malfunctioning, but I’m a real doctor. I have radiologists, we have plastic surgeons, we have neurosurgeons, like Sanjay Gupta saying, “Yeah, it doesn’t work and it causes heart disease.” Let me ask you Dr. Sanjay Gupta. Hear me. Have you ever seen a COVID patient? Have you ever treated anybody with hydroxychloroquine and they died from heart disease? When you do, come and talk to me because I sit down in my clinic every day and I see these patients walk in everyday scared to death. I see people driving two, three hours to my clinic because some ER doctor is scared of the Texas board or they’re scared of something, and they will not prescribe medication to these people.
I tell all of you doctors that are sitting down and watching Americans die. You’re like the good Nazi … the good one, the good Germans that watched Jews get killed and you did not speak up. If they come after me, they threaten me. They’ve threatened to … I mean, I’ve gotten all kinds of threats. Or they’re going to report me to the bots. I say, you know what? I don’t care. I’m not going to let Americans die. And if this is the hill where I get nailed on, I will get nailed on it. I don’t care. You can report me to the bots, you can kill me, you can do whatever, but I’m not going to let Americans die.
And today I’m here to say it, that America, there is a cure for COVID. All this foolishness does not need to happen. There is a cure for COVID. There is a cure for COVID is called hydroxychloroquine. It’s called zinc. It’s called Zithromax. And it is time for the grassroots to wake up and say, “No, we’re not going to take this any longer. We’re not going to die.” Because let me tell you something, when somebody is dead, they are dead. They’re not coming back tomorrow to have an argument. They are not come back tomorrow to discuss the double blinded study and the data. All of you doctors that are waiting for data, if six months down the line you actually found out that this data shows that this medication works, how about your patients that have died? You want a double blinded study where people are dying? It’s unethical. So guys, we don’t need to die. There is a cure for COVID.
My gosh. Dr. Emmanuelle also known as warrior. Before I introduce the next guest, I just want to say that I wish all doctors that are listening to this bring that kind of passion to their patients. And the study that Dr. Emmanuel was referring to is in Virology, which talks about a SARS viral epidemic that affects the lungs that came from China. And they didn’t know what would work. The study showed that chloroquine would work. It sounds exactly like it could have been written three months ago, but in fact, that’s study in Virology, which was published by the NIH, the National Institute of Health when Dr. Anthony Fauci was the director. Again, the official publication of the NIH, Virology, 15 years ago showed that chloroquine … we use hydroxychloroquine, it’s the same … little safer … works. They proved this 15 years ago when we got this novel coronavirus, which is not that novel, it’s 78% similar to the prior-
… coronavirus, which is not that novel. It’s 78% similar to the prior version. The COV-1, not surprisingly. It works. I’m now going to introduce our next speaker. Sorry. I forgot to say your name. Sorry.
That’s all right. Dr. Dan Erickson, Dr. Gold asked me to talk about the lockdown, how effective they were and do that cause anything nonfinancial? They always talk about the financial, but you have to realize that lockdown, we haven’t taken a $21 trillion economy and locked it down. So when you lock it down, it causes public health issues. Our suicide hotlines are up 600%, our spousal abuse. Different areas of alcoholism are all on the rise. These are public health problems from a financial lockdown. So we have to be clear on that fact that there is, it’s not like you just lock it down and have consequences to people’s jobs. They also have consequences, health consequences at home. So we’re talking about having a little more of a measured approach, a consistent approach. If we have another spike coming in cold and flu season, let’s do something that’s sustainable.
What’s sustainable. Well we can socially distance and wear some masks, but we can also open the schools and open businesses. So this measured approach I’m talking about, isn’t made up, it’s going on in Sweden and their deaths are about 564 per million. UK, full lockdown, 600 deaths per million. So we’re seeing that the lockdown aren’t decreasing significantly, the amount of deaths per million. Some of their Nordic neighbors have less deaths for a variety of reasons, I don’t have time to go into today. So what, my quick message here in a minute or two is just that we need to take an approach that’s sustainable. A sustainable approach is slowing things down, opening up schools, opening up businesses. And then we can allow the people to have their independence and their personal responsibility to choose to wear masks and socially distance, as opposed to putting edicts on them, kind of controlling them. Let’s empower them with data and let them study what other countries have done and make their own decision. That’s what I’d like to share. Thank you.
You know, South Dakota did something interesting. It’s interesting that you’re from there. So the governor did not restrict access to hydroxychloroquine.
Right. And you were, I believe you were the only state in the union that did that. And there’s been studies out there that attempt to show that it doesn’t work. They’re inaccurate because they’re given at the time, the wrong dose, the wrong patient either too much or a long time. So South Dakota did better because it had access to hydroxychloroquine. Thank you so much.
Okay. So if someone we love does get sick with COVID and you said the word hydro, or however you say it, it’s restricted. How do we get access to that?
Yeah. That’s the number one question we’re all asked every day. I want you to know that you’re not alone. I’ve had many congressmen ask me, how can I get it? So the congressmen can’t get it, it’s tough luck for the average American Joe getting it. It’s very difficult. You have to overcome a few hurdles. Your doctor has to have read the science with a critical eye and have eliminated the junk science. Many studies have been retracted as you know, and number two, the pharmacist has to not restrict it. Many states have empowered their pharmacists to not honor physician prescription. That’s never happened before. That interferes with the doctor patient relationship where the patient talks to the doctor, honestly, and the doctor answers the patient honestly has been violated.
So you have a very difficult time as the average American. Some of the information we’ll share later this afternoon is to show the mortality rates in countries where it’s not restricted and the mortality rates where it is restricted. So I have friends all over the world now because of this. And in Indonesia, you can just buy it over the counter. It’s in the vitamin section. And I’m here to tell the American people that you could buy it over the counter in Iran. Because the leaders in Iran, the mullahs in Iran, think that they should have more freedom than Americans. I have a problem with that. My colleagues have problems with that. We don’t like to watch patients die.
So when people have problems, they should be picking up the phone, they should be calling their state and their federal representatives and senators and say, we are the American people.
Thank you. Thank you, Julie. That is exactly right. If you hear what you’re, when you hear this, if you’re concerned and wondering why you may not be able to get access to it, we need to make four calls, call your governor, call both of your senators and call your Congressman and tell them that you want to know why you’re not able to get access to a drug that doctors are telling you will help end this and help us reduce the number of hospitalizations and reduce the number of deaths. Urge them to read Dr. Harvey Rich’s study from Yale. He’s a Yale professor of epidemiology. And from there you’ll find other studies.
Yes. I wanted to ask how do people trust the data that they are looking at every day? The numbers are so variable when you go to Johns Hopkins, CDC, which divides COVID deaths in different categories related to pneumonia, other things where we get the right information to make sense?
So the only number that I think is worth paying any attention to, and even that number is not so helpful is mortality because that’s a hard and fast number. So the case number is almost irrelevant. And that’s because there’s a lot of inaccuracies with the testing. And also even if the test is accurate, most people are asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic. So it’s not that important to know. So the case number, which you see rising all the time in the news is basically irrelevant. And if you had told us a few months ago, that that was the number that the media was going to go crazy over, we all would have just laughed at that. I mean, that’s essentially herd immunity. There’s lots of people out there who have tested positive without symptoms or with very mild symptoms. So the only number that’s worth paying attention to is mortality.
When you look at the mortality, this is a disease that takes, that unfortunately kills our most frail members of society. People with multiple comorbid conditions, specifically diabetes, obesity is a big one. We don’t talk about that, but it is. It’s a fact. Coronary artery disease, severe coronary artery disease, people like that. And also if you’re older, it’s a risk factor. But the biggest risk factor is if you have comorbid conditions. If you’re young and healthy, this is not … You’re going to recover. If you’re under 60 with no comorbid conditions, it’s less deadly than influenza. This seems to come as great news to Americans because this is not what you’re being told. I would say the answer is it’s very difficult to get accurate numbers.
Listen to the doctors. [inaudible 00:19:21] the frontline doctors. Have a meeting with the frontline doctors, and maybe I need to say that into the microphone. My message to Dr. Anthony Fauci is to have a meeting with these frontline doctors who are seeing real patients. They’re touching human skin. They’re looking people in the eye, they’re diagnosing them and they’re helping them beat the virus. They’re the ones who are talking to the patients, have meetings with them and do it every single day and find out what they are learning about the virus firsthand. And this is, and it’s important to understand, we have doctors here who are not emergency room doctors. They’re preventing patients from even hitting the emergency room. So if they’re only listening to emergency room or ICU at the very tragic end of a person’s life they’re not getting the full story. They need to come back in here the earlier portion. And they also need to understand what the lockdown and the fears are doing to patients around this country, because there are a lot of unintended consequences, which the doctors can speak about.
Can I say something. My message to Dr. Anthony Fauci is when is the last time you put a stethoscope on a patient? That when you start seeing patients like we see on a daily basis, you will understand the frustration that we feel. You need to start feeling for American people like we, the frontline doctors, feel. I need to start realizing that. They are listening to you. And if they are going to you, you got to give them a message of hope. Got to give them a message that goes with what you already know that hydroxychloroquine works.
Dr. Emmanuel, okay. You mentioned before some remarkable results that you’ve had treating your own patients. She said, I believe she said 300 patients.
We’re working on publishing it right now. We’re working on that, but this is what I’ll say. People like Dr. Samuel [inaudible 00:21:29] published the data. And my question is, and? That will make you see patients. There’s no data around the world. Yes. My data will come out. When that comes out. That’s great. But right now people are dying. So my data is not important for you to see patients. I’m saying that to my colleagues out there that talk about data, data, data.
May I just interject. There is a lot of [crosstalk 00:21:49] data on this. Not every clinician needs to publish their data to be taken seriously. The media has not covered it. There is a ton. I’ve got a compendium on americasfrontlinedoctors.com, there is a compendium of all the studies that work with hydroxychloroquine. The mortality rate was published in Detroit, less than a … It was July 4th weekend. They published it. Mortality by half in the critically ill patients, the patients who are get it early, it’s been estimated that one half to three quarters of those patients, wouldn’t be dead. We’re talking 70,000 to 105 … 70 to 100,000 patients would still be alive if we followed this policy. There’s plenty of published data. [crosstalk 00:22:27].
If I can ask one more question. There was a little girl who just a few days ago [inaudible 00:22:37] otherwise healthy and it was concluded that she died of COVID-19 so I was curious from your perspective, you feel that this little girl possibly died from some other condition and it was attributed to COVID-19 or is there some other reason why she [crosstalk 00:00:22:52].
I will not. I will not be able to say that till I look at the little girl’s history and whatever happened. I know I’ve taken care of a lot of family members and I see a lot of children and they usually get mild symptoms, but I cannot talk about kids that I have not looked at.
Okay. So listen, there are children who are dying of this infection. And the reality is that when they do die, they seem to have comorbidities. Really, you have to kind of look at each individual case. Uniquely there have been a little over 30 patients in the entire country, in the age category of 15 and below who have died of COVID. Frequently they do have comorbidities like heart disease. They have asthma, they have other pulmonary issues. So I don’t know, we don’t know the answer to this nine year old girl, tragically. She passed, and she’s no longer with us, but there’s probably, if you dig into it, there’s probably a story behind it.
I mean, I think that it is common knowledge that with the schools not being open, when you think about what your experience in junior high and high school-
… not being open. When you think about your experience in junior high and high school, what do you think about? You think about parties and you think about football games, socializing. Those are the things we think about. Those are all being shut down, folks. Nobody is having fun anymore. And I will tell you that these are critical years of life to be out mixing with other kids, other people, and that has been shut down. So yes, there are lots of comorbidities that go along with shutting down. We’re talking about anxiety, we’re talking about depression, loneliness, abuse is happening, and kids who have particular… Children who have special needs, kids are not doing well either. So, there is a long list of complications that occur when you quarantine and lockdown people.
So an extension to what you were just talking about, we hear all these studies and all this polling that moms are afraid to go back to work because of letting their children go to school, they shouldn’t go to school because then they’re exposed, and if the moms go back to school, then the elderly grandparents, they’re [crosstalk 00:25:04].
Sure. Yeah, this is a big issue because people are afraid not that their children are going to get particularly ill, because I think they’re learning the truth is that this infection is being tolerated well by children. But certainly, they look at their environment, their particular unique family, and I think in some situations that may be an appropriate fear. However, I do think that as a general comment, a general rule through the country, kids can go back to school. Maybe a few kids here and there, their living situation, who they’re being cared for, that can be a potential problem. But again, for younger children in particular, they’re not the ones passing on the disease to the adults.
We’re talking about, we can’t open our businesses. We can’t go to school and parents are scared to get treated. And I personally, have put over a hundred people on hydroxychloroquine prophylaxis. Doctors, teachers, people who are health care workers, my staff, me, I see over 15 to 20, sometimes 20, 15, 10 patients a day. I use a surgical mask. I’ve not been infected. Nobody I know has been infected that’s around me. So this is the answer to this question. You want to open schools, everybody get on hydroxychloroquine. That is the prevention for COVID. One tablet every other week is good enough. And that is what we need to get across to the American people. There’s prevention and there is cure. We don’t have to lock down schools. We don’t have to lockdown our businesses. There’s prevention, and there is cure. So instead of talking about a mask, instead of talking about lockdowns, instead of talking about all these things, put our teachers on hydroxychloroquine.
Put those that are high risk on hydroxychloroquine. Those that want it. If you want to catch COVID, that’s cool, but you should be given the right to take it and be prevented. So that’s the message. All this stuff that we’re putting together, it’s not necessary because hydroxychloroquine has a prevention. Hydroxychloroquine is a prevention for COVID.
And you guys also said that previous doctors have used it, but they’ve used it in the wrong dosage. So I keep hearing the drug, but then what is the right dosage. What is the right mixture?
Yeah, that’s a great question. Because the whole political situation has driven the fear towards this drug. So let’s address that. This drug is super safe. It’s safer than aspirin, Motrin, Tylenol. It’s super safe. All right. So what the problem is in a lot of those studies, they did very, very high doses, massive doses all through the country. They did the remaps study, the solidarity trial. That was the world health organization trial, and also the recovery trial. They use 2,400 milligrams in the first day. All you need is 200 twice a week for prophylaxis. They used massive toxic doses. And guess what they found out? When you use massive toxic doses, you get toxic results. The drug doesn’t work when you give toxic doses. It’s a very safe drug. It concentrates in the lungs, 200 to 700 times higher in the lungs.
It’s an amazing drug because in the bloodstream, you’re not going to get high levels, but you get massive levels in the lungs. So you’re going to find yourself, if you prophylax, that as soon as the virus gets there, it’s going to have a hard time getting through because the hydroxychloroquine blocks it from getting in. And then once it gets in, it won’t let the virus actually replicate. Bring in zinc and zinc will mess up the copy machine called the RDRP. So with the combination of drugs, it’s incredibly effective in the early disease. By itself, it’s incredibly effective as a prophylaxis. Does that answer to the question?
Yeah. I want to emphasize on something that Dr. [inaudible 00:29:20] just said, because I love the question. This is a treatment regimen that’s very simple, and it should be in the hands of the American people. The difficult aspect of this is that at the moment, because of politics, it’s being blocked from doctors prescribing it, and it’s being blocked from pharmacists releasing it. They’ve been empowered to overrule the doctor’s opinion. Why is this not over the counter? As you can get it in much of the world and almost all of Latin America, in Iran, in Indonesia, in Subsaharan Africa, you can just go and buy it yourself. And the dose, my friends is 200 milligrams twice in a week and zinc daily. That’s the dose. I’m in favor of it being over the counter. Give it to the people. Give it to the people.
Hi, Dr. James Todaro [inaudible 00:30:13]. I just want to add a couple of comments to what Dr. Gold was saying. If it seems like there is an orchestrated attack that’s going on against hydroxychloroquine it’s because there is. When have you ever heard of a medication generating this degree of controversy? A 65 year old medication that has been on the World Health Organization’s safe, essential list of medications for years. It’s over the counter in many countries. And what we’re seeing is a lot of misinformation. So I coauthored the first document on hydroxychloroquine as a potential treatment for coronavirus. This is back in March and that kind of kicked off a whole series of a storm on it. And since then, there’s been a tremendous amount of censorship on doctors like us and what we’re saying. And a number of us have already been censored. That Google document that I coauthored was actually pulled down by Google. And this is after now, many studies have shown that it is effective and it is safe. You still can’t read that article. And there’s also this misinformation out there. And unfortunately, this has reached the highest orders of medicine. In May there was an article published in The Lancet. This is one of the world’s most prestigious medical journals in the world. The World Health Organization stopped all their clinical trials on hydroxychloroquine because of this study. And it was independent researchers like us who care about patients, who care about the truth that dug into this study and determined that it was actually fabricated data. The data was not real. And we did this so convincingly that this study was retracted by The Lancet less than two weeks after it was published. This is almost unheard of, especially for study of this magnitude.
So I apologize to everyone for the fact that there is so much misinformation out there, and it’s so hard to find the truth. And unfortunately, it’s going to take looking at other places for the truth. That’s why we formed frontline doctors here to try to help get the real information out there.
Most of my thoughts, I actually publish on Twitter. Twitter has been great lately. So, James Todaro, M D. T-O-D-A-R-O M-D but I also have a website medicineuncensored.com, which contains kind of a lot of the information about hydroxychloroquine I think is much more objective than what’s going on in other media channels.
One point, in terms of Twitter. That’s important because as I understand not only from doctors, but from other people in the media, that YouTube has blocked information specifically about hydroxychloroquine.
I’ll go ahead and address that real quickly. I would say Facebook and YouTube have taken the most draconian measures to silence and censorship people. And this is coming from the CEO of YouTube, as well as Mark Zuckerberg saying anything that goes against what the World Health Organization has said is subject to censorship. And we all know the World Health Organization has made a number of mistakes during this pandemic. They have not been perfect by any means. Twitter, although they have some flaws and faults and flag certain content and stuff, they really still remain one of the freest platforms to share dialogue, intelligent discussion regarding this information. And many of us here today actually connected on social platform mediums like that.
Sure thing. I’m Dr. Joe. Ladapo. I’m a physician at UCLA and I’m a clinical researcher also. And I’m speaking for myself and not on behalf of UCLA. So I want to say that I’m thinking of the people who are behind the screens that are watching what you guys were broadcasting. And I want to share with you because there’s so much controversy and the atmosphere is so full of conflict right now that what this group of doctors is trying to do fundamentally, is really to bring more light to this conversation about how we manage COVID-19 and the huge challenge. And that’s what this is ultimately about. And bringing light to something means thinking more about trade offs, about one of my colleagues said on unintended consequences. And I actually think that’s not even the right word, the right word is unanticipated consequences. Really thinking about the implications of the decisions we’re making in this really, really extraordinary time that we’re in.
So, I’m sure people are listening to some of the discussion about hydroxychloroquine and wondering, what are these doctors talking about? And, these are doctors that take care of patients, board certified, med school, great med schools, all of that. How could they possibly be saying this? I watch CNN and NBC, and they don’t say anything about this. And that’s actually, that’s the point. There are issues that are moral issues, that really there should be a singular voice. So for me, issues related to whether people are treated differently based on their sex or race, or their sexual orientation. I personally think those are moral issues and there’s only one position on those. But COVID-19 is not a moral issue. COVID-19 is a challenging, complex issue that we benefit from having multiple perspectives on. So it’s not good for the American people when everyone is hearing one perspective on the main stations. There’s no way that’s going to service. So, the perspective most people have been hearing is that hydroxychloroquine doesn’t work. That’s the perspective that most people have been hearing on the mainstream television.
That’s the perspective that most people have been hearing on the mainstream television, and I believe that perspective too, until I started talking to doctors who would look more closely than some of the physicians behind me here, who would look more closely at the data and at the studies.
So it is a fact that several randomized trials have come out so far, that’s our highest level of evidence, and have shown that hydroxychloroquine… Their findings have generally been that there’s no significant effect on health benefit. So, that’s a fact, that the randomized control trials have come out… So far that have come out. In fact, there were two or three big ones that came out over the last two weeks, [inaudible 00:36:44] Internal Medicine, New England Journal of Medicine, and I think one other journal.
It is also a fact that there have been several observational studies. These are just not randomized controlled trials, but patients who are getting treated with this medication that have found that hydroxychloroquine improves outcomes. So both of those things are true. There’s evidence against it and there’s evidence for it. It is also a fact that we are in an extraordinarily challenging time. Given those considerations, how can the right answer be to limit physician’s use of the medication? That can’t possibly be the right answer. And when you consider that this medication before COVID-19 had been used for decades, by patients with rheumatoid arthritis, by patients with lupus, by patients with other conditions, by patients who were traveling to West Africa and needed malaria prophylaxis, we’ve been using it for a long time, but all of a sudden it’s elevated to this area of looking like some poisonous drug. That just doesn’t make sense.
Then when you add onto that the fact that we’ve had two of the biggest journals in the world, New England Journal of Medicine, and Lancet, as my colleagues say, retract studies that found, interestingly, that hydroxychloroquine harmed patients. Both of these studies. They had to retract these studies, which really is unheard of. That should raise everyone’s concern about what is going on. At the very least, we can live in a world where there are differences of opinion about the effectiveness of hydroxychloroquine, but still allow more data to come, still allow physicians who feel like they have expertise with it use that medication, and still talk, and learn, and get better at helping people with COVID-19.
Listen, let me just put a little bit of that. I have seen 350 patients and counting. Put them on hydroxychloroquine. They all got better. This is what I would say to all those studies, they had high doses, they were given to wrong patients. I will call them fake science. Any study that says hydroxychloroquine doesn’t work, is fake science and I want them to show me how it doesn’t work. How is it going to work for 350 patients for me and they’re all alive, and then somebody say it doesn’t work? Guys, all them studies, fake science.
I’ve heard there’s an increase in anxiety, suicidal ideation, substance abuse, and various mental health issues as a result of school closures and shutdowns. Is it your recommendation that [inaudible 00:39:48] federal funding for programs will help deal with those issues?
Yeah, I don’t understand how you would go to that conclusion. If the problem was that the schools are shut down, and it’s causing it, then we need to open up the schools.
Yeah. I would go to the school. I would open up the schools, because the most important thing for children is to socialize, and to be with other kids, and to learn. Yeah. [crosstalk 00:40:14] Yeah. Let’s get kids back in school.
Kids back in school. We’re in favor of kids back in school.
Speaker 15: (40:22)
Thank you everyone. [crosstalk 00:04:24]. Thank you very much. And we are going to be going back live continuing our summit, so you can continue watching. Once we get back, we may be running.
That depression is caused by low zinc levels. When you go into a hospital nowadays, they don’t test for those zinc levels. Low zinc levels are manifested by loss of sense of smell, loss of taste. Why are these also symptoms of COVID, right? COVID, loss of sense of smell, loss of taste, right? And the reason is because zinc is the natural thing that used to fight the COVID. What happens is the zinc stops RNA polymerase, and the hydroxy chloroquine allows the zinc to go into the cells.
Let me explain it a little bit better. The zinc stops RNA polymerase, and it’s used up by your cells in the normal fighting of COVID. So if you never took hydroxychloroquine, you’d still be zinc depleted. We’re in a natural state of zinc depletion in the United States, but the COVID decreases your zinc even more, and you need it to fight off any virus. That’s why your mom always said, “Take your zinc,” right?
Okay. My question was about if federal funds should be diverted to helping therapists, social workers and other frontline workers to deal with the psychological issues that were mentioned by your colleague, that shut downs in the government and school closures cause an increase in suicidal ideation, and substance abuse, and anxiety. So those environmental factors are what caused those mental health issues. Doesn’t it stand to reason that then funds to help those institutions deal with the problem should be receiving more funding?
Oh no, it’s not really about… It’s not my expertise either, actually. But I was wondering since your colleague said that as a result of school closures and government shutdowns, which caused an increase in suicidal ideation, anxiety, substance abuse, and a variety of other issues, I’m wondering if federal funding should be diverted to frontline workers, social workers, mental health therapists?
The answer your question is this, I see it this way, harm has already come is what we’re saying. So the answer to the question is, harm has already come. What should we do about that harm? I don’t know the inner workings of the government, but to say that harm has already come, and to say that we’re going to do something about it, it makes sense. To me as a doctor, I think if we know harm is coming, if you and I know we already got run over by a car, I think it makes sense to let me go ahead and go to the hospital to get my-
Dr. Fauci has played a central role in blocking HCQ:
Dr. Anthony Fauci, advisor to Donald Trump, portrayed as “America’s top infectious disease expert” has played a key role in smearing the HCQ cure which had been approved years earlier by the CDC as well as providing legitimacy to Gilead’s Remdesivir.
Dr. Fauci has been the head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) since the Reagan administration. He is known to act as a mouthpiece for Big Pharma.
Dr. Fauci launched Remdesivir in late June . According to Fauci, Remdesevir is the “corona wonder drug” developed by Gilead Science Inc. It’s a $1.6 billion dollar bonanza.
We are excited to announce that a number of new GRTV video productions are under way (in English, French and Spanish). The video interviews essentially consist of dialogue and analysis on current global trends and topics, including COVID and the looming economic crisis amongst other important subjects.
The production of these videos is made possible in large part via contributions from our readers: Your support is essential! Please help us further develop this project by making a donation or taking out a membership with us. Click below for more details:
For the last forty years, neo-liberalism has dominated economic thinking and the formulation of economic policies Worldwide.
But the corona virus crisis has exposed, in a dramatic way, its internal contradictions, its incapacity to deal with the corona crisis and its incompetence to restore the real economy ruined by the crisis.
In this article, we will focus on the relationship between Neoliberalism and the Corona Crisis:
Neoliberalism has prevented the governments from controlling effectively the initial outbreak of the corona virus.
Neoliberalism has made the wave of virus propagation higher and wider, especially in the U.S.
Neoliberalism can shake the foundations of the U.S. economy.
Neoliberalism may not survive the corona virus crisis in the U.S.
To save democracy and the global economy, We need a new economic model which supports the future of humanity, which sustains human livelihood Worldwide.
1. Neoliberalism and the initial Outbreak of the Corona Virus
The most important part of neoliberalism is the relation -often of a corrupt nature- between the government and large corporations. By corruption, we mean illegal or immoral human activities designed to maximize profit at the expense of people’s welfare. In this relation, the government may not be able to control and govern the large corporations. In fact, in the present context, the corporations govern and oversee national governments.
Hence, when the corona virus broke out, it was difficult for the government to take immediate actions to control the virus break-out to save human lives; It was quite possible that the price of stocks and large corporations’ profit had the priority.
The theory known as neoliberalism distinguishes itself from the old liberalism prevailing before the Great Depression.
It became widely accepted mainly because of its adoption, in the 1970s and 1980s, by Ronald Reagan, president of the U.S. and Margaret Thatcher, prime minister of Great Britain as an economic policy agenda applied nationally and internationally.
The justification of neoliberalism is the belief that the best way to ensure economic growth is to encourage “supply activities” of private sector enterprises.
Now, the proponents of neoliberalism argue that public goods (including health and education) can be produced with greater efficiency by private companies than by the State. Therefore, “it is better” to let the private enterprises produce public goods.
In other words, the production of public goods should be “privatized”. Neoliberals put profit as the best measure of efficiency and success. And profit can be sustained with government support. In turn, the private companies’ policy is that of reducing the labour costs of production.
Government assistance includes reduction of corporate taxes, subsidies and anti-labour policies such as the prohibition of labour unionization and the abolition of the minimum wage.
Reduction of labour cost can be obtained by the automation of the production of goods
Under such circumstances, close cooperation between the government and the private corporations is inevitable; even it may be necessary.
But, such cooperation is bound to lead to government-business collusion in which the business receives legal and illegal government support in exchange of illicit money such as kick-backs and bribes given to influential politicians and the people close to the power.
As the collusion becomes wider and deeper, an oligarchy is formed; it is composed of corporations, politicians and civil servants. This oligarchy’s raison d’être is to make money even at the expense of the interests of the people.
Now, in order to protect its vested interests, the oligarchy expands its network and creates tight-knit political community which shares the wealth and privileges obtained.
In this way, the government-business cooperation can be evolved by stage to give birth to the corruption culture.
Some of the neoliberal countries may be at the stage of the collusion; some of them may find themselves at the stage of oligarchy; some of them may be at the stage of corruption culture.
South Korea
When the progressive government of Moon Jae-in took over power in 2017, South Korea under the 60-year neo-liberal rule by the conservatives was at the stage of corruption culture.
The progressive government of Moon Jae-in has declared a total war against the corruption culture, but it is a very long way to go before eliminating corruption.
In South Korea, of six presidents of the conservative government, four presidents were or are in prison for corruption and abuse of power. This shows how deeply the corruption has penetrated into the fabrics of the Korea society
In Japan, since 1957, there were twenty-one prime ministers of whom 75% were one-year or two-year prime ministers despite the four-year term of prime ministers. The short life span of Japanese prime ministers is essentially due to the short term interest pursued by the corrupted golden triangle composed of big business, bureaucrats and politicians. Unless, Japan uproots the corruption culture, it will be difficult to save the Japanese economy from perpetual stagnation.
Lobbying and “Corruption Culture”
Many of the developed countries in the West are also the victims of corruption culture. In the U.K. the City (London’s Wall Street) is the global center of money laundry.
In the U.S. the big companies are spending a year no less than $2.6 billion lobbying money for the promotion of their interests, while the Congress spends $ 2.9 billion and the Senate, $860 million for their respective annual operation. Some of the big companies deploy as many as 100 lobbyists.
It is unbelievable that the amount of lobbying is as much as 70% of the annual budget of the whole legislative of the U.S.
True, in the U.S., lobbying is not illegal, but it may not be morally justified. It is a system where the law makers give privileges to those who spend more money, which can be considered as bribes
Under such lobbying system, each group should deploy lobbyists to promote their interests. The immigrants, the native Indians, the Afro Americans, the alienated white people and other marginal groups cannot afford lobbyists and they are often excluded from fair treatment in the process of making laws and policies
Some of the developed European countries are also very corrupted. The international Transparency Index rank, in 2019, was 23 for France, 30 for Spain and 51 for Italy.
In the case of the U.S. its rank increased froom18 in 2016 to 22 in 2019. Thus in three years, the degree of corruption increase by 22.2%
What is alarming is that, in the corruption culture, national policies are liable to be dictated by big businesses.
In South Korea, under the conservative government, it was suspected that the national policies were determined by the Chaebols (large industrial conglomerates), not by the government.
As matter of fact, during the MERS crisis in 2015, the anti-virus policy was dictated by the Samsung Group. In order to save its profit, Samsung Hospital in Seoul hid the infected so that the number of non-MERS patients would not decrease.
In Japan, the Abe government made the declaration of public health emergency as late as April 6, 2020 despite the fact that the infections were detected as early as January, 2020.
This decision was, most likely, dictated by Keiretsu members (grouping of large enterprises) in order to save investments in the July Olympics. Nobody knows how many Japanese had been infected for more than three months.
Similarly, Trump was well aware of the sure propagation of the virus right form January, but he waited until March 13, 2020 before he declared the state of effective public health emergency. The obvious reason was the possible fear of free fall of stock price and the possible loss of big companies’ profits.
The interesting question is: “The delayed declaration of public health emergency, was it Trump’s decision or that of his corporate friends?” It doesn’t matter whose decision it was, because the government under neoliberal system is controlled the big businesses.
So, as in Japan, Italy, Spain, France and especially, the U.K, Trump lost the golden time to save human lives to keep profit of enterprises.
God knows how many American lives were sacrificed to save stock price and company profit!
Thus, the neoliberal governments have lost the golden chance to prevent the initial outbreak of the dreadful virus.
2. Neo-liberalism and the Propagation of Corona-Virus
We saw that the initial outbreak of the virus was not properly controlled leading to the loss to golden time of saving human lives, most likely because of the priority given to business and political interests.
The initial outbreak of the virus was transformed into never-ending propagation and, even now, in many states in the U.S. the wave of the virus is getting higher and wider.
This tragic reality can be explained by four factors:
people’s mistrust in the government,
unbounded competition,
inequitable income distribution,
the absence of public health system.
These four factors (above) are all the legacies of neoliberalism.
The people know well that the corrupted neoliberal government’s concern is not the welfare of the people but the interest of a few powerful and the rich. The inevitable outcome is the loss of people’s trust in the unreliable government.
This is demonstrated by Trump’s indecision, his efforts of ignoring the warning of the professionals, his fabricates stories and above all, his perception of who should be given the right to receive life-saving medical care at the hospital.
Under such circumstances, Americans do not trust the government directives and guidelines, allegedly implemented to protect people from the virus.
The guideline of the CDC (Centers for Disease Control) for self quarantine, social distancing and wearing face masks has little effect. There is another product of neoliberalism which is troublesome. I mean its credo of unbounded competition.
It is true that competition promotes efficiency and better quality of products. However, as competition continues, the number of winners decreases, while that of losers rises. The economy ends up being ruled by a handful of powerful winners. This leads to the segregation of losers and leads to the discrimination of people by income level, religion, race and colour of skin.
In the present context, largely as a result of government policy, there is little to no social solidarity; each individual has to solve his or her own problems. I was sad when I saw on TV a young lady in California saying:
“To be killed by the COVID-19 or starve to death is the same to me. I open my shop to eat!”
This shows how American citizens are left alone to fight the coronavirus. Furthermore, neoliberalism has another unhappy legacy; it is the widening and deepening income inequality.
The U.S. is the richest country in the world, but it is also a country where income inequality is the most pronounced. I will come back to this issue in the next section. In relation to the corona virus crisis, income inequality means an army of those who are most likely to be infected and who are unable to follow CDC guidelines of testing, self quarantine and social distancing. Finally, the privatization of public health services has made the whole country unprepared for the onslaught of the virus.
In fact, in the U.S. there is no public health system. For three months after the first breakout of the virus, the country lacked everything needed to fight the virus.
There was shortage of testing kits and PPE (personal protective equipment);
there were not enough rooms to accommodate the infected;
there was shortage of qualified medical staff;
there was lack of face masks.
Thus, neoliberalism has made the U.S not only to lose the golden time to prevent the initial breakout but also it has let the wave of virus to continue. Nobody knows when it will calm down. As a matter of fact, on July 4, there were 2.9 million infected and 132,000 deaths; this gives a death rate of 4.6%. Given U.S. population of 328 million, we have 402.44 deaths per million inhabitants which is one of highest among the developed countries. The trouble is that the wave of virus is still going higher and wider. On July 4, the confirmed cases increased by 50% in two weeks in 12 states and increased 10% to 50% in 22 states.
3. Neo-liberalism and the very Foundation of the U.S. Economy
The message of this section is this. The foundation of the American economy is the purchasing power of the consumers and the job creation by small-and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). The consumer demand is 70% of the GDP, the SMEs create 66% of jobs. Unfortunately, because of neoliberalism, the consumers have become very poorer and the SMEs have been neglected in the pro-big-company government policies. The COVID-19 has destroyed the SMEs and impoverished the consumers. Nobody would deny the contribution of neo-liberalism to globalization of finance, the creation of the global value chain and, especially the free trade agreement.
All these activities have allowed GDP to grow in developed countries and some of new industrial countries. However, the wealth created by the growth of GDP has gone to countries already developed, some developing countries and a small number of multinational enterprises (MNE). The rich produced by GDP growth has led to the concentration of wealth in the hands of a few privileged. What is more serious is this. If the skewed income distribution in favour of a decreasing number of people continues for long, the GDP will stop growing and decades-long deflation is quite possible, as it has happened in Japan.
According to the OECD data, in the period, 1975-2011, the GDP share of labour income in OECD countries fell by 13.8% from 65% to 56%. In the case of the U.S., in the same period, 1970-2014, it fell by 11%. The falling labour-income share is necessarily translated into unequal household income distribution. There are two popular ways of measuring income distribution: the decile ratio and the Gini coefficient.
The decile ratio is obtained by dividing the income earned by the top 10% income earners by the income earned by the bottom 10% income earners . The decile ratio in 2019 was 18.5 in the U.S. as compared to 5.6 in Finland. The decile ratio of the U.S. was the highest among the developed countries. Thus, in the U.S. the top 10 % has an income 19 times more than the bottom 10%, while, in Finland, the corresponding ratio is only 6 times. This shows how serious the income gap is in the country of Uncle Sam.
The Gini coefficient varies from zero to 100. As the value of the Gini increases, the income distribution becomes favourable to the high-income households. Conversely, as the value of the Gini decreases, the income distribution becomes favourable to low-income households. There are two types of Gini: the gross Gini and the net Gini. The former refers to Gini before taxes and transfer payment, while the latter refers to Gini after taxes and transfer payment. The difference between the gross and the net Gini shows the government efforts to improve the equality and fairness of income distribution The gross U.S.- Gini coefficient in 2019 was 48.6, one of the highest among the developed countries.
Its net Gini was 38.0 so that the difference between the gross and the net Gini was 12.3%. In other words, the U.S. income distribution improved only by 12.3% by government efforts as against, for example, an improvement of 42.9% in the case of Germany, where the gross Gini was 49.9 while the net Gini was 28.5 The net Gini of the U.S. was the highest among the developed countries. The implication is clear. The income distribution in the U.S. was the most unequal. To make the matter worse, the government’s effort to improve the unequal income distribution was the poorest among the developed countries. There are countless signs of unfortunate impacts of the inequitable income distribution in the country called the U.S. which Koreans used to admire describing it as “mi-gook-美國미국 – Beautiful Country”. Now, one wonders if it is still a “mi-gook”.
The following data indicates the seriousness of poverty in the U.S. (data below prior to the Coronavirus crisis).
In the U.S. the richest 1% of the population has 40% of all household wealth. (2017 data)
More than 20% of the population cannot pay monthly bills.
About 40% do not have savings.
31% of private sector worker do not have medical benefits.
57% of the workers in the service sector have no medical benefits.
These data give us an idea on how so many people have to suffer from poverty in a country where per capita GDP is $65,000 (2019 estimate), the richest country in the world. Most of the Americans work for small- and medium-sized companies (SMEs). In the U.S., there are 30 million SMEs. They create 66% of jobs in the private sector. The SMEs are more severely hit than big companies by the coronavirus.
In fact, 66% of SMEs are adversely affected by the virus against 40% for big firms. As much as 20% of SMEs may be shut down for good within three months, because of the virus. Under the forty years of neoliberal pro-big corporation policies, available financial resources and the best human resources have been allocated to big firms at the expense of the development of SMEs.
The most damaging by-product of neoliberalism is no doubt the widening and deepening unequal income distribution for the benefit of the big corporations and the uprooting of SMEs. This trend means the shrinking domestic demand and the disappearance of jobs for ordinary people.
The destruction of the domestic market caused by the shrinking consumer demand and the disappearance of SMEs can mean the uprooting of the very foundation of the economy.
The experience of Japan shows how this can happen. The economic depression after the bubble burst of 1989, Japan had to endure 30-year deflation. The government of Japan has flooded the country with money to restore the economy, but the money was used for the bail-out of big corporations neglecting the healthy development of the SMEs and impoverishing the ordinary Japanese people. South Korea could have experienced the Japanese-type economic stagnation, if the conservative government ruled the country ten more years.
The neoliberal pro-big company policy of Washington has greatly depleted consumer demand and SMEs even before the onslaught of the coronavirus. But, the COVID-19 has given a coup de grâce to consumer demand and SMEs To better understand the issue, let us go back to the ABC of economics. Looking at the national economy from the demand side, the economy consists of private consumer demand (C), the private investment demand (I), the government demand (G) and Foreign demand represented by exports of domestic products (X) minus domestic demand for imported foreign products (M).
GDP=C + I + G + (X-M)
In 2019, the consumer expenditure (C) in the U.S. was 70% of GDP, whereas the government’s spending (G) was 17%. The investments demand (I) was 18%. The net exports demand (X-M) was -5%.
In 2019 the composition of Canadian GDP was: C=57%; I=23 %; G=21 %; X-M=-1%.
Thus, we see that the U.S. economy heavily depends on the private domestic consumption, which represents as much as 70% of GDP compared to 57% in Canada. The government’s contribution to the national demand is 17% as against 21% in Canada. In the U.S. a small government is a virtue according to neoliberals. In the U.S. the private investments account for only 18% of GDP as compared to as much as 23% in Canada. In the U.S., off-shoring of manufacturing jobs and the global value chain under neo-liberalism have decreased the need for business investments at home. It is obvious then that to save the American economy, we have to boost the consumers’ income. But, the consumer income comes mainly from SMEs. We must remember that the SMEs create 66% of all jobs in the U.S. Therefore, if consumer demand falls and if SMEs do not create jobs, the US economy may have to face the same destiny as the Japanese economy. This is happening in the U.S. The corona virus crisis is destroying SMEs and taking away the income of the people.
The coronavirus crisis is about to demolish the very foundation of the American economy.
4. Corona Virus Crisis and the Survival of Neoliberalism
The interesting question is this. Will neo-liberalism as economic system survive the corona virus crisis in the U.S.?
There are at least four indications suggesting that it will not survive.
First, to overcome major crisis such as the corona virus invasion, we need strong central government and people-loving leader. One of the reasons for the successful anti-virus policy in South Korea, Taiwan and Singapore was the strong central government’s role of determining and coordinating the anti-virus policies. As we saw, the gospel of neo-liberalism is the minimization of the central government’s role. Having little role in economic policies, the U.S. federal government has proved itself as the most incompetent entity to fight the crisis. It is more than possible that the U.S. and all the neoliberal countries will try to get away from the traditional neoliberal governance in which the government is almost a simple errand boy of big business.
Second, the people’s trust in the neoliberal leaders has fallen on the ground. It will be difficult for the neoliberal leaders to be able to lead the country in the post-corona virus era.
Third, the corona virus crisis has made the people aware of the abuse of power by the big companies; the people now know that these companies are interested only in making money. So, it may be more difficult for them to exploit the people in the era of post-COVID-19.
Fourth, the U.S. economy is shaken up so much that the neoliberal regime will not able to recover the economy. Thus, the survival of neo-liberalism looks uncertain. But, if the coronavirus crisis continues and destroys SMEs and if only the big corporations survive owing to bailout money, neo-liberalism may survive and we may end up with authoritarian governance ruled by the business-politics oligarchy.
5. Search for a New Economic Regime: Just-Liberalism
One thing which the corona-virus crisis has demonstrated is the fact that the American neo-liberalism has failed as sustainable regime capable of stopping the virus crisis, restore the economy and save the democracy. Hence, we have to look for a new regime capable of saving the U.S. economy and democracy. We would call this new regime as “Just-liberalism” mission of which is the sustainable economic development and, at the same time, the just distribution of the benefits of economic development. Before we get into the discussion of the main feature of the new regime, there is one thing we should discuss. It is the popular perception of large corporation. Many believe that they make GDP grow and create jobs. It is also the popular view that the success of these large corporations is due to the innovative managing skills of their founders or their CEOs. Therefore, they deserve annual salary of millions of dollars. This is the popular perception of Chaebols in South Korea.
But, a great part of Chaebols income is attributable to the public goods such as national defence, police protection, social infrastructures, the education system, enormous sacrifice of workers and, especially tax allowances, subsidies and privileges. In other words, a great part of the Chaebols’ income belongs to the society, not the Chaebols. Many believe that the Chaebols create jobs, but, in reality, they crate less than 10% of jobs in Korea. We may say the same thing about large corporations in the U.S. In other words, much of the company’s income is due to public goods. Hence, the company should equitably share its income with the rest of the society. But do they?
The high ranking managers get astronomical salaries; some of them are hiding billions of dollars in tax haven islands.
We ask. Are large corporations sharing equitably their income with the society? Are the corporate tax allowances they get too much? Is the wage they pay too low? Is CEO’s income is too high?
It is difficult to answer these questions.
But we should throw away the mysticism surrounding the merits of large corporations; we should closely watch them so that they do not misuse their power and wealth to dictate national policies for their own benefit at the expense of the welfare of the people. The new regime, just-liberalism, should have the following eight features.
First, we need a strong government which is autonomous from big businesses; there should be no business-politics collusion; there should be no self-interest oligarchy of corruption.
Second, it is the time we should reconsider the notion of human right violation. There are several types of human right violation in developed countries including the U.S. For example, the racial discrimination, the inequality before the law, the violation of the right of social security and the violation of the right of social service are some cases of violation of human rights defined by the U.N. The Western media have been criticizing human right violation in “non-democratic countries”, but, in the future, they should pay more attention to human right violation in “democratic countries.”
Third, the criterion of successful economy should not be limited to the GDP growth; the equitable distribution of the benefits of GDP growth should also be a criterion; proper balance between the growth and the distribution of growth fruits should be maintained.
Fourth, market should not be governed by “efficiency” alone; it must be also “equitable”. Efficiency may lead to the concentration of resources and power in the hands of the few at the expense of social benefit; it must be also equitable. As an example, we may refer to the Chaebols (big Korean industrial conglomerates) which kill the traditional village markets which provide livelihood to a great number of poor people. The Chaebols may make the market efficient but not equitable. The Korean government has limited Chaebols’ penetration into these markets to make them more equitable.
Fifth, we need a partial direct democracy. The legislative translates people’s wish into laws and the executive makes policies on the basis of laws. But, in reality, the legislative and the executive may pass laws and policies for the benefit of big companies or specific group of individuals and institutions close to the power. Therefore, it is important to provide a mechanism through which the people – the real master of the country – should be allowed to intervene all times. In South Korea, if more than 200,000 people send a request to the Blue house (Korean White House) to intervene in matters judged unfair or unjust, the government must intervene.
Sixth, those goods and services which are essential for every citizen must be nationalized. For example, social infrastructure such as parks, roads, railways, harbours, supply of electricity should not be privatized. Education including higher education should be made public goods so that low income people should get higher education as do high income group.
This is the best way to maximize the mass of innovative minds and creative energy to develop the society. Above all, the health service should be nationalized. It is just unbelievable to see that, in a country where the per capita GDP is $63,000, more than 30 million citizens have no medical insurance, just because it is too expensive. Politicians know quite well that big companies related to insurance, pharmaceutical products and medical professions are preventing the nationalization of medical service in the U.S. But, the politicians don’t seem to dare go over these vested interests groups and nationalize the public health system. Remember this. There are countries which are much poorer than the U.S. But, they have accessible universal health care insurance system.
Seventh, the economy should allow the system of multi- generational technologies in which not only high-level technologies but also mid-level technologies should be promoted in such a way that both high- tech large corporations and middle-tech SMEs can grow. This is perhaps only way to insure GDP growth and create jobs.
Eighth, in the area of international relations, it is about the time to stop wasteful ideological conflict. The difference among ideologies is narrowing; the number of countries which have abandoned the U.S. imposed democracy has been rising; the ideological basis of socialism is weakening. According to the Economist Intelligence Unit, 48% of countries are democratic, while 52% are not. According to Freedom House, in 2005, 83 countries had net gain in democracy, while 52 countries had net loss in democracy.
But in 2019, only 37 countries had net gain while 64 countries had net loss. Between 2005 and 2018, the number of countries which were not free increased by 26%, while those which were free fell by 44%. On the other hand, it is becoming more and more difficult to find authentic socialism. For example, Chinese regime has lost its pure socialism long time ago. Thus, the world is becoming non-ideological; the world is embracing ideology-neutral pragmatism.
To conclude, the corona virus pandemic has given us the opportunity to look at ourselves; it has given us the opportunity to realize how vulnerable we are in front of the corona virus attack.
Many more pandemics will come and challenge us. We need a world better prepared to fight the coming pandemics. It is high time that we slow down our greedy pursuit for GDP growth; it is about the time to stop a wasteful international ideological conflict in support of multibillion dollar interests behind Big Money and the Military industrial complex.
It is therefore timely to find a system where we care for each other and where we share what we have.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Professor Joseph H. Chung is professor of economics and co- director of the Observatoire de l’Asie de l’Est (ODAE) of the Centre d’Études de l’Intégration et la Mondialisation (CEIM), Université du Québec à Montréal (UQAM). He is Research Associate of the Center of Research on Globalization (CRG).
On July 26th, Germany’s Die Welt (The World) Sunday newspaper headlined “USA threatens German Nord Stream 2 contractors” and reported that, “The construction of the Russian Nord Stream 2 pipeline has long been a thorn in the US’s side. Now they are increasing the pressure on German and European companies involved in the project — and announce sanctions. German politicians are outraged.”
The U.S. regime is demanding that Germany cut pipelined gas from Russia and replace it with far costlier gas from U.S. fracking companies, which are facing hard economic times and are desperate to increase their exports. The news-report said:
The United States had previously legally enforced the implementing provisions of the Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act (CAATSA) [which started] on July 15. The companies and their banks are threatened if they continue to participate in the pipeline’s construction. The sanctions include complete exclusion from the US market and entry bans for employees. At a press conference in Washington, US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo summarized the aim of the measure for the companies concerned as follows: “Get out now or bear the consequences.” …
When asked by WELT AM SONNTAG, the German energy company Uniper “regretted that with the announced revision of the CAATSA guidelines, the US is still trying to undermine an important infrastructure project that we believe is important for Europe’s energy security.” “A clear encroachment on European sovereignty”. …
For the parliamentary director of the CDU/CSU group in the European Parliament, Markus Pieper (CDU), the American threat of sanctions is “a clear violation of everything we understand by commercial law”. Pieper criticized the recent expansion of the CAATSA sanctions law of 2017 “German companies are now on par with Iran”. “The fun is slowly coming to an end.” Germany and Europe “urgently need to develop a counter-strategy”.
For the very first time, the U.S. regime is so desperate to crush Russia, as to endanger America’s continued alliance with Europe and especially with Germany.
This is unprecedented, and must be marked as a turning-point in post-World-War-II history, because if the U.S. empire ends up losing Germany, then it will cause the end of America’s anti-Russia military alliance, NATO, and maybe even the end of America’s anti-Russia diplomatic and economic alliance, the EU. (The Cold War was against Russia, not actually against communism.)
On June 30th, Germany’s Handelsblatt newspaper had bannered “Former Chancellor Schröder: USA Ending Transatlantic Partnership” (“Altkanzler Schröder: USA kündigen transatlantische Partnerschaft auf”) and reported that “Former German Chancellor Gerhard Schröder has condemned possible new US sanctions against the Nord Stream 2 natural gas pipeline as ‘deliberate termination of the transatlantic partnership’.” Schröder was from Germany’s mainstream non-conservative Party, the Social Democrats. But now Germany’s mainstream — and ruling — conservative Party, the CDU/CSU, is rejecting the U.S. regime for its imposing “a clear violation of everything we understand by commercial law,” and German industry is more bluntly asserting the broader reality, that the U.S. regime’s demand is “a clear encroachment on European sovereignty.”
That last phrase includes “a clear encroachment on German sovereignty” but goes even further because it presumes (correctly) that to violate Germany’s sovereignty is simultaneously to violate Europe’s sovereignty, because Germany is part of Europe. The statement is, by its underlying truthful assumption, an assertion that today’s Germany is a state in the nation of Europe, and that THEREFORE any violation of German sovereignty is a violation also of European sovereignty. That speaker captured the full significance of what is actually at stake here.
Reluctantly, Germany’s conservative mainstream Party (which happens to be the Party that was in power when the U.S. regime ordered Germany in 1991 that the Cold War against communism would secretly continue as being a war against Russia) finds itself forced finally by German public opinion to join Germany’s non-conservative mainstream Party (Schröder’s Social Democrats), in rejecting the demand by the U.S. imperial regime — its demand to terminate participation in the new pipeline to bring into the EU gas from Russia.
If the Trump administration of the U.S. regime will continue, instead of abandon, its demand that Europe replace Russian gas by American gas (and other non-Russian gas), then The Atlantic Alliance (Europe’s participation in America’s permanent war against Russia and against any Government — such as Iran — that is on friendly terms with Russia) will consequently end.
However, if the Trump Administration will abandon its demand, then the U.S. President will find himself at war against his own country’s legislative branch, because both houses of it, the U.S. Senate and the U.S. House, voted over 90% for this demand, and Trump personally signed it into law. Therefore, in order for him to abandon the demand now would be for him to violate a U.S. law, which expresses the virtually unanimous will of the U.S. aristocracy (the billionnaires who funded the careers of those members of Congress). He would be like a King who has become abandoned by his own aristocracy. No monarch can stay in power who violates the will of his own aristocracy. This would virtually guarantee his political opponent’s, Joe Biden’s, win in America’s upcoming Presidential election: Biden would be the almost unanimous choice of America’s billionaires, both Republican and Democratic Party billionaires.
Consequently, Trump now faces a difficult choice: Either he will break up and end The Atlantic Alliance, or else he will continue it and lose the Presidency to his domestic opponent, Biden and the Democratic Party. It’s his choice. If he opts to continue The Atlantic Alliance, he will hand the White House to his domestic opponent, who is likely to win it in any case. However, by Trump’s backing down and accepting Germany’s new-found insistence upon its and the EU’s independence from the U.S. regime, Mr. Biden would be inheriting an empire that is, and will continue to be, inevitably in decline. A turning-point in world history has been reached, and there will be no turning back from 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.
When it comes to overinflated coronavirus death counts, we recently outlined how a fatal motorcycle accident in Florida was added to the state’s COVID-19 death toll. Still, no precise data shows just how overinflated death counts are on a state by state level.
We have to rely on real journalism, such as a new report via CBS12 West Palm, that made a shocking discovery about deaths being incorrectly attributed to the virus.
CBS12 said a 60-year old man who died from a gunshot blast to the head was labeled as a virus death. A 90-year old man who fell and died from a hip fracture was another. Even a 77-year old woman who died of Parkinson’s disease was somehow labeled a virus-related death.
Source: CBS12
CBS12’s I-Team investigated these statistical anomalies by combing through the Medical Examiner’s spreadsheet of all people who recently died of the virus in Palm Beach County.
What they found are “eight cases in which a person was counted as a COVID death, but did not have COVID listed as a cause of contributing cause of death.”
For more color on how a COVID-19 death is determined, it must be an immediate or underlying cause of death. So a gunshot to the head, a falling accident, and or Parkinson’s disease certainly doesn’t fit the defined criteria of classifying these deaths as virus-related.
Residents in South Florida are furious about the overinflated death toll:
“I think it is completely misleading,” said Rachel Eade, a Palm Beach County resident who has been researching the same issue.
“We need to remove those cases that are not COVID exclusive, and we need to be giving people that information,” said Eade, who is one of the plaintiffs suing Palm Beach County for its mask mandate.
Eade told the I-Team she’s been digging around in medical reports and said, out of the 581 deaths, only 169 deaths are listed as COVID-19 without any contributing factors.
Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis recently told Fox News that his staff has been informed about virus deaths being incorrectly reported.
DeSantis said, “I think the public, when they see the fatality figures, they want to know who died because they caught COVID.”
“If you’re just in a car accident – and we have had other instances where there is no real relationship, and it’s been counted, we want to look at that and see how pervasive that issue is as well.”
Palm Beach County Medical Examiner’s office and Operations Manager Paul Petrino told the I-Team the eight cases were, in fact, errors. He said his medical staff was in the process of relabeling those deaths.
Readers may recall, here’s Dr. Scott Jensen on Fox News in April providing more color on the situation.
If virus-related deaths are being overinflated in Florida, is the same being done in other states?
*
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.
With hindsight, a few years from now, it may well appear to us that the year 2020, the beginning of the third decade of the twenty-first century, marked the dawn of a new parasitic age. We can tell this much even by looking at one of the year’s most popular films. Bong Joon Ho’s Parasite (2019) tells the story of the poor Kim family living in a basement apartment of a decrepit house (a banjiha) in a Seoul ghetto. Both parents, Ki-taek and Chung-sook, as well as their young adult children, Ki-woo and Ki-jung, are all precarious gig workers. They scramble together to make ends meet, taking on every and any odd job they can find.
The apartment sits mostly below ground, but a window pane in the kitchen breaches the surface somewhat, giving them a ground level perspective of the outside world. The space, in this way, is an apt metaphor for the subordination (sub-ordination) of the poor, festering below the surface of ordinary life.
One day, the family is visited by Ki-woo’s friend, Min-hyuk, a university student who is about to go abroad for a study trip. Min works as a tutor for the daughter of the wealthy Park family and he invites Ki (who also goes by the name Kevin) to take over in his absence. But in order to work as a tutor, Ki must forge documents proving his credibility. After being accepted as a legitimate tutor and gaining the trust of the Park family, Ki recommends his sister as an art therapy tutor for the young son of the Park family. Jung, however, must also hide her identity and forge her credentials. The Kims further encroach upon the Park family as the children recommend their parents (again, hiding their real identities) to work for the household to replace the current chauffer and the trusted family housekeeper, whom the children frame in order to have them fired and replaced. Far from a dubious act, their scam is seen more as a necessary strategy of subsistence for precarious workers, an effect of the “entrepreneurialization” of labour and new competitive struggles of workers amongst each other over scarce temporary jobs. Meanwhile, Mr. Park, the patriarch of the family, works in the field of “legitimate”/capitalist scamming, otherwise known as high finance. The contrast between the Kims and Parks in this way evokes the vast cleavages between the precariat class and the wealthy, in whose favour the system is undoubtedly rigged.
Contrasting Living Conditions
The film is stunning in its visual depiction of the class differences between the families, especially through the juxtaposition of the two homes, particularly the kitchen and living spaces of each. Both homes have kitchens and living areas that have a window that looks out upon the world outside. For the Kims living in the banjiha, the window only breaches slightly above ground, where they are able to see the largely grungy slums of the inner city. The family witnesses a drunken man urinating in front of their kitchen window, apparently a regular occurrence as they recount to each other. Inside, the claustrophobic space of the kitchen is grimy and confining, an apt visual portrayal of the constraints of the poor.
This contrasts well with the home of the Parks, whose kitchen and living areas are spacious and pristine, appearing in some ways quite sterile, a perception augmented by the distanced engagement between the members of the Park family, who appear largely separate from each other, the children escaping into their own separate bedrooms, with Mrs. Park spending most of her time alone, while Mr. Park is off at work, in comparison with the very close and tight-knit family relationship of the Kims, a trope not uncommon in the depiction of the individuality and independence of the wealthy. The living area in the Parks’ home backs onto a large window expanding the size of one wall of the entire room. Through the window, the family gazes onto the fresh green space of the backyard, a stark departure from infested streets of the inner city. The class distinction between the two families couldn’t be more apparent.
One night, while the Parks are on a family camping trip, the Kims (now all employed by the Park family) decide to enjoy the luxuries of the empty house together. In the middle of their festivities, late at night, the doorbell rings. They see on the external security camera that it is the old housekeeper, Moon-gwang, waiting there in the rain. She tells them that in her haste to leave the house after being fired she forgot to take something with her. She is let into the house and quickly runs to the basement where she uncovers a secret bunker below the house. Her husband has been hiding in the bunker from loan sharks and she’s come to rescue him. However, amidst the commotion, she discovers the Kims’ secret, that they’ve fooled the Park family, and threatens to turn them in. Ultimately, the two families struggle and fight with each other over who will maintain access to and feed off of the wealthy Park family, hence the title of the film, “parasite.”
The title, of course, seems appropriate given that the two families’ struggle over who will be able to devour and thrive off of the wealthy living of the Park family. The visual metaphor of the underground bunker, and the basement apartment reflect the parasitic portrayal of the poor feeding off of the rich. But things are surely not so clear cut. While the poor families battle against each other like vermin, beneath the surface of the shiny veneer of the rich, we might do well to turn things around and to ask what in fact is the source of their poverty in the first place?
Capitalism is the Parasite
Popular opinion is sure to read the parasite from the gaze of the elite, in which case it is the poor who are parasitic upon the wealthy. This, after all, is the leading practice of perceiving the abject and the excluded. The poor are typically portrayed as scum; vultures living off of the remainders and shreds of life of the rich. But by asking about the source of the wealth of the elite we are able to understand the reverse. Doing so lets us connect the film to a great number of issues facing us today, which intersect in the capitalist system. As Marx famously put it in Capital, Volume 1, “Capital is dead labour which, vampire-like, lives only by sucking living labour, and lives the more, the more labour it sucks.” From the perspective of capital, then, Marx notes, the labour-power that it has paid for is its property and it is its right to so consume it during the time in which it has paid for the labour commodity. “If the worker consumes his [own] disposable time for himself, [it appears to capital that] he robs the capitalist.”1 As in a camera obscura, Marx’s words describe here the inverted form with which the capitalist parasite is commonly misperceived or kept hidden by the very form of its own crises.
During the COVID-19 pandemic, most of us have had to limit and self-regulate our everyday lives, going into lockdown and quarantine. While millions of people are laid off of work as businesses have ceased operations and are no longer making any profit, the world’s wealthiest few, including big tech giants like Jeff Bezos, Mark Zuckerberg, and Elon Musk, have increased their wealth substantially.2 As the old socialist saying goes, during times of prosperity, profits are privatized and rise to the top, whereas during times of crisis, risk, debt, and loss are socialized, and endured by the expanding bottom. The neoliberal myth of trickle down, it would seem, is only true in the case of socializing losses. It is loss that trickles down while the parasitic capitalists appropriate the world’s wealth, especially and even during a time of great crisis for many. What we see all too often is that the capitalist system, much like a parasite, exhausts and devours global resources, leaving the majority to scramble and fight amongst ourselves for access to basic needs. In this sense, we should see the Park family, not the Kims, as the real parasites of the movie.
We should think about the coronavirus in these terms, as well. The virus, not unlike a parasite, infects and replicates, and eats away at all forms of life confronting it. The culprit of the pandemic seems to be the virus itself, this nonhuman force of nature; but what we have been seeing is that, as another popular meme has put it, the real virus is capitalism– that is, the capitalist system that erects further barriers to our collective treatment of the virus. The true crisis is not simply the virus itself, but the limited capacities in the public health care system to meet the needs for treatment amongst the population.3 This is a system, we should add, that has become relatively starved due to decades of neoliberal austerity measures and cutbacks to social and public services, benefits, and institutions that subsidize the costs of life and living, and that provide access to needs. In this sense, capitalism is very much the real virus, indeed.4
Systemic crises are all around us, and not least as we are also currently seeing with the mass Black Lives Matter protests against racism, police violence, and police murders of African Americans, like George Floyd, in the United States.5 The police, Donald Trump, and much of the Right Wing media all want to make the protesters look parasitic upon society.6 Trump has referred to the protesters as “thugs,” while Fox News personality, Tucker Carlson has said that debates about racism are driven by “hysteria” that is spreading like a “disease.”7 But we must remember that, while the corporate media creates the illusion that the people are the robber-looters of society – just as it appears to the capitalist that workers’ use of their own disposable time robs the capitalist from consuming the labour commodity – it is in fact the capitalist, neoliberal and very much white supremacist system that continues to be the true vampire-like parasite, sucking the lifeblood out of the people.8
Beyond Posthumanism
Viewed from this angle, we can see how truly topsy-turvy is the parasite metaphor when it originates in the ruling ideology that deflects attention from the parasitic system of capital and projects its own contradictions onto false enemies. This practice is even deployed in much of the critical literature on climate change and the environment. For instance, we should even be hesitant deploying concepts like the Anthropocene and subscribing the fashionable idea that there is an Anthropocentrism at the core of our environmental troubles, for this merely abstracts from the historical relations of empire, capital, and class, as Jason W. Moore describes, displacing environmental and ecological crises onto an ill-conceived notion of humanity as a collective actor, and ignoring the class disparities so well represented in films like Parasite.9 Also unhelpful are the Object-Oriented Ontology and New Materialist thinkers, like Timothy Morton, who are on the brink of declaring that humans are the real parasite of the Earth.10 As Morton himself puts it, “In symbiosis, it’s unclear which is the top symbiont… Am I simply a vehicle for the numerous bacteria that inhabit my microbiome? Or are they hosting me? Who is the host and who is the parasite?”11
The danger in Morton’s contrasting of innocent and alive but nonhuman nature with the guilty and parasitical human species, is that it has the potential to devolve into nihilistic activism, such as “death politics.” For example, Patricia MacCormack’s The Ahuman Manifesto advocates for the cessation of human reproduction and the death of humans with calls for “an end to the human both conceptually as exceptionalized and actually as a species.”12 The risk in seeing humans (as a whole) as the uniform culprit of the global environmental catastrophe is that it misses the systemic forest for the individual trees. While right-wing governments compel and guilt the working class back to work to revivify the coronavirus-slumping economy, and while the anti-racist protesters are labelled “thugs” when demonstrating against a system that degrades and even murders their comrades, the theory of the Anthropocene ends up portraying the victims of the vampiristic system as themselves virus-like and parasitic. In this way, the theory of the Anthropocene ends up supporting the ruling capitalist ideology by portraying humanity, not the capitalist system, just as so much of the historical portrayals of racialized and colonized peoples, as well as the working class, as viruses and parasites leeching off of the system.
With so much attention being paid to the problems of the Anthropocene, and less to those of the social relations of capitalism, it is no wonder that post-humanism is becoming the dominant ideology of twenty-first century capitalism. Post-humanism, that is, both as a critique of the hubris of previous historical humanisms, and as an ideology of transhumanist technological transcendence of the limitations of corporeal humanity. On both ends, the critique of humanism displaces the cause of our collective inter-species problems from the capitalist system onto humanity as such. Instead, we should focus our critical attention on the capitalist system, and demonstrate how capitalism is incompatible with all life. We need to move from the prism of the Anthropocene to that of the Capitalocene.
Capitalism, rather than the people, is the real virus, the true parasite upon our thriving in the world today. What we need to learn is, not how to be post-human, but how to build and rethink a neo-humanism, in which, as Kate Soper puts it, human beings acknowledge our collective responsibility to each other, to the planet, and to other species – a humanism, that is, in which emancipation is both universal and equitably post-capitalist, and in which human agency drives action rather than the “objective” laws of the market.13 In other words, if capitalism is the parasite, then perhaps the project of Democratic Socialism, or something like it, is the cure.
Fantasies of Emancipated Futures
Parasite concludes, first with a bloody and violent climax where Ki-taek stabs Mr. Park to death in the middle of the family’s backyard party in a burst of violent outrage. Ki-taek then flees the scene and disappears from sight, confusing the police and the media about his whereabouts. Rather than read the film’s conclusion as an expression of the inevitable violence of the degraded and humiliated working class in the absence of a Socialist alternative, we might instead reflect upon the final moments of the film in which Ki-woo fantasizes about his father’s survival. It is unclear whether or not the final moments of the film are a fantasy scenario that he dreams up about his father. He seems to imagine that his father was able to go back into the bunker, hiding and evading the authorities after killing Mr. Park. Ki-woo imagines that one day he will be able to then earn enough money to buy the house and in that way set his father free.
For some Posthumanist thinkers, such as Donna Haraway, the problem of the Anthropocene is in perceiving a time called the future that prohibits us from being fully present.14 Futurisms, according to her are what inevitably lead us toward our demise in a kind of dystopian chaos. We need to, as the title of her book claims, “stay with the trouble.” But can we really imagine telling those suffering from the exploitative and degrading conditions of capitalism, or those suffering from the COVID-19 pandemic, or those affected by rampant racism from an integrated system of white supremacy – can we really imagine saying to the abject: “don’t worry, just stay with the trouble”? Far from offering this un-sagely advice we should instead reflect upon the strategy of the film. It is not by staying with the trouble, but by imagining emancipated futures that we will be driven to set ourselves free from the capitalist parasite.
*
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.
Matthew Flisfeder is an associate professor of Rhetoric and Communications at The University of Winnipeg. He is the author of Algorithmic Desire: Toward a New Structuralist Theory of Social Media(Northwestern University Press, Forthcoming 2021), Postmodern Theory and Blade Runner (Bloomsbury, 2017), The Symbolic, The Sublime, and Slavoj Žižek’s Theory of Film (Palgrave Macmillan 2012), and co-editor of Žižek and Media Studies: A Reader (2014). He is currently working on project called “The Hysterical Sublime,” a critical study of the aesthetics, rhetorics, and ethics of new materialist and posthumanist critical theory, funded by a SSHRC Insight Development Grant.
Notes
Karl Marx, Capital, Volume 1, translated by Ben Fowkes (New York: Penguin Classics, 1990), p. 342.
Both Object-Oriented Ontology (OOO) and New Materialism are schools of thought that make it their mission to trouble an apparent Anthropocentrism, focusing respectively on the reduction all things equally, human and non-human, real and unreal alike, to objects of different sorts, or to the vibrancy of all matter. See for instance Graham Harman, Object-Oriented Ontology: A New Theory of Everything(New York: Pelican Books, 2018); Levi R. Bryant, The Democracy of Objects (London: Open Humanities Press, 2011); and, Jane Bennett, Vibrant Matter: A Political Ecology of Things (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2010). Elsewhere, I have argued that the turn to OOO and New Materialism is the product of the neoliberal period and the reification of all human life as “human capital.” Both approaches and their critique of Anthropocentrism have been popularized, in other words, at the moment when capitalism has finally reified all of life and living. Despite the long history of colonialism and sexism, where non-European, non-masculine people were not even regarded as human, OOO and New Materialism emerge at the moment when the White middle classes are now, too, being dehumanized as a result of global neoliberal capitalist governance. But this is equally the product of a misguided attempt to grapple with the twin crises of climate change and the rise of digital automation and artificial intelligence. See Matthew Flisfeder, Algorithmic Desire: Toward a New Structuralist Theory of Social Media (Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press, 2021).
Timothy Morton, Humankind: Solidarity With Nonhuman People (New York: Verso, 2019), p. 1. Morton, here, echoes the work of the post-humanist philosopher, Michael Serres in The Parasite, translated by Lawrence R. Schehr (Minneapolis, MN: University of Minesota Press, 2007), p. 14.
Patricia MacCormack, The Ahuman Manifesto: Activism for the end of the Anthropocene (New York: Bloomsbury, 2020), p. 5. Like Morton, MacCormack’s book is also influenced by Serres’ scholarship.
Kate Soper, “The Humanism in Posthumanism.” Comparative Critical Studies 9 (2012): 377. I draw here, too, upon Andreas Malm’s critique of posthumanism in The Progress of This Storm (New York: Verso, 2018).
We should be clear about one thing: “news” is a commercial product, like toothpaste or chewing gum. It is also designed more or less according to the same principles and with few exceptions “sold” by the same kind of hawkers.
The term “fake news” has one effect which many apparently do not understand– it implies that there is news which is not “fake”.
It might be useful to consider how advertising works– news is a form of advertising. A product is announced with “less sugar” or even with “zero sugar”. I think everyone here can imagine the products to which I am referring. Of course the “less sugar” or “zero sugar” seem like positive qualities. But in the products concerned the difference is like saying “gentler slavery” or “zero whipping” of slaves. It begs the question whether the product that has less or none of some currently fashionable “negative content” is in and of itself a desirable product.
Is a mystery liquid sold as a beverage– originally with addictive cocaine– virtuous or more virtuous by reducing its official sugar content?
Is “news product” — actually an advertising vehicle from its very inception– better when it is not “fake”?
The luxury goods business spends an appreciable amount of money lobbying for police interdiction of counterfeit products. However, all industry insiders know that counterfeiting is beneficial advertising for the “real” goods. If the counterfeits were entirely eliminated it would devalue those very brands. The contrast between “real” luxury goods and “fakes” is part of the vanity the promotes the brand as such.
In the same way when people of whatever political persuasion complain about “fake news” their pleas in fact support the illusion that the “news” per se is not fake. In fact there is no objective news. Moreover the news items are actually destructive since they are designed to undermine the notion of necessary information, i.e. historical background and context to interpret events or facts that are to be understood as events.
“Conspiracy theory” as a pejorative is really an attack not on “news” which is actually senseless but on any attempt to establish context, historical or otherwise, for data that needs interpretation. The “news” is a TV dinner packaged as if it were a Lego kit. If you spread all the Lego pieces on your table and have never seen the box, it will certainly take a while to build what is intended. You might build something else. But a TV dinner needs no box. Rip off the foil and you have the reconstituted turkey product with all the artificial ingredients, clearly separated in the aluminum tray. The big compartment is the meat, the smaller ones are for potatoes and veg. If you prefer to cook your own meals then you are a conspiracy theorist…
*
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.
Malaysia’s politicians were crowing. “We are confident that we are securing more money from Goldman Sachs compared to previous attempts, which were far below expectations,” statedFinance Minister Tengku Zafrul Aziz. “We are also glad to be able to resolve this outside the court system, which would have cost a lot of time, money and resources.”
The second part of this statement is worth pondering. Not willing to go the distance with Goldman? Costs in terms of litigation and time? Such language is surely not the sort a sovereign power uses regarding a corporation, which speaks much to the problem. Malaysians would have reason to be suspicious, wondering if their government had thrown in the towel a bit too early against a company famed for its financial vigilantism. The very fact that the Malaysian government made a deal with Wall Street’s Mephistopheles should have also done its bit to cause alarm.
Whichever way the financial mind looks at this, Goldman is certainly getting more out of the bargain than their despoiled clients. In the current settlement, no one from their piratical outfit will spend time behind bars for the 1Malaysia Development Berhad (1MDB) scandal, which saw the hearty plundering of Malaysia’s sovereign wealth fund under their watch. The company will have to fork out a manageable $3.9 billion, a heavily discounted sum considering the original total being sought: $7.5 billion. Having been one of its clients, the Malaysian government pursued the bank, which had underwritten and arranged bond sales for the fund to the vast sum of $6.5 billion. Enabling the raising of capital in 2012 and 2013 was something the bank was also handsomely remunerated for: $600 million, no less.
Goldman’s tactics of negotiation lived up to expectations and down to base ethical considerations. First came a compensation offer of $243.73 billion last year, rejected by the then prime minister Mahathir Mohamad for its slap-in-the-face value. It was “peanuts”, he scoffed at the time.
The offer was duly increased. In November 2019, Mahathir rejected the sum of $1.75 billion. “We are not satisfied with that amount so we are still talking to them … If they respond reasonably we might not insist on getting that $7.5 billion.” A key feature of Goldman’s negotiating strategy had worked: their accusers and prosecutors were not going to get full satisfaction. Attrition seemed to be working.
Both parties are indelibly stained in this enterprise. Malaysian politics is fairly adept at funnelling funds and looting assets in the name of the public good and there was no more fitting company than Goldman to oversee the pinching. Despite Chief Executive David Solomon’s apology to the Malaysian people, the bank has also made it clear that it was not working for the easiest of clients. As it asserted in a statement in December 2018, “Certain members of the former Malaysian government and 1MDB lied to Goldman Sachs, outside counsel and others about the use of proceeds from these transactions.”
Those proceeds – some $4.5 billion – were certainly put to use, implicating former Malaysian prime minister Najib Razak and his wife Rosmah Mansor in numerous indulgent purchases. (When robbing the public purse, do it with appropriate extravagance.) Most fittingly, some of the proceeds went to fund a Hollywood film whose very premise is animal greed as virtuous, self-destructive pursuit. Razak’s stepson, Riza Aziz, was the producing arm behind The Wolf of Wall Street, using amounts drawn from 1MDB amounting to $248 million.
For some time, it was alleged that the entire effort had one name behind it: Low Taek Jho, known as Jho Low. In an effort to shift the keenly focused spot light on his sizeable contribution, the Malaysian financier insisted in January that he was merely a humble operator, greasing the palms, oiling the wheels. “People and companies act as introducers or intermediaries all the time.” He had been asked “to assist because of my good relationships with influential foreign businessmen and decision makers.” Jho Low is right – to a point – and certainly in his interlocutor’s claim that he is “an easy target for all those above given the fact that I’m not a politician.” More thought had to be given to “global and financial and other institutions and advisers that actually organised and facilitated the fundraisings at issue”.
When lawsuits were filed in July 2016, the US attorney general Loretta Lynchdescribed the 1MDB affair as “the largest kleptocracy case” in US history. “A number of corrupt IMDB officials treated this public trust as a personal bank account.” Lynch spoke of the laundering of money “through a complex web of opaque transactions and fraudulent shell companies, with bank accounts in countries around the world, including Switzerland, Singapore and the United States.” The enigmatic hand prints of Goldman go far.
The Wall Street giant is also facing the prospect of another settlement with the DOJ which threatens to raid its profits. The staff are no doubt ready, and additional money is already being put aside for regulatory reasons. With supreme insincerity, the bank promises to reflect about this latest chapter in international financial kleptocracy. “There are important lessons to be learned from this situation, and we must be self-critical to ensure that we only improve from the experience.” The sinner, chastened, readies for the next transgression.
Mahatma Gandhi, in one of his more quoted remarks, observed that “the world has enough for everyone’s need, but not everyone’s greed.” The Goldman approach has a different take to his sagacious observation: the greed will always come before the need and there is ample amount to be had. It is a philosophy that has enabled it to escape the calamities of the subprime market collapse in 2009 and survive such catastrophes as the Wall Street crash. While it has received something of a battering, the company has seen worse. Expect much and more of the same: greed sells, and while stumbles are bound to take place, budget for them.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
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]
When an event is unexplained, it can’t be repeated. Cuba’s astonishing internationalism, the “good news” of the pandemic, is talked about (outside Cuba) as if a miracle, without cause. Support grows for the Nobel Prize nomination but the justification for the Henry Reeve Brigade, established in 2005, is left out. The explanation is ideas.
It is urgent according to Eddie Glaude in a new book on James Baldwin.[i] Well, he doesn’t exactly say that. But for Baldwin, “what kind of human beings we aspire to be” is most important and the explanation for Cuba’s success is precisely that.
In Zona Roja, Enrique Ubieta Gómez says Cuban medical workers – fighting Ebola in 2014 — know about existence: We exist interdependently. Ubieta describes Cuban internationalism as an “inescapable ethic”. Once you’ve lived it, you cannot not live it.
You know human connection – a fact of science – and you learn its energy.
Ubieta’s explanation is existential. Baldwin used similar language. In 1963, he wrote, “Perhaps the whole root of our trouble, the human trouble, is that we … imprison ourselves … to deny the fact of death, which is the only fact we have.” Glaude supports Baldwin’s call to “begin again”, with the “America idea”, shedding its “old ideas”. He might look South. Latin American independistas raised precisely Baldwin’s question: how to resist the “lie at the heart of the [imperialist] nation” when it is about “love, life and death”, that is, everything.
Truth is not enough. If Galileo had just provided truths, he wouldn’t have been condemned. Galileo became threatening when he made those truths plausible with a larger picture of “cosmic humility”, contradicting the establishment’s comforting identity. One thing we might learn from Galileo, according to astrophysicist Mario Livio in a new book, is that he didn’t just observe truths and tell stories about them. His “phenomenal capacity for abstraction” let him see where those truths led.[ii]
Truths are easy when unexplained. Consider Olga Tokarczuk’s Flights. It gives truth about people traveling everywhere “escaping their own lives, and then being safely escorted right back to them”.[iii] We see people running through airports with “flushed red faces, their straw hats and souvenir drums and masks and shell necklaces”. All this “moving around in a chaotic fashion … [to] increase their likelihood” of being in the “right place at the right time”even has meaning. A “travel psychologist” explains that such chaos “appears to call into question the existence of a self understood non-relationally”.
It is funny to expect deeper meaning regarding people “moving around in a chaotic fashion” to increase their likelihood of being in the right place at the right time from a “travel psychologist” at an airport between flights. We laugh because we do in fact expect that, absurdly.
We get truth from Flights but it’s dismissible. Annushka, for instance, escapes her unbearable life : to “go, sway, walk, run, take flight”. She finds happiness when “she does not have a single thought in her head, a single care, a single expectation or hope.” She’s “happy”, free of her identity, her life, her responsibilities. But she is also cold, hungry, dirty, alone, tired, and homeless. The image is silly.
In fact, the idea underlying it is silly, namely, that to have no thoughts, you should have no identity, no responsibilities. It’s as pervasive as friction, from which Galileo abstracted to get truth about inertia. In fact, to be happy with no expectations or hope, as Annushka is, is not silly. But understanding how that is so requires a “phenomenal capacity for abstraction” from social expectations.
Flights doesn’t do that. It responds to an expectation identified by Cuban philosopher and diplomat Raúl Roa in 1953 as the “world’s gravest crisis”.[iv] It was indeed the “America idea”: Human beings imprisoned in discrete selves, defined by action and results. It is not humanist, as claimed, Roa argues, because it omits “the fact of death”, as Baldwin recognized. There were “few dissenters” to the “man of action” during the Renaissance, and Roa saw there would now be none because of US power.
Baldwin tried to escape that power by living outside the US. He struggled with what it had “made of him”. But “American power follows one everywhere”.
Emily Dickinson, “the greatest poet in the English language”, abstracts from expectations Flights dignifies. According to biographer Martha Ackman, Dickinson lived as if busyness and travel is not progress.[v] She never apologized for, nor defended, the priority she gave to silence and solitude. As result, we get truth from her poetry: about what it means to be human. For, she was in fact not detached from a world she never visited physically or had any desire to.
She lived as if isolation and detachment are not synonymous. But to know where this leads, you must abstract from the “America idea” that equates human worth and utility. Comfortably, though, Dickinson is odd — “America’s most enigmatic and mysterious poet”– and her way of life therefore dismissible.
Lord of all the Dead, like Flights, leaves comforting “old ideas” in place.[vi] Javier Cercas tells the story of his great-uncle who fought a “useless war” for Franko. His memoire does give truth but doesn’t explain it, so his story, which for him is just a story, cannot itself explain, and is dismissible.
Achilles in The Odyssey is “lord of all the dead” because he died young and beautiful, and gained immortality. That his great uncle was “politically mistaken, there’s no doubt.” But was he a human failure? Cercas’ answer is no. At one level, Cercas rejects the Greeks’ ideal of “beautiful death” because it denies the existential reality of decrepitude: There is no escaping it. But on the other hand, Cercas assumes the separation of mind and body that makes “beautiful death” worth speculating about: the idea that the body decays and that the mind somehow escapes nature’s universal laws of causation.
He ends the book speculating about immortality. Nobody dies, he writes. We’re just transformed, physically. He himself, at book’s end, is in the “eternal present”. It doesn’t explain what needs to be explained, given the real story of this book which is what Cercas calls the “silent wake of hatred, resentment and violence left over by the war”. The “silent wake” is explained by ignorance precisely of shared humanity Cercas names but doesn’t explain. It is decrepitude: “the fact of death”.
It is known by every human being. Cercas tells a story about his great uncle but denies the significance of that story because he tells it with the “old ideas” in place, the ones Glaude says need to be shed, like “swaddling clothes” to “begin again” as Baldwin urged. Glaude is not sure it can happen. But it has happened. That’s the “good news” about the Henry Reeve Medical brigade, if it were explained.
On Friday, March 20, Cuban president, Miguel Diaz-Canel, speaking nationally, outlined new measures to slow the pandemic. The good news, he said, is that Cuban people supported the decision to accept the Braemar, a UK cruise ship refused docking elsewhere because of infected passengers. A century ago, another ship sought aid from Cuba. Its passengers were Jews. It was turned away.
That, Diaz-Canel said, was before the Revolution. The good news was the expectation that the Braemar should be helped. That expectation is the success of the Cuban revolution. It explains the Henry Reeve Brigade. Expectations come from practises, from what is lived. Diaz-Canel then said, “one day the truth will be known.” But what truth? It’s not the truth that solidarity is good. No, the truth that will be known is not moral. Instead, it is what that truth– the moral one about solidarity — does existentially when acted upon, and lived, and why that matters in a global crisis.
Baldwin’s humanism wasn’t easy to understand. Glaude’s thoughtful book goes some distance toward explaining. It’s not clear, though, whether he knows the consequences. Bill V. Mullen, in a 2019 book, says Baldwin should be “understood the way we understand Fanon, García Marquez, Assata Shakur”: They wrote outside the US, aware of imperialism.[vii]
It may be what it takes for Cuba to cease being a dismissible miracle.
*
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.
If you watch the US mainstream media’s 24 hour news coverage on recent events around the world no matter what time of the day it is, Covid-19 and China dominate the headlines while ignoring recent escalations in the Middle East involving Israel and its Arab neighbors as they come closer to another war in an already devastated region.
The Times of Israel reported that the Israeli government
“sent a message to Hezbollah warning the Lebanese terror group against any retaliatory action in response to the killing of one of the organization’s fighters in an airstrike in Syria on Monday night, which was attributed to Israel.”
According to various reports, Israel has killed one of Hezbollah’s fighters Ali Kamel Mohsen Jawad in another cross-border attack in Syria last week and now fears that Hezbollah will retaliate, but Israel’s military and intelligence community has issued a statement aimed at Hezbollah, Lebanon and Syria warning them not to retaliate considering that Israel would most likely launch a multi-front attack on all entities involved. The report said that “the airstrike attributed to Israel on Monday night hit weapons depots and military positions belonging to Syrian regime forces and Iran-backed militia fighters, according to the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights.”
For the record, The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights (SOHR) is a UK government funded pro-opposition group to the Assad Government. In a statement by the Israeli army, “The IDF holds the Syrian regime responsible for the fire against Israel earlier today” and that “the IDF will continue operating with determination and will respond to any violation of Israeli sovereignty.” What was revealing was an unannounced meeting between the US Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Mark Milley and Israel’s top military leaders including Defense Minister Benny Gantz:
US Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Mark Milley, made an unannounced visit to Israel, meeting with Defense Minister Benny Gantz, IDF chief Lt. Gen. Aviv Kohavi and Mossad director Yossi Cohen, along with other top brass.
Israeli television commentators speculated on the possible significance of the visit, particularly regarding the threat posed by Iran and its Lebanese ally Hezbollah. “In light of a situational assessment in the IDF and in accordance with the Northern Command’s defense plan, the IDF’s deployment will change in both the military and civilian arena. with the goal of strengthening defenses along the northern border,” the IDF said in the statement. In a tacit threat, the IDF preemptively warned Beirut that it sees the state of Lebanon as “responsible for all actions emanating from Lebanon”
Something big is about to take place as the IDF “cleared some troops out of positions directly along the border, moving them deeper into Israel, so that they would not represent a clear target for Hezbollah, while still allowing them to defend the frontier” according to the report.
However, Milley’s visit at the Nevatim Air Base in southern Israel is significant according to another report by the Times of Israel ‘US military chief visits Israel to talk regional threats, amid tensions in north’ stating that “the visit came at a time of heightened tensions with Iran and its allies across the Middle East.” General Milley was briefed by Israel’s Intelligence agencies including Mossad and Israel’s military intelligence unit, Aman on the threat they face from Iran and its allies. After the briefing, Gantz declared that “the need to continue the pressure on Iran and its proxies that threaten regional and global stability” signaling to it’s neighboring enemies “not” to test Israel.
Lebanon has two major problems to deal with besides another catastrophic war, for starters it has a severe economic crisis with a collapsing currency.
The other problem is their newly discovered offshore oil and gas reserves which the US and Israel would love to get their hands on. Lebanon’s offshore oil reserves is estimated to be at 865 million barrels and has gas reserves that range from 25 trillion cubic feet (an estimate published in 2018 by the Chatham House which is part of the Royal Institute of International Affairs, a think tank based in London) to 96 trillion cubic feet in 2013, an estimate claimed by the Lebanese Energy Minister at the time, Gebran Bassil. Either way, Lebanon hosts Hezbollah on its territory and has discovered an abundance of natural resources in its offshore territories, its a prime target for Israel and the US.
War Will Begin in the Middle East, Not Asia?
The recent incident involving Iran’s Mahan air passenger plane traveling from Tehran to Beirut over Syria and a US F-14 fighter jet who apparently came dangerously close to the plane according to Iranian media is a sign of aggression that sends a message to Iran and its allies including Hezbollah that the US and Israel is prepared for war. Israel does not want Washington to focus on China since the upcoming US elections are months away and Israel is not sure what is going to happen come this November with Trump and his pro-Israel administration. Israel cannot afford to have Washington start a new war with China so for the time being tensions between the US and China will lead to a new Cold War 2.0.
The Middle East is an important region that remains a strategic part of the world’s economy with its valuable natural resources, a fact too important to ignore for western Big Oil interests and Israel. The meeting between US and Israeli military officials is significant and should be taken seriously, but the world is consumed with news on Covid-19 and China. Another Middle East war can happen either before or after the November elections and that depends on how desperate Israel becomes. Israel can pull Washington’s strings and ignite a war between the US and Iran before the situation intensifies in the South China Sea.
While the world is occupied by a virus and the tensions in the South China Sea continue between the US and China and an upcoming Presidential election, a new conflict between Israel and its Arab neighbors is a real possibility, making it one of the most dangerous periods in human history.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Timothy Alexander Guzman writes on his blog site, Silent Crow News, where this article was originally published. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.
Made-in-the-USA economic collapse is the most diabolical scheme ever concocted by dark forces in the country.
It’s all about engineering the largest ever wealth transfer from ordinary people to corporate favorites and the nation’s super-rich.
It also aims to consolidate corporate America to greater size and dominance by eliminating many tens of thousands of small, medium-sized, and some large businesses.
There’s nothing accidental about what’s going on, including COVID-19 outbreaks nationally and worldwide.
What’s happening was planned many months in advance before unleashed on Americans and humanity in January — an unprecedented high crime, war by other means on ordinary people worldwide.
The diabolical scheme’s toll rises daily — more people becoming ill, more losing jobs because of shuttering businesses, many never to reopen.
A permanent US underclass exploded in size that includes mass joblessness, impoverishment, and misery far exceeding the worst of the 1930’s Great Depression.
Instead of New Deal jobs creation programs and other initiatives to help ordinary people during hard times, the Trump regime and GOP congressional leadership reportedly is set to unveil a let ‘em eat cake scheme this week. See below.
Based on what’s known, it includes scant extended benefits for ordinary Americans in contrast to trillions of dollars of free money for the nation’s privileged class.
Both right wings of the nation’s one-party state are miles apart on agreeing to extended benefits for the nation’s unemployed and otherwise needy.
In May, House Dems passed the so-called $3 trillion Health and Economic Recovery Omnibus Emergency Solutions (HEROES) Act.
Opposed by the GOP controlled Senate, its leadership and party faithful want aid going largely to corporate America, crumbs alone for ordinary people in need.
Reportedly this week, maybe on Monday, GOP House and Senate leadership will introduce a $1 trillion scheme it wants unfolded in stages.
It replaces unemployment benefits of $600 weekly with about 70% of lost wages, less than half of current benefits.
On Sunday, Treasury Secretary Mnuchin falsely claimed expiring benefits disincentivize America’s unemployed to seek jobs — citing no evidence as proof because none exists.
He added that GOP proposed benefits will reduce what’s expiring to about $200 weekly, one-third the current amount, along with another $1,200 for qualified low-income households.
Trump and congressional GOP leadership want benefits largely going to corporate favorites and the nation’s privileged class — including protection of businesses from COVID-19 related lawsuits.
Reportedly, the GOP plan extends the eviction moratorium for residential buildings that have federally guaranteed mortgages.
Government aid for millions unemployed Americans with no prospect of returning to work near or longer-term is essential — because of the unavailability of jobs for millions of jobless who want them.
Whatever is agreed on this week by Republicans and Dems, if anything, is likely to be much less than what’s needed.
The hardest of hard times ever in America continue with no end of them in prospect for the nation’s working class.
*
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 law firm of former Spanish judge Baltasar Garzon confirmed this week that it will represent a Venezuelan businessman sanctioned by the Trump administration and facing extradition from Cape Verde.
Alex Saab, 48, was arrested on the archipelago island in June while on a technical stop-over in his private jet. He was allegedly en route to the Islamic Republic of Iran to negotiate food import contracts on behalf of the government’s subsidised CLAP food program, as well as medicine and other imports needed to fight the COVID-19 pandemic.
A Colombo-Venezuelan entrepreneur of Lebanese descent, Saab was sanctioned by the US Treasury Department last year for allegedly running a “vast corruption network” profiting from overpriced contracts with the CLAP food program, which benefits an estimated six million of Venezuela’s poorest families. He also faces federal indictments in Florida, New York and Washington DC-based courts.
After receiving a US extradition request on June 29, the Cape Verde government decided to authorize it on July 14, moving Saab’s legal team to start an appeals process.
Prior to Garzon’s arrival, the defense had two habeas corpus requests denied and filed an injunction with the Barlavento Appeals Court to have the extradition request annulled.
For its part, Garzon’s Madrid-based law firm, ILOCAD, said in a statement on Tuesday that Saab’s case is an example of the White House using judicial process to “pressure Venezuela on the level of international politics.”
“Mr Saab’s rights are being violated by this extradition process,” the statement went on to say, with ILOCAD pledging to take the case to the African Union and the United Nations.
Garzon made his name in 1998 when he attempted to extradite former Chilean military dictator Augusto Pinochet to face justice in Spanish courts. He is currently coordinating Wikileaks founder Julian Assange’s defense against extradition from the UK to the US.
Following the first financial sanctions in August 2017, the US Treasury Department has moved to target strategic sectors of the Venezuelan economy, including banking, shipping, and especially oil. Washington has likewise imposed sanctions against companies allegedly involved in food imports for the CLAP program and torpedoed oil-for-food agreements with Mexican firms.
With additional reporting by Lucas Koerner from Philadelphia.
*
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.
Environmentalists are watching with great interest to see what Canada’s Environment Minister Jonathan Wilkinson will decide, by July 30, about the Vista coal mine, a massive venture near Hinton, Alberta, owned by Coalspur, which is in turn owned by U.S. coal giant Cline Group.
Wilkinson is reconsidering a December 2019 decision to keep the federal government out of the approvals process for a major expansion of Vista. Recently, 47 NGOs published an Open Letter urging him to order a full federal assessment under the federal Impact Assessment Act (IAA).
The Open Letter addressed to Wilkinson states:
“Coalspur, the company behind the Vista mine, has not been straight with you or with the public. Last year, you declined to order an impact assessment based on the information that Coalspur provided. It has since come to light that they failed to disclose material facts about the size and scale of the mine. And it now appears that they have further expansion plans with the company now saying publicly that they want to increase their annual production to 20 million tonnes of coal per year. This new information warrants that you order a federal impact assessment.” [1]
Currently, Vista is approved to extract about 6 million tonnes per year.
As Ecojustice’s Sean O’Shea explained by email,
“Under the IAA a new mine 1/8th the size of Vista would have to be [federally] assessed because it is assumed that such a project has the potential to cause adverse impacts. However, an expansion to an existing mine does not have to be assessed if it is less than 50% the size of the original mine.”
And that’s where the information provided by Coalspur raised major questions.
Tweaking the Numbers
O’Shea told me,
“Coalspur has engaged in what’s called ‘project splitting’ to try to avoid impact assessment for the Vista Mine expansion. Last year, Ecojustice flagged to the [Impact Assessment] Agency that the Vista Phase II expansion was likely to surpass this 50% threshold. Coalspur responded by decreasing the size of its Phase II proposal.”
As The Narwhal has explained,
“The tweak [in size] meant the Impact Assessment Agency re-calculated that the Vista coal mine expansion ‘would result in an increase in the area of mining operations between 42.7 to 49.4 per cent,’ so it was just below the 50 per cent threshold.”[2]
On that basis, the federal government decided last December that the Vista expansion did not need federal assessment, and any concerns about harms to the environment and Indigenous peoples would be covered by a provincial assessment by Alberta Energy Regulator.
But, as Sean O’Shea explained to me,
“Less than two months later, Coalspur applied to the Alberta Energy Regulator for permits to engage in new underground mining activities on the Vista site. And publicly, Coalspur is now saying that they want to increase production even further from about 15 MT/year [million tonnes per year] to 20 MT/year.”
Ecojustice and others question Coalspur’s “technical and legal manoeuvres” to avoid federal assessment. On May 1, 2020 Ecojustice – on behalf of its clients Keepers of the Water, Keepers of the Athabasca, and the West Athabasca Watershed Bioregional Society – formally requested that Minister Wilkinson reconsider the decision, giving him 90 days to respond (by July 30).
Fraser Thomson, an Ecojustice lawyer, told The Energy Mix that
Wilkinson “has powers under the Impact Assessment Act reserved for exactly this kind of situation when a project slips through the cracks. Those powers are built into the Act as a safety net. So when you have a proposal for such a massive mine extracting one of the most dangerous commodities to our climate, it seems the Minister has to use these powers. If not now, when?” [3]
Thermal Coal
Vista is potentially one of the largest thermal coal mines on the continent. Thermal coal is low-grade coal largely used only for coal-fired electricity production, which is being phased out across Canada and in the U.S. Coalspur and its parent company Cline Group want to export Vista’s thermal coal to the Asian region.
U.S. coal billionaire Chris Cline bought the Vista mine in 2015 and considered it a necessary project with vast potential. As Cline told Forbes in 2017, “I think [Vista] could be the last mine operating after they’ve shut down all the rest of the coal in the world.” Vista began shipping coal for export in May 2019. Just a few months later, Cline died in a helicopter accident in July.
The Forbes 2017 profile stated:
“Cline thinks the carbon crusade is folly: ‘I’m all for getting sulfur and mercury and nitrogen oxide out of the air – that’s common sense,’ but ultimately, he posits, ‘global cooling’ will be a bigger threat. ‘I believe in our children’s lifetimes that they’ll wish they had paid us per ton to put more C02 in the air’.” [4]
But that view is not widely shared, and coal companies have been in deep financial difficulty for several years.
As David Suzuki recently wrote,
“Coal isn’t coming back, nor should it. From start to finish, it’s one of the most destructive energy sources. Extracting it often requires blasting away entire mountaintops, polluting air, water and soil. Burning it creates enormous amounts of deadly pollution, along with CO2 and methane emissions that drive global heating.” [5]
Suzuki and others have noted an element of hypocrisy in Canada’s position. “Even though Canada is moving to phase out coal-fired electricity, we’re happy to export it to other countries,” he wrote. “It’s like a drug dealer who knows the harms of addiction, and so quits a personal habit but continues to sell to others.” [6]
The Open Letter to Minister Wilkinson states:
“As a founding member and co-chair of the ‘Powering Past Coal Alliance,’ Canada has led global efforts to phase out thermal coal and made this a cornerstone of its climate plan. Canada has committed up to $275 million to the World Bank to help developing countries phase-out their dependence on traditional coal-fired power. The Vista mine expansion would undermine these efforts and harm Canada’s credibility as a climate leader in the run up to next year’s crucial climate conference in Glasgow. Canada can’t expect to be taken seriously in asking other countries to get off coal if we’re still willing to sell it to them.” [7]
Whatever the decision, Minister Wilkinson’s response will be very revealing.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Notes
[1] Ecojustice.ca, “Open-letter: 47 groups urge Minister Wilkinson to act n Vista thermal coal mine,” July 2020.
[2] Sharon H, Riley, “Here’s what you need to know about the Vista mine, Alberta’s thermal coal project that ‘sidestepped’ a federal review,” The Narwhal, March 10, 2020.
[3] Mitchell Beer, “The Interview: Canada Mustn’t Allow Vista Coal Mine Expansion Without Environmental Assessment, Thomson Says,” The Energy Mix, July 9, 2020.
[4] Christopher Helman, “Chris Cline Could Be The Last Coal Tycoon Standing,” Forbes, December 26, 2017.
[5] David Suzuki, “David Suzuki: Coal power should be relegated to the ash heap of history, The Georgia Straight, July 22, 2020.
Divided on how to deal with Turkey, some European leaders are calling for sanctions and others are calling for a reset in Euro-Turkish relations. French President Emmanuel Macron and the German Chairman of the Parliamentary Group of the European People’s Party, Manfred Weber, have been in a hurry in recent days to push for sanctions against Turkey because of its provocations against Greece and Cyprus.
“Regarding the situation in the Mediterranean, we have all seen the military actions on the part of Turkey. We have also seen the decision on Hagia Sophia, which is an example of religious chauvinism. A symbol and monument of peace and reconciliation has now changed,” Weber said last Thursday. “The issue is not just Greek-Turkish or Cypriot-Turkish, it is Euro-Turkish” and added that “we would like to emphasise in the presence of Mr. Michel [President of the European Council] and Mrs von der Leyen [president of the European Commission] that we must send clear messages and that we stand on the side of the Greeks and the Cypriots. It is time to act now, possibly to consider sanctions against Turkey. We must act and act now.”
On the same day as Weber’s comments, Macron received his Cypriot counterpart, Nikos Anastasiadis, in Paris. Macron stressed the need for sanctions against Turkey in light of what Ankara has done in the last two weeks by issuing NAVTEX (navigational text messages) for research in not only in the Cypriot Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), but also in Greek maritime space to the south of Kastelorizo island. This is on top of turning Hagia Sophia into a mosque.
“Europe must stand up for its sovereignty. Let us not leave our security in the Mediterranean in the hands of other actors. Once again, I want to express France’s full solidarity with Cyprus and Greece in the face of Turkish violations of their sovereign rights. The maritime space of an EU member state must not be threatened,” said the French president in a Facebook post he wrote in the Greek language.
The reaction of the Turkish Ministry of Foreign Affairs was immediate, with spokesman Hami Aksoy retaliating by blasting the French side, something that Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlüt Çavuşoğlu is doing more often as well lately. Within Europe however, other messages have been heard that are more conciliatory with Turkey.
Of particular interest was a July 23 article published on the Politico website by Nathalie Tocci, director of Istituto Affari Internazionali and a special adviser to European High Representative for Foreign Affairs Josep Borrell. She had also been a special adviser to Borrell ‘s predecessor, Federica Mogherini. For a few years now, Tocci has also held a position on the board of the Italian energy giant ENI, which operates in the Cypriot EEZ and in Libya.
“The EU has not moved to implement sanctions on Ankara and is unlikely to do so in future,” Tocci wrote in Politico, stressing that Athens, Nicosia and Paris had to “start treating Turkey as a partner, rather than an adversary.” She added that now the priority should be given to the goal of modernizing the EU-Turkey customs union.
However, Borrell’s Italian adviser also noted in her article that Turkey could supposedly work for European interests in Libya, without defining what united European interests are in Libya. This of course is an unfathomable suggestion since there are competing European interests in Libya, especially since countries like Italy are willing to ignore that Turkey and the Muslim Brotherhood government in the Libyan capital of Tripoli signed a Memorandum of Understanding to split Greek maritime space between themselves. The above issues are supposed to be discussed in an upcoming meeting between Borrell and Çavuşoğlu that will take place before the end of August.
Greco-Turkish relations especially intensified last Tuesday when Turkey announced that it will conduct a search for gas deposits in Greece’s maritime space with an escort of 17 warships until August 2. Greece’s quick naval response by dispatching warships to the area ensured that Turkish ships remained in Turkish waters, with most ships returning to port. German Chancellor Angela Merkel warned Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan that “the Greeks are not joking” and will respond to any violation of their maritime space.
Merkel also told Erdoğan that she has to continuously defend herself from European allegations that she is an unquestionable loyal ally of Turkey, and that amongst these accusations was the moment the Turkish president chose to escalate tensions with Greece and Cyprus. “You are exposing me,” she told Erdoğan.
This is because the Germans have had an unbreakable and continuous relationship with the Turks since at least the early 1800’s. Although Berlin traditionally defends or is indifferent to Turkish aggression against Greece and Cyprus, even Erdoğan’s erratic behavior has been undefendable for the Germans.
This leaves Italy as the only state willing to ignore Turkish aggression against European Union members. This is because its East Mediterranean policy is guided by the interests of oil giant ENI. Nevertheless, Italy is a big enough EU member to have some influence in European policy and can disrupt plans to sanction Turkey. Once again, the EU has demonstrated that there is no true unity within the bloc, even when member states are being violated against on a daily basis by Turkey.
*
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.
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!
Environmental lawyer Robert F. Kennedy Jr. warned Americans on Thursday to be cautious about any new coronavirus vaccine, pointing out that key parts of testing are being skipped.
“The Moderna vaccine, which is the lead candidate, skipped the animal testing altogether,” Kennedy said during an online debate on mandatory vaccinations with renowned Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz. The debate was aired by Valuetainment and moderated by Patrick Bet-David.
The much-anticipated 1986: The Act film by Andrew Wakefield has finally been released, revealing the truth about the infamous 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (NCVIA) and its detrimental impact on the lives of innocent children.
Now available for online streaming as of July 8, the film is described as a “forensic examination” of the NCVIA, which for nearly 35 years has unjustly shielded the vaccine industry from all liability associated with vaccine-induced injuries and deaths.
In the following video, Dr. Carrie Madaj questions what “it is to be human”. Why? Because the so-called “COVID” vaccines deploy recombinant DNA/RNA technology that “rewrites” the genetic code much as Monsanto, for example, rewrites the genetic code of numerous seeds (including tomatoes, corn, etc) not to mention the application of genetic bio-technology to animals.
The program, which was first launched in late 2018, will see Trust Stamp’s digital identity platform integrated into the GAVI-Mastercard “Wellness Pass,” a digital vaccination record and identity system that is also linked to Mastercard’s click-to-play system that powered by its AI and machine learning technology called NuData. Mastercard, in addition to professing its commitment to promoting “centralized record keeping of childhood immunization” also describes itself as a leader toward a “World Beyond Cash,” and its partnership with GAVI marks a novel approach towards linking a biometric digital identity system, vaccination records, and a payment system into a single cohesive platform. The effort, since its launch nearly two years ago, has been funded via $3.8 million in GAVI donor funds in addition to a matched donation of the same amount by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.
In addition to using his philanthropy to control WHO, UNICEF, GAVI, and PATH, Gates funds a private pharmaceutical company that manufactures vaccines, and additionally is donating $50 million to 12 pharmaceutical companies to speed up development of a coronavirus vaccine. In his recent media appearances, Gates appears confident that the Covid-19 crisis will now give him the opportunity to force his dictatorial vaccine programs on American children.
Most of the vaccines currently under process by big pharma are likewise mRNA vaccines, a type never before used on humans.
The Gates/Fauci vaccine against covid-19 is no ordinary vaccine. It uses three needles, two of which are electrodes that will alter the DNA of every cell in the body.
Gates and Fauci have bypassed all required phase-one animal testing, normally a 10-year testing requirement, as well as human safety testing. This assault on our bodies will likely be issued as mandatory, since it is being developed under emergency powers. Trump’s attorney, Alan Dershowitz, has stated categorically that “you have no constitutional right to refuse a vaccine”.
The Korean War is not publicly commemorated like the Civil War or World War II, so it is little wonder that the Korean War massacre, No Gun Ri, is also hidden from public memory. The event is one of the deadliest acts committed by U.S. ground troops in the 20th century. If reports of upwards of 300 civilians killed are correct, then the event is comparable to better known tragedies such as the 1968 My Lai Massacre.
What Happened?
On July 26, 1950, the U.S. 8th Army, the highest level of command in South Korea, ordered that all Korean civilians traveling and moving around the country must be stopped. It was declared that “no refugees will be permitted to cross battle lines at any time. Movement of all Koreans in groups will cease immediately.” The army stated that it was fearful of North Korean guerrilla troops disguising themselves as peasants.
One day earlier, U.S. soldiers had rousted hundreds of civilians from villages near the town of Yongdong in central South Korea and ordered them south along the main road, as a North Korean invasion force pushed toward the area. On July 26, these civilian refugees approached a railroad bridge near the village of No Gun Ri.
Members of the U.S. 7th Cavalry Regiment dug in near No Gun Ri and only three days into their time at the war front opened fire on the civilians. One veteran recalls being instructed “fire on everything, kill ’em all.” Over the course of a three-day barrage of gunfire and air strafing, hundreds of South Korean civilians were killed. Survivors recall a stream under the bridge running red with blood and 7th Cavalry veterans recall the near constant screams of women and children. Estimates range anywhere from 100 to upwards of 300 deaths.
Uncovering the Story Five Decades Later
This tragic event was almost unreported outside of the Korean peninsula until 1999 when three Associated Press (AP) journalists, Sang-Hun Choe, Charles J. Hanley, and Martha Mendoza, brought the story to international attention. Choe had originally become aware of the allegations when one of the survivors wrote a book in 1994 about the events. Initially the AP did not allow the story, but in 1998 he was able to pursue it with Hanley and Mendoza. They conducted an extensive investigation, including hundreds of interviews with veterans and Korean survivors and a review of thousands of military documents. However, they had to fight for close to a year to get the story published.
Their original story, which included testimony from numerous U.S. soldiers and Korean survivors, prompted an immediate investigation by the U.S. military and they won a Pulitzer Prize for their work. The ultimate report by the U.S. military, which left out or ignored numerous pieces of evidence, found that the deaths at No Gun Ri were “an unfortunate tragedy” and “not a deliberate killing.”
Charles Hanley noted that “the story of No Gun Ri was shocking when it emerged in 1999, but within the following decade it became clear that events like this were quite common place during the Korean War, and it is in some ways what war is all about.” Immense pressure is still placed on journalists to mitigate reporting on stories such as these. The No Gun Ri massacre serves to illustrate once again the horrors of war and the challenges of accurately reporting them.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Story prepared by Zinn Education Project intern Rachel Mullin based on an interview with Charles Hanley, journalist and co-author of The Bridge at No Gun Ri: A Hidden Nightmare from the Korean War and Ghost Flames: Life and Death in a Hidden War, Korea 1950-1953.
Today is the 60th day of protests since the murder of George Floyd. This weekend, people marched in cities across the country in solidarity with Portland and in opposition to the US becoming a police state.
President Trump sending troops to cities added fuel to the nationwide uprising against racist police violence. Protests have grown not only in Portland but in Seattle, Chicago, Philadelphia, Minneapolis, Omaha, Austin, Oakland, San Francisco, New York, and Washington, DC, among other cities.
Trump is not a ‘law and order’ president, he is a chaos and disorder president. He is mistaken to think that increasing conflict in cities throughout the country will save his failing 2020 campaign. Just as his hyped attack on Central American caravans backfired before the 2018 mid-term elections, this escalation is also backfiring as people are mobilized to stand against Trump’s authoritarianism.
While Trump’s actions are the focus of current protests, Portland demonstrates there is a long history of police violence that preceded Trump. Mayors have allowed police violence and Joe Biden, when he was Chair of the Judiciary Committee, authored legislation that led to over-policing and encouraged police militarization. While Trump sending in militarized troops to cities needs to be opposed, police violence is bigger than Trump.
Trump Sends In Federal Troops, Escalates Violence
While federal officers protect federal buildings across the country that is not what Trump is doing. He is using the excuse of protecting federal buildings as cover for sending in federal troops to dominate cities.
On June 1, President Trump made his plan clear warning governors that if they did not get control of the cities, he would send in troops. He told governors “You have to dominate, if you don’t dominate you’re wasting your time.”
June 1 was also the day that National Guard troops in Washington, DC fired tear gas, pepper spray and rubber bullets into non-violent protesters in Lafayette Park across from the White House so Trump could walk across the park for a widely denigrated photo-op holding a bible in front of St. John’s church. Trump said last week that he sent personnel to Portland because “the locals couldn’t handle it.”
The presence of federal troops in Portland and being sent to other cities is based on an executive order signed on June 26 to protect “Federal monuments, memorials, statues, or property.” Homeland Security director, Chad Wolf, created a task force made up of Border Patrol, Coast Guard, U.S. Marshals, and other agencies. Three different operations have been announced: Wolf’s “Protecting Americans Communities Task Force”; the Department of Justice’s crime-fighting “Operation Legend” announced on July 8; and “Operation Diligent Valor,” which includes the Portland police mission.
Legal analysts and commentators are debating whether the actions of federal troops in Portland are legal. The government argues they are merely protecting buildings and when they go blocks away they are investigating who damaged buildings. The Oregonian questions that writing, “Even if the federal agencies have legitimate license to defend the courthouse, ‘The real question is: Is it being used as a pretext?’”
It is evident from federal troop actions in Portland that this generalized federal policing is beyond federal authority. Reports and videos of unidentified Border Patrol agents in camouflage grabbing people off the street, stuffing them into unmarked vehicles, and driving off are unconstitutional, illegal actions.
Oregon officials including the governor and Portland mayor have asked Homeland Security to keep its troops off of Portland’s streets but Chad Wolf has refused. Oregon’s senators have also opposed Trump sending paramilitary squads to Portland.
Some, including the District Attorney of PhiladelphiaLarry Krassner, say federal troops should be prosecuted when they violate the law. The Oregonian reported that Steven Wax, a former Federal Public Defender, called on Oregon’s US attorney and the Multnomah County district attorney to convene grand juries with subpoena powers to investigate alleged criminal acts by federal officers. Potential charges could include kidnapping, assault, and racketeering conspiracy, he said. The district attorney and attorney general are conducting a criminal investigation focused on the injury of a protester, 26 year old Donovan La Bella, on July 11 who was shot in the head with an impact munition near the federal courthouse and subsequently needed surgery.
As our guest on Clearing The FOG, constitutional lawyer Mara Verheyden-Hilliard makes the point that courts need to protect the rights of all people to protest and not make journalists and legal observers a separate category with greater rights than others.
The Border Patrol Tactical Unit (BORTAC) carries weaponry of the sort usually used in Afghanistan or Iraq. John Rudoff.
Paramilitaries Instead Of The Military
We describe these federal agents as “troops” because that is what they are. President Trump threatened to use the Insurrection Act to deploy armed services to states but people in the military and legal scholars opposed him. Instead, Trump has sent militarized troops from civilian agencies into the cities.
The Department of Homeland Security sent Border Patrol Tactical Units (BORTAC) from Customs to Portland. BORTAC is an elite paramilitary unit that includes snipers and other highly trained troops who often operate outside of the US and are based along the Mexican border. These “Specialized Response Teams” wear the US Army’s camouflage and use military gear. BORTAC units have been deployed to war environments, including Iraq and Afghanistan. While not a violation of Posse Comitatus, which forbids the use of the military in domestic law enforcement, they subvert the intent of the Act.
In addition to on-the-ground troops, the US is using the US Air Force ‘Cougar’ surveillance plane over Portland. The Intercept reports the flight data shows tight, circular surveillance flights over Portland. Steven Aftergood, director of the Federation of American Scientists’ Government Secrecy Project, asks “What is their mission? Under what authority are they operating, and who authorized them?”
Trump is using police as a prop in the 2020 election with Portland as a campaign stage. The campaign seeks to win votes in the suburbs, which he won by 4 percent in 2016 but is now losing by double digits. Trump’s re-election campaign has spent over $983 million in 2020, more than the $878 million spent in his entire 2016 campaign. Despite this spending, he is behind Biden by landslide margins in all of the battleground states. He fired his campaign manager and is obviously getting desperate.
Trump is mimicking the ‘law and order’ campaign of Richard Nixon but this is a different era when police violence and racism are on video for all to see. Protests after police murdered George Floyd took place in cities of all sizes and in many suburbs. A national consensus is developing that racist police violence exists and it must end. Images of militarized police shooting and tear-gassing unarmed protesters is likely to backfire against Trump.
Police Violence Is Bigger Than Trump
Before the federal troops arrived, Portland police were using extreme violenceand chemical weapons against protesters. The Portland Police Bureau already had a temporary restraining order for its violation of protesters’ free speech rights and another for arresting journalists and legal observers. Another court ruling largely prohibited local police from using tear gas, but that has not stopped federal troops from doing so. When Mayor Ted Wheeler, who also serves as the police commissioner, came to the courthouse protests people jeered him and signs called him ‘Tear Gas Ted.’ Wheeler was teargassed himself by the federal troops.
The Intercept describes how the Portland Police Association has dominated elected officials for decades. In meetings with the mayor, one police union president would put his gun on the table. The union contract protects racist cops making it hard to fire those who’ve used deadly force. When the new contract was being considered in 2016, people protested at City Hall and the police rioted forcing protesters outside where police in riot gear then surrounded the building as city officials approved their union contract.
The NY Times reports that of the 35 cities in the United States with populations larger than 500,000, Portland is the whitest with 71 percent of residents categorized as non-Latino whites and only 6% are Black. This stems from the state being founded as a state for white people. A 19th-century law called for whipping any Black person found in the state. In the early part of the 20th century, Oregon’s Legislature was dominated by members of the Ku Klux Klan. As the destination of Lewis and Clark, Oregon symbolized the conquest of the American West and the subjugation of Native peoples.
Police violence in Portland is disproportionately against Black people including being stopped by police and targeted with the use of force. Slate reports,“When the police chief banned chokeholds in 1985 after officers killed a Black man with the hold, officers made T-shirts that said, ‘Don’t Choke ’Em. Smoke ’Em.’ In 2012, the Justice Department reported that the PPB had an unconstitutional ‘pattern or practice’ of using excessive force against people with mental illnesses.” The Portland police have also been sympathetic to right-wing, white supremacist organizations when they demonstrated in the city.
With this history of white domination, some would think racist policing would not be a political issue but the evidence of racist police brutality has struck a chord not only in Portland but across the country. Portland has had a strong protest movement over inequality, neoliberalism, wars, and more. The police have a long history of using violence against protests resulting in court settlements for victims. Now, opposition to racism, capitalism, and fascism has led to a unified movement.
Most local officials have opposed Trump’s threats to send troops to their cities and have threatened litigation. Lori Lightfoot, a neoliberal Democratic mayor, initially opposed federal troops coming to Chicago but, after a phone call with Trump and a promise that troops would work under the control of the US Attorney with a very limited role, she changed her mind. Lightfoot, a former federal prosecutor, has faced protests at her home for this.
Alliances with federal police can be problematic. Separate from the current controversy, Albuquerque, Atlanta, St. Paul, San Francisco, and Portland all pulled out of federal-local task forces because federal agents have violated local rules regarding racial profiling, use-of-force policies, and requirements to wear body cameras.
While Trump is putting himself at the center of current police violence, the reality is police violence is bigger than Trump. The system-wide challenges with policing are deeply entrenched. Police defend the status quo including racial injustice and class inequality. Whenever political movements develop to respond to racial and class unfairness, the police have undermined their politically-protected constitutional rights. Now that the conflict has heightened, it is time for the people to resolve it.
Retired US Army major intelligence officer Jenine Betschart (center) protests outside the Multnomah County Justice Center along with the ‘Wall of Moms’ as night fell on the city. Daily Mail.
People Can Protect The Right To Protest And Limit Police Powers
Militarized police violence is the wars abroad coming home. Strategic tactics like the Wall of Moms and veterans in broad opposition to militarized federal police demonstrate how movements can stop Trump’s authoritarianism, limit the actions of police and protect the right to protest.
At the beginning of this century, mass protests in Washington, DC against corporate trade agreements led to violent responses by DC and federal police. Litigation by the Partnership for Civil Justice followed. The result was large monetary awards to protesters but also agreements between the parties that put in place “best practices” to protect the right to protest in Washington, DC. Now both local police and federal police are bound by these agreements.
We interview Mara Verhayden-Hilliard on this week’s Clearing the FOG Radio(available Monday night) about whether the current protests could also lead to the protection of our rights. The overreach of President Trump and the violent reaction of local police is an opportunity for change. To succeed requires smart litigation that protects all protest, not a hierarchy protecting media or legal observers, and the litigation must act in synergy with the people.
People cannot give up the streets but must oppose violent police with strategic tactics that continue to pull people to support the movement and oppose police violence. Our goal is to transform the concept of public safety to mean programs that meet people’s basic needs and build a national consensus for policing that is defunded, demilitarized and democratically controlled. Already the movement has changed the opinions of people in the US, we must build on that success, and continue the pressure for change no matter who is elected president.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Kevin Zeese and Margaret Flowers co-direct Popular Resistance where this article was originally published.
Environmental lawyer Robert F. Kennedy Jr. warned Americans on Thursday to be cautious about any new coronavirus vaccine, pointing out that key parts of testing are being skipped.
“The Moderna vaccine, which is the lead candidate, skipped the animal testing altogether,” Kennedy said during an online debate on mandatory vaccinations with renowned Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz. The debate was aired by Valuetainment and moderated by Patrick Bet-David.
Kennedy is part of a political family, being the son of Senator Robert F. Kennedy and the nephew of President John F. Kennedy. Both were murdered in the 1960s.
Another aspect of testing was equally unsatisfying, Kennedy said. The Moderna vaccine was tested “on 45 people. They had a high-dose group of 15 people, a medium-dose group of 15 people, and a low growth group of 15 people.”
“In the low-dose group, one of the people was so sick from the vaccine they had to be hospitalized,” he explained. “That’s six percent. In the high-dose group, three people got so sick they had to be hospitalized. That’s twenty percent.”
In spite of these significant problems,
“they’re going ahead, and making two billion doses of that vaccine.”
Another problem with the testing of the coronavirus vaccine is that it’s tested not on “typical Americans,” but a carefully selected group of people who don’t suffer from certain conditions.
“They use what they call exclusionary criteria,” Kennedy said. “They are only giving these vaccines in these tests that they’re doing to the healthiest people.”
“If you look at their exclusionary idea criteria: You cannot be pregnant, you cannot be overweight, you must have never smoked a cigarette, you must have never vaped, you must have no respiratory problems in your family, you can’t suffer asthma, you can’t have diabetes, you can’t have rheumatoid arthritis or any autoimmune disease. There has to be no history of seizure in the family. These are the people they’re testing the vaccine on.”
He asked,
“What happens when they give them to the typical American? You know, Sally Six-Pack and Joe Bag of Donuts who’s 50 pounds overweight and has diabetes.”
Kennedy stressed several times that
“any other medicine … that had that kind of profile in its original phase-one study would be [dead on arrival].”
“No medical product in the world would be able to go forward with the profile that Moderna has,” he reiterated.
During the course of the debate, Kennedy also talked about the regular vaccines most people take, from Hepatitis B to the flu shot, emphasizing that no proper testing had ever been done, which is mandatory for any other medication. Vaccines “are the only medical product that does not have to be safety-tested against a placebo,” he explained.
In a study involving placebos, one group of people would be injected with the actual vaccine, while another group would be injected with saline solution, which would not have any effect in preventing a particular disease. The people who are part of the study would then be observed to see if there are any differences between the two groups, both regarding the disease vaccinated against, and side effects.
As these tests are never done on vaccines, “nobody knows the risk profile of any vaccine that is currently on the schedule. And that means nobody can say with any scientific certainty that that vaccine is averting more injuries and deaths than it’s causing.
In fact, it should be the opposite, Kennedy said, with vaccines being tested even more thoroughly than any other medication.
“It’s a medical intervention that is being given to perfectly healthy people to prevent somebody else from getting sick,” he pointed out. “And it’s the only medicine that’s given to healthy people … and particularly to children who have a whole lifetime in front of them. So you would expect that we would want that particular intervention to have particularly rigorous guarantees that it’s safe.”
Kennedy said
“it’s not hypothetical that vaccines cause injury, and that injuries are not rare. The vaccine courts have paid out four billion dollars” over the past three decades, “and the threshold for getting back into a vaccine court and getting a judgment – [the Department of Health and Human Services] admits that fewer than one percent of people who are injured ever even get to court.”
He mentioned another reason not to trust blindly any company currently producing vaccines in the United States. Each one of the four vaccine producers “is a convicted serial felon: Glaxo, Sanofi, Pfizer, Merck.”
“In the past 10 years, just in the last decade, those companies have paid 35 billion dollars in criminal penalties, damages, fines, for lying to doctors, for defrauding science, for falsifying science, for killing hundreds of thousands of Americans knowingly.”
“It requires a cognitive dissonance,” Kennedy commented, “for people who understand the criminal corporate cultures of these four companies to believe that they’re doing this in every other product that they have, but they’re not doing it with vaccines.”
While Kennedy is often described as being against vaccines altogether, he stressed that he does not oppose vaccines, as such. He accused his critics of “marginalizing me and silencing me” by misrepresenting his actual position.
In May, Kennedy signed an appeal created by Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò aimed at raising public awareness among people, governments, scientists, and the media about the serious dangers to individual freedom caused during the spread of Covid-19.
The appeal raised concern at one point about a COVID-19 vaccination in relation to human freedom.
“We also ask government leaders to ensure that forms of control over people, whether through tracking systems or any other form of location-finding, are rigorously avoided. The fight against Covid-19, however serious, must not be the pretext for supporting the hidden intentions of supranational bodies that have very strong commercial and political interests in this plan. In particular, citizens must be given the opportunity to refuse these restrictions on personal freedom, without any penalty whatsoever being imposed on those who do not wish to use vaccines, contact tracking or any other similar tool.”
The appeal made it clear that for Catholics it is “morally unacceptable to develop or use vaccines derived from material from aborted fetuses.”
Comments on the YouTube video of the debate between Kennedy and Dershowitz indicated, almost unanimously, that Kennedy had won the debate. Dershowitz conceded many points, arguing, however, that from the point of view of constitutional law, the coronavirus vaccine could be made mandatory.
Dershowitz, who has provided legal counsel to and defended people like Donald Trump, Jeffrey Epstein, and Julian Assange, cited a 1905 Supreme Court ruling as precedent. Jacobson v. Massachusetts upheld the authority of states to enforce compulsory vaccination laws.
Kennedy clarified that the state government at the time had offered people to either be vaccinated or pay a five dollar fine. Dershowitz’s argument, however, was that based on constitutional law, including this precedent, “the state has the power to literally take you to a doctor’s office and plunge a needle into your arm.”
Kennedy said,
“I think there’s a big constitutional chasm between, you know, that remedy, which is paying a fine, and actually going in and holding somebody down and forcibly injecting them.”
President Trump has already said that the new coronavirus vaccine would not be mandatory, but available for those “who want to get it. Not everyone is going to want to get it.” A LifeSiteNews petition saying no to mandatory vaccinations has garnered more than 650,000 signatures and can still be signed here.
The ethical issue of many vaccines being derived from cell lines of aborted babies was not discussed during the debate.
*
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.
Kunihiko Iida wants the world to know that the atomic bombs the United States dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki 75 years ago next month are still claiming lives and causing suffering.
Iida was 3 years old in August 1945. His father had died in battle; he was living with his mother and her parents in a house 900 meters from Hiroshima’s hypocenter, the spot right beneath the detonation. The blast crumpled the house. The family fled the city, but Iida’s mother and older sister soon died from their injuries, a fact the little boy didn’t grasp. “Until I entered elementary school, I thought they were living and that we would meet someday,” he says.
His injuries left him bedridden for years, and he has suffered debilitating illnesses ever since. Childhood anemia caused him to collapse at school. He’s had ulcers and asthma, underwent two surgeries to remove brain tumors, and now has thyroid growths. “There has never been a break in these illnesses,” he says.
Yet Iida has survived. Thousands of others died prematurely over the years because of radiation-induced cancer, a tally that is still growing. Collectively, they have left an important legacy. Most of what is known today about the long-term health effects of radiation has come out of research with those survivors. The work, now run by the Radiation Effects Research Foundation (RERF), is making “major contributions to our understanding of radiation effects,” even today, says Richard Wakeford, a radiation epidemiologist at the University of Manchester. RERF studies also underpin the limits that countries have set for occupational and medical exposure to radiation.
Iida has participated in the studies since the late 1950s, because, he says, “They are trying to accurately grasp the misery of the atomic bomb,” something he hopes will promote peace. People don’t understand the unique impacts of nuclear weapons, Iida says. He and other participants “have helped the entire world,” says Ohtsura Niwa, chairman of RERF.
The survivors’ ranks are now rapidly thinning. About 70% of the original 120,000 participants enrolled in RERF’s Life Span Study (LSS) have died; most of those remaining are in their 80s and 90s. “We have an ethical obligation” to follow the cohort through the last surviving member, Niwa says—but at the same time, “We have to expand our mission.”
RERF researchers believe they can continue to gather epidemiological findings from existing life and health histories of the LSS participants, but they are also starting entirely new studies, for example of the molecular mechanisms by which radiation exposure leads to cancer. And biological samples from 30,000 study participants collected over 7 decades await genomic analysis.
One unanswered question is whether an individual’s exposure to radiation can genetically damage their offspring. “No one can say that there is no effect on the second generation,” says Katsuhiro Hirano, a Hiroshima area schoolteacher whose mother was irradiated; he now heads an association of second-generation bomb survivors that is pushing for greater recognition of their health concerns. So far, there’s no evidence that radiation damage can be passed down, but Hirano says survivors’ worries resonate among others exposed to radiation, including victims of nuclear accidents, power plant workers, and uranium miners. “This campaign is not just about ourselves,” he says. “We want to work with radiation victims the world over.”
The Hiroshima bombing on 6 August 1945 killed an estimated 90,000 to 120,000 people, who died either instantaneously or over the following weeks and months from injuries or acute radiation sickness, the result of damage to bone marrow and the intestinal tract. The bomb that leveled Nagasaki 3 days later claimed another 60,000 to 70,000 lives. The estimates are rough because “there were no bodies left to count near the hypocenter: The heat and energy literally vaporized the closest persons. And many bodies were swept out to sea with the tides, after dying burn victims sought relief in Hiroshima’s numerous rivers,” science sociologist Susan Lindee of the University of Pennsylvania wrote in her 1994 book Suffering Made Real: American Science and the Survivors at Hiroshima.
Within 6 weeks of the bombings, three U.S. and two Japanese expert teams were at work in both cities to study the biological impact of the radiation. Their objectives differed. The Japanese were primarily trying to understand the medical effects on survivors. The Americans wanted to know how and why people died from atomic blast radiation. That might help triage victims—separating those who might be saved from those doomed to die—during future nuclear wars.
The first U.S. teams gathered what information they could and left Japan within months. But in November 1946, U.S. President Harry Truman approved the creation of a broader research effort. Under the umbrella of the National Research Council, a new Atomic Bomb Casualty Commission (ABCC)—RERF’s predecessor—would seize the “unique opportunity for the study of the medical and biological effects of radiation,” Lindee writes, quoting a U.S. Navy proposal. The results would be useful not only during war, but also for peaceful uses of atomic energy. ABCC grew quickly. By 1951, it employed 143 allied and 920 Japanese personnel in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
One of ABCC’s most immediate concerns was the possible impact of radiation on survivors’ children. It was clear that the bombings affected children already conceived in August 1945, resulting in an increased number of babies born with a small head size. And fruit fly studies showing that irradiation of adults causes heritable genetic changes and birth defects in offspring suggested there might be longer term effects.
To watch for birth defects among children born in later years, ABCC enrolled expecting mothers and had staffers collect information on how close to the hypocentre they and their husbands had been and details on previous pregnancies. After the women gave birth, they recorded any defects and every baby’s sex, weight, length, and head circumference.
The Japanese public was not convinced. A-bomb survivors, hibakusha in Japanese, have long suffered discrimination over fears they might be physically or psychologically impaired and that their children might inherit genetic defects. The stigma has affected female survivors more than men.
One of them is Michiko Kodama, who was 7 years old and inside a wooden school on the outskirts of Hiroshima on the day of the bombing. She escaped without major injuries, but in the following weeks she lost many relatives to acute radiation sickness, including a beloved cousin who died in her arms, begging for water she couldn’t swallow. Kodama had difficulty finding a job when she finished school, until a teacher helped her land a position at a local company. There, in her early 20s, she met a man who took her to meet his family. His mother told Kodama there was no problem with her background and character. “But you can’t marry my son because you are a hibakusha,” Kodama recalls the woman saying. “People said hibakusha had the blood of the devil.”
Several years later, a friend introduced Kodama to a man who looked past her status. They married and had two daughters. But the bias persists: Years later, the mother of one daughter’s boyfriend opposed their marriage because of the girl’s hibakusha background. The son defied his mother and the young couple married.
The good news about birth defects was counterbalanced in the early 1950s by discouraging findings on another front. “Leukemia is a very rare disease, but clinicians became aware that it was appearing a lot among the survivors,” says Kotaro Ozasa, an RERF epidemiologist. ABCC showed the disease was especially prevalent among those closest to the hypocenter. Previous studies among people exposed to radiation in a medical context had hinted at the link, Wakeford says, but “the findings from Japan provided convincing evidence.”
By then, ABCC was planning to follow the survivors for decades more. A 1950 census had helped identify 280,000 hibakusha all over Japan. From among those still living in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, ABCC recruited about 75,000 for its LSS, along with 25,000 unexposed controls. The cohort covered men and women of all ages, who had been at various distances from the explosions. “That census from 1950 created the entire foundation” of ABCC’s cohorts, says RERF epidemiologist Eric Grant, although another 20,000 people were added later.
How radiation exposure affected health
Studies in Hiroshima (shown on map below) and Nagasaki conducted over the past 75 years have yielded important insights into the health effects of radiation. Researchers went to great lengths to determine survivors’ exposure, which depended partly on their distance from the hypocenter of the bombings.
Estimating the combined gamma and neutron radiation exposure for each individual was a challenge. Scientists began by calculating the expected radiation at various distances from the hypocenter, then verified those numbers in several ways. They cut samples from the copper roof ornaments of temples, for instance, and used mass spectrometry to check for a nickel isotope created by the bombs’ neutron bombardment. To study the degree to which buildings might have shielded victims, Oak Ridge National Laboratory built several typical Japanese houses at the Nevada Test Site and measured radiation levels inside and outside during atomic bomb tests in 1957 and 1958.
In the 1960s, ABCC also interviewed 28,000 survivors, asking for details on their exact location at the time of the blast, what sort of building they were in and on what floor, and even which way they were facing and whether they had been sitting or standing. The investigators used those details to assign a dose for every person in the LSS. (In the 1980s, they refined their work down to the level of individual organs.)
Year after year, the researchers have tracked the incidence of more than a dozen different types of cancers in the survivors, along with mortality. “Radiation risk is very complex,” says RERF epidemiologist Alina Brenner. It depends on sex and age at exposure and can be influenced by genetic susceptibility and lifestyle factors such as smoking. And risks “change over time as a population ages,” she says. But the sheer size and duration of the LSS, along with its detailed data on exposure, age, and sex, allowed researchers to draw many conclusions as the decades passed.
Dose was clearly very important. Among those who were within about 900 meters of the hypocenter and received more than 2 grays of radiation, 124 have died of cancer. (That dose is about 1000 times the average annual radiation dose from natural, medical, and occupational sources combined.) In its latest LSS update, RERF scientists conclude—based on comparisons of cancer deaths between the exposed group and unexposed controls—that radiation was responsible for 70 of those deaths (see graphic, above). Scientists call this number, 56.5%, the attributable fraction. The numbers of deaths are low because few who were close to ground zero survived the blast, explains Dale Preston, a biostatistician at Hirosoft International who previously worked at RERF. But among these people, “Most of the cancers are due to the radiation,” Preston says.
At 1 gray of exposure, the dose roughly 1100 meters from the hypocenter, the attributable fraction is 34.8%, and it decreases linearly for lower doses. Women suffered more radiation-associated cancers than men, largely because of cases of breast cancer. Both men and women exposed at a younger age were more at risk as they aged: “It’s thought that actively dividing cells are more susceptible to radiation effects, so younger people are more sensitive,” Ozasa says. Radiation most increased the risk of leukemia among survivors, followed by cancer of the stomach, lung, liver, and breast. There was little impact on cancers of the rectum, prostate, and kidney. Exposure also heightened the risk of heart failure and stroke, asthma, bronchitis, and gastrointestinal conditions, but less so; for those with a 2-gray exposure, 16% of noncancer deaths were deemed attributable to radiation.
The findings have had an “outsized influence” on policies and practices to make the use of ionizing radiation safer, says Kimberly Applegate, a radiation health expert retired from the University of Kentucky and a member of the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP). The shielded rooms now routine for x-ray procedures and the dosimetry badges that track the accumulated exposure of health care and nuclear power plant workers are based in part on RERF data. ICRP is also using the data to develop recommendations for space tourists and astronauts traveling to Mars.
Whether RERF’s findings—based on one-time exposure—can shed light on the risks for those exposed to low doses over long periods of time is still a topic of debate. “Nobody really knows” what happens at low doses, says Robert Ullrich, RERF’s head of research. But so far, RERF’s conclusions are consistent with studies of those exposed to low doses at work, he says.
Participants themselves didn’t reap benefits from the studies, at least at first. Many joined expecting treatment for their ills, Iida says. But ABCC did not offer treatment because it might be seen as an admission of responsibility for their suffering by the United States. “ABCC did not have a good reputation among the hibakusha,” Iida says. Its top positions were held by U.S. scientists, adding to strains that led to a reorganization of ABCC into RERF in 1975. Japan and the United States now have equal representation on the Board of Councilors, key positions are split, and both countries contribute roughly half of its annual budget, now $31 million.
RERF now shares tests results and other individual data with study participants and provides them with counseling and referrals; the Japanese government subsidizes health care for most hibakusha. In 2017, at a ceremony marking the 70th anniversary of the commission’s founding, Niwa expressed regret that ABCC had studied bombing victims without treating them. “Survivors still feel there is an asymmetrical relationship” with RERF, says Akiko Naono, a sociologist at Kyoto University who studies hibakusha issues. They are the source of data but still see little in return.
U.S. researchers studying Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombing victims in 1945 initially worked from train cars. The research continues to this day. (RADIATION EFFECTS RESEARCH ORGANIZATION)
New data are still coming in. In papers published in 2018 and 2019, for example, RERF scientists reported that women exposed to bomb radiation at the age of menarche, the first occurrence of menstruation, were at a higher risk of developing breast or uterine cancer later in life than those exposed before or after puberty. The proliferation of breast and uterine tissue during puberty provides “a lot of potential for DNA damage induced by radiation,” Brenner says.
The breast cancer study also gives a glimpse of RERF’s future agenda. The first analysis did not try to distinguish among the several major breast cancer subtypes, which vary in their biological mechanisms and prognoses, Brenner says. RERF is now analyzing cancerous tissue collected from patients to determine whether any of those subtypes occur more frequently in radiation victims. If so, that could provide hints about just how radiation damages tissue and raises cancer risk.
Samples are one resources RERF has in abundance. During detailed biennial health examinations of more than 23,000 of the survivors (including some exposed in utero), researchers have collected and preserved blood and urine samples, some dating back to the late 1950s. RERF has also amassed frozen cell lines from parents and children in 500 families in which at least one parent was exposed to radiation, plus an equal number of control families.
DNA in those samples—which so far has not been sequenced—could provide a check on the early data about the health of survivors’ offspring. Despite the reassuring findings about birth defects, some researchers worry radiation may have caused mutations in testes and ovaries that children born years later might have inherited. Researchers plan to compare the number and types of mutations found in the families to see whether any are more common in children of radiation-exposed parents, Ullrich says.
RERF hasn’t yet seen any evidence of radiation-linked health effects in a study of 77,000 children of survivors. That could be “because we may not have the statistical power to be able to see” an impact, Ullrich says. Based on the findings, the Japanese government has refused to provide health care or screenings to the second generation.
But the possibility of harm still haunts survivors’ children, including Hirano. His mother, then 20, went searching for relatives in Hiroshima 2 days after the bombing, exposing herself to residual radiation. Hirano has no medical problems, but like many children of survivors, he has stories about health issues in his family. His mother had two stillbirths before he was born, and a cousin, also a second-generation survivor, died of leukemia in his 30s. “Many second-generation A-bomb survivors have great anxiety about their health,” he says. And those directly exposed to the bomb are often wracked with guilt if their children get sick or die, he says. Kodama is an example. Her youngest daughter died of ear canal cancer at age 45 in 2011. Ever since, she has wondered: “Was it because of the damage to my genes?”
Hirano’s association of survivors’ children is now taking the matter to court, seeking recognition as hibakusha and the health care that goes with it. “But the biggest hope of our movement,” he says, “is that there never again be second-generation victims” of atomic bombs.
*
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.
Dennis Normile is a contributing correspondent in Shanghai, China.
Sultan Abdul Hamid II, in the face of a rising secular nationalism in the late 1800s, that culminated in the Young Turk movement, tried to restore the influence of the Ottoman Empire among Islamic nations and the Empire’s many peoples by stressing the importance of Islam and the Ottoman Caliphate, of the role of the Ottomans as the protectors of Islam and, in the modern world, a bulwark against western colonialism.
Over a hundred years after he left power, after the Empire was broken up by the western powers after the First World War, after the Turkish nationalists under Mustafa Kemal, known as Ataturk, the father of modern Turkey, kicked the British, French, Greeks and Italians out of Anatolia and Constantinople and established Turkey as a secular democratic state in 1923, President Erdogan has adopted the mantle of Abdul Hamid, and his claim to be the defender of Islam, as a means of shoring up his own weakening support in Turkey, and as a means of raising the prestige of Turkey among Islamic nations and the world.
Until last week his pro-Islamic policies have been of concern mainly to Turks, divided between those who support his actions and those who oppose the retreat from the foundation of the secular state by Ataturk, which followed a century of reformist Sultans beginning with Selim III, who reformed the army on Western lines in early part of the 19th century but was overthrown and lost his life at the hands of the the elite unit that formed the backbone of the Sultan’s troops, the Janissaries.
Twenty years later, modern reforms continued under Sultan Mahmud II, who instituted administrative and secular legal reforms to guarantee equal rights and the benefits of western “progress” to the citizens of the Empire, reforms that were rational and progressive for the time, and a charter of reorganisation, the Tanzimat, was drawn up to serve as a model for internal reforms throughout the century. Its purpose was to transform the Ottoman state from a medieval society into a modern liberal state, an objective that was alternately promoted or obstructed depending on who the Sultan was and the internal opposition he met.
Abdul Hamid II, in the latter part of the 19th century, continued the reforms and flirted with a democratic constitution for a time. He instituted many modern reforms within the Empire, but his suspicions of the west and its designs on the oil resources of the Empire and the attempts by the western powers to undermine Ottoman society from within as well as without caused him to reject the new constitution and to use religion in the vain hope of reversing the Ottoman’s declining fortunes.
This tension between backward looking religious institutions, and suspicions of the west, often justified, and the hopes of the expanding intellectual elite, continued through the reign of Abdul Hamid II and continues today with the arrival on the scene of President Erdogan.
President Erdogan, to the dismay of progressive sections of Turkish society has fallen back on the reactionary elements of Ottoman rule and a rejection of a secular society in favour of a fixation on the glories of the Ottoman past, relying on religion and foreign adventures in Syria, Iraq, Libya and increased hostility to Greece to compensate for economic and political failures at home, a foreign policy that Ataturk predicted would only bring disaster and was to be avoided. Ataturk had the wisdom to renounce imperial expansion. He believed that a modern and progressive Turkish state could only be achieved by concentrating on the core lands of what is now modern Turkey so that the Turkish nation would be a nation that combined the cultures of the East and the West and would establish an element of stability in the Middle East.
Erdogan clearly has the intention of rejecting the legacy of Ataturk, of continuing to express claims to lands that were once under Ottoman rule. He continues to interfere in Syria, Iraq and Libya, destroyed by the NATO alliance, of which Turkey is a shaky member, and continues to mount threats against Greece with naval exercises and offshore oil drilling in waters claimed by Greece.
But his most recent action on July 10, of rescinding Ataturk’s 1934 decree making the Christian Church of Hagia Sophia a museum, over 500 years after Mehmet took Constantinople in 1453 and turned the church into a mosque, is reverberating far beyond Turkey’s borders. For Hagia Sophia is not just any church. Also known as St. Sophia, the Church of Holy Wisdom, it was the seat of the Patriarch of Constantinople, head of the Orthodox Church in the West and is of central importance to the Orthodox Christians of the East, including Russia whose Patriarch in Moscow is considered, by Russians, the inheritor of leadership of the Orthodox Church since the fall of Constantinople to the Ottomans.
It is an ancient symbol of Christianity, first consecrated by the Roman Emperor Constantius, son of Constantine the Great, in the year 360. The present building is the third on the site, redesigned by the Emperor Justinian of the Eastern Roman Empire and dedicated by him on December 26, 537. And it was another emperor, the last, also named Constantine, who, on hearing that the Ottoman soldiers had breached the great walls of the city during the final siege, threw off his robes, took his sword, leaped into battle where the fighting was thickest, offering his life to defend the city, and was never seen again. It was a Tuesday, May 29, 1453. It is still considered an unlucky day in the Greek world, the day the waning crescent moon was high in the sky, as depicted on the Turkish flag.
The Church of Holy Wisdom is an ancient symbol of Christianity, in particular the Orthodox Church that is composed of hundreds of millions of worshippers, half of them in Russia, the rest in Eastern Europe, North Africa, Greece, the Balkans and the Americas. Its loss to the Ottomans was a shock to the Christian world when it happened, but over 500 years, its use as a mosque was accepted as a fait accompli. Ataturk’s decision to turn it into a museum to show respect to both the Christian and Islamic worlds was an important step towards creating some mutual respect and toleration between the two religions that worship the same God. Even Erdogan first thought so, and besides, there were already more than enough mosques in Istanbul. Why create another and offend everyone in the Orthodox world, offend, in particular, Russia?
The answer is, firstly, to shore up Erdogan’s support in Turkey where his party has not done well in local elections in Istanbul and Ankara. He wants to please the Islamists in his own and other such parties, while striking a big Turkish slap at the secular parties; secondly, it is a statement to the world that Turkey is a rising regional power, which, under Erdogan’s leadership, will do as it pleases in its sphere of influence and is another crack in the NATO alliance as Turkey and Greece face off against each other, Turkey expands its already large navy and defends its airspace with Russian S400 antiaircraft systems.
Russia, always anxious to calm tensions, has reacted with caution. Dmitry Peskov, President Putin’s press secretary, stated that the change in the status of the Hagia Sophia in Istanbul will not affect relations between Russia and Turkey, that it is an internal affair of Turkey, and hoped that the Turks will take into account the status of Hagia Sophia as a UNESCO World Heritage Site and its sacred sacred significance for hundreds of millions of Christians. But among the Orthodox Christians there is anger and resentment at this slap in the face of them and Russia. The feelings are echoed in Greece, the Balkans and elswhere. But it may affect future relations between Russia and Turkey as they try to work out a modus operandi in Syria, Libya, Iraq, The Black Sea and the eastern Mediterranean.
The American government condemned the action but the fact that Erdogan ignored them is another sign not only that Turkey is a rising power, but that the United States is a declining power in the region, that the balance of power in the region and the world is shifting, adjusting, reacting to the weakening power of the United States. In such times, conflicts can break out that can lead to world conflicts. The increasing tensions between Turkey and Greece, and now perhaps Egypt, as it prepares to move into Libya as well, can draw in the bigger powers, or at the least create further instability in the region which is already a tinder box. We must expect more provocations from Erdogan as events unfold and further conflict in the regions as a result. And all the while that Hagia Sophia, designed as an epxression of God, is used for political and strategic ends, religion as politics, we can suppose that the God that both religions worship sits sadly on high, dismayed by the folly of the creatures He created.
*
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.
Christopher Black is an international criminal lawyer based in Toronto. He is known for a number of high-profile war crimes cases and recently published his novel Beneath the Clouds. He writes essays on international law, politics and world events, especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”
Longstanding US plans call for waging wars from space.
In 1985, the US Space Command (USSPACECOM) was created.
In December 2018, Trump ordered it be made a unified combatant command for war under the US Strategic Command, saying:
“Pursuant to my authority as the Commander in Chief and under section 161 of title 10, United States Code, and in consultation with the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, I direct the establishment, consistent with United States law, of United States Space Command as a functional unified combatant command.”
His order advanced US plans for preemptively waging real time star wars.
Washington refuses to negotiate a treaty with Russia and China that bans weaponization of space.
The 1967 Outer Space Treaty bans nations from placing WMDs (not conventional weapons) in earth orbit or otherwise in outer space.
It restricts use of celestial bodies to peaceful purposes, bans space bases and outer space weapons testing.
The 1963 Limited Test Ban Treaty prohibits nuclear testing in outer space.
Established in 1984 to negotiate arms control and disarmament agreements, the UN Conference on Disarmament strongly opposes weaponizing space.
The 1972 ABM Treaty banned testing or deploying weapons in space. The treaty became null and void after Bush/Cheney pulled out in June 2002.
In January 2001, representing overwhelming world community sentiment, the UN General Assembly’s Prevention of an Arms Race in Outer Space Resolution A/55/32 said the following:
“The exploration and use of outer space shall be for peaceful purposes and be carried out for the benefit and in the interest of all countries, irrespective of their degree of economic or scientific development,” adding:
“(The) prevention of an arms race in outer space would avert a grave danger for international peace and security.”
Space is the final frontier. Last December, the US Space Force Act established the Pentagon’s Space Force as part of the US Air Force — headed by a chief of space operations.
If the US militarizes space, Russia and China will respond defensively in similar fashion.
Last week, the Trump regime falsely accused Russia of conducting an anti-satellite missile test that’s able to destroy low-earth-orbit satellites in space — no credible evidence presented because there is none.
Russia’s Foreign Ministry debunked the accusation, saying it’s a pretext for the Trump regime to pursue an arms race in space, adding:
“The tests held by the Defense Ministry of Russia on July 15 this year created no threats for other space vehicles and, most importantly, violated no norms or principles of international law.”
“According to the information of our Defense Ministry, the Russian inspector-satellite inspected a Russian space vehicle at a close distance using the small satellite’s specialized equipment.”
“As a result, valuable information on the technical condition of the inspected object was obtained and transmitted to ground-based control systems.”
“We consider (false accusations by the Trump regime) another anti-Russia move, as part of a Washington-initiated purposeful (dis)information campaign for discrediting the Russian space activity and our peaceful initiatives for preventing an arms race in outer space.”
“American and British representatives are again trying to present the situation in a distorted form to distract the attention of the international public from real threats in outer space, justify the steps they are taking to deploy weapons in outer space and secure additional financing for these purposes.”
“Naturally, they keep silent about their own efforts in the field of military space, including the implementation of the programs of possibly involving inspector satellites and repair satellites as anti-satellite means.”
“It is not clear what goal the (Trump regime is) pursuing.”
“We would want to hope that they are not trying in this way to pre-determine the tonality and the results of (a scheduled Russia/US July 27) meeting (on this issue) and (thus) complicate the process of developing a bilateral dialogue on space issues and strategic stability as a whole, which is so important for the entire international community.”
“(I)nitiatives (Moscow is) promoting for preventing the deployment of weapons in outer space…are supported by a majority of UN member states…”
Russia seeks the establishment of a legally binding treaty on the world community of nations that prohibits the deployment of all weapons in space.
It’s committed not to be the first nation to militarize outer space.
“We confirm our readiness for discussing the entire range of space activity problems with the participation of representatives of” other nations, its Foreign Ministry said.
On Friday, Russia’s Defense Ministry called false US and UK accusations about testing a space-based anti-satellite weapon by Russia’s military part of a “targeted (dis)information campaign (to) discredit (legitimate, non-threatening) Russian space activities.”
The phony accusation comes at a time when the US and UK are moving toward militarizing space for warmaking purposes — instead of working cooperatively with Russia, China, and other nations to keep outer space weapons-free.
Because both right wings of the US war party seek dominance over other nations by whatever it takes to achieve their imperial aims, today is the most perilous time in world history.
Nuclear war by accident or design is an ominous possibility.
Instead of going all-out to prevent what could destroy planet earth and all its life forms, bipartisan US policymakers are pursuing their aims with no regard for the potential catastrophic risks.
*
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.”
There is little doubt about it. US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo is the puffed-up hawk of the Trump administration, talons at the ready, beak protruding. While the president coos at the prospect of seeing, or admiring, the next strongman of international relations, Pompeo hovers over selected authoritarian targets. This Jekyll-Hyde appraisal of foreign policy is a ready recipe for chaos and one that has done much to confuse Washington’s friends and foes.
The largest authoritarian target for the Trump administration remains China. China is convenient; China is destiny. The US imperium has always needed, on some level, handy demons to justify vast military budgets and its sprawling network of military bases. Lacking enemies would naturally lessen the case and show up the jingoes as men and women of straw. When the Soviet Union vanished, ending the most expensive, phoniest confrontation in modern history, the rogues’ gallery suddenly seemed empty, largely because many of those rogues were sponsored or backed by the US imperium. This was a time ludicrously called the “end of history” by that most fatuous of political observers, Francis Fukuyama. But candidates of wickedness were eventually found: President George W. Bush’s “axis of evil”, born in the embers of New York’s World Trade Centre; the shop-for-terror al-Qaeda network; a miscellany of terrorists.
Pompeo’s speech, delivered at the Nixon Library in California on July 23, was a dusted off version of innumerable statements made during the Cold War, notably in its initial freeze. The capitalist and communist blocs had taken shape, and the language of freedom was much in use. On March 12, 1947, President Harry Truman appeared before a joint session of Congress to explain why the United States should care whether Greece or Turkey should fall to communism or not. Turkey was “freedom-loving”; the Greeks were “threatened by the terrorist activities of several thousand armed men, led by communists”. Both countries needed aid – in the order of $400 million.
In justifying his position, Truman laid out what would become the doctrine that bore his name. “I believe that it must be the policy of the United States to support free peoples who are resisting attempted subjugation by armed minorities or by outside pressures.” He was adamant that “[t]he free peoples of the world look to us for support in maintaining their freedoms.”
Now, the communist Asiatic demonology has shifted, finding form in the Chinese state tinged yellow and red. According to Pompeo, battle cries are needed, a good stiffening of the sinews.
“It’s time for free nations to act. Not every nation will approach the China challenge the same way, nor should they. Every nation will have to come to its own understanding of how to protect its national security, its economic prosperity, and its ideals from the tentacles of the CCP”.
There was no small measure of irony in the fact that Pompeo’s speech was made at a library named after the US president that insisted China be engaged as part of a policy that came to be known as détente. During that period, the Soviet Union was, within limits, tolerated. The PRC was brought in from the cold. President Richard Nixon, the greatest ideological shape changer of the Cold War, was happy to hunt communists actual and fictional in domestic politics just as readily as he was to accommodate them in foreign policy when it suited.
Pompeo called Nixon “a brilliant student of China, a fierce cold warrior, and a tremendous admirer of the Chinese people, just as I think we all are.” But, he urged,
“We must admit a hard truth that should guide us in the years and decades to come, that if we want to have a free 21st century, and not the Chinese century of which Xi Jinping dreams, the old paradigm of blind engagement with China simply won’t get it done. We must not continue it and we must not return to it.”
The Trump administration’s tweet and sound bite understanding of history is incapable of understanding accommodation of the Nixon sort. This is the Bogeyman reading of discomfited imperialists, all adolescent and power point.
“We imagined engagement with China would produce a future bright with the promise of comity, and cooperation,” Pompeo spoke with resignation. “But today we sit wearing masks and watching the pandemic’s body count rise because the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) fail in its promises to the world … reading news headlines of repression in Hong Kong and Xinjiang … seeing staggering statistics of Chinese trade abuses that cost American jobs and strike blows to our companies … watching the Chinese military grow stronger and more menacing.”
Pompeo’s rhetorical questions to his audience merely served to illustrate an encyclopaedic ignorance, matched only by its colossal naiveté.
“What do the American people have to show now 50 years on from engagement with China? Did the theories of our leaders that proposed a Chinese evolution towards freedom and democracy prove to be true? Is this China’s definition of a win-win situation?”
Arrogant, even dotty questions, but typical of a superpower finding its crown of hegemony a bit loose, an increasingly poor fit. To engage China was to only do so on US terms. China should have, to use that irritating sporting metaphor, “played ball”. More money somehow makes one freer, a claim nonsensical in its envisaging, and disproved by historical examples such as the Chile of Augusto Pinochet.
The questions posed by Pompeo merely serve to justify the US case for encircling China, a measure that will only serve to divide, not unite, nation states, and titillate eager war mongers. It will also put Washington’s allies in a damn awful mess. But this will not bother the think tankers in countries such as Australia, where deputy sheriffing is not only natural but deemed necessary. Into the breach they go, folly-ridden.
*
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 July 23, Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan presented Yerevan’s position on the tension on the Armenian-Azerbaijani border and the process of peaceful settlement of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict.
“The co-chairs countries of the OSCE Minsk group have made a great contribution to the resumption of the ceasefire. In this regard, the participation of the Russian Federation was particularly effective, which was shown at the level of both the Ministry of foreign Affairs and the General Staff of the Armed forces [of Russia]. ” – said Pashinyan.
In his statement, the Prime Minister expressed the main trends of Armenia’s foreign policy: the development of cooperation with the West in close strategic partnership with Russia. However, this statement rather seems to be superficial and demonstrative, because in recent years Yerevan has done everything possible to weaken its close ties with Moscow.
The conflict on the Armenian-Azerbaijani border escalated on July 12, when military personnel of the two countries clashed near the Tovuz region of Azerbaijan. Since then, the situation has remained very tense. Tovuz district is a strategic area for Azerbaijan. There are three major energy pipelines: the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan gas pipeline, the Baku — Tbilisi — Erzerum gas pipeline, and the Baku — Supsa oil pipeline, which runs into the black sea ports of Georgia. In addition, the Baku — Tbilisi — Kars railway and the Baku — Tbilisi highway are located there. If in this conflict Baku receives a large support from Turkey, both political and military, it seems that Armenia should count on Russia’s help. However, Moscow is in no hurry to intervene in the conflict and emphasized the importance of a diplomatic solution. The Russian position is preceded by many reasons, and one of them is the anti – Russian policy of the Prime Minister of Armenia, Nikol Pashinyan.
On May 8, 2018, after three weeks of demonstrations and protests, a young opposition Deputy Pashinyan, assumed the post of Prime Minister of Armenia.
Despite the fact that the population of Armenia is less than 3 million people, the protests initiated by Pashinyan attracted tens of thousands of protesters. They led to the resignation of Sargsyan, who, after having been President for 10 years, carried out a constitutional reform, transferring power from President to Prime Minister, and tried to stay in power by taking the position of Prime Minister. This caused indignation of the population. In addition, the residents of Armenia were dissatisfied with the increasingly deteriorating economic situation: the devaluation of the ruble led to a decrease in remittances from Russia and an influx of Armenians from abroad, who faced difficulties to find work. Meanwhile, Republican-linked structures effectively monopolized imports in many import sectors, prompting accusations of corruption.
Acting Prime Minister of Armenia Nikol Pashinyan leads a March in Yerevan, November 24, 2018.
Apparently inspired by Gandhi’s example, Pashinyan went by foot from Gyumri, Armenia’s second largest city, to the capital, Yerevan. The journey took two weeks, and it made Pashinyan looking like an ordinary man of the people: he had a gray beard, and he changed his suit to a camouflage t-shirt and cargo pants. Pashinyan managed to mobilize young students and activists, and actively used social networks to promote the movement.
In order not to disappoint the forces that brought him to power, the new Prime Minister had to quickly change the course of Armenia’s foreign policy.
The war in Nagorno-Karabakh, which officially ended in 1994, strengthened Armenia’s ties with its main ally, Russia, which ensured the country’s security. Yerevan concluded a number of international agreements and agreements with Moscow, which primarily affected the military sphere:
Armenia received two targeted loans in the amount of 200 and 100 million dollars with a minimum interest rate (3% per year) for the purchase of modern weapons at domestic Russian prices, which is 3-5 times cheaper than prices on world markets;
Armenia became the only country to which Russia has provided the Iskander mobile short-range ballistic missile system;
Russia and Armenia signed agreements on the creation of a joint air defense system and a common group of troops;
joint Russian-Armenian defense production using modern technologies was developed in Gyumri;
the countries closely interacted in the field of strategic intelligence;
Armenia has agreed to maintain the 102nd Russian military base in Gyumri, four guards of the Border Troops Department of the FSB of Russia and the Russian Air Force base “Erebuni” in Yerevan.
Illustrative Image
Yerevan supported the formation of the CSTO and from the first days of its functioning became its reliable member. In 2013, Armenia joined the Customs Union and then the Eurasian Economic Union (EEU) in order to cooperate closer with Russia, primarily in the interests of strengthening its national security. The strategic partnership is supported by the interaction of the two countries in key sectors of the economy: nuclear, gas, electricity, transport, etc.
However, over the past few years, Yerevan has begun to ignore the fact that Russia is the only country capable of ensuring Armenia’s security and sovereignty.
Yerevan, apparently, expects that Moscow will not give up military bases on the territory of Armenia and will be ready to make concessions to preserve them. However, the strategic significance of the Armenian foothold for Russia has significantly decreased due to the expansion of Russian military infrastructure in the Middle East, including naval and air bases in Syria. Also in the political dimension, the role of Armenia decreased, as Russia and Turkey had improved their bilateral relations. Moreover, the economic significance of the Armenian market is insignificant both for the Russian state and for Russian private companies.
Thus, given that Moscow is much less interested in strategic partnership than Yerevan, Pashinyan, continuing the anti-Russian course of his policy, is sacrificing the national security of his own country. For a long time, Armenia has pursued a nationalist foreign policy that was significantly at odds with the foreign policy position of its formal strategic ally. Furthermore, while enjoying Russian military protection, Armenia has declined to support Russia over key issues on the international agenda.
Archive PHOTOLURE/ITAR-TASS/Mkhitar Khachatryan
In 2014 Armenia voted against the UN resolution on the territorial integrity of Ukraine, but did not officially recognize the reunification of Crimea with Russia, aiming not to spoil relations with the West. Today, Ukraine has paid off with Armenia, supporting Azerbaijan in the recent conflict. In response to the statements of the Ukrainian Foreign Ministry on the situation on the Armenian-Azerbaijani border, protesters poured borsch (a traditional Ukrainian dish) over the building of the Ukrainian Embassy in Yerevan.
The arrests of the first President of the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic, Robert Kocharian, who was loyal to the pro-Russian foreign policy, became widely known. The new government arrested him three times over the March 2008 crackdown.
A few days ago, on July 16, the Armenian Parliament adopted the law “on audiovisual media” by an overwhelming majority (79 against 17). Among other things, the law implied the removal of all foreign-language channels from the free state broadcasting network, which significantly restricted the broadcasting of Russian TV channels. According to the National Commission on Television and Radio Broadcasting, these channels pose a threat to the national security of Armenia. By ostentatiously restricting access to Russian channels, representatives of the new Armenian government are dealing another blow to relations with Moscow.
“Against the background of Armenia’s statements about the allied, fraternal nature of our strategic relations, the thesis about “Russian TV channels that pose a threat to national security” is perplexing,” the Russian Embassy in Yerevan said.
One of the factors that influenced the turn of Armenia’s foreign policy was the creation of a legal regime favorable for the active development of various public organizations funded mainly by the West. These NGOs already have the ability to attack the key national security agency – National Security Service of Armenia, to lobby for initiatives that contradict traditional values of Armenia, and even to launch activities in Nagorno-Karabakh. One of their main aims is to undermine the stability of Russian-Armenian allied relations. All of the above facts confirm that pro-Western NGOs in Armenia are actively engaged in activities that contradict the national interests of the country.
Foreign organizations such as the Soros Foundation, the European Foundation for Support of Democracy, and the American National Foundation for Support of Democracy fund the following NGOs in Armenia: Right SIDE of Lilit Martirosyan, Union of informed citizens of Daniel Ioannisyan, Helsinki Civic Assembly in Vanadzor of Arthur Sakunts, For Equal Rights of Gayane Abrahamyan, Asparez of Levon Barseghyan, etc.
Many representatives of the so-called fifth column in Armenia today not only freely promote their political initiatives, but are also actively involved in the development of draft laws and other documents of national importance. The projects of these organizations are characterized as anti-Russians. Their focus is on finding negative consequences of Armenia’s membership in the EEU in the socio-economic and security spheres, as well as promoting the idea that Armenia’s military-political cooperation with Russia and the CSTO does not ensure the implementation of the country’s fundamental interests.
Source: USAID
At the same time, financial support from the United States for Armenia is one of the largest in the world. The US Agency for International Development, an independent agency of the United States federal government that is primarily responsible for administering civilian foreign aid and development assistance, invested $106 million in the health sector of Armenia to combat COVID-19. In general, according to his data, Armenia has already received more than 27 million dollars from the US in 2020, while the majority of this amount, 12 million, was invested in the sector of governance.
Large investment from the US is due to various factors. The United States is home to a representative and influential Armenian Diaspora (more than 1.5 million people), which has high economic, financial, technological, institutional, informational, scientific and lobbying resources. Today, as the conflict on the Armenian-Azerbaijani border escalated, thousands of Armenians staged protests near the Azerbaijani Embassy in Los Angeles, which led to clashes with Azerbaijanis. This confirmed not only the large size of the Armenian Diaspora, which lives mainly in California, but also their political activity.
The American Diaspora is the most important potential of Armenian diplomacy for expanding ties with the United States, exerting a beneficial influence on painful issues, and is a key part of the global Armenian factor. The Armenian lobby in the United States actively works to protect the interests of the Armenian Diaspora, the Republic of Armenia, and the unrecognized Nagorno-Karabakh Republic. Today, it is one of the most effective ethnic lobbies in America, and it has the following goals:
Recognition of the Armenian genocide;
Recognition of independence and assistance to the NKR;
The provision of U.S. assistance to Armenia;
Blocking arms deals with Turkey;
Fighting against the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan project;
Fighting against the Baku — Tbilisi — Kars project.
Today’s lobby is represented by the Armenian national Committee of America (ANCA), which has 45 branches in 25 States, as well as representative offices in Europe. The “Armenian Assembly of America” (AAA) operates separately from ANKA. The house of representatives has a bipartisan group of congressmen on Armenian issues, the Armenian Caucus, which initiates consideration of Armenian issues. There is also an Armenian Council in the Democratic Party (Armenian-American Democratic Leadership Council) and an Armenian Council in the Republican Party (Armenian-American Republican Council).
The Armenian lobby is making significant progress. In addition to significant financial support, in 1992, they managed to influence the adoption of the famous 907 amendment to the “freedom support Act”, which prohibited assistance to Azerbaijan. The amendment had a short-term effect, but in the end it brought America more losses than profits.
Memorial of the victims of the Ottoman Empire murders in 1915
In October 2019, the United States recognized the mass deportations and killings of Armenians on the territory of the Ottoman Empire in 1915 as an act of genocide. This issue, which was actively promoted by the Armenian lobby, was of great political significance. If earlier the US avoided calling these events genocide because of the position of Turkey, its key NATO ally, the resolution was adopted at a time when American Congress was dissatisfied with Turkey’s policy – in particular, the operation against the Kurds in Northern Syria. But this was not just because of the invasion of Syria. Turkey’s desire to improve its relations with Russia, the purchase of Russian weapons, in particular the S-400 air defense system, and the deal to build a nuclear power plant in Turkey, played a major role.
A narrow group of the elite that is currently in power in Armenia is closely affiliated with the neo-liberal democratic forces of the United States. Today, Pashinyan must be hoping for the coming to power of globalist Democrats after the elections in November this year, which will allow him to strengthen support from abroad for anti-Russian discourse, as well as attract significantly larger financial injections into civil society organizations and institutions that are aimed at undermining Armenian-Russian relations.
In addition to bilateral interaction with the Western countries, Armenia does not refuse to cooperate with the NATO bloc in the context of studies, exercises, trainings, and peacekeeping actions, and apparently hopes for the development of the military-technical component of relations.
Since 2002, Armenia has been involved in the planning and analysis of the NATO Partnership for peace program, which expands the opportunities for interaction with the Alliance. In 2003, Armenian military personnel participated in the NATO peacekeeping operation as part of a Greek battalion. From 2005 to 2008, a group of Armenian military personnel was in Iraq as part of the NATO mission’s humanitarian tasks. In 2010, Yerevan sent a group of 40 peacekeepers to Afghanistan. Later, the Armenian peacekeeping contingent was increased three times (to 130 people). Yerevan also signed the Individual Partnership Action Plan (IPAP) within the framework of the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council, which is the basis for further cooperation with the Alliance.
Pashinyan also actively seeks to bring the country closer to the European Union. Armenia, being a member of the Eastern Partnership Program, signed in 2017 with the EU the Comprehensive and Enhanced Partnership Agreement with the EU. If earlier cooperation with the European Union was complementary to Armenia’s membership in the Eurasian Economic Union, after Pashinyan came to power, discussions about leaving the Eurasian economic Union are increasingly promoted among the country’s leadership mainly at the behest of the pro-Western NGOs.
In the recent conflict on the border with Azerbaijan, Yerevan did not resort to the assistance of the CSTO, but stated that in order to achieve peace with Baku, “an international system of reliable monitoring of compliance with the ceasefire regime should be established”. In addition, he claimed that it was necessary to continue negotiations “within the framework of the OSCE Minsk group”, which in addition to Russia includes the United States and France, which are Turkey’s NATO allies.
In turn, the United States is certainly interested in maintaining its influence in South Caucasus. However, Azerbaijan is could be a more valuable partner in the region than Armenia.
Illustrative Image
Back in 1994, the “Contract of the century” was signed in Baku. It represented a series of agreements for a period of 30 years with a number of major multinational companies for the joint exploitation of oil deposits in the Azerbaijani sector of the Caspian sea. It was signed thanks to the trust placed in the independent state of Azerbaijan by the major world powers. In fact, this event laid the foundation for cooperation between the United States and Azerbaijan, after which Baku became a profitable economic partner of influential Western States, primarily of the United States.
US interests in Azerbaijan are linked to the expansion of influence in the Caspian region, the creation of safe transit zones for transportation and the development of energy resources. For the United States, this task is beneficial from the point of view of energy security, trade, economic and strategic partnership. The potential of Caspian oil and gas could partly offset Europe’s dependence on Russia and directly affect Europe’s security and US obligations within NATO. At the same time, it is obvious that the Americans ‘ interest in the Caspian region is aimed at strengthening regional security, deterring potential rivals, Russia and Iran, and promoting its interests.
Armenia’s nationalist foreign policy is very similar to the developments in Ukraine in 2013. Despite the Armenian population’s claim of fraternity with the Russian people, the country’s leadership is leading it not only to lose its main partner in the international arena, but also to sacrifice its national interests to the dream of potential European integration.
The chosen course is not profitable for Armenia even in the short term, because western countries will not help Yerevan in today’s conflict and will certainly not oppose Azerbaijan, which is supported by Turkey. At the same time, given the involvement of the OSCE Minsk group in the conflict, where France has a special influence, it is possible that the tension on the Armenian-Azerbaijani border may continue for a long period. It is likely that the West, for example France, is interested in escalating the conflict, because it distracts Erdogan from military operations in Libya, where the Turkish-backed Government of National Unity is actively preparing for a battle with the Libyan National Army for control of the city of Sirte. At the same time, France tacitly supports Haftar, who heads the LNA. Thus, Nikol Pashinyan is ready to sacrifice the national interests of the country, its security, as well as the lives of its own citizens to realize the short-term interests of aliens.
*
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.
Any serious study of the relevant scholarly literature reveals at least four possible paths to “human extinction”: nuclear war, the climate catastrophe, the deployment of 5G and biodiversity collapse.
Moreover, as I have documented previously, under cover of a virus labeled COVID-19, the global elite is conducting a coup against humanity.
Unfortunately, it has also meant that, despite documented evidence of the threat to human survival, it is even more difficult than usual to get people to focus on this point.
This means that engaging people to consider the evidence for themselves is extremely difficult: it is easier to live in delusion, reassured by elite-driven narratives promulgated through education systems and the corporate media which effectively convey the message that there is either no serious cause for concern (yet) or, perhaps, that the timeframe allows for an adequate official response in due course.
In either case we, as individuals or groups, do not really need to do anything differently; going along with the elite-driven narrative, including timeframe, will ensure our survival.
Of course, as those paying attention to the evidence already know, being obedient to the elite-driven narrative is a recipe for extinction. We have already exceeded 2°C above the pre-industrial temperature, the ongoing and rapid deployment of 5G will be catastrophic, biodiversity is already collapsing (and will be seriously accelerated by the rising temperature and deployment of 5G) – for just the latest in the ongoing stream of disasters, see ‘Calls for swift action as hundreds of elephants die in Botswana’s Okavango Delta’– and, according to the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, nuclear war is now a greater possibility that at any previous time in human history. For summaries of the evidence and further documentation in each case, see ‘The Elite’s COVID-19 Coup to Destroy Humanity that is also Fast-Tracking Four Paths to Human Extinction’.
In this article I would like to explain why people are so terrified of the truth and what we can do about it so that an effective response to each of these threats can be implemented (assuming, problematically, that there is enough time).
Why are Most Human Beings so Terrified?
Virtually all human beings are terrified and they are terrified for the same reason: the child-raising process that sociologists like to label ‘socialization’ should be more accurately labeled ‘terrorization’. Why? 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.
This means that provided the child responds obediently to parental (or other adult) commands, obeys any rules imposed (by the parents, teachers and religious figures in the child’s life), learns all relevant social conventions for their society and, ultimately, obeys the law, they are allowed to live, recognized as compliant citizens, in their society.
Unfortunately, from society’s viewpoint, evolutionary pressures over vast time scales have led to each human individual being given Self-will to seek out and fulfill their own unique destiny: evolutionary pressures do not predispose any individual to obey the will of another for the simple reason that obedience has no evolutionary functionality.
Consequently, it takes enormous terrorization during childhood to ensure that the child surrenders their Self-will at the alter of obedience. To achieve this outcome and largely unknowingly, parents 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’.
A common element of this terrorization is that the child is frequently threatened with, and/or actually suffers, violence for being ‘disobedient’. Of course, this violence, assuming it is even recognized as such (given that ‘invisible’ and ‘utterly invisible’ violence are just that to virtually everyone), is invariably labeled ‘punishment’ so that we can delude ourselves that our violence is not harmful. See ‘Punishment is Violent and Counterproductive’.
This means that virtually every single individual has been successfully terrorized into being submissively obedient. And, fundamentally, this obedience includes accepting the elite-driven narrative delivered by education systems and the corporate media in relation to issues crucial to human survival.
So despite our preference for believing otherwise, those individuals in our societies who survive the education system capable of thinking for themselves, or even of ‘clear thinking’, are rare. And then they must also survive (preferably by refusing to access it) the propaganda (that is, lies) presented as ‘news’ by the corporate media. Given that another outcome of being terrorized throughout childhood means that most people are very gullible, perceiving lies is a huge challenge in itself. See ‘Why do People Lie? And Why do other People Believe them?’
Of course, this powerless imperative to believe the lies we are told and to behave obediently in response is always reinforced by the fear of violence (‘punishment’), including the fear of social ostracism for resisting elite narratives, but it is also reinforced by other fears: for example, the fear that makes people feel powerless to respond in any meaningful way, the fear of changing their behaviour, and the fear of feeling out of control of their own destiny. After all, if extinction is imminent and we are to avert it, we will need to do some fundamental things – including thinking and behaving – very differently. But we are not allowed to think or behave differently, are we? That would be disobedient.
This can be readily illustrated. When a young child does not get what they need, the child will have an emotional reaction. This will always include fear, it will probably include anger and it will probably include sadness, among other feelings. However, almost invariably, parents behave in a manner intended to prevent the child from having their emotional response (and using this information in formulating the appropriate behavioural response in the circumstance). They do not listen to the child while they express their feelings. Instead, they act to make the child suppress awareness of their feelings.
At its simplest and apparently most benign, the parent might comfort the child in the misguided belief that this is helpful. But it is not, unless you want a submissively obedient child. See ‘Comforting a Baby is Violent’.
Another simple and common way in which we suppress the emotional awareness and, hence, capacity for emotional expression of a child is by giving them food or a toy to distract them from how they feel. The fundamental outcome of this act is that we unconsciously ‘teach’ the child to seek food and/or material items as substitutes for feeling and acting on how they feel. But this is absolutely disastrous.
The net result of this behaviour is that virtually all people in industrialized societies have become addicted to material consumption, and the direct (including military), structural and ecological violence that makes excessive consumption in these societies possible. All so that we can suppress how we really feel. See ‘Love Denied: The Psychology of Materialism, Violence and War’.
And, therefore, the very notion of substantially reducing consumption – a central part of any strategy for human survival by reducing greenhouse gas emissions from industrial production and transport, checking the collapse of biodiversity by halting the destruction of habitat such as rainforests, denying financial incentive to deploy technology for 5G, ending wars (and the threat of nuclear war) for resources – becomes ‘unthinkable’.
Because the fundamental imperative of materialist societies is ‘Consume!’ (so that corporations can profit). And we do not have the emotional power to disobey that imperative because deep in our unconscious remains the childhood terror of resisting the offered food or toy and insisting on expressing how we feel and behaving powerfully in accord with that. It is far simpler to just put something more in our mouth or use one of our ‘toys’. Who wants to feel scared, sad or angry instead?
In essence, the individual who has been terrorized into obedience is no longer capable of thinking for themself and then behaving in accord with their own Self-will. This means that imperatives of the global elite – mediated through its agents such as governments, education systems and the corporate media and enforced by legal systems, the police and prison cells (see ‘The Rule of Law: Unjust and Violent’) – are readily obeyed by the vast bulk of the human population.
And because the global elite is insane – see ‘The Global Elite is Insane Revisited’ – this obedience means that we are submitting to the elite coup and complying with its imperatives that are fast-tracking humanity to extinction on four separate paths, as noted above.
To reiterate: At this most critical moment in human history, when a coup is being conducted against us and four separate threats to human existence and all life on Earth require our engaged attention and powerful response, it is almost impossible to get people to even acknowledge these threats, let alone to consider the evidence and act strategically in response.
Which means that profoundly altering our approaches to parenting and education, so that we produce powerful individuals, is critical to any strategy to fight for human survival.
Conclusion
Given that submissive obedience is the primary behavioural characteristic of all ‘good citizens’, it is going to take a monumental effort to defeat the elite coup and reverse the tide. This is because most common human behaviours – from parenting to consumption habits – have been shaped to serve elite interests, and it is these behaviours that must change.
Of course, this is also why lobbying elite agents – such as governments and corporations – cannot work. Apart from the fact that they exist to serve elite interests and obey elite directives accordingly (rather than respond to grassroots pressure which they function superbly to dissipate), governments and corporations cannot meaningfully impact the crises that confront us.
That power is ours but we must use it, and deploy it strategically.
So what can we do?
Well, if you would like to fight for human survival, it would be useful to start by giving yourself time to focus on feeling your emotional responses – fear, anger, sadness, dread…. – to the elite coup and the four most imminent threats. See ‘Putting Feelings First’.
If you do not do this, you are unlikely to be able to engage meaningfully and strategically in the effort. You will, most likely and unconsciously, simply put your attention elsewhere and go back to what you were doing. See ‘The Disintegrated Mind: The Greatest Threat to Human Survival on Earth’.
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 who can resist violence. See ‘Do We Want School or Education?’
If you wish to powerfully resist 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: 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’.
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.
*
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.
As of a year ago Wal-Mart’s CEO pay was 1076 times that of their average worker worldwide (2.3 million employees). Those workers average $21,952 a year, with little or NO major benefits… sometimes NONE at all! The Nike CEO received 379 times the pay of his MEDIAN employees ($ 29,955 a year), not even the lowest worker. Those Air Jordan or Lebron sneakers ($ 150-$200 each pair) equals 3 to 4 days pay for their aforementioned US workers. Think about that. In 2017, before this pandemic, S&P 500 CEO pay was 361 times their average worker. Some of these folks earned in excess of 6000 times that of their average worker. If the economy crashes those FAT CATS can live off of their savings and bonuses for years… while YOU start selling apples on street corners!
Fact is that only 3% of our populace (11.8 million) are mega millionaire households, which does NOT take into account the worth of their primary property AKA residences, which factor into the mega $ millions in many instances. On the other end of the scale, by the first quarter of 2019, way before this pandemic hit, 5.2 million properties (AKA residences) had underwater mortgages. So, the pandemic arrived and Uncle Sam got the mortgage holders to defer those monthly payments owed, under a moratorium of what, one year. Duh, do you understand that when this thing finally lifts a bit, the homeowners will be expected to ante up and wipe away that indebted slate? OK, how is that going to occur when many working stiffs are nothing more than mere Serfs? That is why this writer always says ” It’s the Empire.. stupid!”
American corporate capitalism has always been unfair. My dad was a longshoreman during the 50s, 60s and into the 70s. When I was a kid, and we were living under a ‘One Paycheck’ household (until my mom was forced to get a job to keep us afloat) I recall the many strikes my dad’s ILA (International Longshoremen’s Union) was involved in. The right wing Congress, with help from many Democrats (sound familiar?) passed the Taft Hartley Act of 1947, which cancelled out two FDR New Deal pro labor acts, The National Labor Relations Act of 1935 (AKA The Wagner Act) and the Federal Anti Injunction Act of 1932. Here are some of the terrible parts of Taft Hartley:
It allows the president to appoint a board of inquiry to investigate union disputes when he believes a strike would endanger national health or safety, and obtain an 80-day injunction to stop the continuation of a strike.
It permits union shops only after a majority of the employees vote for them.
It forbids jurisdictional strikes and secondary boycotts.
It ends the check-off system whereby the employer collects union dues.
So, each time his contract expired, my dad went on strike. The president then issued the Taft Hartley ’80 day cooling off period’ (nice way to use PR to make the public think the unions were the children who needed ‘Cooling off AKA Detention’). This was a great way for the ‘Captains of Corporate Capitalism’ to put a strain on the millions of striking working stiffs now out of work with no pay. My dad wound up driving a taxicab or limo for the interim, earning way LESS than his normal pay. We had to cut back on certain costly foods and other expenses like new clothes, going to the movies or bowling with friends, and of course NO vacation until….
Today we have less than 10% of private sector working stiffs in unions at all. Thanks to the public sector unions, who are also under assault, with only around 37% of their working stiffs belonging, there still may be a scant glimmer of hope. If our working stiffs do not finally realize that only strong unions can stand up to the FAT CAT empire, then feudalism will strangle us all!
Forget about the Democrats as our saviors. Look what the Democrats just did in the House, where they are the majority. They joined with the other right wing party, the FAR RIGHT Repugnantins, and voted down a ‘too small’ amendment to cut military spending by a mere 10%. Imagine that! This writer joined with many progressives, Socialists and Libertarians a few years ago demanding a 25% cut in military spending, sending the savings back to the states, cities and towns where those taxes were collected from. My small city of 60,000 would see a rebate of around 70+ million dollars each year. Yet, most of the serfs who live nearby me just don’t get it! They are too propagandized by this empire’s media spin machine to understand how we are all being played…. to our detriment.
In conclusion, the Great Depression of the 1930s, as terrible as it was, still saw more working stiffs waking up from their slumber. We had a myriad of newspapers, newsletters and radio shows trumpeting real progressive ideas and ideals. Today, we have only some websites that speak ‘Truth to Power’, and that is all. The Two Party/One Party current apparatus is owned by the Super Rich. Thus, we had a Trump vs. Hillary fiasco in ’16 and now a Trump vs. Biden joke as well. So, voting will once again be futile, except for the fact that Trump is SO LETHAL for us working stiffs, that even a Biden presidency, terrible as it may be, will be welcomed for the short term. If that isn’t an indication of the Futile Feudalism we are knee deep in….
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Philip A Farruggio is a contributing editor for The Greanville Post. He is also frequently posted on Global Research, Nation of Change, Countercurrents.org, and Off Guardian sites. He is the son and grandson of Brooklyn NYC longshoremen and a graduate of Brooklyn College, class of 1974. Since the 2000 election debacle Philip has written over 400 columns on the Military Industrial Empire and other facets of life in an upside down America. He is also host of the ‘It’s the Empire… Stupid‘ radio show, co produced by Chuck Gregory. Philip can be reached at [email protected].
The sheer magnitude of what is supposed to be news from so-called “prestigious” outlets—whether the New York Times, Washington Post, or even Reuters—or the lack thereof falling short of nothing but pure apolitical blasphemy of Russian conspiracies menacing the United States public and the West should be of no surprise anymore, or any real concern whatsoever. What is a matter of fact however, is nothing less than turning the lies and obfuscations inside out to determine just what it is the West, Deep State quacks, and media machine pariahs are trying to cover-up, deflect, or outright create out of thin air concerning the Russian Federation; they are just outright obsessed with the dead carcass of “Russia did it!.”
In just two to three weeks of time, the media and Deep State prostitutes have shifted from a completely fake—and debunked up to and including the President, heads of US State in the government, military, and intelligentsia—story of “Russian bounties” of paid killings of US soldiers in Afghanistan promoted by the New York Times, to a sensationalized hacker conspiracy theory that Russia stole CoV-19 vaccine R&D secrets from the West. As we shall see, the truth of the matter behind this lying mega-machine in hyperdrive is quite the polar opposite, and as foreign and far away as planet Pluto from existing reality.
Sechenov University Center for Clinical Research and Medications was responsible for conducting the clinical trials of both variants of intramuscular SARS-CoV-2 vaccine—in powder form and liquid intramuscular solution—developed by Gamaleya National Research Center for Epidemiology and Microbiology, with trials taking place at both Sechenov University and Burdenko Military Hospital. Head of the Russian Direct Investment Fund (RDIF) Kirill Dmitriev revealed in an interview with CNN stating clearly: “We have lots of infrastructure for vaccine development, and once again, we will be the first ones because of our scientists and because of the research we have done to date.”
Of course, CNN went straight for the geopolitical jugular blaspheming the question of the UK “Russian hacker” conspiracy theory of stealing CoV-19 vaccine research data only to find itself on the receiving end of instant karma. Dmitriev explosively blew the windows right out of the house of mirrors in the ideological race for a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine—that US “Operation Warp Speed” is supposed to be winning—stating clearly with a blast of dynamite that, “First of all, we are very surprised by the timing of this, because basically, this happened the next day after we announced the approval of our vaccine in August.”
It was certainly no wonder then, that the cross-Atlantic West’s media machines mirrors had been smashed in exposing the burning red reasons behind the recent hyperdrive of anti-Russian propaganda and conspiracy theories like the NYT “Russian bounties in Afghanistan” as mere Red Herrings to smother out such developments from Russia in the newswires. Kirill Dmitriev’s revelations about Russia completing the world’s first successful SARS-CoV-2 vaccine program was, by no means, a small or irrelevant development in the face of a global debacle that has literally brought the world to a grinding halt, and left the cross-Atlantic West staring straight to the bottom of a vicious financial cliff of total economic collapse; it was—for Washington, Wall Street, and London—a geopolitical earthquake.
Two of China’s five vaccine candidates from CanSino and Fosun Pharma, however, uncover the very ugly reality—just as the US Moderna Inc. and French Sanofi SARS-CoV-2 vaccines have shown—of genetically engineered mRNA lipid nanoparticle vaccines. Such a feat in biotechnology with gene-edited messenger RNA has never been attempted—much less on humans as it is purely experimental—in the history of modern medicine, ever.
CanSino—as a partial arm of the PLA through the Academy of Military Science Institute of Biotechnology—recently teamed up with Precision Nanosystems (PNI) of Canada to produce a “Covid-19 mRNA-LNP vaccine.” According to the news brief on May 21, 2020 from the BioSpace website, “CanSinoBIO will hold the commercialization rights in Asia except Japan,while PNI will hold the rights for the rest of the world,” exclusively maintaining the intellectual and R&D rights on what is known asNanoAssemblr Technology, which is the very patented nano-tech being employed by US-based Moderna Inc for a multitude of new mRNA vaccines as early as 2017, including H10N8 and H7N9 Avian Influenza.
Also in China, Fosun Pharma—Shanghai Fosun Pharmaceutical/Fosun Pharmaceutical Industrial—has entered the race as China’s second company promoting an mRNA-LNP vaccine candidate. Promoting “international collaboration with BioNTech to co-develop an mRNA vaccine against Covid-19,” Fosun Pharma is employing extensive R&D using Germany-based BioNTech mRNA gene-editing biotechnology techniques to develop an effective vaccine, a technology that BioNTech’s website conveys bizarrely—and shockingly—that mRNA represents a “disruptive new drug class”(emphasis added).
Last but not least—nearlydead last that is—well behind the pack of vaccine trial candidates is the United States and the cross-Atlantic West, whether it is US Moderna Inc, UK-Swiss AstraZeneca, Swiss Novartis, French Sanofi, UK GlaxoSmithKline, or a plethora of other major pharmaceutical companies that dominate the cross-Atlantic medical industrial complexes. The fracas of what is supposed to be an all-dominating, US government sponsored systematic vaccination candidate program dubbed “Operation Warp Speed” is merely nothing but a distorted and grossly lopsided version of “The Tortoise and the Hare” seemingly from Aesop’s Fables.
Moderna Inc. USA (based in Cambridge, Massachusetts) is quite literally, the “Head of the Hydra” of Operation Warp Speed—the raison de’tre—and currently the greatest purveyor of mRNA-LNP (NanoAssemblr) vaccine candidates in the world. The current US President Donald Trump himself introduced the former head of GlaxoSmithKline (retired 2017) Moncef Slaoui—whom was previously serving on Moderna’s Board of Directors—on May 15, 2020 as the newly-appointed US ‘vaccine czar’ in charge of Operation Warp Speed—a politically uncharted move that gave a fox nothing less than the de facto proverbial key to the hen house.
The mRNA-1273 Moderna gene-edited vaccine candidate—cleared by the US Food and Drug Administration for approval of Phase II human trials on May 7, 2020, and on May 12, 2020, granted Fast Track Designation by the FDA, hence the name Operation Warp Speed—was allowed to utterly omit and skip mandated animal testing right into carte blanche human testing trials that began on April 27, 2020, in which results of seriously negative VAEs (Vaccine Adverse Event) on test subjects began to turn up immediately such as CNN’s Ian Haydon reportedly being “the sickest in his life.” However, Moderna Inc. as the so-called “frontrunner” in the ideological race for a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine has completely stalled behind all of the competition except for the Sanofi Pasteur-Translate Bio venture (another mRNA-LNP gene-edited vaccine candidate slated for Sept. 2020 human trials) merely completing its Phase II human trial enrollments on July 8, 2020, with only “interim” results from Phase I human trial studies being published, and as the old adage goes—if you are not first, you are last.
The advent of mRNA gene-edited vaccines amidst the revolution in biotechnology of advancing the techniques of genetic manipulation could, quite literally, become a Pandora’s Box of unknown consequences or serious damage to human DNA and the future of humanity, raising untold questions of efficacy and viability—especially when controlled at the top in the wrong hands (China, USA, cross-Atlantic West, whether it is governments, or especially powerful private corporations). The US Government of the current administration is throwing not only millions, but billions and billions of $US dollars to the biggest cross-Atlantic medical industrial complex giants—such as a $US 1.95 billion to Pfizer-BioNTech mRNA-LNP gene-edited vaccine candidate project (BioNTech being the very same company jointly developing a mRNA-LNP vaccine candidate with China’s Fosun)—and going even further with the US President Trump bizarrely stating “We’re willing to work with anybody that is going to get us a good result,” meaning supporting BioNTech on both sides of the US (Pfizer) and Chinese (Fosun Pharma) coin when prompted with a question of working or collaborating with China on vaccine development—representing the very dangerous sounding “disruptive new drug class” found directly on BioNTech’s website, raking billions of US and Chinese money into their coffers when the world is on its financial knees.
Russia: Re-inventing…..Sanity?
The Russian Bear has shown a major resilience—and a reinventing a ‘renaissance’ of R&D in science, biology, and technologies—in its universities and technical institutes not only in advanced military technical developments of new generation hardware and cutting-edge weaponry, but directly into the scientific community especially that of epidemiology, virology, and biotechnology, such as Sechenov University in completing the success of the world’s first viable SARS-CoV-2 vaccine candidate. Programs and newly-built (or completely renovated existing infrastructure) research centers at select technical institutes or universities personally endorsed and attended by the Russian President Vladimir Putin—even some programs initiated by Putin himself—has proven to be effective in the very words of the Federation Council (Upper House) Chairperson Valentina Matviyenko when she stated on July 23, 2020 in a pivotal announcement, “Russians will have the opportunity to get vaccinated before the end of the year…..We definitely are the first country to announce clinically-tested vaccines, which is a very important thing.”
Considering even the most dystopian scenarios that have reared their ugly heads into lives of those in the cross-Atlantic West, the most sane comment on any development that has come over months in a world gone completely mad is that of Russia’s Minister of Health Mikhail Murashko speaking common sense when he clearly reiterated the position, “….that vaccination should be voluntary.” This statement should come with a much-welcomed, giant sigh of relief in the dense geopolitical fog of the cross-Atlantic West on its utter financial knees due to draconian lock-down measures coupled with the shocking assertions—or even the very idea of—alluding to “immunity passports,” contact tracing, or the shocking, legally insane rant of lawyer Alan Dershowitz (@1:49) that, “no one has the Constitutional right to endanger the public…no right to refuse to be vaccinated, no right to refuse to wear a mask…” in an interview with YouTube vlogger Jason Goodman, when the clear and present danger to endanger the public is the promotion of mRNA-LNP gene-edited vaccine candidates that have never been approved for human use previously—ever.
Is it any wonder then, that as the Russian Federation makes a giant leap for mankind with the biggest development of 2020 in the face of adversity of a Bretton Woods system dominated by a self-destructing, failing foreign policy empire—the cracking edifice of the American Century financially collapsing into the abyss—we will only get more and more reckless and apolitical hob-goblin Russian conspiracy theories menacing the public from media and the cross-Atlantic governments shoved down our throats to bury the real news? …. Hardly.
The problem with alliances is that they ultimately either become victims of their own success, or cannot figure out what to do with themselves once the original rationale disappears. The original Cold War-era NATO was a relatively cohesive entity led by one of the two superpowers, with most of its members being the industrialized democracies of Western Europe, with West Germany being its eastern-most European member, and alliance planning revolving around USSR. But even then there were cracks in the alliance. Italy, for example, had nearly no role to play as it did not border any Warsaw Pact country and did not practice deploying its forces to West Germany to practice its defense against the anticipated Warsaw Pact invasion. And while Greece and Turkey were ostensibly part of that alliance as well, in practice they spent more time clashing with one another than planning for joint action against the USSR.
The end of the Cold War made the problem of alliance cohesion far worse, for two reasons. One, it quickly added as many members as possible thus greatly expanding its geographical extent, and two, it lost that single unifying factor in the form of USSR. Today’s NATO is a patchwork of mini-alliances revolving around the United States which is determined to replace the alliance aspect of NATO which assumes that all members have interests that are to be taken into consideration, by patron-client relationships.
Not to put too fine a point on it, the goal of the United States is global domination. This goal is shared by the entire political elite and major portions of the population, though it is nearly never discussed openly or directly. Instead, it is framed in terms of “American Leadership”, “New American Century”, and of course “American Exceptionalism” which is used to justify any policy that violates international law, treaties, or agreements. Given that every country which has not recognized “American Leadership” is described as a “regime”, there is no indication the US elite is interested in anything resembling peaceful coexistence with other sovereign states.
NATO plays a double role in achieving that goal. First, it is a military alliance that projects military power against anyone refusing to accept “American Leadership”. Military contributions by European member states are certainly important, not least by giving America the veneer of international legitimacy, but the presence of US bases on the European continent is far more so.
US forces stationed in or staged out of European naval, air, and land bases are indispensable to its efforts to control the MENA region and to promote the US policy of driving a wedge between Europe on the one hand and Russia and China on the other. Secondly, a European country’s membership in NATO means a sacrifice of considerable portion of its sovereignty and independence to the United States. This is a wholly asymmetrical relationship, since US bases its forces in European countries and sells its weapons to them, not the other way around. The penetration of a European country thus achieved allows US intelligence service to develop agent networks and to employ the full range of lobbying techniques which have been particularly visible in the US efforts to press F-35 aircraft into the hands of NATO member states.
America’s self-appointed task is made not easier or harder by the fact that today’s NATO is therefore fragmented along both geographic and national power lines. The geographical divide is plainly easy to see: Norway and Denmark mainly care about the Arctic, Poland and Romania obsess about Russia, Mediterranean countries freak out about what’s happening in North Africa. The wrangling over sending more troops to Mali or to Estonia is the reflection of the differing security concerns of individual members of the far-flung pact. The power divide is less easy to see but more problematic for Washington. V_3 (A2) Of the European powers, only four—Germany, France, Italy, and Great Britain—may be considered to be powerful and independent political actors with which the US has to contend on anything like an equal basis. The first three form the core of the European Union, whereas Great Britain opted for Brexit, likely in part because of the looming big power struggle between the US and the EU that has the potential of degenerating into a destructive trade war. It is doubtful that the skirmishes over Huawei and North Stream 2 are anything but the opening salvoes in the confrontation over whether the EU will emerge as a political actor independent of the US, or be reduced to a collection of client states. Unfortunately, America’s task is made easier by the fact of the intra-European divisions mentioned above.
United States is pursuing development of several hypersonic missile systems with the aim of ultimately fielding very large numbers of them in order to be able to launch disarming first strikes against Russian and Chinese nuclear arsenals. Since the weapons themselves are relatively short-ranged (though that may change once the US allows New START to lapse), they require basing close to their intended targets. That means having to find countries willing to base them in Europe, where it is liable to provoke a political debate of the magnitude comparable to that of the original Euromissile controversy of the 1980s. Since Germany is not interested in being reduced to the status of a US client, it has resisted the US on a variety of fronts, including the North Stream 2, the refusal to buy F-35s, and now also the lack of desire to host the new US missiles. Even the German defense spending increases are intended at least as much to counter US influence in Eastern Europe as the supposed Russian threat to NATO. The United States has responded using the usual array of tools: economic sanctions on any and all European entities participating in the project and even using the gas, apparently launching a cyber-attack that US-friendly German intelligence promptly blamed on Russia, and also threatening to move US troops out of Germany and possibly to Poland. There is even discussion and rumors that US nuclear weapons stationed in Germany might be moved to Poland.
The outcome of this so far is a power struggle between two NATO allies, US and Germany, over the political alignment of a third—Poland. While Germany has the power of EU institutions on its side and massive economic gravitational pull, US has cultivated a cadre of friends, possibly intelligence assets, as a result of post-9/11 collaboration in Afghanistan, Iraq, and in the realm of intelligence-sharing. This has produced a government more than willing to deploy US troops, missiles, and even nukes on Poland’s territory. The power of US influence is visible in Poland’s weapons procurement: Patriot, Javelin, HIMARS, F-35, and not a single comparable European system in recent years. The US weakness in this confrontation consists of the unwillingness to subsidize Poland economically which, combined with the ruling party’s fiscal irresponsibility, will make it difficult for the country to maintain its anti-German course in the longer term.
While in Eastern Europe US national security state is using Poland as a proxy against Germany, in the Mediterranean it has adopted Turkey as a proxy against France and Italy. After some hemming and hawing, the US hawks dropped the Kurds yet again, with Trump happily taking the blame, in order to piggy-back on Erdogan’s Libya ambitions to curtail French and Italian interests there. To be sure, Turkey retains far more autonomy in the relationship than Poland, which was unable or unwilling to play US and Russia and EU against one another in order to secure a measure of freedom of action. But the US Congress measures to allow the purchase of S-400 weapons from Turkey is an indicator that Turkey’s behavior is once again useful to the US. And even though Turkey was excluded from the F-35 program, its firms continue to make components for various assembly plants. The result has been a number of stand-offs between Turkish warships on one hand and French and Italian on the other off the coasts of Libya. And whereas France and Italy are backing the Marshal Haftar’s LNA, Turkey’s preferred proxy is the GNA, leading to a veritable “anti-Turkey” alliance being formed that includes Turkey’s old time NATO adversary Greece. While the US is officially aloof of the entire situation, in practice controlling Libya’s oil is part of the Washington strategy of “energy dominance” every bit as the North Stream 2 sanctions are.
The remarkable part of these two sets of conflicts among NATO powers is that in both cases Russia has sided with Germany and France against the US in both cases. It is Russia’s policies that are more beneficial to French and German interests than America’s, since Russia is not actually seeking to monopolize energy supplies to Europe in the way that the US clearly and openly is.
So far the US strategy consisted of steadily ratcheting up pressure through sanctions and proxies and occasional intelligence-generated anti-Russia provocations (sometimes helpfully delivered by British agencies), trying to find that happy middle of policies that actually force Germany, France, and Italy to change their policies and which do not force a permanent breach in the trans-Atlantic relationship. But the cracks in the relationship are clearly visible and they are not attributable to Trump’s erratic and brusque manner. It is the US Congress which passed the successive rounds of anti-North Stream 2 sanctions, with strong partisan majorities. It means the assertion of US control over European major powers is part of the US agenda. Since that agenda is motivated by a US political and economic crisis of a magnitude not seen since the 1930s, there is little likelihood Biden’s presidency would represent a radical departure from the current trend.
Of course, for Germany, France, and Italy to successfully resist US encroachment they would first need to transform the EU into something closer than a federation. The COVID-19 pandemic and the associated economic crisis already providing considerable impetus for such a transformation, America’s insatiable appetites might provide the rest.
*
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.
While the Covid-19 epidemic continues to drag on in the United States, it’s largely over in Sweden where fatalities have dropped to no more than 2 deaths per day for the last week. Sweden has been harshly criticized in the media for not imposing draconian lockdowns like the United States and the other European countries. Instead, Sweden implemented a policy that was both conventional and sensible. They recommended that people maintain a safe distance between each other and they banned gatherings of 50 people or more. They also asked their elderly citizens to isolate themselves and to avoid interacting with other people as much as possible. Other than that, Swedes were encouraged to work, exercise and get on with their lives as they would normally even though the world was still in the throes of a global pandemic.
The secret of Sweden’s success is that its experts settled on a strategy that was realistic, sustainable and science-based. The intention was never to “fight” the virus which is among the most contagious infections in the last century, but to protect the old and vulnerable while allowing the young, low-risk people to circulate, contract the virus, and develop the antibodies they’d need to fight similar pathogens in the future. It’s clear now that that was the best approach. And while Sweden could still experience sporadic outbreaks that might kill another 2 to 300 people, any recurrence of the infection in the Fall or Winter will not be a dreaded “Second Wave”, but a much weaker flu-like event that will not overwhelm the public health system or kill thousands of people.
As we’ve noted before, the media has been particularly vicious in their criticism of Sweden’s approach which they’ve characterized as overly “relaxed.” Check out this sampling of recent headlines:
Sweden becomes an example of how not to handle COVID-19, CBS News
Lack of Lockdown Increased COVID-19 Deaths in Sweden, U of V Newsroom
Sweden Has Become the World’s Cautionary Tale, New York Times
Sweden Stayed Open And More People Died Of Covid-19, But The Real Reason May Be Something Darker, Forbes
Sweden hoped herd immunity would curb COVID-19. Don’t do what we did. It’s not working. USA Today
Sweden’s coronavirus death toll is now approaching zero, but experts are warning others not to hail it as a success, Business Insider
Lack of COVID-19 Lockdown Increased Deaths in Sweden, Analysis Conclude, Virginia edu
Sweden COVID-19 Deaths Linked to Failure to Lockdown as Country Prepares for Second Wave, Newsweek
Sweden Tries Out a New Status: Pariah State, New York Times
As you can see, the media has taken a very hardline with Sweden. But, why? What has Sweden done that has provoked such a hostile response?
Nothing, really, they’ve just shrugged off the repressive stay-at-home orders and pursued their own independent policy. The Swedish approach stands in stark contrast to the lockdowns which are costly, ineffective and socially damaging. Here’s an excerpt from an article at The Evening Standard that underscores these very points:
“Lockdowns made little difference to the number of people who have died from coronavirus, a study has claimed. Researchers from the University of Toronto and University of Texas found that whether a country was locked down or not was “not associated” with the Covid-19 death rate.
Experts compared mortality rates and cases in 50 badly-hit countries up until May 1 and calculated that only 33 out of every million people had died from the virus…The study found that imposing lockdown measures succeeded in stopping hospitals becoming overwhelmed, but it did not translate into a significant reduction in deaths.
“Government actions such as border closures, full lockdowns, and a high rate of Covid-19 testing were not associated with statistically significant reductions in the number of critical cases or overall mortality,” the study, published in the Lancet online journal EClinicalMedicine, said.”
(“Coronavirus lockdown ‘made no difference to number of deaths but stopped hospitals being overwhelmed”, Evening Standard)
Bottom line: Lockdowns don’t work, but the media continues to support them. Why?
Because the media is owned by elites who see lockdowns as an effective way to exert greater control over the population. The real issue is power, not efficacy or saving lives. The Swedish model undermines this effort by providing a viable alternative that challenges lockdowns and leads countries out of crisis. That’s why Sweden has been treated with such open hostility, because elites see crisis management as a useful tool for making the structural changes they want to impose on the political and economic systems. Billionaire oligarchs do not see crises as ‘periods of intense disorder or distress’, but golden opportunities that can be exploited to their advantage.
Sweden is also criticized for its fatality rate which is higher than some but lower than others. As of today, the number Coronavirus deaths in Sweden is 5,667 which is considerably higher than its neighbors in Norway and Denmark but lower than Belgium, Italy, France, the UK and Spain. In other words, Sweden is somewhere in the middle of the pack. Interestingly, Sweden compares quite well to poorly-governed states in the US with similar-sized populations. Take a look:
Sweden: No Lockdown
Population of 10.2 million
Coronavirus deaths –5,667
Lockdown State#1: New York City (Democrat Governor, Andrew Cuomo)
Population– 8.3 million
Coronavirus deaths– 32,133 (5 and a half time more than Sweden with 2 million less people)
Lockdown State#2: New Jersey (another Democrat governor, Phil Murphy)
Population– 9.2 million (1 million less than Sweden)
Coronavirus deaths– 15,684 (nearly 3 times as many as Sweden with a smaller population.)
Lockdown State#3: Massachusetts (another Democrat Governor, Charlie Baker)
Population– 6.9 million #.3 million less than Sweden)
Coronavirus deaths– 8,380 (1 and a half times Sweden’s total with 3 million less people.)
These are the real Coronavirus losers, the three states that are run by liberal governors who imposed counterproductive lockdowns that collapsed their economies, killed tens of thousands of people, and did nothing to staunch the spread of the infection. In contrast, Sweden has weathered the storm nicely, built up the public’s innate immunity and put the economy back on the road to recovery. Take a look:
“Unlike most European countries, Sweden didn’t impose strict lockdown measures. Now it’s reaping the rewards — economically speaking, at least. A report from Capital Economics published on Tuesday found that the Swedish economy was the least harmed in Europe, describing it as the “best of a bad bunch.”
Though Sweden was not immune to the pandemic’s economic impact, it was the only major economy to grow in the first quarter of the year, the report noted….
“The Swedish economy has weathered Covid well, thanks in part to the government’s light-touch lockdown, and our forecast of a 1.5% drop in GDP this year is well above consensus,” the economists Andrew Kenningham, David Oxley, and Melanie Debono wrote.” (“Sweden weathers 2020’s economic storm better than anywhere else”, Business Insider)
Readers might want to compare the facts about Sweden’s economy with the spurious claims made by New York Times. Here’s an excerpt from a piece titled “Sweden Has Become the World’s Cautionary Tale”:
“Not only have thousands more people died (in Sweden) than in neighboring countries that imposed lockdowns, but Sweden’s economy has fared little better.
“They literally gained nothing,” said Jacob F. Kirkegaard, a senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics in Washington. “It’s a self-inflicted wound, and they have no economic gains.”…
The elevated death toll resulting from Sweden’s approach has been clear for many weeks. What is only now emerging is how Sweden, despite letting its economy run unimpeded, has still suffered business-destroying, prosperity-diminishing damage, and at nearly the same magnitude of its neighbors.”…In short, Sweden suffered a vastly higher death rate while failing to collect on the expected economic gains.” (“Sweden Has Become the World’s Cautionary Tale”, New York Times)
Huh? So, Sweden “gained nothing”, says the Times? Really??
As the report from Business Insider confirms, the Swedish economy “was the least harmed in Europe”, the “best of the bunch” (and) “the only major economy to grow in the first quarter of the year, the report.” Sweden is progressively ramping up its activity while the United States is still stuck in the mud. The Times is deliberately misleading its readers to continue its war on Sweden. That’s not journalism, it’s agenda-driven propaganda.
Did you know that the Swedish infectious disease expert Johan Giesecke warned leaders in the lockdown countries that cases and deaths would rise sharply when the lockdowns were lifted?
One would assume that our leaders would be smart enough to figure that out before hand and tweak the policy accordingly, but that didn’t happen. So, now, when Fall rolls around and the deaths begin to mount, then what??
Then the state governors will re-impose the same onerous restrictions that were in place before which will increase unemployment and intensify the deepening economic slump. Meanwhile, Sweden will be in the process of rebooting its economy, putting people back to work, and enjoying the benefits that accrue from independent thinking and strong leadership. This is from an article at Reuters:
“Sweden’s top epidemiologist said on Tuesday a rapid decline in new critical COVID-19 cases alongside slowing death rates indicated that Sweden’s strategy for slowing the epidemic… was working. Chief epidemiologist Anders Tegnell of the public health agency said a rapid slowdown in the spread of the virus indicated very strongly that Sweden had reached relatively widespread immunity…
Of course “it’s working”. Why wouldn’t it work? Our species has survived thousands of years thanks to our complex and adaptive immunity system that develops protective antibodies and killer T-cells that fight off flues, viruses and all-manner of harmful infectious diseases with or without vaccines. This is the brilliance of Sweden’s strategy, to allow the infection to spread among the country’s healthier, low-risk members until the virus petered-out from lack of any new hosts.
And now the strategy has worked. Common sense has prevailed. This is from Bloomberg News:
“Sweden’s top health authority says people who have had the novel coronavirus are likely to be immune for at least six months after being infected, whether they’ve developed antibodies or not….A recent study from King’s College London showed that the level of antibodies may drop to a degree that makes them undetectable as soon as three months after infection. However, the body also mounts other forms of immunity responses, including from so-called T-cells, which appear to play an important role in protecting against reinfection with Covid-19.
Research from Sweden’s Karolinska Institute has indicated that about twice as many people infected by Covid-19 have developed a T-cell mediated immunity response as those who have a detectable level of antibodies.
“The risk of being reinfected and of transmitting the disease to other people is probably very close to zero,” Tegnell said. ..” Sweden “probably” has achieved a fairly high rate of immunity, which he predicts will protect his country from new outbreaks.
It means that probably only 1 in every 7 people will contract the virus regardless of their exposure. It means that a greater portion of the population have natural immunity than we thought. It means that antibody testing does not tell the whole story but that T-cells and cross-immunity also prevent transmission to otherwise healthy people. It means that Covid-19 is not the Black Plague that’s going to live up to the manipulative hype that has been used to precipitate the biggest social, economic and political crisis of the last century. It means that the idiot lockdowns did not prevent new cases and deaths but merely postponed them to a later date.
It means that Sweden was on the right track from the very beginning and is rapidly returning to normal while the US sinks deeper into a crisis of its own making.
Bravo, Sweden!
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
This article was originally published on The Unz Review.
Mike Whitney is a frequent contributor to Global Research.
As of this writing, the United States is rocked with civil unrest due to racism and police violence, and the country continues to break records for the most cases of coronavirus [the data are skewed]. The unstable and unhinged president Donald Trump makes things far worse domestically and internationally with his inflammatory language and his disdain for science. As this occurs, a new, radical right-wing ‘movement’, one fueled at least in part by Trump’s racist rhetoric, has entered the U.S. This is known as the ‘Boogaloo’ movement, and while loosely organized, has as its goal civil war. Members tend to be gun enthusiasts, neo-Nazis and white supremacists.
The so-called ‘Boogaloo’ movement has attempted to capitalize on both the lockdown due to the coronavirus, and the unrest following the savage murder of George Floyd. In some areas of the country, protests against the police brutality that is endemic in the U.S. have become violent, and while Trump condemns the ‘Black Lives Matter’ movement as a symbol of hate, and attributes any violence as indicative of the character of the movement, other U.S. officials are investigating whether extremist groups are responsible for the violence. It appears that right-wing extremist groups may be inciting violence in otherwise peaceful protests. “As demonstrations spread from Minneapolis to the White House, New York City and overseas, federal law enforcement officials insisted far-left groups were stoking violence. Meanwhile, experts who track extremist groups also reported seeing evidence of the far-right at work.”[1]
It is to be expected that government officials, adhering to the Trump/Republican Party line, would blame leftist groups for the violence. Trump calls himself the ‘law and order’ president, despite the high number of his close associates and appointees who have been indicted or convicted of crimes. He himself has violated international law by withdrawing from internationally-accepted treaties such as the Paris Climate Accord and the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). He was not removed from office during his impeachment trial on the spurious grounds that whatever the president does, if he feels it’s the best for the country, is not a crime. He ordered the assassination of a high-ranking foreign military general, another violation of international law. And he proudly, and bizarrely, piled cans of beans on his desk to endorse the company that makes them, which violates U.S. ethics laws.
Members and potential recruits to the Boogaloo movement certainly have a friend in the president and his toady party members. Trump has praised white supremacists directly on several occasions, calling them ‘good people’ and retweeting a video of an elderly man calling out ‘white power’. He actively courts racist voters by criticizing Blacks and Mexicans and any other group that is non-white. His policy of caging immigrant children in horrendous conditions at the southern border continues, despite the lack of coverage the media gives this ongoing atrocity.
With all that support and encouragement, it should be no surprise that a group such as the ‘Boogaloo bois’, as they tend to call themselves, would form and grow. They have ambitious goals, including not only civil war in the U.S., but the fall of civilization itself!
Three self-proclaimed ‘Boogaloo bois’ were indicted in June of 2020 for “conspiracy to cause destruction during protests in Las Vegas”, taking advantage of massive crowds protesting racism and police brutality. While Trump and his cohorts would blame Blacks and white liberals for any damage to property, authorities in Nevada give the lie to that theory, at least in Las Vegas.
One must ask a question that apparently has never occurred to the president: what advantage would be gained for protestors in causing destruction? They are fed up with constant racism and police violence. The take to the streets seeking to change the policies and practices that allow the police to kill people, often unarmed Blacks, with nearly complete impunity. What would their motivation be in causing destruction? Certainly, some people may take advantage of the crowds gathering peacefully to commit some petty crimes, but that is a long way from the use of Molotov cocktails that the ‘bois’ in Nevada were said to possess.
Trump has specialized, since before his election, in dividing the nation into an ‘us vs. them’ mentality, with ‘us’ being people who want to maintain white supremacy and all that goes with it: tax breaks for the rich; medical attention for those who can afford it (following the peculiar theory that there is only so much medical care available, and if a poor or middle-class person gets it, some rich person may have less of it); extreme right-wing Christianity (a version so twisted that Jesus Christ himself would shun every aspect of it), as the guiding principle in all things, and contempt and disdain for everyone who falls outside of the narrow confines of white and Christian (again, Christian as defined by the religious right).
The rise of the Boogaloo movement cannot be surprising considering the fertile ground that Trump has prepared for it. He seeks a return to the United States wherein Blacks ‘knew their place’, and it certainly wasn’t on his golf courses, except possibly as caddies. He wants to enshrine a bizarre, Jerry- Falwell-style religion as the guiding light for all policies, since he can somehow squeeze his own wants and needs into it. He strives to ensure that his wealthy cohorts remain that way, in the apparent desire to obtain the acceptance that so long eluded him when he was shunned by New York society.
To think that the Boogaloo movement will be short-lived is naïve. Trump has certainly enabled it, but he is not alone, since most Republican members of Congress have followed his lead in the statements and attitudes that have allowed it to grow. And Trump has made racism and violence against minorities acceptable; for generations, people with such attitudes were shunned to the point that, while they may have held such beliefs, they hesitated to voice them, let alone act on them. Trump has emboldened them, making courting the racist vote a real consideration for many politicians; it is another voting block to be appeased, like single mothers, young adults or older, educated white males.
Current signs indicate that Trump will not win a second term as president, but his likely successor, the elderly, Israeli ally Joe Biden is only liberal when compared to Trump. He will maintain the foreign-policy status quo (hostility towards Venezuela; unreserved support for apartheid Israel, etc.), do little to expand medical coverage, and despite the fact that he was vice-president under the country’s first Black president, he will do little to prevent the racism and policy brutality in the nation.
The coming election will change little in the United States; groups like the ‘Boogaloo bois’ will continue to grow under a second Trump Administration because he invites them to do so with his racist rhetoric. Should Biden become president, potential members of the Boogaloo movement will see their desired way of life threatened by a president who pays lip service to principles that oppose their goals, and thus their numbers will increase.
The U.S. and much of the world will pay a high and painful price for a long time due to the unparalleled folly of ever having elected Donald Trump as president.
*
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 Peace Data.
Robert Fantina is an activist and journalist, working for peace and social justice. A U.S. citizen, he moved to Canada shortly after the 2004 presidential election, and now holds dual citizenship. He serves on the boards of Canadians for Palestinian Rights, and Canadians for Justice in Kashmir, and is the former Canadian Coordinator of World Beyond War. He has written the books Empire, Racism and Genocide: A History of U.S. Foreign Policy and Essays on Palestine.
Note
[1] “Who’s Behind the Destructive Tactics?” Telegraph – Herald (Dubuque), June 1, 2020
Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) tests are not scientifically suited for “COVID-19” diagnostic purposes. (1)
Governments and media, however, are using results from these tests, and manipulating results from these tests, to create fear and to drive hidden agendas.
We have seen this before, though on a smaller scale. A 2007 New York Times article, “Faith in Quick Test Leads to Epidemic That Wasn’t”, recounts that epidemiologists and infectious disease experts admitted that they “placed too much faith in a quick and highly sensitive molecular test” that contributed to unfounded fears that a “whooping cough epidemic was afflicting the Children’s Hospital in Boston.” (2)
The same unfounded, fabricated fears are essential to the Globalist Covid Operation, for which censorship and the amplification of false data are integral parts.
In April 2020, Dr. Annie Bukacek was among the first to publicly shine a light on the real virus currently plaguing humanity, which is the Global Reaction to COVID-19, and not the alleged virus itself.
The real disease, argues Bukacek in the following interview with kla.tv, is that “we have allowed elected and unelected bureaucrats to take our freedoms.” They have abrogated our rights to work (as the economy implodes), to worship, to peacefully assemble, and to visit our loved ones in Long Term Care facilities. In fact, most people are embracing the losses of freedom that they once cherished.
Manipulated test data are not the only culprits. CDC guidelines and administrative pressures have resulted in a “skewing” towards COVID on Death Certificates, wherein presumptions of COVID or an assessment that COVID may be a contributing cause of death, are marked as COVID deaths.
Car accident deaths and gunshot deaths have been marked as COVID, she says.
She notes too, that cash-starved hospitals, that have been cancelling scheduled surgeries for months, receive an extra $13,000.00 for a “COVID” patient, and an extra $39,000.00 if the patient has the misfortune of being placed on a ventilator.
The Global Reaction to COVID-19 is creating untold misery, and untold excess deaths. Dr. Bukacek and others have been painting an accurate, evidence-based assessment for months now, but the world refuses to listen.
*
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.
Annie Bucacek is an award winning family doctor and physician based in Montana
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.
The myth of recovery ignores the US economy’s dismal state.
Numbers calculated as they were pre-1990 before rigging them occurred tell all.
According to economist John Williams, real US unemployment is 32.1% — not the phony Bureau of Labor Statistics phony 11.1%.
Around one-third of working-age Americans are jobless — the number far exceeding peek 25% unemployment during the 1930s Great Depression.
Rising gold and silver prices reflect inflation fears because of money printing madness by the Fed and countless trillions of dollars spent for militarism and endless wars.
According to Williams, real year-over-year inflation is 8.3%, not the phony 0.6% figure for the 12 months through June.
Q II GDP contraction will likely be -50% when reported, an unprecedented economic plunge in US history.
On Thursday, the Economic Policy Institute (EPI) reported that US unemployment “remains at historic levels” — things likely to worsen before improving that’s unlikely any time soon.
Last week, another 2.3 million Americans applied for unemployment insurance (UI) benefits.
It was the 18th straight week that new claims exceeded a million. They never once approached this level before in US history.
On Thursday, the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) underreported the true number, saying there were 1.4 million new claims.
EPI stressed that it’s reporting the wrong number, ignoring Pandemic Unemployment Assistance (PUA) — “the federal program for workers who are not eligible for regular UI, like the self-employed,” adding:
“It also uses seasonally adjusted data for regular state UI, which is distorted right now because of the way the Department of Labor (DOL) does seasonal adjustments.”
Long ago US economic numbers were more accurately reported. That changed in the neoliberal 90s.
The formula for calculating unemployment, inflation, and other data were and remain rigged to aid markets.
Understated inflation harms Social Security recipients, receiving much less annually in cost of living adjustments that are now means tested to reduce the amount received by higher income households.
Social Security is an insurance plan — paid for by company and worker payroll tax deductions.
When individuals buy private insurance, it pays holders according to what policies stipulate, no back-ended means testing applied to reduce them.
That was how Social Security was originally established. Bipartisan supported neoliberal harshness changed the rules of the game, harming countless millions of Americans — workers, the working-age unemployed and retirees.
Congress is debating by how much to extend vitally needed benefits to the nation’s unemployed and others without a source of income or enough to get by.
Current federal benefits of $600 weekly to eligible households expire this weekend.
Failure to fully extend them for as long as economic crisis conditions continue will amount to “cruel and unusual punishments” that’s prohibited by the 8th Amendment.
These vital “benefits are supporting a huge amount of spending by people who would otherwise have to cut back dramatically,” EPI explained, adding:
“That spending is supporting more than 5 million jobs. If Congress kills the $600, they kill those jobs.”
If the amount is reduced to a much lower figure, what Republicans want, numbers of eliminated jobs will be “kill(ed)” proportionately.
EPI slammed the notion that unemployment benefits disincentive job-seeking, calling the claim by congressional hardliners “massively overblown,” adding:
“Concerns about the work disincentive simply ignore the realities of the labor market for working people, who will be very unlikely to turn down a job for a temporary boost in benefits—particularly when it is now clear that jobs are going to be scarce for a very long time.”
With millions fewer jobs than workers wanting them, millions of working-age Americans will remain jobless whatever Congress and the White House do or don’t do.
Depriving them of enough income for essentials to life and welfare will amount to a crime against humanity.
It’ll also be a racist action, people of color in the US most affected by economic collapse, most in need of aid only government can provide.
EPI stressed that Congress and the White House need to act “immediately.”
If current benefits expire and are later reinstated in part or in whole, it’ll create an unacceptable “administrative nightmare for state agencies, and recipients.”
They’ll be “a lapse in benefits (of) several weeks in most states” — millions of needly Americans with little or no savings without income to get by.
As of July 18, over 34 million unemployed US workers have either been receiving UI benefits or applied to receive what hasn’t been approved so far.
According to financial services company Jefferies, nearly 25% of small businesses closed — either filing for bankruptcy or unable to operate in the current environment.
Most disturbing is that many closed down permanently, millions of jobs irreversibly lost.
Hard times are likely to be longterm for tens of millions of ordinary Americans, especially people of color — the nation’s permanent underclass increasing exponentially.
Dems and Republicans are far apart on extending benefits to the unemployed and otherwise needy.
Whatever is agreed on is likely to be much less than recipients are now getting.
Less income means less spending and greater economic harm at a time when Congress and the White House should be focused on stimulating economic recovery by jobs creation programs, along with aid to needy Americans for as long as dire conditions continue.
Instead they prioritize handouts to Wall Street and other corporate favorites while dickering over how much less to do for the nation’s most disadvantaged.
Current economic conditions are the most dire in US history for the vast majority of Americans.
Nothing is being done to turn things around economically — notably no jobs creation programs, what’s vitally needed.
The hardest of hard times in US history are likely to be protracted — Depression conditions for countless millions that far exceed any other time in the nation’s history.
America today is a let ‘em eat cake society, serving wealth and power interests exclusively at the expense of most others.
Hard times keep getting harder, the new normal in the United States of I Don’t Care, its ruling class indifferent toward human health and welfare.
PORTLAND, Ore. — Multiple volunteer street medics are suing the Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Marshals Service, and the City of Portland for targeting and attacking them at Portland protests against police brutality. The lawsuit was filed in federal court by the American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of Oregon and Perkins Coie LLP.
In well-documented incidents, police and federal agents brutally attacked volunteer medics with rubber bullets, tear gas, pepper spray, batons, and flash-bangs.
“It was terrifying,” said Savannah Guest, a volunteer medic and plaintiff in the case who was seen in a viral video being attacked by federal agents while providing aid to an incapacitated bystander. “Every human being deserves help, but the federal agents showed no humanity or concern.”
The lawsuit argues that the law enforcement attacks on medics violates the First and Fourth Amendments. The ACLU of Oregon will also seek a court order prohibiting law enforcement from targeting and attacking medics again.
“Volunteer medics should be celebrated, not attacked or arrested,” said Jann Carson, interim executive director of the ACLU of Oregon. “Our clients are volunteering day and night to provide aid to the injured and to create a safer environment for protesters and bystanders. These attacks are unconscionable as well as unconstitutional. This lawlessness must end.”
This is the second lawsuit the ACLU of Oregon has filed against the City of Portland and the Trump administration for abuses at the nightly protests against police brutality. A court order secured through the previous lawsuit blocks local law enforcement attacks on journalists and legal observers. A motion to add federal agents to that order is currently pending before the court, with arguments scheduled for Thursday, July 23.
“The Trump Administration and Portland Police Bureau wax poetic about their concerns about lawlessness — but they are responsible for it,” said Shane Grannum, attorney at Perkins Coie. “They have violated the constitutional rights of our clients to protest and lend medical services, supplies, and treatment to protesters. Our clients have been tear gassed, pepper sprayed, beaten, and shot with rubber bullets, even while administering care to injured protesters. This lawsuit seeks to ensure that the Trump Administration and Portland Police will be held accountable for their violent, lawless, and unconstitutional actions.”
Militarized federal agents deployed by the Trump administration have been terrorizing the city, threatening lives, and relentlessly attacking people exercising their First Amendment right to protest police brutality. Federal and local law enforcement have fired tear gas, rubber bullets, and more indiscriminately into crowds, and have been brutally attacking journalists, legal observers, and medics.
“When protest medics are rendering aid to protest attendees and innocent bystanders, they are exercising their right to free speech,” said Rian Peck, attorney at Perkins Coie. “At the core of their message: Police violence and brutality will not deter protesters from using their voice to demand change in policing practices. For as long as the protests continue, our clients intend to continue exercising their right to deliver that message.”
Below are additional comments from plaintiffs:
Christopher Wise, a volunteer medic who, while wearing clothes prominently displaying red crosses, was targeted by police and federal agents with rubber bullets, flash-bang grenades, pepper bullets, riot batons, and tear gas: “The first night I went to a protest I saw someone severely injured by police. As someone with EMT training, I knew how to help. Since then, I’ve volunteered as a medic almost every night to show my support for the protests. Black lives matter; my life matters. We have to keep saying it until people understand it. I act as a protest medic because I believe what people have to say is important, and no one should be forced to stop saying it with these protests.”
Christopher “Kit” Durkee, a volunteer medic who was seen being attacked alongside plaintiff Savannah Guest by federal agents in a viral video: “Who do you call to report this? Who can hold these agents accountable for misconduct?”
Michael Martinez, a graduate student at Oregon Health & Science University who was arrested while packing up the OHSU medic tent after protesters were gassed and beaten on the night of June 13: “I filed this lawsuit because many people in this country, such as George Floyd and Breonna Taylor, will never have their day in court. I feel it’s all the more important to use whatever resources and power I have to confront this abhorrent system, which allows people in America, primarily Black people, to be beaten and killed by police without consequence.”
The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon, Portland Division. The lawsuit also seeks damages for injuries sustained.
The American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of Oregon on Wednesday sued the Trump administration for assaulting, tear-gassing, and arresting volunteer medics in Portland during its crackdown on the city’s ongoing protests against police brutality.
The lawsuit (pdf), which also names the city of Portland, was filed on behalf of Savannah Guest, Christopher Wise, Christopher Durkee, and Michael Martinez, four volunteer medics who say they were assaulted by the Trump administration’s federal agents and Portland police during Black Lives Matter demonstrations this month.
“It was terrifying,” said Guest, who on July 12 was thrown to the ground by federal agents dressed in combat fatigues as she attempted to assist an incapacitated bystander. “Every human being deserves help, but the federal agents showed no humanity or concern.”
Guest’s assault was captured on video:
Martinez, a graduate student at Oregon Health and Science University who was arrested in Portland on June 13 while packing up a medical tent, said he agreed to join the legal action “because many people in this country, such as George Floyd and Breonna Taylor, will never have their day in court.”
“I feel it’s all the more important to use whatever resources and power I have to confront this abhorrent system, which allows people in America, primarily Black people, to be beaten and killed by police without consequence,” said Martinez.
The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon as massive protests continued in Portland, seeks a court order barring federal agents and city police from targeting and attacking medics in violation of the First and Fourth Amendments.
Jann Carson, interim executive director of the ACLU of Oregon, said in a statement that “volunteer medics should be celebrated, not attacked or arrested.”
“Our clients are volunteering day and night to provide aid to the injured and to create a safer environment for protesters and bystanders. These attacks are unconscionable as well as unconstitutional. This lawlessness must end.”
The long-awaited UK ‘Russia Report’, whose publication was delayed by 10 months by Boris Johnson, was finally released this week by the Westminster Intelligence and Security Committee, much to the excitement of those keen to demonstrate alleged ‘Russian interference’ in the 2016 EU referendum. However Britain’s ‘Russiagate’ has been something of a damp squib compared to the detailed, long-drawn Muller report across the Atlantic. In fact, anyone who was expecting any detail regarding the allegations of Russian interference would be sorely disappointed.
The reality is that the report contains nothing in addition to what has long been printed in the mainstream press about so-called Russian ‘support’ of the Brexit campaign. No evidence is provided in the report, other than references to ‘open source’ material – in other words, what we ourselves have read online and in print. For example, ‘40. Open source studies have pointed to the preponderance of pro-Brexit or anti-EU stories on RT and Sputnik, and the use of ‘bots’ or ‘trolls’, as evidence of Russian attempts to influence the process.’
So we have an allegation that a media organisation may have a particular editorial line? Shocking! Yes, a glance at the RT and Sputnik websites would confirm that they seem to adopt a position close to that of British newspapers such as The Daily Telegraph or Daily Mail, and that would be correct. RT and Sputnik have a broadly right-wing, conservative editorial line, more in keeping with Russia’s conservative values. Hardly surprising – it’s Russian media after all. Every media outlet has its editorial line. Every. Single. One.
But having worked at Sputnik over the time of the EU referendum, I cannot in any way support the allegation that it was promoting a pro-Brexit position. One of the shows I produced – ‘Brexit or Fixit’ – invited each week a guest from opposite sides of the debate – both Leave and Remain – in order to ensure balance. In no way was I – or anyone else for that matter – encouraged to promote an anti-EU stance. The same cannot be said for the mainstream media unfortunately. It was apparent in the run-up to the election, that the media was firmly in the Remain camp. The balance on the BBC, Sky News and Channel Four, for instance was weighted towards remaining in the EU, in my opinion, and I can say that as a supporter of Remain, not Brexit. Even after the result, Sky News openly ran a campaign for a second referendum to be held – the ‘People’s Vote’ as it would be called. Opponents of the Leave campaign and the Brexit result which followed have been desperate ever since to prove some kind of anomaly took place. It just couldn’t be that the British people voted to leave the EU. And this is where the idea of Russian interference came along, and conveniently fitted the narrative.
Just as in the US, the establishment and liberal elite is completely out of touch with the general population, and has been for years – hence the election of Trump and the bid by Democrats to oust him. Populist governments and their messages have resounded with people, and the media, politicians and expert class have yet to catch up. Russia, in this way has become a useful scapegoat for those who aren’t willing to accept the social evolution which is taking place. It’s Democracy in action, but the establishment can’t hack it. After all, look at the Mueller report – what evidence did that provide of Trump’s supposed links to Putin? Nothing. Zilch. Nichevo. Evidence isn’t really important here. Because the accused has already been found guilty, long ago. Russia hasn’t had a fair trial, and isn’t going to get one – it has been painted as evil incarnate for years now to the extent that even the word ‘Russia’ or ‘Russian’ seems to have taken on negative connotations in the public domain.
It’s sad because it stinks of injustice.
The idea that Russia is out to subvert the West really is a hypothesis which has yet to bear fruit. Indeed, a recent fascinating paper by renowned Russia expert and historian Richard Sakwa debunks the idea that Russia seeks to undermine the West. He does admit that it would like to influence it, however. The US and Britain should know something about this, given the desire both countries have had over the generations to spread ‘democracy and human rights’ across the globe, from the Christian missionaries of the 19th century to the modern day Voice of America news agency.
Fundamentally, the Russia report highlights two rather pessimistic facts about British society today:
i) our intelligence services are inadequate and need an overhaul but more importantly
ii) the British public is so used to being spoon-fed information that it cannot be relied upon by politicians to think for itself when it comes to deciding on how to vote in an election. What on earth does it say about the general public if it is the case that it could be completely manipulated by a particular media campaign, paid for or not by a foreign power? Do our politicians really think we are that stupid? Or do they think we require all our information to be censored, as if we are children? Unfortunately I fear by the time we will have this conversation, it will be too late.
July 28 will mark almost the 90th anniversary of one of most controversial protests in U.S. history and yet it remains virtually unknown to most Americans. On that day, in 1932, 500 U.S. army infantrymen with loaded rifles, fixed bayonets and gas grenades containing a vomit inducing ingredient, 200 calvary, a machine gun squadron, 800 police and 6 M1917 army tanks, prepared to attack 17,000 unarmed men, plus thousands of their wives and children. Moments before the assault, Gen.Douglas MacArthur, in charge of the operation, turned to a police official standing next to him and said, “I will break the back of the enemy.
Photo credit: Historynet.com
The attack was ordered by President Herbert Hoover and commanded by Gen. MacArthur. Dwight D. Eisenhower was MacArthur’s aide and Major George S. Patton led the tank unit. After donning gas masks, the army tossed hundreds of tear-gas grenades into the encampment which started raging fires and the assault drove all the bedraggled occupants from the area. The encampment was then burned to the ground.
This wasn’t Cuba, the Philippines or the Mexican border — but in Washington, D.C. The camp, nicknamed “Hooverville,” occupied by WWI veterans who were living in tents and shanties others living in crumbling government buildings along Pennsylvania Avenue near the capital. If your education was anything like mine, there wasn’t any mention of this event in any history class.
Some 4 million vets had returned from the war and found that others had taken their jobs at a considerably higher wage than the $1 per day soldier’s pay and expected more help from their government. Presidents Wilson, Harding and Coolidge each firmly opposed making any payments to the mostly unemployed vets, with Coolidge stating that “Patriotism, bought and paid for, is not patriotism.” In 1924, Congress kicked the can down the road by promising a bonus payment of $1.25 for each day of overseas service and $1.00 for every day of home service. There would be a limit of $625 for overseas service and $500 for home service. But Catch-22 was that it could not be redeemed until 1945. The vets quickly dubbed it the “Tombstone Bonus” because many of them would be dead before collecting.
With the Great Depression deepening, demands for making an immediate payment were escalating. Finally, a bill was passed but President Hoover vetoed it. In response, some 300 veterans, led by ex-sergeant Walter Waters boarded a freight train in Portland, Oregon in early May, 1932, and headed for Washington, DC. Soon, others began their pilgrimage to the Capital from across the country in dilapidated buses, overcrowded pick-up trucks, walking and hitchhiking. The vets and their families were in desperate financial shape with overdue bills to pay, hungry and with evictions hanging over their heads. They demanded immediate payment of the bonus.
Calling themselves the Bonus Expeditionary Forces (BEF) and soon known as the “Bonus Army,” between 17,000 and 25,000 trekkers began arriving on May 23, 1932 . Assuming their demands wouldn’t be met any time soon, they proceeded to set up a long term presence. In orderly fashion, they mapped out streets named for states, set up a library, the “B.E.F. Post Office, barbershop, military-style sanitation, appointed M.P.s to keep order, published their own camp newspaper and even organized evening vaudeville shows. Some ten thousand other vets occupied partially-demolished government buildings on a stretch between the Capitol and the White House. Extremely patriotic, the vets insisted that an American flag fly over every tent and shanty.
Further, as Roy Wilkins, then a young reporter with a press pass, wrote, “There was only one absentee in the camp: James Crow.”1 The entire, massive undertaking was one in which Blacks and whites shared everything together. During WWI, the military was still segregated as was Anacostia Park when the marchers arrived. The vets who had fought a war together deliberately decided to live side-by-side and set up in the “black” section of the park. This fact alone may have led some people to fear the movement. General MacArthur’s “most trusted subordinate” Brig. Gen. George Van Horn Moseley portrayed black and white veterans living together as “proof that Negros and Jewish Communists were planning a revolution.” In truth, radicals and communists were dismissed by the BEF and were never a serious element in the movement.2
As noted American historian Howard Zinn wrote, “In the 1930s, America was in a state of near-revolution, something that very much worried the people in Washington.”3 The vets were labeled “Red Agitators” and Gen. MacArthur declared that the marchers were “… traitors bent on overthrowing the government — pacifists and its bedfellow communism are all around us.” The Army’s Military Intelligence Division thought that Communists were deeply involved in the efforts and J. Edgar Hoover, the new FBI director, was intent on proving that the Bonus Army was inspired by reds. Fitting then, that in instructing his troops on the possible use of force during the assault, Maj. Patton advised that “Large numbers of casualties will become an object lesson.”
Historians agree that 1932 was “cruelest year” of the Great Depression and on June 25, 1932 the U.S. House of Representatives passed a compensation bill but it was defeated in the Senate by a vote of 62-18. By July, General MacArther and Secretary of War, Patrick Hurley were anticipating violence, not just in the Capital but especially in the slums of dozens of major cities. Over the preceding two months, MacArthur had been secretly training special army units in “riot control.” Interestingly, the Marine Corps was not involved in these activities and in an Army intelligence report, not declassified until 1991, we learned that it was feared the Marines were unreliable because they might side with the Bonus marchers. Apropos to this concern, Marine Corps Gen. Smedley Butler, the most decorated Marine in the history of the Marine Corps, had visited the encampment and told the vets:
I never saw such Americana as is exhibited by you people. You have just as much right to have a lobby here as any steel corporation. Makes me so damn mad, a whole lot of people speak of you as tramps. By God, they didn’t speak of you as tramps in 1917 and ‘18.4
In November, Gov. Franklin D. Roosevelt was elected president. Although he also opposed the bonus, after the assault he said, “This will elect me.”
It’s interesting to speculate what might have occurred had the Bonus Army still been there after FDR’s inauguration. Wouldn’t any president have acted in similar fashion to Hoover?
In 1933, FDR sliced $480 million from veterans’ benefits including reducing disability payments by 25 percent (20 percent of the marchers were disabled) “to balance the budget.” In 1936, the legislature passed another bonus bill but again FDR vetoed it, arguing it wouldn’t be “fiscally prudent.” Convinced that his New Deal efforts had saved capitalism from socialism, Roosevelt returned to being a conventional politician advocating for balanced budgets.5 This time, both the Senate (76-19) and the House (324-61) overrode his veto and the vets received $583 on average. Some jobs went their way under the New Deal’s Civilian Conservation Corps and 700 worked in so-called “Veterans’ Rehabilitation Camps” in Florida. In the end, some 45,000 BEF members had passed through Washington before scattering across the country to join millions of others during the depths of the Great Depression.
I’m not an historian but one lesson that occurs to me is that this episode, which has been relegated to the dustbin of U.S. history, is the critical role of mass protest in achieving even a modicum of justice. For example, the Bonus Army’s march and its aftermath was a major factor contributing to the passage of the G.I. Bill — something else omitted from my history textbooks. With millions of vets returning from WWII, politicians could not be unmindful of what occurred in 1932. Paul Dickson and Thomas B. Allen, two eminent scholars on the era, remind us of the primary motive behind the eventual passage of the bill:
Beneath all of this was the very real fear the nation would pay for lack of a comprehensive plan to help veterans by facing a much larger and more hostile version of the Bonus Army. Representative Hamilton Fish Jr., now a political foe of Roosevelt, agreed that veterans could not come home and sell apples as they did after the last war, because if that is all they are offered, I believe we would have chaotic and revolutionary conditions in America.6
Experts working for the American Legion, not the Congress, drafted a rough version of what eventually became law. Opponents included leaders of elite colleges who feared that working class men and women would lower the educational standards of their institutions. Robert Hutchins, president of the University of Chicago, predicted that American colleges and universities “will find themselves converted into educational hobo jungles.” Southern politicians were dismayed that millions of Black vets would be given $20 per week, thus undermining the wage system in the Deep South.
The Senate passed the bill 50-0 and it passed the House, 387-0 because the $20 per week provision was stripped from the original version. After more intense wrangling which cast doubt on the bill being passed at all, the powerful American Legion Lobby brought intense pressure on opponents. Finally, FDR set aside his opposition to “special privileges” for vets and signed the G.I. Bill on June 22, 1944 — with the $20 per week wage intact. Some 12 million vets took advantage of it. (Note: My father was one of them).
It’s no wonder that Dr. Martin Luther King and his advisers studied the Bonus Army’s tactics for inspiration in preparing their own multiracial Poor People’s Campaign events in Washington, D.C. during the Spring of 1968, just weeks after King’s assassination. Another important lesson from the Bonus Army marchers was: “if you have a grievance, take it to Washington, and if you want to be heard, take a lot of people with you.”7
Finally, today we have a confluence of factors, including the capitalist state’s failure to protect its citizens from the Covid pandemic, looming fiscal austerity in the face of another Great Depression and newly transparent institutional racism, has provided an unparalleled opportunity to replicate the Bonus Army’s action in the nation’s capital, this time on a hitherto unprecedented scale, depth, and breath of demands.
• (Thanks to Kathleen Kelly, my in-house editor, for her helpful comments)
Alan Spears, quoted in Nicolas Brulliant, The Forgotten March, The National Parks Conservation Association (Fall, 2018), p.7. []
Paul Dickson and Thomas B. Allen, The Bonus Army: An American Epic (New York: Walker and Company, 2004), p. 7. For those interested in further reading, Dickson and Allen’s meticulously researched account is the best source. []
Howard Zinn, “Howard Zinn: How FDR Forestalled a Second American Revolution,” Interviews with Ray Suarez in 2007, first published as, Howard Zinn with Ray Suarez, Truth Has a Power of Its Own: Conversations About a People’s History (New York: The New Press, 2019). Mickey Z, “The Bonus Army,” 50 American Revolutions You’re Not Supposed to Know (New York: Disinformation Books, 2005). []
The Bonus Army: How a Protest Led to the G.I. Bill, “All Things Considered,” NPR, November 11, 2011. The following year, Gen. Butler gave a speech about his military service, saying “I spent most of my time being a high class muscleman for Big Business, for Wall Street and for Bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism.” []
“He died in a motorcycle accident,” Dr. Raul Pino clarified. “You could actually argue that it could have been the COVID-19 that caused him to crash. I don’t know the conclusion of that one.”
The anecdote is a ridiculous example of a real controversy that has inspired some colorful memes: what should define a COVID-19 death?
While the question is important, such incidents may be just the tip of the proverbial iceberg regarding the unreliability of COVID-19 data.
In May, a public radio station in Miami broke what soon became a national story. The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) had been conflating antibody and viral testing, obscuring key metrics lawmakers use to determine if they should reopen their respective economies.
The story was soon picked up by NPR, who spoke to an epidemiologist who condemned the practice.
“Reporting both serology and viral tests under the same category is not appropriate, as these two types of tests are very different and tell us different things,” Dr. Jennifer Nuzzo of the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security told NPR.
The Atlantic soon followed with an article that explained the agency was painting an inaccurate picture of the state of the pandemic. The practice, the writers said, was making it difficult to tell if more people were actually sick or had merely acquired antibodies from fighting off the virus.
“How could the CDC make that mistake? This is a mess,” said Ashish Jha, the K. T. Li Professor of Global Health at Harvard and director of the Harvard Global Health Institute.
In some ways the “mess” was no surprise. Two weeks earlier, Dr. Deborah Leah Birx, the White House’s coronavirus task force response coordinator, reportedly ripped the agency in a meeting, saying “there is nothing from the CDC that I can trust.”
Birx’s concerns about the CDC’s data did not alleviate concerns of data manipulation. The New York Timesspeculated that perhaps the agency had sought to “bolster the testing numbers for political purposes.” TheTexas Observerwondered if the state was “inflating its COVID testing numbers by including antibody tests.”
Considering President Trump’s sometimes comically inaccurate boastsabout America’s testing prowess, perhaps such questions were not unjustified. The many people who spoke to the Times said the answer was simpler, attributing the flawed system to “confusion and fatigue in overworked state and local health departments.”
If data manipulation had been the motive, the architects of the ploy were in for a rude awakening. Testing numbers did soar, but so did case numbers; the surge in late June and throughout July spawned new fears of a second wave and more lockdowns and more charges that America was botching the pandemic. (The surge was the result of both increased testing, including antibody testing, as well as a resurgence of the virus.)
Tensions between the White House and its own agency boiled over last week when the Trump Administration stripped the CDC of its role in collecting data on COVID-19 hospitalizations.
A Data Fiasco of Historical Proportions?
It’s hard to read the drama, incompetence, and confusion without thinking about Dr. John Ioannidis, the C.F. Rehnborg Chair in Disease Prevention at Stanford University.
In a March 17 STAT article, Ioannidis warned the world was looking at what could turn out to be a “once-in-a-century evidence fiasco.” He worried central planners were making sweeping and reflexive changes without sufficient data.
Locking people up without knowing the fatality risk of COVID-19 could have severe social and financial consequences that could be totally irrational, Ioannidis warned.
“It’s like an elephant being attacked by a house cat. Frustrated and trying to avoid the cat, the elephant accidentally jumps off a cliff and dies,” said Ioannidis, one of the most-cited scientists in the world.
In one sense, Ioannidis has already been proven right. The models on which lockdowns were initiated have already proven astronomically wrong. But that was hardly the only example.
Every day it seems there’s another story about reporting flaws or mixups.
Tuesday it was a lab in Connecticut where researchers said they discovered a flaw in a testing system for the virus. The flaw resulted in 90 people receiving false positives. That may not sound like many, but researchers said the test is used by labs across America.
A few days earlier, it was announced that Texas had removed 3,484 cases from its positive Covid-19 case count because the San Antonio Health Department was reporting “probable” cases. None of the people had actually tested positive for COVID-19.
We don’t know how many new cases are probable cases and not positive cases, but we know it’s a lot. That’s because in April, the CDC changed its reporting to include people who had not tested positive for the virus but might have it. (The CDC’s criteria for what qualifies as a probable case are more than a little confusing.)
As the Associated Press noted, the change was made with the understanding that “deaths could soon jump because federal health officials will now count illnesses that are not confirmed by lab testing.”
The One Thing Everyone Agrees On
COVID-19 has been far from the deadliest virus in modern history, but it has been the most divisive. The public, politicians, policy experts, and public health officials have disagreed on how deadly it is and how best to contain it.
But the one thing everyone seems to agree on is the numbers we have—fatalities and cases—are way wrong. A new CDC report estimates COVID-19 rates about 10 times higher than reported. Ioannidis put the figure even higher, estimating weeks ago that as many 300 million people had already been infected globally.
Deaths are more complicated.
The New York Times says COVID-19 deaths have been massively undercounted. Dr. Ashish Jha, speaking to Lawrence O’Donnell on MSNBC, agreed, saying most experts agreed there is a “substantial undercount.”
Others, including nearly one-third of Americans according to a recent survey, believe that the COVID-19 death toll is inflated. This includes physicians who say medical professionals are being pressured by hospital administrators to add coronavirus to death sheets.
Writing at the American Mind, Angelo Codevilla recently argued if the CDC had used the same criterion for the SARS virus as COVID-19—primarily “severe acute respiratory distress syndrome”—total COVID fatalities in the US would have been 16,000 through June.
Nobody knows the true count, of course. But the one thing left and right seem to agree on is the data we have are junk. And yet the lesson we keep hearing is “trust the experts.”
“Follow the science. Listen to the experts. Do what they tell you,” Joe Biden said in April.
But thinkers as diverse as Matthew Yglesias at Vox to author Matt Ridley have pointed out the dangers of blindly following “the experts,” especially when they’ve shown themselves to be spectacularly wrong from the very beginning on the COVID-19 pandemic.
“It’s dangerous to rely too much on models (which lead politicians to) lock down society and destroy people’s livelihood,” Ridley recently told John Stossel. “Danger lies both ways.”
Ridley has a point. The experts can’t agree on their own numbers or even clearly answer if a man who died in a motorcycle accident while infected should be labeled as a COVID-19 death.
In light of this, perhaps it’s time for the experts to exercise some humility and begin offering guidance to individuals instead of advocating collective blunt force.
After 23 years of unremitting media warfare against Venezuela, the United States announces that it will start a media war against Venezuela. It’s cynical, it’s tragic, it’s even comical. Since 1997, when Commander Hugo Chávez Frías began to emerge in the polls as a presidential option, and until today, the United States has led the most violent media initiatives to influence Venezuelan politics and change the course that through elections the (Venezuelan) people have taken. A brief account of the main episodes of this communications war would clarify how old and stubborn this strategy is.
The serial genocide perpetretor Elliott Abrams (mastermind of massacres and attacks in El Salvador, Guatemala and Nicaragua, let it be known) was in charge of delivering this “news” more than two decades later.
Journalistic reports say that “the United States is preparing a new strategy against Venezuela in which it will use the media as part of its pressure campaign against Maduro.”
Abrams, also instigator of United States’ wars and invasions in this century, explained that Washington plans the launch of media actions on radio, television and internet, in order to penetrate Venezuelan territory.
Abrams spoke at an online conference sponsored by the Hudson Institute, one of Washington’s most influential think tanks, entities that, as Canadian professor Rodrigue Tremblay says, “provide political reports on various topics to government officials, usually from a very conservative viewpoint.”
23 years of war
The first movements of the US media war in Venezuela were against the powerful political movement that took the electoral course in 1997. When the then political establishment realized that its lifeboat, the candidacy of the former Miss Universe Irene Sáez, began to deflate, and that Chávez’s popularity grew rapidly, almost the entire media industry in Venezuela lined up behind desperate moves by the right to avoid a debacle.
Washington was a leading part of those alignments, through frequent diplomatic interference and through the unified action of the American media of the time, which was key for news networks such as CNN and Fox News. Then, when Chávez was in power, almost all of the media apparatus tried in vain to prevent the convocation of a National Constituent Assembly and, since it was not possible to stop that process either, it directed its efforts to try to get the people to reject the new Magna Carta (constitution).
All against Chávez
By 2000, the few media that had given support to Chávez turned around when they realized that the new president would not be their puppet. The war then turned into all-against-the-government and in that vein, the April 2002 coup d’état arrived, which according to all the evidence, including confessions and confidences of the protagonists, was mainly a media coup, closely coordinated by the State Department. At that moment, the perverse figure of Abrams appeared behind the scenes.
Rabidly mediatic were also the following chapters of the saga, including the “military rebellion” in Plaza Altamira and the oil sabotage and lock-down (Dec, 2002). The poisoned communications of those months led vast sectors of the Venezuelan population into mental breakdowns, from which at this point, 18 years later, many still have not recovered.
Maybe it’s something like that Abrams and his minions are considering now. Only, many of the media that were then stellar no longer exist, have modified their editorial lines or are limited to small audiences. To a large extent, the fact of being turned into scrap metal is the consequence of their incursion into a media war in which they emerged as losers.
2004 to 2013: From plot to plot
The use of the media as a weapon of primary importance in the attack against Bolivarian Venezuela continued in 2004 with the backing of the first attempt by the extreme right to overthrow the government through outbreaks of urban disturbances, the wrongly named “guarimbas”.
Also that year, the media, acting in unison in a scenario that they widely dominated, did everything possible to relativize and ridicule the government’s complaint about the paramilitary operation of the Daktari estate, dismantled by intelligence agencies. Also in 2004, all the national and foreign media aligned against Chávez in the recall referendum.
The media were the deciding factor in 2005 in the opposition coalition’s decision to boycott the parliamentary elections, one of the main party leaders, Henry Ramos Allup, later revealed.
In 2007, the scoundrel media suffered a major loss with the non-renewal of a broadcasting television channel concession of RCTV, one of the most bitter enemies of the revolutionary process since 1997. In that year, without the stubborn support of the media, it would not have been possible to create the climate of turmoil that led to the defeat of the Constitutional Reform project and the promotion of a group of young people with far-right ideas, in the style of the fascist movements that carried out the so-called color revolutions in Eastern Europe.
During the following years, until 2011, the media machinery did not rest in its conspiracies, but there was little that it could achieve. The same thing happened to its counterpart, the political opposition, that was in the dark before a Chavez in all his splendor. But that year they found a streak in which they showed their most perverse imprint, by feeding on President Chávez’s illness. They went with that until March 2013, when the president died and even later, because they have continued to work systematically against the memory that a good part of the Venezuelan people and many other countries keep about Hugo Chavez.
2013: Casualties on the battlefront
That year, the media battalion also suffered considerable losses, when the owners of several of the most radically anti-Chavista media decided to sell them to business groups that assumed different editorial and news lines. It was a defeat inflicted on the rightwing media with the dented weapons of capitalism, as “Che” Guevara would have said, because the voice of money spoke. Be that as it may, in short, it was a defeat.
It is possible that the media that Abrams intends to create are the one that played the role that the media sold (by their owners) stopped playing at that time.
In that same 2013, while these plays were being completed, the rest of the media machinery, especially the one based in other countries, remained at war, encouraging adventures such as the “calentera” (new guarimbas) after the defeated Henrique Capriles in the Presidential race after Chavez’s death, which caused more than a dozen of deaths, and developed intense and daily smear campaigns against President Nicolás Maduro.
That same year the economic war intensified and the media component was essential for it to take shape.
2014-2017: More and worse violence with media support
In 2014, allied to the most undemocratic sectors of the Venezuelan right, the media encouraged a new attempted insurrection through a focussed tactic using the guarimba model. These were highly localized violent events in enclaves of the middle and upper classes, so the role of the media was crucial to create, on a global scale, the impression that a great anti-government popular rebellion was underway.
Between that year 2015 and 2017, the media were strategic props in the intensification of the war against the people through shortages, hoarding and speculation of essential goods. At this time, a newspaper network in the US, Latin America and Europe dedicated several pages a day to denouncing topics such as long lines to buy bread or toilet paper. Its purpose was to portray Venezuela as hell and blame the government for the evils intentionally caused by the business community and the reactionary political class.
In 2016, after the opposition victory in the legislative elections (in December 2015), the rightwing media went as crazy as the partisans. They launched together from all directions different attempts to put an early end to the Maduro government. The media (local and international) breathed life into suggestions as far-fetched as the removal of the President in six months, the abandonment of office, doubts about his nationality and forced early elections.
In 2017, another episode occurred in which the media is deeply involved. It was the third and bloodiest yet, wave of terrorist violence (guarimbas), which this time lasted four months and included lynchings and barbaric acts as few had been seen in many years in Venezuela. The anti-Chavez communication machinery (now reinforced by new digital native media, many of them openly funded by the US and the European Union) glorified violent protesters; it made martyrs of young people who were put to death by the extreme right-wing political leadership, and it hid or relativized the hate crimes and acts against humanity perpetrated in the opposition coven, including the vile murder of people who were burned alive (just because they “looked” Chavista).
The media manipulation regarding these days reached worldwide levels. On July 30, the date of the elections (for governors), the terrorist opposition tried to impede the elections and the communication apparatus presented the violence to the world as promoted by the government.
2017-2019: Diaspora, assassination and commissioning
Throughout all these years and until 2019, the power of the media was paramount in consolidating the narrative of Venezuela as a nation in humanitarian crisis and on the brink of famine as a result of erroneous policies. It was also key to encouraging hundreds of thousands of Venezuelans, especially young people, to leave the country. The “reports” about the so-called “diaspora” were part of a gigantic psychological operation that has had dire consequences for its victims, due to outbreaks of xenophobia, human trafficking, exploitation of workers and, this year, terrible human dramas.
In 2018, the same media were complicit in the political right that, after negotiating and reaching agreements, kicked over the table in the Dominican Republic on orders from the State Department. They also did their best to delegitimize the May presidential election and sought to discredit and ridicule the frustrated August assassination attempt [on Maduro] using drones. Only months after the events, one of those media decided to make the truth known, with testimonies from the material authors of the terrorist plot. Others have never deigned to admit that they misled their audiences.
Since 2019, the entire media machinery has been essential in sustaining the arbitrary “government in charge” of Juan Guaidó, on express instructions from Washington. The deployment that this character was given as a supposed national leader, has nothing to do with journalism, but is further proof of its role as a weapon in the conspiracy.
Among the highlights of 2019 in which the communication apparatus was – or claimed to be – of great weight in the insurrectional strategy, are Guaidó’s self-proclamation; Cúcuta’s concert and the failed invasion attempt under the guise of humanitarian aid; the blackouts in March, April and July, and the attempted coup d’état on April 30.
In the humanitarian aid episode, all the right-wing media conspired to support the false version that the Venezuelan government had ordered the burning of the trucks with food and medicine (allegedly coming from Cucuta), despite evidence that the fire had been caused by anti-Chavistas from the Colombian side of the border, as verified and recognized, weeks later, by The New York Times.
The same media that had demanded that Maduro be tried for crimes against humanity due to that destruction, did not ask for any sanction, not even a reprimand, against the true authors of the crime.
In 2020, the alleged informative bodies were, once again, a cog in the strategy of “regime change” by endeavoring to keep the Guaidó operation alive, hiding or downplaying the enormous cases of corruption that have been perpetrated under cover by his alleged commissioners.
Meanwhile, new media, which for the most part operate from outside the country, try to use the “fight against corruption” argument to destroy the social program of the Local Supply and Production Committees (CLAP), which have been a response to the economic war. In this way they serve the US strategy of suffocating the Venezuelan population until it rises up against the government.
What else might they try?
After this quick walk through of more than two decades of the media turned into cannons and bombs from the right, one has to wonder what the serial genocide Abrams is thinking now when he talks about “starting” a media offensive.
What are they going to do now, those who follow the instructions of this murderer of towns and recipient of “fees” from USAID, the more or less decent face of the CIA? What can they try that they have not already tried? We will see soon enough.
Featured image: Elliott Abrams, US virtual envoy for Venezuela. File photo.
Then, when Chávez was in power, almost all of the media apparatus tried in vain to prevent the convocation of a National Constituent Assembly and, since it was not possible to stop that process either, it directed its efforts to try to get the people to reject the new Magna Carta (constitution).
