“Tsunami of Job Losses”: U.S. Economy Hasn’t Experienced Anything Like This Since the 1930s Great Depression

July 14th, 2020 by Michael Snyder

The recession of 2008 and 2009 was bad, but it was nothing like this.  Even though this new economic downturn is only a few months old, we are already seeing numbers that we haven’t seen since the worst parts of the Great Depression of the 1930s. 

More than 48 million Americans have filed new claims for unemployment benefits over the past 15 weeks, well over 100,000 businesses have permanently closed their doors, and civil unrest has turned quite a few of our major cities into war zones. 

But not all areas of the country are being affected equally.  For example, there are rural areas that haven’t really seen a lot of COVID-19 cases where life seems to have changed very little from six months ago.  On the other hand, some urban areas that have been hit really hard by COVID-19 have been absolutely devastated economically.  For example, the New York Times is reporting that a million jobs have been lost in New York City, and the unemployment rate for NYC “is hovering near 20 percent”…

The city is staggering toward reopening with some workers back at their desks or behind cash registers, and on Monday, it began a new phase, allowing personal-care services like nail salons and some outdoor recreation to resume. Even so, the city’s unemployment rate is hovering near 20 percent — a figure not seen since the Great Depression.

We are going to be using the phrase “since the Great Depression” a lot in the coming months.

Fear of COVID-19 is going to paralyze our economy for the foreseeable future, and all of this fear is hitting some companies more severely than others.  On Tuesday, Levi Strauss announced that sales were down a whopping 62 percent during the second quarter…

The denim maker Levi Strauss & Co.’s sales fell 62% during its fiscal second quarter, the company announced Tuesday, as its online sales weren’t enough to make up for its stores being temporarily shut for roughly 10 weeks during the Covid-19 crisis.

If Levi Strauss expected this to be just a temporary setback, they would probably try to keep all of their employees on board.

But instead, they apparently believe that hard times are here to stay and they have just decided to eliminate “about 700 jobs”…

Levi’s also announced it will be slashing about 15% of its global corporate workforce, impacting about 700 jobs, in a bid to cut costs during the coronavirus pandemic. It said the move should generate annualized savings for Levi’s of $100 million.

Of course a whole lot of other companies are laying off workers right now too.  Another 1.427 million Americans filed new claims for unemployment benefits last week, and that is an absolutely catastrophic number.  Prior to 2020, the worst week in all of U.S. history for new unemployment claims was in 1982 when 695,000 unemployed workers filed in a single week.  So what we are witnessing right now is nothing short of a “tsunami of job losses”, and even CNN is admitting that millions of the jobs that have been lost “are never coming back”…

The American economy’s unprecedented jobs rebound masks a difficult truth: For millions of people, the jobs they lost are never coming back.

“It’s clear that the pandemic is doing some fundamental damage to the job market,” said Mark Zandi, chief economist for Moody’s Analytics. “A lot of the jobs lost aren’t coming back any time soon. The idea that the economy is going to snap back to where it was before the pandemic is clearly not going to happen.”

I couldn’t have said it better myself.

Since most Americans were living paycheck to paycheck before this pandemic erupted, millions of unemployed workers have found themselves in desperate need very suddenly.  I have written numerous articles about the massive lines that we have been witnessing at food banks around the nation, and we just witnessed another two mile long line at a food bank in Florida…

More than 700 cars were seen waiting in a two-mile long food bank line in Florida as the US grapples with nearly half of Americans being unemployed amid a spike in new coronavirus cases that has sparked fears of more shut downs and lay-offs.

Sunrise Assistant Leisure Services Director Maria Little, who was put in charge of food distribution for the city when the coronavirus hit the US in March, said her group served about 720 cars in Miami on Wednesday.

This is not what a “recovery” looks like.

In fact, for certain sectors of the economy the numbers are rapidly getting a lot worse.  For instance, just check out what CNBC is reporting…

Delinquencies in commercial mortgage-backed securities last month had their largest one-month surge since Fitch Ratings began tracking the metric nearly 16 years ago.

The delinquency rate hit 3.59% in June, an increase from 1.46% in May. New delinquencies totaled $10.8 billion in June, raising the total delinquent pool to $17.2 billion.

And Fitch Ratings is warning that these numbers are going to get far worse in the months ahead.

And this is just the beginning. Fitch analysts are projecting that the impact from the coronavirus pandemic will drive the delinquency rate to between 8.25% and 8.75% by the end of the third quarter of this year.

I have said this before, and I will say it again.

We are on the verge of the biggest commercial mortgage meltdown in the history of the United States.

Countless restaurants and retailers are getting way behind on their rent payments, and as a result many owners of commercial property are finding it increasingly difficult to make their mortgage payments.

The dominoes are starting to fall, and this is going to get really, really messy as we head into 2021 and beyond.

Of course the same thing could be said for the U.S. economy as a whole.

I know that I haven’t been posting quite as often the last couple of weeks, and that is because I have been finishing my new book.  It is not too far from being completed, and it is going to be the most important thing that I have written so far.

We are right on the precipice of the most chaotic chapter in all of American history, and a collapsing economy is just going to be one element of “the perfect storm” that we are facing.

So please use the summer months to get prepared for what is ahead, because even though things are bad right now, the truth is that we have only experienced the leading edge of “the perfect storm” so far.

*

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.

Michael Snyder is the publisher of The Economic Collapse Blog, End Of The American Dream and The Most Important News whose articles are republished on dozens of other prominent websites all over the globe. He has written four books that are available on Amazon.com including The Beginning Of The End, Get Prepared Now, and Living A Life That Really Matters.

Featured image is from TEC

The New “Water Barons”: Wall Street Mega-Banks are Buying up the World’s Water

July 14th, 2020 by Jo-Shing Yang

This article was first published on December 21, 2012 by Market Oracle and Global Research 

A disturbing trend in the water sector is accelerating worldwide. The new “water barons” — the Wall Street banks and elitist multibillionaires — are buying up water all over the world at unprecedented pace.

Familiar mega-banks and investing powerhouses such as Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan Chase, Citigroup, UBS, Deutsche Bank, Credit Suisse, Macquarie Bank, Barclays Bank, the Blackstone Group, Allianz, and HSBC Bank, among others, are consolidating their control over water. Wealthy tycoons such as T. Boone Pickens, former President George H.W. Bush and his family, Hong Kong’s Li Ka-shing, Philippines’ Manuel V. Pangilinan and other Filipino billionaires, and others are also buying thousands of acres of land with aquifers, lakes, water rights, water utilities, and shares in water engineering and technology companies all over the world.

The second disturbing trend is that while the new water barons are buying up water all over the world, governments are moving fast to limit citizens’ ability to become water self-sufficient (as evidenced by the well-publicized Gary Harrington’s case in Oregon, in which the state criminalized the collection of rainwater in three ponds located on his private land, by convicting him on nine counts and sentencing him for 30 days in jail). Let’s put this criminalization in perspective:

Billionaire T. Boone Pickens owned more water rights than any other individuals in America, with rights over enough of the Ogallala Aquifer to drain approximately 200,000 acre-feet (or 65 billion gallons of water) a year. But ordinary citizen Gary Harrington cannot collect rainwater runoff on 170 acres of his private land.

It’s a strange New World Order in which multibillionaires and elitist banks can own aquifers and lakes, but ordinary citizens cannot even collect rainwater and snow runoff in their own backyards and private lands.

“Water is the oil of the 21st century.” Andrew Liveris, CEO of DOW Chemical Company (quoted in The Economist magazine, August 21, 2008)

In 2008, I wrote an article,

“Why Big Banks May Be Buying up Your Public Water System,” in which I detailed how both mainstream and alternative media coverage on water has tended to focus on individual corporations and super-investors seeking to control water by buying up water rights and water utilities. But paradoxically the hidden story is a far more complicated one. I argued that the real story of the global water sector is a convoluted one involving “interlocking globalized capital”: Wall Street and global investment firms, banks, and other elite private-equity firms — often transcending national boundaries to partner with each other, with banks and hedge funds, with technology corporations and insurance giants, with regional public-sector pension funds, and with sovereign wealth funds — are moving rapidly into the water sector to buy up not only water rights and water-treatment technologies, but also to privatize public water utilities and infrastructure.

Now, in 2012, we are seeing this trend of global consolidation of water by elite banks and tycoons accelerating. In a JP Morgan equity research document, it states clearly that “Wall Street appears well aware of the investment opportunities in water supply infrastructure, wastewater treatment, and demand management technologies.” Indeed, Wall Street is preparing to cash in on the global water grab in the coming decades. For example, Goldman Sachs has amassed more than $10 billion since 2006 for infrastructure investments, which include water. A 2008 New York Times article mentioned Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, Credit Suisse, Kohlberg Kravis Roberts, and the Carlyle Group, to have “amassed an estimated an estimated $250 billion war chest — must of it raised in the last two years — to finance a tidal wave of infrastructure projects in the United States and overseas.”

By “water,” I mean that it includes water rights (i.e., the right to tap groundwater, aquifers, and rivers), land with bodies of water on it or under it (i.e., lakes, ponds, and natural springs on the surface, or groundwater underneath), desalination projects, water-purification and treatment technologies (e.g., desalination, treatment chemicals and equipment), irrigation and well-drilling technologies, water and sanitation services and utilities, water infrastructure maintenance and construction (from pipes and distribution to all scales of treatment plants for residential, commercial, industrial, and municipal uses), water engineering services (e.g., those involved in the design and construction of water-related facilities), and retail water sector (such as those involved in the production, operation, and sales of bottled water, water vending machines, bottled water subscription and delivery services, water trucks, and water tankers).

Update of My 2008 Article: Mega-Banks See Water as a Critical Commodity

Since 2008, many giant banks and super-investors are capturing more market share in the water sector and identifying water as a critical commodity, much hotter than petroleum.

Goldman Sachs: Water Is Still the Next Petroleum

In 2008, Goldman Sachs called water “the petroleum for the next century” and those investors who know how to play the infrastructure boom will reap huge rewards, during its annual “Top Five Risks” conference. Water is a U.S.$425 billion industry, and a calamitous water shortage could be a more serious threat to humanity in the 21st century than food and energy shortages, according to Goldman Sachs’s conference panel. Goldman Sachs has convened numerous conferences and also published lengthy, insightful analyses of water and other critical sectors (food, energy).

Goldman Sachs is positioning itself to gobble up water utilities, water engineering companies, and water resources worldwide. Since 2006, Goldman Sachs has become one of the largest infrastructure investment fund managers and has amassed a $10 billion capital for infrastructure, including water.

In March 2012, Goldman Sachs was eyeing Veolia’s UK water utility business, estimated at £1.2 billion, and in July it successfully bought Veolia Water, which serves 3.5 million people in southeastern England.

Previously, in September 2003, Goldman Sachs partnered with one of the world’s largest private-equity firm Blackstone Group and Apollo Management to acquire Ondeo Nalco (a leading company in providing water-treatment and process chemicals and services, with more than 10,000 employees and operations in 130 countries) from French water corporation Suez S.A. for U.S.$4.2 billion.

In October 2007, Goldman Sachs teamed up with Deutsche Bank and several partners to bid, unsuccessfully, for U.K.’s Southern Water. In November 2007, Goldman Sachs was also unsuccessful in bidding for U.K. water utility Kelda. But Goldman Sachs is still looking to buy other water utilities.

In January 2008, Goldman Sachs led a team of funds (including Liberty Harbor Master Fund and the Pinnacle Fund) to buy U.S.$50 million of convertible notes in China Water and Drinks Inc., which supplies purified water to name-brand vendors like Coca-Cola and Taiwan’s top beverage company Uni-President. China Water and Drinks is also a leading producer and distributor of bottled water in China and also makes private-labeled bottled water (e.g., for Sands Casino, Macau). Since China has one of the worse water problems in Asia and a large emerging middle class, its bottled-water sector is the fastest-growing in the world and it’s seeing enormous profits. Additionally, China’s acute water shortages and serious pollution could “buoy demand for clean water for years to come, with China’s $14.2 billion water industry a long-term investment destination” (Reuters, January 28, 2008).

The City of Reno, Nevada, was approached by Goldman Sachs for “a long-term asset leasing that could potentially generate significant cash for the three TMWA [Truckee Meadows Water Authority] entities. The program would allow TMWA to lease its assets for 50 years and receive an up-front cash payment” (Reno News & Review, August 28, 2008). Essentially, Goldman Sachs wants to privatize Reno’s water utility for 50 years. Given Reno’s revenue shortfall, this proposal was financially attractive. But the water board eventually rejected the proposal due to strong public opposition and outcry.

Citigroup: The Water Market Will Soon Eclipse Oil, Agriculture, and Precious Metals

Citigroup’s top economist Willem Buitler said in 2011 that the water market will soon be hotter the oil market (for example, see this and this):

“Water as an asset class will, in my view, become eventually the single most important physical-commodity based asset class, dwarfing oil, copper, agricultural commodities and precious metals.”

In its recent 2012 Water Investment Conference, Citigroup has identified top 10 trends in the water sector, as follows:

1. Desalination systems
2. Water reuse technologies
3. Produced water / water utilities
4. Membranes for filtration
5. Ultraviolet (UV) disinfection
6. Ballast-water treatment technologies
7. Forward osmosis used in desalination
8. Water-efficiency technologies and products
9. Point-of-use treatment systems
10. Chinese competitors in water

Specifically, a lucrative opportunity in water is in hydraulic fracturing (or fracking), as it generates massive demand for water and water services. Each oil well developed requires 3 to 5 million gallons of water, and 80% of this water cannot be reused because it’s three to 10 times saltier than seawater. Citigroup recommends water-rights owners sell water to fracking companies instead of to farmers because water for fracking can be sold for as much as $3,000 per acre-foot instead of only $50 per acre/foot to farmers.

The ballast-water treatment sector, currently at $1.35 billion annually, is estimated to reach $30 to $50 billion soon. The water-filtration market is expected to outgrow the water-equipment market: Dow estimates it to be a $5 billion market annually instead of only $1 billion now.

Citigroup is aggressively raising funds for its war chest to participate in the coming tidal wave of infrastructure privatization: in 2007 it established a new unit called Citi Infrastructure Investors through its Citi Alternative Investments unit. According to Reuters, Citigroup “assembled some of the biggest names in the infrastructure business at the same time it is building a $3 billion fund, including $500 million of its own capital. The fund, according to a person familiar with the situation, will have only a handful of outside investors and will be focused on assets in developed markets” (May 16, 2007). Citigroup initially sought only U.S.$3 billion for its first infrastructure fund but was seeking U.S.$5 billion in April 2008 (Bloomberg, April 7, 2008).

Citigroup partnered with HSBC Bank, Prudential, and other minor partners to acquire U.K.’s water utility Kelda (Yorkshire Water) in November 2007. This week, Citigroup signed a 99-year lease with the City of Chicago for Chicago’s Midway Airport (it partnered with John Hancock Life Insurance Company and a Canadian private airport operator). Insiders said that Citigroup is among those bidding for the state-owned company Letiste Praha which operates the Prague Airport in the Czech Republic (Bloomberg, February 7, 2008).

As the five U.K. water utility deals illustrate, typically no one single investment bank or private-equity fund owns the entire infrastructure project — they partner with many others. The Citigroup is now entering India’s massive infrastructure market by partnering the Blackstone Group and two Indian private finance companies; they have launched a U.S.$5 billion fund in February 2007, with three entities (Citi, Blackstone, and IDFC) jointly investing U.S.$250 million. India requires about U.S.$320 billion in infrastructure investments in the next five years (The Financial Express, February 16, 2007).

UBS: Water Scarcity Is the Defining Crisis of the 21st Century

In 2006, UBS Investment Research, a division of Switzerland-based UBS AG, Europe’s largest bank by assets, entitled its 40-page research report, “Q-Series®:Water”—“Water scarcity: The defining crisis of the 21st century?” (October 10, 2006) In 2007, UBS, along with JP Morgan and Australia’s Challenger Fund, bought UK’s Southern Water for £4.2biillion.

Credit Suisse: Water Is the “Paramount Megatrend of Our Time”

Credit Suisse published its report about Credit Suisse Water Index (January 21, 2008) urged investors that “One way to take advantage of this trend is to invest in companies geared to water generation, preservation, infrastructure treatment and desalination. The Index enables investors to participate in the performance of the most attractive companies….” The trend in question, according to Credit Suisse, is the “depletion of freshwater reserves” attributable to “pollution, disappearance of glaciers (the main source of freshwater reserves), and population growth, water is likely to become a scarce resource.”

Credit Suisse recognizes water to be the “paramount megatrend of our time” because of a water-supply crisis might cause “severe societal risk” in the next 10 years and that two-thirds of the world’s population are likely to live under water-stressed conditions by 2025. To address water shortages, it has identified desalination and wastewater treatment as the two most important technologies. Three sectors for good investments include the following:

§ Membranes for desalination and wastewater treatment
§ Water infrastructure — corrosion resistance, pipes, valves, and pumps
§ Chemicals for water treatment

It also created the Credit Suisse Water Index which has the equally weighed index of 30 stocks out of 128 global water stocks. For investors, it offered “Credit Suisse PL100 World Water Trust (PL100 World Water),” launched in June 2007, with $112.9 million.

Credit Suisse partnered with General Electric (GE Infrastructure) in May 2006 to establish a U.S.$1 billion joint venture to profit from privatization and investments in global infrastructure assets. Each partner will commit U.S.$500 million to target electricity generation and transmission, gas storage and pipelines, water facilities, airports, air traffic control, ports, railroads, and toll roads worldwide. This joint venture has estimated that the developed market’s infrastructure opportunities are at U.S.$500 billion, and emerging world’s infrastructure market is U.S.$1 trillion in the next five years (Credit Suisse’s press release, May 31, 2006).

In October 2007, Credit Suisse partnered with Cleantech Group (a Michigan-based market-research, consulting, media, and executive-search firm that operates cleantech forums) and Consensus Business Group (a London-based equity firm owned by U.K. billionaire Vincent Tchenguiz) to invest in clean technologies worldwide. The technologies will also clean water technologies.

During its Asian Investment Conference, it said that “Water is a focus for those in the know about global strategic commodities. As with oil, the supply is finite but demand is growing by leaps and unlike oil there is no alternative.” (Credit Suisse, February 4, 2008). Credit Suisse sees the global water market with U.S.$190 billion in revenue in 2005 and was expected to grow to U.S.$342 billion by 2010. It sees most significant growth opportunities in China.

JPMorgan Chase: Build Infrastructure War Chests to Buy Water, Utilities, and Public Infrastructure Worldwide

One of the world’s largest banks, JPMorgan Chase has aggressively pursued water and infrastructure worldwide. In October 2007, it beat out rivals Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs to buy U.K.’s water utility Southern Water with partners Swiss-based UBS and Australia’s Challenger Infrastructure Fund. This banking empire is controlled by the Rockefeller family; the family patriarch David Rockefeller is a member of the elite and secretive Bilderberg Group, Council on Foreign Relations, and Trilateral Commission.

JPMorgan sees infrastructure finance as a global phenomenon, and it is joined by its global peers in investment and banking institution in their rush to cash in on water and infrastructure. JPMorgan’s own analysts estimate that the emerging markets’ infrastructure is approximately U.S.$21.7 trillion over the next decade.

JPMorgan created a U.S.$2 billion infrastructure fund to go after India’s infrastructure projects in October 2007. The targeted projects are transportation (roads, bridges, railroads) and utilities (gas, electricity, water). India’s finance minister has been estimated that India requires about U.S.$500 billion in infrastructure investments by 2012. In this regard, JPMorgan is joined by Citigroup, the Blackstone Group, 3i Group (Europe’s second-largest private-equity firm), and ICICI Bank (India’s second-largest bank) (International Herald Tribune, October 31, 2007). Its JPMorgan Asset Management has also established an Asian Infrastructure & Related Resources Opportunity Fund which held a first close on U.S.$500 million (€333 million) and will focus on China, India, and other Southern Asian countries, with the first two investments in China and India (Private Equity Online, August 11, 2008). The fund’s target is U.S.$1.5 billion.

JPMorgan’s Global Equity Research division also published a 60-page report called “Watch water: A guide to evaluating corporate risks in a thirsty world” (April 1, 2008).

In 2010, J.P. Morgan Asset Management and Water Asset Management led a $275 million buyout bid for SouthWest Water.

Allianz Group: Water Is Underpriced and Undervalued

Founded in 1890, Germany’s Allianz Group is one of the leading global services providers in insurance, banking, and asset management in about 70 countries. In April 2008, Allianz SE launched the Allianz RCM Global Water Fund which invests in equity securities of water-related companies worldwide, emphasizing long-term capital appreciation. Alliance launched its Global EcoTrends Fund in February 2007 (Business Wire, February 7, 2007).

Allianz SE’s Dresdner Bank AG told its investors that “Investments in water offer opportunities: Rising oil prices obscure our view of an even more serious scarcity: water. The global water economy is faced with a multi-billion dollar need for capital expenditure and modernization. Dresdner Bank sees this as offering attractive opportunities for returns for investors with a long-term investment horizon.” (Frankfurt, August 14, 2008)

Like Goldman Sachs, Allianz has the philosophy that water is underpriced. A co-manager of the Water Fund in Frankfurt, said, “A key issue of water is that the true value of water is not recognized. …Water tends to be undervalued around the world. …Perhaps that is one of the reasons why there are so many places with a lack of supply due to a lack of investment. With that in mind, it makes sense to invest in companies that are engaged in improving water quality and infrastructure.” Allianz sees two key investment drivers in water: (1) upgrading the aging infrastructure in the developed world; and (2) new urbanization and industrialization in developing countries such as China and India.

Barclays PLC: Water Index Funds and Exchange-Traded Funds

Barclays PLC is a U.K.-based major global financial services provider operating in all over the world with roots in London since 1690; it operates through its subsidiary Barclays Bank PLC and its investment bank called Barclays Capital.

Barclays Bank’s unit Barclays Global Investors manages an exchange-traded fund (ETF) called iShares S&P Global Water, which is listed on the London Stock Exchanges and can be purchased like any ordinary share through a broker. Touting the iShares S&P Global Water as offering “a broad based exposure to shares of the world’s largest water companies, including water utilities and water equipment stocks” of water companies around the world, this fund as of March 31, 2007 was valued at U.S.$33.8 million.

Barclays also have a climate index fund: launched on January 16, 2008, SAM Indexes GmbH licensed its Dow Jones Sustainability Index to Barclays Capital for investors in Germany and Switzerland. Many other banks also have a climate index or sustainability index.

In October 2007, Barclays Capital also partnered with Protected Distribution Limited (PDL) to launch a new water investment fund (with expected annual returns of 9% to 11%) called Protected Water Fund. This new fund, listed in the Isle of Man, requires a minimum of £10,000 and is structured as a 10-year investment with Barclays Bank providing 100% of capital protection until maturity on October 11, 2017. The Protected Water Fund will be invested in some of the world’s largest water companies; its investment decisions will be made based on an index created by Barclays Capital, the Barclays World Water Strategy, which charts the performance of some of the world’s largest water-related stocks (Investment Week and Reuters, October 11, 2007; Business Week, October 15, 2007).

Deutsche Bank’s €2 Billion Investment in European Infrastructure: “Megatrend” in Water, Climate, Infrastructure, and Agribusiness Investments

Deutsche Bank is one of the major players in the water sector worldwide. Its Deutsche Bank Advisors have identified water as a part of the climate investment strategies. In its presentation, “Global Warming: Implications for Investors,” they have identified the four following major areas for water investment:

§ Distribution and management: (1) Supply and recycling, (2) water distribution and sewage, (3) water management and engineering.
§ Water purification: (1) Sewage purification, (2) disinfection, (3) desalination, (4) monitoring.
§ Water efficiency (demand): (1) Home installation, (2) gray-water recycling, (3) water meters.
§ Water and nutrition: (1) Irrigation, (2) bottled water.

In addition to water, the other two new resources identified were agribusiness (e.g., pesticides, genetically modified seeds, mineral fertilizers, agricultural machinery) and renewable energies (e.g., solar, wind, hydrothermal, biomass, hydroelectricity).

The Deutsche Bank has established an investment fund of up to €2 billion in European infrastructure assets using its Structured Capital Markets Group (SCM), part of the bank’s Global Markets division. The bank already has several “highly attractive infrastructure assets,” including East Surrey Holdings, the owner of U.K.’s water utility Sutton & East Surrey Water (Deutsche Bank press release, September 22, 2006).

Moreover, Deutsche Bank has channeled €6 billion (U.S.$8.55 billion) into climate change funds, which will target companies with products that cut greenhouse gases or help people adapt to a warmer world, in sectors from agriculture to power and construction (Reuters, October 18, 2007).

In addition to SCM, Deutsche Bank also has the RREEF Infrastructure, part of RREEF Alternative Investments, headquartered in New York with main hubs in Sydney, Singapore, and London. RREEF Infrastructure has more than €6.7 billion in assets under management. One of its main targets is utilities, including electricity networks, water-treatment or distribution operations, and natural-gas networks. In October 2007, RREEF partnered with Goldman Sachs, GE, Prudential, and Babcok & Brown Ltd. to bid unsuccessfully for U.K.’s water utility Southern Water.

§ Crediting the boom in European infrastructure investment, the RREEF fund by August 2007 had raised €2 billion (U.S.$2.8 billion); Europe’s infrastructure market is valued at between U.S.$4 trillion to U.S.$6 trillion (DowJones Financial News Online, August 7, 2007).

§ Bulgaria — Deutsche Bank Bulgaria is planning to participate in large infrastructure projects, including public-private partnership projects in water and sewage worth up to €1 billion (Sofia Echo Media, February 26, 2008).

§ Middle East — Along with Ithmaar Bank B.S.C. (an private-equity investment bank in Bahrain), Deutsche Bank co-managed a U.S.$2 billion Shari’a-compliant Infrastructure and Growth Capital Fund and plans to target U.S.$630 billion in regional infrastructure.

Deutsche Bank AG is co-owner of Aqueduct Capital (UK) Limited which in 2006 offered to buy U.K.’s sixth-largest water utility Sutton and East Surrey Water plc from British tycoon Guy Hand. According to an OFWAT consultation paper (May 2007), Deutsche Bank formed this new entity, Aqueduct Capital (short for ACUK), in October 2005, with two public pension funds in Canada, Singapore’s life insurance giant, and a Canadian province’s investment fund, among others. This case, again, is an illustration of the complex nature of ownership of water utilities today, with various types of institutions crossing national boundaries to partner with each other to hold a stake in the water sector. With its impressive war chest dedicated to water, food, and infrastructure, Deutsche Bank is expected to become a major player in the global water sector.

Other Mega-Banks Eyeing Water as Hot Investment

Merrill Lynch (before being bought by Bank of America) issued a 24-page research report titled “Water scarcity; a bigger problem than assumed” (December 6, 2007). ML said that water scarcity is “not limited to arid climates.”

Morgan Stanley in its publication, “Emerging Markets Infrastructure: Just Getting Started” (April 2008) recommends three areas of investment opportunities in water: water utilities, global operators (such as Veolia Environment), and technology companies (such as those that manufacture membranes and chemicals used in water treatment to the water industry).

Mutual Funds and Hedge Funds Join the Action in Water

Water investment funds are on the rise, such as these four well-known water-focused mutual funds:

1. Calvert Global Water Fund (CFWAX) — $42 million in assets as of 2010, which holds 30% of its assets in water utilities, 40% in infrastructure companies, and 30% in water technologies. Also between 65% to 70% of the water stocks derived more than 50% of their revenue from water-related activities.
2. Allianz RCM Global Water Fund (AWTAX) — $54 million assets as of 2010, most of it invested in water utilities.
3. PFW Water Fund (PFWAX) — $17 million in assets as of 2010, with a minimum investment of $2,500, with 80% invested in water-related companies….
4. Kinetics Water Infrastructure Advantaged Fund (KWIAX) — $26 million in assets as of 2010, with a minimum investment of $2,500.

This is a brief list of water-centered hedge funds:

§ Master Water Equity Fund — Summit Global AM (United States)
§ Water Partners Fund — Aqua Terra AM (United States)
§ The Water Fund — Terrapin AM (United States)
§ The Reservoir Fund — Water AM (United States)
§ The Oasis Fund — Perella Weinberg AM (United States)
§ Signina Water Fund — Signina Capital AG (Switzerland)
§ MFS Water Fund of Funds — MFS Aqua AM (Australia)
§ Triton Water Fund of Funds — FourWinds CM (United States)
§ Water Edge Fund of Funds — Parker Global Strategies LLC (United States)

Other banks have launched water-targeted investment funds. Several well-known specialized water funds include Pictet Water Fund, SAM Sustainable Water Fund, Sarasin Sustainable Water Fund, Swisscanto Equity Fund Water, and Tareno Waterfund. Several structured water products offered by major investment banks include ABN Amro Water Stocks Index Certificate, BKB Water Basket, ZKB Sustainable Basket Water, Wagelin Water Shares Certificate, UBS Water Strategy Certificate, and Certificate on Vontobel Water Index. There are also several water indexes and index funds, as follows:

Credit Suisse Water Index
HSBC Water, Waste, and Pollution Control Index
Merrill Lynch China Water Index
S&P Global Water Index
First Trust ISE Water Index Fund (FIW)
International Securities Exchange’s ISE-B&S Water Index

The following is a small sample of other water funds and certificates (not exhaustive of the current range of diverse water products available):

Allianz RCM Global EcoTrends Fund
Allianz RCM Global Water Fund
UBS Water Strategy Certificate—it has a managed basket of 25 international stocks
Summit Water Equity Fund
Maxxwater Global Water Fund
Claymore S&P Global Water ETF (CGW)
Barclays Global Investors’ iShares S&P Global Water
Barclays and PDL’s Protected Water Fund based on Barclays World Water Strategy
Invesco’s PowerShares Water Resources Portfolio ETF (PHO)
Invesco’s PowerShares Global Water (PIO)
Pictet Asset Management’s Pictet Water Fund and Pictet Water Opportunities Fund
Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce’s Water Growth Deposit Notes
Criterion Investments Limited’s Criterion Water Infrastructure Fund

One often-heard reason for the investment banks’ rush to control of water is that “Utilities are viewed as relatively safe assets in an economic downturn so [they] are more isolated than most from the global credit crunch, initially sparked by concerns over U.S. subprime mortgages” (Reuters, October 9, 2007). A London-based analyst at HSBC Securities told Bloomberg News that water is a good investment because “You’re buying something that’s inflation proof and there’s no threat to earnings really. It’s very stable and you can sell it any time you want” (Bloomberg, October 8, 2007).

More Pension Funds Investing in Water

Many pension funds have entered the water sector as a relatively safe sector for investment. For example, BT Pension Scheme (of British Telecom plc) has bought stakes in Thames Water in 2012, while Canadian pension funds CDPQ (Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec, which manages public pension funds in Québec) and CPPIB (Canada Pension Plan Investment Board) have acquired England’s South East Water and Anglian Water, respectively, as reported by Reuters this year.

Sovereign Wealth Investment Funds Jumping into Water

In January 2012, China Investment Corporation has bought 8.68% stakes in Thames Water, the largest water utility in England, which serves parts of the Greater London area, Thames Valley, and Surrey, among other areas.

In November 2012, One of the world’s largest sovereign wealth funds, the Abu Dhabi Investment Authority (ADIA), also purchased 9.9% stake in Thames Water.

Billionaires Sucking up Water Globally: George H.W. Bush and Family, Li Ka-shing, the Filipino Billionaires, and Others

Not only are the mega-banks investing heavily in water, the multibillionaire tycoons are also buying water.

Update on Hong Kong Multibillionaire Li Ka-shing’s Water Acquisition

In summer 2011, the Hong Kong multibillionaire tycoon Li Ka-shing who owns Cheung Kong Infrastructure (CKI), bought Northumbrian Water, which serves 2.6 million people in northeastern England, for $3.9 billion (see this and this).

CKI also sold Cambridge Water for £74 million to HSBC in 2011. Not satisfied with controlling the water sector, in 2010, CKI with a consortium bought EDF’s power networks in UK for £5.8 billion.

Li is now also collaborating with Samsung on investing in water treatment.

Warren Buffet Buys Nalco, a Chemical Maker and Water Process Technology Company

Through his Berkshire Hathaway, Warren Buffet is the largest institutional investor of Nalco Holding Co. (NLC), a subsidiary of Ecolab, with 9 million shares. Nalco was named 2012 Water Technology Company of the Year. Nalco manufactures treatment chemicals and water treatment process technologies.

But the company Nalco is not just a membrane manufacturer; it also produced the infamous toxic chemical dispersant Corexit which was used to disperse crude oil in the aftermath of BP’s oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico in 2010. Before being sold to Ecolab, Nalco’s parent company was Blackstone……

Former President George H.W. Bush’s Family Bought 300,000 Acres on South America’s and World’s Largest Aquifer, Acuifero Guaraní

In my 2008 article, I overlooked the astonishingly large land purchases (298,840 acres, to be exact) by the Bush family in 2005 and 2006. In 2006, while on a trip to Paraguay for the United Nation’s children’s group UNICEF, Jenna Bush (daughter of former President George W. Bush and granddaughter of former President George H.W. Bush) reportedly bought 98,840 acres of land in Chaco, Paraguay, near the Triple Frontier (Bolivia, Brazil, and Paraguay). This land is said to be near the 200,000 acres purchased by her grandfather, George H.W. Bush, in 2005.

The lands purchased by the Bush family sit over not only South America’s largest aquifer — but the world’s as well — Acuifero Guaraní, which runs beneath Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay, and Uruguay. This aquifer is larger than Texas and California combined.

Online political magazine Counterpunch quoted Argentinean pacifist Adolfo Perez Esquivel, the winner of 1981 Nobel Peace Prize, who “warned that the real war will be fought not for oil, but for water, and recalled that Acuifero Guaraní is one of the largest underground water reserves in South America….”

According to Wikipedia, this aquifer covers 1,200,000 km², with a volume of about 40,000 km³, a thickness of between 50 m and 800 m and a maximum depth of about 1,800 m. It is estimated to contain about 37,000 km³ of water (arguably the largest single body of groundwater in the world, although the overall volume of the constituent parts of the Great Artesian Basin is much larger), with a total recharge rate of about 166 km³/year from precipitation. It is said that this vast underground reservoir could supply fresh drinking water to the world for 200 years.

Filipino Tycoon Manuel V. Pangilinan and Others Buy Water Services in Vietnam

In October 2012, Filipino businessman Manuel V. Pangilinan went to Vietnam to scout for investment opportunities, particularly on toll road and water services. Mr. Pangilinan and other Filipino billionaires, such as the owners of the Ayala Corp. and subsidiary Manila Water Co. earlier announced a deal to buy a 10-per cent stake in Ho Chi Minh City Infrastructure Investment Joint Stock Co. (CII) and a 49-per cent stake in Kenh Dong Water Supply Joint Stock Co. (Kenh Dong).

The Ayala group has also entered the Vietnamese market by buying significant minority interest in a leading infrastructure company and a bulk water supply company both based in Ho Chi Minh City.

Water Grabbing Is Unstoppable

Unfortunately, the global water and infrastructure-privatization fever is unstoppable: many local and state governments are suffering from revenue shortfalls and are under financial and budgetary strains. These local and state governments can longer shoulder the responsibilities of maintaining and upgrading their own utilities. Facing offers of millions of cash from Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup, UBS, and other elite banks for their utilities and other infrastructure and municipal services, cities and states will find it extremely difficult to refuse these privatization offers.

The elite multinational and Wall Street banks and investment banks have been preparing and waiting for this golden moment for years. Over the past few years, they have amassed war chests of infrastructure funds to privatize water, municipal services, and utilities all over the world. It will be extremely difficult to reverse this privatization trend in water.

References for Several Articles Mentioned

“Goldman Sachs eyes bid for Veolia Water,” by Anousha Sakoui and Daniel Schäfer, Financial Times, March 13, 2012.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/183cfae4-6d21-11e1-a7c7-00144feab49a.html#axzz2CM8OLnFQ

“Hong Kong tycoon to buy Northumbrian Water,” by Mark Wembridge, Financial Times, August 2, 2011.

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/3df07960-bcdb-11e0-bdb1-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2CM8OLnFQ

“Why Big Banks May Be Buying up Your Public Water System: In uncertain economic and environmental times, big banks and financial groups are buying up public water systems as safe investments,” by Jo-Shing Yang, AlterNet, October 31, 2008.

http://www.alternet.org/zstory/105083/why_big_banks_may_be_trying_to_buy_up_your_public_water_system

“Barclays Capital Backs Water Fund,” by Dylan Lobo, October 11, 2007. Reuters.

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2007/10/11/citywire-barclays-water-idUKNOA13736320071011

“Investors Gush Over SouthWest Water Buyout,” March 3, 2010, Forbes.

http://www.forbes.com/2010/03/03/southwest-water-novell-markets-equities-deals-marketnewsvideo.html

“Hideout or Water Raid? Bush’s Paraguay Land Grab,” by CP News Wire, Counterpunch, October 22-26, 2006.

http://www.counterpunch.org/2006/10/20/bush-s-paraguay-land-grab/

“Paraguay in a spin about Bush’s alleged 100,000 acre hideaway,” by Tom Phillips, The Guardian, October 22, 2006.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/oct/23/mainsection.tomphillips

“Cities Debate Privatizing Public Infrastructure,” by Jenny Anderson, August 26, 2008, The New York Times.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/27/business/27fund.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

“Philippine tycoon eyes investments in Vietnam,” by Doris C. Dunlao in Manila, Philippine Daily Inquirer, October 18, 2012.

http://my.news.yahoo.com/philippine-tycoon-eyes-investments-vietnam-060002777.html

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The New “Water Barons”: Wall Street Mega-Banks are Buying up the World’s Water

Video: An Economic Elephant in Canada’s Room. Unprecedented Debt Crisis in the Making

July 13th, 2020 by Michelle Rempel Garner

There are several economic elephants in Canada’s room. One of them is neoliberal economic orthodoxy.

Broadly speaking, neoliberalism can be defined in terms of a “trinity”: privatization, deregulation, the evisceration of the public sphere. It speaks to corporate power and public subservience.

More expansively, neoliberalism is emblematic of these characteristics, as described by Joyce Nelson in her book, Bypassing Dystopia (1)

Deregulation, open borders for capital, small government/big state, tax cuts for multinational corporations, austerity budgets, union-busting, privatization of public assets (recycling), corporate rights (“free trade”) deals, tax havens, no limits to growth (as defined by GDP), Central Bank “independence” (servitude to international banksterism ie BIS), and privatization of money-creation functions.

Neoliberalism (all of the above) eviscerates middle classes, increases poverty, enriches globalist ruling classes, and it is one of Canada’s economic elephants. The cure? We need to reject neoliberal orthodoxy.

All of Canada’s political parties are wedded to neoliberalism and globalism, as if there were no alternatives. If nothing else, the COVID Operation should teach us that this globalist, warmongering, impoverishing political orthodoxy needs to be identified, understood, and abolished for the abomination that it is.

Am important first step would be the Bank of Canada. Nelson explains that from 1938-1974 Canada borrowed from the Bank of Canada at near zero interest rates, for infrastructure and health spending. We did not enslave enslave ourselves to international banksters, and it was accomplished without creating inflationary problems. We could and should do this again, but it requires political will. It requires an enlightened and informed public. The bank belongs to Canadians for Canadians. It isn’t complicated, but reversing the social engineering and the globalist propaganda is a challenge.

Canada and Canadians have paid approximately $1.5 trillion in interest on borrowing since we shackled ourselves to international banksterism, including the Bank of International Settlements, in 1974.

We need to reject the Canadian Infrastructure Bank (CIB), widely regarded as a “privatization” bank, and instead embrace the Bank of Canada.

If we are to regain political or economic sovereignty anytime soon, this subservience to globalism would have to end.

 

When legislators miss the economic elephant in the room (see below), they are missing everything.

***

The Net Federal Debt will be above One Trillion Dollars.

Canada’s Credit Rating Downgrading.

Our Credit Rating is down the Toilet. There is no economic recovery plan.

He has shut down Parliament.

***

Michelle Rempel Garner, MP: “A Dark Day for Canada” 

*

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.

Michelle Rempel Garner, MP, Federal Member of Parliament for the electoral riding of Calgary

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.

Note

(1) Joyce Nelson, Bypassing Dystopia, Watershed Centennial Books, Copyright 2018.

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. 

Voices from Syria 

ISBN: 978-0-9879389-1-6

Author: Mark Taliano

Year: 2017

Pages: 128 (Expanded edition: 1 new chapter)

List Price: $17.95

Special Price: $9.95 

Click to order

China and Iran Deepening Bilateral Ties. A 25-Year Strategic Partnership

July 13th, 2020 by Stephen Lendman

In contrast to endless US war on humanity, China, Russia, Iran, and other nonbelligerent nations on its target list for regime change pursue cooperative relations with other countries — hostility toward none.

For some time, China and Iran have been working on a reported 25-year strategic partnership.

When finalized, it’ll build on a 2016 bilateral agreement between both countries.

Contrary to some reports, there’s nothing secret about talks between officials of both nations. They’ve been known about for some time.

When finalized ahead, it’ll reportedly be called the Sino-Iranian Comprehensive Strategic Partnership.

Days earlier, Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Abbas Mousavi issued the following statement to dispel misinformation and fake news about what’s going on, saying:

“According to a 2016 agreement between the presidents of the Islamic Republic of Iran and the People’s Republic of China, stipulated in Article VI of the communique during the honorable Chinese president’s visit to Tehran, the two countries have explicitly expressed their political determination to promote and deepen the relations strategically and decided to devise a comprehensive 25-year roadmap between the two countries to become the basis for the coherent and all-out expansion of the political and economic relations between Iran and China in the years to come,” adding:

“The preliminary draft of the document has been prepared with the participation of specialized institutions from the two countries and is currently undergoing the negotiation stage.”

“Naturally, after finalization of the negotiations, the document will be submitted to the representatives of people in the Parliament for legal procedures.”

Referring to US hostility toward both countries, Mousavi added that

“the strategic relations between Iran and China that entails mutual key interests for the people of the two countries have enemies (that) will make every effort for the failure of these negotiations and lack of success of the document.”

“Fulfillment of Iran’s national interests has been the only guiding principle for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in devising the strategic document, and the negotiations have been held with utmost carefulness and meticulousness, and the people of Iran will soon observe its results, God willing.”

“(N)o other text would be valid before the finalization of negotiations. Therefore, the media are urged to refrain from republishing the texts that are prepared and disseminated with various purposes and objectives.”

Mousavi expects that details of the strategic partnership will be finalized and made public in the near future.

Separately, Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif said “(w)ith confidence and conviction, we are negotiating a 25-year strategic accord with China,” stressing there’s nothing secretive about it.

The leadership of both countries support it. Bilateral ties have been close for years.

Days earlier, Iranian President Hassan Rouhani’s chief of staff Mahmoud Vaezi slammed what he called “destructive … propaganda … initiated and directed from outside Iran against the expansion of (its) relations with neighbors … especially (with) China and Russia.”

Clearly, US hardliners from both right wings of its war party oppose constructive relations that benefit nations they want transformed into subservient vassal states.

The Sino/Iran accord will advance the economic and strategic interests of both countries at the expense of US imperial aims to weaken and undermine their development.

According to Oil Price.com last week, citing unnamed “senior sources closely connected to Iran’s Petroleum Ministry,” the economic accord will have a military component, adding:

“China will invest US$280 billion in developing Iran’s oil, gas, and petrochemicals sectors” during the first five years of the 25-year agreement, “provided both countries agree” on terms.

“There will be another US$120 billion of investment” by China, $400 billion in total.

In return, “Chinese companies will be given the first option to bid on any new – or stalled or uncompleted – oil, gas, and petrochemicals projects in Iran.”

“China will also be able to buy any and all oil, gas, and petchems products at a minimum guaranteed discount of 12 per cent to the six-month rolling mean average price of comparable benchmark products, plus another 6 to 8 per cent of that metric for risk-adjusted compensation.”

China will be involved in “build(ing) out of Iran’s core infrastructure” as part of its “One Belt, One Road” initiative.

It’s a longterm project for greater regional integration, numerous countries involved in over $1 trillion in investment.

China, Russia,Iran, and other regional countries seek increased industrialization through mutual cooperation.

America pursues dominance, stressing militarism over cooperative relations with other nations, a prescription for confrontation over peace and stability.

Rouhani government spokesman Ali Rabiee said Iran is “ready (to negotiate) similar accords with (other) countr(ies) based on mutual trust.”

According to Oil Price.com, China seeks another discount, “32%” in total.

Its assessment is pure speculation as bilateral discussions continue.

Terms of what’s agreed on won’t be known until officials of both countries release them publicly.

On Thursday, Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Gholamreza Ansari said the following:

“Some of the criticisms recently raised about a 25-year strategic cooperation deal between Tehran and Beijing are ridiculous,” adding:

“They are terrified that Iran would be linked to China’s global potentialities.”

“Since Iran’s relations with China are serious, and that forms the basis of economic and strategic cooperation between the two states in the 25-year document, it is quite normal for western countries to be worried about such relations.”

“The policy of the US and Britain—Anglo-Saxons in general—is to focus on pressuring Iran in a bid to keep it away from China and Russia.”

The policy failed. So did over 40 years of US efforts colonize and exploit Iran, its vast hydrocarbon resources, and 84 million people.

China and Iran are economic and strategic partners.

According to Chinese President Xi Jinping,

“relations between (both countries) resulted in important achievements in the political, economic and cultural sectors,” adding:

Beijing “is ready to start a new chapter in bilateral relations by upgrading the current level of interaction and cooperation.”

*

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

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

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

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

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on China and Iran Deepening Bilateral Ties. A 25-Year Strategic Partnership
  • Tags: ,

The Woke Revolution. “The Free Exchange of Information and Ideas”

July 13th, 2020 by Dr. Paul Craig Roberts

150 prominent intellectuals and Ivy League academics of leftish persuasion have signed a letter in Harper’s protesting the breakdown in civilized debate and imposition of ideological conformity.  

The signatories made the obligatory bow to denouncing Trump as “a real threat to democracy” and called for “greater equality and inclusion across our society.”  

But this wasn’t enough to save them from denunciation for stating these truthful facts:

“The free exchange of information and ideas, the lifeblood of a liberal society, is daily becoming more constricted. While we have come to expect this on the radical right, censoriousness is also spreading more widely in our culture: an intolerance of opposing views, a vogue for public shaming and ostracism, and the tendency to dissolve complex policy issues in a blinding moral certainty. We uphold the value of robust and even caustic counter-speech from all quarters. But it is now all too common to hear calls for swift and severe retribution in response to perceived transgressions of speech and thought. More troubling still, institutional leaders, in a spirit of panicked damage control, are delivering hasty and disproportionate punishments instead of considered reforms. Editors are fired for running controversial pieces; books are withdrawn for alleged inauthenticity; journalists are barred from writing on certain topics; professors are investigated for quoting works of literature in class; a researcher is fired for circulating a peer-reviewed academic study; and the heads of organizations are ousted for what are sometimes just clumsy mistakes. Whatever the arguments around each particular incident, the result has been to steadily narrow the boundaries of what can be said without the threat of reprisal. We are already paying the price in greater risk aversion among writers, artists, and journalists who fear for their livelihoods if they depart from the consensus, or even lack sufficient zeal in agreement.”

The signatories to the letter do not understand that time has passed them by.

Free speech is no longer a value.  Free speach is an ally of oppression because it permits charges against Western civilization and the white racist oppressors to be answered, and facts are not welcome.  The purpose of the woke revolution is to overthrow a liberal society and impose conformity with wokeness in its place.  Whiteness has been declared evil. There is nothing to debate.

The signatories do not understand that today there is only one side.  In place of debate there is denunciation, the purpose of which is to impose ideological conformity.  It is pointless to search for truth when truth has been revealed: Western civilization and all its works are a white racist construct and must be destroyed.  There is nothing to debate.

To make clear that in these revolutionary times not even prominent people of accomplishment such as Noam Chomsky are entitled to a voice different from woke-imposed conformity, the letter was answered by a condescending statement signed by a long list of woke journalists of no distinction or achievement, people no one has ever heard of. The 150 prominent defenders of free speech were simply dismissed as no longer relevant. See this.

Noam Chomsky and the other prominent signatories were dismissed as irrelevant just as the prominent historians were who took exception to the New York Times 1619 project, a packet of lies and anti-white propaganda. The famous historians found that they weren’t relevant. The New York Times has an agenda that is independent of the facts.

The message is clear: shut up “white, wealthy” people and you also Thomas Chatterton Williams, a black person with a white name. Your voices of oppression have been cancelled.

The “oppressed” and “marginalized” voices of woke revolutionaries, who have imposed tyranny in universities, the work place, and via social media, are the ones that now control explanations. No one is permitted to disagree with them.

Lining up on the woke side are CNN, New York Times, Los Angeles Times, Slate, and other presstitute organizations desperately trying to remain relevant. Everyone of these institutions quickly took the side of the woke revolution against facts and free speech. See this, this, this and this.

The revolution is over unless the guillotine is next. Academic freedom no longer exists. Free speech no longer exists. The media is a propaganda ministry. Without free speech there can be no answer to denunciation.  White people are guilty. Period.

*

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

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

Featured image is from TruePublica

“Equilibra”: The Current Threats Menacing Humanity

July 13th, 2020 by Dr. Paul Oquist

Interview with Dr. Paul Oquist, Minister-Private Secretary for National Policies of the Presidency of the Republic of Nicaragua

***

Tortilla con Sal: We’re here with Dr. Paul Oquist. It’s June 29th. Dr. Oquist is going to talk to us about the publication of his new book, an innovative book called “Equilibra”, which covers a lot of ground relating to the current threats menacing humanity in particular as a result of environmental destruction… Dr. Oquist, “Equilibra” focuses a lot on the various dangers threatening human life on Earth and life on Earth generally, both the dangers coming from outside our planet and those we have created ourselves as humanity. Do you see the greatest danger at the moment being from man made threats? And if you do, what are the most serious of these?

Dr. Paul Oquist: We have very serious threats to our existence, that are cosmic, geological, epidemiological and anthropogenic. The cosmic include meteorites, comets, electromagnetic pulses, gamma rays, solar radiation, among others. The geological threats include super-volcanoes that could spew out enough material to cause volcanic winters. The epidemiological threats include antibiotic resistant bacteria and rapidly mutating viruses like the novel coronavirus and the COVID-19 sickness associated with it.

And then we have the anthropogenic threats and they are mostly the result of our not being able to handle our own science and technology. So atomic and thermonuclear in 1945, one of the greatest accomplishments of science in history was achieved in splitting the atom. But it immediately became a threat to human existence. From its birth it was weaponized, with atomic and thermonuclear weapons that have been used as we all know on Japan in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. That threat persists to this day. there are over 4000 nuclear warheads that are operational, ready to be launched and to do in humanity.

Then we have climate change, as a result of the industrial revolution onward our choice of fuels, of fossil fuels, that has led to immense emissions of greenhouse gases to the point where they can now threaten our existence if they continue unabated. Therefore the critical necessity of limiting the increase in global warming due to the greenhouse gas effect in this century to 1.5 degrees.

But there’s a third category too which has to do with artificial intelligence, robots, algorithms, the internet of things and scientists take this very very seriously. This has been well portrayed by Hollywood with all the films about the revolt of the machines, robots turning against human beings. And some of these films are very explicit that the robots decide that humans are a virus, destroying the planet and should be eliminated.

There have been scientific conferences where people of the stature of Stephen Hawking have discussed this seriously. I think the reason for that is they can’t find a good argument to use against the logic of the robots about humans being a virus destroying the planet and the planet would be better off without them. So I think we should change our ways rather than hoping that the robots come to a different conclusion, so they come to look at us a bit differently.

But definitely the anthropogenic threats of nuclear weapons, climate change and artifical intelligence are greater in probability than the cosmic, geological or the epidemiological threats which is very real as we know with COVID-19. Now that is a sad commentary on our species, a species that is leading itself through masochism, a species masochism which is leading us to a species suicide by our own science and technology. We must reverse these trends, get out of this framework in which our own science and technology is the greatest threat we face.  But if we don’t we’ll probably be done in by our own hand, our own science and technology, through atomic weapons, climate change or artificial intelligence.

TcS: Some people argue that in the current context of the COIVD-19 pandemic, that the Western ruling elites that were in big trouble economically anyway, are now trying under cover of the pandemic to reset Western capitalism, restoring levels of profitability by intensifying domestic economic subjugation and financial dependency of their own populations, while overseas they intensify a kind of neocolonial subjugation of the rest of the planet’s natural resources using what they are calling now the Fourth Industrial Revolution. Does your book “Equilibra” address that argument and the argument that humanity can only save itself by ending capitalism?

Dr. Oquist : Prior to COVID-19, we had a situation of gross inequality in the world with 1% of the world’s population controlling 62% of the world’s assets. Some of the calculations are even worse than that. This is a result of the dominant elites no longer taking into consideration redistribution. Previously after major crises, the elites would take into account gross inequality that produced the crisis and would work to end the crisis to try and re-balance things with regard to inequality.

If we go back to 1890, that was the end of a 20 year depression known as the Long Depression in the United States that affected of course the rest of the world as well. What was the redistribution that came out of that? In the United States it was the Sherman Anti-Trust Act, it was the breaking up of the Trusts the petroleum Trust of Rockefeller, the steel Trust of Carnegie, the railway Trust of Harriman. This was big time politics because the trust busters were confronting the most powerful men economically in the country, by definition since they had these monopolies. But that took place.

After the financial crisis of 1907, it took several years to put together, but the inequality coming out of that was addressed through the progressive income tax that came about in 1913. Big time redistribution, an income tax that was progressive in the sense that the percentage to be charged for the tax rose with the degree of wealth, or the degree of income in this case of income tax. After the great depression that began in 1929, the re-distributive element was the social security insurance. Huge redistribution. Payroll tax both for the employer and for the employee. Redistribution of income. Redistribution of wealth to re-balance.

After the crisis of 2007-2009, what happened in terms of re-distribution? Zilch. Nothing. Absolutely nothing. The only things that were of concern in Dodd-Frank or in Basel 3 of the Bank of International Settlements was to ensure the financial stability of the banks in a crisis, so that the taxpayer would no longer have to bail out the banks. And what they did there also was to increase inequality by bailing tu the banks. They could have also bailed out the mortgage holders who could have paid the banks but that wasn’t on the agenda. It was a matter of saving the banks.

What’s the difference between 1890, 1907, 1929 and 2007-2009? There was no longer a fear of revolution and no longer a fear of Bolshevism, no longer a fear of the Soviet Union, no longer a fear of socialist politics, no longer a fear of labor unions. All of their backs had been broken and capital no longer feared opposition to its position. And so there has been no redistribution because there’s no effective counterweight to the capitalist elite.

I happened to be at UCLA in January 1961 as a Los Angeles school system honors student and we got to take a course at UCLA, the honors students from each high school so that we’d get accustomed to the universities we’d be heading to the next year.  And I was at UCLA taking the course and there was the commencement ceremony which I attended and there President Dwight D. Eisenhower, who had recently left the presidency made his famous military-industrial complex speech, warning of the dangers that posed as a military and industrial complex, a large standing military and a military industrial complex that the country hadn’t had before the Second World War, but now it had that and the dangers that posed for US democracy.

That has evolved with time. It is now the military-police-intelligence-industrial-financial complex. There’s more on board and it’s more powerful than ever. Some call it the Deep State also and it is very very real and it is the power center in US foreign policy and those who challenge it are subject to the retribution of this powerful complex. And so there are two factors here.

With regard to capitalism, in “Equilibra” there’s an identification of nine alienations that are leading us to extinction, subjective factors. And one of them is the belief that unlimited, endless, mindless growth of production, consumption and accumulation of wealth can continually occur on a planet with degraded, declining, limited resources. And the name of that alienation is capitalism, that believes there can be endless accumulation of capital, endless accumulation of capital based on endless production and consumption and works in that direction, which is leading us to extinction.

And, much graver, this is reinforced by a hegemonic elite based around that military, police, intelligence, financial and industrial complex that is now in a stage, after the collapse of the Soviet Union, when the United States decided that it was hegemonic militarily across the world and its policy was to remain that way. And derived from that has been this full spectrum domination of the world in which the domination is not only military, not only political, not only economic, not only social, but also with regard to social media, with regard to mass media, with regard to science, with regard to technology, with regard to the full spectrum, in all of the spheres it wants to be dominant.

And I’ll close this with just one little example, the technological hegemony. The US technological establishment cannot compete with China in terms of the internet of things, in terms of 5G. China is ahead. So instead of competing with Huawei that is a repository of a great part of that technology, it decides to try and eliminate Huawei from the marketplace. They quite conspicuously state that they they don’t believe in socialism, that they want to combat socialism wherever it is to be found. But it would seem that they don’t believe in capitalism either. they believe in their own hegemony, not in either socialism or capitalism.

TcS : In relation to the current context, some people think that as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, it may be possible to persuade people to snap out of some of these alienations and that there’s a potential for a change in attitudes that may promote sufficiently positive change in people’s behavior for them perhaps to contribute to perhaps reversing the negative trends that “Equilibra” so comprehensively covers. Do you think it’s possible to take advantage of this potential change in attitudes or do you think that opportunity is going to slip away?

Dr. Oquist : There’s an element left hanging from the last question that’s an important element in terms of this question. In the period between March and May, mid-March to end of May, Jeff Bezos made US$29 billion. That’s the largest amount of money made by any mortal in the history of humankind, by far. US$29 billion. At the same time, in the same time period coming through now into June, 47 million US workers filed for unemployment insurance. If we had a 1% situation before this crisis, look at the accentuation of inequality due to this crisis.

The orders of Amazon, Walmart, all of the five media companies, media oligarchies that control Netflix and all the other things people have been doing all of these months sitting at home have increased their wealth enormously. Walmart increased its sales by 57%. So there you have Amazon and Walmart. The big entities were not obliged to close down. It’s the mom-and-pop shops that were obliged to close down and many of those, the small merchants,will be going into bankruptcy. Now we come to the crux of this. Of these millions of workers, many will not find a job to come back to.

Artificial intelligence has been on its way for some time now and the golden opportunity for the capitalists is that they don’t have to have the social problem of firing the workers, because the workers are already out on unemployment insurance. So some people will go back to their old firm and find that they’ve been replaced by a robot, an algorithm, or the internet of things and their post is no longer there. Some of the Democrat Party candidates had addressed this.

The Democrat candidate Yang, you may recall, who comes out of the technology sector, was proposing a universal income. Why is he proposing a universal income? Out of largesse or noblesse oblige for the impoverished? No. Because as a tech entrepreneur he knows the mass unemployment that’s going to be produced by artificial intelligence. Kai-Fu Lee who is a Chinese guru in this and who was the president of Google China, previously, he has estimated that 40% of jobs will be lost in the coming 15 years, 40% of jobs.

So I think that there will be more than enough material base for mobilizing people against this system which goes overboard with inequality and I think that’s already part of what’s happening on the streets of the United States. The Black unemployment rate in February was 6%. Coming into May it was 16%. That’s a big shift and I’m sure it will go further, because it’s not going to be below the White unemployment rate, knowing how the United States operates, so it’ll go over 25%. So we’ll have massive unemployment and it could be there’s a factor of cognitive coming to terms with the risks we have and the inequities in our society.

Even with regard to the COVID-19 deaths, we all know that the deaths where largely the Black and Latino communities were over represented, the White community was under represented and the Asian community was even less represented. And in some places it’s very dramatic. 30% of the population in Chicago and 70% of the deaths. In New Orleans it was something similar. And that of course is a commentary on poverty, on chronic malnutrition, on chronic lack of adequate health care of the lack of a national health system that would be equitable with health care for all, which does not exist in the United States.

All this is going to generate the Great Depression 2020. And the Great Depression 2020 will lead to huge hardship, because we not only have these jobs lost, we’ll have all of these businesses lost that could not survive the Great Confinement and will not be able to survive the slow economy that comes out of this. So it’s a mix of subjective factors perhaps, of people increasing their consciousness,which is very visible with regard to race in the United States right now. the movement against racism is multi-ethnic, multi-class and multi-age group. So I think that things are happening. In “Equilibra” we argue that fundamental social change tends to come from social movements and I think this is taking

TcS : In that context, how do you see the roles that different kinds of entities have. For example, the nation state which is constantly under ever greater threat as a result of previous trends of globalization and corporate influence; international institutions like the UN which has suffered severe criticism for being so ineffective on various issues and then you have the role of non governmental organizations and something that you’ve emphasized, the importance of social movements. For example in the case of the environment there’s this movement in Britain called Extinction Rebellion [funded by corporate foundations] and then on a broader international basis you have the movement led by Greta Thunberg [also funded by corporate foundations]. What do you think of the respective roles of those kinds of entities in the current context?

Dr Oquist : Let’s look at a couple of examples. Why haven’t the climate change negotiations come to real fruition in terms of leading to fundamental change in reality, not on paper. Kyoto was a good agreement, the Protocol of Kyoto. It was legally binding. It had goals to be met by all of the developed countries. But the United States was a signatory of Kyoto, but the US Congress, the US Senate did not ratify it. So the United States was outside of the Protocol of Kyoto. So the Europeans and the Japanese and others were in a panic at the United States not being in on the deal.

So they put together the ad hoc working groups in the Bali Conference. The Bali ad hoc working groups were designed to get the United States in on the deal. And then it was decided that Kyoto would be replaced by another agreement and the United States began to influence what that other agreement would look like. And it insisted that it be not legally binding. So it came up with a figure that was called an agreement under the conference that would have the effect of law.

Not even the lawyers of the United States could tell us what that meant. They were the ones who designed it but they couldn’t tell us what that meant. The only thing we knew was that it did not mean “legally binding” because that’s what it was designed to replace, with this ambiguity. Then the United States insisted that everything be voluntary. And the United States has resisted finance and the transfer of technology to developing countries. It has resisted including loss and damages at the same level as mitigation and adaptation.

So the Europeans and the Latin American Right, which after 2017 has been the Group of Lima, were making concession after concession to the United States and the Paris Accord was approved according to that, with all these concessions to the United States included. So you can imagine the disgust of the Europeans and the Latin American Right when the Trump administration announces that the United States was retiring from Paris Agreement that had been made to order in its dimensions, like the size of the neck, the length of the sleeves… and then they tore it up.

But that’s where we’re at in terms of the Climate Change negotiations. The United States is not in and it has its allies like Australia and Brazil that are in effect taking the US positions at the same time. So that has thrown a spanner in the negotiations that the United States has opposed including loss and damages at the same level as adaptation and mitigation. Even in the recent Madrid COP 25 they were blocking the way to that. Despite the fact that you have Dominica, you have Barbuda, Abaco, Grand Bahama, completely wiped out and there’s no international mechanism to deal with that.

TcS : Does that mean that in your opinion the role of social movements is futile?

Dr. Oquist : No not at all. I think that’s the road that’s left. That’s the road that’s left. I kind of look at Greta and Greta’s evolution. Greta first talked to national leaders thinking that they could do it. And then she put great faith in the United Nations and was completely disillusioned with the United Nations when she went to the UN and then to the COP 25. And at the COP 25 she was saying “oh only the people can do this”, eliminating governments and eliminating the international organizations, “only people can do this”.

And she’s right. But it’s people organized in movements. Basic social change has come through people organized in movements. And it’s not people from one country. It’s people from a whole series of countries. It’s not from one sector. It’s church people, labor people, women, some business people, some politicians, students, from all different types of sectors.

If you study the anti-slavery movement, that’s what it looked like. It was in the US. It was in the UK. It was in continental Europe. It was in different parts of the world and the people had different methods. They had perhaps differences in terms of their methods, But they had one very clear goal: Abolish Slavery. And then it clicked and in July 1831, the UK parliament abolishes slavery. And the United States in the midst of a bloody civil war in 1864 there’s the emancipation and the proclamation.

You know one of the things that happens with the anti-slavery, anti-colonial, women’s suffrage, the labor movement, the different movements historically that have triumphed is that they can be struggling for centuries, for years and then all of a sudden it happens. And I think that highly associated with that is generational change. That you get to a generation that has a completely different take on the issue, to which it’s very obvious that slavery is a great evil and that slavery has to be abolished and so it starts to click and it starts to fall into place.

And I hope that that’s the case now in the 21st Century and that these youth who are on the streets… I was very impressed at the COP 25. Coming back from the COP, Greta had had a demonstration, a concentration, a huge one in Madrid. And I was looking at the after-march. People going home with their placards. there were 10, 11, 12, 13-year olds with their placards going home and a slew of 16, 17-year olds.

These people at 18 in these countries will be voting and the idea of the passive, complacent youth will have to be filed completely because these people will be hyperactive. They are clear what they want to do and in countries where the correlation of forces is very tight, them coming down on one side or another could make a big difference politically. So they could obtain real political power faster than we think.

But you know Father Miguel d’Escoto, who influenced me very much, had a book on reforming the United Nations. And he saw that that in the end was impossible, because in Articles 108 and 109 there are padlocks on the United Nations. Because it declares that to make the change, the General Assembly has to be in agreement and all five members of the Security Council.

And Article 109 says you can have a conference and that can have a majority for changing the United Nations but it must include all five permanent members  of the United Nations Security Council. So there’s a veto on the United Nations transformation. So in the end Fr. d’Escoto had come to the conclusion that what needed to be done was to abolish it and start all over again because it will never come out of the veto power that the United States exercises in all proposals for change.

TcS : In relation to the US ability to put a brake on positive developments via its veto in the Security Council, their obsession with ful spectrum dominance is something that you have insisted on and emphasized. Do you think the developing multi-polar world that we’re currently seeing emerge will develop sufficiently quickly to enable humanity to avoid the path to some kind of destructive conflict that is implicit in US unilateralism?

Dr. Oquist: You said “will” and that’s a very wisely chosen word, because it is not there yet. An example of that was how Hillary Clinton sneaked one through the Security Council with regard to Libya in which there was a vote to protect civilians in eastern Libya and then France, the UK and the United States took that and they bombed the whole country. They bombed the Libyan army, they supported all the opposition forces elsewhere.

They forgot about Benghazi completely and started concentrating on Tripoli. They managed to overthrow the government that had cooperated with the West disarming its nuclear capacity. It’s the one success story in disarming nuclear capacity. And it had cooperated politically and had relations with Italy and France. And that didn’t matter. the government was overthrown and Muammar al Gaddhafi was assassinated. Hillary laughed and the country dropped into chaos and anarchy that it has not emerged from yet. So that’s the story of how beneficial Western regime change operations have been for Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, which have created chaos and mass killing, mass destruction, destroying countries one after another.

TcS: So do you think the emergence of the Russian Federation, its very important strategic partnership with the People’s Republic of China, their alliance with regional powers like Iran for example, here in Latin America their strong support which has so far enabled the Venezuelan people and their government under President Nicolás Maduro to resist…

Dr. Oquist: This is essential. There has to be a counterweight to the United States. That’s one of the things that happened with the crumbling of the Soviet Union, the United States was left without a counterweight. That’s why they could invade Iraq in a war of aggression on false pretenses because there  was no counterweight in the world at that point in time that could stop them. And the world has paid a huge price for that.

They also do other things like the unilateral, coercive, illegal measures against countries, against organizations, against individuals, which are completely illegal. But there’s not the counterweight in the world to stop them right now. The United States, Great Britain, Canada, the European Union and, most recently, Switzerland for some reason, have joined in to that imperial exercise of thinking that they are morally superior to the rest of the world.

And therefore they self-appoint themselves as police, prosecutor and judge of the rest of the world in terms of human rights and in terms of corruption when it’s blatantly political and in some cases blatantly commercial, what they are doing. And they get away with it because the United States has the dictatorship of the world banking system called SWIFT and the bankers of the world and many business people are most fearful of being excluded from that, because the economic consequences of being excluded from that are enormous.

And it’s incredible how the Europeans meekly follow the US on this with regard to countries like Venezuela and Nicaragua when they themselves are being subject to these sanctions like the European firms that trade with Iran. The Europeans want to keep the Iran nuclear deal alive and have their firms trade and the US places sanctions, so they’ve invented a system to go around the US sanctions.

The US wants to sell its gas to northern Europe, to Germany and other northern European countries. So the US opposes the Nord Stream gas pipeline from the Russia Federation to Germany. It says, “oh, this will make Germany dependent on Russian gas”. Or they say, as Trump says, “We’re paying for their defense and they buy their gas from Russia, that’s not the way things should be done”. So he wants to decide German energy policy for them. What he wants is for LPG tankers to leave Louisiana full of gas for northern Europe.

So there’s the threat of sanctions against the companies that work on the Nord Stream pipeline. So Europe is schizophrenic on this but they show how dependent they are on the United States even psychologically by following the US example in these coercive illegal sanctions that also affect them negatively. In fact, I mis-spoke, they’re really not sanctions. They’re illegal measures. The only thing that should be called sanctions are those approved y the UN Security Council which are the only ones that are legal.

These other measures have no basis in international law or any basis in any law whatsoever. Because the whole idea that countries can have transnational application of their law, like the United States claims is completely illegal also. Extraterritoriality does not exist in international law. And yet it’s doubly bad in terms of the United States, because it claims extraterritoriality for its law but doesn’t accept international law in the United States. So there’s that duality as well.

TcS: So now Nicaragua and Venezuela and Cuba are subject to these illegal coercive measures, do you think that means that Nicaragua is, at it were punching, above its weight in the world, after all, why should it be the object of these measures? Do you think that Nicaragua being able to work with Russia or China or the non-aligned movement, or regionally with SICA, the Association of Caribbean States and ALBA, do you think that Nicaragua’s role in these international cooperation instances will enable it to play a positive role, perhaps the same kind of inspirational role that it had for many people around the world in the 1980s?

Dr. Oquist : I think that Nicaragua plays an inspirational role for the rest of the world right now. If you look at Nicaragua’s special role punching above its weight in terms of all the climate change negotiations and all the things that Nicaragua has done with regard to Climate Change. Nicaragua’s role in reducing poverty and inequality within Nicaragua with re-distributive policies like universal free health and education in the second poorest country in Latin America and the Caribbean. Any Nicaraguans can go to a public hospital and get attention.

Any Nicaraguan can go to a public hospital and have an operation, have serious diagnostics undertaken by state of the art equipment and there’s no bill. And the United States hasn’t been able to put a system together on which there’s consensus with regard to having a public health system in the United States. Nicaragua’s light years ahead of the United States. It’s not presumptuous to say at all that the United States could learn a lot from Nicaragua in terms of the family, community health care system with the free universal health system existing alongside a private heath care system for those who prefer that, but a truly public system.

Nicaragua has capitalized poor people with programs ike Zero Hunger and Zero Usury in a highly effective manner which has taken a lot of people out of poverty. And via schemes that are much better than those proposed by the international organizations who are trying to sell Nicaragua these measures, these conditional grants, to give a conditional grant to a family, to give them money so that their child would go to school or go to the health center to have a check up. Nicaragua doesn’t do that. Nicaragua didn’t accept that.

Nicaraguan parents send their kids to school because that’s what you should do. Nicaraguan parents have a consciousness of taking their kids to the health center to get vaccinated without anyone paying them to do it. What happens in Nicaragua is that a poor rural family receives a pregnant cow, a pregnant sow, chickens who don’t need to be pregnant because they take care of it themselves.

The program also has seed, fertilizer, corral materials and so you turn the woman in the household into a second producer in the family. And you improve nutrition through the animal protein that the family all of a sudden has. The family income improves because they take their surplus to market and sell it.

In the urban area, you have Zero Usury which is the credit scheme, the micro-credit scheme like those in Bangladesh and the rest of the world that everyone knows. But this one is different and it’s called Zero Usury. Micro-credit organizations in the world and some in Nicaragua too charge 30% or 40% a year for their loans. This is the problem that the model has everywhere. They had that  problem in Bangladesh and in India too of a high interest rate. In Nicaragua, it’s 5% per annum. So it’s not the micro-credit organization NGO that’s gaining the accumulation of capital.

It’s the small merchant, the small artisan. Some of them are on their fourth or fifth loans as they’re capitalizing themselves. So these are policies of redistribution in terms of universal free health and education among other programs. And then of capitalizing the poor through Usura Cero and Hambre Cero and improving roads, highways, electricity, water, sanitation that improve the quality of life of the poor also.

TcS : Do you think it’s fair to say Dr. Oquist, that Nicaragua, apart from being a model in its health programs and, to some extent too in its education programs in my opinion, more especially with regard to climate change in the way it’s changing its energy matrix, but also in its food self-sufficiency, it’s food sovereignty. Do you think it’s true to say that all these things make Nicaragua a very special country and for that reason for example it is treated with respect by much larger countries like the Russian Federation and the People’s Republic of China?

Dr. Oquist : This is what explains Nicaragua’s COVID-19 policy as well. 40% of the population lives and works in the countryside, 40%. These people cannot be confined. they have lots of things to do every day with the cows, with the chickens, with the fields, especially in April and May which is the planting season. And so it would be ridiculous to have a confinement of these people. They have to get out and earn their subsistence. They are in a subsistence or semi-subsistence economy.

Then, we have the urban informal sector, which is the majority of the workers, the informal sector and if they don’t earn their livelihood every day, they don’t eat, their family doesn’t eat. That is where the poor people are, in the countryside and in the informal sector. So this policy has been protecting the interests of the poor people. The same with the schools in the public system remaining open. In the private schools the kids can have internet classes, because these are middle class families with computers. The kids have tablets. They have 4G cell phones.

The poor urban people and the poor rural people, their kids would be left out if you tried to tell them that they were going to have internet education. So once again the policy has been to defend the poor, while promoting strict social distancing, while promoting masks, ever more so as you hear through the media and through the recommendations to everyone to take care of themselves.

TcS : Shifting back to the broader global context, you say at one point in “Equilibra” that “it’s easier for us to continue transforming nature than to transform ourselves” which makes you sound a bit pessimistic. Are you pessimistic about our prospects for planetary survival? What can each of us do as individuals to defend humanity and the natural world?

Dr. Oquist : Actually, that statement is a conclusion after seeing that the way humans have developed across the paleolithic time span, the neolithic and then coming into the copper age, the bronze age, the steel age, civilization advancing to scientific and technological revolutions. We have advanced as a species by transforming nature. By learning more about nature and learning how to transform nature to our ends. So that’s what makes it hard for us to stop doing that, to stop continuing to try and transform nature.

Because it’s been our success story It’s been our formula for success and all of a sudden we need to put on the brake. We need to get smarter and find new ways of doing things. That makes it hard. It makes it hard because people realize that… they’re so accustomed to earning their living transforming nature. And that’s another of the alienations also that are really pernicious, like favoring short term action that damages nature even when we realize the long term consequences.

That’s happening. People know it’s going to hurt nature, know it’s going to hurt humanity, but they continue doing it. So there’s lots of things to overcome. there’s lots of things to overcome and there’s that capitalist mindset, there’s the hegemonic political, economic and social system that reinforces capitalism. So the battle is tough. But where is the hope? The hope is in the movements. The hope is in the people obliging the politicians to take action.

That’s what happened with anti-slavery. That’s what happened with anti-colonialism. The politicians moved in the end and the governments. But they were obliged by the people to do so and I think that has to happen again. And I hope that the generational change will push this over. All these movements, the extinction movement, the environmental movement, all of these are important in putting together a survival movement. A movement in which we recognize that we are not eternal, that we are not immortal, that we can become extinct.

And things that we are doing now increase the probability of our becoming extinct and reduce the probability that life will prevail. Why? Because we are damaging the ecosystems from which life sprang and which have maintained life on planet Earth. We can do that in a slow onset way, like increasing the world’s temperature until it reaches 50° and we can no longer exist.

Or we can do it fast and dirty with a nuclear exchange that makes human life as we know it impossible and provokes a nuclear winter of 10 years with no sunshine because there’s so much dust in the air for so long. And radioactive dust on top of that. So there are huge risks but we need to organize, we need to be proactive and put together this survival movement which “Equilibra” poses as the solution.

TcS : Something that struck me about the book is that it’s very innovative in its presentation. It presents its argument and asks for feedback. Am I right in that?

Dr. Oquist : Yes. “Equilibra” is designed to be an interactive, living book. On the “Equilibra” web site there’s Replacement 1 and Replacement 2 at www.equilibra.org, which refer to the two volumes of “Equilibra”. Each theme is organized in ten statements of three or four lines each and each of those is numbered to make it esy to say, for example, “with regard to 363 this data is wrong please change the data, it should be such-and-such”. Or , “with regard to 450 to 455, this analysis is weak and should be changed for such-and-such”.

I’m organizing an “Equilibra” panel that will receive these proposals for changes and those that are approved will go on web site real time revision of “Equilibra” that’s updated as the changes are approved. And a footnote credit will be made to those who send in the changes. That way the book can be continually changing, transforming. As new things pop up they can be included through this concept of the living book.

So one of the reasons that it’s the first book written in tweets that are numbered is so that this can be manageable. So you can cut this one tweet out and say, “this should be changed to such-and-such” and then if can be considered. While the reason for the panel is to avoid the flaw in Wikipedia, that if you just put in anything anyone sends in you can start to fill up with some garbage too, as well as good insights and wisdom. So we do want to control it, but we do want it to happen.

***

Dr. Paul Oquist is Minister-Private Secretary for National Policy for the President of the Republic of Nicaragua, Commandant Daniel Ortega Saavedra.

Dr. Oquist is a former Member of the Board of Directors of the Green Climate Fund, and he was elected by the developing countries in the Green Climate Fund to represent them as Co-Chair of the Board of Directors in 2018 and now remains an Advisor. Dr. Oquist lobbied for the organization of the Green Climate Fund in COP-16 in Cancun, served on the Transition Committee (2010–2011) that produced a proposal, while Nicaragua was named for the final negotiation in Durban by the G-77+China with the United States that represented the developed country constituency.

Dr. Oquist is a third-term member of the Standing Committee of Finance (SCF) of the UNCCC. He represented the SCF in the Interim Directorate of the Warsaw Mechanism of Losses and Damages.

He was a member for two consecutive terms (2010–2017) of the United Nations Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) Committee of Experts on Public Administration (CEPA).

Dr. Oquist was also the spokesperson for the ALBA countries at COP-15 in Copenhagen in their defense of the multilateral negotiating process in the face of the attempt to impose a parallel document initiated by the largest emitters without multilateral negotiations that take into account developing countries. The one-sided document was successfully blocked.

Dr. Oquist was Senior Adviser to the President of the 63rd General Assembly of the United Nations, Father Miguel D’Escoto Brockmann. In that capacity he was Chief Negotiator for the Second Financing for the Development Meeting held in Doha, Qatar, in November, 2008, which surprisingly approved a high-level United Nations meeting on the “Financial and Economic Crisis and its Impact on Development” that Dr. Oquist coordinated on behalf of Father Miguel d’Escoto Brockmann in June, 2009.

Dr. Oquist holds a Ph.D. (1976) and an M.A. (1967) in Political Science from the University of California, Berkeley, while his bachelor in Political Science was from U.C.L.A (1966). He was Professor of Political Science at the University of the Andes in Bogotá, Colombia (1970–1975). He has also taught in FLACSO (Santiago and Quito) and the Latin American Post-Graduate School of Economics (ESCOLATINA) of the University of Chile.

 

*

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 Tortilla con Sal.

‘Cancel Culture’ Letter Is About Stifling Free Speech, Not Protecting It

July 13th, 2020 by Jonathan Cook

An open letter published by Harper’s magazine, and signed by 150 prominent writers and public figures, has focused attention on the apparent dangers of what has been termed a new “cancel culture”. 

The letter brings together an unlikely alliance of genuine leftists, such as Noam Chomsky and Matt Karp, centrists such as J K Rowling and Ian Buruma, and neoconservatives such as David Frum and Bari Weiss, all speaking out in defence of free speech.

Although the letter doesn’t explicitly use the term “cancel culture”, it is clearly what is meant in the complaint about a “stifling” cultural climate that is imposing “ideological conformity” and weakening “norms of open debate and toleration of differences”.

It is easy to agree with the letter’s generalised argument for tolerance and free and fair debate. But the reality is that many of those who signed are utter hypocrites, who have shown precisely zero commitment to free speech, either in their words or in their deeds.

Further, the intent of many them in signing the letter is the very reverse of their professed goal: they want to stifle free speech, not protect it.

To understand what is really going on with this letter, we first need to scrutinise the motives, rather than the substance, of the letter.

Click to access Harper’s article

A new ‘illiberalism’ 

“Cancel culture” started as the shaming, often on social media, of people who were seen to have said offensive things. But of late, cancel culture has on occasion become more tangible, as the letter notes, with individuals fired or denied the chance to speak at a public venue or to publish their work.

The letter denounces this supposedly new type of “illiberalism”:

“We uphold the value of robust and even caustic counter-speech from all quarters. But it is now all too common to hear calls for swift and severe retribution in response to perceived transgressions of speech and thought. …

“Editors are fired for running controversial pieces; books are withdrawn for alleged inauthenticity; journalists are barred from writing on certain topics; professors are investigated for quoting works of literature in class; … The result has been to steadily narrow the boundaries of what can be said without the threat of reprisal. We are already paying the price in greater risk aversion among writers, artists, and journalists who fear for their livelihoods if they depart from the consensus, or even lack sufficient zeal in agreement.”

Tricky identity politics 

The array of signatories is actually more troubling than reassuring. If we lived in a more just world, some of those signing – like Frum, a former speechwriter for President George W Bush, and Anne-Marie Slaughter, a former US State Department official – would be facing a reckoning before a Hague war crimes tribunal for their roles in promoting “interventions” in Iraq and Libya respectively, not being held up as champions of free speech.

That is one clue that these various individuals have signed the letter for very different reasons.

Chomsky signed because he has been a lifelong and consistent defender of the right to free speech, even for those with appalling opinions such as Holocaust denial.

Frum, who coined the term “axis of evil” that rationalised the invasion of Iraq, and Weiss, a New York Times columnist, signed because they have found their lives getting tougher. True, it is easy for them to dominate platforms in the corporate media while advocating for criminal wars abroad, and they have paid no career price when their analyses and predictions have turned out to be so much dangerous hokum. But they are now feeling the backlash on university campuses and social media.

Meanwhile, centrists like Buruma and Rowling have discovered that it is getting ever harder to navigate the tricky terrain of identity politics without tripping up. The reputational damage can have serious consequences.

Buruma famously lost his job as editor of the New York Review of Books two years ago after after he published and defended an article that violated the new spirit of the #MeToo movement. And Rowling made the mistake of thinking her followers would be as fascinated by her traditional views on transgender issues as they are by her Harry Potter books.

‘Fake news, Russian trolls’ 

But the fact that all of these writers and intellectuals agree that there is a price to be paid in the new, more culturally sensitive climate does not mean that they are all equally interested in protecting the right to be controversial or outspoken.

Chomsky, importantly, is defending free speech for all, because he correctly understands that the powerful are only too keen to find justifications to silence those who challenge their power. Elites protect free speech only in so far as it serves their interests in dominating the public space.

If those on the progressive left do not defend the speech rights of everyone, even their political opponents, then any restrictions will soon be turned against them. The establishment will always tolerate the hate speech of a Trump or a Bolsonaro over the justice speech of a Sanders or a Corbyn.

By contrast, most of the rest of those who signed – the rightwingers and the centrists – are interested in free speech for themselves and those like them. They care about protecting free speech only in so far as it allows them to continue dominating the public space with their views – something they were only too used to until a few years ago, before social media started to level the playing field a little.

The centre and the right have been fighting back ever since with claims that anyone who seriously challenges the neoliberal status quo at home and the neoconservative one abroad is promoting “fake news” or is a “Russian troll”. This updating of the charge of being “un-American” embodies cancel culture at its very worst.

Social media accountability 

In other words, apart from in the case of a few progressives, the letter is simply special pleading – for a return to the status quo. And for that reason, as we shall see, Chomsky might have been better advised not to have added his name, however much he agrees with the letter’s vague, ostensibly pro-free speech sentiments.

What is striking about a significant proportion of those who signed is their self-identification as ardent supporters of Israel. And as Israel’s critics know only too well, advocates for Israel have been at the forefront of the cancel culture – from long before the term was even coined.

For decades, pro-Israel activists have sought to silence anyone seen to be seriously critiquing this small, highly militarised state, sponsored by the colonial powers, that was implanted in a region rich with a natural resource, oil, needed to lubricate the global economy, and at a terrible cost to its native, Palestinian population.

Nothing should encourage us to believe that zealous defenders of Israel among those signing the letter have now seen the error of their ways. Their newfound concern for free speech is simply evidence that they have begun to suffer from the very same cancel culture they have always promoted in relation to Israel.

They have lost control of the “cancel culture” because of two recent developments: a rapid growth in identity politics among liberals and leftists, and a new popular demand for “accountability” spawned by the rise of social media.

Cancelling Israel’s critics 

In fact, despite their professions of concern, the evidence suggests that some of those signing the letter have been intensifying their own contribution to cancel culture in relation to Israel, rather than contesting it.

That is hardly surprising. The need to counter criticism of Israel has grown more pressing as Israel has more obviously become a pariah state. Israel has refused to countenance peace talks with the Palestinians and it has intensified its efforts to realise long-harboured plans to annex swaths of the West Bank in violation of international law.

Rather than allow “robust and even caustic counter-speech from all quarters” on Israel, Israel’s supporters have preferred the tactics of those identified in the letter as enemies of free speech: “swift and severe retribution in response to perceived transgressions of speech and thought”.

Just ask Jeremy Corbyn, the former leader of the Labour party who was reviled, along with his supporters, as an antisemite – one of the worst smears imaginable – by several people on the Harper’s list, including Rowling and Weiss. Such claims were promoted even though his critics could produce no actual evidence of an antisemitism problem in the Labour party.

Similarly, think of the treatment of Palestinian solidarity activists who support a boycott of Israel (BDS), modelled on the one that helped push South Africa’s leaders into renouncing apartheid. BDS activists too have been smeared as antisemites – and Weiss again has been a prime offender.

The incidents highlighted in the Harper’s letter in which individuals have supposedly been cancelled is trivial compared to the cancelling of a major political party and of a movement that stands in solidarity with a people who have been oppressed for decades.

And yet how many of these free speech warriors have come forward to denounce the fact that leftists – including many Jewish anti-Zionists – have been pilloried as antisemites to prevent them from engaging in debates about Israel’s behaviour and its abuses of Palestinian rights?

How many of them have decried the imposition of a new definition of antisemitism, by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance, that has been rapidly gaining ground in western countries?

That definition is designed to silence a large section of the left by prioritising the safety of Israel from being criticised before the safety of Jews from being vilified and attacked – something that even the lawyer who authored the definition has come to regret.

Why has none of this “cancel culture” provoked an open letter to Harper’s from these champions of free speech?

Double-edge sword

The truth is that many of those who signed the letter are defending not free speech but their right to continue dominating the public square – and their right to do so without being held accountable.

Bari Weiss, before she landed a job at the Wall Street Journal and then the New York Times, spent her student years trying to get Muslim professors fired from her university – cancelling them – because of their criticism of Israel. And she explicitly did so under the banner of “academic freedom”, claiming pro-Israel students felt intimidated in the classroom.

The New York Civil Liberties Union concluded that it was Weiss, not the professors, who was the real threat to academic freedom. This was not some youthful indiscretion. In a book last year Weiss cited her efforts to rid Columbia university of these professors as a formative experience on which she still draws.

Weiss and many of the others listed under the letter are angry that the rhetorical tools they used for so long to stifle the free speech of others have now been turned against them. Those who lived for so long by the sword of identity politics – on Israel, for example – are worried that their reputations may die by that very same sword – on issues of race, sex and gender.

Narcissistic concern

To understand how the cancel culture is central to the worldview of many of these writers and intellectuals, and how blind they are to their own complicity in that culture, consider the case of Jonathan Freedland, a columnist with the supposedly liberal-left British newspaper the Guardian. Although Freedland is not among those signing the letter, he is very much aligned with the centrists among them and, of course, supported the letter in an article published in the Guardian.

Freedland, we should note, led the “cancel culture” campaign against the Labour party referenced above. He was one of the key figures in Britain’s Jewish community who breathed life into the antisemitism smears against Corbyn and his supporters.

But note the brief clip below. In it, Freedland’s voice can be heard cracking as he explains how he has been a victim of the cancel culture himself: he confesses that he has suffered verbal and emotional abuse at the hands of Israel’s most extreme apologists – those who are even more unapologetically pro-Israel than he is.

He reports that he has been called a “kapo”, the term for Jewish collaborators in the Nazi concentration camps, and a “sonderkommando”, the Jews who disposed of the bodies of fellow Jews killed in the gas chambers. He admits such abuse “burrows under your skin” and “hurts tremendously”.

And yet, despite the personal pain he has experienced of being unfairly accused, of being cancelled by a section of his own community, Freedland has been at the forefront of the campaign to tar critics of Israel, including anti-Zionist Jews, as antisemites on the flimsiest of evidence.

He is entirely oblivious to the ugly nature of the cancel culture –unless it applies to himself. His concern is purely narcissistic. And so it is with the majority of those who signed the letter.

Conducting a monologue 

The letter’s main conceit is the pretence that “illiberalism” is a new phenomenon, that free speech is under threat, and that the cancel culture only arrived at the moment it was given a name.

That is simply nonsense. Anyone over the age of 35 can easily remember a time when newspapers and websites did not have a talkback section, when blogs were few in number and rarely read, and when there was no social media on which to challenge or hold to account “the great and the good”.

Writers and columnists like those who signed the letter were then able to conduct a monologue in which they revealed their opinions to the rest of us as if they were Moses bringing down the tablets from the mountaintop.

In those days, no one noticed the cancel culture – or was allowed to remark on it. And that was because only those who held approved opinions were ever given a media platform from which to present those opinions.

Before the digital revolution, if you dissented from the narrow consensus imposed by the billionaire owners of the corporate media, all you could do was print your own primitive newsletter and send it by post to the handful of people who had heard of you.

That was the real cancel culture. And the proof is in the fact that many of those formerly obscure writers quickly found they could amass tens of thousands of followers – with no help from the traditional corporate media – when they had access to blogs and social media.

Silencing the left 

Which brings us to the most troubling aspect of the open letter in Harper’s. Under cover of calls for tolerance, given credibility by Chomsky’s name, a proportion of those signing actually want to restrict the free speech of one section of the population – the part influenced by Chomsky.

They are not against the big cancel culture from which they have benefited for so long. They are against the small cancel culture – the new more chaotic, and more democratic, media environment we currently enjoy – in which they are for the first time being held to account for their views, on a range of issues including Israel.

Just as Weiss tried to get professors fired under the claim of academic freedom, many of these writers and public figures are using the banner of free speech to discredit speech they don’t like, speech that exposes the hollowness of their own positions.

Their criticisms of “cancel culture” are really about prioritising “responsible” speech, defined as speech shared by centrists and the right that shores up the status quo. They want a return to a time when the progressive left – those who seek to disrupt a manufactured consensus, who challenge the presumed verities of neoliberal and neoconservative orthodoxy – had no real voice.

The new attacks on “cancel culture” echo the attacks on Bernie Sanders’ supporters, who were framed as “Bernie Bros” – the evidence-free allegation that he attracted a rabble of aggressive, women-hating men who tried to bully others into silence on social media.

Just as this claim was used to discredit Sanders’ policies, so the centre and the right now want to discredit the left more generally by implying that, without curbs, they too will bully everyone else into silence and submission through their “cancel culture”.

If this conclusion sounds unconvincing, consider that President Donald Trump could easily have added his name to the letter alongside Chomsky’s. Trump used his recent Independence Day speech at Mount Rushmore to make similar points to the Harper’s letter. He at least was explicit in equating “cancel culture” with what he called “far-left fascism”:

“One of [the left’s] political weapons is ‘Cancel Culture’ – driving people from their jobs, shaming dissenters, and demanding total submission from anyone who disagrees. This is the very definition of totalitarianism … This attack on our liberty, our magnificent liberty, must be stopped, and it will be stopped very quickly.”

Trump, in all his vulgarity, makes plain what the Harper’s letter, in all its cultural finery, obscures. That attacks on the new “cancel culture” are simply another front – alongside supposed concerns about “fake news” and “Russian trolls” – in the establishment’s efforts to limit speech by the left.

Attention redirected 

This is not to deny that there is fake news on social media or that there are trolls, some of them even Russian. Rather, it is to point out that our attention is being redirected, and our concerns manipulated by a political agenda.

Despite the way it has been presented in the corporate media, fake news on social media has been mostly a problem of the right. And the worst examples of fake news – and the most influential – are found not on social media at all, but on the front pages of the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times.

What genuinely fake news on Facebook has ever rivalled the lies justifying the invasion of Iraq in 2003 that were knowingly peddled by a political elite and their stenographers in the corporate media. Those lies led directly to more than a million Iraqi deaths, turned millions more into refugees, destroyed an entire country, and fuelled a new type of nihilistic Islamic extremism whose effects we are still feeling.

Most of the worst lies from the current period – those that have obscured or justified US interference in Syria and Venezuela, or rationalised war crimes against Iran, or approved the continuing imprisonment of Julian Assange for exposing war crimes – can only be understood by turning our backs on the corporate media and looking to experts who can rarely find a platform outside of social media.

Algorithms changed 

I say this as someone who has concerns about the fashionable focus on identity politics rather than class politics. I say it also as someone who rejects all forms of cancel culture – whether it is the old-style, “liberal” cancel culture that imposes on us a narrow “consensus” politics (the Overton window), or the new “leftwing” cancel culture that too often prefers to focus on easy cultural targets like Rowling than the structural corruption of western political systems.

But those who are impressed by the letter simply because Chomsky’s name is attached should beware. Just as “fake news” has provided the pretext for Google and social media platforms to change their algorithms to vanish leftwingers from searches and threads, just as “antisemitism” has been redefined to demonise the left, so too the supposed threat of “cancel culture” will be exploited to silence the left.

Protecting Bari Weiss and J K Rowling from a baying leftwing “mob” – a mob that that claims a right to challenge their views on Israel or trans issues – will become the new rallying cry from the establishment for action against “irresponsible” or “intimidating” speech.

Progressive leftists who join these calls out of irritation with the current focus on identity politics, or because they fear being labelled an antisemite, or because they mistakenly assume that the issue really is about free speech, will quickly find that they are the main targets.

In defending free speech, they will end up being the very ones who are silenced.

UPDATE: 

You don’t criticise Chomsky however tangentially and respectfully – at least not from a left perspective – without expecting a whirlwind of opposition. But one issue that keeps being raised on my social media feeds in his defence is just plain wrong-headed, so I want to quickly address it. Here’s one my followers expressing the point succinctly:

“The sentiments in the letter stand or fall on their own merits, not on the characters or histories of some of the signatories, nor their future plans.”

The problem, as I’m sure Chomsky would explain in any other context, is that this letter fails not just because of the other people who signed it but on its merit too. And that’s because, as I explain above, it ignores the most oppressive and most established forms of cancel culture, as Chomsky should have been the first to notice.

Highlighting the small cancel culture, while ignoring the much larger, establishment-backed cancel culture, distorts our understanding of what is at stake and who wields power.

Chomsky unwittingly just helped a group of mostly establishment stooges skew our perceptions of free speech problems so that we side with them against ourselves. There is no way that can be a good thing. 

UPDATE 2: 

There are still people holding out against the idea that it harmed the left to have Chomsky sign this letter. And rather than address their points individually, let me try another way of explaining my argument:

Why has Chomsky not signed a letter backing the furore over “fake news”, even though there is some fake news on social media? Why has he not endorsed the “Bernie Bros” narrative, even though doubtless there are some bullying Sanders supporters on social media? Why has he not supported the campaign claiming the Labour party has an antisemitism problem, even though there are some antisemites in the Labour party (as there are everywhere)?

He hasn’t joined any of those campaigns for a very obvious reason – because he understands how power works, and that on the left you hit up, not down. You certainly don’t cheerlead those who are up as they hit down.

Chomsky understands this principle only too well because here he is setting it out in relation to Iran:

“Suppose I criticise Iran. What impact does that have? The only impact it has is in fortifying those who want to carry out policies I don’t agree with, like bombing.”

For exactly the same reason he has not joined those pillorying Iran – because his support would be used for nefarious ends – he shouldn’t have joined this campaign. He made a mistake. He’s fallible. 

Also, this isn’t about the left eating itself. Really, Chomsky shouldn’t be the issue. The issue should be that a bunch of centrists and right-wingers used this letter to try to reinforce a narrative designed to harm the left, and lay the groundwork for further curbs on its access to social media. But because Chomsky signed the letter, many more leftists are now buying into that narrative – a narrative intended to harm them. That’s why Chomsky’s role cannot be ignored, nor his mistake glossed over.

UPDATE 3: 

I had not anticipated how many ways people on the left might find to justify this letter.

Here’s the latest reasoning. Apparently, the letter sets an important benchmark that can in future be used to protect free speech by the left when we are threatened with being “cancelled” – as, for example, with the antisemitism smears that were used against anti-Zionist Jews and other critics of Israel in the British Labour party.

I should hardly need to point out how naive this argument is. It completely ignores how power works in our societies: who gets to decide what words mean and how principles are applied. This letter won’t help the left because “cancel culture” is being framed – by this letter, by Trump, by the media – as a “loony left” problem. It is a new iteration of the “politically correct gone mad” discourse, and it will be used in exactly the same way.

It won’t help Steven Salaita, sacked from a university job because he criticised Israel’s killing of civilians in Gaza, or Chris Williamson, the Labour MP expelled because he defended the party’s record on being anti-racist.

The “cancel culture” furore isn’t interested in the fact that they were “cancelled”. Worse still, this moral panic turns the whole idea of cancelling on its head: it is Salaita and Williamson who are accused – and found guilty – of doing the cancelling, of cancelling Israel and Jews.

Israel’s supporters will continue to win this battle by claiming that criticism of Israel “cancels” that country (“wipes it off the map”), “cancels” Israel’s Jewish population (“drives them into the sea”), and “cancels” Jews more generally (“denies a central component of modern Jewish identity”).

Greater awareness of “cancel culture” would not have saved Corbyn from the antisemitism smears because the kind of cancel culture that smeared Corbyn is never going to be defined as “cancelling”.

For anyone who wishes to see how this works in practice, watch Guardian columnist Owen Jones cave in – as he has done so often – to the power dynamics of the “cancel culture” discourse in this interview with Sky News. I actually agree with almost everything Jones says in this clip, apart from his joining yet again in the witch-hunt against Labour’s anti-Zionists. He doesn’t see that witch-hunt as “cancel culture”, and neither will anyone else with a large platform like his to protect:

*

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 essay first appeared on Jonathan Cook’s blog.

Jonathan Cook won the Martha Gellhorn Special Prize for Journalism. His books include “Israel and the Clash of Civilisations: Iraq, Iran and the Plan to Remake the Middle East” (Pluto Press) and “Disappearing Palestine: Israel’s Experiments in Human Despair” (Zed Books). His website is www.jonathan-cook.net. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from MediaPost

Enter the Virus… The Great ‘Reset’ of Capitalism

July 13th, 2020 by William Bowles

Why can’t I shake the feeling that the Virus is really the back story, a story that diverts us from something far deeper and much more threatening than the much-maligned Virus? The social distancing; the masks; the lockdown; the shutdown; all designed to distract? And the glue that cements it all together? Fear.

There are so many colliding stories coexisting in the history of the Great Global Lockdown, that serve to confuse and misdirect investigations, that figuring out what’s actually going on, is very, very difficult. Conflicts of interest abound, hidden agendas can be briefly glimpsed, then vanish under the waves of state-directed propaganda. But if there’s one overriding aspect to this event it’s fear. Fear engendered in the populations and the fear the ruling classes are experiencing that their rule might be coming to an end, either through environmental collapse or (praise be) revolution.

Global Heating and the Crisis of Capital, two earth-shattering issues. One threatens the future of Humanity and the other, the future of Capitalism. That the two are intimately interconnected, is surely obvious to all who care to look. And then we have the Virus. Taken together, the perfect storm?

Once more, the inherent contradictions of the capitalist economy are manifesting themselves, also in the usual manner; a falling rate of profit leading to reduced investment leading to bankruptcies and the meltdown of the economy, leading to, as before, mass unemployment and ultimately of course, war. At least, that’s how it used to be. But is war on a global scale now possible, or indeed even necessary to solve the crisis of the over-accumulation of capital and the falling rate of profit and all the other paradoxes and contradictions that capitalism creates for itself?

Enter the virus

The ruling classes of the Anglo-American Empire have concluded that the coming environmental collapse will deal with the ‘problem’ of surplus labour and the propitious arrival of the virus will between them, take care of these twin problems and the problem of the falling rate of profit but without recourse to turning the planet into a radioactive cinder first. Well that’s the theory.  As they say, a ‘global reset’ is in order, that is to say, a reset of the major capitalist economies. The weak and unprofitable will be eliminated, the losers absorbed by the survivors. A global fire sale of bankrupt corporations will take place. An even vaster concentration of capital will take place.

This is not to say, that it was planned, the ruling class are nothing if not opportunists and in any case, are they really masters of their own destiny, driven as they are by forces that most are, at best, only dimly aware of? You need proof? Dominic Cummings. Donald Trump. Boris Johnson.

The virus is merely the catalyst, the global lockdown will take care of the ‘surplus’ population as it already is. Predictions of a billion starving people, virtually all in the Global South, are already coming to pass. But we, in the so-called developed world have, for the most part, been well-insulated from the reality of a planet in lockdown. Fear rules us and makes us impotent.

The run-up to the reset

Back in February, the doomsayer of the British state, Neil Ferguson, told us that his ancient software predicted half-million deaths from the virus. Fear ruled us and in that moment, the Coronavirus Bill was ushered through Parliament with nary a dissenting voice. The Lockdown State was upon us. Within weeks millions were made redundant. Small to- medium-sized businesses make up 80% of the real economy and the High Street died, probably never to recover. But note that the major supermarkets that control the bulk of purchases were allowed to remain open. As was Amazon. Make no mistake, this is all about Big Business.

Then Ferguson revised his Nostradamus-like predictions downwards, from 500,000 to 20,000 and still got it wrong but for an entirely different reason. Having set the virus of fear loose, it was vital to take back control of the narrative. But the half million served its purpose. Time to move on to the real business of saving capitalism, from itself.

There is some kind of insane logic to the way the Tory government operates, I believe it’s called ‘flying by the seat of your pants’. The British capitalist class has a bunch of total incompetents trying to run the state on their behalf as if it were merely outsourcing business opportunities to some very flaky ‘entrepreneurs’. Corruption and incompetence rules. A crew of nasty imperialist racists who can’t see beyond the current ripoff, that’s who is pretending to run Great Britain. Churchill must be revolving slowly in in his grave.

What appeared to be the government’s apparent indifference to the arrival of the Virus was in fact a thinly disguised Fascism in the shape of ‘Herd Immunity’, itself a variant of the theory of Eugenics or Social Darwinism or survival of the fittest, an idea that first surfaced in the 19th century and was enthusiastically adopted by the ruling classes of Britain, Germany and the USA.

Let the Virus spread and the ‘weak’ will die and the ‘strong’ will survive, best exemplified when the virus was given free reign to spread through care homes and the proof is in the numbers, and although it’s proving difficult to find accurate figures, it’s estimated that at the very least 16,000 people died in care homes who needn’t have had their lives cut short and so brutally, about half of the total number of deaths, so far, though because of changes made to how deaths are recorded by the Coronavirus Bill, making accurate estimates is now all but impossible.

About 3,500 people died in care homes in Germany compared with more than 16,000 in the UK, despite Germany having a care home population twice as large. Its test-and-trace system and 14-day quarantine for people leaving hospital have been credited with protecting homes from outbreaks. – The Guardian, 28 June 2020

Benign neglect? I don’t think so. Discharging people sick from the Virus back into care homes, turned them into modern versions of Typhoid Mary. Care home workers were given no protection whatsoever, guaranteeing that their carers would both spread the virus and get infected by it, from those they cared for!

Hospitals were emptied for a flood of patients that never materialised! The so-called Nightingale Hospitals, 17,000 beds in total and launched with great fanfare had a total 60 patients and those were moved from regular hospitals. People were discouraged from visiting their local doctors, operations were cancelled, examinations were cancelled. Will we ever know the real death toll, not from the Virus but from the denial of needed care or from those too afraid to go to hospital? I’m prepared to wager that the total number of these ‘excess’ deaths will far outnumber the deaths from the Virus.

And of course, the destruction of vital social services by the Tory government fed into how the government responded to the Virus and it was directly expressed in the propaganda blitz; ‘Protect the NHS’, ‘Save Lives’, an NHS that had been emasculated by the very government that now claimed it wanted to protect it! Worse still, the same propaganda assault, blamed the public for the government’s failures in stemming the spread of the Virus.

But lest we forget, because the government’s initial reaction was to ‘let the virus rip’ through our communities, all the subsequent ‘social distancing’, ‘lockdowns’ and ‘face masking’ was rendered useless (if any of it ever worked in the first place) as the virus had been allowed to spread throughout the entire British population! It’s this initial event that was the single cause of the UK having one of the highest death rates, per capita, in the so-called developed world.

And to this engineered disaster, we haves the destruction of our social services after 10 years of Austerity as part of the neoliberal agenda of privatising everything! 50% fewer hospital beds than 10 years ago; a shortage of 40,000 nursing staff; the closure of hospitals and Accident & Emergency departments, as the state gears up for the total privatisation of health care in the UK. No doubt, the profitable bits will be fire-saled to US investors and the public will pick up the costs of the unprofitable bits left behind, after being raped by international capital. Again, the irony is not lost on the writer, of a former empire that ripped off the planet, now being picked clean by its successors. But it’s no justice to the millions of people the NHS still tries to serve, or to the millions who work for the NHS, the biggest employer in the UK.

Meanwhile…

After all, the virus and the methods chosen to allegedly, ‘deal’ with it, do not affect the rich, for them life goes on, no need of a ‘furlough’ for the 1%. Yes, it is an inconvenience but nothing that the ruling classes haven’t dealt with before eg, World Wars I and II come to mind. And indeed, as we have seen over the past three months, specific sections of the capitalist economy have made vast profits from the virus, especially the new digital industries. And for the most part, the professional middle classes have been only minimally affected by lockdowns and closures, so the core of neoliberal Britain, finance and consumption, appears, bizarrely, to continue as if everything is hunky-dory! Watching tv commercials brings it all home, to me at least. A parallel universe in garish colours, close-up, where people play out fantasy consumption roles for an imprisoned audience.

I predicate this view on the fact that the capitalist class knew quite well that its predations of the natural world would, at some time lead to ‘novel’ diseases, they even carried out a ‘dry run’ just prior to the appearance of the Virus and shortly thereafter produced the Coronavirus Bill here in the UK, consisting of hundreds of pages that had obviously had been in preparation, if not already written, well before the Virus’ arrival. Precognition? I don’t think so. More importantly, the Bill handed the state ever more draconian powers over our liberties, powers that as I write, are being further extended. We are now living in a de facto police state. Except the rich.

It’s also obvious that the government knew quite well the consequences of its actions, whilst at the same time, proved totally incapable of acting on the basis of all the studies and dry runs that the government had conducted prior to the arrival of the Virus. Incapable or unwilling, or both?

In other words, the government is a ‘ship of fools’ and this is probably the most dangerous thing about the this Tory regime when you add their incompetence to their bankrupt, neoliberal ideology.

Giving the state ‘permission’ to imprison us

A lot of the mystery of the British state’s use of the Virus as a means of social control, became much clearer after I’d read the UK Cabinet Office’s document called ‘Mindspace’ – Influencing behaviour through public policy‘. Engineering opinion so that the public ‘gives its permission’ to be herded like cattle, locked up, pauperised and deprived of a future. The tools used are called Behavioural Psychology and involve evoking Pavlovian responses in the populace, which is how they get us to ‘give the state’ our permission, to do stuff:

This report is not just an overview of theory; it addresses the needs of policy-makers by:

  • Condensing the relevant evidence into a manageable “checklist”, to ensure policy-makers take account of the most robust effects on our behaviour
  • Demonstrating how behavioural theory can help meet current policy challenges, including full case studies of its application in the UK
  • Showing how government can build behavioural theory into its current policy-making practices
  • Exploring important issues around the need for public permission and the role of personal responsibility [my emph. WB]

The Report continues:

But when applying MINDSPACE in practice, it should not simply be seen as an alternative to existing methods. “Behaviour Change” is part of policy-making, rather than a novel alternative that can be bolted onto policies. Therefore, civil servants need to better understand the behavioural dimension of their policies and actions. MINDSPACE can help them do so in three different ways:

  • Enhance. MINDSPACE can help policy-makers understand how current attempts to change behaviour could be improved, for example through a better understanding of how people respond to incentives and which types of information are salient. The logic here is that if government is already attempting to shape behaviour, it should do so as effectively as possible.
  • Introduce. Some of the elements in MINDSPACE are not used extensively by policy-makers, yet may have a considerable impact. For example, there is room for more innovative use of social norms and commitment devices in policies. Of course, introducing new measures in this way may require significant efforts to ensure there is public permission for the approach.
  • Reassess. Government needs to understand the ways it may be changing the behaviour of citizens unintentionally. It is quite possible that government produces unintended – and possibly unwanted – changes in behaviour. The insights from MINDSPACE offer a rigorous way of analysing whether and how government is shaping the behaviour of its citizens.

MINDSPACE builds on existing methods of policy-making government produces unintended – and possibly unwanted – changes in behaviour. The insights from MINDSPACE offer a rigorous way of analysing whether and how government is shaping the behaviour of its citizens.

/../

The use of MINDSPACE (or other “nudge‟ type policy tools) may require careful handling – in essence, the public need to give permission and help shape how such tools are used. [my emph. WB] – ‘Mindspace’ – Influencing behaviour through public policy‘.

At the same time, this kind of approach to ruling people has a downside. The state can’t keep people in a state of fear indefinitely, any more than it can curtail economic activity indefinitely. The irony of the situation is that trade unions are demanding no return to work for fear of the Virus, even if for the vast majority the virus poses no threat.

[T]he great majority of people will not die from this and I’ll just repeat something I said right at the beginning because I think it’s worth reinforcing:

Most people, a significant proportion of people, will not get this virus at all, at any point of the epidemic which is going to go on for a long period of time.

Of those who do, some of them will get the virus without even knowing it, they will have the virus with no symptoms at all, asymptomatic carriage, and we know that happens. – Chris Whitty, Chief Medical Officer for England, 11 May, 2020

Whitty spilled the beans, almost at the beginning of this nightmare, which may explain why we see so little of him these days.

The mindbenders are hard at work invoking the ‘Spirit of WWII’, Churchillian rhetoric, kindof, Spitfires, the Blitz and Sacrifice, which translates as more and even worse Austerity for us all. After all, somebody has to pay for this mess and it won’t be the political class or its masters, the ruling class. As usual, it will be the poor what gets the blame and pays the price.

So it would seem that we are all in for a wild ride into an uncertain future, with the state pressing our buttons – fear then less fear, then more fear then back to less fear again.

The effects are already apparent with a rise in mind injury, especially amongst the young.

Fear keeps us from resisting this outrageous assault on what’s left of our liberties and all to preserve the rule of BIg Capital.

*

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

Featured image is from Pixabay

“Soft Power”: Americans in Its Grip at Home Must Face the Mischief It Wields

July 13th, 2020 by Barbara Nimri Aziz

I suspect most Americans would approve of what they understand to be this nation’s global cultural reach as expressed through its ‘soft power’. A term coined by an American political scientist, soft power “involves shaping the preferences of others through appeal and attraction”. Contrasted with coercive measures, it’s achieved largely through cultural means, although nevertheless a feature of foreign policy. Probably as old as politics itself.

Soft power politics are long-term, sociable and gentle. (Certainly nothing dangerous!) To say that they’re ideologically driven would be guileless. Some definitions are less circumspect, describing soft power as “using positive attraction and persuasion to achieve foreign policy objectives”. When at work domestically, it may be akin to kneeling-softly-on-the-neck, persuading Americans how this is a land of equality and unparalleled freedom.

U.S. citizens may even consider America’s soft power abroad with pride: “This is how we’re helping others– securing democratic principles, sharing advanced (sic) intellectual, medical and cultural resources. American films, so popular (and lucrative) globally, augmented by satellite-enabled news and entertainment channels are, I would argue, among the most effective examples of this power. Music and literature cannot be excluded too.

Boosting commercially-driven exports are government-funded programs like Peace Corps, high school scholarships, youth exchanges, anthropological research and conferences. All proceed at an undiminished pace, whichever party rules. These programs also carry that ‘cold light of reason’ imparted to foreign peoples held to be short on ‘objectivity’ or ‘reason’. Implicit in this largesse is an intellectual and aesthetic superiority on the part of the donor.

Globally, tens of millions indiscriminately embrace soft power projects originating in European (white) nations. They search them out and compete for any awards offered. Soft power programs can foster the belief in people that their own government is evil, hopeless— at least uncaring — leading such romantics to conclude it should be overthrown– if not internally, then by an invading force. They feel they are a doomed, emotional people unable to advance as long as they live in the smothering atmosphere of ‘tradition’ and of ‘tribalism’. To escape they must remodel their hair, learn to wear neckties and speak correctly, eat with a fork and acquire quality foreign accoutrements—from mountain bikes, Cuisinart toasters and Victoria’s Secret underwear, to Boeing fighter jets.

Let’s face it: that cultural bounty and the fabulous stuff associated with it is propaganda. Originator of the term soft power, Joseph Nye, admits “the best propaganda is not propaganda”.

What’s propaganda and what’s not is an ongoing debate. Leading American critics of imperialism as it’s dispensed via soft power include Edward Said, Malcolm X and Cornel West. They join generations of intellectuals and dissenters warning of its hazards. Across the world the destructive impact of that soft power is not wholly unopposed. Political prisoners and martyrs, armed rebels—women and men engage in the eternal struggle to lift off the imperial “knee on their neck”—both its soft and coercive iterations.

That oppressive “knee on their neck” has become the symbol of the American police state, manifest so compellingly and undeniably in the famous video of George Floyd’s murder.

America’s Black, Brown and Native populations are familiar with the brute force of that killer knee. They equally recognize the effectiveness of the knee’s soft power (unnoticed by others) in maintaining the status quo. The soft knee works into centuries of renegotiated treaties, temporary fixes, pleas for more time; it resists reform; it offers gratuitous sympathy, compromises and inclusion programs. Soft power is powerfully seductive, reinforced among all classes by a steady diet of Hollywood’s white savior tropes.

Often people are mollified by small gains and minor adjustments. Many become weary; they simply surrender. She learns to hold her breath, turn her eyes down and rush away to weep and scream in private. Daughter removes her head covering; brother marries out of his faith, shaves his beard; mother joins a temple or mosque.

Demanding real change is very risky. In 2016, a short-lived event although less dramatic than the removal of an inglorious military statue poignantly carries the weight of America’s soft-power-enforced history. Corey Menafee (image on the right), a longtime kitchen employee at Yale University regularly passed under an image, a stained glass window (see image below) which others, if they even noticed it, may have viewed as inconsequential, a quaint reference to the distant past. But Menafee’s ire rose each time he thought about it. He may have vowed to either leave his job or formally appeal for the image’s removal. To Menafee, it was a symbol of his enslaved ancestors and a romanticization of America’s crime of racism. That image of Black women cotton pickers reminded this man of the exploitation of his people: — a crime neither recognized, nor seen, nor felt by others.

Surely knowing it would cost him dearly Menafee made a courageous decision: he smashed the window. That supreme act may seem reckless but to this Black American– to anyone who knows the insult that that image speaks and the risk involved in challenging it– it’s a big deal, a very big deal.

This kind of protest, a mark of the Black American movement’s mission, compels us to recognize the seemingly innocuous effect of the soft power we inhale every day. That unchallenged window in a reputedly liberal university suggested that there’s no political implication there; it’s just art, just culture, decorative and hardly noteworthy.

To Black Americans it is an agonizing image, one of millions existing across our cultural and linguistic landscape. It’s more egregious, the rising call to action more urgent, because whites do not perceive their racial implications. That window remained embedded in the wall, year after year, generation after generation, seen by thousands of smart (sic) people while its hurtful and humiliating power went unopposed.

Al Sharpton, in his peerless eulogy at George Floyd’s memorial in Minneapolis, helped define American history for us this way:

“George Floyd’s story has been the story of black folks because ever since 401 years ago, the reason we could never be who we wanted and dreamed to being is you kept your knee on our neck. We were smarter than the underfunded schools you put us in, but you had your knee on our neck. We could run corporations and not hustle in the street, but you had your knee on our neck. We had creative skills, we could do whatever anybody else could do, but we couldn’t get your knee off our neck. What happened to Floyd happens every day in this country, in education, in health services, and in every area of American life, it’s time for us to stand up in George’s name and say get your knee off our necks. That’s the problem no matter who you are. We thought maybe we had […], maybe it was just us, but even blacks that broke through, you kept your knee on that neck. Michael Jordan won all of these championships, and you kept digging for mess because you got to put a knee on our neck. White housewives would run home to see a black woman on TV named Oprah Winfrey and you messed with her because you just can’t take your knee off our neck. A man comes out of a single parent home, educates himself and rises up and becomes the President of the United States and you ask him for his birth certificate because you can’t take your knee off our neck. The reason why we are marching all over the world is we were like George, we couldn’t breathe, not because there was something wrong with our lungs, but that you wouldn’t take your knee off our neck. We don’t want no favors, just get up off of us and we can be and do whatever we can be.”

That knee on the neck is more than a physical force. It’s the cultural conditioning, the light of cold reason, the deflection, the imbibed message that Blacks are not quite up to the arbitrary standard set and maintained within soft (white) power. That folksy depiction of women in the cotton field is simply a pleasing piece of art. The slave supporting the warrior that crowns a national museum is just an aesthetic compliment to its central (white) figure! African and Muslim headwear is impractical. Lungi wraps on men are unprofessional. And on and on.

Soft power is so dominant and simultaneously appears so innocuous, so embedded and integrated into white privilege and white’s assumptions of their dominant historical place, that they fail to see its propaganda. It also works on newcomers, notably Asian and Arab immigrants, who buy into the American dream. Having absorbed a steady diet of soft power in their homelands, they easily sanction and join the American status quo.

(Anthropologists–and I am one– are slow to admit our role in advancing the soft power of imperialism. After all, anthropology itself emerged hand-in-hand with the expansion of European imperial rule. We might do better to turn our analytical skills to exposing the soft-knee-on-the neck and vigorously work to demolish 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.

B. Nimri Aziz is an anthropologist and journalist who’s worked in Nepal since 1970, and published widely on peoples of the Himalayas. A new book on Nepali rebel women is forthcoming.

All images in this article are from the author

Popular Uprising against Covid Lockdown. Belgrade Liberated! The Government Surrenders

July 13th, 2020 by Israel Shamir

The relentless advance of coronavirus terror has been broken. Recalcitrant Serbs rebelled against their President when he ordered them back under house arrest. After two days of street battles with dozens of policemen hospitalised, the sturdy protesters won; the authorities surrendered and gave up their plans to lock Belgrade down. Shops, pubs and restaurants in Belgrade will have an early evening curfew; but this is much better than the full lockdown they intended. Prime Minister Ms Brnabic complained that she could not understand why her people were protesting. She must be uncommonly dense, this lady, if after two days of protests she could not understand that people do not want lockdowns. This is a rare reversal by the authorities, said the BBC correspondent in Belgrade. This is an understatement in the best English manner. I think it is a precedent.

Until now, there were countries that avoided lockdown altogether (Japan, Sweden, Belarus), but there wasn’t a country where people demanded and then obtained their freedom. Serbia is the first one. This small (pop. 7 million) country in the Balkans has a long history of resistance – they fought the Turks for centuries; they resisted Nazi Germany longer than France; they had the strongest guerrilla movement outside of Belarus, and yes, they fought mighty NATO for quite a long time. The Germans bombed Belgrade in April 1941, followed not long afterwards by America (aided by the British of course). In 1944, on Easter Day, six hundred American bombers carpet-bombed Belgrade, destroying its palaces, theatres, railway stations, and hospitals. That was America’s Easter Bunny gift to the Serbs.

In 1999 Bill Clinton bombed Belgrade again, for three months, killing a lot of Serbs and causing immense destruction. The Serbian president was seized and murdered in the court cells underneath The Hague. My American friends, if you are in the mood to apologise, you can “take a knee” for the Serbs, for the crimes more recent and more tangible than the 18th century horrors of your ancestors. The US chose to lob bombs at the Serbs for good reason: Serbs do not surrender easily. These strong-willed giants have guts, more than the rest of the Balkans put together. No doubt today many of the evil geniuses at Coronavirus HQ are regretting that Serbia wasn’t completely erased from the face of the earth, so that it would not have become such a troublesome example to a rather pliable and docile global populace.

But it’s too late; we have absorbed the lesson. The only way to avoid a renewed lockdown is a popular uprising, for nothing less will convince our authorities to refrain from locking us up. Like a boy who finds the candy jar, they just can’t help themselves. Lockdown makes life too easy for our rulers: the subjects stay indoors; they fearfully venture out only for shopping; they are obedient; they are on the dole and so they are dependent on the good will of the state. Unemployment rises steadily with every week of lockdown. Small companies go down. Only the digital giants will survive the deluge. People are disposable, a burden on the economy. Even their labour is no longer needed. Soon, independent, hard-working folk will be replaced by a new species dependent on government subsidy and demanding only more entertainment; a modern version of the panem et circenses (bread and circuses) mob the proud Romans were reduced to, as Juvenal wrote circa 100AD.

Why did the Serb government decide to lock their people up? Ostensibly, it’s because of 13 deaths “linked” to the Covid. That’s 13 too many, the President recited piously. Bear in mind that hundreds of people die every day in a country of millions like Serbia, and that this is perfectly normal. What’s so special about 13 people who died of pneumonia and may have been carriers of a new coronavirus? It was only a few years ago that thousands of Serbs fought and died for their freedom – that’s what they were fighting for, at least. Now their rulers do not think so much of freedom. Good thing that the people (as opposed to their rulers) are made of different, sterner stuff.

The Serbs I spoke to do not think this was an independent decision of their president; rather, an order sent down from some obscure Covid HQ, probably via the WHO. There is a covert guiding hand that devises new hardships and pressures governments to lock down economies and people. The authorities are naturally keen to return to the lockdown. It’s inertia, the great force of inertia. After they, and so many bureaucrats enacted the global culture of coronavirus, established ZOOM-based education, painted spots for 2 m distance, ordered millions of masks with a decent profit for themselves, trained an army of civil servants and disciplined the people, they are loth to drop it. They are used to it now and enjoy its fruit.

Peter Hitchens wrote about this in his column:

“When this madness began, I behaved as if a new and fanatical religion was spreading among us. Be polite and tolerant, I thought. It may be crazy and damaging but in time it will go away. Now it is clear that a new faith, based on fear of the invisible and quite immune to reason, has all but taken over the country. And it turns out to be one of those faiths that don’t have much tolerance for those who don’t share it. Its evangelists will not leave you and me alone, but constantly seek to force us to join. This is why I make such a fuss about the demand to make us all wear muzzles. This is not about health. This is about power and freedom, and has less and less to do with Covid-19. This obsession with telling us how to look, and turning us from normal humans into submissive, mouthless flock animals all decked out in a compulsory uniform is, in my view, part of an unprecedented assault on our personal liberty in general. Stay at home. Stop working. Don’t see your friends or relatives. Submit, submit, submit. Get used to being told what to do. It seems we really have become a nation of surrendered masochists.”

In the US, a new wave of the alleged Covid pandemic is supposed to remove President Trump, after RussiaGate and the impeachment fiasco failed to do the job. They manufactured the new wave without ‘re-seeding’ the country (as Larry Romanoff suggested) by the simple expedient of newspaper reporting. “New Cases in the U.S. Soar Past 68,000, Shattering Record” – screamed The New York Times. They do not tell you that this number means nothing. The new cases are not sick people: it is predominantly perfectly healthy people who by faulty and dubious methods were declared Covid carriers. The more you test for a virus, the more positive results you will get. George Floyd carried the new virus; still he was healthy enough to fight the police.

A Russian virologist correctly said: if we were to test healthy people for any flu virus, we would get enormous numbers of ‘infected’ results. Everyone carries some virus, this or that. But we never check healthy people because we never, until now, had the need to create the illusion of a pandemic. In 2020, the need for such an illusion became paramount, for the Covid operators intend to destroy the world economy, break our stamina and unseat Trump. It is worrisome that Texas and Florida, previously Trump bastions, gave in and began to enforce the masks because of these spurious tests.

There is nothing new about the disease. The first husband of Scarlett O’Hara, Charles Hamilton, died of pneumonia, and nobody checked him for the new coronavirus. Perhaps if they had checked Sherman’s army for viruses it would’ve never gotten to Atlanta, let alone Savannah.

The only novelty is the insistence of its promoters. The imagery of the Covid adepts grows more and more military. “The ring of steel” is how Australians proudly describe the quarantine around Melbourne. You’d believe that their dead were lying in the streets, but nothing of the sort! It is the same threat of “new cases”, meaning nothing at all – but it is enough to compel Aussies to agree to this tyranny.

I would be despondent and broken, if not for the Belgrade Uprising. What Serbs can do, we all can aspire to. There is an urgent need for rebellion against Covid dictatorship, the need to revolt until we are free.

And to covid-believers I’ll say, do not despair! This is not the last disaster we shall witness. There are still locusts, asteroids, Carrington events, and newer and better diseases. There are still chances for mankind to follow the dinosaurs to oblivion. Don’t be in such a hurry!

*

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.

Featured image is from The Saker

Children’s Rights: Stop Fu**ing Around and Open the G**Damn Schools!

July 13th, 2020 by Mike Whitney

Countries around the world are ignoring the media’s fearmongering and starting to reopen their schools. This is a positive development which shows that the Coronavirus’s psychic-grip on the population is gradually loosening. Once again, people are asserting control over their own lives and those of their children which is why reopening the schools has become a top priority.

Covid-19 poses little or no risk to children. They don’t get sick and they don’t die. If they contract the infection, they usually remain asymptomatic and, crucially, they do not pass it along to others. Most of what you have heard or read about Covid and children is disinformation disseminated by a corrupt and despicable media that is forever fueling public hysteria. The mainstream media is spearheading the war against the American people so, naturally, they have perpetuated the illusion that school poses a threat to our children’s health and safety. It does not. Attending school is safe and schools should be open. Check out this clip from an article at the National Review:

“Kari Stefansson, CEO of the Icelandic company deCODE genetics in Reykjavík, studied the spread of COVID-19 in Iceland with Iceland’s Directorate of Health and the National University Hospital. His project has tested 36,500 people; as of this writing:

Children under 10 are less likely to get infected than adults and if they get infected, they are less likely to get seriously ill.

What is interesting is that even if children do get infected, they are less likely to transmit the disease to others than adults. We have not found a single instance of a child infecting parents.” (“Icelandic Study: ‘We Have Not Found a Single Instance of a Child Infecting Parents.’“, National Review)

That sums it up perfectly. Now compare the Icelandic Report to the comments of Washington Post columnist Jonathan Capehart who appeared on Friday’s PBS News Hour with Judy Woodruff:

Judy Woodruff: “Jonathan… the president is now criticizing Dr. Fauci. And he’s insisting the schools open. He’s threatening to withhold federal money from the schools.”

Jonathan Capehart: “Yes, which, when you have a global pandemic that is spiking all over the country in most of the states, and then you have the president of the United States, who, as David was saying, is not following his own guidelines for helping to keep the pandemic in check, the idea that we are talking about opening schools and forcing schools to open, when there’s no national strategy, no vaccine, and 50 different ways of going about trying to tamp down the pandemic, strikes me — and I’m not a parent.

And I understand that parents are concerned about their children’s education. But sending children to schools in the middle of a pandemic with no national strategy, I think, is worrisome.” (“David Brooks and Jonathan Capehart on Trump’s school pressure, Biden’s economic plan“, PBS News Hour)

Capehart’s comments are part of an MSM script that is designed to spread disinformation and fear that school reopenings pose a threat to the safety of children. It is a deliberate attack of one of society’s primary institutions, an institution that not only educates and socializes our children but also provides the opportunity for both parents to join the workforce to maintain their standard of living. Capehart’s comments are not grounded in fact or science, but politics. They are intended to prolong critical parts of the lockdown in order to intensify public anxiety and, thus, undermine Donald Trump’s reelection prospects. Surprisingly, Capehart’s comments contrast dramatically from a report in his own newspaper (the Washington Post) that recently published a lengthy report on the same topic titled “Reopened schools in Europe and Asia have largely avoided coronavirus outbreaks. They have lessons for the U.S.” Here’s an excerpt:

“Public health officials and researchers say they have not detected much coronavirus transmission among students or significant spikes in community spread as a result of schools being in session...

In Finland, when public health researchers combed through test results of children under 16, they found no evidence of school spread and no change in the rate of infection for that age cohort after schools closed in March or reopened in May. In fact, Finland’s infection rate among children was similar to Sweden’s, even though Sweden never closed its schools, according to a report published Tuesday by researchers from the two countries…

“It really starts to add up to the fact that the risk of transmission, the number of outbreaks in which the index is a child, is very low, and this seems to be the picture everywhere else,” said Otto Helve, who worked on the report as a pediatric infectious-disease specialist at the Finnish Institute for Health and Welfare. He said he sent his own children back to school.

“The scientific evidence for the effects of closing schools is weak and disputed,” said Camilla Stoltenberg, director general of the Norwegian Institute of Public Health, which has advised Norway’s pandemic response. She said that although she supported her country’s March lockdown, it was less clear that Norway needed to close schools. “We should all have second thoughts about whether it was really necessary,” she said. “We see now that, after having opened schools, we haven’t had any outbreaks.” (“Reopened schools in Europe and Asia have largely avoided coronavirus outbreaks. They have lessons for the U.S.”, Washington Post)

It’s clear now that closing the primary schools was a terrible mistake for which our children will pay dearly for years to come. Children need a secure environment with a responsible and engaged adult in order to meet their basic developmental needs. Online teaching is no substitute, in fact, a third of students never even log in to attend their daily online classes.

Distance learning is not learning, it’s a scam aimed at destroying public education and creating a dumbed-down workforce incapable of doing anything beyond flipping burgers or mowing lawns. Not surprisingly, it’s mostly Democrats that oppose the reopening the schools because they see it as another stick for beating Trump. Even so, Trump can claim the moral high-ground on this issue because he has been particularly straightforward and unwavering in his approach. Here’s Trump on Twitter last week:

“Corrupt Joe Biden and the Democrats don’t want to open schools in the Fall for political reasons, not for health reasons! They think it will help them in November. Wrong, the people get it!

Trump is right, in fact, even Doctor Anthony Fauci admitted as much in a heated exchange he had with Senator Rand Paul last month on Capitol Hill. Here’s what Fauci said:

“I feel very strongly we need to do whatever we can to get the children back to school. I think we are in complete agreement on that.”

In-home learning generates feelings of depression, anxiety and alienation. It is not a substitute for person-to-person direct education. Also, there’s been a significant rise in sexual and physical abuse in the last three months that will likely decrease when school resumes and things return to normal. We also should not underestimate the impact of friendship and personal interaction on the mental health of young people who need to be around other children their own age. The lockdowns have robbed the children of that essential experience. Here’s an excerpt from an opinion piece by Australian Government’s Deputy Chief Medical Officer, Nick Coatsworth, who arrived at the same conclusion as virtually all the leaders in the EU:

“COVID-19 is not the flu. Far fewer children are affected by COVID-19, and the number of transmissions from children to children and children to adults is far less.

Some have said the evidence on this is not clear. In any health debate, evidence can be cherry-picked to support a particular view. As an infectious diseases specialist, I have examined all of the available evidence from within Australia and around the world and, as it stands, it does not support avoiding classroom learning as a means to control COVID-19.

The national position remains that face-to-face teaching is safe, particularly given the current very low rates of community transmission of SARS-CoV-2.” (“Getting our kids back to school – a matter of trust”, Department of Health, Australian Government)

Finally, there’s this from CDC Director Robert Redfield:

“The CDC encourages all schools to do whatever they need to reopen. Nothing would cause me greater sadness than to see any school or school district use our guidance as a reason not to reopen.

I think it’s worth noting that the CDC never recommended general school closure throughout this pandemic…I’m not critical of it. I’m just saying that from a public health point of view, we didn’t see that schools needed to be closed.” (“DeVos blasts school districts that hesitate at reopening”, Politico)

There it is in black and white: Open the schools now. Full Stop.

Along with the media, Trump is opposed by leaders in the teachers unions and the PTA which claimed that the Trump has “zero credibility in the minds of educators and parents when it comes to this major decision.” But Trump is right and the experts have admitted he’s right, the schools must reopen and they must reopen ASAP.

The results in Europe and elsewhere show there’s no need for distancing guidelines, limits on class size or any of the other ridiculous safety measures that protect no one from anything. The children are not at risk and they don’t pass the infection along to others. The whole thing is a hoax concocted by scheming political opportunists to attack Trump and spread mayhem across the country.

There’s a special place in hell for people who use kids to advance their own self-serving political agenda.

*

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.

Featured image is from Shutterstock

“The Yeezy Effect”: Rapper Kanye West Joins the U.S. Presidential Race

July 13th, 2020 by Dr. Binoy Kampmark

“Because when we win, it’s everybody’s birthday.” – Kanye West, Forbes, July 8, 2020

The political absurd has become all modish.  With US President Donald Trump turning the White House into his own circus of personalised woe and expectations, other candidates are stepping up to the plate.  Make way for Kanye West, whose union of utter vacuity with Kim Kardashian has done much to keep the glossies, blogs and “influencers” rolling in anti-cerebral slush.  This time, media outlets have not fallen for the trap they did with Trump, treating his bid for the commander-in-chief position as a sham lunatic’s act not worth covering. 

There is even a streak of commentary finding West’s announcement a source of concern rather than mirth.  Natasha Lindstaedt ponders the glass darkly on “the qualities of the celebrity” that tend to be “poorly suited to the duties of governing”, though they can “attract the necessary attention from the media without any prior political accomplishment.”  Such figures can be “charismatic” and “anti-establishment” but constitute “a sign of political decline in democracies and wide frustration with professional politicians who voters feel disillusioned and distant from.”  

That said, what else can be made of this challenge?  West was formerly cosy with Trump who, with other “no-bullshit” characters, as he called them, inspired him to become a footwear magnate and Adidas pinup.  “It’s called the Yeezy effect.”  During a visit to the Oval Office in 2018, he spoke of brimming masculine admiration.

“I’m married to a family where there’s not a lot of male energy going on.  There’s something about it.” 

Putting on the Make America Great Again cap “made me feel like Superman.  That’s my favourite superhero.  You made a Superman cape for me.” 

In some clumsy effort at irony, or irony very much after its brutal slaying, West called it

“a protest to the segregation of votes in the Black community.  Also, other than the fact that I like Trump hotels and the saxophones in the lobby.” 

But West is never one to keep adoration or admiration consistent.  Eventually, he gazes at the mirror and lets his ego bleat for recognition. On July 4, he made his announcement, fittingly via a tweet, that he would be throwing himself into the electoral contest. 

“We must now realize the promise of America in trusting God, unifying our vision and building our future.”   

The stool water that counts for his especially fluid platform can be gathered in an extensive interview with Forbes.  He was “taking the red hat off”.  His new political movement will be called “the Birthday Party”.  Should he find his miraculous way to the White House, he intends using the model put forth by the movie Black Panther, which he conceded had not gone down well with a “lot of Africans”.  There,

“the king went to visit that lead scientist to have the shoes wrap around her shoes.  Just the amount of innovation that can happen, the amount of innovation in medicine – like big pharma – we are going to work, innovate, together.” 

There are other points of rambling.  Vaccines are “the mark of the beast” which shows where he stands about finding, let alone applying, one for coronavirus.  Planned parenthoods, he suggests, “have been placed inside cities by white supremacists to do the Devil’s work.” 

Much of West’s challenged opinions count as emetic discharge.  His analysis of the electoral contest is not exactly sharp, though many would find his assessment of Joe Biden’s candidacy hard to disagree with. “I’m not saying Trump’s in my way, he may be a part of my way.  And Joe Biden?  Like come on man, please.  You know? Obama’s special.  Trump’s special.  We say Kanye West is special.  America needs special people that lead.  Bill Clinton?  Special.  Joe Biden’s not special.” 

It has become almost mandatory to reiterate the political credentials of West, shallow as they are, by recalling his 2005 intervention during the “Concert for Hurricane Relief” held in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.  In a fashion similar to Trump, he decided to go off script. 

“Yo,” he told comedian Mike Myers, with whom he was sharing the stage, “I’m going to ad-lib a little bit.” 

This led his direct remark that “George Bush doesn’t care about black people.”

The logistical obstacles are probably insuperable, though West insists with typical, scattergun incoherence that he is “speaking with experts, I’m going to speak with Jared Kushner, the White House, with Biden.”  He lacks any campaign or electoral machine, though he has the support of Elon Musk and a running mate in mind, a Wyoming preacher by the name of Michelle Tidball.  Tidball claims to be a “Biblical life coach” with something of a mental health background.  (The line between patient and coach is not a clear one.)  One of her golden nuggets of wisdom on how to handle mental illness is making your bed and doing the dishes. 

The paperwork, and deadlines, are both daunting and retarding.  The Federal Election Commission must be tackled.  Certain battleground states, such as North Carolina and New Mexico, are already closed to registering candidates for the ballot.  If West is intending to run as an independent as opposed to seeking the nomination of a political party, thousands of signatures across the US will need to be collected before registration periods end in August and September.  This would have to take place in a political environment conditioned by coronavirus. 

As a spokesperson for the FEC put it in a rather businesslike tone to Billboard,

“Candidates who’ve won the presidency tend to have gotten into the race much sooner than this.” 

To date, there has been no evidence that West has touched the paperwork, though there is, for pure entertainment value, a Form 2 filing featuring “Ye West”, whose address is optimistically listed as 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.  (That’s certainly one way to do it.)  Apparently, that candidate is self-funded and running for the Libertarian party.  Jo Jorgensen, the party’s official candidate, may not see any hilarity in this.

Fatuity in politics is not necessarily a handicap.  Trump gave the US the first Twitter presidency, bypassing official channels with cyber gobbets of rage to his supporters.  Like West, he is an egomaniac with dollops of insecurity.  In attaining victory in 2016, Trump turned the highest office in Freedom’s land into a grotesque reality show, a process that also implicated his opponents.  West’s bid, even if it is unlikely to go far, is oddly fitting.

*

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].

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on “The Yeezy Effect”: Rapper Kanye West Joins the U.S. Presidential Race
  • Tags:

The Inevitable, Fatal End of Globalization – Centuries of Obscene Entitlement Morphing into Unavoidable, Horrendous Consequences; New Beginnings?

July 13th, 2020 by S. Brian Willson

As the world is understandably distracted by the threat of the pathogenic actions of an entity 10,000 times smaller than a grain of salt, we spend a huge amount of time arguing over its origins and nature, or whether it is real or a concocted plan to control human population, while saturating social media with voluminous conspiracy theories. Concerns about absence of a national public health care system sometimes seems less important than debating conspiracy theories.

Meanwhile human civilization for several centuries has been arrogantly and savagely ransacking the ecosystem with industrial entrancement, exploiting human cultures, dominating wild spaces “out there”, while substantially altering our inner minds and souls. Global warming interconnected with insatiable consumption, economic dysfunction, microwaving the planet, corporate oligarchy and neo-fascism, wealth accumulation, and denigrating nonwhite people, have overwhelmed our natural human rhythms, our thought structures, our evolutionary empathy, and our original identities.

I grew up in Western New York State near several Amish communities. I ill always remember an Amish blacksmith asking me, “What are you moderns going to do when the electrons stop”?  I chuckled at the impossibility of such. However, over the years I think of that question as prophetic. We have been overtaken by the cult of technology considered identical with progress that we believe will last into infinity on a finite Planet.

Historian Lewis Mumford has argued that we may be nearing the end of a long epoch of several thousand years of living in what we call “civilization.” After centuries of forcefully taking power from individuals in small groups and centralizing it in an ever smaller class of elite people, we ended up with societies gone mad, nation-states convinced that its own continued power is the sole purpose of existence.[1]

Mumford described that “civilization” was constructed on a new organizational idea – a “megamachine” comprised totally of human parts to perform tasks on a colossal scale never before imagined.[2] Civilization saw the creation of a bureaucracy directed by a power complex of an authority figure (a king) with scribes and speedy messengers, which organized labor machines (masses of workers) to construct pyramids, irrigation systems, and huge grain storage systems among other structures, all enforced by a military. Its features were centralization of power, separation of people into classes and lifetime division of labor, slavery and forced labor, arbitrary inequality of wealth and privilege, and military power and war.[3] This has been the theme of Western society in which we have lost our ancient redeeming qualities of human scale, autonomy, diversity, and local participant community.

Mumford makes clear his bias that autonomy in small groups is a human archetype that has become repressed in deference to obedience to technology and bureaucracy. The creation of human urban civilization has brought about patterns of systematic violence and warfare previously unknown,[4] what Andrew Schmookler calls the “original sin” of civilization.[5] Joseph Conrad, in his 1899 novel Heart of Darkness, captured this ugly side of humans, depicting how “civilization” covers over the harsh realities of the cruel exploitation upon which it is built.[6]

Mumford described how unchecked “power punctuates the entire history of mankind with outbursts of collective paranoia and tribal delusions of grandeur mingled with malevolent suspicions, murderous hatreds, and atrociously inhumane acts”.[7] Mumford again: A personal over-concentration of power as an end in itself is suspect to the psychologist as an attempt to conceal inferiority, impotence, and anxiety. When this inferiority is combined with defensive inordinate ambitions, uncontrolled hostility and suspicion, and a loss of any sense of the subject’s own limitation, “delusions of grandeur” result, which is the typical syndrome of paranoia, one of the most difficult psychological states to exorcise.[8]

One of the twentieth century’s greatest physicists, David Bohm, has remarked that what relativity and quantum theory have in common is their understanding of the undivided wholeness of everything and every particle in the universe. This knowledge requires breaking our cognitive thought structure, which historically is based on a mechanistic order commonly expressed through what Bohm calls the (Rene) Cartesian grid or reductionism. As Bohm says, it is not easy to change this because our notions of order are so pervasive, they affect not only our thought processes, but our sense of ourselves, our feelings, our intuitions, our physical movement, and our relations with others and society, in fact with everything. Our problems originate in our thought, and as our thinking structures are rooted in mechanistic reduction and separation rather than the undivided whole, it is thought that is the problem.[9]

This is an astounding conclusion in our age of “reason.” Yet, we know the enlightenment period was lead by thinkers such as David Hume, John Locke, and Immanuel Kant, all of whom explicitly believed and taught that perfection was reserved for the “White Race”.[10] The same can be said for the constantly referred to US “Founding Fathers”.

The six primary European White imperialist powers in 1500 (France, Spain, Italy, British Isles, Portugal, and Netherlands), comprised less than 8 percent (about 40 million people) of the estimated world population. But they, in effect, launched a GLOBAL TERROR campaign through gruesome colonization, racism, brutal enslavement of human beings, and forcefully stealing Indigenous lands. This violent colonization nearly destroyed the ancient “Red” Indigenous cultures in the Western Hemisphere, and the Black Indigenous cultures of Africa, who together possessed a combined 25-40 percent (175-200 million) of the world’s population.[11]

From the beginning, European settlers of the New World organized irregular armed units to viciously attack and murder unarmed innocents (a.k.a. civilians)—Indigenous women, children, and elderly—using unlimited violent means, including outright massacres and the burning of towns and food stocks. The first two centuries of British colonization, the 1600s to 1800s, produced several generations of experienced “Indian fighters” (early version of “rangers”). Settlers, mostly farmers by trade, they waged battles totally independent of any formal military organization.[12]

The English knew that the slave trade was indispensable to “healthy” British economics. Because it was so essential for the success of capitalist enterprises, and the risks in the trade were large, investors in the slave trade insisted that each “legal” slave merchant be covered by underwriters who would make good for any “property” lost during the voyage.[13] Thus, millions of African people suffered the most unspeakable barbarities in ways that no White person can imagine, even to this day, committed by the hands of privileged European men who enjoyed the impunity that comes with elevated social status. This enforced savagery enabled White “development” (profits) of the lands violently stolen from the Indigenous.

This kind of beastly behavior, sooner or later, has inevitable blowback, despite the cocky arrogance and ignorance of its perpetrators. One might call this Karma, or morphing from a long era of entitlement to an era of inevitable consequences.  As an evolutionary species we may be on the verge of an epistemic break, leading to a radical rupture, or a punctuation of our long period of globalized (apparent) equilibrium, enforced by horrible exploitation of the many by a few. The 8 minute, 46 second video of Black citizen George Floyd’s torture/murder by White Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin and his three accomplices that went viral around the US and the world. It revealed, viscerally, like no other, the painful and unspeakable history of 400 years of White supremacy inflicting degradation, deracement and invalidation of Indigenous and African Americans.

In February 29, 1968, President Johnson’s Kerner Report investigating the horrific Detroit riots of 1967, concluded that the US was “moving towards two societies, one Black, one White, separate and unequal. . . .” White racism and limited opportunities for black people were identified as major causes of the strife and rioting in urban ghettos. It spoke of the danger of large-scale violence, white retaliation, and ultimately of “the separation of the two communities in a garrison state,” if drastic steps were not taken to improve employment, housing, education, and welfare—steps that would require greatly increased taxes and expenditures.[14]

One of the first witnesses invited to appear before the Kerner Commission was Dr. Kenneth B. Clark, a distinguished and perceptive African-American scholar. Referring to the reports of earlier riot commissions, he said: “I read that report . . . of the 1919 riot in Chicago, and it is as if I were reading the report of the investigating committee of the Harlem riot of ’35, the report of the investigating committee on the Harlem riot of ’43, the report of the McCone Commission on the Watts riot. I must again in candor say to you members of this commission—it is a kind of Alice in Wonderland—with the same analysis, the same recommendations, and the same inaction”.[15]

Cultural historians, philosophers, psychologists, essayists, and scientists caution us to seriously understand the past and its patterns. Sigmund Freud and other psychoanalytic scholars have concluded that in psychic life, nothing of what has been formed in the past ever disappears. Everything that has occurred is preserved in one way or another and, in fact, reappears under either favorable or unfavorable circumstances.[16] When impunity dominates history, justice as a permanent value in the history of humans ceases to exist. This psychopathology produces a sickness in the soul—of the individual, as well as of a nation—where nothing is real. Severe disturbances within the individual and collective psyche manifest in behavioral psychopathologies of huge magnitude. Everything becomes pretend, the lies told over and over in many different forms throughout time.[17]

Think of a spoiled child who has never been taught boundaries or been held to account for harmful behavior. Collective as well as individual narcissism can lead to extreme antisocial conduct. Security is experienced through individuality, and rigid adherence to individual and national economic, selfish privatization, but not social justice. The acquisitive habit settles into the inner life, preempting an authentic inquisitive and social mind. A social compact is destroyed in deference to privatization, creating anomie. Life is commodified. Disparity between the Haves and Have-Nots becomes extreme; today this is called neoliberal economics. History is negated, successfully concealing past traumas such as unspeakable genocides and deceitfully based wars.

While performing auxiliary duty as a USAF Combat Security officer, I documented the immediate aftermath of atrocities committed from the air that annihilated inhabited, undefended villages. I was shocked and sickened from the sight of hundreds of villagers lying dead and suffering horribly in their villages. I wondered who the fuck am I, a 6’ 3” White man, 9,000 miles from my rural farming village in New York State? These Vietnamese were in their home villages. Village life was the essence of Vietnamese culture and we were systematically destroying it. I felt depressingly unauthentic, with an artificial identity, protected by fake US American “exceptionalism”. Like a dumb ideological robot, I began to entertain the idea that being a privileged White man was in fact an emotional and intellectual disability. White male supremacy is a powerful force, as it enables a kind of mindless “sliding” through life, pre-empting the need to ask serious questions. I began to feel shame. I wondered whether our entire society had ever faced the important social feeling of shame that might have matured and enabled a more honest culture. My discovery of empathy began to radicalize me. I wondered whether we had become sadistic criminal psychopaths? Or have we always been?   Of course, later I discovered, to my naive dismay, that no, the US has never acknowledged shame for its foundation on two gruesome genocides, killing millions with impunity.

How many US citizens know of the crimes our country systematically commits throughout the world, crimes that are constant, remorseless, and fully documented? British playwright and Nobel Prize recipient Harold Pinter sadly commented: “Nobody talks about them. . . . It never happened. Nothing ever happened. Even while it was happening it wasn’t happening. It didn’t matter. It was of no interest”.[18] Without historical context, there is little capacity to critique the veracity of contemporary policies and rhetoric. So, it is believed, the US just couldn’t be involved in patterns of criminal interventions; our origins just couldn’t be built on forceful dispossession and genocides. “That is not the American way”, people insist. But the fact is that it is the American way. We simply don’t know about it and don’t want to know about it. Impunity has erased memory.

The current pandemic may be one of the nails in our heretofore illusory comfortable paradigm of enjoying White privilege at the expense of the vast majority of human beings in the world. It is now in confluence with a severe capitalist economic crisis, George Floyd’s viscerally provocative torture murder, the impending climate catastrophe, and revelation of our true cultural White supremacist character with the emergence of US President Donald Trump.

Something has to give, sooner rather than later. It will be our illusory exceptionalism, that has made us de facto stupid and obnoxiously arrogant.Centuries of unspeakable cultural behavior shielded by a fake identity has created eyes of wool. Ares the wool eyes finally gone, now? That White knee of Derek Chauvin is on all of our necks now.

*

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

Brian Willson is a Viet Nam veteran and trained lawyer. He has visited a number of countries examining the effects of US policy. He wrote a psychohistorical memoir, Blood on the Tracks: The Life and Times of S. Brian Willson(PM Press, 2011), and in 2018 wrote Don’t Thank Me for my Service: My Viet Nam Awakening to the Long History of US Lies (Clarity Press). He is featured in a 2016 documentary, Paying the Price for Peace: The Story of S. Brian Willson, and others in the Peace Movement, (Bo Boudart Productions). His web essays: brianwillson.com. He can be reached at [email protected]. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG).

Notes

[1] Lewis Mumford, The Myth of the Machine: Technics and Human Development(1966; New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, Inc., 1967), 186.

[2] I learned about the “megamachine” when exposed to the ideas of cultural historian Lewis Mumford, who started critiquing civilization in the early 1920s. Among his works are two complementary books: The Myth of the Machine: The Pentagon of Power(1964; New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Inc., 1970) and The Myth of the Machine: Technics and Human Development (New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, Inc., 1967). Mumford, born in 1895 in urban Flushing, New York, was a brilliant observer of the traumatic effects to humans and the earth of so-called civilization, and his thinking on the long view remains extremely illuminating.

[3] Mumford, Myth of the Machine: Technics and Human Development, 186.

[4] Ashley Montagu, The Nature of Human Aggression(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1976), 43–53, 59–60; Ashley Montagu, ed., Learning Non-Aggression: The Experience of Non-Literate Societies(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1978); Jean Guilaine and Jean Zammit, The Origin of War: Violence in Prehistory, trans. Melanie Hersey (2001; Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing, 2005).

[5] Andrew B. Schmookler, Out of Weakness: Healing the Wounds That Drive Us to War (New York: Bantam Books, 1988), 303.

[6] Heart of Darkness, written by Polish-born English novelist Joseph Conrad (1857–1924), was originally published in 1899 as a three-part series in Blackwood’s Magazine(U.K.). It is considered one of the most-read works of the last hundred years, largely an autobiographical description of Conrad’s six-month journey in 1890 into the “Congo Free State”, at the time being plundered by Belgium. In fact, the story could apply to almost anyplace in the world where European nations, later the United States, plundered peoples for profits and material privileges without acknowledging the terrible, ugly consequences. Francis Ford Coppola’s 1979 movie Apocalypse Nowtranslates the “Heart of Darkness” to Viet Nam and Cambodia. Adam Hochschild’s King Leopold’s Ghost(New York: A Mariner Book, 1999) describes the diabolical exploitation of the Congo Free State by King Leopold II of Belgian between 1885 and 1908. Estimates of murdered Congolese in this period run as high as 13 million. Please don’t read this as if this is something that the United States or other European nations would not do, or have not done. Indeed, the U.S. and Europe are founded on these practices, all under the cover of “civilization.”

[7] Mumford, 1967, 204.

[8] Mumford, 1967, 218.

[9] Lee Nichol, ed., The Essential David Bohm(London: Routledge, 2003), 83–84, 306.

[10] Jmelle Bouie, “The Enlightenment’s Dark Side: How the Enlightenment created modern race thinking, and why we should confront it”, Slate, June 5, 2018; https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/06/taking-the-enlightenment-seriously-requires-talking-about-race.html

[11] D.E. Stannard, American Holocaust: Columbus and the Conquest of the New World(New York: Oxford University Press, 1992), 11; John D. Durland, “Historical Estimates of World Population: An Evaluation”, Population and Development Review, 3:253-296, 259, 1977; C. Clark, Population Growth and Land Use, 2ndEd (New York: MacMillan Press, 1977), 82-89; Colin McEvedy and Richard Jones, Atlas of World Population History(New York: Facts on File, 1978), 49, 57, 101, and 103.

[12] Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz, An Indigenous Peoples’ History of the United States(Boston: Beacon Press, 2014), 58-60.

[13] George Francis Dow, Slave Ships and Slaving(New York: Dover Publications, 1970), xxxv.

[14] Report of the National Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders(New York: Bantam Books, 1968).

[15] Report of the National Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders, Clark Testimony, 1-29.

[16] Jon Mills, Origins: On the Genesis of Psychic Reality(Montreal: McGill-Queen’s Press, 2010), 246.

[17] S. Brian Willson, “The Pretend Society,” http://www.brianwillson.com/the-pretend-society/; B. Paz Rojas, “Impunity and the Inner History of Life”, Social Justice: A Journal of Crime, Conflict and World Order,26(4), 1999.

[18] Harold Pinter, Various Voices: Prose, Poetry, Politics, 1948-1998 (New York: Grove Press, 1998, 237.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The Inevitable, Fatal End of Globalization – Centuries of Obscene Entitlement Morphing into Unavoidable, Horrendous Consequences; New Beginnings?
  • Tags:

Selected Articles: The Pentagon’s “Anti-China Weapons” and “The New Silk Roads”

July 13th, 2020 by Global Research News

We hope that by publishing diverse view points, submitted by journalists and experts dotted all over the world, the website can serve as a reminder that no matter what narrative we are presented with, things are rarely as cut and dry as they seem.

If Global Research has been a resource which has offered you some solace over the past few months, we ask you to make a financial contribution to our running costs so that we may keep this important project alive and well! We thank you for your support!

Click to donate:

*     *     *

Busted: 11 COVID Assumptions Based on Fear Not Fact

By Makia Freeman, July 13, 2020

COVID assumptions – the assumptions people make about COVID, how dangerous it is, how it spreads and what we need to do to stop it – are running rampant, running far more wildly than the supposed virus SARS-CoV2 itself. The coldly calculated campaign of propaganda surrounding this ‘pandemic’ has achieved its aim. Besieged with a slew of contradictory information coming from all angles, people in general have succumbed to confusion. Some have given up trying to understand the situation and found it is just easier to obey official directives, even if it means giving up long-held rights. Below is a list of commonly held COVID assumptions which, if you believe them, will make you much more likely to submit to the robotic, insane and abnormal conditions of the New Normal – screening, testing, contact tracing, monitoring, surveillance, mask-wearing, social distancing, quarantine and isolation, with mandatory vaccination and microchipping to come.

Congress Wants More Unnecessary Anti-China Weapons Programs in Annual Defense Bill

By Michael T. Klare, July 13, 2020

Cotton’s proposal, stuffed with lucrative giveaways to the defense industry — $1.6 billion for “logistics and security enablers,” $775 million for “building national resilience to space weather,” among others — bears little apparent relevance to the military equation in Asia and is unlikely to be embraced by a majority of Senators. However, many of his proposed budgetary add-ons have been incorporated into other measures aimed at boosting U.S. military might in the Asia-Pacific region.

75 Years Ago: When Szilard Tried to Halt Dropping Atomic Bombs Over Japan

By Greg Mitchell, July 13, 2020

On July 3, 1945, the great atomic scientist Leo Szilard finished a letter/petition that would become the strongest (virtually the only) real attempt at halting President Truman’s march to using the atomic bomb–still almost two weeks from its first test at Trinity–against Japanese cities.

We rarely hear that as the Truman White House made plans to use the first atomic bombs against Japan in the summer of 1945, a large group of atomic scientists, many of whom had worked on the bomb project, raised their voices, or at least their names, in protest. They were led by the great physicist Szilard who, among things, is the man who convinced Albert Einstein to write his famous yes-it-can-be-done letter to President Franklin D. Roosevelt, setting the bomb project in motion.

As the Arctic Burns, Trump Bailouts Fossil Fuel Industry with Billions

By Andy Rowell, July 13, 2020

The Arctic is once again on fire. And the extremely warm temperatures in the region — and concurrent wildfires — are another urgent reminder that we need to divest from fossil fuels as soon as possible.

They are a pressing reminder that any post COVID-19 bailout should be focused on an immediate just recovery toward industry workers, renewables, and clean energy.

The UK Reading Stabbings: Al Qaeda LIFG Terrorists Supported by UK. Product of British Foreign Policy

By Tony Cartalucci, July 12, 2020

It should surprise no one paying attention that the suspect in the recent stabbing spree in Reading, UK was not only known to British security agencies as an extremist and security threat, but that he comes from the pool of extremists the British aided Washington in funding, arming, training, and providing air support for during the 2011 overthrow of the Libyan government and have harbored before and ever since.

Looks Like Sweden Was Right After All

By Mike Whitney, July 12, 2020

Why is the media so fixated on Sweden’s coronavirus policy? What difference does it make?

Sweden settled on a policy that they thought was both sustainable and would save as many lives as possible. They weren’t trying to ‘show anyone up’ or ‘prove how smart they were’. They simply took a more traditionalist approach that avoided a full-scale lockdown. That’s all.

Iran and China Turbo-charge the New Silk Roads

By Pepe Escobar, July 12, 2020

Two of the US’s top “strategic threats” are getting closer and closer within the scope of the New Silk Roads – the leading 21st century project of economic integration across Eurasia. The Deep State will not be amused. 

Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Abbas Mousavi blasted as “lies”  a series of rumors about the “transparent roadmap” inbuilt in the evolving Iran-China strategic partnership.

  • Posted in NO READ MORE LINK
  • Comments Off on Selected Articles: The Pentagon’s “Anti-China Weapons” and “The New Silk Roads”

Job Losses, Bankruptcies and Store Closings Are All at Apocalyptic Levels as the U.S. Economic Collapse Rolls on

July 13th, 2020 by Michael Snyder

The last four months have been an unending nightmare for the U.S. economy.  Businesses are shutting down at a pace that we have never seen before in American history, the “retail apocalypse” has reached an entirely new level that none of the experts were anticipating prior to this pandemic, and we are in the midst of the greatest spike in unemployment that the United States has ever experienced.  On Thursday, we learned that another 1.3 million Americans filed new claims for unemployment benefits last week, and that number has now been above one million for 16 consecutive weeks.  Things were supposed to be “getting back to normal” by now, buy that hasn’t happened.  Instead, we continue to see a tsunami of job losses that is absolutely unprecedented in American history.

When we look back at the old peaks for unemployment claims, they almost seem laughable compared to what we are experiencing now…

The highest prior weekly total for new unemployment claims was 695,000, in October 1982, according to Labor Department data. During the Great Recession, the country’s last downturn, weekly claims peaked at 665,000, in March 2009.

For those that aren’t old enough to remember, the recession of the early 1980s and the recession of 2008 and 2009 were both really, really painful.

But of course they weren’t anything like this.

Sometimes it is hard to believe that the numbers have gotten so bad.  According to Wolf Richter, the number of continuing claims that were filed last week under all state and federal unemployment programs is the highest that we have ever seen…

The total number of people who continued to claim unemployment compensation in the week ended July 4 under all state and federal unemployment insurance programs, including gig workers, jumped by 1.41 million people, to 32.92 million (not seasonally adjusted), the Department of Labor reported this morning. It was the highest and most gut-wrenching level ever.

The number of people who continue to receive state unemployment insurance (blue columns) has been ticking down, as more people got their jobs back than newly unemployed flooded the state unemployment systems. But the number of people claiming federal unemployment insurance, including gig workers under the Pandemic Unemployment Assistance (PUA) program, continues to surge (red columns), which causes the total number of people claiming unemployment benefits under all programs to rise

Up to this point, the emergency measures that Congress put in place to help unemployed workers have definitely eased the pain for millions upon millions of people that have lost their jobs, but a number of those emergency measures are about to expire…

Several benefits were developed in March to help ease the financial strains on Americans during the coronavirus pandemic. Those are set to come to an end before July 31, which could impact 20 million Americans, MarketWatch reports. The CARES Act, which was signed into law on March 27 by President Donald Trump, provided benefits like enhanced unemployment payments to supplement lost income from layoffs. It also includes a clause to delay evictions for 120 days.

Of course Congress could choose to extend some or all of the elements in the CARES Act, but that would mean borrowing and spending more giant mountains of money that we do not currently have.

Meanwhile, we are seeing businesses fail at a rate that is absolutely staggering.

According to the Washington Post, more than 100,000 businesses have permanently closed their doors during this pandemic, and Bloomberg just posted an article about 110 major companies that have declared bankruptcy here in 2020…

Retailers, airlines, restaurants. But also sports leagues, a cannabis company and an archdiocese plagued by sex-abuse allegations. These are some of the more than 110 companies that declared bankruptcy in the U.S. this year and blamed Covid-19 in part for their demise.

Sadly, the bankruptcy announcements just keep on coming.

This week, we learned that Brooks Brothers has filed for bankruptcy protection…

The coronavirus pandemic has now claimed one of the country’s oldest and most prestigious retailers.

Brooks Brothers — pioneer of the polo and uniform of the polished prepster — filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy court protection from creditors on Wednesday, as it continues to search for a buyer.

That hit me particularly hard, because I have had Brooks Brothers shirts in my closet ever since I was a young man.

They have always made great products, and I just assumed that they would always be around.

Of course lots of other iconic retailers are failing as well.  Before too long, naming the major retailers that are still operating successfully may be easier than trying to name the vast number of major retailers that have gone belly up.

Store closings are happening fast and furious these days, and that isn’t likely to change any time soon.  Starbucks just announced that they will be closing 400 locations, Dunkin’ Donuts just announced that they will be closing 450 locations, and Bed Bath & Beyond has increased the number of stores that they will be closing to approximately 200…

Bed Bath & Beyond (BBBY) announced Wednesday that it plans to close roughly 200 stores in the next two years.

The retail chain — which also operates Buybuy Baby, Christmas Tree Shops and Harmon Face Values — said it would be mainly closing Bed Bath & Beyond stores, starting later this year. The announcement came as the company released its quarterly earnings report on Wednesday.

If you are still not convinced that the retail industry is facing an unprecedented cataclysm, I think that the following list will do the trick.

Forbes has been tracking the major store closing announcements of 2020, and their list was recently shared by Zero Hedge…

Forbes’ Store Closure List In 2020

  • Chuck E Cheese: 54 U.S. stores (bankruptcy)
  • Destination Maternity: 90 stores (bankruptcy)
  • GNC: 1,200 stores (bankruptcy)
  • J. Crew: 54 stores (bankruptcy)
  • JCPenney JCP: 154 stores (bankruptcy)
  • K-Mart: 45 stores (bankruptcy)
  • Modell’s Sporting Goods: 153 stores (bankruptcy)
  • Neiman Marcus (Last Call): 20 stores (bankruptcy)
  • Papyrus: 254 stores (bankruptcy)
  • Pier 1 Imports PIR: 936 stores (bankruptcy)
  • Sears: 51 stores (bankruptcy)
  • Signet Jewelers SIG: 232 stores
  • Stage Stores: 738 stores (liquidating)
  • Tuesday Morning: 230 stores (bankruptcy)

***

  • AC Moore: 145 stores
  • Art Van Furniture: 190 stores
  • AT&T: 250 stores
  • Bath & Body Works: 50 stores
  • Bed Bath & Beyond: 44 stores
  • Bloomingdale’s: 1 store
  • Bose: 11 stores
  • Chico: 100 stores (estimated)
  • Children’s Place: 200 stores
  • Christopher Banks: 30-40 stores
  • CVS Pharmacy: 22 stores
  • Earth Fare: 50 stores
  • Express: 66 stories
  • Forever 21: 15 stores (estimated)
  • GameStop GME: 320 stores
  • Gap: 230 stores
  • Guess: 100 stores
  • Hallmark: 16 stores
  • Lord & Taylor: 30 or 40 stores
  • Lowe’s Canada: 34 stores
  • Lucky Market: 32 stores
  • Macy’s M: 125 stores (over 3 years)
  • Microsoft: 77 stores
  • New York & Co: 27 stores
  • Nordstrom: 16 stores
  • Office Depot: 90 stores
  • Olympia Sports: 76 stores
  • Party City: 21 stores
  • Starbucks SBUX: 400 stores (over 18 months)
  • Victoria’s Secret: 250 stores
  • Walgreen: 100 stores (estimated)
  • Walmart: 2 stores
  • Wilson Leather & G.H. Bass: 199 stores
  • Zara: 1,000 stores worldwide (over 2 years)

This week, the number of newly confirmed cases of COVID-19 has surged to the highest level that we have seen yet, and that means that fear of COVID-19 is going to continue to paralyze economic activity in the United States for the foreseeable future.

That means that many more businesses will be shutting their doors, there will be many more bankruptcies, and millions more Americans will be losing their jobs.

This is what an economic collapse looks like, and it is just getting started.

*

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.

Michael Snyder is the publisher of The Economic Collapse Blog, End Of The American Dream and The Most Important News whose articles are republished on dozens of other prominent websites all over the globe. He has written four books that are available on Amazon.com including The Beginning Of The End, Get Prepared Now, and Living A Life That Really Matters.

Featured image is from TEC

Busted: 11 COVID Assumptions Based on Fear Not Fact

July 13th, 2020 by Makia Freeman

COVID assumptions – the assumptions people make about COVID, how dangerous it is, how it spreads and what we need to do to stop it – are running rampant, running far more wildly than the supposed virus SARS-CoV2 itself. The coldly calculated campaign of propaganda surrounding this ‘pandemic’ has achieved its aim. Besieged with a slew of contradictory information coming from all angles, people in general have succumbed to confusion. Some have given up trying to understand the situation and found it is just easier to obey official directives, even if it means giving up long-held rights. Below is a list of commonly held COVID assumptions which, if you believe them, will make you much more likely to submit to the robotic, insane and abnormal conditions of the New Normal – screening, testing, contact tracing, monitoring, surveillance, mask-wearing, social distancing, quarantine and isolation, with mandatory vaccination and microchipping to come.

Assumption 1: The Method of Counting COVID Deaths is Sensible and Accurate

A grand assumption of the COVID plandemic is that the numbers are real and accurate, especially the death toll. Yet, nothing could be further from the truth. We have had confirmation after confirmation after confirmation (in nations all over the world) that authorities are counting the deaths in a way that makes no sense. Well, it makes no sense if you want to be sensible or accurate, but it makes perfect sense if you are trying to artificially inflate the numbers and create the impression of a pandemic where there is none. The sleight of hand is achieved by counting those who died with the virus as dying from the virus. This one trick alone is responsible for vastly skewing the numbers and turning the ‘official’ death count into a meaningless farce devoid of any practical value.

Assumption 2: The PCR Test for COVID is Accurate

As I covered in previous articles, the PCR test (Polymerase Chain Reaction) was invented by scientist Kary Mullis as a manufacturing technique (since it is able to replicate DNA sequences millions and billions of times), not as a diagnostic tool. COVID or SARS-CoV2 fails Koch’s postulates. The virus which shut the world down has still to this day never been isolated, purified and re-injected, or in other words, has never been 100% proven to exist, nor 100% proven to be the cause of the disease. When used to determine the cause of a disease, the PCR test has many flaws:

1. There is no gold standard to which to compare its results (COVID fails Koch’s postulates);
2. It detects and amplifies genetic code (RNA sequences) but offers no proof these RNA sequences are of viral origin;
3. It generates many false positive results;
4. The PCR test can give a completely opposite result (positive or negative) depending upon the number of cycles or amplifications that are used, which is ultimately arbitrarily chosen. For some diseases, if you lower the number of cycles to 35, it can make everyone appear negative, while if you increase them to above 35, it can make everyone appear positive;
5. Many patients switch back and forth from positive to negative when taking the PCR test on subsequent days; and
6. Even a positive result does not guarantee the discovered ‘virus’ is the cause of the disease!

In summary, the PCR test doesn’t identify or isolate viruses, doesn’t provide RNA sequences of pathogens, offers no baseline for comparison with patient samples, and cannot determine an infected from an uninfected sample. That is staggeringly useless! Here is a quote from the article COVID19 PCR Tests are Scientifically Meaningless:

“Tests need to be evaluated to determine their preciseness — strictly speaking their “sensitivity” and “specificity” — by comparison with a “gold standard,” meaning the most accurate method available. As an example, for a pregnancy test the gold standard would be the pregnancy itself. But as Australian infectious diseases specialist Sanjaya Senanayake, for example, stated in an ABC TV interview in an answer to the question “How accurate is the [COVID-19] testing?”:

If we had a new test for picking up [the bacterium] golden staph in blood, we’ve already got blood cultures, that’s our gold standard we’ve been using for decades, and we could match this new test against that. But for COVID-19 we don’t have a gold standard test.”

Jessica C. Watson from Bristol University confirms this. In her paper “Interpreting a COVID-19 test result”, published recently in The British Medical Journal, she writes that there is a “lack of such a clear-cut ‘gold-standard’ for COVID-19 testing.”“

Here is the admission about the PCR test by the CDC and FDA:

“Detection of viral RNA may not indicate the presence of infectious virus or that 2019-nCoV is the causative agent for clinical symptoms …this test cannot rule out diseases caused by other bacterial or viral pathogens.”

Accurate would be about the last word I would use to describe COVID PCR testing, yet it is currently the standard test worldwide for COVID. Another magnificent example of many COVID assumptions. Go figure.

Assumption 3: The Antibody Test for COVID is Accurate

If you realized by reading the last section that the COVID PCR tests are flawed and meaningless, get ready for more absurdity with the COVID antibody tests. As I covered in the article COVID Antibody Tests: Here Comes More Trickery and Fakery, there are numerous reasons why the antibody tests don’t really work and can be interpreted any way you want:

1. Old blood samples contain COVID antibodies, so if a test find antibodies, they may have been there for years or decades. There is no way to tell if they were recently acquired;
2. Like the COVID PCR test, they generate many false positive results;
3. They test for antibodies which may not even be specific for COVID;
4. Antibodies don’t actually prove immunity, since there are people who fight off disease with little or no antibodies, and conversely, there are those with high antibody titers or counts, but who still get sick; and
5. The results can be interpreted any way you want. The presence of antibodies could mean you’re safe and immune to future COVID waves, or conversely, it could mean you’re dangerous (sick and infected right now). It’s all about the interpretation.

Hhmmm … all these COVID assumptions are not exactly reassuring, are they?

Assumption 4: The COVID Case Count is Rising

Someone skeptical of the alternative view I am painting here may ask at this point: well if COVID is not that dangerous, how come cases keep rising? The answer is simple: because there is more testing. The more we test, the more cases we will find, because this ‘virus’  (really an RNA sequence) is far more widespread than we have been told, and there are far more asymptomatic people than we have been told (which shows it’s not that dangerous). As discussed in previous articles, there is really no proof that people didn’t have this particular RNA sequence for years or decades before the test, so the test results are quite meaningless.

That aside, a general rule of thumb is that wherever there are people trying to gain power, there will be fraud, and COVID testing is no exception. It has been exposed that tens of thousands of coronavirus tests have been double counted (in the UK, but probably happening in many places). This article explains that the “discrepancy is in large part explained by the practice of counting saliva and nasal samples for the same individual twice.” Additionally, the COVID tests are using the PCR method as discussed above in COVID Assumption 3, which has many flaws, including the flaw of results flipping back and forth depending on the number of cycles, as this previously quoted article states:

” … it is hardly surprising that there are several papers illustrating irrational test results. For example, already in February the health authority in China’s Guangdong province reported that people have fully recovered from illness blamed on COVID-19, started to test “negative,” and then tested “positive” again.

A month later, a paper published in the Journal of Medical Virology showed that 29 out of 610 patients at a hospital in Wuhan had 3 to 6 test results that flipped between “negative”, “positive” and “dubious”.

A third example is a study from Singapore in which tests were carried out almost daily on 18 patients and the majority went from “positive” to “negative” back to “positive” at least once, and up to five times in one patient.

Even Wang Chen, president of the Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, conceded in February that the PCR tests are “only 30 to 50 per cent accurate”; while Sin Hang Lee from the Milford Molecular Diagnostics Laboratory sent a letter to the WHO’s coronavirus response team and to Anthony S. Fauci on March 22, 2020, saying that:

“It has been widely reported in the social media that the RT-qPCR [Reverse Transcriptase quantitative PCR] test kits used to detect SARSCoV-2 RNA in human specimens are generating many false positive results and are not sensitive enough to detect some real positive cases.” ”

Assumption 5: Thermal Imaging/Screening for COVID is Effective

Taking people’s temperature by pointing a gun at their head is blatant conditioning. It sends the subliminal message that the State is all powerful and can aim a gun-like device at your head, and you are powerless to do anything but submit. On a practical level, taking people’s temperatures has no effect in stopping viral spread. Even if someone has an elevated temperature, what does that mean? There is a natural variation in human body temperatures; everyone operates at a slightly different temperature. Besides, even if your temperature is elevated, that could be because you were just exercising, running to catch a flight, just had an angry conversation with someone, just got the phone after a stressful call, had to discipline a disobedient child, etc. Think about all the things that make you stressed and irritated, or raise your blood pressure, which could lead to an elevated temperature!

In this way it is similar to the antibody test; it can show a result, but the result can be interpreted in so many ways that it renders the result pointless in terms of science (although there is a very much a point in terms of control).

Assumption 6: Asymptomatic People Can Spread the Disease

One particular piece of propaganda hammered in hard to people’s brains which is still doing great damage is the idea that anyone could be a carrier and could therefore infect anyone else. This has the effect of making people anxious, scared and even paranoid in just going about their daily life. However the idea that asymptomatic people can spread the disease is not something to worry about. This Chinese study A study on infectivity of asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 carriers published in May 2020 exposed 455 subjects to asymptomatic carriers of SARS-CoV2. None of the 455 were infected!

WHO (World Health Organization) official Dr. Maria van Kerkhove was reported by MSM CNBC saying the following last month in June (though she later backtracked her comments):

““From the data we have, it still seems to be rare that an asymptomatic person actually transmits onward to a secondary individual,” Dr. Maria Van Kerkhove, head of WHO’s emerging diseases and zoonosis unit, said at a news briefing from the United Nations agency’s Geneva headquarters. “It’s very rare.””

CDC guidelines COVID assumptions

Assumption 7: Making Schools Adopt Insanely Restrictive Measures Will Stop COVID Spread

Of the many COVID assumptions floating around, these next two are based on the idea that children are a significant source of COVID spread. They are not! The figures from WorldOMeter state that children aged 0-17 years have 0.02-0.06% share of world COVID deaths, which is essentially zero. Meanwhile, CDC stats show that “among 149,082 (99.6%) cases for which patient age was known, 2,572 (1.7%) occurred in children aged <18 years” which is likewise a tiny fraction. With this in mind, why on Earth would the CDC issue these draconian guidelines (pictured above and also found at this link in full) for American schoolchildren, if not to condition and dehumanize them?

Assumption 8: It’s a Good Idea for Government to Take Abduct Kids from COVID-Positive Parents

Governmental abduction of children using COVID as a pretext has begun. This article from June 17th 2020 reports how the “LA County Dept. of Children and Family Services (DCFS) recommended that the court remove [a] child from their physical custody after the parent tested positive for COVID-19. This is a non-offending parent. The judge ruled in favor of DCFS and detained.”

Let that sink in for a minute. The State stole a child from his/her parents just because a parent showed a COVID-positive result on a (deeply flawed) test! Can anyone spell T-Y-R-A-N-N-Y? This is the outcome of the sinister and oxymoronic warning given by WHO official Michael Ryan in March, that people would be removed from their families in a “safe and dignified” way. Ryan said:

“In some senses, transmission has been taken off the streets and pushed back into family units. Now we need to go and look in families to find those people who may be sick and remove them and isolate them in a safe and dignified manner.”

Mercola.com reports that the CDC is recommending newborns be separated at birth from their parents for COVID testing.

How bad does it have to get before people wake up to what is happening?

Assumption 9: Social Distancing is Backed by Solid Scientific Evidence

Another of the baseless COVID assumptions is that all this social distancing or physical distancing is backed by solid scientific evidence. It’s not. Whether it’s 6 feet, 1.5 meters or 2 meters, the virus seems to be able to jump different distances depending upon what country it is in. The article There is no scientific evidence to support the disastrous two-metre rule states:

“The influential Lancet review provided evidence from 172 studies in support of physical distancing of one metre or more. This might sound impressive, but all the studies were retrospective and suffer from biases that undermine the reliability of their findings.”

Meanwhile UK governmental advisor Robert Dingwall said:

“We cannot sustain [social distancing measures] without causing serious damage to society, to the economy and to the physical and mental health of the population …I think it will be much harder to get compliance with some of the measures that really do not have an evidence base. I mean the two-metre rule was conjured up out of nowhere … Well, there is a certain amount of scientific evidence for a one-metre distance which comes out of indoor studies in clinical and experimental settings. There’s never been a scientific basis for two metres, it’s kind of a rule of thumb. But it’s not like there is a whole kind of rigorous scientific literature that it is founded upon.”

Of course, the assumption that social distancing works is based on the underlying assumption that there is a distinct and isolated virus SARS-CoV2 which is contagious and is the sole cause of all the disease – which has not been proven.

Assumption 10: Mask Wearing for Healthy People is Backed by Solid Scientific Evidence

The penultimate assumption for today is the wonderful topic of masks, or face diapers and face nappies as many have started calling them. One of the COVID assumptions that many are still clinging to is that it is ‘respectful’ to wear masks because masks protect healthy individuals from getting sick from viruses. This is patently false. As covered in the previous article Unmasking the Truth: Studies Show Dehumanizing Masks Weaken You and Don’t Protect You, masks are designed for surgeons or people who are already sick, not for healthy people. They stop sick people spreading a disease through large respiratory droplets; they do nothing to protect well people. In fact, they restrict oxygen flow leading to under-oxygenation (hypoxia), which in turns leads to fatigue, weakness and a lower immunity. With a lower immunity comes … more susceptibility to disease. As I previously wrote, the masks many people are wearing – homemade from cloth – are a joke if you think they will stop a virus which is measured in nanometers (nanometer = 10–9 meters, or 0.000000001 meters). They won’t stop a virus but they will assuredly become a hotbed for microbes to develop due to the warm and humid conditions. For the scientifically minded, here’s what Dr. Russell Blaylock had to say:

“The importance of these findings is that a drop in oxygen levels (hypoxia) is associated with an impairment in immunity. Studies have shown that hypoxia can inhibit the type of main immune cells used to fight viral infections called the CD4+ T-lymphocyte. This occurs because the hypoxia increases the level of a compound called hypoxia inducible factor-1 (HIF-1), which inhibits T-lymphocytes and stimulates a powerful immune inhibitor cell called the Tregs. This sets the stage for contracting any infection, including COVID-19 and making the consequences of that infection much graver. In essence, your mask may very well put you at an increased risk of infections and if so, having a much worse outcome.”

Assumption 11: We Live in a World of Indiscriminate Killer Viruses

The biggest assumption of this entire scamdemic is that viruses are indiscriminate killers which can cross species and jump bodies through the air to infect people. In fact, the nature of the humble virus has been totally misunderstood by mainstream science, fueled by the Medical Industry which promotes germ theory and the myth of contagion to keep you in fear and to raise demand for its toxic products (Big Pharma petrochemical drugs and vaccines). Viruses have been demonized. As discussed in earlier articles such as Deep Down the Virus Rabbit Hole – Question Everything, virologist Dr. Stefan Lanka exposed the truth that viruses do not cause disease. Lanka famously won a 2017 Supreme Court in Germany where he proved that measles was not caused by a virus. Lanka writes:
“Since June 1954, the death of tissue and cells in a test tube has been regarded as proof for the existence of a virus … according to scientific logic and the rules of scientific conduct, control experiments should have been carried out … These control experiments have never been carried out by official science to this day. During the measles virus trial, I commissioned an independent laboratory to perform this control experiment and the result was that the tissues and cells die due to the laboratory conditions in the exact same way as when they come into contact with allegedly “infected” material.

In other words, the cells die of starvation and poisoning (since they are separated from energy and nutrients from the body, and since toxic antibiotics are injected into the cell culture), not from being infected by a virus. This great video presentation entitled Viral Misconceptions: The True Nature of Viruses is well worth watching. It outlines many stunning truths about the nature of viruses, such as:

  • Viruses are created from within your cells; they do not come from outside the body
  • They arise as a result of systemic toxicity, not because the body has been invaded by an external threat
  • Viruses dissolve toxic matter when body tissue is too toxic for living bacteria or microbes to feed upon without being poisoned to death. Without viruses, the human body couldn’t achieve homeostasis and sustain itself in the face of systemic toxicity
  • Viruses are very specific. They dissolve specific tissues in the body. They do this with the assistance of antibodies
  • The more toxicity you have in your body, the more viral activity you will have
  • The only vector transmission of a virus is through blood transfusion or vaccines; otherwise, viruses cannot infect you by jumping from one body to another
  • Viruses are discriminatory by nature, made by the body for a specific purpose. They are not indiscriminate killers
  • The RT-PCR test (PCR test for short) observes genetic material left over by the virus, not the virus itself (see assumption 2)

Conclusion: Time to Question all Your COVID Assumptions

The good news is that these are assumptions not facts. When you look closely, you will realize the entire official narrative on COVID is a house of cards built on sand. It cannot stand up to close scrutiny. This knowledge is the key to remaining sane and free in a COVID-crazed and brainwashed world. Spread the word. Evidence, information and knowledge will dispel assumptions and ignorance.

*

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.

Makia Freeman is the editor of alternative media / independent news site The Freedom Articles and senior researcher at ToolsForFreedom.com. Makia is on Steemit and FB.

Sources

*https://www.bitchute.com/video/9GWhQ4v9H53E/

*https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g5f_6ltv7oI

*https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Fic2dlKlhw

*https://thefreedomarticles.com/covid-19-umbrella-term-fake-pandemic-not-1-disease-cause/

*https://off-guardian.org/2020/06/27/covid19-pcr-tests-are-scientifically-meaningless/

*https://www.fda.gov/media/134922/download

*https://thefreedomarticles.com/covid-antibody-tests-here-comes-more-trickery-fakery/

*https://www.telegraph.co.uk/global-health/science-and-disease/tens-thousands-coronavirus-tests-have-double-counted-officials/

*https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7219423/

*https://www.cnbc.com/2020/06/08/asymptomatic-coronavirus-patients-arent-spreading-new-infections-who-says.html

*https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/coronavirus-age-sex-demographics/

*https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6914e4.htm

*https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/community/schools-childcare/schools.html

*https://parentalrights.org/it-finally-happened-child-taken-due-to-covid-19/

*https://www.bitchute.com/video/CMPsWxDDTwMo/

*https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2020/06/09/newborns-and-coronavirus.aspx

*https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/06/15/no-scientific-evidence-support-disastrous-two-metre-rule/

*https://metro.co.uk/2020/04/25/two-metre-social-distancing-rule-conjured-nowhere-professor-claims-12609448/

*https://thefreedomarticles.com/unmasking-the-truth-masks-weaken-dont-protect-you/

*https://thefreedomarticles.com/deep-down-virus-rabbit-hole-question-everything/

*https://davidicke.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/Paper-Virus-Lanka-002.pdf

*https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MtWYQS3LFlE

All images in this article are from TFA

Congress Wants More Unnecessary Anti-China Weapons Programs in Annual Defense Bill

July 13th, 2020 by Michael T. Klare

“Emergency Funding to Thwart Chinese Communist Party Military Aspirations and Protect the United States Defense Industrial Base.” That is the ungainly title of a measure introduced by Sen. Tom Cotton to boost U.S. military spending by $43 billion, on top of the $741 billion already requested by the Department of Defense for the year ahead.

Cotton’s proposal, stuffed with lucrative giveaways to the defense industry — $1.6 billion for “logistics and security enablers,” $775 million for “building national resilience to space weather,” among others — bears little apparent relevance to the military equation in Asia and is unlikely to be embraced by a majority of Senators. However, many of his proposed budgetary add-ons have been incorporated into other measures aimed at boosting U.S. military might in the Asia-Pacific region.

With President Trump and the Republicans blaming China for everything from the COVID-19 pandemic to declining American competitiveness, and Democrats eager to demonstrate their national security credentials, politicians from both parties are competing with one another to introduce multibillion-dollar initiatives like Cotton’s aimed at bolstering America’s China-oriented forces.

One of these, the proposed Pacific Deterrence Initiative, enjoys widespread bipartisan support. Introduced by Sens. Jim Inhofe and Jack Reed — the chair and ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee — would accord the Pentagon additional funds to purchase more of the high-tech weaponry it is already destined to receive under the ballooning budgets of the Trump era.

Sen. James Inhofe questions U.S. Air Force Gen. Paul J. Selva, Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, during a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on Capitol Hill in Washington, July 18, 2017. The hearing was held to consider Gen. SelvaÕs reappointment to the grade of general and as the Vice Chairman. (DoD Photo by U.S. Army Sgt. James K. McCann)

But even this largess, Inhofe and Reed argue, is not enough: additional appropriations are needed to ensure the effective utilization of all these new weapons and thereby “send a strong signal to the Chinese Communist Party that the American people are committed to defending U.S. interests in the Indo-Pacific.”

SASC in turn voted in June to incorporate the Inhofe-Reed plan in its draft of the FY2021 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). Under the committee’s version of the bill, $1.4 billion would be allocated for the Pacific Defense Initiative in FY 2021 and another $5.5 billion in FY 2022.

Not to be outdone, the House Armed Services Committee has come up with its own variant of the Inhofe-Reed plan, tactfully dubbed the Indo-Pacific Reassurance Initiative. As its title suggests, the House version places top priority on bolstering America’s links with close allies in the region; but it, too, emphasizes the enhancement of U.S. war-fighting capabilities there. An initial allocation of $3.6 billion is proposed for these purposes in FY 2021, with additional amounts to be added in coming years based on a future assessment of Pentagon requirements.

Underlying all of these initiatives is an assumption that the military threat posed by China has metastasized in recent years and that the U.S. military is not doing enough to counter the surging peril. But this assumption contradicts available data on U.S. and Chinese military capabilities, which shows the Chinese lagging behind this country in every key indicator of military prowess.

As China’s economy has grown, it has increased its investment in military modernization. According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, Chinese military expenditures rose by 5.1 percent in 2019, climbing from $253 to $261 billion (making it the world’s second-biggest military spender, after the U.S.). But America’s military spending is nearly three times greater that China’s and is rising at a faster rate: in the same year, American military expenditures rose by 5.3 percent, jumping from $695 to $732 billion. [5]

China is also replacing its older, Soviet-era ships and planes with more modern versions in a determined effort to match the more advanced capabilities of comparable American equipment. But the United States is hardly standing still: according to a June 2020 report by the Government Accountability Office, the Pentagon plans to spend $1.8 trillion over the next several years to acquire major new weapons systems, including such massively costly programs as the F-35 Lightning II strike fighter (total estimated program cost: $390 billion); the Columbia Class Ballistic Missile Submarine ($105 billion), and the Gerald R. Ford class nuclear-powered aircraft carrier ($48 billion). Also included in this array of high-powered weaponry are new hypersonic missiles primarily intended for war with China, including the Army’s Precision Strike Missile (PrSM) and the Air Force’s Air-launched Rapid Response Weapon (ARRW).

Look further into the documents the Pentagon submitted in support of its FY 2021 budget request of $741 billion, and it is evident that it is already devoting colossal amounts to the acquisition of weapons and supportive technology aimed at deterring and, if necessary, defeating China (or its great-power cousin, Russia) in all-out combat.

The Defense Department “continues to invest in advanced technologies that will help maintain tactical advantage, such as artificial intelligence, directed energy, and hypersonic weapons,” the Pentagon’s FY 2021 Budget Overview avows. “DoD’s FY 2021 research and development budget is the largest ever requested and is laser focused on the development of these crucial emerging technologies to expand our warfighting advantages over strategic competitors.”

Search item-by-item through the Pentagon’s budget request, and one is overwhelmed by the sheer multitude of programs devoted to new weapons development and the exploitation of advanced technologies. The FY 2021 request for procurement runs to 355 pages and incorporates many thousands of items; the separate research, development, test, and evaluation request is 242 pages long and packed with items like “Advanced Weapons Technology” and “Long Range Precision Fires Technology.” It is virtually impossible to find a proposed weapon or device that is not being allocated millions or billions of dollars.

One wonders, therefore, what additional capabilities Sens. Cotton, Inhofe, Reed, and others deem sufficiently vital to justify supplemental spending on top of the hundreds of billions already being spent on advanced weaponry to intimidate and, if necessary, defeat China. Look through their proposals, and all one finds are minor tweaks to what the Pentagon is already doing.

Both the Pacific Deterrence Initiative and the Indo-Pacific Reassurance Initiative, for example, emphasize measures to ensure the rapid deployment of hypersonic weapons at bases in the western Pacific, where they would be in range of any Chinese warships operating in the area; both also favor an increased tempo of joint military exercises with U.S. allies in the region. But while the Defense Department would never turn down extra dollars for measures like these, it is already rushing the deployment of hypersonic weapons and maintains a busy schedule of joint exercises in the Pacific, like the forthcoming Rim of the Pacific 2020 exercise, scheduled for August 17-31 in waters off Hawaii.

Examined carefully, the various proposals for increased spending on China-oriented military programs will add precious little to the already formidable U.S. combat advantage in the Asia-Pacific region. If anything, they will provide fodder for hawks in Beijing who seek to boost China’s own spending on advanced weaponry — thereby precipitating a costly arms race in such munitions and possibly diluting America’s existing advantage.

If Senators Reed, Inhofe, and their colleagues in the House and Senate are truly concerned about U.S. combat effectiveness in Asia, they should be asking if all those myriad programs in the Pentagon’s FY 2021 budget request are truly necessary and if a leaner, less costly force might not serve U.S. security interests better.

*

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.

Unintended Consequences: Facemasks and Rising Crime in the US

July 13th, 2020 by Timothy Alexander Guzman

The recommended use of facemasks has been a controversial issue in the US and other countries around the world in whether they keep you safe or not. Scientific evidence suggests that facemasks are useless against viruses as Dr. Russell Blaylock who published an important article in early May ‘Face Masks Pose Serious Risks to the Healthy’ on what facemasks can do to your health:

Researchers found that about a third of the workers developed headaches with use of the mask, most had preexisting headaches that were worsened by the mask wearing, and 60% required pain medications for relief. As to the cause of the headaches, while straps and pressure from the mask could be causative, the bulk of the evidence points toward hypoxia and/or hypercapnia as the cause. That is, a reduction in blood oxygenation (hypoxia) or an elevation in blood C02 (hypercapnia

Another point that Dr. Blaylock made is the following:

It is known that the N95 mask, if worn for hours, can reduce blood oxygenation as much as 20%, which can lead to a loss of consciousness, as happened to the hapless fellow driving around alone in his car wearing an N95 mask, causing him to pass out, and to crash his car and sustain injuries. I am sure that we have several cases of elderly individuals or any person with poor lung function passing out, hitting their head. This, of course, can lead to death.

A more recent study involving 159 healthcare workers aged 21 to 35 years of age found that 81% developed headaches from wearing a face mask. Some had pre-existing headaches that were precipitated by the masks. All felt like the headaches affected their work performance. Unfortunately, no one is telling the frail elderly and those with lung diseases, such as COPD, emphysema or pulmonary fibrosis, of these dangers when wearing a facial mask of any kind—which can cause a severe worsening of lung function. This also includes lung cancer patients and people having had lung surgery, especially with partial resection or even the removal of a whole lung

What Dr. Blaylock found is absolutely disturbing. With that said, there is another major problem that does not have anything to do with health, unless of course you get shot or stabbed, is an increase in crime across the U.S. mainland which is becoming more out of control due to the use of facemasks which makes it that much more easier to commit a crime and get away with it. A report that was published in Newsweek magazine last May sheds light on what police officials are concerned about when it came to wearing facemasks in public ‘Increase in Criminal Use of Coronavirus Face Masks to Blend in While Committing Crimes, Police Warn’ about the rise of crime since facemasks were recommended by the CDC and other health agencies including the NIH and the WHO, “an increase in the use of surgical masks amid the novel coronavirus health crisis is proving to be a unique challenge for law enforcement nationwide.” That is now what police departments across the US are now facing.

The CDC and the WHO had recommended the use of facemasks to limit and prevent others from getting the coronavirus has not only made breathing harder for those who comply, it has made “life difficult for police tasked with identifying and apprehending crooks” warning that “criminals are taking advantage of the situation to blend in with the public.” And indeed they have, “Police say investigations involving the cheap and now-common item have spiked in recent weeks, popping up in armed robberies across the country.” The CDC has advised the public to wear facemasks if social distancing cannot to achieved “especially in grocery stores and pharmacies.” Newsweek mentioned Richard Bell, A police chief from Frackville, Pennsylvania who “told the Associated Press that he is aware of seven robberies in his own region in which every suspect was masked” and described “the virus outbreak as being a “perfect opportunity” for criminals.” FBI Special Agent Lisa MacNamara also weighed in on the facemask issue said that “In the past if you did a search warrant and you found surgical masks, that would be highly indicative of something [suspicious]. Now everybody has masks or latex gloves.” In a side note, I happen to find people who wear latex gloves or dish washing gloves (which I saw a couple of people wearing in NYC), goggles and visors along with their surgical facemasks, hilarious, I guess it gives people a false sense of security. MacNamara indicated that “several such crimes and reported a surge in the wearing of latex gloves has also resulted in fewer fingerprints left at crime scenes.” The New York Times began reporting such crimes as early as March ‘Coronavirus Bandits? 2 Armed Men in Surgical Masks Rob Racetrack’described what happened at the Aqueduct Racetrack in Queens, N.Y.:

Three workers at the Aqueduct Racetrack in Queens were transporting hundreds of thousands in dollars in cash on Saturday night when they were accosted by two gunmen, the police said. The thieves made off with more than $200,000, aided in part by surgical masks they wore to conceal their identities

The NY Times also reported what happened in Chicago and in Atlanta, Georgia:

In January in Chicago, a local television news truck recorded a group of teenagers wearing surgical masks as they fled a smash-and-grab robbery of a Gucci store on Magnificent Mile. And last month, Georgia authorities said they were looking for a man who wore a surgical mask during robberies of six banks in the suburbs north of Atlanta

The use of facemasks led by the CDC and the World Health Organization has not only created a hazard for your personal health, it has made supermarkets, stores and average people more susceptible to violent crimes. With the US economy in freefall collapse with high-unemployment rates and poverty levels increasing by the day along with many businesses both small and large going bankrupt will contribute to an increase in crime not seen since the 1970′s. There is also the problem with billionaire backed movements such as Black Lives Matter who are making demands that the police should be defunded is a call for disaster especially in Democrat-run states where obtaining legal fire arms can be difficult for most businesses and law-abiding citizens to protect themselves, so at the end of the day, facemasks make it easier for criminals to win.

People who live in towns and cities across the US should thank the “experts” who lie about almost everything when it comes to Covid-19 like Dr. Anthony Fauci when they start to see a rise in violent crime including armed robberies and murder which will be far more dangerous than Covid-19 except of course if you are elderly and got serious underlying health issues.

The rise in crime is the product of decisions made by corrupt governmental officials who are bankrolled by major pharmaceutical corporations, bankers and billionaires who have specific interests to control and at the same time, profit from the people throughout the world with a tyrannical medical system in place. However, there is another angle we can look at. With an already militarized police state and a growing medical tyranny on the way with the potential to face a crime wave will force people to beg the government to protect them from the same criminals they opened the door to while the government continues to take away their freedoms. Either way, it seems that the US government and the criminals are winning and the citizens are losing the battle for the basic freedoms they once had.

*

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

Timothy Alexander Guzman writes on his blog site, Silent Crow News, where this article was originally published. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from SCN

75 Years Ago: When Szilard Tried to Halt Dropping Atomic Bombs Over Japan

July 13th, 2020 by Greg Mitchell

As this troubled summer rolls along, and the world begins to commemorate the 75th anniversary of the creation, and use, of the first atomic bombs, many special, or especially tragic, days will draw special attention.  They will include July 16 (first test of the weapon in New Mexico), August 6 (bomb dropped over Hiroshima) and August 9 (over Nagasaki). Surely far fewer in the media and elsewhere will mark another key date:July 3.

On July 3, 1945, the great atomic scientist Leo Szilard finished a letter/petition that would become the strongest (virtually the only) real attempt at halting President Truman’s march to using the atomic bomb–still almost two weeks from its first test at Trinity–against Japanese cities.

We rarely hear that as the Truman White House made plans to use the first atomic bombs against Japan in the summer of 1945, a large group of atomic scientists, many of whom had worked on the bomb project, raised their voices, or at least their names, in protest. They were led by the great physicist Szilard who, among things, is the man who convinced Albert Einstein to write his famous yes-it-can-be-done letter to President Franklin D. Roosevelt, setting the bomb project in motion.

On July 3, he finished a petition to the new president for his fellow scientists to consider.  It called atomic bombs “a means for the ruthless annihilation of cities ” and asked the president “to rule that the United States shall not, in the present phase of the war, resort to the use of atomic bombs.”  Dozens of his fellow Manhattan Project scientists signed.

The following day he wrote this cover letter (see below).  The same day, Leslie Groves, military chief and overall director of the Manhattan Project, began a campaign to combat Szilard–including strong FBI surveillance–and remove him from the bomb project. Groves also made sure the petition never landed on Truman’s desk.  No action was ever taken on it, in any event.

The bomb would be dropped over Hiroshima on August 6, with almost no one close to Truman or in a high military position calling for him to delay or reconsider (General Dwight D. Eisenhower a prime exception).   For taking part in creating the bomb, and then failing to halt its use against people, Szilard would later proclaim that he might deserve the label, “war criminal.”

I have become rather fond of the mouthy, principled, Szilard as he came play a key role in my new book, The Beginning or the End: How Hollywood–and America–Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb.   It’s the story of how Truman and Groves sabotaged the first movie on the atomic bomb, from MGM, in 1946, transforming it from a warning against building more and bigger bomb into pro-bomb propaganda.  The film-makers managed to secure Szilard’s permission to be portrayed in the movie–but failed to mention his petition or opposition to the Truman’s use of the bomb.

Indeed, MGM was forced to make numerous key revisions under pressure from Truman and Groves, who had script approval, to endorse using the weapon against Japanese cities.

Leo Szilard | Turtledove | Fandom

Here’s the letter to his colleagues:

Dear xxxxxxxxxxxx,

Enclosed is the text of a petition which will be submitted to the President of the United States. As you will see, this petition is based on purely moral considerations.

It may very well be that the decision of the President whether or not to use atomic bombs in the war against Japan will largely be based on considerations of expediency. On the basis of expediency, many arguments could be put forward both for and against our use of atomic bombs against Japan.

Such arguments could be considered only within the framework of a thorough analysis of the situation which will face the United States after this war and it was felt that no useful purpose would be served by considering arguments of expediency in a short petition.

However small the chance might be that our petition may influence the course of events, I personally feel that it would be a matter of importance if a large number of scientists who have worked in this field went clearly and unmistakably on record as to their opposition on moral grounds to the use of these bombs in the present phase of the war.

Many of us are inclined to say that individual Germans share the guilt for the acts which Germany committed during this war because they did not raise their voices in protest against these acts. Their defense that their protest would have been of no avail hardly seems acceptable even though these Germans could not have protests without running risks to life and liberty. We are in a position to raise our voices without incurring any such risks even though we might incur the displeasure of some of those who are at present in charge of controlling the work on “atomic power”.

The fact that the people of the people of the United States are unaware of the choice which faces us increases our responsibility in this matter since those who have worked on “atomic power” represent a sample of the population and they alone are in a position to form an opinion and declare their stand.

Anyone who might wish to go on record by signing the petition ought to have an opportunity to do so and, therefore, it would be appreciated if you could give every member of your group an opportunity for signing.

Leo Szilard

*

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.

Greg Mitchell is the author of a dozen books, the latest The Beginning or the End:  How Hollywood–and America–Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb (The New Press).  

Featured image is from Public Domain

As the Arctic Burns, Trump Bailouts Fossil Fuel Industry with Billions

July 13th, 2020 by Andy Rowell

The Arctic is once again on fire. And the extremely warm temperatures in the region — and concurrent wildfires — are another urgent reminder that we need to divest from fossil fuels as soon as possible.

They are a pressing reminder that any post COVID-19 bailout should be focused on an immediate just recovery toward industry workers, renewables, and clean energy.

However, the opposite is happening. New research shows that the Trump administration is giving billions in bailouts to the fossil fuel industry.

The news from the Arctic is deeply worrying. On Tuesday, scientists at the European Copernicus Climate Change Service reported that the unusually warm spell in the Arctic, which has seen record temperatures, continues.

They reported that

“global temperatures for June were on par with 2019’s record temperatures for the same month. But the most striking regional feature was exceptional warmth over Arctic Siberia, where average temperatures reached as high as 10°C above normal for June.”

They again reiterated that the Arctic “as a whole has been warming substantially faster than the rest of the world.” This heat has consequences, with fires burning across the region since last month.

“For the second year in a row, June saw widespread fires flaring up across the far northeast of Siberia and in the Arctic Circle,” said the scientists.

The fires are so bad they are beginning to make the news. Also this week, National Geographic reported that the

“heat has fueled an enormous outbreak of wildfires, including fires on tundra underpinned by permafrost — normally frigid soil that is likely becoming even less frozen this year.”

The journal noted that the recent spread of fires, which is normally too wet, cold, or icy to burn, is “raising alarms for ecologists and climate scientists” who fear that the fires could disrupt “entire ecosystems,” and “exacerbate global warming by burning deep into the soil and releasing carbon that has accumulated as frozen organic matter over hundreds of years.”

The scientists are alarmed at how far north the fires are burning and the fact that they are burning on permafrost — frozen ground — which in turn releases more carbon and methane into the atmosphere.

They are also alarmed at the scale of the fires. According to Russia’s forest fire agency, an estimated 3.4 million acres are burning.

The Washington Post adds that,

“the fires that have erupted in Siberia this summer have been massive, sending out plumes of smoke that have covered a swath of land spanning about 1,000 miles at times…Satellite observations of Arctic wildfires in June also showed that fires this year are emitting more greenhouse gases than the record Arctic fires in 2019.”

With the smoke comes pollution. In June, the fires released more polluting gases into the atmosphere than any other month in 18 years of data collection, according to scientists.

But alarming scientists the most is that everything is happening much faster and quicker than scientists had predicted. Jessica McCarty, a fire researcher at Miami University in Ohio, told National Geographic,

“when I went into fire science as an undergraduate student, if someone had told me I’d be studying fire regimes in Greenland and the Arctic, I would have laughed at them.”

Walt Meier, a senior research scientist at the National Snow and Ice Data Center at the University of Colorado at Boulder, said to the Post,

“We always expected the Arctic to change faster than the rest of the globe. But I don’t think anyone expected the changes to happen as fast as we are seeing them happen.”

His colleague, Merritt Turetsky, director of the Institute for Arctic and Alpine Research at the University of Colorado at Boulder, added,

“when we develop a fever, it’s a sign. It’s a warning sign that something is wrong and we stop and we take note. Literally, the Arctic is on fire. It has a fever right now, and so it’s a good warning sign that we need to stop, take note and figure out what’s going on.”

The burning, melting, and warming Arctic is clearly a sign that something is wrong and we need to stop investing in fossil fuels now. It is a timely reminder that there should not be a big polluter bailout in any COVID-19 recovery plan. It is a reminder that we should be investing rapidly in renewables.

Unfortunately this is not the case. Yesterday, a joint investigation by Documented and the Guardian reported that

“over 5,600 fossil fuel companies have taken at least USD 3 billion in COVID-19 aid from the United States government.”

The paper reported that “the businesses include oil and gas drillers and coal mine operators, as well as refiners, pipeline companies and firms that provide services to the industry.” Worryingly, the USD 3 billion figure is probably “far less than the companies actually received,” noted the Guardian.

The Trump Administration is bailing out polluters as the warning signs from the Arctic get worse. It is clear that nobody should be bailing out the polluters when their profits are evaporating, when they are laying off workers and their pipelines cannot get built. We should not be propping up a dying industry.

Jesse Coleman, a researcher for Documented, told the Guardian,

“we should not be wasting taxpayer dollars on an industry that’s in a tailspin of its own making, especially when it seems intent on bringing the whole planet down with it.”

*

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

Featured image is from copernicus.eu

Remember My Lai: GIs Call Viet Killings ‘Point-Blank Murder’

July 13th, 2020 by Seymour M. Hersh

This article was originally published on cleveland.com in November 2009, updated in January 2019.

Three American GIs who participated in March 1968 attack on “Pinkville” said in interviews released yesterday that their Army combat unit perpetrated, in the words of one, “Point-blank Murder” on the residents of the area.

“The whole thing was so deliberate. It was point-blank murder and I was standing there watching it,” said Sgt. Michael Bernhardt, 23, now completing his Army tour at an East Coast base.

Bernhardt was a member of one of three platoons of an 11th Infantry Brigade company, under command of Capt. Ernest Medina, that entered the Viet Cong-dominated area of Pinkville on March 16, 1968, while on a search-and-destroy mission. Pinkville, a complex of hamlets know as Song My village, is about six miles northeast of Quang Ngai in northern South Vietnam.

THE ARMY HAS CHARGED Lt. William L. Calley Jr., 26, a platoon leader, with the murder of 109 South Vietnamese civilians in the attack. A squad leader in Calley’s platoon, Sgt. David Mitchell, 29, is charged with assault with intent to murder.

At least four other men, including Medina, are known to be under investigation. Calley and his lawyer, George W. Latimer, contend that Calley was under orders to clear the area.”

Bernhardt, interviewed at this duty station, said he had been delayed and fell slightly behind the company. Led by Calley’s platoon, as it entered the village area.

“I walked up and saw these guys doing strange things…’Setting fire to the hootches and huts and waiting for people to come out and then shooting them… going into the hootches and shooting them up…gathering people in groups and shooting them.’

AS I WALKED IN YOU COULD SEE piles of people all through the village… all over. They were gathered up into large groups.

“I saw them shoot an M79 (grenade launcher) into a group of people who were still alive. But it was mostly done with a machine gun. They were shooting women and children just like anybody else.”

“We met no resistance and I only saw three captured weapons. We had no casualties. It was just like any other Vietnamese village-old Papa-Sans, women and kids. As a matter of fact, I don’t remember seeing one military-age male in the entire place, dead or alive.”

(An Army communique reporting on the operation said Medina’s company recovered “two M1 rifles, a cabine, a short-wave radio-and enemy documents” in the assault; 128 Viet Cong were reported killed; there was no mention on civilian casualties.)

Interviewed at his home, Michael Terry, 22, of Orem, Utah, a former member of Medina’s C platoon, and now a sophomore at Brigham Young University, said he, too, came upon the scene moments after the carnage began.

“They just marched through shooting everybody. Seems lie no one said anything. They just started pulling people out and shooting them.”

At one point, he said, about 20 to 30 villagers were lined up in front of a ditch and shot.

“They had them in a group standing over a ditch-just like a Nazi-type thing-one officer ordered a kid to machine gun everybody down, but the kid just couldn’t do it. He threw the machine gun down and the officer picked it up…”

“I DON’T REMEMBER SEEING any men in the ditch,” Terry said, “mostly women and kids.” Later, Terry said he noticed “some of them were still breathing… they were pretty badly shot up. They weren’t going to get any medical help, and so we shot them. Shot maybe five of them…”

Why did it happen?

“I think that probably the officers did not really know if they were ordered to kill the villagers or not…a lot of guys feel that they (the South Vietnamese civilians) aren’t human beings… we just treated them like animals.”

What happened at Pinkville, Terry said, “never happened to us before and never happened again.”

Only one officer, not from Medina’s company, tried to halt the shootings. Terry and Bernhardt both reported that this man was a helicopter pilot from an aviation support unit who landed in the midst of the incident. The officer warned he would report the shootings. Next day, he was killed in action and the subsequent investigation launched by officials of the 11th Brigade was dropped after 1 1/2 days because of “insufficient evidence.”

THE THIRD WITNESS TO THE shootings cannot be named. Still on active duty on the West Coast, he corroborated in detail the Bernhardt and Terry descriptions.

“I was shooting pigs and a chicken while the others were shooting people” he said. “It isn’t just a nightmare. I’m completely aware of how real this was.”

Bernhardt, Terry and many others contributed information contained in a three-page letter that a former GI, Ronald Ridenhour, sent in late March to the Army and 30 other officials -including many senators -outlining details of the Pinkville incident as he understood them. It was Ridenhour’s persistence that prompted the Army to begin its highlevel investigation in April.

Ridenhour, now a student at Claremount (Cali.) Men’s College, was-not in Medina’ company and did not participate in the shootings.

Calley’s lawyer declined comment on the new charges brought out in the interviews. But another source, discussing Calley’s position said “nobody’s put the finger yet on the man who started it.” The source also said he understood that Calley and other officers in the company initially resisted the orders, but eventually did their job.

BERNHARDT SAID HE HAD NO IDEA precisely how many villagers were shot that day but an official body count “was about 300 or something.” He had heard of other death counts ranging from 170 to more than 700. Peasants have said 567 were slain.

Why did the men run amok?

“It’s my belief,” the sergeant said, “that the company was conditioned to do this. This treatment was lousy… we were always out in the bushes. I think they were expecting them (the Viet Cong) to use the people as hostages.”

A few days before the mission, he said, the men’s general contempt for Vietnamese civilians had increased when some GIs walked into a land mine, injuring nearly 20 and killing at least one member of the company.

WHY DIDN’T HE REPORT THE ATROCITY at the time?

“After it was all over, some colonel came down to the fire base where we were stationed and asked about it, but we heard no further. Later they (Medina and some other officers) called me over to the command post and asked me not to write my congressman.”

Bernhardt said roughly 90% of the 60 to 70 men in the shorthanded company were involved in the shootings. He took no part, he said. “I only shoot at people who shoot at me.”

“The Army ordered me not to talk,” Bernhardt said. “But there are some orders that I have to personally decide whether to obey -I have my own conscience to consider.”

“When I testified during Calley’s hearing (an Article 32 proceeding at Fort Benning, Ga.) they asked me if I thought the deaths could have been caused by artillery or crossfire. I asked them if they had ever seen artillery or crossfire leave the dead neatly stacked up in piles.”

BERNHARDT SAID THE ARMY must have known at high levels just what did happen at Pinkville. “They’ve got pictures.” He said the photographs were shown him during the Article 32 proceeding which concluded that the charges against Calley were justified.

***

WARNING: This video is powerful. It contains very graphic interviews of the victims and perpetrators of violent atrocities. It also includes graphic photos of victims and butchered corpses. “Produced by Kevin Sim and Michael Bilton of England’s Yorkshire Television. Broadcast by FRONTL in 1989.

*

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: Photo by United States Army photographer Ronald L. Haeberle on March 16, 1968 in the aftermath of the My Lai massacre. (Wikipedia)

Covid-19, Hunger and Starvation in India. Globalist Takeover of India’s Public Health Policy

July 12th, 2020 by Kapil Bajaj

Some might ask why India is in complete lockstep with global lockdown despite the very low COVID19-related mortality figures for 1.3 billion people. Following this introduction is a two-hour interview with investigative journalist Kapil Bajaj. It focuses on the Public Health Foundation of India and how the Gates Foundation-pharma cabal bought influence, embedded itself within government machinery and is determining India’s lockdown and public health policy. According to Bajaj, it has effectively privatised and taken over the state’s public health agenda.  

In India, tens of millions are in danger of acute hunger and starvation. Lockdown has caused massive population displacement, probably the biggest since independence as millions of migrant workers returned to their villages, and has devastated livelihoods, especially among the poorest sections of society.

Even with the inflated COVID-related global death figures we see, those figures could be massively outstripped by the impacts of lockdown.

A study published in the Lancet in May predicted that globally possibly an additional 6,000 children could die every day from preventable causes over the next six months as the response to COVID-19 continues to weaken health systems and disrupt routine services. Based on the worst of three scenarios in 118 low- and middle-income countries, the analysis estimates that an additional 1.2 million under-five deaths could occur in just six months due to reductions in routine health service coverage levels and an increase in child wasting.

These potential child deaths will be in addition to the 2.5 million children who already die before their 5th birthday every six months in the 118 countries included in the study. Some 56,700 more maternal deaths could also occur in just six months.

The study warns that in the least severe scenario, there would be a 9.8 per cent increase in under-five child deaths, or an estimated 1,400 a day, and an 8.3 per cent increase in maternal deaths. In the worst-case scenario, where health interventions are reduced by around 45 per cent, there could be as much as a 44.7 per cent increase in under-five child deaths and a 38.6 per cent increase in maternal deaths per month. If routine health care is disrupted and access to food is decreased, the increase in child and maternal deaths will be devastating.

India is listed as one of the 10 countries that could potentially have the largest number of additional child deaths. With this in mind, Pratyush Singh (researcher specialising in social medicine and community health) writes on The Wire website:

“India has the largest number of TB deaths in the world with more than 1200 people dying every day. As more TB patients find it difficult to get tested or access medicine this figure is almost certainly increasing… The list of diseases killing and disabling people is very long in India and every day that it ignores them, more and more are dying. The possibility of how the coronavirus phenomenon is killing more people than the infection itself is worth considering.”

He says that more than 200,000 new patients of end-stage renal disease are added every year, which incrementally adds to more than 30 million dialysis episodes per year. It is worth considering that a dialysis centre is least 50 kilometres away for almost 60 per cent of Indians. Singh says that as most kidney patients in India depend on haemodialysis that might require as many as five sessions per week, their travails during the lockdown are apparent.

In India, severe diarrhoea is responsible for the deaths of one in four neonatal children in India. Again, Singh notes that timely hospitalised care is the only safety net for an undernourished infant.

Singh provides a damning indictment (“delinquent neglect”) of India’s (increasingly privatised) healthcare system which prior to lockdown was for many already difficult to access and woefully neglected in terms of public spending. He notes that India has the highest under-five mortality rate in the world, which means that more than 3,000 families lose their children under the age of five every day:

“Close to 30,000 mothers die due to pregnancy-related issues in 2017 as per UNICEF data and Indian government estimates show that only 21% of expecting mothers receive complete antenatal care.”

Singh concludes:

“More children will die of starvation and lack of healthcare than from the coronavirus infection. Please remember that the first Comprehensive National Nutritional Survey (2016-18) in the country reported that less than 7% of the country’s children under the age of two receive the global minimum acceptable diet.”

Now that pressure is building to fully open up economies, Bill Gates, the WHO and strategically co-opted figures are shouting about the coming of the ‘second wave’. Have no doubt, they will try to keep this pot boiling.

…

Click link to the video interview with Kapil Bajaj’s entitled Globalist Takeover of India’s Public Health System

*

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

Featured image is from Pixabay

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Covid-19, Hunger and Starvation in India. Globalist Takeover of India’s Public Health Policy
  • Tags: , ,

War in the Balkans, Srebrenica: The Memoirs of a Portuguese Peacekeeper

July 12th, 2020 by Stephen Karganovic

War pretext incidents. First published by SCF and Global Research in July 2017. Today July 11, 2020. 25 years ago Srebrenica, July 11, 1995

Featured image: Gravestones at the Potočari genocide memorial near Srebrenica (Source: Wikimedia Commons)

General Carlos Martins Branco is one of the most fascinating (and until quite recently also inaccessible) actors in the Srebrenica controversy. From his Zagreb vantage point as deputy head of the U.N. Protection Force (UNPROFOR) between 1994 and 1996, during the latter phase of the 1990s Yugoslav conflict as it unfolded in Croatia and Bosnian and Herzegovina, this Portuguese officer had privileged access to significant information. Confidential reports about the goings on in the field were crossing his desk. With first-hand information and further enlightened by discrete conversations with colleagues from various intelligence structures, Martins Branco was positioned ideally to learn facts which many officials would have preferred to cover up, and the media frequently ignored.

General Carlos Martins Branco (Source: Novosti.rs)

With a typically Latin emotional flair, refusing to remain silent as the “Srebrenica genocide narrative” was taking shape in the second half of the 1990s, Martins Branco published in 1998 an article provocatively entitled “Was Srebrenica a Hoax? Eyewitness Account of a Former UN Military Observer in Bosnia” In that early plunge into the toxic Srebrenica debate, Martins Branco ventured a number of critical questions concerning the notorious events in July 1995:

“One may agree or disagree with my political analysis, but one really ought to read the account of how Srebrenica fell, who are the victims whose bodies have been found so far, and why the author believes that the Serbs wanted to conquer Srebrenica and make the Bosnian Muslims flee, rather than having any intentions of butchering them. The comparison Srebrenica vs. Krajina, as well as the related media reaction by the ‘free press’ in the West, is also rather instructive”.

Shortly after that expression of skepticism about the nature of the disputed events in Srebrenica, Martins Branco practically disappeared from view. Not physically, of course. He spent several years in Florence teaching at the European University Institute and preparing his doctoral dissertation. After that, in 2007 and 2008 he was attached by his government to NATO forces in Afghanistan in the capacity of media spokesperson for the Commander. From 2008 until recently, when he retired, General Martins Branco served as deputy director of the National Defense Institute of the Portuguese armed forces.

This impressive background, to which we may add the duty of head of the Intelligence Affairs Section of EUROFOR for Bosnia, Albania, and Kosovo from 1996 to 1999, bespeaks an elite and highly trained staff officer, with first-class intelligence capabilities and powers of observation.

Intrigued by Martins Branco’s out-of-the-box analysis of Srebrenica events, shortly after the founding of our NGO “Srebrenica Historical Project” we attempted to establish communication with him to see if he would share with us some of his exceptional information and insights. Our efforts were fruitless and correspondence with the general over the years came down mostly to an exchange of non-committal courtesies.

Defense teams at the ICTY in the Hague, which endeavored to obtain him as a witness on their clients’ behalf, had no better luck. However, not very long ago General Martins Branco wrote to us seeking answers to some questions concerning Srebrenica. He mentioned that in November 2016 his memoirs were published in Portugal. That volume, which he kindly made available to us, encompassed the period of his service in the Balkans. It was entitled “A Guerra nos Balcãs, jihadismo, geopolítica e desinformação” [War in the Balkans, Jihadism, Geopolitics, and Disinformation], published by Edições Colibri in Lisbon.

As already seen numerous times with high-level officials, in this case as well open expression of intimate views and public disclosure of facts regarded of a delicate nature had to wait for retirement. In General Martins  Branco’s case, the wait was worthwhile. These fascinating recollections from the Balkan war theater consist of the insights of a Portuguese officer attached to UN forces into such episodes as the merciless expulsion, accompanied by mass killing, of the Serbian population of Krajina by Croatian forces. These outrages were orchestrated with the discrete backing of the NATO alliance, for which the author indirectly happened to be working at the time. Events surrounding Srebrenica in July 0f 1995 encompass another portion of his recollections. For the moment, we will focus on the latter and Martins Branco’s perception of the background and impact of the Srebrenica situation.

Already in his introduction to the chapters of his memoirs that deal with Srebrenica, Martins Branco questions the coherence of the prevalent view that it constituted genocide:

“General Ratko Mladic had made it known that he was leaving open a corridor for withdrawal toward Tuzla. With Mladic’s approval, about 6.000 persons took advantage of that opportunity. In a report by the Dutch Foreign Ministry it is noted that, according to UN sources, by August 4 a total of 35.632 displaced persons had made it to Tuzla, of whom between 800 and 1.000 were members of Bosnia and Herzegovina armed forces. Out of that total, 17.500 had been evacuated by bus”. (Page 195)

The Portuguese general then continues:

“Srebrenica was portrayed – and continues to be – as a premeditated massacre of innocent Muslim civilians. As a genocide! But was it really so? A more careful and informed assessment of those events leads me to doubt it”. (Page 196)

Martins Branco goes on to raise some pointed questions, and he does so purely in the capacity of a professional soldier:

“There are various estimates of the relative strength of forces involved in the Srebrenica battle. On the Serbian side, at most 3.000 fighters could have taken part. The number of armored vehicles is more difficult to determine, as stated at the beginning of this chapter. According to field reports, however, not more than six such vehicles were in motion at any given time. Though we lack reliable information about troop strength on the Muslim side, it is entirely probable that they numbered a minimum of 4.000 armed men, counting together Army of Bosnia and Herzegovina soldiers and members of the paramilitaries. According to some sources, they numbered up to 6.000. But for the purposes of this analysis, we will consider the 4.000 figure as credible”. (Page 196)

The general then goes on:

“The topographical features of the terrain around Srebrenica, and Eastern Bosnia as a whole, are extremely rugged and hilly. Crags, thickly forested areas, and deep ravines impede the movement of military vehicles while facilitating infantry operations. In relation to ground features, which beyond any doubt favor defenders, the numerical relationship of forces on the opposing sides suggests that Bosnian army troops had at their disposal more than sufficient manpower to put up a defense. They, however, failed to do that. Taking into account the numerical ratio of attackers to defenders, as we were taught at the military academy, for the attack to have any chance of success the number of attackers would have to exceed that of the defenders by a factor of at least three. In the case at hand, that ratio was more than advantageous to the defenders (4.000 defenders versus 3.000 attackers). In addition, the defenders had the additional benefit of knowing the landscape”. (Page 196)

Martins Branco then asks one of the key Srebrenica questions:

“Given that military advantage favored the defense, why did the Bosnian army fail to put up any resistance to Serbian forces? Why did the command of the 28th Division of the Bosnian army – acting apparently contrary to its interest – fail to establish a defense line, as at other times it knew well how to do, as for instance during the April 1993 crisis? Why did Muslim forces in the enclave fail to act to regain control over their heavy weapons, which had been deposited in a local warehouse under UN’s lock and key? Was it no more than an oversight?” (Page 197)

A Dutch YPR-765 as used at Srebrenica (Source: Wikimedia Commons)

As a supplement to these well-formulated questions, we may note that already on July 6, as the Serbian attack was commencing, the Dutch battalion command in Srebrenica let it be known to the 28th Division that it was free to retrieve its warehoused heavy armaments, if it so wished. That fact was revealed in the Dutch battalion “Debriefing”, which came out in October of 1995. However, Muslim forces in Srebrenica inexplicably ignored this invitation, thus reinforcing the impression that – for political or other reasons – they lacked the purpose of militarily resisting the Serbian attack.

Which leads the author to the following reflections:

“Twenty years later, we still lack satisfactory answers to questions that seem crucial, assuming that we are seeking to find out what exactly happened. The passivity and absence of a military reaction on the part of Muslim forces in the enclave is in stark contrast to their offensive behavior during the preceding two years, which was manifested in the form of systematic slaughter of Serbian civilians in the villages surrounding Srebrenica”. (Page 197)

The author then discloses an intriguing detail that was previously unknown even to this reviewer:

“Ramiz Becirevic [in command of the 28th Division in Naser Oric’s absence] initially issued an order for the heavy weapons to be collected. However, he cancelled it shortly thereafter, explaining that he had received a countermanding order. Who was the source of that order, and for what reason was it given? For the record, let it be noted that in the morning of July 6, as the Serbian attack was starting, acting on his own responsibility, the Dutchbat commander informed the leadership of the Bosnian army that the Serbs had ‘trespassed’ the enclave’s boundaries and that the UN would not be object should they come to retrieve their heavy weaponry that had been deposited in a local warehouse”. (Page 197)

Pressing further his point about the enigmatic dissipation within the Srebrenica enclave of the will to resist, Martins Branco points out that Naser Oric, “the charismatic leader who very likely would have acted differently”, was withdrawn from the enclave in April of 1995, never to return. He therefore goes on to ask some common sense questions:

“Was [Oric’s] return prevented by the Second Corps of the Bosnian army, of which 28th Division was part? What could have been the reasons for that? We still lack convincing answers to these questions”. (Page 198)

“On the other hand”, the Portuguese author continues with his detailed analysis of the suspicious train of events,

“officials of the local SDA, the Party of Democratic Action that was in charge in Sarajevo, not only refused, citing strange reasons, to assist UN forces in evacuating Srebrenica, which is to say their own population and refugees from the surrounding villages who had taken shelter in the town, but they went even further by preventing them from fleeing in the direction of Potocari. Instead, they submitted to the commander of B Company [of the Dutchbat] a long list of demands, the fulfillment of which was insisted upon as the condition for their cooperation. The nature of these demands suggested the existence of a carefully elaborated advance plan which, however, did not mesh with the conditions that actually prevailed on the ground at that particular moment. At that point, there were only two issues which were of significance to the municipal president: one, the demand to the Military Observers on July 10 to disseminate to the outside world a report alleging the use of chemical weapons by Serbian forces, although that was not true; secondly, to publicly accuse the international media of spreading misinformation that Muslim forces were offering armed resistance, with an additional demand to the UN to also issue an official denial to that effect. According to him, Bosnian soldiers neither used heavy weapons, nor were they prepared to ever do so. At the same time, he complained about the lack of foodstuffs and the dismal humanitarian situation. The outline of an official narrative was becoming perceptible and it consisted of two messages: the absence of any military resistance and lack of food”. (Page 198)

To put it in plain English, this elite NATO officer with excellent powers of observation and acumen for critical analysis “smelled a rat,” and he did so right from the beginning of the game. He does not say it outright in his memoirs, but it is strongly suggested that these doubts about the authenticity of the official Srebrenica narrative were proliferating in his mind in real time, as field reports accumulated on his desk in Zagreb.

Headquarters in Potočari for soldiers under United Nations command; “Dutchbat” had 370[11] soldiers in Srebrenica during the massacre. The building was a disused battery factory (Source: Wikimedia Commons)

Martins Branco then pops the logical question or, rather, he points his finger at one of the key incoherencies of the official account of Srebrenica events:

“A question mark could also be put over the complete absence of a military response of any kind by the Second Corps of the Bosnian army, whose zone of responsibility encompassed northeastern Bosnia, including Tuzla (where its headquarters was located), as well as Doboj, Bijeljina, Srebrenica, Zepa, and Zvornik. Bosnian army intelligence agencies, whose ear was constantly fixed on Serbian signal communications, were perfectly aware of the impending offensive operation. In spite of not at all being in the dark concerning the Serbs’ intention to attack, the Second Corps of the Bosnian army did not make the slightest move to weaken the Serbs’ pressure upon the enclave. It was a known fact that the Drina Corps, the Serbian army unit in whose zone of responsibility Srebrenica was located, was exhausted and that the attack on Srebrenica was made feasible only by scraping together forces withdrawn from other segments of the front, which naturally left in its wake many vulnerable points. Why didn’t the Second Corps undertake an attack along the entire front line with the Drina Corps, not merely in order to relieve the pressure on Srebrenica but also to exploit the Serbian forces’ temporary vulnerabilities in order to seize territory in areas that were left unprotected? Following the passage of twenty years, we still do not have the answer to this more than coherent and reasonable question”. (Pages 198-199)

These are just some of the more important reasons leading a professional soldier to be skeptical of the general framework of the accepted Srebrenica narrative. As we will see in the next installment of this review, his more detailed analysis raises even more troubling questions.

To be continued.

  • Posted in Archives, English
  • Comments Off on War in the Balkans, Srebrenica: The Memoirs of a Portuguese Peacekeeper

History: The War that Ended Peace, The Road to 1914

July 12th, 2020 by Jim Miles

On a recent hiking trip I took along Margaret MacMillan’s pre World War I history, “The War That Ended Peace – The Road to 1914” (Penguin Canada, 2013).  It is a well written history that I have read before – and may have formally reviewed although that is not of consequence now.  It is a book I highly recommend as it flows smoothly and delves into the personalities and mindsets of the various people involved in making the fatal decisions leading up to the war.

What struck me on this second reading was my own comparison of that era to our current global situation.  Obviously there are differences: the technology of war, the communications, the armaments are vastly more powerful and faster than before; the global political scene has shifted from a bunch of empires thrashing out their spheres of influence to one empire attempting to retain hegemony while other polarities rise; and the center of the conflict’s origins has shifted somewhat from the Balkans/Ottoman interface to its close southern neighbour, the Arab states and Israel and Iran (all of which were also involved in the first mess, but not central to it).  A future conflict could arise elsewhere with the U.S. belligerence chasing around the world, but the Middle East is probably the most serious contender with all its oil, the petrodollar, and Christian Zionism focussing into that region.

The comparison of similarities has more to do with global mindsets rather than the details of specific events.  The first phrase that struck me was,

“The old liberal parties which stood for free markets, the rule of law, and human rights for all were losing ground to socialist parties on the left, and increasingly chauvinistic parties on the right.  A new breed of politicians was going outside established parliamentary institutions to appeal to  popular fears and prejudices and their populism, especially among the nationalist parties….[p. 266]”

Now, truly understood, free markets, rule of law, and human rights for all are not all that they seem to be as they mask many attributes of imperial desires – but that was just as true then as it is today.  The specifics that jumped to mind are Trump in all his aspects, Boris Johnson and Brexit (and probably more domestic shenanigans that I have not followed), and many of the east European nations falling under the veil of NATO, with Poland in particular fawning to the empire’s desires.  Ukraine has gone to the nationlist party neonazi side of things with great support from Canada and the U.S.  The key here is the U.S. with Trump’s all too transparent manipulations of his adherents and his pushing off and denial of anyone who upsets his delicate ego.

Speaking of the U.S, the next phrase that caught my attention in the general sense concerned the military,

“Militarism, the arms race, an aggressive foreign policy, and imperialism were all seen as interrelated evils which needed to be tackled if there were to be lasting peace.[p. 297]”

Just as it was true then, the statement also provides a clear representation of what the “peace movement” holds true today.  The unfortunate aspect of this is the seeming lack of an actual peace movement today – its last gasp did nothing to prevent the lies of business, politicians, and militarists (corporate and government) from invading Iraq, and on into Libya and Syria.

A major part of today’s militarism is the navy.  In its day Britannia ruled the waves,

“…[claiming] British sea power had always been a benevolent force for peace and progress, it is perhaps not surprising that the reaction from the Continent was one of cynicism and hostility.[p. 303]”

Today, the U.S. navy claims the same thing, bringing peace and progress via its aircraft carrier task forces to such hot spots as the Persian Gulf, the South China Sea, and the Korean peninsula (among many other areas needing U.S. protection for its corporations and petrodollar).  Like all gunboat diplomacy it deserves all the cynicism and hostility able to be directed at it without actually triggering the next war – and as I write that, it too was one of the crucial elements of pre World War I, trying not to trigger a war, but also wanting one if they thought they could make it look like the other guy’s fault.

But it goes beyond the gunboats and back to militarism in general,

“While the military and their plans did not by themselves cause the Great War, their infatuation with the offensive and their acceptance of war as both necessary and inevitable made them put pressure on those making the decisions…The military advice almost invariably tended towards war…the military drew up plans which turned out to limit…the choices before the decision makers.[p.376]”

From the discussions I have read about U.S. war plans and war intentions, this all seems true today as well, whether it be Wolfowitz’s plans for first use nuclear strike or Bolton’s recent efforts to entice Iran or Russia or China into making a mistake that the U.S. media can turn into a reason to attack.  Fortunately, at least to some very small degree, these very countries are tending to focus on highly advanced defensive technologies as well as nuclear retaliatory capabilities that make a first strike a global suicide.

The media and public opinion also enter into the similarities, although the text does not delve into them in any great detail.  Then as now, ‘public opinion’ is shaped to a large degree by the media, and the media in turn is generally shaped by those in power, either directly in control of the media, or by issuing statements intended to deceive and mislead the public and to stir up the necessary component of domestic nationalism.  While it starts with ignorance,

“Too often, the civilians did not know, or did not care to inform themselves, about what the military was planning….[p. 324]”

It leads to “gusts of fear and heightened nationalism that ran through their own publics, and the lobby and special interest groups grew increasingly skilled in stirring up opinion.[p. 504]”

This is so true today with the media controlled by a few corporate owners and the psychology of mass misrepresentation well studied and very effective.

Finally, on a lesser note, at least for the historical record, MacMillan mentions in passing signals from the domestic local financial situation: stock market jitters, bank runs (no digital economy back then, real dollars counted), and hoarding of supplies (toilet paper anyone?  Okay, a different topic, but it still speaks of mass delusion.)

Are times really much different?  Technologically yes, but human nature remains the same, people are readily manipulated by the powers that be in order to find some other villain, rather than find fault with themselves, for the brinkmanship that could lead us to a third and final conflagration globally.  There are enough similarities in the current political mindset of nations that we need to remind ourselves, educate ourselves, to the knowledge that militarism, corporate greed, and media manipulations keep the world on the brink of disaster.

Margaret MacMillan’s other work on World War I, “Paris 1919 – Six Months That Changed the World” (Random House, 2003) is an excellent followup to this volume and details how the politicians turned away from liberal democracy in order to revive or retain their empires, a new colonialism under League of Nations mandates.

*

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.

Jim Miles is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on History: The War that Ended Peace, The Road to 1914

25th Anniversary of the Srebrenica Massacre Big Lie that Won’t Die

July 12th, 2020 by Stephen Lendman

Big Lies and deception about what happened in Srebrenica a generation ago were part of the 1990s rape of Yugoslavia by the Clinton co-presidency and NATO killing machine.

Events of that time were and remain one of history’s great crimes — killing a nation to advance America’s imperial aims, a scorched earth policy to transform all countries into US vassal states, along with gaining control of their resources and populations.

The official narrative of what happened in Srebrenica reinvented reality — a longstanding US-led Western specialty.

Big Lies and deception suppressed truth and full disclosure. Repeated by establishment media, most people to this day are none the wiser.

Events of the 90s culminated in all-out preemptive war on Yugoslavia from March 24 – June 10, 1999 — 78 days of US-led terror-bombing.

Like all wars, what happened was based on Big Lies and deception.

So-called Operation Noble Anvil was an act of infamy against the former Yugoslavia and its people.

Claims about wanting to counter Slobodan Milosevic’s aim for a “Greater Serbia” were falsified.

US aims were and remain all about wanting the country balkanized for easier control, its legitimate leadership replaced by pro-Western puppet rule.

Milosevic wanted Yugoslavia’s disintegration prevented. He wanted minority Serbs protected. He wanted peace, stability, and cooperative relations with the West, not war.

US-led aggression replaced Yugoslavia’s market socialism with pro-Western neoliberal harshness, its people exploited, not served.

In February 1999, the so-called Rambouillet Agreement was prelude to war — an ultimatum no responsible leader could accept.

Designed for rejection, it was an unacceptable take-it-or-leave-it demand.

It effectively ordered Milosevic to surrender Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY) sovereignty to a NATO occupation force.

It demanded unimpeded access to its land, airspace and territorial waters, as well as any area or facility therein.

It required the FRY to let NATO freely operate outside federal law. Demanding it was outrageous. Milosevic’s justifiable refusal became a pretext for US-led aggression.

At the time, nobel laureate Harold Pinter denounced the rape of Yugoslavia.

Mincing no words, he called US-led terror-bombing and dismemberment of the state “barbaric (and despicable), another blatant and brutal assertion of US power, using NATO as its missile (to consolidate) American domination of Europe.”

For 78 days, around 600 aircraft flew about 3,000 sorties.

Thousands of tons of ordnance were dropped, as well as hundreds of ground-launched cruise missiles.

Its ferocity was unprecedented to that time — military and non-military sites struck.

Targets included power plants, factories, telecommunication and transportation facilities, roads, bridges and rail lines, fuel depots,  schools, a TV station, China’s Belgrade embassy, hospitals, government offices, religious sites, historic landmarks and more.

Throughout the country, terror-bombing raped and destroyed most everything of value, countless numbers of civilians massacred.

An estimated $100 billion in damage was inflicted — the toll much greater in today’s dollar terms.

Environmental contamination was extensive. Along with mass slaughter, two million people lost livelihoods, many their homes, communities and futures.

Bosnian Serb leader Radovan Karadzic and General Ratko Mladic were subjected to sham trials — both falsely declared guilty by accusation.

Alleged genocide at Srebrenica was more myth than massacre — a Big Lie that won’t die.

Deaths were hugely inflated. The International Criminal Court for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY)  was established to blame victimized Serbs for war crimes committed against them.

Srebrenica was a combined Muslim military base and refugee “safe area.”

Serbian President/Federal Republic of Yugoslavia leader Slobodan Milosevic wanted Serbs restrained from overrunning it.

Before the alleged July 1995 massacre, falsely claiming 8,000 Muslim Bosniak deaths, Srebrenica-based Muslim forces carried out numerous attacks on nearby Serb villages.

Muslim Sarajevo officials withdrew their Srebrenica commanders, leaving thousands of soldiers leaderless.

When Bosnian Serb forces captured Srebrenica on July 11, 1995, civilians wanted to leave because of chaotic conditions.

Women and children were separated from men to locate perpetrators of raids on Serb villages and take revenge.

A small number alone were detained. Alleged Srebrenica victims reflected lies and half-truths based on what’s known – reality omitted in official and major media accounts to this day.

The 8,000 number included the Red Cross estimate of 3,000 “witnesses” allegedly detained by Bosnian Serbs, along with another 5,000 the Red Cross said “fled Srebrenica,” many to Central Bosnia.

They fled for safety and weren’t killed. Years later, forensic teams discovered 2,361 bodies where heavy fighting occurred – including combatants on both sides, not massacred civilians.

Milosevic, Karadzic, and Mladic were falsely considered guilty by accusation.

Injustice against them was and remains typical of how imperial USA and its imperial partners blame victims for crimes committed against them.

Milosevic didn’t survive the ordeal, perishing from willful medical neglect — posthumously exonerated when it was too late to matter.

Balkanized Yugoslavia is a shadow of its former self, its people exploited by punishing neoliberal harshness — victimized by the scourge of US imperialism.

*

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

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

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

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

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.

The UK Reading Stabbings: Al Qaeda LIFG Terrorists Supported by UK. Product of British Foreign Policy

July 12th, 2020 by Tony Cartalucci

It should surprise no one paying attention that the suspect in the recent stabbing spree in Reading, UK was not only known to British security agencies as an extremist and security threat, but that he comes from the pool of extremists the British aided Washington in funding, arming, training, and providing air support for during the 2011 overthrow of the Libyan government and have harbored before and ever since.

The London Guardian in its article, “Libyan held over Reading multiple stabbing ‘known to security services’,” would admit:

The suspect in an alleged terror attack that left a teacher and two others dead was known to security services and other authorities, it emerged on Sunday.

Khairi Saadallah, the 25-year-old Libyan refugee held over the stabbings in a Reading park, was on the radar of MI5 in the middle of last year, sources told the Guardian.

Saadallah joins a long and growing list of extremists – and in the UK’s case, Libyans specifically – who have carried out attacks in the UK after receiving political and material support from Western governments in proxy wars waged across the globe.

The 2017 Manchester Arena bombing killing 23 and injuring over 800 was also carried out by Libyans Salman and Hashem Abedi, also extremists long known to British security agencies.

The London Guardian in its article on the Manchester bombing titled, “Salman Abedi: from hot-headed party lover to suicide bomber,” would report:

Quite when Abedi’s aggressive tendencies acquired an ideological bent is difficult to establish, but it has emerged that he travelled to Libya as a 16-year-old in 2011 to join the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG) and fight alongside his father in the battle to oust Gaddafi.

His father was a prominent member of the militia, which was banned in the UK because of its jihadi links.

Despite terrorists from LIFG still carrying out terrorism to this day the US and UK have both removed the group from their lists of terrorist organizations.

The Western media admits that LIFG was involved in fighting and toppling the Libyan government in 2011 and admits they provided weapons to fighters in Libya as well as granted them asylum after Libya collapsed into disarray in the wake of US-led regime change.

US Senators would even shower awards and support on senior LIFG leaders after the fall of the Libyan government – including Abdelhakim Belhaj who served as “emir” of LIFG and who would at one point lead what was left of Libya after 2011.

Western newspapers regularly admit that Western security services are fully aware of LIFG members living within the borders of their respective nations – having deliberately provided them asylum there.

It takes little imagination to predict tragedies resulting from the West’s policy of creating extremists, deploying them in proxy wars abroad, and then placing them amongst their own populations at home.

It was predicted long before the first US and British bombs dropped on Libya that their war of aggression against the North African nation would spread terrorism across the Middle East and North African region (MENA) as well as flood Europe with both refugees fleeing the catastrophe and extremists deliberately created by Western interventionism.

It is so predictable – in fact – that incidents like the Manchester Arena bombing or the Reading stabbings in Reading should be interpreted as deliberate by the British government – who like its American counterparts – readily uses extremists as armed proxies abroad and as an omnipresent threat at home justifying a growing police state while dividing and distracting the public.

Narrative management in the UK seeks to turn the stabbings into an issue surrounding race, religion, and social conditions when in reality the murders are a direct and deliberate product of the UK’s foreign policy and those responsible reside in London, Washington, and Brussels, not in mosques or in the pages of the Qu’ran.

To call it “blowback” is not accurate since blowback implies the consequences were somehow unpredictable or undesirable. It is inconceivable that the British government believes harboring thousands of terrorists within its borders will not result in terrorism.

It harbors these terrorists in order to cultivate and deploy them in future proxy wars and in the meantime prevents them from being liquidated abroad when targets of Western aggression get the upperhand.

To solve the problem of extremism the Western public must focus on the deliberate foreign policy creating it – not on the social, religious, and racial excuses used to cover it up and to distract away 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.

Tony Cartalucci is a Bangkok-based geopolitical researcher and writer, especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook” where this article was originally published. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from NEO

The ICTY Srebrenica Trials: The Unseen Evidence

July 12th, 2020 by Stephen Karganovic

Srebrenica: July 11, 1995. Twenty-five years ago

One of the key evidentiary issues that arose during several ICTY Srebrenica trials was the right of the accused to conduct an independent examination of the forensic evidence used against them. That right exists as a matter of course in all non-political criminal trials in all civilized legal jurisdictions. Specifically, that is the right of defendants to verify for purposes of their own exoneration as well as for the benefit of the court the alleged DNA identifications proferred by the Prosecution, which were supplied by the International Committee for Missing Persons (ICMP).

ICMP is an NGO founded in 1996 under the auspices of the US which until recently was operating out of the Bosnian city of Tuzla. The Hague Tribunal consistently refused to issue a subpoena to ICMP to produce its biological samples and make them available to defense forensic experts for independent analysis. Supposedly sovereign governments are subject to ICTY subpoenas and can be compelled to produce physical evidence (Serbia in numerous cases, Croatia in the Gotovina artillery records matter). But a private NGO such as ICMP is apparently above all that. The reason for its immunity is the status accorded to ICMP that can only be described as exterritorial,  effectively raising it to a level above that of sovereign governments.

The ICTY managed to create an impression that some 6,800 bodies recovered from mass graves around Srebrenica had been conclusively identified by means of a ‘breakthrough’ DNA technique devised by the body that carried out the forensic work, the International Commission for Missing Persons.  In fact, the primary DNA evidence was never shared with the ICTY.  The court was provided only with a report of the ICMP’s work and findings. The only information shared was in the form of computer printouts.  No details were given about the DNA methodology or the steps taken to prevent contamination (a major problem in DNA work).  Nor was evidence given by those who had themselves carried out the work.

It is a minimum requirement of all genuine systems of justice that accused persons and their defence teams should have access to all the evidence against them.  This allows defendants to have scientific evidence checked by their own experts so that prosecution experts can be cross- examined in depth and defence experts can be called to give their assessments of the evidence. This did not happen in any of the ICTY trials.  But in every instance the court chose to treat the DNA evidence as proven.

An independent paper published on this topic revealed that the ICMP had been granted unprecedented levels of immunity in separate agreements with the Council of Ministers of Bosnia and Herzegovina (1998) and the Government of Croatia (2002):

“The Headquarters agreement provides immunity for property, assets, and staff of the ICMP from “every form of legal and administrative process, except insofar as in any particular case the ICMP has expressly waived its immunity.”  It also provides for the inviolability and immunity of ICMP premises, property and assets from “search, requisition, confiscation, expropriation, and any other form of interference, whether by executive, judicial, administrative or legislative action.” Practically, this also meant that biological samples and profiles became the property of the ICMP as a means to protect witness information and data. Only the ICMP could decide on whether information was to be shared with authorities or not. Compliance with writs such as a subpoena compelling production of material or witness attendance to give evidence was subject to the ICMP waiving their immunity. In other words, the ICMP received diplomatic status as a technical and scientific human identification operation. For a DNA laboratory or human identification effort, this was unprecedented.“

There can be little doubt that no proper court of justice would have admitted the ICMP’s evidence on this basis.

But this was only one of the problems relating to the ICMP.  This organization was the unilateral creation of US President Bill Clinton in 1996 when it became clear that the first mass grave excavations carried out by the US organization, Physicians for Human Rights, had not delivered the expected results.  The mass graves identified by US intelligence, said by Madeleine Albright to contain thousands of bodies, were nothing of the kind.  The ICMP, billed as a new international organization, seemed to all intents to be the Muslim Commission for Missing Persons, an organization set up after Dayton by Bosnian Muslim leader Alija Izetbegovic, with an international supervisory board (always Chaired by an American) grafted on the top.  Bosnian Muslims always comprised more than 90% of the workforce of the ICMP.  Few would think it appropriate or acceptable for one warring faction to be used to investigate the actions of the other.

Second, the central premise underlying the ICMP’s mass grave investigations was a dubious theory conceived by the ICTY’s small investigation team.  The theory was that, unbeknown to anyone, the Bosnian Serbs had carried out a huge cover-up operation between August – November 1995 which had involved excavating the bodies of murdered Bosnian Muslims from their original graves, transporting them to other sites within the Srebrenica safe area and reburying them in the hope that they might not be discovered in the new graves.  On the face it, this theory was risible.  Excavating, transporting and reburying some 500 tons of human remains in mountainous territory at the end of a very hot summer was not something that could have been concealed from the many UN and intelligence personnel who remained in the area.  Nor could it have been concealed from the US satellites and geostationary drones which Madeleine Albright had very publicly told the UN on 10 July 1995 that the US “will be watching” for anything of the kind.  Nor would the exhausted Bosnian Serb army have found it at all easy to mount a covert operation of this kind, especially as they were desperately short of petrol.

A further compelling reason for suspicion was that, having achieved very few identifications in the first four years or so after the end of the Bosnian war, the ICMP suddenly began to make identifications at a rate never seen before or since.  This was surprising for several reasons, not least the fact that, as there had been no population records for the wartime population of Srebrenica, the ICMP could only use the unscientific lists created when the Bosnian Muslim government urged people to come forward to report relatives missing.  Since many Bosnian Muslims had been moved around throughout the war, few families would have had definite knowledge that their relatives had been in Srebrenica.

Finally, there has always been a problem about the numbers claimed to have been killed at Srebrenica.  The Bosnian government had given a Srebrenica population figure of 42,000 to the UN as the basis for food supplies into the safe area.  Such figures are invariably an overestimate. The consensus of the aid agencies was around 38,000.   But the UN recorded 35,600 survivors of Srebrenica at Tuzla.  A further 2,000 or so of the Bosnian Muslim soldiers in Srebrenica were seen by UN personnel safely behind Muslim lines near Tuzla before they were secretly redeployed to other parts of Bosnia.  A further 750 Srebrenica survivors were recorded in Zepa, and around 1,000 escaped into Serbia.  If 6,800 were massacred in Srebrenica, there would have to have been more than 45,000 people there when it fell to the Bosnian Serbs – a far bigger figure than anyone had suggested.

In the investigation of Srebrenica, ICMP has functioned as an evidence gathering adjunct of the Tribunal. Why has it been exempted from the obligation to show to either the court or to the accused the physical evidence that its conclusions are allegedly based on? The attached ICMP Headquarters Agreement signed with Bosnia and Herzegovina contains the answer to that important question.

*

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

This article was originally published on Srebrenica Project.

Stephen Karganovic is president of “Srebrenica Historical Project,” an NGO registered in the Netherlands to investigate the factual matrix and background of events that took place in Srebrenica in July of 1995.

Palestinians Will Not Live in Peace Until the Saudi Royal Family Is Gone

July 12th, 2020 by Steven Sahiounie

Palestine

5 million Palestinians live under brutal ‘Israeli’ military occupation, without any human or civil rights. The call to “Free Palestine” is now over 70 years old, and the world and its leaders sit idly by without action.  Palestine is the only country on earth occupied by a foreign government.  The obstacle to a peaceful solution for both sides is the US foreign policy on the region, as the US Congress and State Department support only the Israeli side in the conflict, while Saudi Arabia and the Gulf monarchies pump money into the various political parties in Palestine, which keeps the groups in constant friction. There is no possibility of Palestinian unity while Saudi Arabia funds their in-fighting.

The only hope for the Palestinian people, to get their civil and human rights in a just settlement with ‘Israel’ is for them to unite.  This elusive, but essential Palestinian unity is impossible to achieve as long as the US and their Arab allies, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf monarchies, are standing with the Israeli occupation, and against the Palestinian people.

Saudi Arabia

In 1932 the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia was founded by Abdulaziz, Ibn Saud. He united the dual kingdom of the Hejaz and Najd under the name of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, making it the only country on earth which takes its name from the ruling family.

Oil discoveries began to be exploited by 1941, and huge amounts of money began flowing into the royal family. King Abdulaziz, Ibn Saud, the founder of the Kingdom died in late 1953, and his disdain for extravagance and changes to the society died with him.  What was once a people living in tents on the sand, was morphed into lavish lifestyles in big cities.

A British study has found that Saudi Arabia plays a key role in the radicalization of Muslims through the Wahhabi dogma, and is fueled by oil money.  Saudi Arabia has been named as one of the biggest supporters of foreign funding for extremist branches of Islam in Great Britain, with Riyadh having invested at least 76 billion Euros on Radical Islam.

Professor Susanne Schröter is the director of the Frankfurter Research Center for Global Islam.  In an interview with Deutsche-Welle, she said, “It has long been known that Saudi Arabia has been exporting Wahhabist ideology – largely similar to the ideology of the so-called “Islamic State” (IS). Propaganda material and organizational expertise are being sent along with money. People are being hired to build mosques, educational institutions, cultural centers, and similar organizations so that Wahhabist theology can reach the public – with great success.”  She continued,

“The result is that, in many parts of the world, a radical form of Islam is gaining the upper hand,” and, “There has been a dramatic development towards radicalism over the past three decades. It is perfectly clear that this development has been encouraged by Saudi money. Firstly, not only do the Saudis bankroll extremists. Moreover, young intellectuals have been recruited with generous scholarships at Saudi universities.”

Saudi Arabia remains one of the main sources of what former US Secretary of State John Kerry called “surrogate money” to support Islamist fighters and causes, such as the dozens of groups killing civilians in Syria. Saudi money is used to pursue its strategy of creating a wall of Sunni radicalism across South and Central Asia. In interviews with The New York Times, a former Taliban finance minister admitted he traveled to Saudi Arabia for years collecting cash, while disguising the trip as a pilgrimage to Mecca. The Saudis have supported the Taliban and have become an indispensable power broker.

Saudi Arabia is the only absolute monarchy on earth.  Nothing happens in Saudi Arabia without the express approval of the King, or the King’s family: if you are born a member of the royal family, you might have some rights; however, if you are not, you are not guaranteed any rights.

Saudi Arabia, along with its ally the US, became the main financer of the Mujahideen in Afghanistan from the 1980s. The Saudi involvement there continued after the Soviet withdrawal in 1989. Saudi Arabia, along with Pakistan and the UAE, became the only countries that recognized the ‘Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan’ as the government, and supported the Taliban with money and weapons.

Iraq 

Saudi Arabia, and other Persian Gulf monarchies, supported the US in both wars on Iraq and allowed the US to use their territories to attack Iraq. After Iraq was devastated by the US air attacks, the Saudi royal familyfunded Al Qaeda and promoted a sectarian war between Muslim sects.   Market-bombs and car-bombs against civilians in addition to aerial bombardments drove Iraq into chaos with millions killed, hundreds of thousands injured, and tens of millions made refugees.

Syria

The US-NATO attack on Syria began in 2011, and the Saudi royal family, along with other Gulf monarchies, funded all the variously named ‘rebels’: Free Syrian Army, Al Qaeda, Al Nusra Front, Hayat Tahir al-Sham, and the Islamic Army, headed by Zahran Alloush.

The CIA, through their program dubbed “Timber Sycamore”,  used the Saudi money to fund and arm terrorist groups, following Radical Islam, to fight the Syrian Arab Army and the Syrian civilians, of which are 80% Sunni Muslims.  The US-NATO project goal was ‘regime-change’. The war in Syria caused hundreds of thousands of deaths and injuries and millions of people left their homes and are refugees in Europe, Turkey, Lebanon, and Jordan.

Libya

The US-NATO attack on Libya has destroyed the country and assassinated its leader. Now, the country is split into two factions: one side is under Sarraj, and following the Radical Islam ideology of the Muslim Brotherhood, a global terror group, and is supported by Turkey and Qatar, while the other side is supported by Saudi Arabia and the UAE.

Yemen

Saudi Arabia, the wealthiest country in the region, launched a war against the poorest country in the region, Yemen.  The Saudi royal family and the UAE have used all types of weapons, including those which are banned.  Massacres against unarmed civilians in Yemen, and especially on young children, are now routine.  The Saudi-led coalition refuses to allow food and medicine to the civilians in Yemen, and the TV news is full of horrendous videos of the starving and sick children there.

The Saudi royal family, their oil money, and their Radical Islamic ideology funded and supported the terrorists who carried out the 9/11 attacks in the US. That royal money has funded death and destruction from New York City to the Middle East. Peace in the East and the West depends on removing the royal family of Saudi Arabia.

*

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

This article was originally published on Mideast Discourse.

Steven Sahiounie is an award-winning journalist.

Featured image is from Mideast Discourse

Looks Like Sweden Was Right After All

July 12th, 2020 by Mike Whitney

Why is the media so fixated on Sweden’s coronavirus policy? What difference does it make?

Sweden settled on a policy that they thought was both sustainable and would save as many lives as possible. They weren’t trying to ‘show anyone up’ or ‘prove how smart they were’. They simply took a more traditionalist approach that avoided a full-scale lockdown. That’s all.

But that’s the problem, isn’t it? And that’s why Sweden has been so harshly criticized in the media, because they refused to do what everyone else was doing. They refused to adopt a policy that elites now universally support, a policy that scares people into cowering submission. The Swedish model is a threat to that approach because it allows people to maintain their personal freedom even in the midst of a global pandemic. Ruling class elites don’t want that, that is not in their interests. What they want is for the people to meekly accept the rules and conditions that lead to their eventual enslavement. That’s the real objective, complete social control, saving lives has nothing to do with it. Sweden opposed that approach which is why Sweden has to be destroyed. It’s that simple.

Of course, none of this has anything to do with Sweden’s fatality rate, which is higher than some and lower than others. (Sweden has 543 deaths per million, which means roughly 1 death in every 2,000 people.) But like every other country, the vast majority of Swedish fatalities are among people 70 years and older with underlying health conditions. (“90% of the country’s deaths have been among those over 70.”) Sweden was not successful in protecting the people in its elderly care facilities, so large numbers of them were wiped out following the outbreak. Sweden failed in that regard and they’ve admitted they failed. Even so, the failures of implementation do not imply that the policy is wrong. Quite the contrary. Sweden settled on a sustainable policy, that keeps the economy running, preserves an atmosphere of normality, and exposes its young, low-risk people to the infection, thus, moving the population closer to the ultimate goal of “herd immunity”.

Presently, Sweden is very close to reaching herd immunity which is a condition in which the majority have developed antibodies that will help to fend-off similar sars-covid infections in the future. Absent a vaccine, herd immunity is the best that can be hoped for. It ensures that future outbreaks will be less disruptive and less lethal. Take a look at this excerpt from an article at the Off-Guardian which helps to explain what’s really going on:

“Sweden’s health minister understood that the only chance to beat COVID-19 was to get the Swedish population to a Herd Immunity Threshold against COVID-19, and that’s exactly what they have done…

The Herd Immunity Threshold (“HIT”) for COVID-19 is between 10-20%

This fact gets less press than any other. Most people understand the basic concept of herd immunity and the math behind it. In the early days, some public health officials speculated that COVID-19’s HIT was 70%. Obviously, the difference between a HIT of 70% and a HIT of 10-20% is dramatic, and the lower the HIT, the quicker a virus will burn out as it loses the ability to infect more people, which is exactly what COVID-19 is doing everywhere, including the U.S, which is why the death curve above looks the way it looks.

Scientists from Oxford, Virginia Tech, and the Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, all recently explained the HIT of COVID-19 in this paper:

We searched the literature for estimates of individual variation in propensity to acquire or transmit COVID-19 or other infectious diseases and overlaid the findings as vertical lines in Figure 3. Most CV estimates are comprised between 2 and 4, a range where naturally acquired immunity to SARS-CoV-2 may place populations over the herd immunity threshold once as few as 10-20% of its individuals are immune….

Naturally acquired herd immunity to COVID-19 combined with earnest protection of the vulnerable elderly – especially nursing home and assisted living facility residents — is an eminently reasonable and practical alternative to the dubious panacea of mass compulsory vaccination against the virus.

This strategy was successfully implemented in Malmo, Sweden, which had few COVID-19 deaths by assiduously protecting its elder care homes, while “schools remained open, residents carried on drinking in bars and cafes, and the doors of hairdressers and gyms were open throughout.

One of the most vocal members of the scientific community discussing COVID-19’s HIT is Stanford’s Nobel-laureate Dr. Michael Levitt. Back on May 4, he gave this great interview to the Stanford Daily where he advocated for Sweden’s approach of letting COVID-19 spread naturally through the community until you arrive at HIT. He stated:

If Sweden stops at about 5,000 or 6,000 deaths, we will know that they’ve reached herd immunity, and we didn’t need to do any kind of lockdown. My own feeling is that it will probably stop because of herd immunity. COVID is serious, it’s at least a serious flu. But it’s not going to destroy humanity as people thought.

Guess what? That’s exactly what happened. As of today, 7 weeks after his prediction, Sweden has 5,550 deaths. In this graph, you can see that deaths in Sweden PEAKED when the HIT was halfway to its peak (roughly 7.3%) and by the time the virus hit 14% it was nearly extinguished.” (“Second wave? Not even close“, JB Handley, The Off-Guardian)

In other words, Sweden is rapidly approaching the endgame which means that restrictions can be dropped entirely and normal life can resume. They will have maintained their dignity and freedom while the rest of the world hid under their beds for months on end. They won’t have to reopen their primary schools because they never shut them down to begin with. Numerous reports indicate that young children are neither at risk nor do they pass the virus to others. Most Americans don’t know this because the propaganda media has omitted the news from their coverage. Here’s a clip from the National Review which helps to explain:

Kari Stefansson, CEO of the Icelandic company deCODE genetics in Reykjavík, studied the spread of COVID-19 in Iceland with Iceland’s Directorate of Health and the National University Hospital. His project has tested 36,500 people; as of this writing,

Children under 10 are less likely to get infected than adults and if they get infected, they are less likely to get seriously ill. What is interesting is that even if children do get infected, they are less likely to transmit the disease to others than adults. We have not found a single instance of a child infecting parents.”(“Icelandic Study: ‘We Have Not Found a Single Instance of a Child Infecting Parents.’“, National Review)

This is just one of many similar reports from around the world. Most of the schools in Europe have already reopened and lifted restrictions on distancing and masks. Meanwhile, in the US, the reopening of schools has become another contentious political issue pitting Trump against his Democrat adversaries who are willing to sacrifice the lives of schoolchildren to prevent the president from being reelected. It’s a cynical-counterproductive approach that reveals the vindictiveness of the people who support it. In an election year, everything is politics. (Watch Tucker Carlson’s short segment on “Kids cannot afford to stay locked down.“)

Here’s a question for you: Have you ever wondered why the virus sweeps through the population and then seemingly dissipates and dies out? In fact, the virus doesn’t simply die-out, it runs out of people to infect. But how can that be when only 1 of 7 people will ever contract the virus?

The answer is immunity, either natural immunity or built up immunity from other Sars-Covid exposure. Here’s more from the Off Guardian piece:

“Scientists are now showing evidence that up to 81% of us can mount a strong response to COVID-19 without ever having been exposed to it before:

Cross-reactive SARS-CoV-2 T-cell epitopes revealed preexisting T-cell responses in 81% of unexposed individuals, and validation of similarity to common cold human coronaviruses provided a functional basis for postulated heterologous immunity.

This alone could explain WHY the Herd Immunity Threshold (HIT) is so much lower for COVID-19 than some scientists thought originally, when the number being talked about was closer to 70%. Many of us have always been immune!“ (“Second wave? Not even close”, JB Handley, The Off-Guardian)

What does it mean?

It means that Fauci and the idiots in the media have been lying to us the whole time. It means that Covid-19 is not a totally new virus for which humans have no natural immunity or built-in protection. Covid is a derivative of other infections which is why the death toll isn’t alot higher. Check this out from the BBC:

“People testing negative for coronavirus antibodies may still have some immunity, a study has suggested. For every person testing positive for antibodies, two were found to have specific T-cells which identify and destroy infected cells. This was seen even in people who had mild or symptomless cases of Covid-19..

This could mean a wider group have some level of immunity to Covid-19 than antibody testing figures, like those published as part of the UK Office for National Statistics Infection Survey, suggest…..And these people should be protected if they are exposed to the virus for a second time.” (“Coronavirus: Immunity may be more widespread than tests suggest“, BBC)

Now, I realize that there’s some dispute about immunity, but there shouldn’t be. If you contract the virus, you either won’t get it again or you’ll get a much milder case. And if immunity doesn’t exist, then we’re crazy to waste our time trying to develop a vaccine, right?

What the science tells us is that immunity does exist and the reason the vast majority of people didn’t get the infection— is not because they locked themselves indoors and hid behind the sofa– but because they already have partial immunity either from their genetic makeup or from previous exposure to Sars-CoV-2 which was identified in 2002.

It’s worth repeating that the reason everyone was so scared about Covid originally was because it was hyped as a “novel virus”, completely new with no known cure or natural protection. That was a lie that was propagated by Fauci and his dissembling Vaccine Mafia, all of who are responsible for the vast destruction to the US economy, the unprecedented spike in unemployment, and the obliteration of tens of thousands of small businesses.

As the author points out, we should have known from the incident on the Diamond Princess (Cruise Liner) that immunity was far more widespread than previously thought. Readers might recall that only 17% of the people on board tested Covid-positive, “despite an ideal environment for mass spread, implying 83% of the people were somehow protected from the new virus.”

Think about that for a minute. All of the passengers were 60 years old or older, but only 17% caught the virus. Why?

Immunity, that’s why. What else could it be? Cross immunity, natural immunity, or SARS-CoV-2 T-cell immunity. Whatever you want to call it, it exists and it explains why the vast majority of people will not get the highly-contagious Covid no matter what they do.

It’s also worth pointing out that even according to the CDC’s own statistics, the Infection Fatality Rate (IFR) is a mere 0.26% whereas “According to the latest immunological and serological studies, the overall lethality of Covid-19 (IFR) is about 0.1% and thus in the range of a strong seasonal influenza (flu).” (“Facts about Covid-19”, Swiss Policy Research)

So the death rate is somewhere in the neighborhood of 1 in every 500 (who contract the virus) to 1 in every 1,000. How can any rational person shut down a $21 trillion economy and order 340 million people into quarantine, based on the fact that 1 in every thousand people (mostly old and infirm) might die from an infection?? That was a act of pure, unalloyed Madness for which the American people will pay dearly for years to come. Once again, the US response was crafted by people who were promoting their own narrow political, social and economic agenda, not acting in the interests of the American people. We should expect more from our leaders than this.

So what does all of this say about the sharp spike in Covid positive cases in the south and the chances of a “second wave”?

There’s not going to be a second wave (The massive BLM protests in NY city has not produced any uptick in deaths, because NY has already achieved herd immunity. In contrast, Florida will undoubtedly experience more fatalities because it has not yet reached HIT or the Herd Immunity Threshold. Cases are increasing because younger- low-risk people are circulating more freely and because testing has increased by many orders of magnitude. At the same time, deaths continue to go down.

On Wednesday, US new cases rose to an eye-watering 62,000 in one day while deaths are down 75% from the April peak. This shouldn’t come as a surprise because the pattern has been the same as in countries around the world. The trajectory of infections was mapped out long ago by UK epidemiologist and statistician, William Farr. Take a look:

“Farr shows us that once peak infection has been reached then it will roughly follow the same symmetrical pattern on the downward slope. However, under testing and variations in testing regimes means we have no way of knowing when the peak of infections occurred. In this situation, we should use the data on deaths to predict the peak. There is a predicted time lag from infection to COVID deaths of approximately 21 to 28 days.

Once peak deaths have been reached we should be working on the assumption that the infection has already started falling in the same progressive steps. …

Farr, also illustrated that those who are the most ‘mortal die out’, and in a pandemic are those in most need of shielding….(So, Farr saw the wisdom of the Swedish approach a full 180 years ago!)

In the midst of a pandemic, it is easy to forget Farr’s Law, and think the number infected will just keep rising, it will not. Just as quick as measures were introduced to prevent the spread of infection we need to recognize the point at which to open up society and also the special measures due to ‘density’ that require special considerations. But most of all we must remember the message Farr left us: what goes up must come down.” (“COVID-19: William Farr’s way out of the Pandemic”, The Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine)

What this tells us is that the fatality rate is a more reliable barometer of what is taking place than the spike in new cases. And what the death rates signals is that the virus is on its last legs. We are not seeing the onset of a second wave, but the gradual ending of the first. Also, the fact that tens of thousands of young people are contracting Covid-19 without experiencing any pain or discomfort, confirms that immunity is widespread. This is a very positive development.

Here’s how Dr. John Thomas Littell, MD, who is President of the County Medical Society, and Chief of Staff at the Florida Hospital, summed it up in a letter to the editor of the Orlando Medical News, He said:

“Why did we as a society stop sending our children to schools and camps and sports activities? Why did we stop going to work and church and public parks and beaches? Why did we insist that healthy persons “stay at home” – rather than observing the evidence-based, medically prudent method of identifying those who were sick and isolating them from the rest of the population – advising the sick to “stay at home” and allowing the rest of society to function normally.”
(“Second wave? Not even close”, JB Handley, The Off-Guardian)

Why? Because we were misled by Doctor Fauci and the Vaccine Gestapo, that’s why. In contrast, Sweden shrugged off the dire predictions and fearmongering, and “got it right the first time.”

Hurrah for 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.

Featured image is from Shutterstock

Video: Race, Class and Protest in the United States Today

July 12th, 2020 by Ajamu Baraka

American anti-war activist Ajamu Baraka has urged the public to stay vigilant against US “attempts to control the narrative” of the Black Lives Matter movement.

Speaking at an event organised by the Workers’ Party, the national organiser of the Black Alliance for Peace and the 2016 Green Party candidate for vice president said that: “The current ongoing capitalist crisis has created the most serious crisis of legitimacy since the collapse of the capitalist economy during the years referred to as the Great Depression. We are now seeing, within the economy, the genocidal implications of economic conditions in which young black workers have more value as human generators of profit locked up in prisons than as participants in the economy as low wage workers.”

Founded in 2017, the Black Alliance for Peace (BAP) seeks to recapture and redevelop the historic anti-war, anti-imperialist, and pro-peace positions of the radical black movement. Framing the current wave of protests across America as an unarticulated rebellion against “the dehumanisation and degradation of late stage capitalism, known as neoliberalism”, Baraka outlined attempts by the authorities to co-opt the Black Lives Matter movement with photo opportunities and stories of white agitators.

Full transcript below.

***

America’s Political Prisoners

I made a pledge that in all of my public presentations that I will acknowledge the existence of political prisoners in the US. We just had Delbert Africa – who had been incarcerated for 42 years – up until January when he was released. He passed the day before yesterday. We believe it is important that people in the US – but even more importantly that people outside of the US – be made aware that inside the US we have the longest serving political prisoners on the planet. People who are approaching their fifth decade in prison. Men – and, up until recently, women – who have been in the dungeons of the US for decades.

The Black Alliance of Peace

The motivation for launching the Alliance was based on the fact that on April 4th, 1967 Dr Martin Luther King reconnected with the radical black tradition by adding his voice of opposition to the murderous US war machine unleashed on the people of Vietnam. For Dr King his silence on the war in Vietnam had become an irreconcilable moral contradiction.

He declared that it was hypocritical for him to proclaim the superiority of values of nonviolence as a life principle while the US remained the greatest purveyor of violence on the planet. He thought it was a contradiction for him to remain silent as the US government engaged in genocidal violence against the people of Vietnam. We say Dr King reconciled and reconnected with the black radical tradition because, in fact, Dr King was lat.

In 1967, when he embraced an oppositional position on Vietnam, it was years after other formations – including the Revolutionary Action Movement, Malcolm X, SNCC (the Student Non-Violence Coordinating Committee), and the Black Panthers – had taken a resolute stance against the war in Vietnam.

The Black liberation movement that those organisations represented are worker based. They are anti-capitalist, anti-imperialist and international. On April 4th, 2017, 50 years after that very famous speech in which Dr King broke with the US government, we launched the Black Alliance for Peace.

We saw that after more than three decades of pro-war commissioning by both corporate parties and the corporate media, coupled with cultural desensitisation from almost decades of unrelenting war, opposition to militarism and war was something that had almost disappeared in the US among the general population. The black public was not immune to those cultural and political changes. And with the ascendance of the corporatist President Barack Obama – during whose tenure the US continued on a militaristic bent unabated and, in fact, ratcheted up – that lack of opposition to and awareness of US militarism deepened even more.

What we saw was an absolute necessity for us to attempt to recapture anti-war and anti-imperialist traditions. The black community, the black people, the black working class have been consistently – up until recently – the most anti-war and anti-imperialist communities in the US. And so the Black Alliance for Peace was launched to try to revive that spirit of opposition. But we have to make sure that people understand that the Black Alliance for Peace is a fighting organisation. We are clear. We say: no justice; no peace.

The Alliance is what we call a people-centred human rights project against war, repression and imperialism that, again, seeks to recapture, seeks to redevelop the anti-war, anti-imperialist spirit.

We see our work as part of a broader effort. A broader effort to not only revive our antiwar traditions but to revive a broader anti-war, anti imperialist, pro-peace movement in the United States. We make the connections between domestic violence and repression and the global war machine.

We see, for example, the pivot to Asia. NATO and the rotating of NATO troops on the borders of Russia. The expansion of the US Africa command. Continued support for apartheid Israel. Police executions and impunity in the US. The carceral state with the mass incarceration of black and other colonised workers and poor people are elements and policies of one oppressive global system of colonial, capitalist, white supremicist power. So the context of struggle in the US must begin with a structural analysis.

The current crisis

The current ongoing capitalist crisis has created the most serious crisis of legitimacy since the collapse of the capitalist economy during the years referred to as the Great Depression. The economic collapse comes on the heels of a deep crisis of the economy that occurred in 2007, 2008. With economic instability and the increasing competition between capitalist states, divisions have emerged among the nations that those of us in the Black Alliance for Peace refer to as the US/EU/NATO axis of domination.

The US has responded by moving toward a more confrontational posture, not only with its allies in Europe, but it has also elevated China and Russia as national security risks. Domestically, the black working class has never recovered from the collapse of 2007, 2008. The continual restructuring of the US economy to a low wage economy has resulted in the black working class being relegated to the lower rungs of the labour force, joining undocumented migrants, immigrants and other colonised workers.

We are now seeing, within the economy, the genocidal implications of economic conditions in which young black workers have more value as human generators of profit locked up in prisons than as participants in the economy as low wage workers.

This reality is one of the factors driving the obscene phenomenon of black and brown incarceration in the largest prison system on the planet. Astronomical youth employment. Millions of African-Americans and white people without health care. Poisoned environments and crumbling schools make for conditions that, with Covid-19, are ravaging the black communities. This is the reality of the colonial, capitalist system in its neoliberal stage. The Corona pandemic has pulled the ideological curtain away from the system and has exposed the brutal realities of a rapacious system of greed, human exploitation and degradation, social insecurity, corruption, and the normalisation of coercive state violence.

Bipartisan support for neoliberal capitalist policies over the last four decades has had a devastating impact. The closing of public health care facilities. Turning hospitals into giant for-profit hospital chains. Millions of people – disproportionately black people – living precarious lives at the bottom of the labour market as gig workers with no benefits, no sick leave, no vacation, no security – ordered to shutter in place as a consequence of Covid-19.

Hundreds of black people are dying unnecessarily from the virus because of conditions of colonial oppression. Which we say amounts to a situation of state sanctioned murder.

So the murders of George Floyd and Breonna Taylor – who was murdered by police in her bed – and Ahmaud Arbery who was murdered in Brunswick, George by non-state actors; white vigilantes… The whole phenomenon of vicious killer cops is just the tip of the iceberg.

This is the context we have to bring to understand what is happening in the US. Connecting the pandemic and the ongoing structural contradictions of capitalism. The impact of the pandemic, not only on black people, on black worders, but on everyone, particularly the working class in the United States of America.

In some ways George Floyd and the resistance is almost a metaphor for what is unfolding in the US. It’s a consequence of this pandemic. It’s a consequence of the disproportionate impact of this pandemic on the black working class. It’s a consequence of the clear message to workers from racial and ethnic backgrounds that their lives mean very little when it comes to the objective interests of capital.

There has been a process of radicalisation among the people, particularly among the working class. The clear message from the rulers is that humanity and the safety and the health of workers mean almost nothing in comparison to the needs of capital.

The knee on the neck of George Floyd that we saw became almost a metaphor for what millions of people are experiencing.  They are experiencing the knee on their neck from capital.

So while the cry was for justice for George Floyd and so called police reform, what some of us see is an unarticulated – unarticulated until this point – rebellion against the dehumanisation and degradation of late stage capitalism, known as neoliberalism. And that is responsible for bringing people to the streets. There is no other way that one can understand the breadth and intensity of the mobilisations we are seeing. LGBTQ. The unemployed youth from all racial and ethnic backgrounds. Downsized petit bourgeois elements. Suburbanites. All sectors of the population have shown up in the streets in hundreds of cities and towns across the country.

What has been the response from the state?

Many of us have seen an evolution take place. First there was clear repression. A heavy handed response from the authorities and from the militarised police. The calling up of what we call the state police and the national guard.

Every state in the US has a national guard. These are civilians who also serve in the military. They do military maneuvers. They serve as active duty soldiers from time to time. During the period when the US was involved in a two-theatre war – in both Iraq and Afghanistan- it was the national guard that played a very important role in those wars. The national guard is one of the foundational elements in allowing the state to carry out two wars simultaneously. We’re talking about military personnel.

They were called up to various states and cities across the country. So repression was the first response.

Then there was an attempt to co-opt. Some of you may have seen some of the images of the police kneeling with the protesters; sometimes even joining in with the marchers. We also saw – and it wasn’t disseminated as widely – police officers using the kneeling gesture as a way to lure protesters closer to them. And then they would attack. Those images were circulated but not so much in the international press.

After continued attempts to co-opt the resistance we saw a clever move on the part of the state. They began to criminalise the resistance. They began to raise the issue of the violence of some of the protesters. Calling on the protesters to police themselves. To make sure that the resistance would remain what they define as non-violent. Part of that criminalisation process was racial division. They used an interesting device, talking about the so-called outside agitators.

In this case it was the white outside agitator. They said it was the white outside agitators who were responsible for the looting and the escalation of violence. You might recall that President Trump then identified Antifa. The anti-fascist. This amorphous group of individuals – some part of other organisations – who emerged after the election of Donald Trump and who proclaimed that they were going to oppose what they saw as a neofascist movement developing in the country.

Donald Trump said that this amorphous element were in fact domestic terrorists and that they were the ones responsible for the violence taking place across the country. So what we started seeing was suspicion on the part of the march organisers when it came to the participation of some white comrades.

Then came an attempt to colonise the resistance by the Democrats. Over two weeks, there was a move away from a call for justice and police reform. (Policing) is a local issue, remember; we have almost 19,000 police forces in the US. Policing is a local responsibility. The opposition movement ended up being about Trump in some way. It was an anti-Trump movement and Trump played right into to that when he ordered the protesters outside of the White House to be pushed back so that he could engage in a photo op.

Of course his bombastic rhetoric played right along to it too. So after seven days of resistance, it began to look like the resistance was anti-Trump and people started talking about the necessity of voting Trump out of office and started to articulate the talking points of the Democratic Party.

All of these are attempts to control the opposition. I keep referring to so-called racial justice – not to belittle the notion of racial justice – but to suggest that it was in the interests of the state to keep the resistance on the subject of racial justice for an individual. For George Floyd. And for it to be seen to be moving towards police reform.

They were scared to death that the images we all saw: of young black, white and brown people engaged in resistance. That is a nightmare scenario on the part of the rulers. A multinational, multiracial opposition under the leadership of radical black people emerging in the US. So they were desperate to keep the focus away from pivoting toward a critique of the system. And the nature of the state. And they were desperate to break up the emerging coalitions of progressive and radical elements among the people in this country.

What will happen next? 

We believe they will continue to attempt to control the narrative. That’s what we saw with the so-called yellow vests in France. We all recall that what brought them to the streets in the first place was pension reform. It gradually began to morph into a general anti-neoliberal movement. THe US state is concerned with the same kind of trajectory.

There will be an attempt to depoliticise the opposition. They are attempting to make sure there is no class analysis. They don’t want us to point to the ongoing plight of the working class. In particular the black and brown working class. The fact that it is workers – black and brown workers who they identify as so-called essential workers – who are attracting the virus and dying.

They don’t want us to make a connection with the healthcare system in the US in which 80 million people are without healthcare. They are concerned about the healthcare system being overwhelmed because it is an industrialised system. When the only way to handle a pandemic is to have nationaliised healthcare and a coordinated, sustainable system in the hands of the people.

They want to keep the focus on the issue of race. We say we have to make sure a pivot takes place. That there has to be a focus on class and race issues. We need to connect what is unfolding in the US to US militarism and imperialism. We say to people making the cry to defund the police that if you don’t connect that slogan with defunding the military, then it becomes a reactionary slogan that drives the movement into a dead end.

We say it is a moral contradiction to advocate for a kinder, gentler police force domestically while the US is unleashing systematic violence against people around the world.

This situation is very interesting as it is generating international solidarity. The US will never be able, with a straight face, to talk about human rights in other countries.  The situation will prevent the US from pretending to be a state that is upholding international law. It is revealing to people around the world the true nature of the US, the plight of the working class and, in particular, the black and brown colonised working classes in the US.

The fundamental collapse of the global capitalist economy is creating a situation in which there is no telling what may unfold over the next few weeks and months.

This is a situation that may be historical in its implications.

*

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.

Iran and China Turbo-charge the New Silk Roads

July 12th, 2020 by Pepe Escobar

This article was originally published on Asia Times.

Two of the US’s top “strategic threats” are getting closer and closer within the scope of the New Silk Roads – the leading 21st century project of economic integration across Eurasia. The Deep State will not be amused. 

Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Abbas Mousavi blasted as “lies”  a series of rumors about the “transparent roadmap” inbuilt in the evolving Iran-China strategic partnership.

That was complemented by President Rouhani’s chief of staff, Mahmoud Vezi, who said that

“a destructive line of propaganda has been initiated and directed from outside Iran against the expansion of Iran’s relations with neighbors and especially (with) China and Russia.”

Vezi added,

“this roadmap in which a path is defined for expansion of relations between governments and the private sectors is signed and will continue to be signed between many countries.”

To a great extent, both Mousavi and Vezi were referring to a sensationalist report which did not add anything that was not already known about the strategic partnership, but predictably dog-whistled a major red alert about the military alliance.

The Iran-China strategic partnership was officially established in 2016, when President Xi visited Tehran. These are the guidelines.

Two articles among the 20 listed in the agreement are particularly relevant.

Item 7 defines the scope of the partnership within the New Silk Roads vision of Eurasia integration:

“The Iranian side welcomes ‘the Silk Road Economic Belt and the 21st Century Maritime Silk Road’ initiative introduced by China. Relying on their respective strengths and advantages as well as the opportunities provided through the signing of documents such as the “MOU on Jointly Promoting the Silk Road Economic Belt and the 21st Century Maritime Silk Road’ and ‘MOU on Reinforcement of Industrial and Mineral Capacities and Investment’, both sides shall expand cooperation and mutual investments in various areas including transportation, railway, ports, energy, industry, commerce and services.”

And item 10 praises Iran’s membership of the AIIB:

“The Chinese side appreciates Iran’s participation as a ‘Founding Member’ of the Asia Infrastructure Investment Bank. Both sides are willing to strengthen their cooperation in the relevant areas and join their efforts towards the progress and prosperity of Asia.”

So what’s the deal?

The core of the Iran-China strategic partnership – no secret whatsoever since at least last year – revolves around a $400 billion Chinese investment in Iran’s energy and infrastructure for the next 25 years. It’s all about securing a matter of supreme Chinese national interest: a steady supply of oil and gas, bypassing the dangerous bottleneck of the Strait of Malacca, secured with a median 18% discount, and paid in yuan or in a basket of currencies bypassing the US dollar.

Beijing will also invest roughly $228 billion in Iranian infrastructure – that’s where the AIIB comes in – over 25 years, but especially up to 2025. That ranges from building factories to badly needed energy industry renovation, all the way to the already in progress construction of the 900 km-long electric rail from Tehran to Mashhad.

Tehran, Qom and Isfahan will also be linked by high-speed rail – and there will be an extension to Tabriz, an important oil, gas and petrochemical node and the starting point of the Tabriz-Ankara gas pipeline.

All of the above makes total sense in New Silk Road terms, as Iran is a key Eurasian crossroads. High-speed rail traversing Iran will connect Urumqi in Xinjiang to Tehran, via four of the Central Asian “stans” (Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan) all the way to West Asia, across Iraq and Turkey, and further on to Europe: a techno revival of the Ancient Silk Roads, where the main language of trade between East and West across the heartland was Persian.

The terms of aerial and naval military cooperation between Iran and China and also Russia are still not finalized – as Iranian sources told me. And no one has had access to the details. What Mousavi said, in a tweet, was that “there is nothing [in the agreement] about delivering Iranian islands to China, nothing about the presence of military forces, and other falsehoods.”

The same applies to – totally unsubstantiated – speculation that the PLA would be granted bases in Iran and be allowed to station troops in Iranian territory.

Last Sunday, Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif stressed Iran and China had been negotiating “with confidence and conviction” and there was “nothing secret” about the agreement.

Iranian, Chinese and Russian negotiators will meet next month to discuss terms of the military cooperation among the top three nodes of Eurasia integration. Closer collaboration is scheduled to start by November.

Geopolitically and geoeconomically, the key take away is that the US relentless blockade of the Iranian economy, featuring hardcore weaponized sanctions, is impotent to do anything about the wide-ranging Iran-China deal. Here is a decent expose of some of the factors in play.

The Iran-China strategic partnership is yet another graphic demonstration of what could be deconstructed as the Chinese brand of exceptionalism: a collective mentality and enough organized planning capable of establishing a wide-ranging, win-win, economic, political and military partnership.

It’s quite instructive to place the whole process within the context of what State Councilor and Foreign Minister Wang Yi stressed at a recent China-US Think Tanks meeting, attended, among others, by Henry Kissinger:

“One particular view has been floating around in recent years, alleging that the success of China’s path will be a blow and threat to the Western system and path. This claim is inconsistent with facts, and we do not agree with it. Aggression and expansion are never in the genes of the Chinese nation throughout its 5,000 years of history. China does not replicate any model of other countries, nor does it export its own to others. We never ask other countries to copy what we do. More than 2,500 years ago, our forefathers advocated that ‘All living things can grow in harmony without hurting one another, and different ways can run in parallel without interfering with one another’”.

*

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

Pepe Escobar is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image: Modern day traders on the ancient Silk Road track in Central Asia. Photo: Facebook

Was Srebrenica a Hoax? Eye-Witness Account of a Former United Nations Military Observer in Bosnia

July 12th, 2020 by Carlos Martins Branco

Feature Image: General Major Carlos Martins Branco

Global Research Editor’s Note

Today July 11, 2020 we are commemorating Srebrenica, 25 years ago.

In 2017, Ratko Mladić was convicted to life imprisonment by the the ICTY on charges of genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity while he was Chief Commander of the Army of Republika Srpska between 1992 and 1995 in Bosnia and Herzegovina.

This detailed account first published in 1998 by former UN Military Observer Carlos Martino Branco casts doubt on the official narrative and the The Hague Tribunal’s decision that “genocide was committed in Srebrenica in 1995.”

According to the ICTY:

“…Bosnia Serb forces carried out genocide against the Bosnian Muslims (…) .Those who devise and implement genocide seek to deprive humanity of the manifold richness its nationalities, races, ethnicities and religions provide. This is a crime against all humankind, its harm being felt not only by the group targeted for destruction, but by all of humanity.”

This article by General Major Carlos Martino Branco first published by Global Research on 20 April 2004 casts doubt on the ICTY conviction of Ratko Mladić.

Michel Chossudovsky, July 11, 2020

***

Author’s Preface

I  was on the ground in Bosnia during the war and, in particular, during the fall of Srebrenica.

One may agree or disagree with my political analysis, but one really ought to read the account of how Srebrenica fell, who are the victims whose bodies have been found so far, and why the author believes that the Serbs wanted to conquer Srebrenica and make the Bosnian Muslims flee, rather than having any intentions of butchering them. The comparison Srebrenica vs. Krajina, as well as the related media reaction by the “free press” in the West, is also rather instructive.

There is little doubt that at least 2,000 Bosnian Muslims died in fighting the better trained and better commanded VRS/BSA. Yet, the question remains, WHEN did most of these casualties of combat occur? According to the analysis below, it was before the final fall of Srebrenica:  the Muslims offered very little resistance in the summer of 1995.

I was UNMO [United Nations Military Observer] Deputy Chief Operations Officer of the UNPF [United Nations Population Fund] (at theatre level) and my information is based upon debriefings of UN military observers who where posted to Srebrenica during those days as well as several United Nations reports which were not made public.

My sources of information are not Ruder & Finn Global Public Affairs. My name is not included in their database.

I do not wish to discuss numbers and similar matters pertaining thereto.  There is reason to believe that figures have been used and manipulated for propaganda purposes. These figures and information do not provide a serious understanding of the Yugoslavian conflict.

The article is based upon TRUE information and includes my analysis of the events. The story is longer than what I  have presented here in this article.

It is my hope that it will contribute  to clarifying  what really happened in Srebrenica.

Was Srebenica a Hoax?

It is now two years since the Muslim enclave, Srebenica, fell into the hands of the Serbian army in Bosnia. Much has been written about the matter. Nonetheless the majority of reports have been limited to a broad media exposure of the event, with very little analytic rigor.

Discussion of Srebrenica cannot be limited to genocide and mass graves.

A rigorous analysis of the events must take into consideration the background circumstances, in order to understand the real motives which led to the fall of the enclave.

The zone of Srebrenica, like almost all of Eastern Bosnia, is characterized by very rugged terrain. Steep valleys with dense forests and deep ravines make it impossible for combat vehicles to pass, and offers a clear advantage to defensive forces. Given the resources available to both parties, and the characteristics of the terrain, it would seem that the Bosnian army (ABiH) had the necessary force to defend itself, if it had used full advantage of the terrain. This, however, did not occur.

Given the military advantage of the defensive forces it is very difficult to explain the absence of military resistance. The Muslim forces did not establish an effective defensive system and did not even try to take advantage of their heavy artillery, under control of the United Nations (UN) forces, at a time in which they had every reason to do so.

The lack of a military response stands in clear contrast to the offensive attitude which characterized the actions of the defensive forces in previous siege situations, which typically launched violent “raids” against the Serbian villages surrounding the enclave, thus provoking heavy casualties amongst the Serbian civilian population.

But in this instance, with the attention of the media focused upon the area, military defence of the enclave would have revealed the true situation in security zones, and demonstrate that these had never been genuinely demilitarized zones as was claimed, but were harboured highly-armed military units. Military resistance would jeopardize the image of “victim”, which had been so carefully constructed, and which the Muslims considered vital to maintain.

Throughout the entire operation, it was clear that there were profound disagreements between the leaders of the enclave. From a military viewpoint, there was total confusion. Oric, the charismatic commander of Srebenica, was absent.

The Sarajevo government did not authorize his return in order to lead the resistance. Military power fell into the hands of his lieutenants, who had a long history of incompatibility. The absence of Oric’s clear leadership led to a situation of total ineptitude. The contradictory orders of his successors completely paralyzed the forces under siege.

The behavior of the political leaders is also interesting. The local SDP president, Zlatko Dukic, in an interview with European Union observers, explained that Srebrenica formed part of a business transaction which involved a logistical support route to Sarajevo, via Vogosca.

He also claimed that the fall of the enclave formed part of an orchestrated campaign to discredit the West and win the support of Islamic countries. This was the reason for Oric to maintain a distance from his troops. This thesis was also defended by the local supporters of the DAS. There were also many rumours of a trade within the local population of the enclave.

Another curious aspect was the absence of a military reaction from the 2nd Corps of the Muslim army, which did nothing to relieve the military pressure on the enclave. It was common knowledge that the Serbian unit in the region, the “Drina Corps”, was exhausted and that the attack on Srebenica was only possible with the aid of the units from other regions. Despite this fact, Sarajevo did not lift a finger in order to launch an attack which would have divided the Serbian forces and exposed the vulnerabilities created by the concentration of resources around Srebenica. Such an attack would have reduced the military pressure on the enclave.

It is also important to register the pathetic appeal of the president of Opstina, Osman Suljic, on July 9, which implored military observers to say to the world that the Serbians were using chemical weapons. The same gentleman later accused the media of transmitting false news items on the resistance of troops in the enclave, requiring a denial from the UN. According to Suljic, the Muslim troops did not respond, and would never respond with heavy artillery fire. Simultaneously, he complained of the lack of food supplies and of the humanitarian situation. Curiously, observers were never allowed to inspect the food reserve deposits. The emphasis given by political leaders on the lack of military response and the absence of food provisions loosely suggests an official policy which began to be discernible.

In mid 1995, the prolongation of the war had dampened public interest. There had been a substantial reduction in the pressure of public opinion in the western democracies. An incident of this importance would nonetheless provide hot news material for the media during several weeks, could awaken public opinion and incite new passions. In this manner it would be possible to kill two birds with one stone: pressure could be laid to bear in order to lift the embargo and simultaneously the occupying countries would find it difficult to withdraw their forces, a hypothesis which had been advanced by leading UN figures such as Akashi and Boutros-Boutros Ghali.

The Muslims always harbored a secret hope that the embargo would be lifted. This had become the prime objective of the Sarajevo government, and had been fuelled by the vote in the US Senate and Congress in favor of such a measure. President Clinton, however, vetoed the decision and required a two thirds majority in both houses. The enclaves collapse gave the decisive push that the campaign needed. After its fall, the US Senate voted with over a two thirds majority in favor of lifting the embargo.

It was clear that sooner or later the enclaves would fall into the hands of the Serbians, it was an inevitability. There was a consensus amongst the negotiators (the US administration, the UN and European governments) that it was impossible to maintain the three Muslim enclaves, and that they should be exchanged for territories in Central Bosnia. Madeleine Albright suggested this exchange on numerous occasions to Izetbegovic, based on the proposals of the Contact Group.

As early as 1993, at the time of the first crisis of the enclave, Karadzic had proposed to Izetbgovic to exchange Srebrenica for the suburb of Vogosca. This exchange included the movement of populations in both directions. This was the purpose of secret negotiations in order to avoid undesirable publicity. This implied that the western countries accepted and encouraged ethnic separation.

The truth is that both the Americans and President Izetbegovic had tacitly agreed that it made no sense to insist in maintaining these isolated enclaves in a divided Bosnia. In 1995 nobody believed any longer in the inevitability of ethnic division of the territory. In the month of June 1995, before the military operation in Srebrenica, Alexander Vershbow, Special Assistant to President Clinton stated that “America should encourage the Bosnians to think in terms of territories with greater territorial coherence and compactness.” In other words this meant that the enclaves should be forgotten. The attack on Srebrenica, with no help from Belgrade, was completely unnecessary and proved to be one of the most significant examples of the political failure of the Serbian leadership.

Meanwhile the western media exacerbated the situation by transforming the enclaves into a powerful mass-media icon; a situation which Izetbegovic was quick to explore. CNN had daily broadcasts of the images of mass graves for thousands of corpses, obtained from spy satellites. Despite the microscopic precision in the localization of these graves, it is certain that no discovery to date has confirmed such suspicions. Since there are no longer restrictions on movement, we inevitably speculate on why they have still not been shown to the world.

If there had been a premeditated plan of genocide, instead of attacking  in only one direction, from the south to the north – which left the hypothesis to escape to the north and west, the Serbs would have established a siege in order to ensure that no one escaped. The UN  observation posts to the north of the enclave were never disturbed and remained in activity after the end of the military operations. There are obviously mass graves in the outskirts of Srebrenica as in the rest of ex-Yugoslavia where combat has occurred, but there are no grounds for  the campaign which was mounted, nor the numbers advanced by CNN.

The mass graves are filled by a limited number of corpses from both sides, the consequence of heated battle and combat and not the result of a premeditated plan of genocide, as occurred against the Serbian populations in Krajina, in the Summer of 1995, when the Croatian army  implemented the mass murder of all Serbians found there. In this instance, the media maintained an absolute silence, despite the  fact that the genocide occurred over a three month period. The objective of Srebrenica was ethnic cleansing and not genocide, unlike what happened in Krajina, in which although there was no military  action, the Croatian army decimated villages.

Despite knowledge of the fact that the enclaves were already a lost cause, Sarajevo insisted in drawing political dividends from the fact. The receptivity which had been created in the eyes of public opinion made it easier to sell the thesis of genocide.

But of even greater importance than the genocide thesis and the political isolation of the Serbs, was blackmailing of the UN: either the UN joined forces with the Sarajevo government in the conflict (which subsequently happened) or the UN would be completely discredited in the eyes of the public, leading in turn to support for Bosnia. Srebrenica was the last straw which led western governments to reach agreement on the need to cease their neutrality and commence a military action against one side in the conflict. It was the last straw which united the West in their desire to break “Serbian bestiality”. Sarajevo was conscious of the fact that it lacked the military capacity to defeat the Serbs. It was necessary to create conditions via which the international community could do this for them. Srebrenica played a vital role in this process.

Srebrenica represents one of a series of acts by the Serbian leaders intended to provoke the UN, in order to demonstrate their impotence. This was a serious strategic error which would cost them dear. The side which had everything to win by demonstrating the impotence of the UN was the Sarajevo leadership and not that of Pale. In 1995 it was clear that the change in the status quo required a powerful intervention which would overthrow the Serbian military power. Srebrenica was one of the pretexts, resulting from the short-sightedness of the Bosnian Serbian leaders.

The besieged forces could have easily defended the enclave, at least for much longer, if they had been well led. It proved convenient to let the enclave fall in this manner. Since the enclave was doomed to fall, it was preferable to let this happen in the most beneficial manner possible. But this would only have been viable if Sarajevo had political initiative and freedom of movement, which would never occur at the negotiating table. The deliberate fall of the enclave might appear to be an act of terrible machiavellian orchestration, but the truth is that the Sarajevo government had much to gain, as proved to be the case. Srebrenica was not a zero-sum game. The Serbians won a military victory but with highly negative political side-effects, which helped result in their definitive ostracization.

We might add a final curious note. As the UN observation posts were attacked, and proved impossible to maintain, the forces withdrew. The barricades set up by the Muslim army did not let the troops past. These troops were not treated as soldiers fleeing from the front line, but rather with a sordid differentiation.

The Muslims not only refused to fight to defend themselves, they forced others to fight on their behalf. In one instance, the commander of a Dutch vehicle decided after conversations with ABiH to pass the barrier. A Muslim soldier threw a  hand grenade whose fragments mortally wounded him. The only UN soldier to die in the Srebrenica offensive, was killed by the Muslims.

General Major Carlos Martins Branco is a high-ranking officer of Portugal’s Armed Forces, who served as a UN Military Observer in Bosnia in 1995

US Hostility Toward China. Military Encirclement, Visa Bans, Backlash on US Economy

July 12th, 2020 by Stephen Lendman

Geopolitics of both right wings of the US war party is polar opposite what just societies cherish — seeking dominance over other nations by brute force if other tactics to achieve its aims fail.

Mutual cooperation and respect for the sovereign rights of other nations according to international law is a nonstarter for the US.

It’s why a permanent state of war by hot and other means exists between its ruling authorities and all other nations it doesn’t control.

Highly distracted by bread and circuses, along with establishment media propaganda, most Americans are none the wiser about how their government breaches the rule of law, harming their health, welfare, safety and security.

US manufactured irreconcilable differences define its relations with China and other nations on its target list for regime change.

With China, they have nothing to do with trade, everything to do with Beijing’s growing prominence on the world stage — an intolerable reality that conflicts with US hegemonic aims.

Both nations are rivals, not partners. The further China rises, the greater the possibility of an East/West clash of civilizations.

While calling for resolution of major bilateral differences to avoid rupturing relations, China’s Foreign Minister Wang Yi accused the US of encircling and smearing Beijing, along with unacceptably meddling in its internal affairs.

At the same time, Washington demands Chinese support for its geopolitical agenda, he stressed.

According to former Chinese vice-foreign minister Fu Ying, Beijing should pursue relations with the US with its fundamental interests in mind that include continued internal development and world peace.

Days earlier, the US war department falsely accused China of conducting destabilizing military exercises in the South China Sea, saying:

They “are the latest in a long string of PRC actions to assert unlawful maritime claims and disadvantage its Southeast Asian neighbors in the South China Sea (sic).”

In response, Beijing’s National Defense Ministry’s spokesman Ren Quoqiang slammed the hostile accusation, saying:

“We are strongly dissatisfied with it and express our resolute opposition,” adding:

“We hope the US side can reflect on its behaviors, stop military provocations in the South China Sea, and stop its groundless accusations against the Chinese side.”

In contrast to Pentagon military exercises with warmaking in mind, drills by China’s PLA are all about national defense — unrelated to attacking another nation.

Stability in the South China Sea is breached by the hostile presence of US warships — notably given that no nations anywhere threaten America’s security, reality throughout the post-WW II period.

In sharp contrast, Washington’s permanent war agenda threatens everyone everywhere.

On Thursday, Pompeo announced the latest anti-China action by the Trump regime.

Ignoring unacceptably hostile actions by the world’s leading human rights abuser at home and abroad USA, he accused China of these abuses against Uyghurs, Kazakhs, and “members of other minority groups in Xinjiang,” claiming Beijing is waging war on Islam — a longtime US specialty.

He announced unlawful sanctions on three senior Chinese officials: “Chen Quanguo, the Party Secretary of the XUAR; Zhu Hailun, Party Secretary of the Xinjiang Political and Legal Committee (XPLC); and Wang Mingshan, the current Party Secretary of the Xinjiang Public Security Bureau (XPSB).”

They and family members are prohibited from entering US territory.

Visa bans were also imposed on other Chinese officials and their family members.

Separately, the Trump regime’s Treasury Department announced sanctions on designated Chinese officials, a statement saying:

China’s Xinjiang Public Security Bureau (SPSB) was sanctioned, along with the following officials: “Chen Quanguo, the Communist Party Secretary of XUAR, and Zhu Hailun, a former Deputy Party Secretary of the XUAR.”

In addition, “Director and Communist Party Secretary of the XPSB Wang Mingshan and former Party Secretary of the XPSB Huo Liujun” were targeted.

The latest Trump regime anti-China shoe to drop is all about US war on the country by other means.

Newly imposed sanctions on Chinese officials are unrelated to alleged human rights abuses.

They’re all about US efforts to weaken and isolate China internationally, along with aiming to undermine its development as a major economic, industrial, and technological power.

According to Treasury Secretary Mnuchin,

“all property and interests in property of the entity and individuals named above, and of any entities that are owned, directly or indirectly, 50 percent or more by them, individually, or with other blocked persons, that are in the United States or in the possession or control of US persons, are blocked and must be reported to OFAC,” adding:

“Unless authorized by a general or specific license issued by OFAC or otherwise exempt, OFAC’s regulations generally prohibit all transactions by US persons or within (or transiting) the United States that involve any property or interests in property of designated or otherwise blocked persons.”

“The prohibitions include the making of any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services by, to, or for the benefit of any blocked person or the receipt of any contribution or provision of funds, goods or services from any such person.”

China will likely respond in its own way at an appropriate time to the latest hostile Trump regime action.

Continuing with disturbing regularity, Pompeo added the following Big Lies:

“We’re spending significant time on defending the Hong Kong people in the face of communist tyranny (sic).”

Fact: For months, the US orchestrated violence, vandalism, and chaos in the city, part of its war on China by other means, targeting its soft underbelly.

Pompeo: “We’ve also seen this stain of the century in western China that rivals any that we’ve seen across the globe (sic).”

Fact: Washington’s imperial project is responsible for global human rights abuses on an unparalleled scale from its wars by hot and other means.

Fact: Its ruling authorities time and again accuse victims for US high crimes committed against them.

So-called US support for “preserving (the) unalienable rights” of everyone everywhere is polar opposite how both wings of its war party operate.

Hostile US actions against China, Russia, Iran, and other nations it doesn’t control risk greater war and instability than already.

Ordinary people everywhere want peace and governance support for their welfare.

US war on humanity by hot and other means against multiple countries worldwide denies it to countless millions and ordinary Americans at home.

A Final Comment

In his latest commentary, the Economic Collapse editor Michael Snyder noted the “unending (economic) nightmare” that’s ongoing in the US, explaining:

“Businesses are shutting down at a pace that we have never seen before in American history…(an unprecedented) “retail apocalypse.”

For 16 consecutive weeks, since around mid-March, more than a million US workers filed claims for unemployment benefits.

According to Shadowstats economist John Williams, real US unemployment exceeds 31%, not the phony BLS reported 11.1%.

Nearly one-third of working-age Americans have no jobs.

Most individuals with them earn poverty or sub-poverty wages with few or no benefits.

Snyder noted an “unprecedented…tsunami of job losses,” far exceeding the worst of times before, including during the Great Depression.

Yet Washington fiddles while the Greatest Depression causes enormous harm to most Americans with no end of the hardest of hard times in prospect.

Congressionally passed and signed into law emergency measures to help unemployed US workers expire in two weeks if not renewed.

Other than for committee work, the House is in recess until July 13, no Senate sessions until July 20.

Trump expressed opposition to extending benefits for unemployed workers.

Well over 100,000 US businesses declared bankruptcy and shut down, including about 110 major firms.

Around half of US restaurants aren’t operating. Social distancing limits the number of their patrons.

Most hotels either remain closed or have minimal occupancy levels, an untenable situation if continues much longer.

United Airlines announced it will furlough half its workforce, 36,000 staff being laid off.

Established in 1818, venerable US clothier Brooks Brothers, the nation’s oldest, headquartered on Madison Ave., NY, in operation for over two centuries, declared bankruptcy and is seeking a buyer.

What’s going on was planned, not natural. The most serious ever economic crisis for ordinary Americans, small businesses, and many others was made in the USA.

The self-styled champion of peace, equity and justice USA is the world’s greatest abuser on all counts.

*

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

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

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

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

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.

Video: COVID-19 “Fake” Data in Italy: Politician Slams False Numbers: Vittorio Sgarbi

July 11th, 2020 by Global Research News

First published by Global Research on May 8, 2020

Vittorio Sgarbi, MP (Forza Italia) slammed the closure of 60% of Italian businesses: A decision which was taken on the basis of an alleged 25,000 Coronavirus deaths. “It’s not true,” he said.
 .
According to the National Institute of Health, 96.3% did not die of coronavirus, but of other pathologies stated Sgarbi – which means that only 925 have died from the virus and 24,075 have died of other things claimed Sgarbi, “… the virus was little more than an influenza. Don’t lie! Tell the truth!”

.

Do not lie. Tell the truth.

The data is fake.  96.3 % died as a result of  other diseases.

Hypocrisy and Falsification.  25,000 people died of the coronavirus, that is not true, that is a lie.

It is a way to terrorize Italians and impose a dictatorship. a dictatorship of consensus. It’s ridiculous

Italy is not the only country where figures on mortality have been manipulated.

Under different circumstances, US data is also the object of manipulation, essentially with a view to sustaining the fear campaign.

VIDEO 

 

 

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Video: COVID-19 “Fake” Data in Italy: Politician Slams False Numbers: Vittorio Sgarbi

华盛顿是否在挑拨印度与中国的战争？

July 10th, 2020 by F. William Engdahl

美国国务卿迈克-蓬佩奥（Mike Pompeo）在最近的一次视频会议上建议，美国可能会将部分军队从德国调往印度周边地区，理由是美国对亚洲地区的安全担忧日益加剧。鉴于印度和中国之间因尼泊尔和不丹地区有争议的边界而导致的紧张局势急剧上升，据报道，双方有几名士兵在交战中丧生，问题是华盛顿是否在刻意煽动这两个亚洲大国之间的战火。尽管这种情况目前不太可能发生，但它表明，在 “冠状病毒经济衰退 “和美国退缩后的权力真空中，我们的世界正变得多么不稳定。

 

**

你可以点击下面的链接阅读整篇文章的英文版，也可以用手机翻译

 

Is Washington Provoking India into a War with China?                                                                             

By F. William Engdahl, July 05, 2020

  • Posted in 中文
  • Comments Off on 华盛顿是否在挑拨印度与中国的战争？

Venezolanos-ConBiden and MAGA-zuela: Two Sides of the Same Coin

July 10th, 2020 by Leonardo Flores

The Biden campaign held an online event on Wednesday, July 8 pitched as the former Vice President’s “vision for Venezuela and Venezuelans in the U.S.” Spoiler alert: his vision for Venezuela barely differs from President Trump. This event, which didn’t merit an appearance from Biden himself, was aimed at getting Venezuelan-Americans to volunteer for “Uncle Joe”, as Representative Darren Soto (D-Fl) called him. It was an hour and a half of shilling for votes and influence, and it demonstrated that when it comes to Venezuela, policies of regime change, sanctions and a refusal to engage in dialogue unite VenezolanosConBiden (the group hosting the event) with MAGAzuela (the term for Trump-supporting Venezuelans).

There are only two policy differences in the Biden and Trump approaches to Venezuela. One is about TPS, or temporary protected status, which is an immigration policy that allows people from ten specific countries affected by disasters to live and work in the U.S. Biden supports TPS for Venezuelans, while Trump allies have blocked it in the Senate and Trump himself ended the program and has refused to issue it for Venezuelans. According to one of Biden’s surrogates, there are 150 thousand Venezuelans in the U.S. who are either undocumented or are here on expired visas.

The other difference is the border wall, which is now being built in part using Venezuelan funds. The Trump administration has diverted $601 million dollars in assets stolen from the Venezuelan people to build the wall on the U.S.-Mexico border. This money was previously held in the Treasury Department’s “forfeiture fund”, which is typically used to finance law enforcement operations. It is part of the estimated $24 billion that the U.S. and its allies have frozen and looted from Venezuela in their regime change efforts. Juan Guaidó, the self-proclaimed interim president, has yet to comment on how the Trump administration is using these Venezuelan funds, but his “ambassador”, Carlos Vecchio, admitted to working with the Justice Department to “establish a formal agreement … to define the percentage” of how much of the seized Venezuelan funds will go to the United States. According to Guaidó and his associates, it is “normal” for the Trump administration to take a cut.

TPS and the wall are the only two points on which Biden and Trump differ. Biden’s surrogates claim he will grant TPS to Venezuelans on Day One of his administration and Biden says he will stop financing the wall. These differences are minimal though, especially considering that Biden will continue the policies that have led millions of Venezuelans to flee in the first place and he has given every indication that more funds will be frozen.

Biden’s vision is more of the same magical thinking that the Trump administration has engaged in for years. His campaign says the sanctions will continue and actually intensify. A Biden administration would seek “a huge increase in aid”, not just for Venezuela but for Colombia and other countries with Venezuelan migrants. They would build an “international coalition” to rebuild Venezuela. They would persecute key supporters of the Venezuelan government, regardless of where they are in the world. According to Juan González, former Deputy Assistant Secretary of State under Obama and current advisor to Biden on Latin America, they will give the government of President Nicolás Maduro one option: elections observed by a respected (and unnamed) multilateral institution and he must leave office.

Biden’s surrogates warn that Venezuela is a national security issue for the U.S., that the country has been infiltrated by terrorist groups and everything must be done to end Russian, Chinese and Cuban influence. They responded to a question about the impact of sanctions by blaming the “humanitarian crisis” on chavismo. They say Biden will not negotiate with Maduro.The Biden campaign attacked Trump for suggesting he would meet with Maduro, forcing Trump to backtrack on the offer, and has been running ads in Miami accusing Trump of being soft on Maduro .

Biden’s policies are the same policies and exact rhetoric used by the Trump administration. Since 2017, the U.S. has imposed sanctions that have cost 100,000 Venezuelans their lives and led to economic losses of $130 billion. But according to Biden supporter Rep. Soto, “there hasn’t been enough of a crackdown” on the Maduro government. Trump has spent three years building an approximately 60-country anti-Maduro coalition and Secretary of State Pompeo has travelled the world seeking more aid allegedly for Venezuela, but that ends up in countries with Venezuelan migrants. They have sanctioned foreign companies doing business with Venezuela and sought to arrest Venezuelan businessmen overseas.

On the issue of military intervention, the Biden surrogates claimed Trump’s threats of a military option were empty and insisted other options must be explored and all other avenues of pressure exhausted (except, of course, dialogue) before considering military action. They did not say whether U.S. intervention should be “on the table”, and framed the discussion around the U.S. public’s alleged aversion to another war rather than on the catastrophic consequences this would have for the Venezuelan people, let alone the illegality of any sort of military intervention.

It is no secret that regime change in Venezuela is a bipartisan objective, and Trump’s tactic of pandering to right-wing latinx extremists in Florida has led the Democrats to do the same. The Biden campaign strategy is clear: mimic the administration’s Venezuela policy while offering TPS to draw votes away from Trump. The surrogates also repeatedly insisted that Biden is not a socialist – apparently a common misconception among the MAGAzuela crowd.

It should be no surprise that this is all about Florida and the 2020 election. Trump not only won the state in 2016, but his allies took the governorship and a Senate seat in 2018, albeit by small margins. Republican governor Ron DeSantis and Senator Rick Scott both accused their opponents of being socialists who are soft on Venezuela. The Biden camp is doing its utmost to prevent those types of attacks from sticking against their candidate.

There is no reason to believe that Biden will change course on Venezuela if elected. There are too many votes in Florida at stake, as well as donations to be had from wealthy Venezuelan expats – who at this point are playing both sides and doing so very well. A Biden presidency, just like another four more years of Trump, looks to be disastrous for the Venezuelan people.

*

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

Leonardo Flores is Latin American policy expert and campaigner with CODEPINK.

Bipartisan Torpedo Against the Agreement for Afghanistan

July 10th, 2020 by Manlio Dinucci

Hundreds of thousands of civilian casualties, over 2,400 US soldiers killed (plus an unknown number of wounded), about 1,000 billion dollars spent: this is the budget summary of 19 years of US war in Afghanistan, to which the cost for NATO allies (including Italy) and others, who joined the US in the war, is added.

Bankruptcy budget for the USA also from a political-military point of view: most of the territory is now controlled by the Taliban or disputed between them and the Governmental Forces supported by NATO.

After lengthy negotiations, the Trump administration concluded an agreement with the Taliban last February against this background, which provides for the reduction of the number of US troops in Afghanistan from 8,600 to 4,500 in exchange for a series of guarantees. This does not mean the end of the US military intervention in Afghanistan, which continues with Special Forces, drones and bombers.

The deal, however, would pave the way for a de-escalation of the armed conflict. A few months after signing, however, the agreement was broken: not by Afghan Taliban but by US Democrats.

They passed an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act in Congress that allocates $740.5 billion for the Pentagon’s fiscal year budget in 2021. The amendment, approved on July 2 by the House Armed Services Committeeby a large majority with Democrats’ votes establishes to “limit the use of funds to reduce the number of armed forces deployed in Afghanistan.” It forbids the Pentagon to spend the funds in its possession for any activity that reduces the number of US soldiers in Afghanistan below 8,000: the agreement involving the US troops’ reduction in Afghanistan is thus effectively blocked.

It is significant that the amendment was sponsored not only by Democrat Jason Crow but also by Republican Liz Cheney, who provides her endorsement in perfect bipartisan style. Liz is Dick Cheney’s daughter. Her father was United States vice president from 2001 to 2009 in the George W. Bush Administration, the administration that decided on the invasion and occupation of Afghanistan (officially to hunt down Osama bin Laden). 

The amendment explicitly condemns the agreement, arguing that it harms “the United States National Security interests,” “does not represent a realistic diplomatic solution” and “does not provide protection for vulnerable populations.” In order to be authorized to reduce its troops in Afghanistan, the Pentagon will have to certify that this “will not compromise the United States’ counter-terrorism mission.”

It is no coincidence that the New York Times published an article on June 26 that according to information provided (without any evidence) by US intelligence agents, accuses “a Russian military intelligence unit of offering Taliban militants a size to kill Coalition soldiers in Afghanistan, targeting mainly American ones.” The news was spread by major US media, without any fake news hunter questioning its veracity.

A week later, the amendment that prevents the reduction of US troops in Afghanistan passed. This confirms what the real purpose of the US / NATO military intervention in Afghanistan is: control of this area is of ​​primary strategic importance.

Afghanistan is at the crossroads of the Middle East and Central, Southern and Eastern Asia. In this area (the Gulf and the Caspian sea) there are large oil reserves. There are also Russia and China, whose strength is growing and affecting global structures.

As the Pentagon warned in a report on September 30, 2001, a week before the US invasion of Afghanistan, “there is a possibility that a rival with a formidable resource base will emerge in Asia.” Possibility that is now materializing. The “National Security interests of the United States” require us to stay in Afghanistan no matter what it costs.

*

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

This article was originally published in Italian on Il Manifesto.

Manlio Dinucci is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization.

The Dogs of Empire!

July 10th, 2020 by Philip A Farruggio

All Americans of any persuasion need to search the archives of both the Nazi Holocaust and the 1950- 1960s Civil Rights movement. One will see, quite vividly, the use of trained, tough and violent dogs on unarmed civilians. In Germany it was Jews and political rivals (Communists and Social Democrats) that were set upon by men with sticks and whips leading those vicious dogs. In the south, circa the 50s and 60s, the same scenario held true. Well, under this current far right wing, Neo Fascist (Neo Nazi?) administration, private companies have secured ‘Blackwater type’ goons, replete with their weapons and trained dogs (read Jeremy Scahill’s brilliant 2007 book Blackwater: The Rise of the World’s Most Powerful Mercenary Army).

Case in point is what happened in September of 2016 in North Dakota at the Dakota Access Pipeline construction site. Indigenous tribal members, along with other peaceful protestors, concerned with the damage to their lands and clean water, raised hell in a protracted struggle to stop the pipeline. The hired thugs and their dogs, along with lots of pepper spray, attacked  the unarmed, peaceful , but vehement group. All in a day’s work, yes?

My title seems to refer to dogs. In reality, who are the dogs in question? Man’s best friend was NOT born mean, rather had to be taught so. I guess you can say the same for the goons that are always available to do the bidding of the empire. Sometimes the goons are from the same race and class as those they attack. One can study India, before independence, to see how the low level indigenous police were used by the Brits to ‘Keep the rabble in line’. The Brits were shrewder than we here in Amerika. Here it became, for God knows how long (still?), whereupon whites did the policing everywhere, including in the minority sections of towns. If one looks at the footage of that North Dakota 2016 pipeline protest, you won’t see any non whites shooting the pepper spray as they sicced their dogs.

It seems our empire always has a full supply of ‘Dogs’ to do their bidding. Sadly, if one could study the US grunts, our ‘Boots on the ground’, from Iraq (phony wars) 1 and 2 and Afghanistan, one sees the race and class of the overwhelming majority of them.

In my recent interview with Dr. TP Wilkinson on his history of policing in Amerika, we learn that these original ‘Dogs’ were called the Slave Patrols in the south. They were hired by the plantation owners to go and find runaway slaves and bring them back… for a bounty.

After the Civil War local police in All parts of Amerika were used primarily to ‘Keep watch’ on the factories and businesses of the super rich, to, well, ‘Keep the rabble (unions and striking workers) in line’. This has continued throughout the decades, from the coal mining areas, the agricultural fields, factory assembly lines… anywhere that the super rich employ lower paid drones to punch out products for their enormous profits.

It never changes. Why? Well, when you have a ‘Bought and paid for’ Two Party/One Party con job, there is little or NO representation for working stiffs. Never was. One hopes that someday, as in the great John Sayles 1987 film classic Matawan, about the 1920 Mingo County, West Virginia coal miners’ strike, those who are supposed to ‘ Serve and Protect’ do so for working stiffs FIRST!

Don’t just blame the dogs of empire… blame those who enticed them to do those evil deeds also.

*

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].

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The Dogs of Empire!

Video: Iran to Support Syria with Air Defense to Repel US, Israeli Attacks

July 10th, 2020 by South Front

Iran will help to strengthen Syrian air defense capabilities as part of a wider military security agreement between the two countries, Chairman of the Chiefs of Staff of the Iranian Armed Forces Major General Mohammad Baqeri said on July 8. The statement was made after the signing of a new military cooperation agreement in Damascus.

The agreement provides for the expansion of military and security cooperation and the continuation of coordination between the Armed Forces of the two countries. Major General Baqeri said that the signed deal “increases our will to work together in the face of US pressure.”

“If the American administrations had been able to subjugate Syria, Iran and the axis of resistance, they would not have hesitated for a moment,” he said.

The major general emphasized that Israel is a “powerful partner” of the US in the war against Syria, claiming that terrorist groups constituted part of the Israeli aggression.

In their turn, the United States and Israel insist that Iran and Hezbollah are responsible for the destabilization of Syria and prepare what they call ‘terrorist attacks’ against the US and Israel. In the framework of this approach, Israel, with direct and indirect help from the US, regularly conducts strikes on various supposedly ‘Iranian targets’ across Syria. Often these strikes concur with large-scale attacks of al-Qaeda-linked groups and ISIS on positions of the Syrian Army and its allies. One of the main points of Israeli concern is the growing military infrastructure of pro-Iranian forces near al-Bukamal, on the Syrian-Iraqi border. Therefore, the announced move by Iran to boost Syrian air defenses, including possible deployment of additional air defense systems, is a logical step for them to take to protect their own interests.

Clashes between the Syrian Army and Turkish-backed militants were ongoing in western Aleppo late on July 8 and early on July 9. According to pro-militant sources, the army destroyed at least one bulldozer and killed 2 members of the National Front for Liberation. Turkish proxies insist that their mortar strikes on army positions also led to casualties.

In southern Idlib, the Syrian Army shelled positions of Hayat Tahrir al-Sham near Ruwaihah after the terrorist group sent additional reinforcements there under the cover of the ceasefire regime. On the morning of July 9th, Hayat Tahrir al-Sham units continued their deployment in the area. Since the signing of the March 5 ceasefire agreement between Turkey and Russia, Hayat Tahrir al-Sham has been openly working to strengthen its positions in southern Idlib. Despite the successes in the conducting of joint Russian-Turkish patrols along the M4 highway, which even reached Jisr al-Shughur, the highway itself and the agreed security zone area along it in fact remain in the hands of Idlib militants.

Pro-ISIS sources claimed that the terrorist group’s cells have ambushed a unit of pro-government forces in the Homs-Deir Ezzor desert destroying at least one vehicle. These claims have yet to be confirmed. However, the situation in central Syria has recently deteriorated due to the increase in ISIS attacks and government forces are now conducting active security operations there.

*

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

SUPPORT SOUTHFRONT: 

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Video: Iran to Support Syria with Air Defense to Repel US, Israeli Attacks
  • Tags: , ,

China’s Growing Influence in Central Asia and the Middle East Will Lead to Further US Decline

July 10th, 2020 by Shane Quinn

China’s increasing presence on the international scene is an undeniable threat to the US-led world order. Critical to China’s emergence as a major power this century, has been its widening influence in the Central Asian states. Central Asia, rich in mineral reserves, is among the earth’s most strategically important regions. Control over Central Asia ensures access to raw materials such as oil or gas, while it stands as a “guardpost” against US hegemony over the Persian Gulf further south.

Considerably bigger in size than India, Central Asia consists of five nations, by far the largest is Kazakhstan followed by Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan. Central Asia remains sparsely populated with just over 70 million people in total; this is mainly because 60% of its land mass comprises of desert terrain; yet it is studded also with little known, towering peaks and vast, treeless steppes. Central Asia is bordered by Russia and China to the north and east; to the west lies the Caucasus and Caspian Sea; while the energy laden Middle East is not far to the south-west.

Then US Secretary of State Colin Powell had said as early as February 2002,

“America will have a continuing interest and presence in Central Asia of a kind that we could not have dreamed of before [9/11]”.

Indeed, 9/11 was an ideal pretext to be exploited in order to further Washington’s aims for global supremacy. However, the dream that Powell spoke of regarding Central Asia ended six years ago. In July 2014, the Pentagon was compelled to leave its last remaining Central Asian base in Kyrgyzstan – which US forces were utilising for over 12 years – after the Kyrgyz parliament voted in favour of evicting US forces.

In December 2001 the American military had taken over the Manas Air Base in northern Kyrgyzstan, located near the capital Bishkek, in order to assist operations in the illegal war it was waging in Afghanistan a few hundreds miles south (1). The Kyrgyzstani government preferred instead pursuing closer relations with Russia and China. Much of the thinking behind the US presence in Kyrgyzstan, was to provide a platform for commanding oil or gas reserves in surrounding areas, along with curbing Chinese and Russian designs in Central Asia. Kyrgyzstan is strategically situated; it shares a 660 mile frontier with Xinjiang, China’s crucially significant north-western province.

Contrary to what was often claimed, the October 2001 US-run invasion of Afghanistan had been planned months before the 9/11 attacks. In mid-July 2001 American officials told Pakistan’s former Foreign Secretary, Niaz Naik, that the Pentagon was preparing an attack on Afghanistan, scheduled to be launched in October of that year (2). It takes longer than four weeks to prepare an invasion of a sizeable country, let alone one on the other side of the world. Afghanistan, which lies adjacent to the Middle East, was viewed by Western politicians and their corporate executive bosses as a major pipeline route; through which natural resources could be sent originating from the Caspian Sea and Central Asia. Among the real reasons for the “war on terror” was to reinforce US hegemony over crucial territories, along with command over the raw materials of the Middle East, Central Asia and the South Caucasus.

American dominance of Central Asia and the South Caucasus, both formerly part of the USSR, further weakened Russia and was seen moreover as important to the “success” of the war in Afghanistan. The South Caucasus states, Georgia and Azerbaijan, were pawns in the transport of heavy US weaponry and NATO troops bound for Afghanistan. Azerbaijan, bordering Iran, could be used also as a launchpad for US forces should they get the green light to invade Iran.

The prominent Polish-American diplomat, Zbigniew Brzezinski, recognised that mastery over Central Asia is pivotal to holding sway over encompassing areas (3). China’s pre-eminence today in Central Asia would therefore have caused considerable concern for Brzezinski. Beijing is gradually constructing a 21st century Silk Road, with the intent not only to increasingly draw Central Asia under Chinese influence, but of extending its clout to the Middle East, Europe and the Mediterranean. China is already the largest investor in Central Asia and now the Middle East.

This latter region, the Middle East, contains 48% of the planet’s known oil reserves and 43% of all natural gas sources (4). It has long been highly prized. In April 1941, British prime minister Winston Churchill outlined in a directive to the war cabinet that “the loss of Egypt and the Middle East would be a disaster of the first magnitude for Great Britain, second only to successful invasion and final conquest [of the UK]” (5). US planners believed that ascendancy over the Middle East would grant a nation “substantial control of the world”, as noted in May 1951 by Adolf Berle, president Franklin Roosevelt’s former close adviser; Berle’s opinion was supported by General Dwight Eisenhower, soon to be president, who called the Middle East “the most strategically important area in the world”. (6)

The US State Department previously identified Saudi Arabia and its oil as “one of the greatest material prizes in world history” (7). In February 1944, Roosevelt himself informed the British ambassador to the US, Lord Halifax, that the oil of Iran “is yours. We share the oil of Iraq and Kuwait. As for Saudi Arabian oil, it’s ours”.

Nearby resource rich Iran, of similar importance to Saudi Arabia, has remained outside of US domination since 1979 and consequently is classed as a menace; despite the fact that Saudi human rights abuses are much worse in comparison to Iran. China has been Iran’s largest trading partner for years. In 2019 for example, Iranian investments with China amounted to at least $20 billion and Beijing is the top purchaser of crude oil from Iran. At the root of the ongoing shrill criticisms by the West pertaining to Chinese policies, is down to Beijing’s growing challenge to US power which is under pressure across the globe.

Over the past decade Beijing has completed expansive infrastructure in Central Asia, such as the Central Asia-China gas pipeline, that is over 2,200 miles long. It stretches across Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan before reaching its destination in China’s Xinjiang province. Turkmenistan contains the fourth biggest natural gas reserves in the world, and is the greatest supplier of that resource to China. Turkmenistan’s largest investor by far is China, and last year almost 90% of her exports were sold to Beijing (8). While Washington was wielding its sledgehammer this century, China has engineered ambitious financial projects and the development of alliances on a grand scale.

Beijing is aware of the historical and strategic importance of Central Asia to its neighbour Russia, and has treaded carefully. Since the Soviet Union’s demise in 1991, Chinese strategies in Central Asia have largely been complimentary and cooperative with Moscow (9). Successful early efforts to overcome border disputes was a factor behind Beijing founding the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) in 1996 alongside Russia – with Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan likewise joining this association at its outset, in their stated goals of tackling terrorism and separatism. The CIA and Pentagon were already supporting covert operations by extremist networks with links to Osama bin Laden in Central Asia, the Caucasus and the Balkans; Washington was in addition using foreign operatives to promote instability in Central Asia. (10)

For one of the major powers, it is striking that China has very little history of committing armed aggression, i.e., attacks on other countries, proxy wars, and so on. This stands in contrast to its Western rivals such as the United States, which initiated a number of destructive invasions within the past 60 years: In Vietnam and Indochina, along with the more recent assaults on Iraq (twice), Afghanistan and Libya. China’s refusal to engage in large-scale military offensives has been such that the prominent US strategic analysts, John Steinbruner and Nancy Gallagher, early this century called on an alliance of peace-loving nations – led by China – to be formed so as to counter American militarism. (11)

A generation ago, Washington could scarcely believe its luck as the Soviet Union disintegrated without a single shot fired. Soviet Russia’s economy had been stagnating since the 1970s, partly because of efforts in matching the vast arms expenditure of the wealthier US. For Western policy makers, the Soviet Union’s existence had blocked the way to the tantalising mineral resources of the Caucasus, Caspian Sea and Central Asia. President Bill Clinton’s Secretary of Energy, Bill Richardson, said frankly in 1998 that the one-time Soviet republics were “all about America’s energy security. We would like to see them reliant on Western commercial and political investment in the Caspian, and it’s very important to us that the pipeline map and the politics come out right”. (12)

In September 1997, the Pentagon dispatched hundreds of its troops by parachute to the deserts of Kazakhstan, Central Asia’s most influential country. It was a provocative move and statement of intent, reputed to be the longest airborne operation in military history at the time. By February 2002, Washington had established military bases in all of the Central Asian countries, and at that stage controlled the region. The US was seeking also to undermine and destabilise China, as it is today, by fostering separatist movements who wish to detach territories like Xinjiang from the rest of China. This would leave China a fractured nation but it is highly unlikely to occur.

Xinjiang, China’s biggest province, is pivotal to Beijing’s aspirations. Throughout this century, Xinjiang has been the second largest oil producing area of China, behind Heilongjiang province. Xinjiang furthermore is China’s main entry point into Central Asia, while there are long-held plans by Beijing to connect the city of Kashgar, in western Xinjiang, over a thousand miles south towards the Arabian Sea, at Pakistan’s port of Gwadar. The proposed Gwadar-Kashgar oil pipeline is currently undergoing assessment, and expected to receive approval for a length of 2,414 kilometres, equivalent to 1,400 miles (13). The Chinese government desires its commencement as quickly as possible, and construction may start by the year 2023. Gwadar lies a short distance from the Strait of Hormuz and Persian Gulf, some of the most vital oil shipping lanes. Yet logistics for the Gwadar-Kashgar pipeline will be arduous, as it must bypass rocky areas and high mountain passes.

China’s maritime deliveries, which account for about 80% of its oil imports, travel over round-about distances of up to 10,000 miles. These shipments take between eight to 12 weeks to arrive at the port of Shanghai in eastern China. A Chinese pipeline to Gwadar would reduce this distance to less than 2,000 miles, and allow Beijing to avoid waters patrolled by US destroyers. Most significantly, the Gwadar-Kashgar pipeline would assist China in continuing to broaden its scope in the Middle East. Were this to be achieved, further US global decline could only unfold. American power in the Middle East has regressed this century, in large part self-inflicted because of its invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq.

The Middle East is central to the progress of China’s Belt and Road Initiative. The Chinese have advanced again here through non-military means, and with caution, outlining to their war weary Middle East counterparts that they wish to pursue policies of dialogue and financial investments. Beijing has steered clear of regional hostilities in the Middle East, in order not to stoke more unrest in a land greatly destabilised by the US-led wars and spawning of terrorist organisations. In January 2020 Yasser Elnaggar, an experienced Egyptian diplomat and scholar, noted that, “the economies of the Middle East are shifting away from their longstanding ties with the US toward economically powerful China – a move that may have long-term implications for the economic and political dynamics of the region” (14). Elnaggar discerned that the Middle East and North African nations “welcomed China and its financing models with open arms”.

Various leaders in the Middle East have visited Beijing on more than one occasion since 2014. Many of the trips involved the ratification of significant economic agreements, connected to the Belt and Road Initiative. The Americans have been notable in their absence from these deals. A number of the contracts signed relate to clean energy projects, as the Middle East and North African states align their development plans with the Belt and Road, exploring alternatives to fossil fuels. Elnaggar writes that, “China, and not the US, is emerging as a leader in this field and is actively seeking to promote green development” while “China has become the largest investor” in the Middle East “and the most sought after”.

US involvement in the Middle East has of course primarily been concerned with oil. This was one of the reasons, often conveniently forgotten, that Washington had previously supported Saddam Hussein, the Iraqi dictator; that is, when Saddam was amenable to their interests. That relationship had changed by the beginning of the 21st century.

Moniz Bandeira, the Brazilian historian and intellectual, wrote that,

“Iraq didn’t threaten the United States or any other country of the West. Instead, it threatened American and British oil companies. Saddam Hussein had signed contracts with the large Russian company Lukoil, was in negotiations with Total from France, and had begun to replace the dollar by the euro as the currency for oil transactions. His removal would make room for the entry of British and American firms such as Chevron, ExxonMobil, Shell and British Petroleum”. (15)

This received scant mention, and pro-war mainstream press coverage was an important factor in the US invasion going ahead on 20 March 2003. Moniz Bandeira recalled how “a massive disinformation campaign to tie Saddam Hussein to the September 11 attacks” ensued, while “the invasion of Iraq was sold to the public through a complicit media”.

Secret documents from March 2001 – which the US Department of Commerce was forced to declassify in the summer of 2003 – reveals that an “energy task force” headed by Dick Cheney, the US vice-president, had developed two extensive maps pertaining to Iraq: Sketching the oil fields, pipelines, refineries and terminals they would oversee there (16). Cheney had close ties to the oil industry, and two other maps were drawn up by his task force, detailing the projects and companies that wanted to manage the oil in Iraq. This was planned two years before the actual invasion of that country and, it can be added, prior also to 9/11.

*

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

Shane Quinn obtained an honors journalism degree. He is interested in writing primarily on foreign affairs, having been inspired by authors like Noam Chomsky. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Notes

1 Casey Michel, “US power on the wane in Central Asia”, Al Jazeera, 17 July 2014

2 John Pilger, The New Rulers Of The World (Verso Books, 20 Feb. 2003), p. 109

3 Pilger, The New Rulers Of The World, p. 116

4 Henry K. H. Wang, Energy Markets in Emerging Economies: Strategies for growth (Routledge; 1 edition, 1 August 2016), p. 232

5 Donald J. Goodspeed, The German Wars (Random House Value Publishing, 3 April 1985), p. 381

6 Noam Chomsky, Who Rules The World? (Metropolitan Books, Penguin Books Ltd, Hamish Hamilton, 5 May 2016), pp. 44/45

7 Office Of The Historian, Foreign Relations Of The United States: Diplomatic Papers, 1945, The Near East And Africa, Volume VIII, 9 October 1945

8 Daniel Workman, “Turkmenistan’s Top 10 Exports”, World’s Top Exports, 1 June 2020

9 Ian J. Lynch, “What Are The Implications Of China’s Growing Security Role In Central Asia?” The Diplomat, 3 June 2020

10 Luiz Alberto Moniz Bandeira, The Second Cold War: Geopolitics and the Strategic Dimensions of the USA, (Springer 1st ed., 23 June 2017), pp. 67 & 69

11 Noam Chomsky, Optimism Over Despair (Penguin; 01 edition, 27 July 2017), p. 12

12 Aleksandar Jokic, Burleigh Wilkins, Lessons of Kosovo: The Dangers of Humanitarian Intervention (Broadview Press, 26 Feb. 2003), p. 126

13 Hellenic Shipping News, “Asia and Middle East set to contribute 30% of global new-build crude oil trunk pipeline length additions by 2023, says GlobalData”, 14 January 2020

14 Yasser Elnaggar, “China’s growing role in the Middle East”, Middle East Institute, 9 January 2020

15 Moniz Bandeira, The Second Cold War, p. 81

16 Ibid.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on China’s Growing Influence in Central Asia and the Middle East Will Lead to Further US Decline
  • Tags: ,

JCPOA: The Iran Nuclear Deal that Wasn’t

July 10th, 2020 by Soraya Sepahpour-Ulrich

July 14th, 2020, marks the fifth anniversary of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) Agreement, often referred to as the Iran Nuclear Deal (or simply the Deal) – the Deal that wasn’t.   It was yet another attempt at regime change.

Of all the plans to control Iran beginning from Operation Ajax to Operation JCPOA and everything in between, the Iran Nuclear Deal was by far the most devious attempt at undermining the sovereignty of Iran – one way or another. The Greek’s Trojan Horse pales compared to this dastardly scheme.  Years in the making, the crafty plan even prompted Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) to nominate John Kerry and Javad Zarif to recipients of the Nobel Peace Prize. 

As such, it is high time that the Deal’s planners, their motivations and their associations were discussed in order to grasp the depth of the deception.

Iran, due to its geopolitical position, has always been considered a jewel in the crown of the colonial powers.   Attempts to conquer Iran through a proxy which started with Operation Ajax in August 1953, at the behest of the British and carried out by the CIA were not abandoned even with the ousting of America’s man, the Shah.    Although the Islamic Revolution reclaimed Iran’s sovereignty,  America was not ready to abandon its plans of domination over Iran, and by extension, the Persian Gulf.

The Persian Gulf has been the lynchpin of US foreign policy. “To all intents and purposes,” a former senior Defense Department official observed, “‘Gulf waters’ now extend from the Straits of Malacca to the South Atlantic.” Nevertheless, bases nearer the [Persian] Gulf had a special importance, and Pentagon planners urged “as substantial a land presence in the as can be managed.” (Anthony H. Cordesman, “The Gulf and the Search for Strategic Stability”, Boulder: Westview, 1984).

Having failed in numerous attempts including the Nojeh coup at the nascent stages of the IR Iran’s newly formed government, war, sanctions, terrorism,  and a failed color revolution,  the United States needed other alternatives to reach its goal.  Unlike the illegal war against Iraq, war with Iran was not a feasible option.  The United States was aware of its inability to wage a successful war against Iran without serious damage to itself and its allies.

When George W. Bush took office, he commissioned a war exercise to gage the feasibility of an attack against Iran. The  2002 Millennium Challenge,  was a major war game exercise conducted by the United States Armed Forces in mid-2002. The exercise, which ran from July 24 to August 15 and cost $250 million,  proved that the US would not defeat Iran.   The US  even restarted the war games changing rules to ensure an American victory, in reality, cheating itself.  This led to accusations that the war game had turned from an honest, open, playtest of U.S. war-fighting capabilities into a controlled and scripted exercise intended to end in a U.S. victory to promote a false narrative of US invincibility.

For this reason, the United States continued its attempts at undermining Iran’s sovereignty by means of sanctions, terror, and creating divisions among the Iranians. The JCPOA would be its master plan.

A simple observation of Iran clearly suggests simple ideological divisions among the Iranian people (pro-West, anti-West, minorities, religious, secular) which have all been amply exploited by the United States and allies. None of the exploits delivered the prize the US was seeking.  And so it was that it was decided to exploit the one factor which united Iranians of ALL persuasion.  Iran’s civilian nuclear program.

In an interview with National Public Radio (25 November 2004), Ray Takyeh (Council on Foreign Relations CFR and husband to Iran expert Suzanne Maloney  of Brookings) stated that according to polls 75-80% of the Iranians rallied behind the Islamic Republic of Iran in support of its nuclear program, including the full fuel cycle.   In other words, the overwhelming uniting factor among the Iranians for the Islamic Republic was the nuclear program.  (USIA poll conducted in 2007 found that 64% of those questioned said that US legislation repealing regime change in Iran would not be incentive enough to give up the nuclear program and full fuel-cycle).    The next phase was to cause disunity on an issue that united Iranians of all stripes:  negotiate away the nuclear program.

The first round of nuclear negotiations 2003-2005 dubbed the Paris Agreement between Iran and the EU3 proved to be futile, and as  one European diplomat put it: “We gave them a beautiful box of chocolate that was, however, empty.”  As West’s fortune would have it, the same Iranian officials who had participated in the 2003-2005 negotiations would negotiate the JCPOA.

Around the time of the end of the first round of negotiations, another Brookings Fellow, Flynt Leverett , senior advisor for National Security Center, published a book “Inheriting Syria, Bashar’s Trial by Fire” (Brookings book publication, April 2005).  In his book, Leverett argued that instead of conflict, George W. Bush should seek to cooperate with Syria as Assad was popular, but instead seek to weaken Assad’s position among his people by targeting the Golan (induce him to give it up) so that he would lose popularity among the Syrians.   The JCPOA was designed in part along the same line of thinking.   And more.  His wife Hillary Leverett had a prominent role in ‘selling’ the Deal.

Secret negotiations between the Americans and ‘reform-minded’ Iranians never ceased, bypassing both Ayatollah Khamenei, Iran’s supreme leader, and the President at the time – Mahmood Ahmadinejad.  In a 2012 meeting at the University of Southern California, present members of the Iran Project team had no reservations about suggesting that it was more beneficial to engage Iran rather than attack.  They went as far as stating in the Q&A session to this writer that “they had been engaged with the “Green” (the opposition movement in the failed 2009 color revolution) for years, but Ahmadinejad won” (referring to the 2009 elections).  But Ahmadinejad would soon leave office and be replaced by Rohani – a more amenable player.

Why Negotiate?

Fully appreciating the challenge of attacking Iran, in 2004, the pro-Israel  Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP), presented its policy paper “The Challenges of U.S. Preventive Military Action” authored by Michael Eisenstadt.   It was opined that the ideal situation was (and continues to be) to have a compliant ‘regime’ in Tehran.   Eisenstadt was of the opinion that unlike the Osiraq nuclear power plant which was bombed and destroyed, Isarel/US would not be able to bomb Iran’s Bushehr reactor with the same ease.  In particular, Eisenstadt claimed that Israel may have benefited from French aid in destroying Osiraq. French intelligence reportedly emplaced a homing beacon at Osiraq to help Israeli pilots locate the facility or target a critical underground structure there.

In this light, it was recommended that the principal goal of U.S. action should be to delay Iran’s nuclear program long enough to allow for the possible emergence of new leadership in Tehran.  Failing that, war would have been facilitated.

It was thought the Paris Agreement talks would fail (as the JCPOA was designed to fail) and as such, the following were some of the suggestions made:

  • harassment or murder of key Iranian scientists or technicians;
  • introduction of fatal design flaws into critical reactor, centrifuge, or weapons components during their production, to ensure catastrophic failure during use;
  • disruption or interdiction of key technology or material transfers through sabotage or covert military actions on land, in the air, or at sea;
  • sabotage of critical facilities by U.S. intelligence assets, including third country nationals or Iranian agents with access to key facilities;
  • introduction of destructive viruses into Iranian computer systems controlling the production of components or the operation of facilities;
  • damage or destruction of critical facilities through sabotage or direct action by U.S. special forces.

As with the murder and terror of the nuclear scientists, and the Stuxnet virus into the reactor, the JCPOA enabled personnel on the ground in Iran to carry out extensive sabotage as has been recently observed in recent days and weeks.  Rohani’s visa free travel opened the flood gates to spies and saboteurs – dual citizens,  who easily traveled with passports other than American, British, and Australian.  Iran even managed to prevent an IAEA inspector who triggered an alarm at Iran’s nuclear facility.  But it would seem, Iran has not been able to stop other intruders and terrorists – not yet.

Other Motivational Factors for Negotiating

According to studies, as of 2008 Iran’s Bushehr nuclear reactor had 82 tons of enriched uranium (U235) loaded into it, according to Israeli and Chinese reports.  This amount was significantly higher pre and during negotiations.  History has not witnessed the bombing of a nuclear power plant with an operational nuclear enrichment facility.  Deliberate bombing of such facilities would result breach containment and radioactive elements released.  The death toll horrifying.  The Union of Concerned Scientists has estimated 3 million deaths would result in 3 weeks from bombing the nuclear enrichment facilities near Esfahan, and the contamination would cover Afghanistan, Pakistan, all the way to India.

The JCPOA significantly reduced the amount of enriched uranium reducing the potential casualty deaths in the event that a strike is carried out.

The Deal buys time –  Iran’s strength has been its ability to retaliate to any attack by closing down the Strait of Hormuz. Given that 17 million barrels of oil a day, or 35% of the world’s seaborne oil exports go through the Strait of Hormuz, incidents in the Strait would be fatal for the world economy. Enter Nigeria (West Africa) and Yemen.

In 1998, Clinton’s national security agenda made it clear that unhampered access to Nigerian oil and other vital resources was a key US policy. In early 2000s, Chatham House was one of the publications that determined African oil would be a good alternate to Persian Gulf oil in case of oil disruption. This followed a strategy paper for US to move toward African oil. Push for African oil was on Dick Cheney’s desk on May 31, 2000. In 2002, the Israeli based IASPS suggested America push toward African oil. In the same year Boko Haram was ‘founded’.

In 2007, AFRICOM helped consolidate this push into the region. The 2011, a publication titled: “Globalizing West African Oil: US ‘energy security’ and the global economy” outlined ‘US positioning itself to use military force to ensure African oil continued to flow to the United States’. This was but one strategy to supply oil in addition to or as an alternate to the passage of oil through the Strait of Hormuz.  (See HERE for full article)

JCPOA as a starting point 

It has now been made abundantly clear that the Deal was simply JCPOA1.  Other Deals were to follow to disarm Iran even further, to stop Iran’s defensive missile program, and to stop Iran helping its allies in the region.   This would have been relatively easy to achieve had Hillary Clinton been elected – as had been the hope.  The plan was to allow trade and neoliberal polices which the Rohani administration readily embraced, a sharp increase in imports (harming domestic production and self-reliance) while building hope – or as Maloney called it ‘crisis of expectation’.   It was thought that with a semblance of ‘normalcy’ in international relations and free of sanctions, Iranians would want to continue abandoning their sovereignty, their defenses, and rally around the pro-West/America politicians at the expense of the core ideology of the Islamic Revolution, the conservatives and the IRGC.   In other words, regime change.  (several meetings speak to this; see for example, and here).

The players 

The most prominent, one could argue, was President Obama.  Obama was not about peace.   The biggest threat to an empire is peace.  Obama had chosen feigned diplomacy as his weapon.   But before picking up the mantle of diplomacy, he had proposed terrorism – sanctioned terrorism.  Obama, while a junior senator introduced S. 1430 in 2007  and had “crippling sanctions” in mind for the Iranian people.   As president, his executive orders assured this.

Addressing AIPAC as a candidate, he said: “Our willingness to pursue diplomacy will make it easier to mobilize others to join our cause. If Iran fails to change course when presented with this choice by the United States it will be clear to the people of Iran and to the world that the Iranian regime is the author of its own isolation and that will strengthen our hand with Russia and China as we insist on stronger sanctions in the Security Council. And we should work with Europe, Japan, and the Gulf States to find every avenue outside the United Nations to isolate the Iranian regime from cutting off loan guarantees and expanding financial sanctions to banning the export of refined petroleum to Iran to boycotting firms associated with the Iranian Revolutionary Guard whose Kuds forces have rightly been labeled a terrorist organization.”

No wonder he was dubbed ‘the first Jewish president’!

Not to be left unmentioned was the darling of the theatrics of this Deal – Federica Mogherini.  So enamored were some of the Iranian parliamentarians with her that to the embarrassment of Iran, the internet was abuzz with these MPs taking pictures with her.   Perhaps they looked at her and not her years as a German Marshall Fund Fellow.

The German Marshall Fund (GMF) sounds harmless enough, but perhaps Russia many not view it that way.  And Iran shouldn’t.  The GMF pushed for bringing Ukraine into NATO’s fold. Furthermore, the GMF gives funding to American Abroad Media.    AMA boasts of some of the most dangerous anti-Iran neoconservatives who have shaped America’s policies such as Dennis Ross, James Woolsey, Martin Indyk (responsible for the Iran-Libya Sanctions Act later to  become ISA and still in place after the JCPOA), Tom Pickering (one of the main proponents of the Iran Deal and member of the Iran Project). Supporters are not limited to the GMF. Others include Rockerfeller, Ford Foundation, and NED.

And a most active proponent of the JCPOA was none other than NED recipient, Trita Parsi/NIAC. Trita Parsi was personally thanked for his role in pushing the JCPOA through.  Job well done for a 3 time recipient of NED funds. No wonder the George Soros – Koch foundation Quincy Institute selected him as their Executive Vice President.

And last but not least, Hillary Mann Leverett (wife of aforementioned Flynn Leverett) who persuaded her audiences that the JCPOA was akin to “Nixon going to China”. While some in Iran naively believed this to be the case, and even defended her, they failed to realize that when Nixon went to China it was to bring China on board against Russia. And Israel was not a player. It was not an opening to befriend Iran any more than Nixon’s trip had altruist motivations.

Russia and China’s role

The Russians and the Chinese were so eager to embrace a long-awaited peace after all the calamity caused by the United States that they fully embraced this Deal, even though it was detrimental to their interests in so doing.

America’s animosity and never-ending schemes encouraged cooperation between Russia, China, and Iran. Although the lifting of sanctions post JCPOA would have facilitated trade and enhanced diplomacy between Iran and the West, at a cost to China and Russia, they  stood steadfast by the Deal. Peace was more valuable.  But far more importantly, the two powerful nations allowed the United States to be the arbitrator of an international treaty – the NPT.

During the Shah’s reign, President Ford had signed onto a National Security Decision Memorandum (NSDM 292, 1975) allowing and encouraging Iran to not only enrich uranium, but sell it to neighboring countries to profit America. The United States then decided that since the Islamic Republic of Iran did not serve the interests of the United States, the United States would determine how the NPT should apply to Iran.

But their efforts at peace and the West’s efforts at regime change all came to naught. What is important to bear in mind is that America’s efforts at war, sabotage, and terrorism have not ended. Imposing unilateral sanctions – terrorism against the Iranian people, has not ceased. Although the Iranian people and their selected representative in the new Iranian parliament are far more aware of, and have an aversion to America’s ploys and the Deal, China and Russia must do their part not only as guarantors of peace, but also to maintain their integrity in a world where both aspire to live in multilateralism. The world already has a super power without morals and integrity; it does not need other great powers that act similarly.

Iran has fended off another assault on its sovereignty. However,  saboteurs and terrorists are soliciting war with their recent string of terrorism in Iran. As the fifth anniversary of this trap approaches, the world needs to understand and step up in order to defend peace, international law and social justice. The future of all depends on it.

And to American compatriots: Make sure Trump understands war will not get him re-elected.

*

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.

Soraya Sepahpour-Ulrich is an independent researcher and writer with a focus on U.S. foreign policy and the role of lobby groups in influencing US foreign policy.

Deep Recession and Contraction of Global Economy: “Second Wave” Covid Economic Impact?

July 10th, 2020 by Dr. Jack Rasmus

The reopening of the US economy in June—and some states as early as May—has produced a modest economic ‘rebound’. But rebound is not to be confused with economic recovery.

The current rebound is the natural result of the US economy collapsing 40% between March and June 2020. In the first quarter, January-March 2020, the US economy contracted 5%, virtually all of that in March. While the final data for the 2nd quarter is yet to be announced, the US Federal Reserve Bank’s forecasts of US Gross Domestic Product (GDP) show a much greater collapse, ranging from -30.5% (NY Fed district) to -41.7% (Atlanta Fed district).  No economy can continue to collapse at that steep a rate quarter after quarter.

Economies experiencing deep and rapid contractions—which is typical of both great recessions and economic depressions—inevitably experience periods of leveling off for a time, or even a slight bounce back—i.e. a rebound. But that’s not a recovery. ‘Recovery’ means a sustained, quarter to subsequent quarter economic growth that a continues more or less unabated until the lost economic ground is ‘recovered’. But a rebound is typically temporary, followed by subsequent economic relapses in the form of stagnant growth or even second or third dip recessions.

Look at the Great Recession 1.0 that began in December 2007. The decline began that month subsequently declined more rapidly in the first quarter 2008, but then bounced back slightly in the 2nd quarter 2008. It then took a deep dive in the second half of 2008 through the first half of 2009, contracting every quarter for an entire year. A short, shallow recovery followed into 2010. But the economy relapsed again in 2011, contracting once more for two quarters in 2011. Another small rebound followed in early 2012 and was followed by stagnation in the second half of 2012.

The reported GDP numbers after 2008 were even weaker, and the relapses more pronounced, before the US Commerce Dept. changed the way it defined US GDP and boosted the totals by $500 billion a year after 2013, retroactive to 2008 and before.

All Great Recessions with an initial deep economic contraction, are typically followed by brief shallow recoveries, cut short by subsequent double dips or quarters of no growth stagnation.

That was true of the Great Recession of 2008-09, which didn’t really end in June 2009, but bounced along the bottom economically for several more years. A similar trajectory will almost certainly follow today’s 2020 Great Recession 2.0 now concluding its Phase One initial deep collapse.

The Phase One deep collapse is now giving way to its Phase Two and what will prove a brief and quite modest ‘rebound’. But that’s not a recovery.

Further economic relapses are inevitable after ‘short, shallow rebounds’ that characterize all Great Recessions. That trajectory—i.e. short, shallow rebounds followed by relapses also brief and moderate can go on for years.

What it means is there will be no V-shape and true recovery in the US economy in the second half of 2020. What there will be is an extended ‘W-shape’ period, the next two years 2020-2022 at minimum. And it may continue for perhaps even longer.

The 1929-30 Great Recession: Anteroom to 1930s Depression

A similar scenario occurs prior to bona fide economic depressions, like that which occurred in the 1930s.  The great depression began initially as a Great Recession. US policy makers failed to contain it and it slipped into the Great Depression of that decade as we know it. What precipitates Great Recessions collapsing into bona fide Depressions is the collapse of the financial and banking system.

The Great Depression of the 1930s did not begin with the stock market crash of October 1929, however. The real economy was already slipping into recession in manufacturing and construction sectors in 1929, well before the October 1929 stock market financial crash.  The economy contracted in 1930 by -8.5% and continued to contract every year thereafter through mid-1933 as the US economy experienced a series of four banking crashes, one each year from 1930 through 1933. The banking crashes drove the real, non-financial economy ever deeper every year, in a ratchet like effect.

Rebound and growth followed 1934-36. However, that weakened significantly in late 1937 as a conservative Republican Congress and Supreme Court together began dismantling Roosevelt’s 1935-37 New Deal social spending fiscal stimulus programs. As a result, in 1938 the US economy fell back into depression once again. A partial reversing of the dismantling in 1939 produced a return to positive GDP growth that year. But it wasn’t really until 1941-42 that the economy really exited the Great Depression, as US GDP rose 17.7% in 1941 and then 18.9% in 1942. Recovery—not rebound—was clearly underway after m id-1940—i.e. the result of government spending on both social programs and defense that amounted to more than 40% of GDP those years. That was fiscal stimulus. That was recovery.

In other words, the lesson of the Great Depression of the 1930s is in order to end a depression, or stop a Great Recession from becoming a Depression, the government must step in and spend at a rate of 40% GDP.

Prior to the onset of the current 2020 Great Recession 2.0, the US government’s spending and share of US GDP was about 20%.  It needs to double to 40% to engineer a true recovery from the current crisis.  5.5% is no stimulus in fact; just a partial ‘mitigation’ of the severe collapse that just occurred. That is, a temporary floor under the deep 30%-40% collapse that would have been even greater.

The 2008-09 Great Recession: The 5.5% Failed Stimulus

In January 2009 the incoming Obama administration proposed a fiscal stimulus recovery package amounting to roughly $787 billion and 5.5% of GDP. Economists advocated double that. Even Democrat party leaders in the US House proposed another $120 billion in consumer tax cuts. But Obama’s economic advisers, mostly former bankers and pro-banker academics like Larry Summers, argued the US could not spend that much. Obama listened to Summers and reduced the amount to the $787 billion.  It proved grossly insufficient. The real economy continued to lag and job losses continued to mount. Supplemental programs like ‘cash for clunkers’ and ‘first time homebuyers’ had to be added.

Even with these post-January program supplemental spending Obama’s fiscal stimulus proved insufficient to generate a robust recovery, as the historical record shows. The US recession under Obama ‘recovered’ at its weakest rate compared to all the prior ten US post-recession recoveries since 1947. The Obama recovery was only 60% of normal for recession recoveries.

The problem with the Obama 5.5% was not only the insufficient magnitude of the stimulus. Its composition was deficient as well. It called for almost $300 billion of the $787 billion in mostly business tax cuts, which were then hoarded by business and not invested to expand output, hire more workers, and generate thereby more income for consumption.  Nearly $300 more was in the form of grants given to the states to spend. They too hoarded most of it and failed to rehire the unemployed as was intended. The remainder of the $787 billion was composed mostly of long term infrastructure investment and spending that had little initial effect on the economy’s recovery. As a result of the insufficient magnitude and poor composition of the Obama 2009 stimulus, the US economy fell into a ‘stop-go, W-shape economic recovery for the next six years. US jobs lost in 2008-09 were not recovered until as late as 2015, and the average wages paid for the new jobs was significantly less than wages paid for the jobs that were lost.

Another major contributing factor to the weak economic recovery under Obama was the agreement between Obama, US House Democrats and the Republican Senate in August 2011 to reduce spending on education and other programs by $1.5 trillion. Thus the $787B stimulus of 2009 was reversed by more than twice, as austerity was introduced in late 2011. More than twice what was injected into the economy in 2009 was taken out again starting in 2012. The inadequate less than $1trillion fiscal stimulus was over in just two years!

The point is: apart from the matter of austerity in 2011, if 5.5% was insufficient to generate sustained recovery in 2009, today in 2020 the 5.5% fiscal spending produced by the CARES ACT in March 2020 will prove even less successful.

The US economy’s economic collapse today is five times deeper than in 2008-09 and has occurred in one-fifth the time of the 2008-09 event. If a second more aggressive government spending program does not follow in the second half of 2020, then the current tepid economic ‘rebound’ underway due to the reopening of the US economy will certainly fail at generating a sustained recovery. Here’s why the CARES ACT—the main and only stimulus program to date—is only 5.5% and will fail to generate a sustained recovery as the economy reopens with a modest ‘rebound’.

The March 2020 CARES ACT: Failed Stimulus Déjà vu

As of mid-year 2020 the US government spending to date is summed up in the various provisions of the CARES ACT passed by Congress in March 2020, plus several smaller measures passed before and after it as supplements. Its actual spending as of late June 2020 amounts to only approximately a 5.5% contribution to US GDP.

The CARES ACT on paper called for $1.45 trillion in loans and grants to small, medium and large businesses. $500 billion is allocated as loans to large corporations. Another $600 billion to medium sized plus some other measures. And $350 billion in loans, convertible to grants, to small businesses called the Payroll Protection Program, or PPP.

Another $310 billion was added to the PPP small business loan program as banks quickly misdirected hundreds of billions of dollars to many of their ineligible bigger business prime customers which scooped up much of the original $350 billion for small business.

The three business programs combined thus allocated $1.76 trillion in loans and grants.

Another $500 billion was allocated to workers and US households in the form of supplemental income checks of $1200 per adult plus an extra $600 in federal unemployment benefits available through July 31, 2020.

A couple hundred billion dollars more went to hospitals and health care providers in emergency reimbursements before and after the March CARES ACT passage.

That brought the total March CARES ACT fiscal stimulus to roughly $2.3 trillion. However, not discussed much in the media is another $650 billion CARES ACT provided business and investor tax cuts. The tax cuts include a temporary suspension of business payments to the payroll tax; more generous net operating loss (NOL) corporate tax averaging that allows business to use current losses to get tax refunds on prior year taxes paid; faster depreciation write-offs ( de facto tax cut); and more generous business expense deductions.  Less than 3% of the $650 billion tax cuts in the CARES ACT went to families earning less than $100,000 per year in annual income.

On paper, the roughly $2.3 trillion CARES ACT amounted to roughly 11% of GDP. But only half of that 11%–or just 5.5—has actually hit the US economy. This contrasts with Germany and other European and Asian countries that boosted fiscal spending stimulus by as much as 15%-20%.

Another 5.5% Stimulus Means Another Failed Sustained Recovery

The 5.5% to not enough to kick start the rebound into a sustained recovery. Much of the 5.5% is already spent to mitigate the 2nd quarter deep contraction and is no longer available as a stimulus in the upcoming 3rd quarter.

All the $1200 checks have been spent already and most of the $600 unemployment benefit boost has entered the economy. The latter expires on July 31. Furthermore, the majority of the $1.7 trillion allocated to businesses large and small has yet to get into the US economy as well.

Of the $660 billion in the small business PPP program, about $520 billion has been spent. Less than $100 billion of the $500 allocated to large businesses, like airlines and defense companies, has actually been ‘borrowed’ by big business. And as mid-June 2020, none of the $600 billion for medium size businesses had yet been ‘taken up’ by those businesses. The program was only fully launched late June, more than three months after it was first announced in March.

Thus far little interest appears on the part of medium and large businesses in the more than $1 trillion loans allocated to them.  And as far as the $650 billion in tax cuts is concerned, its effects can be delayed until December 31, 2020, if even then. Given the weak US economy and consumer demand, many businesses will take the tax cuts and hoard them.

In short, more than half the roughly $3 trillion total of government spending, loans, grants and tax cuts provided by the CARES ACT is yet to be committed to the US economy. The official 11% is really only half that at best.

This fact leads to the interesting question: Why have medium and large businesses not take up more of the $1.1 trillion business loans allocated to them?

The $3+ Trillion Uncommitted Business Cash Hoard

The answer is they haven’t because they are already bloated with cash and don’t need or want it. That cash hoard has resulted from several sources in recent months: Large corporations saw the writing on the wall with regard to the virus as early as January-February 2020. They quickly began loading up on cash by drawing down their generous loan credit lines with their banks. That produced a couple hundred billion dollars in cash by March. Then they issued record levels of new corporate bonds to raise still more cash. From March to end of May more than $1.3 trillion in new corporate investment grade bonds was raised by the Fortune 500 US businesses—i.e. more than in all 2019. A couple hundred billion dollars more was raised in junk grade corporate bonds.

Still another cash source was raised by businesses suspending dividend payments and stock buybacks to shareholders. In 2019 they distributed $1.3 trillion in buybacks and dividend payouts

($3.4 trillion total under Trump’s first three years in office). So buybacks and dividends suspensions saved at least another $500 billion in cash.  Companies also began selling off and cashing in their minority stock interests in other companies.  Furloughing workers to work from home also saved still more cash in reduced facilities, benefits and related costs for many corporations. Tech companies especially benefited from this.

Bloated with trillions of dollars of cash, large and medium sized corporations had little interest in borrowing from the CARES ACT, since the latter came with conditions like the provision that 70% of the loans be spent on keeping workers on their payrolls.  They preferred to lay off their workers, and borrow from the credit markets, issue new bonds, and otherwise conserve cash.

A good example was Boeing Corporation. Congress allocated more than $50 billion to Boeing as part of the $500 billion loan program earmarked for large corporations. Instead of borrowing that, Boeing raised $25 billion issuing new bonds and announced layoffs of 16,000 of its workers! Less than $100 billion has been used to date by large corporations under the CARES ACT big corporations’ $500 billion loan allocation. And virtually nothing of the $600 billion to date allocated under the medium size business loan program called the ‘Main St.’ lending facility.

7 More Reasons Why ‘Rebound’ Won’t Mean Recovery

Here are some seven other reasons—apart from the US current insufficient fiscal stimulus—why the US economy will not experience a sustained ‘recovery’ in the next six months, and why instead the US will follow a W-Shape trajectory of weak un-sustained growth followed by economic relapses through 2020-21 (and perhaps even longer):

 1) 2nd Covid-19 Wave Economic Impact:

It is inevitable a number of states will reinstate shutdowns—in significant part if not totally—as the infection, hospitalization, and death rates rise over the summer due to premature reopening of the economy and a growing breakdown of social discipline in adhering to basic precautions like social distancing and mask wearing.  The partial shutdowns will. To varying degrees, reduce consumer spending, business investment, and result in re-layoffs of workers. Second wave layoffs in services like leisure & hospitality, bars, restaurants, travel, public entertainment, and even education and health care services will emerge—all negatively impacting household consumption demand.  It is estimated that at least half of the states, 40% of the reopened economy, will reinstate some degree of re-closures of business activity in coming weeks and months as a resurgence of Covid 19 impacts the US economy in the second half of 2020 and beyond.

The official US June employment report on July 3, 2020 showed 4.8 million jobs were reinstated. But no less than 3 million of that 4.8 million were recalls in leisure & hospitality, hotels, bars, restaurants, and retail industries. These are the same industries that will be affected most by states reinstituting shutdowns. They are also industries where businesses that have been able to reopen only partially thus far in most cases operate on very thin margins. They are likely to fail in Phase Two of the crisis now beginning, and many closing completely in the second half of 2020 as a result of operating only at half capacity.

The scope of the possible closures is revealed by the recent Yelp survey of 175,000 of its customer business base. During the 2ndquarter, Yelp’s survey found that in May-June only 30,000 of its 175,000 had reopened. More important, its survey showed that 40,000 of its 145,000 that hadn’t yet opened had already closed permanently. The wave of permanent business closures in the second half of 2020—especially in the leisure & hospitality and retail industries—should not be underestimated. The permanent shutdowns will occur not only due to reduced consumer demand, but to a resurgence of Covid-19 and a second wave of layoffs.

2) Deeply Entrenched Business & Consumer Negative Expectations

The US economy has been deeply wounded by the deep contraction of the past four months. Both businesses and consumers have negative expectations as to the direction of the economy in the short to intermediate run. Businesses don’t see the conditions for returning to expanding investment, or even returning to prior levels of production and output. With consumer demand clearly in retreat, business expectations of future sales and profits are dampened. Reducing the cost of investing by lowering business taxes or interest rates have little effect on generating more investment, when expectations of profitability—which is what really drives investment—are so low. This is the fundamental reason why business across the board is hoarding its accumulated cash.  The same applies to consumers and households. They too are hoarding what cash they have available, spending mostly on necessities only.  The evidence is the sharp rise in the household savings rate and bank deposit rates. As much cash is saved and deposited as a precaution that economic conditions may worsen, instead of actually spent. The result is only minimal increase in spending occurs, just as minimal investment.  Until negative expectations are somehow reversed, both business investment and household consumption do not rise to levels that result in sustained ‘recovery’.

It will take a major event to again shift business and consumer negative expectations, like a vaccine for the virus or a major fiscal stimulus or a program of mass hiring of the unemployed by government. However, none of the above is on the immediate horizon. Therefore negative expectations will continue to dampen any sustained recovery and limit whatever insufficient government fiscal stimulus to generating a modest ‘rebound’ at best.

3) Business Cost Cutting & Permanent Layoffs

The deep and rapid rate of contraction of the economy over the past four months, and the business expectation of weak recovery, has convinced many businesses to make many of the cost cutting moves of recent months permanent. An example is how some industries and businesses moved their workforces to work from home. It has saved them significant costs of operation—on facilities, maintenance, and some employee benefits. In recessions businesses always find new ways to cut costs that often result in more layoffs and lower wages. Another phenomenon is rehiring and recalling workers back to work temporarily laid off does not occur en masse and all at once. The typical business practice is to recall only part of their workforce and to recall workers more on a part time basis. Not least, the cost cutting and the part time recalls typically results in businesses leaving part of their furloughed work force behind, whose unemployment then becomes permanent.

This second wave of jobless is already beginning to emerge, as businesses downsize in employment after the initial shock to the economy that has already occurred. Airlines are announcing tens of thousands of layoffs. Several other industries are experiencing growing defaults on debt payments and bankruptcies that will result in mass layoffs as well. For example, the oil & energy sector which was a major source of new job creation during the fracking boom of the past five years. More than 200 defaults of companies are in progress. Layoffs are beginning, of a permanent nature not just temporary furloughs or layoffs.

Cost cutting and layoffs translate into less household income for consumption and therefore for generating a sustained recovery.

4) Deeper Global Recession & Global Trade Crisis

The collapse of the US economy in the first half of 2020 has been accompanied by a synchronized contraction of the global economy.  Global economic contraction means US production for export does not recover much in the short run. Offshore demand for US goods & services remains weak. That in turn dampens domestic US investment, employment, and therefore business-consumer spending. Although the US economy is relatively less dependent on exports to stimulate economic growth, exports are not an insignificant contributing factor to US growth and recovery.

More than 90% of the world economy has also experienced deep recession in the first half of 2020. That compares with the first Great Recession of 2008-09 when a fewer 60% of countries were in recession along with the US. Foreign demand for US exports is thus even weaker this time around. Post 2009 China and emerging market economies boomed after 2010 and put a partial floor under US economic contraction by stimulating demand for US product exports; that China-Emerging Market economies stimulus effect on the US economy no longer exists in 2020.

5) Intensifying US Political Instability

One should not underestimate the potential growing political instability in the USA in the second half of 2020.  This instability will occur on two ‘fronts’. One is at the level of political institutions. It is likely the upcoming national elections on November 3, 2020 will be challenged and not accepted by either Trump or the Democratic Party nominee. The growing social instability in the USA and Covid 19 effects on voter turnout, combined with the already widespread voter suppression in various states, makes for ripe conditions for post-electoral crisis should the election be narrowly decided by voters in November.  Evidence is growing, moreover, that Trump is prepared to declare voting by mail as fraud and use that as an excuse to throw the election into the Supreme Court—as occurred in the US in 2000.  Today Trump, unlike George W. Bush in 2000, enjoys an even firmer majority in the US Supreme Court.

The instability at the level of political institutions in the USA today is accompanied by what appears as growing grass roots civilian conflicts. Street level confrontations between Trump supporters and rising popular movements and demonstrations are not beyond the realm of possibility, perhaps even likelihood.

The political instability has significant potential to negatively impact both consumer and business expectations and therefore dampen both business investment and household consumption even further in addition to causes already noted.

6) Wild Card #1: Financial Crisis 2021

Intermediate term, in 2021 likely more than in 2020, is the wild card of a financial system crisis emerging that would exacerbate the real economy’s faltering recovery still further. This channel by which a financial crisis might emerge is a growing wave of corporate and state & local government defaults. Massive excess debt has built up over the past decade in business sectors in the US.  More than $10 trillion in corporate bond debt exists at present. At least $5 trillion in corporate junk bonds and virtual junk like BBB investment grade. Still more for corporate ‘junk’ leveraged loans. A protracted period of recession and weak recovery will generate a major potential for corporate defaults and bankruptcies. If the magnitude and rate of defaults is too great, or comes too fast, the banking system could very well experience a major credit crash once again.

Industries highly unstable with high cost unaffordable debt, and with insufficient revenues with which to service that debt, include: oil fracking and coal, big box retail, smaller regional airlines, rental car and other travel related companies, hotels and resorts, malls, commercial property in general, and hundreds of thousands of small restaurants and regional restaurant chains. Defaults have already begun rising rapidly in many.  Household debt and state and local government debt finds itself in much of a similar situation—highly leveraged with debt amidst collapsing incomes to service the debt as unemployment and wage incomes continue to decline and as tax revenues remain depressed long term due to the weak economic recovery.

The US central bank, the Federal Reserve, is in the midst of an historic experiment to pre-bail out non-bank corporations to forestall the defaults and to flood, at the same time, the US banking system with massive excess liquidity with which to manage the defaults should they come excessively and too rapidly.  It remains to be seen whether the Fed’s massive liquidity injections thus far ($3 trillion), and promised (unlimited), will prove sufficient to manage the defaults.  If not, the US banking system will freeze up as financial institutions begin to crash as well with the transfer of defaulted corporate debt on to their own bank balance sheets.

In 2008-09 it was the banking system that collapsed first and in turn precipitated a deeper and faster contraction of the real economy in the US. Today it is quite possible the reverse causation may occur in the Great Recession of 2020. But it matters not in a Great Recession which precipitates which first—i.e. the banking system the real economy or vice-versa. The key point is that both cycles—financial and real—feed back on the other in a Great Recession and amplify the downturn in both.

7) Wild Card #2: Artificial Intelligence Faster Rollout

Another wild card that may emerge with fuller force longer term is the penetration of Artificial Intelligence in business operations.  McKinsey Consultants estimated that by 2025 AI would accelerate in its penetration of business practices. By the latter half of the 2020s decade it would have deep and widespread impact on employment and wages, as AI led to deep cost cutting by business. As much as 30% of occupations would be seriously impacted. The essence of AI is to eliminate simple decision making jobs, in services as well as manufacturing.

But it is highly possible that AI will now penetrate even faster, accelerated by business cost cutting and productivity enhancing drives, as a consequence of the current deep economic crisis.  The deeper and more protracted the current recession, the more likely business will engage in multiple ways to reduce costs as a means to weather the crisis. AI offers businesses a prime opportunity to do just that. But AI also means a significant reduction in net jobs, especially simple low paid service and retail work. And with the net jobs and wage loss come reduced consumer household demand, consumption, and therefore sustainable economic recovery.

The Case for 40% Government Share of GDP

As previously noted, recoveries from great recessions and depressions require at least a 40% US government spending share of total GDP. Obama’s raised the US government share of GDP to barely 25%, not 40%. The economy accordingly struggled after 2009.

The current 2nd Great Recession 2020, the first phase of which has just concluded in June, is following the same rough trajectory and scenario as the 2008-09. There has been only token fiscal stimulus to the economy thus far from the CARES ACT. Indeed, Congress never considered, at least in the House of Representatives, the CARES ACT was a stimulus bill. It was called a ‘mitigation’ bill, designed to put a partial floor under the collapse of the economy going on at the time in the 2nd quarter 2020. A true stimulus bill was to follow. That’s the HEROES ACT now blocked in Congress by Republican Senate and Trump. What the latter want is to end the unemployment benefits and provide no further income supplement payments. They want to exchange further unemployment benefits for direct wage subsidies to businesses. They want even more tax cuts for business—permanent payroll tax cuts, more capital gains tax cuts, and more business expense deductions. And they are reluctant to provide funding support for state and local governments with accelerating deficits as a result of tax revenue collapse. Should support for state and local governments not occur soon, it is likely mass layoffs will emerge in states and local governments soon.

However, it does not appear so far that anything resembling a real stimulus will get passed with the HEROES Act. The unemployment benefits extension will likely be eliminated. More business tax cuts, should they be added to the $650 billion provided by the CARES ACT, will be hoarded in large part. As will corporate income that would have been otherwise used to pay wages, as the government pays the wages of their workers instead.

An insufficient fiscal stimulus from an eventual HEROES Act, should it occur, will ensure the current tepid ‘rebound’ of the US economy will fail to evolve into a sustained recovery of the US economy. The seven other, additional factors noted above will further prevent a sustained recovery—and indeed may precipitate a subsequent further serious economic contraction. The summer of 2020 is thus a critical juncture period for the US economy.

The US is currently experiencing what might be called a ‘triple crisis’. A health crisis that shows little sign of abating. A deep economic crisis that is still in its early phases. And a ripening political crisis. Never before in its history have three such major events converged. The one of the three that is potentially most manageable is the economic. Health crisis depends heavily on the development of a vaccine. Not much can be done to prevent a deepening political crisis. It will run its course, whatever that may be. But a government fiscal stimulus equivalent to about 40% of US GDP would very likely stabilize the economy and set it on a path to sustained recovery.  However, it is highly unlikely that in the current political climate of instability, deep splits within the US political elites, growing grass roots social confrontations, and failure to mount an effective strategy to address the Covid-19 health crisis that the capitalists and their political representatives will be capable of introducing the necessary 40% war time economic stimulus.

*

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. Rasmus is author of the recently published book, ‘The Scourge of Neoliberalism: US Economic Policy from Reagan to Trump’, Clarity Press, January 2020. He hosts the weekly radio show, Alternative Visions, blogs at jackrasmus.com. His twitter handle is @drjackrasmus and his website: http://kyklosproductions.com.

Forced Vaccination Plan Unveiled

July 10th, 2020 by Bill Sardi

Stanford University Legal & Medical Authorities Join Forces To Fashion An Indiscriminate Mandated Mass-Vaccination Plan That Would Frighten The Public, Disregard Lawful Protections Of Informed Consent And Result In Needless Deaths.

***

Our health overlords propose a dangerous infectious disease control plan that mandates indiscriminate immunization for all Americans, a plan that is far more dangerous than the COVID-19 coronavirus epidemic itself.

Writing in the prestigious New England Journal of Medicine, Stanford Law School and Health Policy departments propose priority vaccination for high-risk groups that comprise the population that are least likely to benefit and most likely to experience side effects and hospitalization from COVID-19 coronavirus immunization, or from any vaccine for that matter.

Initially voluntary then mandated

The Stanford plan would initially roll out as a completely voluntary inoculation scheme to be followed by compulsory vaccination that would penalize refusers with employment suspensions and/or stay-at-home orders.

Prospect of benefiting from vaccination

Their plan calls for a future FDA-licensed vaccine, a vaccine whose side effects will not be completely known until it is widely used, that according to another Stanford University study, would benefit only a miniscule portion of the population.  That study showed, as validated by blood tests, the COVID-19 coronavirus only infects Americans at the rate of 1 in 3868 encounters (range 626 to 31,800) with others who are already infected and results in death in only 1 in 6,670,000 contacts among middle-age Americans (range 1.68 to 97.6 million).  Despite the fear generated by TV news reports, the risk of acquiring COVID-19 coronavirus infection is remote.

A perfectly safe vaccine may kill frail individuals

With presumption the vaccine is 100% effective, those numbers put a limit on the percent of vaccinated subjects who could possibly benefit from vaccination – –  19 million would be need to be vaccinated for 1 person to avoid death.

Even if only 1% experience side-effects that result in hospitalization, in a population of 328 million Americans, that would result in 3,280,000 vaccine-induced hospitalizations, which would overwhelm the 1-million bed healthcare system.

Using data from prior flu-vaccine studies, about 1% of those vaccinated may require hospitalization after vaccination and 1% of the hospitalized (1 in 200) would die, which would result in 32,800 needless deaths that would likely be blamed on the COVID-19 coronavirus.

The vaccine itself may be perfectly safe when received by healthy subjects.  But frail, elderly, malnourished (vitamin and mineral-deficient) individuals would be the most prone to suffer side effects and death when admitted to the hospital with its inherent problems of antibiotic resistance, medication errors, ventilator lung trauma and failure to check for vitamin and mineral deficiencies prior to admission.

High-risk individuals least likely to benefit from vaccination

While it may appear wise to vaccinate high-risk individuals (diabetics, hypertensives, obese, autoimmune), these are the very people whose immune systems do not respond well to vaccines and are subject to side effects.

For example, flu shots are not very effective for the very young and the very old.  Flu vaccines are 40-60% effective in the population at-large and as low as 23% effective for certain strains of the flu, says a CDC report.  As an aside, flu vaccination may actually increase the risk for coronavirus infection via a mechanism called viral interference (by 36% said one recently published study).

But despite the fact you can read that study for yourself, proponents of vaccination deny any such link between prior flu shots and subsequent COVID-19 coronavirus infections.  Viral interference is reported in other studies.  For example, those individuals who were vaccinated against the flu in the previous fall of 2010 were 1.4 to 2.5 times more likely to become ill from the H1N1 strain of the flu in the following year, which happens to be the predominant influenza strain in circulation this year 2020.)

These high-risk groups have inherent problems activating antibodies against any infectious disease, which is why most vaccines require multiple inoculations and include toxic adjuvants to provoke an immune response.

Also on the priority list for forced vaccination are prisoners, people with prior respiratory problems, nursing home patients and healthcare workers.

Why current treatments are being rejected

The Stanford plan would require evidence that existing treatment or prevention of COVID-19 coronavirus is ineffective, which at the moment is solely comprised of archaic quarantine and lockdown measures and limiting contact with the virus itself by employing face masks and social distancing.

Obesity, further induced by lockdown, increases the risk for COVID-19 related deaths.  Indoor lockdown deprives people of sunshine vitamin D that impairs immunity and increases risk for death.  Quarantines and lockdowns are counterproductive.

Any prospective treatments, such as hydroxychloroquine and HCQ +zinc, nebulized hydrogen peroxide, as well as vitamin and mineral regimens (zinc, vitamin D, vitamin C, selenium) are ignored and dismissed outright by the CDC, categorized as unproven, even potentially dangerous.  There is sufficient evidence for nutrient therapy in the prevention and management of COVID-19 infections.

Natural immunity, T-cells and nutrients

But without a vaccine or an approved treatment, vitamins and minerals have vanished from retail store shelves without widespread reports of any side effects.  Zinc therapy alone is authoritatively cited as a remedy or preventive for COVID-19 coronavirus infection.  Zinc lozenges are included in the hospital protocol for treatment of COVID-19.

What researchers have discovered during this outbreak of a newly mutated coronavirus that the population is said to have no antibodies against, is that it is not antibodies but rather zinc-dependent T-cells generated in the thymus gland that produce memory immunity against this viral pathogen.  The effectiveness of vaccines is commonly determined by antibodies, which some health authorities now question.

Public demand for a vaccine

According to the Stanford report, only about half of the U.S. population plans to be vaccinated against COVID-19 coronavirus.  This is why hospitals are over-stating the deaths attributed to COVID-19 and why news agencies create continued fear over a common-cold virus that results in few if any symptoms upon infection and only kills a very few.  Our modern healthcare system is over-committed to vaccination.  The prospect of a vaccine is dimmed by the fact 90% of vaccines that enter human trials fail to make it to market.  Given the remote possibility a safe and effective vaccine ever materializes, the nation may await an imagined vaccine at the expense of finding an effective treatment.

Mortality rate is far lower than quoted

Despite the horridness of COVID-19 induced death (drowning in lung fluid), the accumulated mortality rate as of early July 2020 is still only 131,065 deaths, or 0.00039% deaths in the entire population.  Very few of these reported deaths are attribute to COVID-19 coronavirus alone.

Most COVID-19 related deaths occur among high-risk groups who already have life-threatening conditions.  Data from the U.S. and other foreign countries estimate ~80+% of COVID-19-related deaths are caused by co-morbid conditions.  Subtract 80% of those 131,065 U.S. COVID-19-related deaths and you come up with only 26,213 COVID-19-only deaths

Many COVID-19 cases are believed to be miscoded cases of tuberculosis.  (The CDC is not reporting TB-related deaths which produces similar symptoms as COVID-19.)  The BCG TB-vaccine reduces the risk for death from COVID-19 by 3-fold and drugs used to treat TB (azithromycin, hydroxychloroquine) are successfully used to treat COVID-19, leading some analysts to conclude many of COVID-19-reported deaths are really tuberculosis.  Geographically, COVID-19 hot-spots, such as Wuhan, China; Modena, Italy and New York City, have been battling TB outbreaks in recent times.

Is COVID-19 really TB?

The world is focusing on a viral disease that produces mild to no-symptoms in most cases and a very low mortality rate with no approved treatments or vaccine, overshadowing tuberculosis which affects 2 billion and kills over 1.3 million a year, and has an approved vaccine and successful antibiotic treatment.   The infectious disease control industry has gone mad.  The currently misdirection is to prioritize a threat that kills in six figures over a threat that kills in seven figures.

The U.S. doesn’t inoculate for TB because it believes there is a low rate of infection.  But an estimated 13 million Americans have latent (dormant) tuberculosis (a majority of these are immigrants from foreign lands).  It could be many of the reported cases of COVID-19 are actually TB.

Rights of informed consent

The Stanford report that calls for mandated vaccination overlooks certain rights to informed consent that are required by Title 21 of the Code of Federal Regulations for persons who receive newly licensed vaccines in a clinical study.  Since all vaccinated Americans will be enrolled in a surveillance study (stage 4) in order to gain full FDA approval, informed consent will be legally required.

Informed consent consists of the right to reject vaccination, disclosure of alternatives to vaccination (in this instance, natural antibodies), and confidentiality (privacy of the vaccination record).

Furthermore, doctors should individually assess the chances a person has of benefiting from vaccination.  And patients have the right to reject hold-harmless clauses that would then make health practitioners legally liable should they proceed to vaccinate an individual who has little chance of benefiting from immunization.

A model INFORMED CONSENT/REFUSAL form has been written and published for the public to present to their doctors when and if a vaccine is licensed and available in the U.S. at covid19consent.com

This is not what the vaccine industry or the Centers for Disease Control, that latter a co-holder of COVID-19 related patents, wants to be known.

*

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.

Bill Sardi, writing from La Verne, California.

Calls for Swift Action as Hundreds of Elephants Die in Botswana’s Okavango Delta

July 10th, 2020 by Ed Holt

Nearly 400 elephants have died in Botswana’s Okavango Delta since March, in what wildlife experts say is one of the largest elephant mortality events ever recorded. Conservationists have criticized the government’s handling of the matter and are urging them to speed up investigations.

Botswana’s environment ministry registered the first of these unexplained elephant deaths in the Okavango in March, but the discovery of carcasses has accelerated since May.

Many of the dead elephants have been found near natural watering holes, while some have been found on trails. Some of the animals were found collapsed on their chests, suggesting their death had been fast and sudden.

The authorities said at the start of June that they were investigating just over 100 elephant deaths. Media reports said poaching, poisoning and anthrax had been ruled out as possible causes by the authorities.

Anthrax occurs naturally in the ground in parts of Botswana and has been known to kill wildlife in large numbers; wildlife disease experts have told Mongabay that this could only be ruled out as a cause by laboratory tests. The government said it was sending samples from the carcasses to South Africa for further testing, according to local media reports. However, officials said the process could be delayed because of the COVID-19 pandemic.

But international and local wildlife groups have criticized the government’s handling of the investigation. They say private surveys carried out in mid-June by conservationists, the results of which Mongabay has seen — show that almost 400 elephants have died.

They also say authorities have ignored offers to help with testing and investigation.

“There is evidence that suggests the real number of dead elephants is 400 so far,” Mark Hiley, operations director at the conservation group National Park Rescue, told Mongabay. “This is one of the biggest elephant mortality events of its kind, certainly this century.

“What needs to be done in a situation like this is to immediately take samples for testing. The government has bungled [taking these] urgently needed samples and failed to send them to a qualified lab for months.”

Hiley and others say samples were not quickly sent to labs for analysis as the government claims, delaying efforts to understand what is taking place in the Okavango.

“There is an urgent need to send in a professional, impartial team, with the proper resources and experience to carry out a full investigation,” Hiley added. “Offers have been made [by conservationists] but the government has failed to respond.”

Elephant carcass in the Okavango Delta.

Elephant carcass in the Okavango Delta.

There are more elephants in Botswana than in any other country. Measures to protect large wildlife, including hunting bans and “shoot-to-kill” policies to deter poachers, have seen the population grow from 80,000 in the late 1990s to an estimated 135,000 today.

But conservationists have raised the alarm over a rise in poaching since Mokgweetsi Masisi became president two years ago.

Having promised to reduce the number of elephants in the country amid rising human-wildlife conflicts as the human population grows, Masisi last year lifted a ban on hunting elephants. The ban had been introduced five years previously by his predecessor, Ian Khama.

Aerial surveys found a nearly six-fold rise in elephant poaching in the north of the country between 2014 and 2018. About 385 elephants were poached from 2017 to early October 2018, and 156 for the whole of 2018, including 90 identified in a single two-month period between July and September in a survey carried out with representatives of Botswana’s Department of Wildlife and National Parks. Government officials later disputed the findings.

“Given the high volume of professional poaching in the Okavango area since the COVID-19 lockdowns began, poison remains a likely candidate,” Hiley said.

Poachers often lay poison traps to kill wildlife and remove what they want from the carcasses afterward. Local activists said they had found the remnants of an improvised camp near to where some elephants had died.

But no evidence of removal of dead elephants’ tusks has been reported.

“There is a worrying lack of urgency about this situation,” Mary Rice of the U.K.-based Environmental Investigation Agency (EIA) told Mongabay. “This is symptomatic of the change in philosophy of this new regime and the U-turn which has been seen in the country with regard to the protection of key species.”

Government officials did not respond when contacted by Mongabay about their investigation into the elephant deaths.

There is an urgent need for comprehensive testing and investigation, Hiley said.

Elephant carcass, Okavango Delta

Hundreds of elephants have died in Botswana’s Okavango Delta; the cause is yet to be determined.

“Horrific scenes were reported to me of dying elephants running around in circles, suggesting something — potentially neurotoxins — impacting brain function. Some elephants reportedly had their rear quarters paralyzed,” he said.

“It is possible that the disaster has implications for people living in and around the Okavango Delta region, but until a proper team is sent in [to collect and test samples], this cannot be known,” he said.

“If it’s poison, something can be done about it, but if it’s a new disease it could be worse, especially as elephants can travel such huge distances. This is why it is so important to do tests as quickly as possible.”

One expert on disease among African wildlife, who spoke to Mongabay on condition of anonymity, said they had “never seen any elephant mortality on this scale before.” But they urged against jumping to any conclusions until advanced tests had been done.

“Theoretically, anthrax could be responsible,” the expert said. “It is also possible that a pathogen has emerged and is virulent in the high-density elephant population in that area.

“Or it could be something like the mass deaths of the saiga antelopes [in Kazakhstan in 2015] which turned out in the end to be down to a not uncommon pathogen.

“The only way to find out is to do proper tests.”

*

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

Featured image is from The Ecologist

US Plans to Invade Venezuela Through Colombia

July 10th, 2020 by Lucas Leiroz de Almeida

Colombia is under a pro-Washington government. The country’s current president, Iván Duque Márquez, has been noted for a series of policies of alignment with the United States, continuing the legacy of his predecessor, former president Juan Manuel Santos, who has made Colombia a NATO’s “global partner”, allowing the country to participate in joint military operations of the Western military alliance. In general, the long scenario of crises and tensions in Colombia, marked by drug trafficking and the conflict between criminal factions and rebel parties, has driven its governments towards a policy of alignment with Washington in exchange for security, which has increased in recent years.

However, not all Colombian politicians approve these measures. Recently, the leftist senator Iván Cepeda asked Colombian Congressional President Lidio García to convene a session to investigate and legally control the government in its collaboration with the constant arrival of American soldiers in the country. According to Cepeda, the presence of these military personnel is hostile to Colombia, deeply affecting the maintenance of national sovereignty.

Cepeda claims that the government should consult the National Congress before allowing the American military to arrive. A recent decision by the Supreme Court of Cundinamarca proved Cepeda right. According to the judges of the Court, the unilateral decision to allow the entry of foreign troops violates the Colombian National Constitution, and the Executive Branch must previously submit the matter to the Congress. For this reason, the Court asked the government to send information about the joint operations in progress, with the aim of clarifying the reason for the arrival of American troops. The deadline for sending the report was July 6 and was not met by the government – which claims it will appeal the decision. Due to the non-compliance, Cepeda filed a request for the establishment of a special congressional session.

The exact number of US military personnel in the country is uncertain, which further raises suspicions about the case. Some sources say there are more than 800 Americans, while others say they are between 50 and 60 military personnel. No official note was given by the government to explain the reasons and the exact number of soldiers. On the other hand, the American Embassy in Colombia, under pressure, commented on the case, giving an unsatisfactory answer. According to American diplomats, military personnel are arriving in Colombia to carry out joint operations to combat drug trafficking. Apparently, these operations would aim to carry out a siege against Venezuela and Nicolás Maduro, who, according to Donald Trump, has links with drug trafficking in the region. It is important to remember that Trump’s accusations against Maduro were never substantiated and any evidence was provided of such links between the Venezuelan president and drug trafficking.

Recently, Colombian mercenaries invaded Venezuela by sea in American vessels. Venezuelan security forces neutralized the attack, but since then it has become clear that Colombia is willing to collaborate with the US to overthrow the government of Nicolás Maduro. Apparently, therefore, American troops arriving in the country are preparing for a next step in this old American project to occupy Venezuela.

The justification that the Venezuelan government has links with drug trafficking becomes even more curious when the American ally is precisely Colombia, a state that historically has structural links with the organized crime and the illegal drug trade in South America, being considered by experts in the whole world as a true narco-state. Likewise, the United States is not innocent of scandals involving international trafficking. The CIA has repeatedly been accused of collaborating with criminal networks worldwide. The American invasion of Afghanistan in 2001 guaranteed to the US the complete control of opium production in the region. In Mexico, in exchange for information and resources, American intelligence has collaborated several times with the activities of the so-called Guadalajara Cartel. Still, for years, American intelligence collaborated with Panamanian general Manuel Noriega, who has been publicly involved in drug trafficking since the 1960s, in exchange for military support against guerrillas in Nicaragua.

In fact, we can see that drug trafficking is a flawed and inconsistent justification for an invasion against Venezuela. Colombia and the United States have much more credible and notorious evidence of drug trafficking and are precisely the countries articulating this operation. We can imagine the real reasons behind this: unable to maintain its global hegemony, Washington desperately tries to guarantee its power in Latin America, and, for that, it tries to overthrow Maduro; Colombia provides support to the US in exchange for a mask for its own criminal activities, carried out in collusion by the government and criminal networks of drug trafficking groups – such activities will be falsely attributed to Maduro.

Anyway, what seems clear now is that the US plans to invade Venezuela through Colombia.

*

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

This article was originally published on InfoBrics.

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

Featured image is from InfoBrics

The Prosecution of Washington’s Kosovo Clients for War Crimes

July 10th, 2020 by Ted Galen Carpenter

The United States and its NATO allies launched a military intervention in 1999 that helped the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) win its secessionist campaign against Serbia.U.S. officials justified that intervention on the grounds that Serbian security forces were committing pervasive war crimes against the Kosovar insurgents. American supporters of the KLA also asserted that the secessionists were staunch Western‐​style democrats mounting a noble resistance against Slobodan Milosevic’s corrupt, brutal regime, and that America had a moral obligation to support them. Speaking at a pro‐​Kosovo march in Washington D. C., Sen. Joseph Lieberman (D-CT) stated that the “United States of America and the Kosovo Liberation Army stand for the same human values and principles.… Fighting for the KLA is fighting for human rights and American values.”

There was abundant evidence at the time that KLA leaders did not embody such values. Shortly after Kosovo became independent, KLA‐​supported mobs destroyed Serbian religious sites and waged a campaign of ethnic cleansing that expelled thousands of Serbs, as well as Roma and other minorities. Years later, evidence of utterly barbaric behavior during and after the war emerged. In 2010, an investigative report for the Council of Europe confirmed long‐​standing rumors that the KLA was involved in the trafficking of human organs, including killing Serb prisoners of war to harvest their kidneys and other organs. The lead investigator and author of the report was Swiss Senator Dick Marty, a highly respected champion of human rights.One of the suspects specifically named was Kosovo prime minister (currently president) Hashim Thaci. Yet U.S. leaders in the Bush, Obama, and Trump administration continued to back the KLA alumni who dominated Kosovo’s politics. The flow of foreign aid money from Washington continued unabated.

It now will—or at least should—be very difficult for Washington to persist in that policy.On June 24, Thaci and nine other former separatist military leaders were indicted on a range of crimes against humanity and war crimes charges by an international prosecutor probing their actions against ethnic Serbs and others during and after Kosovo’s 1998–99 war for independence against Serbia. The prosecutor for the Kosovo Specialist Chambers, a court based in The Hague, said Thaci and the nine others “are criminally responsible for nearly 100 murders” involving hundreds of Serb and Roma victims, as well as Kosovo Albanian political opponents. At the time of his indictment, Thaci was about to depart on one of his many trips to Washington to consult with U.S. officials on Balkan affairs.

This case is yet another shameful episode in which U.S. leaders have embraced thuggish geopolitical clients and portrayed them as committed democrats. At times, the United States has even gone to war on behalf of such odious clients.Washington’s support for Ahmed Chalabi and his Iraqi National Congress played a major role in America’s decision to wage the ill‐​advised military crusade in that country. More recently, Obama administration officials and many of their allies in the media have portrayed Islamic jihadists in Syria as freedom fighters seeking to overthrow Bashar al-Assad’s regime, and, therefore, are worthy of U.S. backing.

Such chronic misrepresentations should not only cause U.S. leaders acute embarrassment, there needs to be a fundamental reexamination of America’s foreign policy to prevent such fiascos in the future. A good place to start is with a repudiation of the leaders Washington helped bring to power in Kosovo.

*

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

Featured image is from Wikimedia Commons

Palestinians Have No Choice but to Resist in Any Way, Shape or Form Annexation

July 10th, 2020 by Michael Jansen

To annex or not annex? This is the question bugging Israeli, Palestinian and international political figures since Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu missed his July 1 deadline for beginning the process of formally annexing portions of the occupied West Bank. According to Netanyahu ally Ofir Akunis, Israeli officials are still working out the details of the annexation with the US Trump administration, but he expects this will take place during this month.

In an interview with Italian daily “It Fatto Quotidiano”, former Israeli Knesset speaker and peace activist Avraham Burg said, however, Donald Trump halted the annexation plan since “he doesn’t have time to help Netanyahu in implementing the annexation of the West Bank and Jordan Valley.” Asked when he thought implementation might go ahead, Burg replied it is “very difficult, if not impossible, to set expectations to the annexation, because there is no transparency in this plan, no one knows its details”. Burg made his name as a founder of Peace Now following Israel’s 1982 war on Lebanon and has since joined efforts to boycott goods and produce from Israel’s West Bank colonies. In 2015 he joined the leftist joint Arab-Jewish Hadash Party.

Having green-lighted  Netanyahu’s intention to annex Israel’s West Bank colonies and the Jordan Valley, 30 per cent of the territory, Trump could very well be “too busy” campaigning for reelection to back up his friend in a project which has been vehemently condemned as illegal by the UN, the European Union, the Arabs, the Palestinians, the remaining four permanent members of the Security Council, and other members of the international community.

Although he claims to be running on a “law-and-order” platform, Trump is not impressed by the fact that the West Bank is regarded by international law and the Fourth Geneva Convention as “occupied territory” and deems Israeli colonisation illegal.

Netanyahu’s coalition partner, Defence Minister Benny Gantz, who is less keen on annexation, argues it should wait until Israel contains Covid-19 cases which have spiked just as the country was beginning to ease restrictions. Gantz, in particular, should be concerned if annexation precipitates widespread Palestinian protests and violent resistance.  It will be his job to contain and crack down.

Since Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas‘ election in 2005, Israel has been largely free of the sort of attacks that took place during the Second Intifada due to security coordination between the Palestinian intelligence agencies and police and their Israeli counterparts. However, Abbas has cut contacts with Israel and halted security cooperation since Netanyahu returned to power and pledged to annex areas allocated to Israel in Trump’s “Deal of the Century” which has been roundly rejected of all and sundry.

Abbas has now taken a major step further. Along with Hamas’ leaders, he has agreed to support a common Fateh-Hamas Palestinian resistance campaign which could involve violence if and when Israel annexes West Bank territory. This campaign was announced last week by Jibril Rajoub, head of Fateh’s central committee, and Saleh Al Arouri, West Bank chief of Hamas. Both men have careers in militancy and have served long terms in Israeli prisons.

Rajoub and Arouri have vowed to “speak in a single voice”. Rajoub said they would launch “popular resistance in which everyone participates” and “put in place all necessary measures to ensure national unity”. He announced, “We will not raise a white flag, we will not give up. All the options are open if the Israelis start the annexation and slam the door on the two-State solution.” He did not rule out a Third Intifada to end the occupation and “remove annexation from the table”.

Arouri said the rival movements have set aside “issues on which we differ. We and Fateh and all the Palestinian factions are facing an existential threat, and we must work together”. Hamas, he said will use “all forms of struggle and resistance against the annexation project”.  He rightly pointed out, “Annexing any percentage of the West Bank now means that more will follow… If the occupation ends up controlling the Jordan Valley, Jerusalem and other areas then it will have an appetite for more.”

Since both men have made it clear that “all options” are open if Israel goes ahead with annexation, coming together on this issue appears to mark a turning point. Fateh and Hamas have adopted the same stand towards annexation. If Netanyahu goes ahead, Palestinian Authority security agencies would no longer prevent mass protests in the West Bank or hinder Fateh, Hamas and other groups from plotting and staging attacks on Israel and Israelis.

This does not mean that Fateh and Hamas, estranged since Hamas won the 1996 Palestinian legislative election, have reconciled. Cooperation on annexation does mot signify reconciliation but simply the need to join forces to counter Israel’s formal take-over of all or portions of the West Bank, which will make the emergence of a Palestinian state impossible. Near global opposition to such a move has given Palestinians the right to resist Israel’s latest and most consequential existential challenge. Without land they will continue to exist in a limbo, without a state, independence, and full membership in the international community which is open only to states. The Palestinians have no choice but to resist in any way, shape or form they choose. The late Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat always kept “all options” in reserve, knowing full well that Palestinians have very little leverage over Israel and its allies.

*

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: Palestinian take cover as Israeli forces fire at protesters at the Gaza border on 14 December 2018 [Mohammed Asad/Middle East Monitor]

The Test Set: Another Brick in the COVID-19 Disinformation Game Plan

July 9th, 2020 by Dr. Pascal Sacré

Do you want the true answer, or do you want the answer given by propaganda, official government versions and the mainstream media?

I will give you the true, medical answer: the tests do not answer any of these questions, they are unreliable, they give overly simplistic answers that can be used by governments to make people believe what they want them to believe.

There are two main types of tests:

  1. Molecular tests: RT-PCR
  2. Serological tests: looking for antibodies in blood

RT-PCR [1]

In cells taken from the back of the nose, RT-PCR searches for fragments of SARS-CoV-2 viral RNA, forms the corresponding DNA using the enzyme Reverse Transcriptase (RT) and amplifies (multiplies) the RNA-DNA fragments found using the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) technique. By a complicated technique, therefore subject to many missteps, we are told that this test could quantify the viral load.

This test, the results of which can take 2 to 7 days, is supposed to prove that you are infected (RT-PCR +) or not (RT-PCR -) by the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus and that you are contagious or not contagious.

This is not the truth.

Yet it has guided all medical decisions around the world to categorize patients into COVID and NON-COVID, to isolate the former and confirm them as COVID-19.

The presence of a clinical picture composed of major signs (including cough, fever) and minor signs, with in some cases a chest CT scan, has led to the classification of symptomatic patients as either suspicious (awaiting RT-PCR result) or confirmed (positive RT-PCR and/or evocative chest CT scan), with minor, moderate and severe forms.

This theory based on quicksand proves that human beings always prefer a logical and reassuring lie, simplistic, to the more complex and frightening truth.

Many studies and articles by recognized experts in their field, including some from prestigious universities, have shown the unreliability of RT-PCR, which can give false positive or false negative results or are disrupted by a lot of elements at all stages of its technique [2].

Clinical pictures and images from chest scans are not specific and can be found in any broad viral or infectious disease [3].

SARS-CoV-2 is part of a family of many similar viruses, most of which are benign: cold viruses.

It is most likely that this specific virus has had time to circulate in a large part of the population before the end of March and containment measures.

These strict isolation measures did not destroy the virus or extinguish the pandemic. On the contrary, they destroyed the economy of many countries and many lives (unemployment, loneliness, poverty, depression, untreated diseases, anxiety, famine).

 “Kerry Pollard, a microbiologist from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, performs a manual extraction of the coronavirus in the   extraction laboratory of the Pennsylvania Department of Health’s Office of Laboratories on Friday, March 6, 2020 ”  Source: flickr.com

Serological tests to help COVID-19 propaganda? [4]

Serological tests are done using blood, 8 ml taken in a dry tube or a single drop in the case of rapid tests.

The biologist looks for the presence of antibodies (Ac) or immunoglobulins (Ig) specific to the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus.

There are two main types of antibodies:

  1. IgM: recent or ongoing infection, phase of contagion.
  2. IgG: older infection, healing, more contagion

Some serological tests only detect IgG. Studies have shown that virtually all subjects with symptomatic COVID-19 produced detectable IgG antibodies as long as the blood sample was taken at least 3 weeks after the first symptoms [5].

There are several types of IgG.

S1/S2 IgG are neutralizing antibodies, protecting against the virus.

However, not all identified IgG antibodies are protective or neutralizing; in fact, the opposite is true with the phenomenon of facilitating infection via antibodies (ADE Antibody Dependent Enhancement, as in dengue fever). In this case, rather than blocking the key (Spike protein of the viral envelope) that allows the virus to enter the target cells (neutralizing antibodies), these facilitating antibodies promote the penetration of the virus into the target cells! [6-7]

Rapid tests, such as the one from BioLab Sciences [8] based in Scottsdale, Arizona (USA), allow rapid antibody detection within 10 minutes with a specificity of 98%. These are the claims of the laboratory. A drop of blood is enough, as in blood glucose tests with a fingertip prick.

There are several types of rapid tests, 12 tests approved by the FDA in the USA alone (as of June 1st), but also others in Malaysia, China or Europe.

A laboratory like the one in Scottsdale, Arizona, claims to be able to provide up to 9 million tests per week.

Interpretation of the quick-test results:

1. IgM positive alone: recent infection/contact (days), within the previous 4 weeks at most
2. IgM and IgG positive: infection/contact that occurred 4-8 weeks prior to the infection
3. IgG positive alone: infection/contact more than 8 weeks ago

Yes, so what?

What can we really conclude from this?

Let’s take a look at the theory of human immunity to better understand [9] :

The human immune defense is composed of two main lines.

  1. Innate or natural immunity
  2. Acquired or adaptive immunity

A. Innate immunity is not specific, it is very rapid, intervenes first in case of aggression and is often sufficient. It is not based on the production of antibodies. This means that antibodies are absolutely not essential to eliminate an infection. It also means that the absence of antibodies or a low level of antibodies in the blood does not rule out a viral infection that will have been managed by the exclusive innate immunity. This is even a sign of good immune health!

B. Adaptive immunity is specific, it is slower, it is only activated when innate immunity is overwhelmed or insufficient, and it is based, but not only, on the production of antibodies.

Therefore, to sum up an individual’s immune defence to his or her antibody production is as false and simplistic as summing up a country’s defence to its special forces. Yet this pirouette is the main dogma of immunology, the sacred basis of vaccinology.

What does the orthodox immune theory say?

Positive test

She said that a positive serological test (the presence of sufficient SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus-specific antibodies in the blood) indicates recent (IgM-days/weeks) or past (IgG-weeks/month) infection.

It also says that a positive IgG test (a sufficient level in the blood) means that the person is protected against a new infection.

But it’s not that simple.

Remember AIDS (HIV infection or HIV). Before AIDS, any seroconversion was considered a good sign, reflecting the adaptive immune system’s response to an infection.

After AIDS, seroconversion (the presence of antibodies to HIV) became a bad sign, leading to the diagnosis of an active disease: HIV-positive [10].

Negative test

The orthodox theory says that a negative test (little or no IgG in the blood) means that the person has not become infected and is not protected.

However, that is not entirely true.

The absence of IgG antibodies (or a low serum level) does not mean that a person has not been infected because he or she may have relied solely on innate immunity (immunity without antibodies) or may have relied on other types of antibodies such as Immunoglobulin A (IgA) secreted locally in infected mucous membranes (nasopharyngeal mucosa).

The antibodies are secreted by activated B-lymphocytes during the late, adaptive and specific immune response. However, this adaptive immunity also relies on other cells that do not produce antibodies, such as T lymphocytes, which also constitute a very important antiviral and antimicrobial line of defence, not taken into account by blood serologies that only measure serum antibodies.

In addition, there is an important immunological concept, that of cross-immunity [11]. Yes, doctors should re-read their immunology courses!

The coronavirus family is a large family!

For the most part, these viruses are benign and cause colds every year. By dint of early childhood, true coronavirus immunity has developed, facilitating the innate immune response to SARS-CoV-2 so that in many people it may have been enough to shorten viral multiplication.

The adaptive (antibody-mediated) immune response in all of these people did not have time to come into play, so there were no antibodies.

This is not bad at all and means, on the contrary, that the previous colds prepared the person to react well to SARS-CoV-2 (effective cross-immunity).

In summary, a negative serology (insufficient antibodies to SARS-CoV-2) DOES NOT EXCLUDE being infected and DOES NOT EXCLUDE the existence of protective immunity to a severe form of COVID-19.

IgG serology alone will underestimate the true rate of cured infections and the true immunity of the population to SARS-CoV-2!

It would be more interesting to assay the entire coronavirus antibody pool, not just those specific to SARS-CoV-2.

Immunological hypothesis to explain severe forms of COVID-19:

Severe forms (intensive care, death) have mostly been observed in elderly patients (even very elderly, >/= 80 years old) and/or with one or more chronic diseases (obesity, diabetes, hypertension, cardiovascular disease…).

These chronic Western pathologies (increasingly global and mainly linked to sweet diets associated with excessive sedentary lifestyle) have become so commonplace that they are now overly commonplace in hospitals. It has almost become “normal” to be fat, hypertensive, quickly out of breath, diabetic or inactive.

However, this is THE scourge of modern times, much more than the lack of vaccination!

All of these diseases and lifestyle habits severely depress the immune system [12].

a) Innate, natural immunity has been unable in these people to eliminate the virus or slow its multiplication.

b) Adaptive, specific immunity, which produces antibodies of several types, may have led to the secretion of ADE antibodies, facilitating viral invasion in tissues with specific receptors for these antibodies, leading to an excessive, exaggerated inflammatory reaction (Th2 immunological response) and more destruction than cure [13], especially in the lungs.

In this case, the very high levels of antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 rather reflected a bad situation, synonymous with severe infection and deleterious immune reactions!

CONCLUSIONS

Both molecular tests of RT-PCR type (diagnosis, contagiousness) and serological tests with IgM-IgG antibodies (diagnosis, immunity) are unreliable.

They do not take into account the cross-immunity to other coronaviruses (very similar to SARS-CoV-2 but more numerous and benign) which has certainly been able to play a great role in the protection of a whole section of the population, especially the young and relatively healthy individuals (60 to 85% of people are able to eliminate coronaviruses using only their innate immune system, without developing antibodies for this).

Many people are and will be protected by this cross-immunity, provided by all the ambient coronaviruses that we have been breathing without any concern or hardly (common cold) for decades and without going through the specific antibody box.

Moreover, it is not because the antibodies in question disappear quickly [14] or decrease very strongly in the bloodstream that the individual no longer has immune protection.

There are many lines of protection (helper T cells, cytotoxic, regulatory, other molecules made by B cells, innate immunity…) and to reduce everything to antibodies alone to say that you are protected or not is profoundly dishonest, or stupid.

Immunity is not only based on antibodies, far from it [15]!

Patients with moderate COVID-19 showed low levels of serum IgA and IgG specific for the SARS-CoV-2 Spike protein.

Patients with severe COVID showed high levels of specific serum IgA and IgG, the higher the severity of the disease [16].

While the orthodox immunological theory would say that the sicker you are, the more Ac you make to protect yourself, in reality the high level of Ac is partly responsible for the severity of the disease (ADE phenomenon).

The high level of antibodies, far from reflecting protection, reflects an inadequate (maladjusted) immune response leading to a Th2 (humoral and inflammatory) rather than a Th1 (cellular) immune response. And this is not good.

Why is it not good?

Because of the overall poor health status of patients with severe IDVOC (one or more severe co-morbidities, high age)!

The most important thing is good coordination between the innate and adaptive immune systems and this is based on good health (dietary, physical, mental).

Low antibody levels may simply mean that your innate immune system has been effective and has been sufficient to protect you. That’s good!

Anything can be made to say at the tests, including serological (antibody) tests, and it all depends on the intention, benevolent and honest OR malevolent and dishonest, of those who will tell you what they want you to believe.

P.S. my advice as a doctor:

Strengthen your immunity by a healthy (balanced) diet, moderate, varied and regular physical activity and daily mental hygiene (meditation, self-hypnosis, sophrology, breathing, walking in nature without masks).

And if you and your children have colds, that’s fine.

*

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.

Pascal Sacré graduated in medicine in Belgium in 1995. He started a specialization in anesthesia and intensive care in 1997, completed in 2002 and completed a specialization in critical care in 2003. He has been working in a hospital environment since then, in intensive care, with a 2.5 year stay in a centre for burn victims (Queen Astrid Military Hospital HMRA in Brussels) between 2009 and 2011. Since 2011, he has been working in a medical-surgical intensive care centre in Charleroi, Belgium. He is trained in hypnotherapy in a medical environment since 2014 and as such, he is responsible for stress management training for the staff of his hospital. He has been collaborating with the Centre for Research on Globalization since 2009.

Translation from French by Maya, Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG)

Featured Image is from Pixabay

Notes:

[1] Tutoriel prélèvement nasopharyngé : Un geste technique, essentiel à la fiabilité du test COVID-19

[2] Les tests: talon d’Achille du château de cartes COVID-19, mondialisation.ca, 28 mai 2020

[3] Utilité du CT-scan thoracique pour le diagnostic et le triage des patients suspects de COVID-19, Swiss Medical Journal RMS 2020, Vol. 16, 955-957. The role of CT in the management of suspected or confirmed COVID-19 patients remains uncertain.

[4] Place des tests sérologiques dans la stratégie de prise en charge de la maladie COVID-19

[5] Le Journal du Médecin, 4 juin 2020, n° 2632

[6] Anticorps facilitants et pathogénèse du COVID 19, Swiss Medical Journal 25 April 2020. This article highlights the complexity of the immune response. Complexity that prompts us to reflect on the meaning of the presence of antibodies: can a positive serology over time say that there is immunity? Moreover, as can be suspected in some severe cases, the immune response could play a role in the pathogenesis of the disease.

[7] Molecular Mechanism for Antibody-Dependent Enhancement of Coronavirus Entry

[8] Rapid serological tests : RAPID RESULT COVID-19 TEST KITS

[9] Immunologie approfondie

[10] LE DIAGNOSTIC DE L’INFECTION PAR LE VIH, Diagnosis is made through a blood test that detects the presence of anti-HIV antibodies as early as three weeks after contamination.

[11] Immunité croisée entre les coronavirus des rhumes et SARS-CoV-2

[12] SARS-CoV-2 specific antibody responses in COVID-19 patients

[13] Antibodies to coronaviruses are higher in older compared with younger adults and binding antibodies are more sensitive than neutralizing antibodies in identifying coronavirus‐associated illnesses

[14] Coronavirus : les anticorps ne resteraient que deux à trois mois dans le sang

[15] Les anticorps ne sont PAS nécessaires pour la protection contre certains virus, article source en anglais : Antibodies are not required for immunity against some viruses

[16]  Systemic and mucosal antibody secretion specific to SARS-CoV-2 during mild versus severe COVID-19

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The Test Set: Another Brick in the COVID-19 Disinformation Game Plan

Selected Articles: Flawed COVID-19 Data, Lockdown and Its Global Impacts

July 9th, 2020 by Global Research News

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!

Click to donate:

*     *     *

COVID-19 Could Kill More People Through Hunger than the Disease Itself, Warns Oxfam

By Oxfam International, July 09, 2020

The report, The Hunger Virus, reveals how an estimated 122 million more people could be pushed to the brink of starvation this year as a result of the social and economic fallout from the pandemic including through mass unemployment, disruption to food production and supplies, and declining aid. This equates to as many as 12,000 people dying every day while the global mortality rate for COVID-19 reached a peak of 10,000 deaths per day in April 2020.

COVID-19 Cases in Africa Rising Sharply

By Abayomi Azikiwe, July 09, 2020

Concerns are mounting across the African continent and internationally over the exponential growth in COVID-19 infections.

At the time of this writing the African Center for Disease Control and Prevention (ACDC) reported a total of 508,584 cases resulting in 12,000 deaths. This same source says that 247,207 of those previously diagnosed as positive are now considered fully recovered.

The “Second Wave”: Politics Influences the “Science” of COVID-19. Flawed Data, Flawed Models

By Josh Mitteldorf, July 09, 2020

The global death rate from COVID-19 is down to about 4,000 per day. It is not even among the top ten causes. COVID is lower than traffic deaths, lower than diarrhea. Even compared to other respiratory infections, COVID is now a minority.

In the US, daily COVID deaths peaked in April, and are now down to 1/10 the peak rate, at about 400/day. COVID is now the sixth leading cause of death in America, but it no longer registers as a bump in total mortality.

120 Covid-19 Vaccine Projects are Underway

By Stephen Lendman, July 08, 2020

Vaccines affects human health — notably when development is rushed like now.

Instead of providing protection as claimed, vaccines time and again cause diseases they’re supposed to prevent.

Around 120 COVID-19 vaccine development projects are underway.

Either in pre-clinical or human trials, Big Pharma firms and their foreign counterparts are racing to develop and market what no one should touch when one or more vaccines become available — possibly later this year or in early 2021.

Coronavirus: Why Everyone Was Wrong. It is Not a “New Virus”. “The Fairy Tale of No Immunity”

By Beda M Stadler, July 08, 2020

At the end of 2019 a coronavirus, which was considered novel, was detected in China. When the gene sequence, i.e. the blueprint of this virus, was identified and was given a similar name to the 2002 identified Sars, i.e. Sars-CoV-2, we should have already asked ourselves then how far [this virus] is related to other coronaviri, which can make human beings sick. Now that we’re talking about developing a vaccine against the virus, we suddenly see studies which show that this so-called novel virus is very strongly related to Sars-1 as well as other beta-coronaviri which make us suffer every year in the form of a cold. Apart from the pure homologies in the sequence between the various coronaviri which can make people sick, [scientists] currently work on identifying a number of areas on the virus in the same way as human immune cells identify them. This is no longer about the genetic relationship, but about how our immune system sees this virus, i.e. which parts of other coronaviri could potentially be used in a vaccine.

The National Institute of Health (NIH) Owns Half of Moderna Vaccine: Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

By Robert F. Kennedy Jr, July 08, 2020

New documents obtained by Axios and Public Citizen suggest that the National Institute of Health (NIH) owns half the key patent for Moderna’s controversial COVID vaccine and could collect half the royalties.

In addition, four NIH scientists have filed their own provisional patent application as co-inventors. Little known NIH regulations let agency scientists collect up to $150,000.00 annually in royalties from vaccines upon which they worked.

The Impacts of the Draconian Lockdowns: 1.1 Billion People At Risk of Starvation. Dr. John Ioannidis

By Dr. John P.A. Ioannidis and Patricia Claus, July 07, 2020

We have learned a lot within a short period of time about the prevalence of the infection worldwide. There are already more than 50 studies that have presented results on how many people in different countries and locations have developed antibodies to the virus. These numbers are anywhere between 5 times (e.g. Gangelt in Germany) and 600 times (e.g. Japan) more compared to the documented cases, depending on whether a lot or limited testing was already performed in different locations. We know that the prevalence of the infection varies tremendously across countries, but also within countries, within states, and even within population groups in the same location.

  • Posted in NO READ MORE LINK
  • Comments Off on Selected Articles: Flawed COVID-19 Data, Lockdown and Its Global Impacts

Evolving Global Crisis: Medical Social Engineering and Management

July 9th, 2020 by Dr. T. P. Wilkinson

There have been for some time, esp. from libertarian quarters, accusations that the COVID-19 crisis has led to a state that has been called by some “medical martial law”. I believe the more accurate term and point of departure is “medical social engineering and management”. Martial law sounds more dramatic and seems simpler to understand. Yet we have to get beyond slogans and deal with long-term processes and policies if we are to find adequate responses today. Literary metaphors, like those found in Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World and George Orwell’s 1984 have been reduced to clichés. While their ideas may in part illustrate what today seems like prophecy, it is not enough just to imagine that there is or might be some underlying or even secret “plan”.

Much of this reporting creates the impression that some base of fundamental liberties (civil or human) is at risk here, only now. Sporadic attention is given to the relationships between pharmaceutical companies, the BMGF and governmental as well as international entities, e.g. WHO. This reporting is easily dismissed by a population that has been immunised to such reporting, pre-emptively since the introduction of such communication concepts as “fake news”. The developments in digital and especially internet-based mass communications have reinforced the belief that technology is independent and that science and what is called knowledge is not only independent but also inevitable in form and substance. We have internalised the beliefs in our own domination so that we cannot conceive it as domination at all. A sentimental reference to lost or endangered liberties is really a distraction from the problems at hand, even if such “liberties” may be part of the heritage we honestly want to save from destruction.

The long-term perspective is missing because it is difficult to render comprehensible. John Maynard Keynes was to have said, “in the long term we are all dead.” Yet by mimicking the news cycle, grasping for some novelty or titillation, and omitting the redundancies of historical context, writers and speakers with ambitions to overcome the propaganda barriers to political activism are unlikely to reach anyone but the converted.

In my February article Re-Orientation, I tried to give the emerging crisis, nominally triggered by the viral incidents in Wuhan, China, some of the historical context which even alternative media in their addiction to the “fear mongering news cycle” are wont to report. The first point is that there is no true, undeniable “origin”. We have to start with a problem and then draw on numerous sources and observations– research– to define the problem by giving it a context into which the history flows. We create a history by the way we define the problem. The origin is in fact the beginning—the value we pursue in uncovering events and translating them into fields of action rather than frustration.

If we assume that the governments of the West, in particular that of the US, are what they claim to be, then all the concern about the USG response to the so-called pandemic remains focussed on whether and how it meets the needs of the people on whose behalf it claims to govern. In other words framed in the propaganda terms specified by the regime itself. If however we recognize that the governments of the West, in particular the US, but also those governments it helped to reorganise after the subsequent world wars in the 20th century (most of the Western peninsula and much of the Western hemisphere) are Business operations or extensions of corporate power, then the focus changes fundamentally– depending on whether one is on the side of Business or its target.

The USG as an extension of Business, especially its monopolist/oligarchic forms, and has been firmly established as such since 1913 at the latest. It is also from about this time that the major oligarchs in Business set about organising first the US and then the rest of the world in ways amenable to system maintenance and control for Business. This strategic organisation pre-dates such post- WWII institutions like the IMF or UN and the quasi-conspiratorial committees so familiar now that they need not be mentioned here.

WWI was a milestone because it essentially created the current Anglo-American Empire through which Business rules to this day.

Without rehearsing all the actions and transformations along the way, it is useful to focus on some relevant policies or attitudes that became anchored in the West.

  1. The Bank of England became the model for international financial management and manipulation, after WWII it would become the model for all central banking. This was the significance of the so-called Aldrich Plan and the Federal Reserve Act.
  2. Military-led industrialization and economic organisation would prevail under so-called “scientific” management principles, promulgated by elite “business schools” where mathematical modelling would displace political contests. Alfred Marshall was one of the principal theorists for the creation of de-politicised “scientific” economics based on mathematics. Frederick Taylor and Henry Ford helped establish “scientific” industrial organisation.
  3. Mass media organisation would be integrated throughout state and commercial organizations– propaganda would be shared to promote Business. The formalisation of this practice derived from the work of the Creel Committee and was later theorised and intensified by Edward Bernays.
  4. Medicine would become the focus of all social engineering and management. Medicine would replace religion as the ideological vanguard of imperialism. This was the principal contribution of the Rockefeller tax dodges (General Education Board, Rockefeller University, Rockefeller Foundation et al.) under the management of Frederick T. Gates.

The problem we face here is that after a century of “scientific” management and medicine we are unable to reconstitute political contests. Even those people who claim to be trained in fields like economics are thoroughly dominated by the ideology of positivist science, which became the underlying religion of 20th century capitalism. Science in the West was adopted primarily as a weapon of anti-communism and against popular democratic movements.

We therefore have enormous almost insurmountable difficulties in challenging the State politically because there is only a scientific-technological framework (purified of any historical context). This framework asserts above all class neutrality– thus denying the political power struggle that is really the core of events. It is not an accident that one of today’s grand political managers, George Soros, named his espionage and political warfare operations after the concept popularised by Karl Popper, whose main ideological contribution was to insist that “real science” was only possible under capitalism in what he called the “Open Society”. What he actually meant was a translation of the US “Open Door” doctrine. The US regime’s “Open Door” is a euphemism for manifest destiny or Business domination through the Anglo-American Empire.

For several months now debate has focussed on the truth and accuracy or efficacy of the science and governmental actions supposedly derived from said science. This is best dramatized in the obsession on all sides with “body counts”. The factual basis of the pandemic is reduced to how many “pairs of ears” the COVID armed propaganda teams bring back from their raids. The constant repetition of the official pandemic narrative is illustrated by video footage of the same scenes every day, hours on end. If one watches at least TV reporting carefully one will notice that most of the video film shows practically empty wards, single patients at the most and lots of people in hazmat suits standing around machines. In footage from Brazil- a regime even more merciless toward its poor than the US—the images bear more resemblance to the Christo (1935-2020) public wrappings and happenings of the 1990s, promoting the sensationalism of the country’s archetypical telenovelas, rather than radical political action. Yet the repetition has its effect also by supplanting all other information. 30,000 deaths per day due to preventable starvation never got so much coverage as the deaths of an 88-year-old and 94-year-old this week, attributed to COVID.

There has been no serious challenge to the science per se or the claim that the government acts based on science rather than the interests of the people for whom it ostensibly governs (although it is clear that the “for whom” is Business and not real human beings).

Moreover the theology of economics has not been challenged either— as if this were a real science, e.g. something objective. Pronouncements from central banks and government ministries are presented as based on accurate measurement and analysis. A cursory review of the history reveals however that the definitions of such core concepts as “cost of living”, “unemployment”, “inflation”, “purchasing power” etc. are changed routinely to permit the Business regime to present data which is misleading at best. The benchmark figure, growth in GDP, bears little or no relation to the most important issue for real human beings, the capacity to generate enough income to sustain a decent living, i.e. home, food, clothing, education, healthcare, etc.

It is particularly telling that the same material misstatements in all manner of economic data are made by officials clothed with government or scientific authority are made now during the so-called pandemic.

For example it is no secret that unemployment is undercounted—all the time. For real people unemployment means lack of a source of adequate income. However the regime’s definition of unemployment is number of people who register under whatever narrowly specified conditions permit such registration. The informal sector is omitted as well as those who were previously self-employed but due to bankruptcy, illness or disability are no longer able to work. Then of course there are the deliberate deceptions like not counting people who have been assigned to “programs”, like training or part-time subsidised jobs of limited duration. Then of course there are people who are not counted because there is no one counting.

In the case of the pandemic, it must be said that the definition of “case” has also been changed from time to time to permit reporting in line with the prevailing political warfare agenda:

“A COVID-19 case includes confirmed and probable cases and deaths. This change was made to reflect an interim COVID-19 position statement issued by the Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists on April 5, 2020. The position statement included a case definition and made COVID-19 a nationally notifiable disease.”

Thus “probable cases” include–

“A probable case or death is defined as:

The “epidemiological evidence” means that you have been in close proximity (less than 6 feet) with a person who is a confirmed case. Clinical evidence means only that you have COVID-like symptoms and those include colds, flu, allergies, and much more.

This is abetted by the quasi-official status given to people who are in fact agents of Business—but then again the entire government apparatus is an extension of Business. Official sounding entities like the “Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists” suggest higher authority without any indication of who the members of this body are and what interests they may actually represent, let alone who constituted them with the colour of authority in the first place. The creation of “authorities” was one of the major innovations of the 20th century PR industry.

Why should we trust statistics or statements about COVID from people and entities that habitually lie and distort data as a matter of public policy? If they cannot count the living accurately, why should we believe when they pretend to count the dead? This data cannot be adopted seriously. There must be a presumption that it is at best wilfully misstatement intended to support the interests and policies of the Business in “disease”, as well as any other Business interests that may be conveniently so achieved.

Just as DuPont has more or less controlled the US atomic weapons program since its inception, the pharmaceutical cartel has controlled the chemical and biological weapons programs jointly managed by the Pentagon and the CDC/ NIH establishment. To determine for whom someone like Dr Fauci works is easy enough when one checks his patent and investment portfolio. It requires no feats of magic or sorcery to recognise that virtually every mass campaign leading into the COVID “pandemic” has been organised and promoted by Business. Moreover these campaigns have been focussed since 2016 on the removal of the present POTUS, Donald Trump, at all costs! To put this in perspective, we should remember that the Inquisition and the Crusades were colossal undertakings mainly for the benefit of controlling the Papacy in the Middle Ages. The Papacy as the titular head of the largest multinational corporation of its day (and still one of the “big players” today) was to the barbarians of the Western peninsula what the POTUS is today for the barbarians of the Anglo-American Empire.

Since we have lost the capacity to engage in politics and pursue a human political-economy, we are forced to accede to a form of rule which at present will become “corporate medical social engineering” in a pure form unmediated by any of the rituals of political process. In fact, it is a religious form of control just like the Inquisition was in its heyday. It relies upon fear of disease, instead of mere sin.

We are already witnessing the denunciatory culture, fanatical moralism, irrational fear, obsession with rituals, and all of those human practices that were supposedly banished by Enlightenment. Although it has been common sense for decades that viruses are vulnerable to the light of day and humans flourish in fresh air, Business—the universal Church of our era—is returning us all to our caves and huts, to the very conditions which led humanists to call that past era of Christendom—the DARK AGES.

That is a problem that needs to be taken seriously as a precondition for any critical attack on the kinds of actions and transactions that will – if continued—destroy the material basis for real human life and whatever civilisation we have been able to maintain despite Business and the Church.

*

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.

COVID-19 Could Kill More People Through Hunger than the Disease Itself, Warns Oxfam

July 9th, 2020 by Oxfam International

More people could die as a result of hunger linked to COVID-19 than could die from the disease, warned Oxfam in a new report published today.

The report, The Hunger Virus, reveals how an estimated 122 million more people could be pushed to the brink of starvation this year as a result of the social and economic fallout from the pandemic including through mass unemployment, disruption to food production and supplies, and declining aid. This equates to as many as 12,000 people dying every day while the global mortality rate for COVID-19 reached a peak of 10,000 deaths per day in April 2020.

Eight of the largest food and beverage companies in the world have paid out over $18 billion to their shareholders since the start of 2020 – more than 10 times the funding required for food and agriculture assistance to the most vulnerable communities in the UN COVID-19 humanitarian appeal.

Danny Sriskandarajah, Chief Executive of Oxfam GB, said:

“The knock-on impacts of COVID-19 are far more widespread than the virus itself, pushing millions of the world’s poorest people deeper into hunger and poverty. It is vital governments contain the spread of this deadly disease, but they must also prevent it killing as many – if not more – people from hunger.

“Governments can save lives now by funding the UN COVID-19 appeal and supporting the call for a global ceasefire to end conflict in order to tackle the pandemic. The UK could make a real difference by championing debt cancellation at the G20 finance ministers meeting next week to pay for social protection measures such as cash grants to help people survive.

“For many people COVID-19 comes as a crisis on top of a crisis. To break the cycle of hunger, governments must build fairer and more sustainable food systems that ensure small-scale producers and workers earn a living wage.”

The report reveals the world’s ten worst hunger ‘hotspots’, including Afghanistan, Syria and South Sudan where the food crisis is most severe and getting worse as a result of the pandemic. It also highlights emerging epicentres of hunger – middle income countries such as India, South Africa, and Brazil – where millions of people who were barely managing have been tipped over the edge by the pandemic. For example:

  • Yemen: Remittances dropped by 80 percent – or $253 million – in the first four months of 2020 as a result of mass job losses across the Gulf. Borders and supply route closures have led to food shortages and food price spikes in a country that imports 90 percent of its food.
  • Afghanistan: Border closures have hit food supplies and the economic downturn in neighbouring Iran has caused a drop in remittances. The number of people on the brink of famine has risen sharply from 2.5 million in September 2019 to 3.5 million in May 2020.
  • India: Travel restrictions left farmers without vital migrant labour at the peak of the harvest season, forcing many to leave their crops in the field to rot. Traders have also been unable to reach tribal communities during the peak harvest season for forest products, depriving up to 100 million people of their main source of income.

Women, and women-headed households, are more likely to go hungry despite the crucial role they play as food producers and workers. They make up a large proportion of already vulnerable groups, such as informal workers, that have been hit hard by the economic fallout of the pandemic and have also borne the brunt of a dramatic increase in unpaid care work as a result of school closures and family illness.

Kadidia Diallo, a female milk producer in Burkina Faso, said: “COVID-19 is causing us a lot of harm. Giving my children something to eat in the morning has become difficult. We are totally dependent on the sale of milk, and with the closure of the market we can’t sell the milk anymore. If we don’t sell milk, we don’t eat.”

Since the pandemic began, Oxfam has helped 4.5 million of the world’s most vulnerable people with food aid and clean water, working together with over 344 partners across 62 countries. The international agency aims to reach a total of 14 million people by raising a further $113m.

*

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.

Israel Annexation Plan: Jordan’s Existential Threat

July 9th, 2020 by Emile Badarin

More than any other Arab state, Jordan’s past, present and future are inextricably linked to the question of Palestine. Jordan’s emergence is an outcome of British imperialism, which imposed the infamous Balfour Declaration and the Zionist settler-colonial project on the indigenous population of Palestine and the region. 

Settler-colonialism is the essence of the question of Palestine. All else is derivative. Jordan emerged out of this historical reality, and therefore, its present and future will always be subject to it.

The founder of present-day Jordan, Emir Abdullah bin Al-Hussein, successfully carved a new sovereign space in Transjordan. But this was only possible because of his cooperation with British imperialism and “collusion” with Zionist settler-colonialism. This tacit relationship resulted in mutual restraint between Jordan and Israel, even during their direct military confrontations.

National security interest

In 1994, Jordan and Israel signed the Wadi Araba peace treaty, turning their tacit understandings and secretive relationship into an official peace between the two countries – even if an unpopular one. This peace treaty would have been inconceivable without the 1993 Oslo Accord and the implied promise of Israel’s withdrawal from the West Bank and Gaza, which were occupied in 1967 from Jordan and Egypt respectively, to establish an independent Palestinian state.

Land repatriation and Palestinian statehood hold a high national security interest for Jordan. Only the achievement of these two conditions can halt the border elasticity of the Israeli state and its expansion eastwards, which poses grave geographic and demographic threats to the Hashemite kingdom.

Besides the strategic significance, a Palestinian state would allow a substantial number of Palestinian refugees displaced in 1967 to return to the West Bank, in accordance with UN Security Council Resolution 237.

Yet, not only have neither of the two conditions been realised, but regional and international political dynamics have changed since 1994. In Israel, the political landscape has dramatically shifted to the far right, fuelling the settler-colonial practice of creating “facts on the ground” that make the prospect of Palestinian statehood and self-determination via the “peace process” a remote fantasy.

The political and material developments on the ground are complemented by complex regional and international dynamics. In particular, the Trump administration has taken a new approach towards most international conflicts, especially in the Middle East.

The Trump-Netanyahu plan (aka “the deal of century”) for Israel-Palestine promotes Israeli colonisation/annexation of the West Bank and sovereignty over the entirety of historic Palestine, as well as the Syrian Golan Heights.

Shifting geopolitics

Even worse for Jordanians and Palestinians, this plan enjoys the support of influential Arab states, especially Saudi Arabia and the UAE, which have stepped up their political rapprochement and normalisation with Israel.

The EU, a staunch supporter and sponsor of the so-called peace process and two-state solution, failed not only to reach a common position on the US plan, but also to condemn Israel’s plans to officially annex any part of the West Bank.

Amid the changing international and regional politics, Jordan’s alliance with the US and EU has been a letdown. Jordan has become a victim of its own foreign and security policy, which has grown interlinked with the US and, more recently, the EU.

While half of this alliance, the US, is promoting Israel’s annexation and sovereignty over Palestine, the other half, the EU, is unwilling to act decisively.

The annexation is planned to take place while the entire world, including Jordanians and Palestinians, and the media are exhausted by the coronavirus pandemic. It provides the needed distraction for Israel to complete the annexation quietly, without effective local and international scrutiny and resistance.

Covid-19 has further entrenched the nationalist-driven trend in the Middle East. Even before the outbreak, the Arab world was consumed by domestic concerns, showing few qualms about the Trump-Netanyahu plan or recognition of Israel’s sovereignty over Jerusalem and the Golan Heights.

Israeli expansionism

The feeble Arab (including Palestinian and Jordanian) and international response to the US recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, and the relocation of the US embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, has encouraged Israel and the US to press ahead and turn Israel’s de facto sovereignty over all of Palestine into de jure.

While this is all illegal under international law, it is a mistake to believe that empirical reality and time will not deflect, strain and fractureinternational law and legality.

Since 1967, the Israeli strategy has pivoted on two parallel components: empirical colonisation on the ground, coupled with the facade of a “peace and negotiations” public relations campaign to obfuscate the settler-colonial structure and market it to the international community, as well as Arab regimes.

With this strategy, Israel has expanded in the region both territorially, by de facto taking over Arab land, and politically, through overt and covert relations with most of the Arab states.

Only formal territorial annexation and gradual de-Palestinisation remains. The formal annexation of the West Bank, especially the Jordan Valley, officially torpedoes the century-old Jordanian foreign and security strategy of cooperation with its imperial patrons (Britain, then the US) and the Zionist movement, which evolved into a Jordanian-Israeli peace with an expected Palestinian buffer state between the two.

Another ethnic cleansing

It also puts Jordan face-to-face with a new reality with alarming cartographic and demographic consequences. The chances of another ethnic cleansing become a palpable prospect under the formulae of official annexation and a Jewish statehood in the entirety of Palestine, as articulated in the 2018 nation-state law meant to ensure a Jewish majority.

This is very much tied in with Jordanian fears grounded in previous (1948, 1967) and current experiences of forced migration in the Middle East. Against this backdrop, another ethnic cleansing in the West Bank, forcing a large number of Palestinians to flee to Jordan, is a real possibility. The transfer and elimination of Palestinians from Palestine are embedded in the settler-colonial structure of the Israeli state, which looks at Jordan as their alternative homeland.

While another population flow would be catastrophic for Palestinians, it would also adversely affect Jordan’s stability and future.

Beyond annexation, the Hashemite regime is witnessing a contestation of its custodianship of the Muslim and Christian holy sites in Jerusalem, which constitute a significant source of legitimacy for the regime. Even on this matter, the US plan unequivocally appoints Israel as the “custodian of Jerusalem”.

After five decades, Israel’s grip over and presence in the West Bank is ubiquitous and entrenched. Most of the West Bank is empirically annexed and Judaised, especially the Jordan Valley, Greater Jerusalem, parts of Hebron and Gush Etzion. The pretence of the peace process and negotiations has thus become superfluous.

‘Considering all options’ 

Only against this background may one understand the depth of the trepidations that underlie the warning of King Abdullah II that the Israeli annexation will trigger a “massive conflict” with Jordan and that he is “considering all options” in response.

This warning does not reveal a strategy to respond to what constitutes a “direct threat to Jordan’s sovereignty and independence”, as the former foreign minister of Jordan, Marwan Muasher, put it.

It displays, however, the difficult decisions that have to be taken. Indeed, King Hussein was prepared to discontinue the Jordanian-Israeli peace treaty had Israel refused to supply the antidote for the poison its agents had used in an attempt to assassinate Khaled Meshaal, the former head of Hamas, in 1997. It remains to be seen whether the termination or suspension of this treaty and the realignment of alliances are currently options for Jordan.

The Jordanian response to Covid-19 has generated a unique, popular rally around the state – a perfect opportunity to conduct serious reforms to stamp out corruption and involve citizens in the decision-making process, in order to forge a nationally grounded response to Israel’s planned annexation of the West Bank.

Historically, the survival of the Hashemite kingdom has been at stake several times. But today, Jordan finds itself in an unprecedented political, security, economic and health emergency.

Whatever domestic, economic and foreign-policy decisions – or indecisions – that Jordan takes are likely to leave a long-lasting mark on the future of Jordan and the question of Palestine. Such existential decisions must be collective, with broader national consensus and real citizen participation.

*

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.

Emile Badarin is a postdoctoral research fellow at the European Neighbourhood Policy (ENP) Chair, College of Europe, Natolin. He holds a PhD in Middle East politics. His research cuts across the fields of international relations and foreign policy, with the Middle East and EU as an area of study.

UK Commits ‘Highway Robbery’ of Venezuelan Gold, Says Academic

July 9th, 2020 by Johanna Ross

When it comes to Venezuela, Britain is suffering from split personality disorder. While the UK Foreign Office reportedly maintains ‘full, normal and reciprocal diplomatic relations’ with legitimately elected President Maduro’s government, and with Maduro’s UK ambassador, the British government has been actively supporting the self-appointed US-backed ‘leader’ Juan Guaido, who led the coup against Maduro in 2019.

Last week the High Court in London ruled that Juan Guaido was ‘unequivocally’ recognised as the President of Venezuela. There’s just one problem with the ruling however: Juan Guaido isn’t the President. He may have tried hard; he talked the talk, and walked the walk (clearly modelling himself on a cross between Justin Trudeau and Emmanuel Macron, with sleeves rolled up like Barack Obama). He had just the right youthful, liberal image to front the US led regime change campaign in the South American nation. But last year’s coup, supported by the US and Colombia, dramatically backfired after the Venezuelan military refused to back him.

Nevertheless, it has been in the British government’s interest to prop up the would-be Venezuelan leader. The High Court’s verdict was in a case brought to the court by Maduro’s government, which is trying to access $1bn of its gold currently held by the Bank of England. It’s pretty straightforward – the bank doesn’t want to pay out, and is using Maduro’s ‘contested’ leadership as a reason not to do so. Suddenly it matters that Maduro’s presidency is questionable, never mind the fact that he was democratically re-elected in 2018.

Juan Guaido claims that the funds from the Bank of England gold would be used to ‘prop up the regime’, while the Venezuelan government has insisted that the money would go towards managing the coronavirus pandemic. Maduro has even said that once the gold is sold the money will be transferred to the UN Development Programme. In any case, the reason seems irrelevant; when was the last time you or I had to justify a withdrawal from our own bank accounts?

I spoke recently to the National Secretary of the Venezuela Solidarity Campaign and senior lecturer at the University of Middlesex, Dr Francisco Dominguez, who said to me that the move by the High Court to block the transfer of Venezuelan gold constituted nothing more than ‘highway robbery’ and he condemned the UK’s use of Guaido in this case as a ‘legal device to steal Venezuela’s assets’. He stated:

‘It is abundantly clear the UK’s recognition of Guaido’s farcical “interim presidency” has nothing to do with “democracy” or “human rights” but with “colonial pillage”.  After all, there is nothing democratic or decent about Guaido: he colludes with Colombian narco-traffickers; he attempted a violent coup d’etat’; contracted US mercenaries to assassinate President Maduro and several Venezulean government high officials, vigorously promotes sanctions and aggression against his own nation, and he reeks of corruption.’

Dr Dominguez also pointed to direct collusion of the UK government with Guaido, as was recently uncovered by a British journalist. Newly obtained documents, exposed by John McEvoy, have recently shed light on the murky connection between the British government and the aspiring Venezuelan president. It was uncovered that a Foreign & Commonwealth Office (FCO) Unit named the Venezuela Reconstruction Unit has been created which has not been officially acknowledged by either country. In the documents it was revealed that  Juan Guaidó’s representative in the UK, Vanessa Neumann, had spoken with FCO officials about the sustenance of British business interests in Venezuela’s ‘reconstruction’. A conversation of this nature obviously stinks of regime change, given the fact Venezuela sits on the largest proven oil reserves in the world, and that Neumann has previously links to oil companies. Britain is placing its stake in Venezuela’s demise.

Formally the UK government has a different position. In relation to Venezuela’s gold, former Treasury Minister Robert Jenrick said back in 2019 in response to the parliamentary question ‘what the legal basis was for the Bank of England’s decision to freeze approximately 1125 gold bars stored by the Venezuelan central bank in November 2018.’, that it was a ‘matter for the Bank of England’. Jenrick maintained that HM Treasury only has direct control over the UK government’s own holdings of gold within its official reserves, which are held at the Bank of England.’

However the facts paint a different picture. John Bolton’s White House memoir The Room Where It Happened’ reveals that UK Foreign Secretary at the time, Jeremy Hunt ‘was delighted to freeze Venezuelan gold deposits in the Bank of England so the regime could not sell the gold to keep itself going.’  As Bolton unashamedly admitted: ‘These were the sort of steps we were already applying to pressure Maduro financially.’ The former National Security Advisor relates in his book how proud he was to have been the driving force behind the 2019 power grab: ‘I was heartened that Maduro’s government promptly accused me of leading a coup’. Bolton openly describes how they discussed ways of delegitimizing the Venezuelan government as Trump reportedly said ‘Maybe it’s time to put Maduro out of business’.

The evidence suggests that the UK complied fully in Bolton’s masterplan to unseat Maduro, and is continuing to work with the US to undermine the Venezuelan leadership; only in truly subtle British fashion, surreptitiously, hoping no-one would notice. Who knows, when, if ever, the Venezuelans will see their gold. But you can be sure they won’t be investing with the Bank of England any time soon.

*

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.

Johanna Ross is a journalist based in Edinburgh, Scotland.

Featured image is from InfoBrics

From Coincidences to Coincidences, Covid and the “Boston Connexion” Serves Gilead’s Remdesivir?

July 9th, 2020 by Xavier Azalbert

We bring to the attention of our readers this important article of France Soir, translated from the French (by France Soir)

Each day brings new developments in what is now commonly known as the “LancetGate”. The WHO’s latest flip-flop, relayed by the many media who quickly relayed the fray against HCQ in the study published on May 22, is a perfect illustration of this. As is the one announcing tonight that The Lancet is withdrawing the Mehra et al. study after much criticism.

France Soir, far from following the media wolf pack, puzzled by these disturbing results, had already obtained and published on May 23 an exclusive interview with Dr. Mehra, the main author of this study.

The often evasive answers produced by Dr Mandeep R. Mehra, a physician specializing in cardiovascular surgery and professor at Harvard Medical School, did not produce confidence, fueling doubt instead about the integrity of this retrospective study and its results.

We have already published the results of our initial investigations in several articles. However, the reported information that Dr. Mehra had attended a conference sponsored by Gilead – producer of remdesivir, a drug in direct competition with hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) – early in April called for further investigation.

It is important to keep in mind that Dr. Mandeep Mehra has a practice at the Brigham and Women’s Hospital (BWH) in Boston.

The study published on May 22 in The Lancet, based on the collection, processing and analysis of massive data from the shared medical records of 96,032 patients in 671 hospitals worldwide by Surgisphere, was preceded by another study published on May 1st, 2009 in the New England Journal of Medicine, where Dr. Mehra was also the main author.

That study relied on the shared medical records of 8,910 patients in 169 hospitals around the world, also by Surgisphere.

Funding for the study was “Supported by the William Harvey Chair in Cardiovascular Medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital. The development and maintenance of the collaborative surgical outcomes database was funded by Surgisphere.”

The study published on March 1st sought to “… assess the relationship between cardiovascular disease and drug therapy with in-hospital death in patients hospitalized with Covid-19 who were admitted between December 20, 2019 and March 15…”.

The study published on May 22 sought to evaluate the efficacy or otherwise of chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine, alone or in combination with a macrolide antibiotic.

It is therefore noteworthy that within 3 weeks, 2 large observational retrospective studies on large populations – 96,032 and 8,910 patients – spread around the world were published in two different journals by Dr. Mehra, Dr. Desai and other co-authors using the database of Surgisphere, Dr. Desai’s company.

These two practising physicians and surgeons seem to have an exceptional working capacity associated with the gift of ubiquity.

The date of May 22 is also noteworthy because on the very same day, the date of the publication in The Lancet of the highly accusatory study against HCQ,  another study was published in the New England Journal of Medicine concerning the results of a clinical trial of…remdesivir.

In the conclusion of this randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, “remdesivir was superior to placebo in shortening the time to recovery in adults hospitalized with Covid-19 and evidence of lower respiratory tract infection.”

Concretely: on the same day, May 22nd, one study demeaned HCQ  in one journal while another claimed evidence of attenuation on some patients through remdesivir in another journal.

It should be noted that one of the main co-authors, Elizabeth “Libby” Hohmann, represents one of the participating hospitals, the Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, also affiliated with Harvard Medical School, as is the Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, where Dr. Mandeep Mehra practices.

Coincidence, probably.

Upon further investigation, we discovered that the first 3 major clinical trials on Gilead’s remdesivir were conducted by these two hospitals:

“While COVID-19 continues to circle the globe with scientists following on its trail, Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH) and Brigham and Women’s Hospital (BWH) are leading the search for effective treatment.

“Both hospitals are conducting clinical trials of remdesivir.”

MGH has joined what the National Institute of Health (NIH) describe as the first clinical trial in the United States of an experimental treatment for COVID-19, sponsored by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, part of NIH. MGH is currently the only hospital in New England to participate in this trial, according to a list of sites shared by the hospital.

“It’s a gigantic undertaking, with patients registered in some 50 sites across the country, getting better.

“The NIH trial, which can be adapted to evaluate other treatments, aims to determine whether the drug relieves the respiratory problems and other symptoms of COVID-19, helping patients leave hospital earlier.

As a reminder, the NIAID/NIH is led by Antony Fauci, a staunch opponent of HCQ.

Coincidence, probably.

“At the Brigham, two additional trials initiated by Gilead, the drug developer, will determine whether it alleviates symptoms in patients with moderate to severe illness over five- and ten-days courses. These trials will also be randomized, but not placebo controlled, and will include 1,000 patients at sites worldwide. Those patients, noted Francisco Marty, MD, Brigham physician and study co-investigator, will likely be recruited at an unsettlingly rapid clip.”

As a result, the first major clinical trials on remdesivir launched on March 20, whose results are highly important for Gilead, are being led by the MGH and BWH in Boston, precisely where Dr. Mehra, the main author of the May 22nd HCQ trial, is practising.

Small world! Coincidence, again, probably.

Dr. Marty at BWH expected to have results two months later. Indeed, in recent days, several US media outlets have reported Gilead’s announcements of positive results from the remdesivir clinical trials in Boston:

“Encouraging results from a new study published Wednesday on remdesivir for the treatment of patients with COVID-19.

Brigham and Dr. Francisco Marty worked on this study, and he says the results show that there is no major difference between treating a patient with a five-day versus a 10-day regimen.

“Our understanding of the spectrum of severity of SARS-CoV-2 infection and the presentations of COVID-19 continues to evolve,” said Francisco Marty, MD, a physician specializing in infectious diseases at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Associate Professor of Medicine at Harvard Medical School.

“Gilead Announces Results of Phase 3 Remdesivir Trial in Patients with Moderate COVID-19 

  • One study shows that the 5-day treatment of remdesivir resulted in significantly greater clinical improvement compared to treatment with the standard of care alone
  • The data come on top of the body of evidence from previous studies demonstrating the benefits of remdesivir in hospitalized patients with IDVOC-19

“We now have three randomized controlled trials demonstrating that remdesivir improved clinical outcomes by several different measures,” Gilead plans to submit the complete data for publication in a peer-reviewed journal in the coming weeks.

These results announced by Gilead a few days after the May 22 publication of the study in the Lancet demolishing HCQ, a study whose main author is Dr. Mehra, are probably again a coincidence.

So many coincidences adds up to coincidences? Really?

*

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

Sources

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2007621

May 1, 2020 – Mehra, Desai…- New England Journal of Medicine Publication – Cardiovascular Disease, Drug Therapy and Mortality in Covid-19

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)31180-6/fulltext#

May 22, 2020 – in The Lancet – Hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine with or without macrolide for the treatment of Covid19, an analysis of the Multinational Registry

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2007764 –

May 22, 2020 – Publication New England Journal of Medicine – Covid-19 Remdesivir – Preliminary Report

https://www.bostonglobe.com/2020/03/19/nation/trials-anticoronavirus-drug-launch-two-boston-hospitals/?p1=Article_Inline_Text_Link

https://boston.cbslocal.com/2020/03/20/coronavirus-remdesivir-testing-trials-boston/

https://connectwithpartners.org/2020/04/02/at-the-center-of-a-search-for-covid-19-treatments-partners-hospitals

https://rally.partners.org/search?q=remdesivir

https://www.boston25news.com/news/health/new-study-shows-remedesvir-only-needed-5-days-be-effective-covid-19-patients/4RF6MCGHPJDHBPD6UHXS72GVUU/

https://whdh.com/news/brigham-and-womens-researchers-publish-results-from-new-remdesivir-study/

https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20200601005310/en/

https://hms.harvard.edu/about-hms/hms-affiliates

Video: Turkish Proxies Create Chaos in Northeastern Syria

July 9th, 2020 by South Front

Chaos is spreading through the Turkish-occupied part of northern Syria.

Late on July 7, a car bomb explosion rocked the town of Tell Abyad killing at least seven people. Pro-Turkish sources immediately accused the Kurdish People’s Protection Units (YPG) of plotting this attack. However, such claims seem quite shaky given the ongoing armed confrontations between various Turkish-backed groups all vying for control over limited resources in the Turkish-occupied part of Syria.

Just recently, Tell Abyad and Ras al-Ayn were the site of armed confrontations between Turkish proxies. It is likely that these same groups could employ IEDs, car bombs and night raids in their internal struggle while blaming their use on the YPG and even ISIS.

A new US convoy with weapons and equipment entered northeastern Syria from Iraq. According to the available data, the convoy consisted of at least 27 vehicles and proceeded to the US military base at Qasraq Tal Baider. On July 8, sources close to the YPG-led Syrian Democratic Forces reported that some of the weapons will, as always, be delivered to the Kurdish group.

The Syrian Army killed 3 ISIS members and detained 3 others in an operation against the terrorist group’s cells in the countryside of al-Sukhna in Homs province. Syrian state media claimed that the terrorists entered the government-controlled territory from the area of al-Tanf, which remains in the hands of the US-led coalition.

Syrian and Russian sources have consistently been accusing the US of indirectly and even directly assisting ISIS cells operating against the Syrian Army on the western bank of the Euphrates. According to them, Washington has been doing this to undermine the stability in the part of the country controlled by the Damascus government and to instigate a new armed conflict in central Syria.

Meanwhile, at least one member of the National Defense Forces (NDF) reportedly died in an IED explosion in southern Raqqa, where the NDF and the army are also conducting a security operation against ISIS cells.

On July 7, the Russian Military Police and the Turkish Army conducted another extended patrol along the M4 highway in southern Idlib. The patrol started near Saraqib and covered about 66km reaching Bidama in the western countryside of Jisr al-Shughur.

Turkey has apparently come to at least a partial understanding with al-Qaeda-linked groups in Greater Idlib. This has allowed it to facilitate the implementation of joint patrols in the framework of the March agreement with Russia.

Now, Ankara will likely make another attempt to rebrand various terrorist organizations operating in Idlib as the so-called moderate opposition and neutralize factions which do not support this initiative. In previous years, numerous efforts by the US, Turkey and other ‘supporters of Syrian democracy’ to do this have failed. However, this time Ankara has deployed its own armed forces in the area and the terrorist groups have been weakened by a long string of losses to the Syrian Army. So, the Erdogan government may really achieve this goal if it has enough time and the situation does not get out of control.

*

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

SUPPORT SOUTHFRONT: 

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Video: Turkish Proxies Create Chaos in Northeastern Syria

COVID-19 Cases in Africa Rising Sharply

July 9th, 2020 by Abayomi Azikiwe

Concerns are mounting across the African continent and internationally over the exponential growth in COVID-19 infections.

At the time of this writing the African Center for Disease Control and Prevention (ACDC) reported a total of 508,584 cases resulting in 12,000 deaths. This same source says that 247,207 of those previously diagnosed as positive are now considered fully recovered. (See this)

These figures related to the numbers of COVID-19 deaths are greater than the worst outbreak of the Ebola Virus Disease (EVD) in three West African states in 2014-2015. Approximately 11,000 died from the EVD pandemic, most of whom were residents in Sierra Leone, Liberia and Guinea-Conakry.

The World Health Organization (WHO) in a regional situation report noted that within the last five months the number of COVID-19 cases in African Union (AU) member-states has lagged behind other geo-political areas. However, over the last few weeks, the rate of infections has doubled in 22 countries. (See this)

Some of the leading economic and political states in Africa such as Algeria, Ghana, Egypt, South Africa and Nigeria account for 71% of the cases on the continent. The Republic of South Africa, the most industrialized country in the AU, is reporting 43% of the overall number of infections.

Nonetheless, the spread of the pandemic in Africa is not uniform. Some countries which have previously reported very few cases are now witnessing a growing number of infections.

WHO Africa Director Dr. Matshidiso Moeti said of the present situation:

“With more than a third of countries in Africa doubling their cases over the past month, the threat of COVID-19 overwhelming fragile health systems on the continent is escalating. So far the continent has avoided disaster and if countries continue to strengthen key public health measures such as testing, tracing contacts and isolating cases, we can slow down the spread of the virus to a manageable level.”

88% of the cases on the continent are among people under 60 years of age. This could be attributed to the predominantly youth population in Africa. However, those facing the greatest risk of death are over 60, while having co-morbidities that place them at higher risk for critical respiratory and cardiovascular illnesses requiring hospitalization.

As the infections spread the more healthcare workers are becoming sick. There are also the problems related to the shortages in personal protective equipment for clinics and hospitals along with equipment and medications needed to treat patients.

The WHO has been providing assistance to AU member-states since the beginning of the pandemic during the early months of the year. The organization has contributed technical assistance, the supplying of medical equipment including 3,000 oxygen concentrators, the remote instructional training of 25,000 healthcare workers, distributing 23,000 diagnostic testing machines and 4 million units of PPE.

These efforts by the WHO are taking place at a time of tremendous political and economic attacks by the United States President Donald Trump. The administration in Washington has attempted to scapegoat the WHO for purportedly misleading the international community about the character and threat of COVID-19.

Not only has the Director General of WHO, Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, strongly rejected the accusations from the White House by chronicling the historical trajectory of the identification and sharing of the scientific details related to the existence and spread of the virus. In actuality, it was the Trump administration which consistently denied the initial warnings about the dangers posed by the pandemic and since late March, provided contradictory statements and policies related to the mitigation efforts recommended by the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) and even the White House Task Force on the Coronavirus headed by Ambassador Dr. Deborah Birks.

On July 8, the White House in its usual fashion, refuted previous statements made by NIAID Director Dr. Anthony Fauci related to the risks involved in social gatherings, work places and the proposed reopening of K-12 and higher educational institutions. The guidelines issued by the CDC in the U.S. for the resumption of school room instruction were amended by the White House because Vice President Mike Pence, the Chair of the White House Task Force, said the measures would delay the resumption of classes.

Also the previous day, July 7, the administration announced its formal severing of ties with the WHO in which funding had been suspended during April as COVID-19 cases spiraled out of control in many urban and rural areas of the U.S. Trump has repeatedly asserted that the WHO is aligned with the People’s Republic of China as if this is an established fact warranting the separation.

Africa, COVID-19 and the World

How does the African continent compare with other geo-political regions in regard to the attempts to suppress COVID-19? Although the first confirmed instances of the virus were reported in Wuhan, China during late 2019, the number of cases in Europe and the U.S. has far exceeded those in any other regions in the world.

African women in Tanzania wash hands during COVID-19 pandemic

Trump has fanned the flames of racism and xenophobia by referring to COVID-19 as the “China virus” while experts indicate that the pandemic in all likelihood entered the U.S. through the European continent. In Asia, there are vast differences in regard to the spread of the disease in China, Vietnam and the Koreas as opposed to the rapid rate of infections in India.

India, whose government under Prime Minister Narenda Modi, has won praise from the Trump administration on a number of foreign policy issues, particularly its hostility towards China. However, India is one of the fastest rising countries in regard to the numbers of cases globally.

The Indian Express newspaper stated in an article on July 8 that:

“The coronavirus has infected nearly 11.8 million people worldwide and killed over 500,000. The United States has the most number of infections, over three million, followed by Brazil (1.6 million), India (700,000) and Russia (600,000). Dr. Michael Ryan, emergencies chief of the WHO, said the rise in cases was not due to widespread testing, but because the epidemic was ‘accelerating’”.

In another article from the same Indian Express newspaper, the publication reports that Bengal has been placed on severe restrictions due to the spread of the virus among the population. All together as of July 8, over 20,000 people have died from the pandemic.

This media account says:

“Maharashtra continues to remain the worst-affected state with 217,121 cases including 9,250 deaths. Bihar on Wednesday (July 8) announced fresh lockdowns in several regions, including the worst-hit Patna district from July 10. Lockdowns will also be imposed in containment zones in West Bengal for seven days from 5pm Thursday. As the number of diagnostic tests for novel Coronavirus is increasing in the country, so is the positivity rate. This means more numbers of people, from among those who are being tested, are found to be infected with the disease. The positivity rate had crossed the 6 per cent mark for the first time on June 20, and has risen swiftly thereafter. At present, the positivity rate is around 7.09 per cent.”

Latin American countries have maintained different outcomes in their response to the pandemic. Cuban officials are reporting that the spread of the virus has been greatly curtailed and preparations are being made for a return to some sense of normalcy.

Granma International in a July 3 article credited Cuba’s scientific approach and its socialist system with controlling the impact of the pandemic. A high-level meeting of scientists reviewed the statistics related to the rise and decline of the pandemic inside the Caribbean state.

Nevertheless, the government does not want the public to believe that a lessening of restrictions on movement and work should mean that precautions and protective measures are no longer needed. This report says of the scientific meeting:

“As usual in these gatherings, Raúl Guinovart Díaz, dean of the University of Havana’s department of Mathematics and Computing, presented the well-known curve graphs depicting the evolution of active cases in Cuba, emphasizing that it would be a mistake for the population to think that in the recovery stage no preventative measures are needed, adding that special attention should be paid to crowded closed spaces, where outbreaks can occur.” (See this)

A completely different approach has prevailed in the South American state of Brazil, one of the largest nations in the world with a population of 212 million. Brazil has the second highest number of cases worldwide and on July 7, it was reported that the right-wing and neo-fascist President Jair Bolsonaro had tested positive for the virus after months of minimizing the threat of the pandemic in a fashion quite similar to Trump.

Imperialism Remains at the Core of the Healthcare Crisis

Although the number of COVID-19 cases in Africa remains far behind those in India, the U.S. and Brazil, the magnitude of the growth in confirmed illnesses and deaths requires an intensification of efforts to control the spread. Such an effort is hampered by the continuing economic dependency of the AU member-states under the system of world imperialism.

Under colonialism and neo-colonialism, priorities were placed on the extraction of natural wealth and the exploitation of labor based upon the economic interests of the European and North American ruling classes. The gross domestic products of the African countries are largely derived from their participation in the international economy which is still dominated by the leading capitalist nations.

Consequently, the role of socialist countries such as Cuba and China in addressing the plight of Africa in the present period is essential. Both China and Cuba are providing medical and technical assistance through the WHO and other institutions to address the needs of the AU member-states.

The economic downturn in the U.S. is worsening and therefore the ability and desire to provide humanitarian assistance is waning. Washington’s withdrawal from the WHO is a reflection of the internal crises as well as mounting hostility towards socialism and anti-imperialism.

Africa will be forced to further disengage from the imperialist system in order to guarantee its own survival and development. Socialism provides the only alternative to the current structures of exploitation and oppression. Only a policy of anti-capitalist development can embark upon the path of building adequate healthcare institutions which will ensure universal healthcare for all.

*

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

Abayomi Azikiwe is the editor of Pan-African News Wire. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image: Ethiopian Director General Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus of the WHO in Geneva; all images in this article are from the author

Washington’s War on Huawei Continues

July 9th, 2020 by Ulson Gunnar

For Washington, Chinese telecommunication giant Huawei presents a nearly unsolvable problem. We can draw this conclusion by looking at how the US has chosen to compete, or rather, what it is substituting instead for what should be competition.

CNET in an article titled, “White House reportedly considering federal intervention in 5G,” would explain:

5G networks across the US could get a boost from the federal government, according to a report Thursday by The Wall Street Journal. Trump administration officials are considering the move so they can compete better against Huawei globally, the report says.

The Trump administration has reportedly met with US networking companies including Cisco to discuss the acquisition of Western European networking giants Ericsson and Nokia. It’s also looking into giving tax breaks and financing to Ericsson and Nokia, the Journal reported, citing unnamed sources.

The article notes that the US government also sought to organize a meeting with other tech giants in addition to Nokia and Ericsson including Dell, Intel, Microsoft and Samsung to discuss “combatting” Huawei.

It is unclear how acquiring foreign networking companies already being outcompeted by Huawei would tip the balance in Washington’s favor or how companies like Ericsson and Nokia with respectable market shares would benefit from being drawn into economic warfare between the US and China, two nations both companies currently enjoy doing business in.

Even in the best-case scenario it is unlikely US efforts would materialize and begin showing results fast enough to significantly or permanently set Huawei back.

A Need for Competition, Not Coercion 

The US appears to have done everything in its power to fight Huawei besides actually competing against it.

Competition would involve the creation of technology similar or superior to Huawei’s either in terms of performance or cost, or both.

The US is unable to do this as even its own largest smartphone manufacturer, Apple, has all of its phones made in China. The fact that the US’ most recently announced and perhaps most drastic measures so far against Huawei involve “investments,” “equity firms,” “acquisitions” and “holding companies” rather than improving education in relevant fields, domestic manufacturing and technical expertise, reflects a fundamental inability for the US to compete against China on equal terms.

As long as the US insists on facing its growing problems by moving numbers around on financial ledgers rather than picking and placing components on circuit boards inside the US, it may temporarily delay Huawei’s rise but in no way stop it.

If anything, these roadblocks force Huawei and others to restructure themselves in more resilient ways that will make it even more difficult in the future when and if the US ever decides to take on China through actual competition.

Another note; Huawei’s 5G technology will undoubtedly do more than merely build Huawei up as a telecommunications company. It will give nations deploying Huawei’s 5G infrastructure an edge across a multitude of IT-related economic activities, giving them an advantage over other nations forced to settle on alternatives because of US pressure to do so.

If these alternatives truly suit a nation’s telecommunications infrastructure and serve its economic potential that is one thing, but if these alternatives were picked because of political reasons it will cost these nations not only politically with China, but also economically.

US vs. Huawei: Real Security Concerns or a Smear Campaign? 

The CNET article would also repeat the justification for Washington’s growing hostility and aggressive tactics turned toward Huawei, claiming:

Huawei was blacklisted last year by the US when it was added to the United States’ “entity list”. In addition, President Donald Trump at the same time signed an executive order essentially banning the company in light of national security concerns that Huawei had close ties with the Chinese government. Huawei has repeatedly denied that charge.  

These “national security concerns” have been expressed now for years by the US yet no evidence has been presented.

It is interesting that even attempts across the US-European and even Australian media to explain Washington’s growing obsession with Huawei generally admit these concerns are just an excuse and that protecting US dominance over global technology and the economic power and influence it provides, is the real goal.

ABC (Australia) in its article, “Huawei and Apple smartphones are both made in China, so what is the difference?,” would note:

Professor Clive Williams from the Australian National University’s Centre for Military and Security Law told the ABC that to his knowledge, no evidence has yet been provided of Huawei conducting espionage.

“Huawei is ahead of the field in 5G research so it could be an uncheckable way of reining it in and limiting its market share.

Uncheckable accusations (or later, proven-to-be-false accusations) have become the bread and butter of US foreign policy helping to grease the wheels of everything from economic warfare to literal wars.

Interestingly enough, there is real evidence that US intelligence agencies have infiltrated and compromised both software and hardware made in the West which could easily justify the same sort of measures the US is currently taking against Huawei to be turned back against US companies by the rest of the world.

MIT’s Technology Review magazine in a 2013 article titled, “NSA’s Own Hardware Backdoors May Still Be a “Problem from Hell”,” would admit (my emphasis):

In 2011, General Michael Hayden, who had earlier been director of both the National Security Agency and the Central Intelligence Agency, described the idea of computer hardware with hidden “backdoors” planted by an enemy as “the problem from hell.” This month, news reports based on leaked documents said that the NSA itself has used that tactic, working with U.S. companies to insert secret backdoors into chips and other hardware to aid its surveillance efforts.

In other words the US is in fact guilty and has been for quite some time of exactly what it is accusing Huawei of allegedly doing. Yet nations around the globe have not attempted to cripple or shutter US tech companies or even ban them from their markets.

Government organizations around the globe may prudently opt for domestically produced telecommunications equipment, but in general, the world has been fairly lenient on the US despite just how compromised its tech industry is by intelligence agencies and the special interests they work for.

Not only does the US fall short in creating viable alternatives to Huawei products, the products it does have and the corporations making them are as tainted in reality by ties to Washington’s intelligence agencies as it claims (without evidence) Huawei is with the Chinese government.

It would appear that, like Washington’s many literal wars around the globe burning US cash and its reputation upon the global stage, Washington’s economic battles are also doomed to failure. Until constructive competition takes precedence over conquest and coercion, the US will continue down this unfortunate path where instead of promoting and showcasing American ingenuity, Washington opts to announcing its latest substitution for 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.

Gunnar Ulson is a a New York-based geopolitical analyst and writer especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook” where this article was originally published. 

Featured image is from NEO

The “Second Wave”: Politics Influences the “Science” of COVID-19. Flawed Data, Flawed Models

July 9th, 2020 by Josh Mitteldorf

Many of us are still shell-shocked by the changes in our lives that have been imposed this spring. We’re reacting to each unexpected event as it comes. But to anyone who has stepped back to make sense of this web of contradictory messages that pour out of our newsfeeds, it is clear that the government agencies and corporate news media are slanting their message toward fear. I am particularly concerned when they do this at the expense of honesty. This is a moment for the scientific community to be engaging in spirited dialog among diverse voices. Only with open debatei can we hope to shed light to guide the momentous public policy decisions that are being made, directing our culture and global economy into unexplored territory. But instead of robust debate, what I see is a monolithic message, and censorship of the few brave scientists who dissent from that message. I’m ashamed to say that the scientific community has been part of the problem.

I’m writing here about two issues:

(1) Numbers reported by CDC have been gamed to make it appear that America is in the second wave of a pandemic. Instead of reporting COVID deaths, they began reported COVID cases. Then they conflated recovered individuals (who test positive for antibodies) with current cases (who test positive for the active virus). No wonder numbers are rising!

(2) A new report featured prominently in Nature purports to show that lockdowns have stemmed the spread of the virus and have saved lives. The article is by the same team whose flawed models produced apocalyptic predictions last March that justified lockdowns in Europe and the US. The new computer model assumes from the start that the number of COVID deaths would have expanded exponentially from their March levels, and that social distancing is the only factor responsible for lower death rates. That is, it assumes exactly what it purports to prove. Where is accountability? Why is this perspective promoted in the world’s most prestigious journal, while reasonable doubts are swept aside?

Part One—CDC reporting

The global death rate from COVID-19 is down to about 4,000 per day. It is not even among the top ten causes. COVID is lower than traffic deaths, lower than diarrhea. Even compared to other respiratory infections, COVID is now a minority.

In the US, daily COVID deaths peaked in April, and are now down to 1/10 the peak rate, at about 400/day. COVID is now the sixth leading cause of death in America, but it no longer registers as a bump in total mortality.

But the headlines claim we are in the midst of a “second wave”, based on reported numbers of cases.

Deaths from COVID are being over-reported. Hospitals are incentivized to diagnose COVID with Medicare reimbursement rates that are higher than other diseases, and guaranteed coverage from every major insurer. Doctors are being instructed to report COVID as a cause of death when no testing is done, and when chronic illnesses contributed to the outcome. And with all this, the number of deaths continues to fall, even as the reported number of cases is rising. Why is this?

In part, the lower fatality rate is real. Doctors are learning from experience how to treat the disease. More chloroquine and zinc, less intubation. Like all viruses, this one is evolving toward greater contagion and lower lethality. But the most important explanation is an artifact in the way COVID cases are being reported. Before May 18, the “case count” was based on tests for the live virus, and counted only sick people. Then the definition was changed to count both people who tested positive for the virus and for antibodies to the virus. The latter group is mostly people who have recovered from COVID, or who developed antibodies with exposure. As the number of recovered patients increases, of course the rate of positive tests will increase.

Part Two—Models that “prove” lockdown has saved lives

In the past, Neil Ferguson’s group at Imperial College of London has produced scary computer models that overestimated the epidemics of Mad Cow Disease, Avian Flu, Swine Flu, and the 2003 SARS outbreak. In March, his group’s computer model was justification for England, Europe and America to shut down economies, prevent people talking and meeting, prohibit concerts and theater and church and every kind of public gathering, throw tens of millions of people out of work, deny the rights to freedom of assembly that are fundamental to democratic governance. His manuscript was not even peer reviewed, but only posted on a university server. Even before its details and assumptions were made known, the integrity of the model was assailed by other experts, including Stephen Eubank (UVA Biocomplexity Institute) and Yaneer Bar-Yam (New England Complex Systems Inst). After details of the assumptions were revealed at the end of April, the model was widely scorned by real experts (e.g. Andrew Gelman) and self-appointed pundits (Elon Musk).

I have enough experience with computer models to know that results are often highly leveraged with respect to details of the input. Sensitivity analysis is essential for interpreting results, but is almost never done. Too often, the output is reported without the qualification that small changes to the input produce very different results.

Against this background, the high-profile publication in Nature of Ferguson’s recent work is suspicious. I would have thought he had no credibility left among serious modelers of epidemiology, but I have ceased to be surprised when politics trumps competence for access to the most prestigious publication venues.

The Ferguson Article Vindicating Lockdown

They analyze spread of COVID in 11 Eurpoean countries this Spring, averaging over different countries but not contrasting the different local strategies. They take death counts as surrogate for case counts because reports of case counts are even more unreliable than death counts. But (one of several crucial failures) they don’t apply a time lag between death counts and case counts.

They take as input for each country the dates on which each of three different isolation strategies was implemented. They assume that the virus would have spread exponentially but for these measures, and credit the isolation measures with the entire difference between reported death rates and the theoretical exponential curve.

They conclude that Europe has dodged a bullet, that less than 4% of people had been infected, and by implication the lockdown has saved the other 96%. They imply but don’t state explicitly that there would have been about 4 million deaths in Europe instead of ~150,000 reported when the paper was written.

It is obvious that lockdown and social isolation slow the spread of the disease, but not obvious that they affect the eventual reach of the disease. Thus it is an open question whether the public policy prevented or only delayed deaths from COVID. This question can be addressed most directly by comparing regions that were locked down with regions that remained open. Instead of doing this, the Ferguson group lumped all regions together and compared their results with an unrealistic scenario in which the exponential curve would have expanded to infect every susceptible person in Europe.

Two schools of thought

There are fundamentally two hypotheses about the epidemiological events of this spring: Either the number of people exposed has been high and the fatality rate low, or else the number of people exposed has been low and the fatality rate higher. People in the first camp argue that the exposed population is over 50% in Europe and America, approaching or exceeding herd immunity, and the population death rate is in the range 0.0005. In the second camp, people estimate the population exposure about ten times lower (5%) and the fatality rate correspondingly higher (0.005).

The story told by people in the first camp is that social distancing slowed but did not prevent transmission of the disease through the population. By now, the presence of the virus is waning because people in many places have already been exposed.

The story of Ferguson and others in the second camp is that social distancing actually stopped spread of the virus, so that most people in Europe and American have never been exposed. It follows that if we ease restrictions, there is another wave of infections ahead, potentially 20 times larger than the first wave.

The deep flaw of the recent Ferguson paper is that his team does not consider the first scenario at all. Built into their model, they assume that population level immunity is negligible, and the only thing that has slowed spread of the virus has been social distancing. This is where they put the rabbit in the hat.

If they had considered the alternative hypothesis, how would it have compared?

To choose between the two hypotheses, we might compare a region before and after lockdown, or we might compare regions that locked down with regions that didn’t.

In a preprint response to Ferguson, Homburg and Kuhbandner do a good job with the first approach. They take Ferguson to task for not considering the immunity that spreads through the population along with the disease. They show that exponential expansion had already slowed in England before the effect of the lockdown on mortality data could have been felt.

Lockdown went into effect in Britain on March 23. If lockdown had a benefit, it would be in preventing new cases, and its effect on the death rate would show up about 23 days later (April 14), because 23 days is the median time to fatality for those patients who die of COVID. In the graph, we see that the death rate had already leveled off by April 14.

On this log graph, an exponential increase would appear as a straight line sloping upward. It’s clear that the exponential expansion phase ended long before the lockdown could have had any effect. Not only weren’t the numbers expanding exponentially, but the death rate had already started to decline before April 14, when the effect of lockdown was expected to kick in. The authors state they performed the same analysis for 10 other countries in the Ferguson study with similar results, though they show the graph for Great Britain alone.

“We demonstrate that the United Kingdom’s lockdown was both superfluous and ineffective.”
— [Homburg and Kuhbandner]

Here in the US, there was a natural experiment when people emerged into the streets to protest racism and police brutality at the end of May. Social distancing in this environment has been impossible. Allowing for a 23-day lag, we should have seen a surge in US mortality starting mid-June. In the plot below, there appears to be a leveling off of the death rate since mid-June, but no new disaster. This alone is strong evidence that US has substantial herd immunity, and that most of the population has already been exposed to the virus.

A second way to distinguish between the two hypotheses is to compare regions that locked down with regions that didn’t. One of their 11 European countries was Sweden, where the economy was kept open and quarantine was limited to people who were symptomatic with COVID. It is a glaring defect in the Nature paper that Sweden is lumped in with the other ten countries when it should have been contrasted. In fact, the mortality curve for Sweden was typical for the other ten countries, even as commercial and cultural institutions in Sweden continued normal operations. Sweden has had a higher death rate than Austria, Germany, France, and Denmark, but lower than Belgium, Italy, Spain, or UK. There is no evidence that Sweden’s COVID mortality was higher for having bucked the trend to remain open, but some indication that Germany and Austria had particularly effective containment policies.

We can ask the same question of the different states in the USA. Comparing death rates from COVID in the 42 states that locked down with 8 states that did not lock down, this article finds that the death rates in locked down states was 4 times higher. (Caveat: there was no correction for urban vs rural or for demographic differences.) The author concludes, “With the evidence coming in that the lockdowns were neither economically nor medically effective, it is going to be increasingly difficult for lockdown partisans to marshal the evidence to convince the public that isolating people, destroying businesses, and destroying social institutions was worth it.”

I’ve prepared a comparison of all states ranked by COVID mortality which you can view here.

The Politics of COVID

In 1933, Roosevelt told America we had nothing to fear but fear itself. It is common for government leaders to dispel panic because they know that a nation can better thrive when people feel confident and secure. Even G.W. Bush responded to the terror attacks of 9/11 by telling the American people, “keep shopping.” On the other side, despots sow fear in their subjects when they want to consolidate autocratic power, and when they want to stir up fervor for war.

It is clear from messaging in the corporate media that the COVID pandemic is being hyped to create more fear than is warranted.

  • The fatality rate was vastly overestimated initially, and even now is probably overestimated at 0.002 to 0.005
  • Doctors were told to report deaths from COVID without proof that COVID was the cause
  • Reimbursement incentives for hospitals to diagnose COVID
  • Repeated warnings of a second wave, etc, which has not materialized.
  • Suppression of tests for well-studied, cheap treatments (chloroquine) while jumping into large-scale tests of vaccines that have not yet been tested on animals.
  • No mention of vitamin D, which is a simple, cheap, and effective way people can lower their risk. [ref, ref, ref]. Our own CDC is silent, while the British equivalent agency actively discourages vitamin D for COVID prevention.
  • The biggest scandal of all is that lockdown has been authorized in the US and elsewhere based on hypothetical safety benefits with no consideration of costs. Our health is affected by our communities, our cultural lives, our social lives, and our livelihoods. [Yale epidemiologist David Katz politely makes this point.]

Shamefully, the scientific community has been complicit in the campaign of fear. A handful of courageous doctors and epidemiologists have been outspoken. In addition to Katz, John Ioannidis and Knut Wittkowski are best known to me. But the most trusted journals continue to publish articles that are based on politics rather than sound science.

Who is benefiting from the international panic? Who is behind the media campaign and the distortion of science, and what is their intention?

I invite people who are more politically astute than I to speculate on these questions.

*

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

Josh Mitteldorf writes on his blog site where this article was originally published.

Featured image is from CODEPINK

Video Documentary on Nicaragua, Lies Through Omission and Fake Evidence. (May 2018) Was It A False Flag?

July 9th, 2020 by Nicaraguan civil society

From Nicaraguan civil society and from members of North American and European Networks in solidarity with Nicaragua’s Sandinista Revolution

 IACHR President: Sr. Joel Hernández García
IACHR First Vice-President: Sra. Antonia Urrejola Noguera
IACHR Second Vice-President: Sra. Flávia Piovesan
GIEI members: Sr. Amerigo Incalcaterra, Sra. Sofía Macher, Sr. Pablo Parenti and Sra. Claudia Paz y Paz Bailey
EAAF: Sra. Mercedes Doretti, Directora Programática Centro y Norteamérica
SITU: Brad Samuels, partner

IACHR reports on events in Nicaragua

We are writing to express our concern at what we believe to be very serious shortcomings in the video documentary your organizations released on May 30th this year, about events leading to the deaths of three Nicaraguan citizens demonstrating against their government two years earlier on May 30th 2018.

While your video documentary acknowledges there is no conclusive evidence, it still argues that circumstantial evidence overwhelmingly suggests that armed police officers or Sandinista supporters indiscriminately killed those three protesters who died that day, as well as other people also shot dead in the same set of incidents. Your video documentary acknowledges that two Sandinista supporters were also shot dead in related incidents that day, but you have selectively chosen to omit any consideration of how or why they might have been killed.

Your video documentary reinforces the unjust and extremely dishonest claim by Nicaragua’s political opposition, repeated, with no serious attempt at independent corroboration, by the Interdisciplinary Group of Independent Experts organized by the Inter American Human Rights Commission of the Organization of American States, that the country’s Sandinista government deliberately used disproportionate lethal force against peaceful protesters during the violent failed coup attempt between April 18th and July 17th 2018.

We have the following questions about this video documentary and sincerely hope you will respond and answer them in the interests of institutional transparency, democratic debate and genuine accountability.

  • Why does the video documentary mention the killing of two Sandinista supporters without noting that they were probably shot dead by armed opposition activists, completely undercutting the video documentary’s claim that the opposition protesters were unarmed and peaceful? Surely it then becomes practically impossible to dismiss the probability that the three opposition protesters who are the focus of your video documentary were killed in an exchange of gunfire that began in circumstances involving conflicting versions of the events in question? Why does your video documentary systematically exclude any discussion of that fact?
  • Why have you omitted from your video documentary footage, including video reports from the opposition media outlet Radio Corporación and other videos of opposition activists carrying firearms including automatic rifles and firing automatic pistols in the late afternoon of May 30th 2018, near the area from which you claim the fatal shots were fired killing the three protesters who are the focus of your documentary?
  • Why does your video documentary omit mentioning the wounding by gunfire in the same set of incidents covered in your documentary of 20 named police officers, a fact which completely contradicts your suggestion that all the opposition protesters were unarmed and peaceful?
  • Why does your video documentary portray the police and volunteer police with weapons without explaining that the reason they are heavily armed is that just two days previously, in the same area as the incidents covered by your video, one police officer was killed and five police officers wounded by armed opposition activists preventing those police officers from going to the aid of over 20 workers of Nueva Radio Ya which was under attack by armed opposition activists?
  • Why does your video documentary show no footage of police use of firearms which might have been presented to show that there were antecedents for what your organizations argue were the events of May 30th 2018, despite the claim in your video documentary that your organizations have reviewed thousands of videos showing examples of police repression?
  • Why does your video documentary omit mentioning that various official documents, press reports and witness testimony contradict the version of events your video documentary presents?
  • Why does your video documentary omit the strong possibility of a false flag attack similar to that at Puente Llaguno in Caracas during the failed coup attempt in Venezuela in 2002, since any genuinely scientific account of the events analyzed by your video documentary would have noted such contrary hypotheses and explained why they should be discounted?
  • Why does your video documentary not follow up the mention of evidence in the Knox Associates report’s sound analysis of the three shootings of “a firearm discharged near the video camera. It’s difficult to determine what type of firearm it is, … It could be a semi-automatic pistol or a rifle”, apparently referring to a weapon or weapons used by protesters at the demonstration?
  • Why does your video documentary mischaracterize the location of the police confronting the protesters on the Avenida Universitaria? Video footage from May 30, 2018 place them at a road junction 175 meters from the barricade, while a map on your archive website shows the police to be even closer. A comparison of the map in your video with Google maps clearly indicates that it is not to scale, and in fact shows a radius of 145-215 meters, which means that the police were not in the location from which your firearms expert said the fatal shots were fired.
  • Why does your video documentary only investigate the three shots supposedly responsible for killing the three protesters on whom you focus, given that Knox Associates’ evidence, even though it only covers a few minutes, indicates that there were other exchanges of fire, apparently from both sides?
  • In this context, why does the video ignore the admission on page 164 of the original GIEI report, of “the presence of four armed persons among the demonstrators” [GIEI “Informe sobre los hechos de violencia ocurridos entre el 18 de abril y el 30 de mayo de 2018,”], which appears to be referring to the same incident in Avenida Universitaria?
  • Why is the investigation portrayed in your video documentary limited to events on the west side of the national stadium when other shootings were taking place on the east side, and these would have influenced the behavior of the police in the entire area of the stadium, especially if they were actually under fire or had recently been under fire, as they had been on May 28th?
  • SITU Research and EAAF acknowledge financial support from corporate sources in the United States, including the Open Society Foundations, suggesting a strong ideological component in the production of this video. Who funded your organizations to produce it and how much money did they invest?

We look forward very much to your observations in response to our questions.

Alliance for Global Justice (USA)                                               

Nicaragua Solidarity Campaign Action Group (UK)

And signed by:

Blanca Segovia Sandino Arauz, Daughter of General Augusto C. Sandino, Nicaragua

Camilo Mejia, Human Rights Activist and former Amnesty International prisoner of conscience, Miami, USA

Patricia Villegas, Presidente TeleSur, Venezuela

S. Brian Willson, war veteran, author, lawyer, Granada, Nicaragua

As well as by the individuals and organisations in Nicaragua, USA and Europe listed below

Adrian Martínez Rodriguez, Secretario General , Confederación de Trabajadores por Cuenta Propia de Nicaragua CTCP Nicaragua

Al Burke Editor, Nordic News Network Sweden

Alberto Martínez Vargas, Retired Nicaragua

Alexandra Valiente, Editor Internationalist 360° Canada

Andrea Pérez Espinoza, Political scientist Nicaragua

Andreia Vizeu, Educator USA

Anne Mitchell,Deputy principal (retired) USA

Antonio Espinoza,Confederación Sindical de Trabajadores de la Agroindustria de Nicaragua CONFEDERACIÓN AGROINDUSTRIA Nicaragua

Arnold H. Matlin, M.D., F.A.A.P., Doctor USA

Augusto Enrique Castillo Sandino, Family of General Augusto C. Sandino Nicaragua

Aurora Elena Baltodano Toledo,Solidarity activist Italy

Becca Mohally Renk, Jubilee House Community Nicaragua

Ben Norton, Writer and editor of The Grayzone USA

Calvin McCoy, Nicaragua Solidarity Ireland Ireland

Carlos José Hurtado Ordoñez, Technical assistant Nicaragua

Carlos José Martínez Hernández, Editor, Radio La Primerísima Nicaragua

Cecilia Herrero, Painter Argentina

Coleen Littlejohn, Development economist (retired) Nicaragua

Committees of Correspondence for Democracy and Socialism, New York USA

Coordinamento Associazione Italia, Nicaragua Solidarity group (Milan) Italy

Courtney Childs, Committees of Correspondence for Democracy and Socialism USA

Dan Kovalik, Human rights lawyer USA

Daniel Hopewell, Director of community development NGO UK

Daniel Shaw, Professor USA

David Paul, Nurse USA

Declan McKenna. Nicaragua Solidarity Ireland Ireland

Diana Bohn, USA

Domingo Francisco Peréz Zapata, Secretario General, Unión Nacional de Empleados Públicos de Nicaragua UNE Nicaragua

Dr Francisco Dominguez, University professor UK

Dr. Agustín Velloso Santisteban, University professor Spain

Edgardo Garcia General Secretary, Asociación de Trabajadores del Campo Nicaragua

Eleanor Lanigan, Cuba Support Group, Ireland

Enrique Castillo Delgado, Technician, husband of Blanca Segovia Sandino Arauz Nicaragua

Erika Takeo, Coordinator, Friends of the ATC Nicaragua

Evile Umaña,, Secretaria General, Central de Trabajadores de Salud de Nicaragua FETSALUD Nicaragua

Executive Committee, Sao Paulo Forum, Washington D.C.  Maryland y Virginia, USA

Fausto Torrez, Secretary of International Relations, Asociación de Trabajadores del Campo Nicaragua

Fredy Franco, Secretario General, Federación de Profesionales Docentes de la Educación Superior FEPDES-ATD Nicaragua

Friends of Latin America, Solidarity organization USA

Gimmi Maria Cristini, Solidarity activist Italy

Herman van de Velde, Pedagogue / retired academic Nicaragua

Janet Pavone, Painter UK

Jennifer Atlee, Friendship Office of the Americas USA

Jeremy Cerna, Writer Germany

John Perry, Housing and migration researcher Nicaragua

Jon Barrenechea, Film marketing executive UK

Jorge Capelán, Journalist Nicaragua

José Angel Bermudez, Secretario Ejecutivo, Frente Nacional de los Trabajadores FNT Nicaragua

Judith Bello, Antiwar activist USA

Julio César Castillo Sandino, Family of General Augusto C. Sandino Nicaragua
Karen Sharpe, Editor, France

Kevin Zeese, Popular Resistance USA

Lauren Smith, Independent journalist USA

Leonardo Flores, Political analyst USA

Les Blough, Journalist Venezuela

Lisa Klein, Student Germany

Lucy Pagoad,a Teacher USA

Luis Adolfo Barboza Chavarría, Secretario general, Confederación Sindical de Trabajadores José Benito Escobar, CST-JBE Nicaragua

Madeliene Kießling Klein, Retired Germany

Magda Lanuza, Community worker and writer Nicaragua

Margaret Flowers, Popular Resistance USA

Maria de los Angeles Obando Medina, Secretario general Confederación de Trabajadores de la Pesca de Nicaragua, CONFEPESCA Nicaragua

Maritza Castillo, Nicaraguan activist Nicaragua

Maritza Espinales, Secretaria General, Federación de Sindicatos de Trabajadores Universitarios FESITUN Nicaragua

Mark Mayer, Solidarity activist USA

Martin Mowforth, Environmental Network for Central America. UK

Martin Roger, Nicaragua Solidarity Campaign UK

Max Blumenthal, Writer and editor of The Grayzone USA

Michael Boudreau, Compas de Nicaragua Nicaragua

Miguel Mairena, United Methodist missionary Mexico

Mike Woodard, Jubilee House Community Nicaragua

Mitchel Cohen, Author USA

Nan McCurdy, United Methodist Missionary Mexico

Nora Mitchell McCurdy, Researcher Nicaragua
Paul Richard Harris, Journalist, Canada

Paul Peulevé Baker, Ode to Earth coordinator Nicaragua

Professor Jose Antonio Zepeda, Secretario General, Confederación de Trabajadores de la Educación de Nicaragua CGTEN-ANDEN Nicaragua

Professor Michel Chossudovsky, Founder and Director of the Centre for Research on Globalization Canada

Richard Kohn, Ph.D University professor USA

Richard Lanigan Physician/chiropractor UK

Richard Luckemeier, P.E. Water utility engineer USA

Rita Jill Clark-Gollub, Translator USA
Robert Navan,, Nicaragua Solidarity Ireland, Ireland

Roger Stoll, Writer USA

Sandra Edith Baltodano Gutierrez Solidarity activist Italy

Scott Hagaman, Physician USA

Sofía M Clark, Political researcher Nicaragua

Stansfield Smith, Writer USA

Stephen Sefton,Community worker and writer Nicaragua

Susan Lagos, Retired teacher, Friends of the ATC, activist, translator Nicaragua

Walter Ramiro Castillo Sandino, Family of General Augusto C. Sandino Nicaragua

William Camacaro, Venezuela Solidarity activist USA

William Grigsby Vado,Presidente Asociación de Profesionales de la Radiodifusión Nicaragüense (APRANIC) y Director General Radio La Primerísima Nicaragua

Zoltan Tiroler, Swedish-Cuban Friendship Association Sweden

US Policy Toward China Wrecking Bilateral Relations

July 9th, 2020 by Stephen Lendman

Both right wings of the US one-party state are of a single mind in wanting China’s economic, industrial, technological, and military advancement undermined.

Obama’s near-decade ago prioritization of asserting Washington’s Asia/Pacific presence was and remains key Dem and GOP policy.

Cold War politics never went away. It aims to marginalize, contain, isolate, and weaken key rivals China and Russia — as well as other nations unwilling to subordinate their sovereign rights to US interests.

That’s what Washington’s imperial project is all about, seeking dominance over all other nations, their resources and populations — wanting challengers to its preeminence neutralized or eliminated.

War by hot and other means is longstanding US policy. Challenging China and Russia this way could lead to WW III no one wants but could happen by accident or design, a frightening possibility.

Time and again, Sino/Russian good faith outreach to the US is rebuffed because it clashes with its aim of dominating other nations over mutual cooperation.

China’s Foreign Minister Wang Yi tried again. On Thursday, he called for reconciling bilateral differences to avoid rupturing relations.

Beijing is not seeking to displace or undermine US superpower status, he said, suggesting ways to resolve differences.

“What is alarming is that the Sino-US relationship is one of the most important bilateral relations in the world, but is facing the most serious challenges since the establishment of diplomatic relations” over 40 years ago, he stressed, adding:

“China’s policies towards the US have not changed, and we still want to develop China-US relations in a sincere manner.”

Beijing will resume suspended talks “as long as the (Trump regime) is willing.”

“Only through exchanges can we stop lies, and only through dialogue can we avoid misjudgment.”

Wang and other Chinese officials know that good faith outreach to the US is virtually never good enough.

Time and again, it pledges to do one thing, then goes another way, why it can never be trusted whether Dems or Republicans run things.

Wang called for Chinese and US think tanks to compile three lists:

1. Major issues for both nations to address.

2. Issues where disputes exist, ones that can be resolved through dialogue.

3. Irreconcilable differences.

The latter category risks a major breach in bilateral relations, where things have been heading because of US unwillingness to compromise enough or at all.

Wang understands the challenges to Sino/US relations.

Yet he stressed that both sides “should properly manage…disputes and minimize the damage to (bilateral) relations…based on the spirit of seeking common ground while (respecting) differences.”

Both countries can cooperate on numerous fronts, he said, including on containment of COVID-19 outbreaks with the goal of halting them altogether.

On July 6, Trump continued his anti-China Twitterstorm, falsely accusing Beijing of “caus(ing) great damage to the United States and the rest of the world (sic).”

Clearly it’s the other way around. Time and again, the US blames other countries for its own wrongdoing.

Its relations with China show no signs of easing, a topic I continue to revisit and explain what’s going on, a worrisome situation.

Wang knows that things have deteriorated too much to restore normal bilateral relations.

Yet he stressed that both sides should avoid “decoupl(ing).”

If mutual cooperation between both countries remains unattainable on major issues, chances are relations will deteriorate further.

They’re highly unlikely to improve if Biden succeeds Trump in January.

The US is going all-out to prevent China from becoming the world’s major economy.

Trump’s trade war is all about wanting China’s development countered and undermined.

It’s a prescription for preventing resolution of bilateral differences.

US rage for global dominance made them irreconcilable with China, Russia, Iran, and other sovereign independent countries it doesn’t control.

That’s the stuff major wars are made of, a US specialty, notably throughout the post-WW II period.

*

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

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

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

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

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.

Featured image: Chinese President Xi Jinping and US President Donald Trump in a file image. Image: Youtube