Global Research

Singapore is on the cusp of rolling out a mandatory COVID-19 tracing program that will identify people who had come in contact with virus carriers. The program will distribute tiny microchips to all 5.7 million residents, in what will be the most extensive tracing program globally, reported Reuters.

The city-state, located in Southeast Asia, has already developed a tracing app for smartphones, called TraceToegether, to identify people who have interacted with virus carriers. The app was downloaded by more than 1.5 million residents but did not work well on iPhones since Bluetooth activity goes dormant when app runs in the background.

Singapore officials overseeing the tracing app had several discussions with Apple, but no resolutions were found.

Minister-in-charge of the Smart Nation Initiative Vivian Balakrishnan spoke with Parliament on Friday, gave members of the government update on the tracing program:

“Because TraceTogether does not work equally well across all smartphones, we have decided therefore, at this point, not to mandate the compulsory use of TraceTogether.

“We are developing and will soon roll out a portable wearable device that will … not depend on the possession of a smartphone.

“If this portable device works. We may then distribute it to everyone in Singapore … This will be more inclusive, and it will ensure that all of us will be protected,” Balakrishnan told Parliament.

Balakrishna said the pivot to wearables would mean residents will have to wear a tiny microchip at the end of lanyard or can be carried in pocket or bag. He expects it to be rolled out in the near term.

The technology behind the wearable was not discussed, and at what range the government can track people.

There are many privacy concerns about tracing devices. Especially when the government wants widespread use, it will have to make it mandatory. Other concerns are about who gets the tracking data, and it was said that the Singapore government would only collect data via the first app if a person becomes infected with COVID-19. There are many privacy concerns about contact tracing devices and how the government will use the data.

For instance, this week, the US government and law enforcement agencies are using contact tracing and big tech to identify rioters.

The war on COVID around the world has ushered in a massive surveillance state with weaponry that governments can deploy at any time: thermal imaging cameras, drones, contact tracing, biometric databases, etc.

No one is safe from government in a post-corona world. 

*

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

Featured image is from Shutterstock

Thatcherism, as it is known, was made of up of principles comprising economic, social and political ideals that described the Conservative Party that undoubtedly shaped Britain for nearly fifty years. The economic policies that came with Thatcherism really amounted to little more than deregulation. It was and still is a total rejection of the ‘post-war consensus’ that drives privatisation, nationalisation and unleashes ‘corporatism’ – the so-called efficiency of the free-market and the fiction sold to everyone as a ‘trickle-down’ effect.

But that wasn’t enough for the corporations who profited more and more as each decade turned into the next.

Take for instance, Britain’s water supply which was nationalised in the early 20th-century because the private water companies profited from delivering a terrible service throughout the previous century. A hundred years ago, water was considered by politicians a public health necessity but when Thatcher arrived in government nearly a century later, privatisation was the only way. However, Thatcher needed a lie to achieve it. She then hugely restricted the ability of the nationalised water companies to borrow money. That led to the equivalent of financial strangulation and when the service delivery fell (pipe breakages, building disrepair, maintenance etc) to unacceptable levels, calls were made by the Tories to privatise it. Thatcher effectively financially strangled the water companies and then blamed them for not maintaining and building on the infrastructure with a rising population. The same tactic is being used on the NHS.

The full privatisation of water in Britain – the first in the world, involved the new water companies paying £7.5bn for ten water authorities, which was highly publicised as a great financial success. What the public were unaware of at the time was that the state paid £5bn of water company debts and added nearly £2bn in grants – effectively handing each water company over for free. In the year 2018-19, the average wage packet of CEO’s of these water companies was £7.5million and shareholders pocketed £6.5billion in dividends. The delivery of water is no better today than it was in the 1970s and in many respects – worse. According to a study from the National Audit Office, water bills have increased at a rate of 40% above inflation since the industry was fully privatised in 198os. Water privatisation delivered nothing better, made the public worse off and created some fat cats. And to add insult to injury, hosepipe bans are looking increasingly likely for 2020 because the infrastructure is not there in the first place.

The story of water privatisation is not new. The railways provide us with a much worse story and whilst its difficult to attach any of this to corruption – you might think that the sale of 600 buildings originally owned by the state and used by the tax collection service HMRC, which were sold to a company located in a tax haven is indeed corruption. If not, it is nothing short of fraud as it defrauds the taxpayer of a stable income source from its own asset and disposes of it to a tax dodger. The irony is at best painful.

By setting out these examples – and there are many of them, private companies take their lead. The result is that four million companies operating in Britain, do so in anonymously owned shell structures. That is a staggering one in ten companies in the UK operating illegally. And it is now a note of public record that 70 per cent of corruption cases involve opaquely-owned companies such as these.

When the Tories came to power in 2010, they did so on a campaign to make government the most transparent ever and to clean up corporate corruption. Ten years later, the government is actively seeking to hide its activities away from the public eye, shut down scrutiny or even questioning it and corporate corruption has escalated.

The New Statesman recently reported that for Britain –

“Cronyism and issues of money buying access to power, are widely recognised and widely criticised” and that “we may be so used to corruption that we are effectively immune to anything but the most high-profile coverage of it.”

The LeaveEU and Cambridge Analytica scandal is just one of many examples along with numerous other dodgy business deals where government contracts are handed out without public scrutiny. Amongst all of this is the lifting of extremely sensitive private data that has been gifted to the likes of Palantir – a company who was deeply involved in the aforementioned Leave EU/CA Brexit scandal.  The government refused point-blank to divulge information relating to these contracts under Freedom of Information requests – but only did so after being sued and even then only four hours before court proceedings.

Britain’s Prime Minister is at the centre of another scandal by suppressing the House of Commons Intelligence Committee report on Russian threats to our democracy. The dossier reportedly illustrates how the Kremlin interfered in the 2016 referendum – and names nine Russian donors to the Conservative Party. It’s bad enough to know that Electoral Commission, the Police, National Crime Agency were all involved in this investigation – all have been leant on – and that the government has ducked accountability. It’s worse to know that a hostile foreign state is deeply involved in a fraudulent Brexit campaign that led to the division of an entire nation and the actors involved have somehow got immunity from investigation.

The Russia Report is quite possibly a game-changer. The results of the inquiry from the Intelligence Security Committee, begun in November 2017, were passed to Boris Johnson in October last year.

Johnson then promised MPs it would be published – which still hasn’t been. Under pressure, he then said on February 4th this year that it would be disclosed after the committee, which was disbanded at December’s election, is up and running again. Somehow, the Committee have not put forward any nominees. There are two legal actions against the government to force the report out into the open. Both look set to fail.

Corruption is now at the heart of Downing Street and is intertwined with everything they do. Having lied their way in, they have now broken just about all of their election promises already (as they did with UK farmers, scientists, new trade deals, an oven-ready EU deal, a guaranteed treaty, no Irish border and so on) or will do. Then add a dash of undisclosed holidays to tropical island hideaways, cover-ups over accusations conflict of interest and a myriad of yet to be discovered wrong-doing and what we really find is a state tearing apart the rule of law and therefore the boundaries of what is right or wrong.

What this does is open the door for genuinely corrupt people to enter political life as voters become ever more anaesthetised to corruption. In turn, it makes politicians accuse each other of being charlatans and liars thereby changing both internal and external perceptions of the UK both domestically and internationally.

Just as corruption is created in the dark corners of the corridors of power, for the first time in more than a century, this makes British politics look and feel more corrupt. And as the pandemic swept across the nation, the government very much decided not to waste the opportunity that a crisis inevitably brings to those with bad intent. And what it showed was a government unable to govern with any moral authority whilst exposing corruption that now appears to be endemic to the office of Downing Street.

*

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 TP

The great philosopher John Stuart Mill probably did more than anyone to map out the proper boundaries of the individual and the state in the western model of political democracy. Furthermore, he talked not just of the state but of societal behaviour as it impacts on individuals. Through the power of thought his influence on the development of the modern world has been enormous, even if many have never heard of him. He was four generations ahead of his time; but that is in part true because his own writings helped shape the future. This from the New Yorker is a fine example of the received view of Mill among the modern liberal intelligentsia:

Mill believed in complete equality between the sexes, not just women’s colleges and, someday, female suffrage but absolute parity; he believed in equal process for all, the end of slavery, votes for the working classes, and the right to birth control (he was arrested at seventeen for helping poor people obtain contraception), and in the common intelligence of all the races of mankind. He led the fight for due process for detainees accused of terrorism; argued for teaching Arabic, in order not to alienate potential native radicals; and opposed adulterating Anglo-American liberalism with too much systematic French theory—all this along with an intelligent acceptance of the free market as an engine of prosperity and a desire to see its excesses and inequalities curbed. He was right about nearly everything, even when contemplating what was wrong: open-minded and magnanimous to a fault, he saw through Thomas Carlyle’s reactionary politics to his genius, and his essay on Coleridge, a leading conservative of the previous generation, is a model appreciation of a writer whose views are all wrong but whose writing is still wonderful. Mill was an enemy of religious bigotry and superstition, and a friend of toleration and free thought, without overdoing either. (No one has ever been more eloquent about the ethical virtues of Jesus of Nazareth.)

Yet for a living John Stuart Mill was Secretary to the Political Committee of the East India Company, and actively involved in the rapacious colonisation of India and the enforced opening of China to opium sales. How do we cope with this? Mill has possibly influenced my thinking more than any other political writer. I would start any political education with a reading of Mill’s On Liberty and J A Hobson’s Imperialism: A Study. But how do we process Mill’s involvement with the East India Company? Should Mill’s statue be ripped from Victoria Embankment Gardens and dumped in the Thames?

I do not ask that as a rhetorical question. It is a dilemma. Historians of thought have tended to deal with it by ignoring Mill’s day job. I have read three biographies of Mill and I have a fourth, by Timothy Larsen, waiting to be started. Richard Reeves comes closest of Mill’s biographers to addressing Mill’s work for the East India Company but tells us almost nothing on the subject that is not from Mill’s own Autobiography. In his Autobiography, what Mill mostly tells us about his work for the EIC is that it did not take up too much of his time.

If Mill were a dentist, for biographers to ignore his day job and concentrate on his philosophy would make sense. But Mill’s day job was governing a very significant proportion of the world’s population. He did not just work at the East India Company, he was perhaps, as Secretary of the Political Committee, the most important civil servant there. Mill wrote and signed off detailed instructions to Governors General. He issued advice – which was expected to be followed – on trade and military affairs, and on governance. It is fascinating to me that in his Autobiography Mill systematically downplays his role in the East India Office, both in terms of his commitment and his importance within the organisation.

There has been much more written about Mill and the East India Company by Indian researchers than by western researchers, because it is of course an excellent illustration of the hypocrisies of western liberalism, that its figurehead was so enmired in the colonial project. Unfortunately, many of these studies lack nuance and tend to accuse Mill of being things he definitely was not, such as a racist. East India Company policies are ascribed to Mill which Mill was demonstrably and actively against, such as the anglicising project of Trevelyan and Macaulay. Mill did not view British culture as superior, and he was horrified by initiatives like the ending of communal land ownership in Bengal and the British creation of a Bengali landlord class there. I broadly recommend this article by Mark Tunick, though like almost everything published on the subject it suffers from the drawback of discussing what Mill wrote about governing India rather than the much harder task of discussing what he wrote in governing India. The subject needs solid analysis of Mill’s thousands of minutes and despatches in the East India Company records.

Mill worked with Burnes to try to avoid the First Afghan War, but like Burnes he did not resign over it, nor over the appalling war crimes committed by the British in its prosecution. Mill had been the guiding hand behind the long Governor Generalship of Lord Bentinck and its policy of avoiding war and expansion; but Mill was still there administering when that ended, through the annexations of Sindh and Nepal and Baluchistan and the most aggressive period of Imperial expansionism. Mill was there for the opium wars.

So how do we come to terms with our past? If slavery is the touchstone of good and bad, Mill is fine. He was a dedicated an effective lifetime opponent of slavery, including in EIC territories, and was highly influential in assuring the UK did not recognise the Confederacy in the US civil war. But if you look at the atrocious crimes of British imperialism, the financial and economic rape of whole continents, the killing, torture, terror and physical rape, why would slavery be the only criterion to judge people?

I have chosen Mill because he was a demonstrably good man, and yet I perfectly understand why a person of Indian or Chinese heritage might want to dump him in the Thames. There are others Imperialists, like Napier, Gordon or Wolseley, with statues all over the country, whose deeds are not admirable to a modern eye, particularly as our society is now a great deal less homogenous and contains descendants of those whose cities were pillaged and people raped and slaughtered by these military prodigies.

I don’t have all the answers. My life of Alexander Burnes tried to find a way to treat a remarkable man who lived by the mores of times not our own. The answer lies not in glorifying nor in destroying our past.

Monuments do not stand still. They are, ultimately, all of them Ozymandias. Destruction of historical artifacts is a bad thing; they are valuable tools for understanding the past, and of artistic and cultural value in themselves. But it is perfectly natural that in public spaces we wish to have public objects that reflect the mores of our own times. The important thing is to understand that the mores of the times do change; our great grandchildren will undoubtedly think we were quaint and had weird beliefs.

A thought on Edward Colston. His involvement in slavery was as a director of the Royal African Company. The Royal in that title is not meaningless; the company was set up specifically to make the monarch rich. A far more practical way to honour the memory of the slaves would be to abolish the monarchy. That would be a meaningful action.

A further thought. Living here in Edinburgh I find it absolutely infuriating that we have a major street named after the genocidal sadist the Duke of Cumberland. (Yes, Cumberland Street is specifically named after him). Respecting the past does not mean our society cannot move on. Street names and statues are signs of honour. There are plenty that should be removed from the street and placed in museums, where they can be explained and contextualised.

When Horatio Nelson helped to “free” the Kingdom of the Sicilies from Napoleon and restore its appalling autocratic monarchy, Neapolitan writers and intellectuals were shot and hung on Nelson’s flagship, anchored off Naples so the mob could not intervene to save them. Nelson watched some of the executions between bouts of shagging Lady Hamilton. I do not recommend toppling Nelson’s column; but I do advocate some real information about him in an education centre under the square.

UPDATE: I see that Liverpool University have just agreed to rename Gladstone Hall because Gladstone’s father was a slave owner. That is, I think, an appalling act of stupidity from what is supposed to be an institute of learning.

Very many thanks to the 700 people who have applied to follow virtually the criminal proceedings against me which start tomorrow. It is just a procedural court hearing tomorrow and I am worried that nothing much may happen. I do hope you will not get bored and give up on the rest of the case when it comes. In Julian Assange’s case, the behaviour of the judge has been outrageous even in the procedural hearings, but we should not take for granted that the same will happen here.

The court has been informing people they are not allowed to record, or to publish while the court is in session. That is true; but you can take notes, and you are allowed to publish factual accounts of what happened once the court closes.

*

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

The brutal killing of George Floyd by police, followed by the president’s calls for military intervention against protestors, are causing words like “dictatorship,” “authoritarianism,” and even “fascism” to become part of the national discourse. But the president has been dismantling constitutional safeguards for a long time, and the racism he and his administration have broadcast across the nation extends around the world, too.

In Iraq, where civilian populations have long suffered under the heel of American militarism, protesters applauded the demonstrations in American cities. In Yemen, now in its fifth year of a US-armed Saudi war that has decimated civilian populations, its desperately poor people are bracing for an onslaught of covid-19 due to cuts in UN assistance by Gulf countries allied with the US. But while this tragedy is going largely unnoticed, some key American lawmakers are trying to hold the Trump Administration — and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo in particular —accountable for mishandling the war in Yemen through illicit arms sales to Saudi Arabia.

A Congressional hearing on June 3rd focused on the abrupt firing last month of the man looking into the arms sales, the Inspector General charged with oversight of the State Department, including the secretary of state.

IG Steve Linick (image on the right), who accused Pompeo of misconduct, has become the latest victim in a string of politically motivated firings of government watchdogs. If the president’s bunker mentality isn’t disturbing enough, a deeper look into this scandal shows how racism lies at the heart of Trump’s and Pompeo’s foreign policy. And how oil, most notably in the Middle East, and most particularly, in Yemen, is the driving force.

Trump’s Love Affair with Oil

Donald Trump, a mere real estate developer before becoming president, has not been shy about his love of the powerful oil industry, whether domestic or Middle Eastern. Defying Washington’s tradition of hiding the role of oil in foreign policy, he has embraced oil power exuberantly and unapologetically, as when he appointed Rex Tillerson, former CEO of Exxon-Mobil, as his first secretary of state shortly after taking office. Then last fall he scandalized the international community when he redeployed American troops to Eastern Syria to “secure our [sic] oil.” Most recently, his administration secretively doled out at least $113 million to oil companies in taxpayer-backed loans under the Paycheck Protection Program, intended for small businesses hurt by Covid-19.

Now Trump’s brazenness is backfiring against his most recent Secretary of State. Members of the House Foreign Affairs Committee and Senate Foreign Relations Committee investigating Linick’s firing last month want to know if it was an act of retaliation by Pompeo. The secretary has denied the charge, but his timing was certainly suspect.

As first reported by the Washington Post on May 16, Linick was wrapping up an investigation of Pompeo’s approval one year ago of unauthorized arms sales worth $8 billion to Saudi Arabia, defying the will of Congress. The weapons’ ultimate destination: the Saudis’ widely condemned war in Yemen, deemed the world’s greatest humanitarian crisis.

Yemen

Linick briefed the State Department of his findings before issuing his report, which assuredly set off alarm bells in Pompeo’s office and plausibly resulted in Linick’s abrupt dismissal. The congressman who originally asked for the investigation, Representative Eliot Engel, Chair of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, told the Washington Post, “We don’t have the full picture yet but it’s troubling that Secretary Pompeo wanted Mr. Linick pushed out before this work could be completed.” In his testimony Wednesday, Linick said a top department official “bullied” him, pressuring him not to pursue his investigation into arms sales to Saudi Arabia. Democratic lawmakers, in a statement released after the testimony, urged the administration “to immediately comply with outstanding requests for additional witness interviews and documents.”

As with all things Middle East, it’s never easy to get the full picture right away. With oil riches gumming up so many human interactions, including war and pretexts for war, assassinations and regime changes, the path to the truth can be littered with lies. It took me decades of research and years of filtering that research into a book, for instance, to figure out what the Great Game for Oil had to do with the death of my father in a mysterious plane crash following his top-secret mission to Saudi Arabia.

Now, at least, I know where to look and how to look when questions loom.

I analogize this to peeling an onion, beginning with the most obvious question.

First peel: Why did Democrats and Republicans object to arms sales to Saudi Arabia last year?

The answer, in this case, can be boiled down to three words: cold blooded murder. The murder victim in this case was a Washington Post columnist and an exiled Saudi national named Jamal Khashoggi. Two months before his death in October, 2018, Khashoggi had written disparagingly about the Saudis’ disastrous war against Yemen, then in its third year. The war had become an acute international embarrassment, especially after Saudi coalition forces bombed a school bus on August 9, 2018 killing forty children and thirty-two nearby civilians. By August 19, CNN reported that the bomb used in the attack was a US-made, 227-kilogram laser guided bomb manufactured by Lockheed Martin.

News like this was not helpful to Saudi Arabia’s reigning crown prince, Mohammed bin Salman (nicknamed MSM), nor to his closest allies, Donald Trump and son-in-law Jared Kushner, who strived to turn Saudi Arabia into a mecca for international investment (think hotels and resorts along the Red Sea). Those ambitions crystallized a few months after the newly elected Trump took then Secretary of State Rex Tillerson on his first official trip overseas in March, 2017 — not (as is tradition) to visit any of our democratic allies, but to visit Saudi Arabia, one of the most oppressive regimes in the world. That trip was made memorable by images of Trump jubilantly dancing the sword dance with his white-robed royal hosts.

As I pointed out in The Crash of Flight 3804, they were dancing for joy after negotiating $350 billion in US aid, including the sale of $100 billion in US armaments to the kingdom. It was a nice quid pro quo: You have oil, we have arms. We can make a lot of money from US arms sales and hotel tourism. provided you modernize Saudi Arabia and institute some reforms like letting women drive. In return, we will help you win your unpopular war in Yemen.

But Jamal Khashoggi kept getting in the way with his Washington Postcolumns. ”Saudi Arabia must face the damage from the past three plus years of war in Yemen,” he wrote on September, 2018. “The conflict has soured the kingdom’s relations with the international community and harmed its reputation in the Islamic world.” But Khashoggi didn’t stop there. He singled out Donald Trump’s “good friend,” crown prince Mohammed bin Salman, for additional criticism: “The crown prince must bring an end to the violence,” he wrote, concluding with a fatal barb, “and restore the dignity of the birthplace of Islam.”

One month later, Khashoggi was brutally murdered, hacked to pieces in the Saudi embassy in Turkey by a bone saw wielded by the head of Saudi security forces. During the ensuing investigation President Trump kept prevaricating over holding MBS (now widely referred to as Mohammed Bone Saw) responsible for Khashoggi’s murder despite international cries for accountability and the CIA’s assessment that MBS was behind the killing. Trump repeatedly reminded Americans of the kingdom’s importance as a “strong ally,” especially as a counterweight to Iranian ambitions in the Middle East. Pompeo, pictured here with the Saudi king just days after the Khashoggi murder, agreed.

Trump simply attributed the murder to “rogue killers” while making no commitment to lessening arms sales to Saudi Arabia. The armaments industry was, after all, creating a lot of jobs, he argued. It didn’t matter that the death toll in Yemen was fast approaching 100,000 since the war began in 2015.

This was just too much for Congress. Democrats and Republicans alike insisted Saudi Arabia would have to be punished for the war in Yemen and the murder of its most ardent critic, who, after all, had written for the powerful Washington Post. In early April, 2019 both the House and the Senate passed the Yemen War Powers Act, a bipartisan bill aimed at stopping all US involvement — including arms sales — to Yemen. On April 19, President Trump vetoed the bill.

The following month he and Pompeo declared emergency powers in order to bypass Congress and deliver $8 billion worth of arms sales, mostly to Saudi Arabia and its wartime ally, the United Arab Emirates, in order to stop “the malign influence of Iran in the middle East.” Once again, members of Congress cried foul, questioning Trump’s legal justification for invoking emergency powers and reiterating their concerns about Saudi Arabia’s dismal human rights record and the murder of Jamal Khashoggi.

Apparently, Representative Eliot Engel never got over Trump’s act of impunity, and so he called upon the Inspector General to investigate.

Second peel: Is there an oil connection to the US-Saudi war in Yemen?

It stands to reason, since Saudi Arabia ignored widespread condemnation to pursue its war in Yemen at all costs. That term, “at all costs,” has been employed repeatedly through decades of endless wars in the Middle East, beginning when my father wrote in a memo to his superiors at the Office of Strategic Services (OSS) in 1944 that the oil of Saudi Arabia was so vitally important to US interests that it had to be protected “at all costs.” Protected, that is, by vast amounts of US military assistance to the Kingdom, which from 1950 to the present amounts to trillions of dollars.

Fact is, Yemen is swimming in oil. Equally significant, the crown prince’s main concern has been “freedom of navigation” for oil tankers carrying Saudi oil, whether they pass through the Strait of Hormuz, a narrow chokepoint at the bottom of the Persian/Arabian Gulf that separates eastern Saudi Arabia from Iran, or the Bab el Mandeb Strait on the western side of the Saudi peninsula. Problems arose in 2015, when Shiite-backed Houthi rebels gained control over much of northern Yemen, pushed out its corrupt pro-Western leader, and took control of Yemen’s capital. Next they began advancing on the oil-producing province of Ma’rib and beyond, toward the Bab el Mandeb Strait. To alleviate these worries, Saudi Arabia has embarked on building a pipeline–despite local protests — that will carry its oil straight to the southern Yemen port of Mukalla, on the Gulf of Aden, avoiding the two chokepoints.

The war in Yemen and the projected Saudi pipeline through Yemen, pictured in “The Crash of Flight 3804″

At the same time, MSM made multiple trips to Washington seeking military aid, part of which would go toward protecting the pipeline.

Third peel: Did alleged threats from Iran warrant Trump’s declaration of emergency?

A series of attacks on oil tankers did, in fact, occur during the spring of 2019 that brought the world perilously close to another Middle Eastern war. The thing is, the identity of the perpetrators remains unresolved. Four oil tankers were damaged in early May, 2019, causing Pompeo to blame Iran, although “without citing specific evidence,” according to the Wall Street Journal. The Iranians vigorously denied the charges, and accused the US of trying to pull Iran into a war. Leaders around the world cautioned against war, including US allies. Pompeo accused Iran again of attacking two oil tankers in the Gulf of Oman in June, again providing no evidence.

Small wonder, with skepticism about Iran’s involvement mounting at home and abroad, that Pompeo’s claim of a national emergency, caused some members of Congress to see the emergency as “phony.”

On September 14, 2019 another international crisis erupted when a series of drone and missile attacks hit Saudi oil facilities in Riyadh, causing significant damage and prompting a warning from President Trump that the US was “locked and loaded” in its readiness to respond. Pompeo declared the attacks an “act of war,” and tried to pull together a coalition at the UN to “deter” Iran. Once again, Iran denied responsibility, this time before the UN General Assembly, and challenged the US to provide evidence. Saner heads prevailed and war was narrowly averted.

But the attack on Saudi Arabia had one salutary effect: a surge in crude oil prices. Who benefited? One group in particular: US shale oil producers, who early on in Trump’s reign became overnight billionaires through heavy borrowing and financial mismanagement. Noted Bloomberg.com, “American shale producers, one of the worst-performing segments on the stock market this year, jumped Monday morning after an attack on a Saudi Arabia oil production facility over the weekend sent crude prices soaring.The spike in oil prices offers relief at a critical time for U.S. shale producers, which have seen investors flee after the sector largely failed to generate shareholder returns while rapidly growing output.”

Could this mean President Trump created a phony emergency and risked war with Iran to help his embattled friends (described in my previous blog) in the shale oil industry? So far, Pompeo has yet to turn over witnesses and documents. But if the truth ever comes out, it will surely confirm that protecting the riches of oil, “at all costs,” will trump protecting the rights of ordinary individuals here and abroad.

*

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 Medium.

Charlotte Dennett is an author, investigative journalist, and attorney. Recently published The Crash of Flight 3804 about the death of her master-spy father in the Great Game for Oil.

All images in this article are from Medium unless otherwise stated

On Sunday a statue to the 19th century English merchant Edward Colston was seized from its pedestal and violently hurled into Bristol harbour by a group of protestors demonstrating as part of the Black Lives Matter movement. The incident has become the subject of fierce debate ever since. Edward Colston, like many wealthy Europeans of his time, was a slave trader, and the monument has become, for many, a symbol of racism of the type we must eradicate from our society for good.

The slave trade, which saw at least 12 million Africans shipped to North America over a period of 400 years, was a brutal, debased industry founded on the principle of putting profit before human rights. The money amassed from it went towards developing many of our renowned universities and institutions and the construction of towns and cities across the UK. But it was not only the Atlantic slave trade that contributed to our nation’s wealth. You cannot walk the streets of Britain today without noticing the hallmarks of our imperialist past.  The British Empire exploited people from India to Barbados and the evidence of it is laid bare in the bricks and mortar of our urban architecture and street names. Our country is literally a museum to its imperialist past.

So, what are we to do, start tearing down our town halls, art galleries, and university buildings? How far are we to take the destruction of our material world in order to meet our contemporary standards? We have seen the attempt to rewrite history in recent years in Ukraine, for example, where Lenin statues have been toppled in a bid to wipe the Soviet leader and his Communist dogma, from the pages of history. Or in the Baltic states, where several monuments to the Red Army have been removed as a way of denouncing Soviet rule, despite their purpose being to celebrate victory over Nazism. The past, whether we like it or not, happened. It cannot be erased. There will always be statues that were on the wrong side of history; there will always be some who do not agree with the glorification of a particular figure.

Source: InfoBrics

In fact, it could be argued that we should retain controversial monuments as a constant reminder of past injustices. Better still, a more constructive approach would be to start building monuments, instead of removing them, to, for example, progressive 19th century thinkers who did stand up against slavery. Take the Scot, Zachery Macauley, governor of Sierra Leone and anti-slavery activist. Having initially been involved in the British sugar plantations in Jamaica at the age of 16, he devoted his life to fighting for the abolition of slavery, paving the way for the 1833 Slavery Abolition Act.  There is a bust to him in Westminster Abbey but no statue as such. Surely a monument is long overdue.

Furthermore, it is vital that children are taught not only about the Atlantic slave trade, but all the sordid aspects of the western imperialist past.  I say western, because it’s no secret that the whole of Europe was at it. The Dutch were exploiting Indonesia, the French were ransacking Africa and the Spanish pillaging South America. These were people of a different era, with a different way of thinking – call it primitive, or immoral or just plain wrong. Those that did follow a strong moral code were for the most part fervently religious and desperately trying to ‘convert’ conquered peoples to Christianity as they deemed them ‘savages’. Can we change these facts? No. The main thing is that we leave such attitudes in the past, where they belong.

Racism obviously remains a deep-rooted issue in the US which may take generations to eradicate. It is systemic and very much tied up with the country’s history, from the days when Europeans invaded the lands belonging to Native Americans.  Unfortunately it is a nation founded on injustice and built on the blood, sweat and tears of exploitation. Although this should never be forgotten, what is even more important is learning from these mistakes. And so far, there is little evidence of this happening. For although the British empire has long been disbanded, Britain continues to support US imperialism and expansionism which wreaks havoc across the globe, from the wars waged in Iraq, Libya and Syria, to the multinational firms exploiting impoverished workers in Bangladesh and China.

Indeed, we may have come to terms with our role in the 19th century Atlantic slave trade in recent years, but we have a long way to go in recognizing our role in supporting the modern slave trade, which it is estimated involves a staggering 40.3 million people. That means 1 in 200 people worldwide is a slave. Whether we are talking about women and girls working in the sex trade in Asia or workers building the infrastructure for the 2022 Qatar world cup, slavery is far from being a thing of the past, it is part of the globalised world we live in. The clothing we wear, and the mobile phones we use, have more often than not been manufactured by people working in slavery or exploitation.

So while it may be easier to focus on monuments of the past which don’t comply with our moral standards, not only are we likely to be left with none at all, but we are at risk of deflecting attention from the real inequalities which plague our society. If we are indeed a more enlightened people than our forefathers, we need to look beyond the monuments on our streets, to the very food we put on our plates, how it got there, and who has been exploited for our benefit. Otherwise, if we’re pulling down a monument with one hand and swigging a Starbucks coffee (made from beans harvested by slave labour) with the other, then we’re simply hypocrites.

*

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.

Am 3. Juni 2020 kündigte das World Economic Forum WEF in Genf als Folge der „globalen Gesundheitskrise“ für Januar 2021 einen „einzigartigen Zwillingsgipfel“ in Davos in der Schweiz an. (1) Das Thema soll lauten: „The Great Reset“, oder auf Deutsch “Der Große Neustart“. Das WEF definiert den „Großen Neustart“ als „Verpflichtung, gemeinsam und dringend die Grundlagen unseres Wirtschafts- und Sozialsystems für eine gerechtere, nachhaltigere und widerstandsfähigere Zukunft zu schaffen“. Eingeladen werden weltweit führende Vertreter aus Regierung, Wirtschaft und Zivilgesellschaft. In einem von der jungen Generation geführten Dialog sollen diese mit „Stakeholdern“ weltweit virtuell verbunden werden. Das sind Personen und Interessengruppen mit einem Netzwerk in 400 Städten auf der ganzen Welt, die ein berechtigtes Interesse am Verlauf und Ergebnis des Gipfels haben. Alle Ankündigungen klingen vielversprechend und verheißen eine strahlende Zukunft.

In der Presseerklärung des WEF heißt es weiter: „Die Ankündigung des ‚Großen Neustarts‘ wurde von S.K.H. The Prince of Wales und Professor Schwab während eines virtuellen Treffens gemacht, gefolgt von Erklärungen des UN-Generalsekretärs António Guterres und der geschäftsführenden Direktorin des IWF Kristalina Georgieva.“ Neben den großartigen Versprechungen auch wohlklingende Namen.

Managing Diretor Kristalina Georgieva verfasste bereits am Tag der Ankündigung des Gipfeltreffens eine Stellungnahme an das World Economic Forum. Diese beginnt mit den Worten:

„My thanks to His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales and to Professor Schwab for bringing us together.“ Weiter schreibt sie: „Aus der Sicht des IWF verfügen wir über einen massiven fiskalischen Stimulus, um den Ländern bei der Bewältigung dieser Krise zu helfen und die Weichen für eine Rückkehr des Wachstums zu stellen. Es ist von überragender Bedeutung, dass dieses Wachstum in Zukunft zu einer grüneren, intelligenteren und gerechteren Welt führt.“ (2)

Auch der Gründer und Vorsitzende des Weltwirtschaftsforums selbst sah sich noch am Tag der Ankündigung zu einer eigenen Stellungnahme berufen. Unter der Überschrift „Jetzt ist die Zeit für einen ‚großen Reset‘“ und dem Untertitel „In jeder Krise gibt es eine Chance“ schreibt Klaus Schwab: „Wir können aus dieser Krise eine bessere Welt hervorbringen, (…). Um ein besseres Ergebnis (als die Depression in den 1930er Jahren, R.H.) zu erzielen, muss die Welt gemeinsam und schnell handeln, um alle Aspekte unserer Gesellschaften und Volkswirtschaften zu erneuern, von Bildung über Sozialverträge bis hin zu Arbeitsbedingungen. Jedes Land, von den Vereinigten Staaten bis nach China, muss teilnehmen, und jede Industrie, von Öl und Gas bis hin zu Technologie, muss transformiert werden. Kurz gesagt, wir brauchen einen ‚großen Reset‘ des Kapitalismus.“ (3)

Wortschöpfer und Ideengeber des „Großen Neustarts“ ist wohl der Bestsellerautor und Wirtschaftsentwicklungsexperte Richard Florida mit seinem Buch „The Great Reset. How New Ways of Living and Working Drive Post-Crash Prosperity“ (“Das große Zurücksetzen. Wie neue Lebens- und Arbeitsformen den Wohlstand nach dem Zusammenbruch fördern”).

Vertieft man sich in die Presseerklärung des WEF und die dazu erschienenen Stellungnahmen – was jedem Interessierten dringend zu empfehlen ist – dann stellen sich für den kritischen Zeitgenossen einige drängende Fragen. Zum Beispiel die Frage, in welchen Zustand unser Wirtschafts- und Sozialsystem nach dem beispiellosen ökonomischen und sozialen Totalcrash „zurückgesetzt“ und neu gestartet werden soll. Sodann die Frage, was man von einer „Rückführungsagenda“ erwarten kann, die von denselben globalen Regierungs- und Wirtschaftsführern formuliert und umgesetzt werden wird, die den gegenwärtigen Crash absichtlich herbeiführten. Die Kardinalfrage lautet jedoch: wird der angekündigte „Große Neustart“ ein Segen sein für die Menschheit oder vielmehr ein Fluch?

Die Antwort auf diese Frage sollten ausgewiesene Experten herausfinden – und zwar noch bevor sich die Teilnehmer des Zwillingsgipfels im Januar 2021 an die Arbeit machen und eine Agenda entwerfen, deren Umsetzung nichts Gutes für die Menschheit bedeuten wird. Wir sollten uns darauf vorbereiten können, das Schlimmste zu verhindern.

Wenn wir das gegenwärtige Verbrechen gegen die Menschheit, das anlässlich des „globalen Corona-Fehlalarms“ vom „Großen Geld“, den Globallisten, Foundations, Big Pharma und der WHO weltweit losgetreten wurde, zusammendenken mit den heuchlerischen Heilsversprechen des kabbalistischen Weltwirtschaftsforums und dem räuberischen Internationalen Währungsfond, dann ist nicht von einer De-Globalisierung und einer Abkehr vom menschenverachtenden Neoliberalismus auszugehen. Die herrschende „Elite“ wird das Treffen in Davos dafür nutzen, die globale Kontrolle von uns Bürgern durch die Zerstörung der Nationalstaaten weiter voranzutreiben. Und das wird eine große Gefahr sein für die Menschheit, die wir nur gemeinsam abwehren können.

*

Dr. Rudolf Hänsel ist Diplom-Psychologe und Erziehungswissenschaftler.

Noten:

1. http://www.weforum.orgunter „The Great Reset: Ein einzigartiger Zwillingsgipfel zu Beginn des Jahres 2021“

2. https://imf.org/en/News/Articles/2020/06/03/sp060320-remarks-to-world-economic-forum-the-great-reset

3. weforum.org unter „Now is the time for a ‚great reset‘“

On Wednesday, June 4, I joined thousands of marchers in Kitchener, Ontario, the town in which I live, to protest racism and police brutality. I have, in the last few years, participated in local events in support of Palestinian self-determination and justice; freedom for the Kashmiris, and for international justice for all when I addressed the Kitchener commemoration of the United Nations International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination.

Previously, when I lived in the United States, first in New Jersey, and then in Florida, I participated in demonstrations against the invasion and occupation of Iraq.

I am a long-time member of World Beyond War, an international organization whose goal is the end of all war. I serve on the boards of several human rights organizations.  When does this end? I am not a young man; if I stretch the truth just a bit, I can still say I am middle-aged. I am, of course, just one person, but shouldn’t the efforts of millions of people around the world have brought significant progress to society by now?

Certainly, I am not sufficiently naïve to think that these efforts should have ushered in a Utopian world. I am old enough to remember Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., and the various civil rights marches in the decade of the 1960s. I also remember the shocking brutality with which demonstrators, especially people of color, were subjected to by government forces. The scenes I am seeing in the news today are no different.

Through at least the first half of the twentieth century, lynchings of Black people by whites were common, and, if investigated at all, seldom resulted in prosecution. The belief that the victims were, after all, ‘only’ Black people seemed to make it somehow acceptable. All this was supposed to change with the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964; however, laws do not change attitudes, and as long as those in power are only interested in the selective enforcement of laws, things remain the same.

The election of Barack Obama to the presidency in 2008 was seen by many, naively, as a major milestone in race relations in the United States. Some people, incredibly, even said that this was evidence that racism no longer existed in the country!

But what has changed?

Seven years after the passage of the Civil Rights Act, President Richard Nixon inaugurated the so-called ‘war on drugs’, a racist, trillion-dollar boondoggle that plagues the nation to this day. People in inner cities, many of them Black and brown, who are caught with small amounts of marijuana or cocaine, receive severe, long-term sentences. Upper middle-class whites with the same amounts of illegal substances, if they are caught at all, may receive a fine and probation. And the police cannot usually be found in middle-class, or even poor, white neighborhoods, harassing white people who are doing nothing more than walking down the street, standing in front of a building awaiting a friend, or otherwise going about their business. The Black experience is far different.

The term ‘white privilege’ has been defined in many ways. Concisely, it might be seen as having no additional barriers due to skin color. Yes, many white people are born into poverty and remain in poverty all their lives, but that is not due to efforts they make being thwarted because of the color of their skin. White privilege plays out in so many ways. Whites are not profiled by the police; although I can only offer anecdotal evidence, I am happy to do so. Never once have I been stopped while walking or driving and asked about where I’m going, where I’ve been, or if I have drugs in the car. I have been stopped because I was speeding, inadvertently went through a red light, or was driving with an expired registration. In each case, the police officer who stopped me was patient and polite.

In predominantly Black or brown neighborhoods, residents do not have the same experience. Police officers and agencies proclaim that they harass people in those neighborhoods to prevent crime; if they know the cops are watching, they won’t break laws. This, of course, is a smokescreen, enabling the so-called law enforcement officers to act on their racism under the guise of doing what’s good for their victim.

At one demonstration a few years ago, I don’t even remember now what it was for, I saw a woman carrying a sign reading “Why do I have to keep protesting this s*it?” It is a question we all must ask as we make another picket sign and march against the newest shocking injustice. What are we, as concerned world citizens, doing wrong? In the U.S., which, despite all evidence to the contrary, proclaims itself a model democracy, we are told that voting is the way to bring about change. Is it? When two parties that are almost mirror images of each other dominate the air waves, preventing the many legitimate third-parties from having any chance even to be involved in debates, let alone be listed on the ballot, voters are generally faced with voting for the lesser of two evils. That’s a devil’s choice, since the lesser of two evils is still evil. Both parties are beholden not to the voters, but to their real constituencies, the corporate and foreign government lobbies that finance their campaigns.

Voting can only be effective if voters can actually vote. Republican efforts to suppress the vote, especially in neighborhoods inhabited mostly by the poor and people of color, who usually vote Democratic, have been successful. So the idea that voting is some panacea to bring about change beneficial to the people is simply a fairy tale.

If voting isn’t a viable agent for change in the United States, what is?

The rot of the system runs deep, and a complete revamping is needed. There must be recognition that what works for the people of Arkansas and Alabama may not be pleasing to the people of New York and California, and vice versa. It must be acknowledged that when one candidate loses the popular vote and still becomes president, the idea of democracy is simply a farce. And if one candidate receives 45% of the vote, and his/her opponent 55%, that means that 45% of voters have no representation.

The Party for Socialism and Liberation offers a 10-point, common sense platform. The Republican and Democratic Parties seek to marginalize it, because their corporate-owned cheerleaders know that they would have no chance should the voting public be familiar with it.

Other nations have successfully introduced alternative forms of government, and their people benefit. The U.S. must cease its awkward and unsuccessful attempts to lead, and follow other nations as they have given the power back to the people.

*

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

Robert Fantina is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

The hypocrisy of the Black Lives Matter movement is astounding. BLM and its followers shout down those who insist all lives matter, regardless of race. In the BLM universe, skin pigmentation is the determinate, as it is for all racists. 

While BLM and identity activists dwell in OCD fashion on racist cops and “white privilege,” they completely ignore the organized mass murder of black- and brown-skinned people by a government that now “takes a knee” for a former criminal, beatified as a saint by the state and its propaganda media. Those responsible for the murder of George Floyd will undoubtedly spend years behind bars, as they should, but this will not quell the outrage and violence committed in his name. 

So lopsided and blinkered is the current identity-obsessed movement, it fails to address a far more deadly and vicious adversary—the neoliberal state. 

The organized murder of more than two million Arabs in Iraq, Syria, and Libya—more than a million in Iraq, 600,000 in Syria, and 30,000 in Libya—does not even register on the BLM and identity ideological radar.

Barack Obama suffocated the antiwar movement that had coalesced around the Bush neocon invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, thus revealing that much of the political activism was predicated along partisan establishment political lines. Antiwar activists of the Vietnam War era called out both Republicans and Democrats for war crimes. Eisenhower, JFK, Johnson, Nixon—both Democrats and Republicans—are responsible for the murder of more than 3 million Vietnamese, Cambodians, and Laotians. 

Obama and his Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, are directly responsible for arming murderous jihadi mercenaries in Syria and their counterparts in Libya. The latter resulted in vicious racism by Arab Libyans against black African migrant workers and refugees. 

In Syria, Obama’s CIA funded and armed mercenaries in an effort to topple the government of Bashar al-Assad. The illegal effort by the US military to defeat the Islamic State in Syria—a psywar operation birthed by the Pentagon in occupied Iraq—resulted in further destabilizing Syria and killed tens of thousands of innocent civilians. 

Additionally, BLM and the supposed left in America have not pointed out the obvious—psychopathic cops are trained, armed (with tanks and other weapons of mass destruction), and enabled by the Pentagon. Why isn’t the Pentagon a site of protest, like it was during the Vietnam War? 

The neoliberal elite is obsessed with overturning and destroying nations resisting IMF and World Bank domination and the “structural adjustment” schemes bankster and globalist organizations push (the strip mining and privatization of public services).

Identity is not a consideration or precursor—all who resist, regardless of skin color and ethnicity, are to be hunted down and brutally murdered, as Muammar Gaddafi was for the crime of announcing he planned to quit selling oil in US dollars and establish an African gold dinar. 

Iraq’s dictator, Saddam Hussein, wasn’t deposed and executed for threatening the US with weapons of mass destruction, as the ludicrous machinations of the Bush neocons claim. Saddam, a former CIA operative in a plot to assassinate Gen. Abd al-Karim Qasim in 1959, was a trusted asset until he stepped out of bounds, as did another CIA asset, Panama’s Manuel Noriega. 

The Israelis, holding considerable political sway over Congress and the White House, also demanded Saddam Hussein be taken down, primarily for his support of the Palestinians, but also because a nation with a pan-Arabist at the helm was unacceptable. 

Likewise Syria. The hereditary regime of the al-Assad family and the Ba’ath party long touted a pan-Arab worldview and this was unacceptable to Israel and the United States. 

The covert and illegal war by the US and Israel in Syria has nothing to do with human rights, as espoused. The objective is to destroy any resistance to Israeli expansionism, turn pan-Arabism into an Islamic movement that can be more easily radicalized and thus vilified, and balkanize the Middle East along ethnic and religious lines, thus realizing Zbigniew Brzezinski’s “three grand imperatives of imperial geostrategy… to prevent collusion and maintain security dependence among the vassals, to keep tributaries pliant and protected, and to keep the barbarians from coming together.”

Only politically expedient and exploitable “barbarians” (as they are considered by the ruling elite, never mind the disingenuous rhetoric) will be allowed to protest and demand justice. BLM racism, the absurd demand white people go prostrate in racial submission, and the criminal looting and burning of cities in the name of George Floyd have not set off alarm bells at the Council of Foreign Relations, the Trilateral Commission, the Federal Reserve, and the institutional thank tanks. These should be the focus of protest, not police departments militarized by the federal government. The Milwaukee Police Department is not the hydra-head. The federal government and its corporate and bankster overseers are the true purveyors of violent conflict and political polarization.  

The BLM represents the forefront of an effort to divide Americans along racial and political lines, thus keeping race and identity-based barbarians safely away from more critical issues of importance to the elite, most crucially a free hand to plunder and ransack natural resources, minerals, crude oil, and impoverish billions of people whom the ruling elite consider unproductive useless eaters and a hindrance to the drive to dominate, steal, and murder. 

The murder of millions in the Middle East, Asia, South and Central America over the last few decades by a psychopathic elite and its corporate mercenaries does not figure in the equation. 

It is an irrelevant historical footnote, if that, to an identity movement that does not threaten the elite and its political class. It is sad to say BLM serves the elite by ignoring or remaining ignorant of the main problem—boundless predation by a neoliberal criminal project that considers all—black, white, yellow, brown—as expliotable and dispensable serfs.

*

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.

Kurt Nimmo writes on his blog site, Another Day in the Empire, where this article was originally published. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from Palestine Solidarity Campaign

A Glaring Omission

With the 24/7 media circus coverage of Covid-19 I find it particularly interesting that there is an obvious glaring omission of some extremely important facts relative to dealing with a virus, especially one that is allegedly so virulent like this one. Yes, I read all about the critical need to shelter in place, stay inside away from other people, wash your hands constantly, avoid touching your eyes, nose or mouth, wear your face mask and by all means observe social distancing if you MUST venture outside for food!

Then it’s repeated ad infinitum that the ONLY hope we have of ever returning to a semblance of normalcy is to have a vaccine to protect us! Then to add some drama to this narrative the media highlights their death-o-meter scoreboard with the implied threat that you’ll be next IF you don’t obey the rules as dictated by the “experts”.

But what is assiduously avoided at all cost is any reference to our most potent defense against any virus; our body’s natural immune system. Try as I might I couldn’t find anything about this first line of defense on the World Health Organizations (WHO) website or Centers for Disease Control (CDC) website. It’s as if it doesn’t exist and is completely irrelevant.

If these organizations were genuinely concerned about the health of citizens they would obviously discuss the vital role a healthy immune system plays in protecting us from illnesses. But since they don’t its obvious some other motive is at work, at least to me, and I strongly suspect to other critical thinkers as well.

We now know from the science and data that over 90% of the people exposed to Covid-19 have no symptoms at all or at worst a mild cold. The flu vaccines we have are only effective 30% to 60% of the time and the bugs change regularly so a vaccine that worked OK last year may barely work at all this year. Let’s learn some more about our body’s immune system.

Virus protection without a vaccine

There is an enlightening article on Web MD titled: “How to use Your Immune System to Stay Healthy”. That’s a pretty straight forward title now isn’t it? Early on Bruce Polsky, MD, interim chairman department of medicine and chief division of infectious disease at St. Lukes-Roosevelt Hospital Center in New York City says:

“We are endowed with a great immune system that has been designed evolutionarily to keep us healthy.”

The article goes on. . .

“The immune system is your body’s natural defense system. It’s an intricate network of cells, tissues and organs that band together to defend your body against invaders. Those invaders can include bacteria, viruses, parasites, even fungus, all with the potential to make us sick. They are everywhere-in our homes, offices and backyards. . . “

The truth is no amount of social distancing, hand washing or face mask wearing is going to eliminate our exposure to these various bugs. That’s why we were created with this amazing first line of natural defense.

Here’s more from Web MD . . .

“The immune system can recognize millions of different antigens. And it can produce what it needs to eradicate nearly all of them. When it’s working properly, this elaborate defense system can keep health problems ranging from cancer to the common cold at bay. . . “

Wow! That’s pretty amazing stuff isn’t it! According to Web MD a properly functioning immune system can “keep health problems ranging from cancer to the common cold at bay.” So why isn’t this “science” being included in all the other health recommendations we’re being bombarded with daily? It seems to me that any “expert” worth their salt would be talking about the importance of a healthy immune system to stay healthy.

But there’s more . . .

The Web MD article noted that failure to eat a healthy diet, sitting around not exercising, not getting enough sleep and chronic stress can all lead to a compromised immune system. To quote Dr. Polsky again:

“. . . Lifestyle aspects are very, very important.”

So if our lifestyle is very, very important to staying healthy as the good doctor says ask yourself this question? Based on the Web M.D. article virtually all the results of the lockdown serve to weaken our immune systems. The stress of unemployment, constant harping about infections and rising death rates, lack of exercise and now a crack in our food distribution system all are known to weaken the human immune system.

I also find it quite interesting that large groups of people can shop at Walmart, Home Depot or other big box stores but they can’t attend their local church even if it’s a “drive through” service?

Web M.D. says:

“Research shows that people with close friendships and strong support systems tend to be healthier than those who lack such supports.”

During times of crisis people need encouragement and their faith built up more than ever before. Mandating people huddle in fear in their homes with constant media reports of infections and death bombarding them continually is there any wonder peoples immune systems are under severe stress?

Boosting Your Immune System

If you would like to boost your immune system consider checking out Dr. Mercola’s website at www.mercola.com . He’s an osteopathic MD with a focus on natural health. There are a variety of simple, low cost resources you can utilize to support good immune system health so you can hopefully fight off the bugs that are a part of everyday life.

And above all, avoid the main stream media like the plague! Their fear mongering is doing more to harm the nation’s health than any virus ever could! Boost your immune system and laugh at Covid-19 and all the cowering sheeple you see furtively scurrying about with their masks on. Humans were created with a natural immune system that has served them well for thousands of years to combat flu bugs. By following some common sense steps you can ensure your immune system is functioning well and provides the first-line-of-defense that protects 90% of the population.

*

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

Featured image is from Shutterstock

While it may be common knowledge that fire departments originated as private organisations to defend the interests of property insurers, it has probably been forgotten that in the US police were originally the hired gangs of landowners and merchant-industrialists. As urban conurbations like New York City grew, the police were the action arm of the political machines that served to dominate native and immigrant workers. A job in the police department was a patronage post, i.e. one either bought a job or by demonstrated willingness to act for the political boss(es) could be given a shield, a license to use violence and commit crimes on behalf of the machine or for personal gain as long as it did not conflict with the interests of the former. 

In the expanding continental empire that became the USA, the rural police were either the auxiliaries of the slave patrols or the “deputised” vigilantes in the service of big landowners, railroads, mining companies or ranchers. Community policing, let alone “democratic” policing was never a meaningful part of the US political system. What has recently been condemned as corrupt and brutal policing is actually consistent with historical tradition of localised repression.

When in the so-called Progressive Era corporate cartels realised it was necessary to counter emergent mass democratic movements, the ruling elite began a process of “professionalisation”. This trend actually covered most of the West. Ideological catalyst for “progressivism” was the adoption of the ideas of Auguste Comte, best illustrated in the case of Brazil whose flag today is adorned with the motto of Positivism (and the Positivist Church) “Order and Progress”. The emphasis was on technocratic order, embodied in the military as an emerging scientific bureaucracy. Progress meant resisting democratic demands with gradual technocratic solutions.

In the US this meant professionalisation of local government and integration of the private/ partisan police forces into a permanent civil service. Thus the gangs of capitalists acquired protected status as part of the new, modern, professional government apparatus which rationally could counter the “irrationality” attributed to democracy, not least of which were the horror of communists and anarchists among the immigrant population. In many US cities, this meant that the ethnic hierarchy became entrenched in the forces of “law and order”. Irish came to dominate East Coast urban armies– later Italians were allowed to join. Blacks were excluded– also because one of the jobs of the police was control over Blacks and other racial inferiors in the labour force. Even today the major urban armies of the US Eastern seaboard, e.g. Boston, New York, Philadelphia, are dominated by Irish and Italian dynasties for whom the police force is also a cult.

Tourist trap, New York City

Not only was the struggle for democratic and socialist government subverted by imposing “progressive” public administration, these professional governments were equipped with private armies, which were then given a badge and virtual immunity from any form of civil or criminal prosecution. Although some may know the history, it is important to recall that these policies were developed, supported and ultimately imposed by the plutocrats of the 19th century, Morgan, Rockefeller, Carnegie, later Ford and others both directly and through philanthropic foundations– established to evade taxes and distribute bribery– and make public policy at arm’s length.

Under Woodrow Wilson, that South Carolina racist and Princeton professor promoted to POTUS, the Pinkerton Detective Agency was essentially moved from its role as private and mercenary political hammer to a State apparatus und A. Mitchell Palmer, who installed them under a fascist bureaucrat named John Edgar Hoover— who then turned it into the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the US equivalent of what Hitler established as the Reichssicherheitshauptamt (the controlling office for all Nazi political and criminal police forces).

The US Constitution does not provide explicitly for police powers– except in the Second Amendment. That infamous addition is usually interpreted as the right for anyone in the US to own and bear firearms. However that is incorrect. The Second Amendment was adopted to protect the slave states from federal interference in their “slave patrols”, the militias organised under state authority to hunt runaway slaves, discipline slaves and prevent resp. suppress slave rebellions. In other words, the implied police power of the Second Amendment was conceived as an instrument for controlling slaves and later Blacks after slavery was abolished. This is the license that the Constitution gives to the thugs clothed in municipal or state uniforms as professional armies for the oligarchy that owns the United States.

After World War I those owners sought means to establish federal jurisdiction over political dissent, especially given the enormous numbers of urban immigrants from inferior European stock. People like Henry Ford realised that suppressing the consumption of alcohol would create a nationwide pretext for social control without openly contravening the supposed constitutional liberties, e.g. the First Amendment or those forbidding unreasonable search and seizure or denial of due process. The Volstead Act was adopted and the Prohibition amendment entered into force. For the first time since the Civil War, the federal government had a mandate to coordinate policing throughout the US and to mobilise the corporate/ machine police forces for political control. This not only made families like the Kennedys and Bronfmans fabulously rich, it helped establish the corporate form of crime of which Meyer Lansky became the paragon (although popular culture focuses on Italians rather than Jews).

The federal prohibition of alcoholic beverages did not end drink but created the context for a massive expansion of corporate and state police power. Now the taxpayer– obviously not corporations or their plutocratic owners– could pay the bill for their own repression. This would not have been possible were the US not historically saturated with the hypocritical theocratic culture of Oliver Cromwell’s puritan republic. Since “white” American politics– even abolitionism– has always been dominated by the theocratic tradition of the colonial era, prohibition of alcohol could be promoted as a necessary imposition of moral conduct upon inferior European stock– where wine and beer were ordinary food– and as a purification of the body politic. In fact it was an alibi for political policing of immigrants, socialists, and any other “un-American” activities.

When it became clear that Prohibition’s days were numbered and an enormous army of uniformed thugs would suddenly be unemployed, people like Harry Anslinger, wed to the Mellon dynasty and a former head of the Pennsylvania Railroad’s private army, lobbied for the prohibition of narcotic drugs. One of his barely veiled reasons was that policing narcotics would also preserve an instrument for policing Blacks. So the Federal Bureau of Narcotics became the primary national race police while its senior rival the Federal Bureau of Investigation was the US secret political police (what was called under Hitler the Gestapo– abbreviation for GeheimeStaatspolizei, as opposed to the Schutzpolizei or protective police).

Together these two federal agencies began the process of shaping disparate and independent warlords with their municipal armies into forces that could be mobilised either for political or racialist purposes. The so-called New Deal not only introduced a vast array of federal interventions in the economy and social organisation, some of which were barely socialist but most of which were proto-fascist/ corporatist, it nationalised the police powers (and overseas subversion). This meant the corporations were no longer directly liable for the actions of their gangs, e.g. the Pinkertons, Ford Service or the numerous railway and factory police forces deployed to control workers and their communities. The uniforms and badges were exchanged and now these private armies were official agents of state repression. The fiction of civilian control survived in part due to corporate and jurisdictional jealousies. However these armies became entrenched parts of the civilian bureaucracy, unionised, and established legacies that made many forces virtually hereditary castes.

It is against this background that one needs to understand the decades of opposition to police in the US, mainly from non-white and poor communities. This opposition is not based on occasional abuse or failures in training. It is based on the intuitively recognised fact that the police in the US– as in the rest of the US Empire– are an army of occupation. They are, individual police officers of good faith notwithstanding, the daily terror and threat of terror, which is the complement to Hollywood propaganda and the dictatorship of the workplace. It is no accident that someone like Dan Mitreone, an Indiana police chief, became a notorious trainer of torturers in Latin American police forces before he was kidnapped and executed. Michigan State University ran, or served as a conduit for, programs throughout the US war against Vietnam that brought members of these municipal terror organisations to Southeast Asia to torture Vietnamese.

Of course policing in Britain and throughout Europe is also derived from state terror policies. Yet only in Britain and the US does one have such an enormous investment in the myth of good police officers. The late journalist Alexander Cockburn once wrote that Britain had the only police department that was treated as a global tourist attraction. Hollywood has done everything possible to give the NYPD that reputation too– although even less deserved. FBI and DEA have become “brands” for leisure attire. Have you seen anyone wearing a “GESTAPO” tee shirt?

Image on the right: Tourist trap, London (Brixton, 1981)

The current wave of demonstrations and demands for an end to police repression and even an end to the police force as such may shock some who think that it would be enough to end racialist abuse by the police, to finally convict police of the capital crimes they commit and punish them accordingly. In a country proud of its death penalty, the number of police condemned for murder and punished accordingly can certainly be counted on one hand — or less! The number of people wrongly convicted and/ or executed for allegedly killing police gangsters is enormous. The City of Brotherly Love is infamous here.

The problem, of which the murder of George Floyd is only one example among thousands (or perhaps millions throughout US history), is complex. First of all the warlords– the corporate owners of municipalities and their armies called police– have to be restrained. These armies, like the paramilitary units that same US corporate oligarchy maintains in its overseas protectorates, have independent means– e.g. through their control of drug, gambling and other cash flows. They can buy, blackmail or otherwise suborn politicians and judiciary. They are organised in powerful unions with cult-like loyalty through generations. They are supplied by the covert internal security apparatus established since Hoover’s ascent and enriched after the war on Vietnam and 9-11—now officially vested in the Department of Homeland Security. They can rely on a perverse criminal code, both at local and federal level, which legitimates their functions. Last but not least they are integrated in the penal value chain since the privatisation of prisons and other disciplinary operations. There is so much money involved that it is mind boggling.

Although I remain sceptical as to the actual organisation(s) behind the wave of demonstrations and actions aimed at police forces and their crimes, the issues are real. An adequate and dialectically developing movement to address these long suppressed issues will need to deal with the complexity of police history and especially the powerful financial and political interests behind this municipal militarism that plagues the US and constitutes one of the main obstacles to democratic struggle 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.

All images in this article are from the author

On George Floyd final viewing day and celebration of his life (under the Democratic Party supervision), the fascistic minded President Trump is seeking another victim! He has tweeted: “Buffalo protester shoved by Police could be an ANTIFA provocateur. 75 year old Martin Gugino was pushed away … he fell harder than was pushed. … Could be a set up?”

It is imperative to understand that the President’s tweet is not a vicious attack only against one person; what the tweet is propagating is that the Trump administration is declaring the last warning against those who dare to stand up for freedom of speech, even if dissent comes from 75 year old Martin Gugino.

Mr. Martin Gugino is a true peace and justice activist, an elder who fought against injustice for decades, a humble man who was against the United States military prison in Guantanamo Bay according to his friends. I don’t know Brother Martin Gugino, but I know there are many peace activists just like him in Houston where I live.

It is time to demand that Mr. Trump should resign. Working people and youth must lead the mass movement to force Trump out now! … Before it’s too late.

*

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.

Massoud Nayeri is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

All images in this article are from the author

In a fractious election year that has already witnessed Russiagate, impeachment and a pandemic, Americans are now forced to contend with the malignant scourge of rioting and looting following the killing of George Floyd at the hands of a white cop. Now, many Democrats seem content to the let the whole house burn down to achieve some sort of twisted justice .

To get a true sense of the mob mentality that is now leading the United States straight to the abyss, you could do no worse than a visit to the nation’s embattled capital. There, District of Columbia Mayor Muriel Bowser recently evicted 1,200 members of the National Guard from hotels where they had been staying during their brief deployment, which included everything from cleaning graffiti from buildings to patrolling the streets.

Just heard that Mayor Bowser is kicking the Utah National Guard out of all DC hotels tomorrow. More than 1200 troops from 10 states are being evicted. This is unacceptable. 1/2

— Mike Lee (@SenMikeLee) June 5, 2020

The eviction notice came just days after the White House was the scene of heavy protests and just before the weekend (June 6-7) when hundreds of thousands of demonstrators are planning to march in Washington, D.C. against racism and police brutality. And considering what is already known about the involvement of ANTIFA, the radical leftist organization that is slated for status as a domestic terrorist group, wouldn’t any mayor be grateful for the additional layer of security? Not Mayor Bowser, apparently, who explained in a letter sent to various state governors that the presence of the Guard is “inflaming demonstrators” and therefore should be removed from the U.S. capital. In other words, the city should be expected to bow to fears of upsetting the mob as opposed to preparing for a worst-case scenario of destructive riots, a word that has become politically incorrect for the mainstream media to even mention.

Unfortunately, this sort of strategy for dealing with the possibility of violence is not restricted to D.C., but prevalent in a number of other cities currently under Democratic control.

Video posted of LAPD officers outraged over proposed cuts following protests addressing LA City Councilwoman Monica Rodriguez. “Now you’re cutting from their families and they put everything on the line? We are going to fight… At the ballot box.” @CBSLA @CBSNews pic.twitter.com/9YXcMCd3Hd

— JASMINE VIEL (@jasmineviel) June 5, 2020

In Los Angeles, for example, police officers are up in arms over the city’s decision to partially defund the police department while donating a quarter-of-a-billion dollars to – wait for it – Black Lives Matter, the activist group that is not only organizing protests across the country against a purportedly endemic ‘racism,’ but demanding a display of fealty to their objectives as well.

Unless one wants to be branded a foaming at the mouth ‘white supremacist’ it is necessary to publicly absolve oneself of this original sin by ‘taking a knee,’ a controversial gesture first performed by former NFL player Colin Kaepernick who refused to stand during the pre-game singing of the national anthem in protest of police brutality. While many people would agree that a major overhaul of police tactics is desperately needed, showing disrespect for the American flag and everything good it stands for is not best way for moving forward as a nation.

@JoeBiden takes a knee during meeting with Black leaders. pic.twitter.com/nUKzoYSWBg

— Audrey Washington (@AudreyWSBTV) June 2, 2020

While Los Angeles and New York City appear to have lost their minds, the rest of Democratic country must have some respect for authority, right? Dream on. In the Midwestern city of Minneapolis, for example, Mayor Jacob Frey attempted to pacify protestors at a rally when he pledged “deep-seated structural reform” in the police department. That was not enough to pacify the mob. Prodded by a foul-mouthed female activist who wanted the mayor to commit to defunding the Minneapolis police, Frey – bravely, it must be said, considering he was in the middle of a veritable throng – rejected the idea. What happened next was a sight to behold as Mayor Jacob Frey was forced to leave the rally in a walk of shame as hundreds of demonstrators chanted, “Go home, Jacob, go home.”

Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey showed up today at the protests. He was asked if he would commit to abolishing/defunding the police. Incredible to witness crowd hold him directly accountable. Man did a literal walk of shame. pic.twitter.com/v645mfIZHt

— Sana Saeed (@SanaSaeed) June 6, 2020

To add some context, the city of Minneapolis says the looting and property damage following the death of George Floyd has caused about $55 million in destruction, which includes the torching of more than 200 buildings. The price tag for the damage is expected to rise in the coming days and weeks, according to city officials. Is this really the best time to be talking about abolishing the police?

Honestly, the best thing for naive White liberals in Minnesota (who want to become a minority so bad) is to have the police disbanded. Let them live in an enriched diverse multiculti society without protection, w/o the law punishing crimes. Let's see what happens then.

— Lana (@LanaLokteff) June 6, 2020

So how do the Liberals hope to take law and order into their own hands now that the police are being shown the door? By bailing the looters and vandals out of prison, of course. With the US media unable to articulate the simple word “riots,” Hollywood celebrities has shown a willingness to come to the aid of the law breakers, whom, thus far, have not invaded the former’s well-guarded palatial homes.

Chrissy Teigen, for example, American model and TV personality, announced on Twitter that she would be donating $100,000 “to the bail outs of protestors across the country.”

The obvious problem with Teigen’s message (which generated almost 1 million ‘likes’), is that rarely does it happen in America that people are arrested for merely assembling in protest. People are arrested in the United States for destroying property, looting and physically assaulting others, which is exactly the sort of behavior we have seen play out on numerous occasions across the country for days. And not only is the media serving as official apologist for the violence, it is actively encouraging it.

In a stunning development, our office has learned that every single one of the St. Louis looters and rioters arrested were released back onto the streets by local prosecutor Kim Gardner. pic.twitter.com/tMZVAyHssw

— Eric Schmitt (@Eric_Schmitt) June 3, 2020

Teen Vogue told its young, impressionable audience that the real provocateurs of the mayhem, Antifa, is actually in the business of creating a better world.

“Antifa grows out of a larger revolutionary politics that aspires toward creating a better world, but the primary motivation is to stop racists from organizing,” it explained in a tweet.

At the same time, Slate tweeted out at the peak of the violence that “Non-violence is an important tool for protests, but so is violence.” In the subheading to the title of the linked article, ‘A History of Violent Protest,’ it read: “A nice, peaceful protest may not bring about the big structural changes America needs.”

Apparently those “structural changes” are the defunding of police forces across the country, together with the opening of the border to illegal migrants. In other words, total anarchy and the absolute destruction of the United States as we know it. For an elite contingency of people who can afford a small army of armed security contractors to guard their fenced-in homes, such a disastrous outcome is of little consequences to them, at least for the time being.

We don't have a systemic racism problem. We have a systemic victimization problem.

— Burgess Owens (@BurgessOwens) June 5, 2020

Many people may read the above accounts and conclude that insanity has gripped the Democratic mindset. That observation, however, is not wholly accurate. What is happening before our eyes is a carefully executed plan at work; the premeditated destruction of the entire fabric of the nation in order to usurp Trump in November and impose neo-Liberal ideology across the country (some have called the movement ‘socialist’ in nature, but it must be pointed out that the socialist states that have appeared on the world map have had respect for law and order; the so-called ‘progressives’ now calling the shots inside of the Democratic Party apparently do not).

The Democrats want the country to descend into so much chaos that when the Trump administration is finally forced to do what the Liberals won’t – restore some semblance of law and order on the streets of America, possibly with help of the military – the Republicans will be accused of using ‘excessive force’ against peaceful protesters.

Thus, we have reached a most remarkable moment in the history of the United States when a group of individuals are so obsessed with power that they would destroy the very country they hope to govern to achieve that end. That says everything we need to know about their ‘leadership’ qualities.

*

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

Robert Bridge is an American writer and journalist.

Featured image is from Black Agenda Report

Trump regime hardliners want imports of food, medicines, medical equipment, and other humanitarian goods blocked from entering Iran.

They want the world community going along with a high crime against humanity on the Iranian people.

They want them denied treatment for serious illnesses, wanting thousands to suffer and die.

They want them starved to death from lack of access to food and other humanitarian imports.

Nations supplying essentials to life, health, and welfare to Iran are threatened with secondary sanctions — a euphemism for wanting international trade to the country illegally blocked.

The US Constitution’s 8th Amendment prohibits “cruel and unusual punishments.”

In 1992, the US ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR).

It’s also a signatory to the UN General Assembly’s adopted Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

ICCPR and ICESCR are binding international and constitutional law.

Despite being legally bound to observe the principles of these laws to the letter, the US grievously, consistently, and repeatedly breaches them at home and worldwide more than any other UN member state.

It’s responsible for more deaths, destruction, and human misery over a longer duration than any other nation in world history — bar none.

The US Supreme Court time and again upheld the ban on cruel and unusual punishment in all forms, including the right of prisoners to humane treatment (Estelle v. Gamble, 1976).

Since its 1979 revolution, ending a generation of US imposed fascist tyranny, Washington has been at war with Iran by other means.

Its unlawful actions are all about wanting the Islamic Republic returned to US client state status — its sovereign rights abolished, its resources plundered, the people exploited like serfs, Israel’s main regional rival state neutralized, despite threatening no one.

In pursuing its hostile objectives, the Trump regime has gone way beyond where its predecessors went by imposing prohibited cruel and unusual punishments on all Iranians.

Its latest unlawful action aims to starve them to death. On June 8, Iranophobe hardliner Pompeo said the following:

“Today, sanctions against the Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines (IRISL) and its Shanghai-based subsidiary, E-Sail Shipping Company Ltd (E-Sail) have come into effect,” adding:

“(A)ny government, entity, or individual that chooses to continue doing business with IRISL and/or E-Sail now risks exposure to US (secondary) sanctions.”

Unilaterally imposed sanctions by nations against others constitute a UN Charter breach.

Authority to take this action is afforded exclusively to Security Council members, not individual or groups of nations on their own.

US sanctions on Iran have nothing to do with regional peace, stability, security, and the rule of law, nothing to do with targeting alleged illegal or improper Iranian actions — Trump regime accusations against the country invented, not real.

They’re mainly directed against its people, including the Trump regime’s latest action — wanting maximum cruel and unusual punishment imposed on them, a flagrant breach of international and US constitutional law, under its Supremacy Clause.

Unacceptable Trump regime actions against Iran are built on a foundation of bald-faced Big Lies and deception.

The Islamic Republic is the leading proponent of regional peace and stability.

From inception to today, its legitimate nuclear program has no military component, no evidence of seeking one — confirmed in annual US intelligence community assessments of possible global threats.

Iran poses no threats to other nations — regionally or elsewhere. Its ruling authorities observe international law and agreements like the JCPOA.

Its involvement in Iraq, Syria, and elsewhere are all about combatting (US supported) terrorism, not proliferating it — polar opposite how Washington, NATO, Israel, and their imperial allies operate, breaching international law in pursuit of their diabolical aims.

On Tuesday, Iran’s Press TV headlined the following:

“US enforces sanctions on Iran’s shipping network expected to hinder imports of food, medical supplies,” saying:

Lawless Trump regime policy “comes at a time when the country is fighting to contain a deadly coronavirus outbreak,” adding:

“(T)he US Treasury Department’s website says (new) sanctions also apply to ‘agricultural commodities, food, medicine or medical devices,’ threatening anyone who engages in humanitarian transactions” with Tehran.

In 2018, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) ruled against the Trump regime for breaching the 1955 US-Iran Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations, and Consular Rights.

It prohibits imposition of restrictions or prohibitions of Iranian imports or exports except for specifically banned items.

The agreement notably prohibits restrictions or prohibitions of imports or exports of humanitarian goods to include food, medicines, medical equipment, and whatever else relates to the health and well-being of the Iranian people.

The ICJ’s ruling against specific Trump regime sanctions on Iran was ignored.

It’s long past time for the world community to reject US war on humanity that’s all about advancing its imperium no matter the human cost.

Russia and China slammed unlawful Trump regime actions against Iran.

Sergey Lavrov called them “irresponsible (and) absolutely unacceptable.”

Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov said Trump regime actions against Iran breached Security Council Resolution 2231, affirming the JCPOA, making it binding international law, adding:

“(I)f these actions are continued, it will inevitably lead to a serious crisis of the UN Security Council and undermine its authority.”

On Wednesday, Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Abbas Mousavi slammed the latest unlawful Trump regime action, saying:

“Iran will not surrender with such sanctions and pressures.”

“Sanctions that are being announced by American officials are (as unlawful) as previous ones.”

If increasing numbers of world community nations no longer observe illegal US actions on Iran and other countries, Washington will be transformed into a paper tiger.

It would be a major step in the pursuit of world peace and stability over endless US-led wars of aggression against nations threatening no one.

*

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.

Read Part I here.

A colossal failure

If we judge the Greek program not on the basis of our own criteria, but on the basis of the goals it set itself and of its predictions, we can safely say it was a gigantic failure, by far the biggest in the history of western leading economic institutions, like the IMF, the EU and the ECB.

In the future, every economics handbook in the world will begin by a chapter under the title “The Greek Bail-Out Program: What Economists must not do in any country”.

The Greek program was launched, supposedly, to help Greece cope with a situation where the “markets” (the international finance) were refusing to lend it, its huge debt considered unsustainable.

In 2010, when the program was launched, Greek sovereign debt was 129% of GDP. Now it is more than 185%. (After the Coronavirus, it will probably be more than 200%.)

The bail-out program not only failed to address the sovereign debt problem, it added to that an equally important problem of a huge private debt, created as a result of the Troika (ECB, EU, IMF) measures. Back in 2010, the non-served loans to banks were insignificant. Now, near half of all loans are not served.

Back in 2010, Greek Banks had about 220-240 bn. euros in deposits. Now they are no longer Greek and have half of that sum.

Back in 2010, Greece was in a much more powerful position vis-à-vis its lenders, which were private banks and funds. Its debt was regulated by Greek law and its national parliament. Disputes related to the debt were under the jurisdiction of the Greek courts. The Greek debt was denominated in Greek national currency, so if Greece left the Eurozone, the Debt would be undervalued as much as the new Greek national currency introduced.

Now the debt is owned by states and international institutions and ruled by British Colonial law, all Greek public property has become a mortgage to the service of the debt, its constitutional protection lifted. Debt related disputes are under the jurisdiction of foreign courts and it is denominated in Euros.

The Greek debt restructuring (PSI, 2011-12), was the first in History undertaken against the interests of the debtor country! They changed the legal status of the debt, while slashing the reserves of Greek pension funds, hospitals, universities etc.

The country has encountered a recession three times bigger than the IMF and the EU were predicting, not to speak of the predictions by the then Greek Finance Minister who was speaking for growth already by 2012. This is why we stated this program was a colossal failure even on its own terms.

The IMF, European Governments, the EU and the ECB use the services of some of the best economists of the world. How it was possible to make such an enormous “mistake”? If it was really a mistake, why did they not correct it and why haven’t they yet?

This is what gives us the right to ask the question if this program was a mistake or, rather, and from the very beginning, a program intended to achieve such a result. The IMF representative in Greece, the Danish Paul Thomsen, a kind of economic hit man and sadistic personality like most of the people who were treating with Greece on behalf of international organizations, has revealed the hidden goals of the program when he stated that Greek salaries had to be somewhere between the Portuguese and the Bulgarian.

By stating that, he inadvertently revealed the philosophy of the EU leaders today. They do not understand the EU as an organization contributing to the improvement of the living standards. They understand the EU as an institution lowering the living standards and social rights of its members.

We want to remind our readers that this program was not imposed on Greece only by Germany and the EU. For its imposition to become possible Berlin had to enter into a tacit alliance with international banks to attack Greece and create the conditions justifying the program. The program was also approved by the IMF, against its own rules and principles. Such a thing could not happen if International Finance and the US administration did not want it to happen. Not to speak about the role of US banks like Goldman Sachs in creating, first of all, the Greek debt bubble and then making it explode.

The result of the crisis was the destruction of Greece, the political capital of Germany and the weakening of Europe on behalf of international Banks and the United States. (The same happened, by the way, during the Yugoslavia crisis in the ‘90s, when the aggressive and imperialistic policy of Germany, Austria and the Vatican greatly contributed to the bloody disintegration of Western Balkans only to rehabilitate US – NATO role in European affairs and destroy for good any prerequisite for a common European Foreign and Defense Policy).

*

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

The killing of black man George Floyd by white Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin has produced the highest level of national unrest seen in the United States since the 1960s. Tens of thousands of protesters are demonstrating against racism and perceived police brutality. As it also comes at a time of coronavirus pandemic and record unemployment, it has the potential to change the U.S. in fundamental ways. The core issue is that many on the left, as well as some on the right, see America’s police as something like an “occupying force,” increasingly self-serving enemies of the people rather than careful protectors of the taxpayers’ lives and property.

There are already calls to “defund” the police in an attempt to strip local forces of responsibilities and resources that have little to do with community policing relative to actual crime rates, which are low nationwide. And the concept of community itself is under scrutiny and is itself being “reimagined” in an effort to compel police forces and the citizens they interact with to work together more cooperatively for the good of all.

History teaches us that changes in seemingly entrenched attitudes and beliefs occur regularly, though they can sometimes move glacially slowly. Meanwhile, some loony birds on the left are also promoting more radical schemes. One of the more amusing was posted up recently by Alyssa Rosenberg at the Washington Post. Rosenberg maintained that it is now time for Hollywood and the entertainment media to get involved by shutting down all movies and television series that present the police in a positive light.

Rosenberg puts it this way “…there’s something Hollywood can do to put its money where its social media posts are: immediately halt production on cop shows and movies and rethink the stories it tells about policing in America. For a century, Hollywood has been collaborating with police departments, telling stories that whitewash police shootings and valorizing an action-hero style of policingover the harder, less dramatic work of building relationships with the communities cops are meant to serve and protect… The result is an addiction to stories that portray police departments as more effective than they actually are; crime as more prevalent than it actually is; and police use of force as consistently justified. There are always gaps between reality and fiction, but given what policing in America has too often become, Hollywood’s version of it looks less like fantasy and more like complicity.”

Rosenberg has a point, but television shows and movies are fiction and most people are quite capable of watching an entertaining story and not having it become a substitute for reality. And there is nothing particularly wrong in believing that cops should be good guys who solve serious crimes, which is in fact what many police officers actually do. She instead calls for more portrayal of cops as do-little-or-nothing jerks who spend most of their time writing traffic tickets and typing up reports. If she had been around in the nineteenth century, she would no doubt have been conventionally liberal knee jerk antiwar, if such existed at the time. She would have advised Leo Tolstoy to have his Russian soldiers in War and Peace spend most of their time peeling potatoes, smoking and bitching rather than marching off in columns heroically to confront Napoleon at Austerlitz.

One issue that has surfaced in a number of places is the militarization of police, which has been a reality of “maintaining public order” and “fighting terrorism” since 9/11. Police now receive surplus military equipment, to include armored cars, body armor and automatic weapons. One wonders, for example, what my semi-rural county here in Virginia has been doing with its armored car, which, as I recall, the local sheriff’s department did not even want. Ordinary policemen are also increasingly trained in anti-terrorist tactics, to include the increasing deployment of swat teams to perform actions that are not necessarily confrontational, to include serving warrants and collecting fines on library books. Many innocent civilians of all races have been killed as a result.

The militarization of American law enforcement has been in a sense institutionalized through programs set up by the federal government and the states to train with Israeli police, a mentoring relationship established by Michael Chertoff when he was Secretary of Homeland Security. Joint training programs run in Israel are being used to indoctrinate American police forces and are difficult to comprehend as related to normal policing as the Israelis are clueless when it comes to conducting investigations or protecting all of their country’s citizens. Israel’s cops are at the forefront of state violence against Palestinians as well as serving as protectors of rampaging heavily armed settlers who destroy Arab livelihoods so they can steal their land. The Israeli police are also quite good at using the “Palestinian chair” for torture when they are not shooting Arab teenagers in the back. They also invented skunk water, a disgusting smelling chemical spray initially used against Arab demonstrators, and were the first major police force to regularly employ so-called rubber bullets, which can kill or maim.

In fact, there have been suggestions that certain American policemen might well be picking up some unanticipated pointers from the Israelis. Georgia has been experiencing a surge in officer involved shootings, nearly half of the victims being unarmed or shot from behind. As this has unfolded, the state continues to pursue a “police exchange” program with Israel run through Georgia State University.

The police “exchange programs” began twenty-seven years ago in 1992 and are paid for through grants from the U.S. Department of Justice as well as from the state and local governments. Reportedly “law enforcement from [a number of] U.S. states have participated in the program, including those from Tennessee, Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, North Carolina, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Nevada, Michigan, New Jersey, New York, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, Washington, D.C., and West Virginia.” In some states and local jurisdictions, the Israel exchange program is managed by the Anti-Defamation League, which also sponsors propagandistic seminars on Israeli “counter-terrorism” practices throughout the U.S.

Some states and cities, however, concerned over being linked to Israel’s militarized police forces and their brutal occupation of Palestinian land, are beginning to withdraw from the training program. Recently the Vermont State Police, the Northampton, Massachusetts police department and the Durham North Carolina city police have canceled their planned training in Israel.

There has been particular concern expressed over the Israeli “us-versus-them” dual track mode of policing where the 20% of the country’s citizens that are Arab are regarded as an enemy while the settlers who prey on the Palestinians are automatically protected by police solely because they are Jewish. Selective policing based on race or ethnicity might be another gift from Israel that visiting American policemen bring home with them. In Israel, lethal force is frequently resorted to on a “shoot-to-kill” basis in any incident involving Arabs and Jews, even when there is no serious threat.

A favorite technique used by the Israeli police to subdue an Arab is the very knee on neck used by Derek Chauvin that killed George Floyd. Minnesota has been actively involved in training its police with the Israelis, to include participation by over 100 officers in a 2012 conference in Minneapolis hosted by Israel’s Chicago consulate. There, they learned the “restraint procedures” employed by Israelis. The conference was jointly hosted by the FBI, the facilities were provided by the city, and the meeting itself was funded by the federal government and the state.

While it is not known if Chauvin actually underwent the specific training, the Israeli techniques have made their way into the city’s police manual, which has been, not surprisingly, removed from online. An archived copy of the relevant section on how to control someone who is resisting arrest does still exist however and can be viewed at this site. It includes “Minneapolis Police Department Use of Force Policy: 5-311, Use of Neck Restraints: Non-deadly force option. Defined as compressing one or both sides of a person’s neck with an arm or leg, without applying direct pressure to the trachea or airway (front of the neck).” There are admittedly some caveats on the use of the technique, but it is generally approved for use in subduing someone who is resisting arrest, which may plausibly have been the case with Floyd.

That all means that Officer Derek Chauvin used a technique taught to American police by Israeli trainers even if his judgement can be seriously faulted in terms of how he did it and how long her sustained it. He may have received the training with the full cooperation and financial support of both the Federal government, the government of the state of Minnesota and the city of Minneapolis. His lawyers will be able to argue, which they surely will, that he used a technique that was endorsed by the city of Minneapolis’s police manual and was also part of officer training with Israel. This makes for an interesting back story and an unbiased judge and jury, if that can be found anywhere on the planet, just might find Chauvin and his three colleagues innocent, which would be a travesty but inevitable in a system where police have effectively been trained and licensed to kill.

*

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

Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation (Federal ID Number #52-1739023) that seeks a more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is https://councilforthenationalinterest.org, address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email is [email protected].

Featured image is from The Unz Review

“The media is the most powerful entity on earth. Because they control the minds of the masses, they have the power to make the innocent guilty and to make the guilty innocent, and that’s power…If you’re not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the oppressing.” – Malcolm X

“For one bright moment back in the late 1960s, we actually believed that we could change our country. We had identified the enemy. We saw it up close, we had its measure, and we were very hopeful that we would prevail. The enemy was hollow where we had substance. All of that substance was destroyed by an assassin’s bullet.” – William Pepper (page 15, The Plot to Kill King)

***

Across America, as well as in Western Europe, there is an ongoing campaign against racism following the dramatic events in Minneapolis. Our thoughts are with George Floyd, his family and friends.  We stand in solidarity with African-Americans who are the target of police killings and racial discrimination. Colonial and contemporary history has left its mark. Today, African-Americans are also the victims of neoliberalism which triggers poverty, social inequality and unemployment.

The campaign against racism including the protest movements cannot be divorced from the broader battle against neoliberalism and the carefully designed instruments of economic and social oppression.

At this juncture, there is an important question which must be addressed. The Covid-19 pandemic, which is based on manipulated data coupled with a fear campaign is destroying people’s lives. It is an act of economic and social warfare against humanity. It is carried out Worldwide.

The most recent evidence from a leaked report of Germany’s Ministry of the Interior confirms that the COVID-19 virus is a “Global False Alarm”. According to the team of experts contracted by the German Government, Covid-19 is of lesser significance than the 2017-2018 seasonal flu, which barely made the headlines. While the report acknowledges  the dangers to public health, it nonetheless emphasizes that “The danger is obviously no greater than that of many other viruses. There is no evidence that this was more than a false alarm”. [in German in the report: globalen Fehlalarm]

Other reports come to similar conclusions not to mention the manipulation of death certificates.

Italy’s lockdown in early March was justified by quoting “fake data”. Vittorio Sgarbi, MP stated in Parliament that the closure of 60% of Italy’s economy was taken on the basis of an “estimated” 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 from other things claimed Sgarbi, “… the virus was little more than an influenza. Don’t lie! Tell the truth!”

The lies are numerous:  Both in Britain and the US, “duplicate counting” has been used to inflate the reported positive cases.

Many prominent scientists and politicians have courageously spoken out:

Senator Dr. Scott Jensen of Minnesota “received a  7-page document that showed him how to fill out a death certificate as a “COVID-19 diagnosis” even when there isn’t a lab test confirming the diagnosis”. According to Jensen:

“Right now Medicare is determining that if you have a COVID-19 admission to the hospital you get $13,000. If that COVID-19 patient goes on a ventilator you get $39,000, three times as much. Nobody can tell me after 35 years in the world of medicine that sometimes those kinds of things impact on what we do.” (Dr. Sen. Scott Jensen, from Fox Interview, emphasis added)

Meanwhile, politicians have been lying through their teeth, the media has been entrusted to sustaining the fear campaign. People’s lives are threatened. Lies and Bribes are the driving force. Politicians and scientists are co-opted.

All of which is intent on justifying “social distancing” as well as enforcing the infamous lockdown which confines people to their homes, in many cases without income, food and  medical attention.  And people obey because they are scared.

But why have these issues not been raised by the anti-racism campaign?

Confinement is “racist”. It serves as a  justification to deny peoples’ fundamental right to employment. It’s social engineering. The lockdown destroys our institutions, undermines family life and social relations, destroys culture (including music and the arts), closes down schools and universities, and of course it impoverishes large sectors of the World population.

And if the pandemic is “A Global False Alarm” (Official Germany Report), there is no justification for closing down the economy. But that report along many other independent reports is subject to media censorship.

The Anti-Racism Campaign and The Lockdown

The lockdown from the outset is being used as a means to destabilize the US economy and create massive unemployment. Why then is the campaign “against racism” firmly supportive of the lockdown?

This campaign against racism is not a protest movement against the financial elites who are pressuring governments to postpone the reopening of the national economy as long as possible.

Big Money controls the politicians. They control the media that wages the fear campaign. They are also the creditors of the State, who are now in the process of concocting a multi-trillion dollar loan package for indebted governments. Their intent is to deregulate the labor market, and pick up the pieces of bankrupt enterprises.

The protests and the riots serve their interests. The financial elites are not the target of the protest movement. Quite the opposite: their elite billionaire foundations are supporting many of the progressive NGOs which are waging the campaign against racism, while also paying lip service to the Democratic Party which is firmly against the reopening of the US economy as part of their 2020 election campaign.

BLM’s #WhatMatters2020 is a campaign aimed to maximize the impact of the BLM movement by galvanizing BLM supporters and allies to the polls in the 2020 U.S Presidential Election to build collective power and ensure candidates are held accountable for the issues that systematically and disproportionately impact Black and under-served communities across the nation.

BLM’s #WhatMatters2020 will focus on issues concerning racial injustice, police brutality, criminal justice reform, Black immigration, economic injustice, LGBTQIA+ and human rights, environmental injustice, access to healthcare, access to quality education, and voting rights and suppression.

This initiative will inspire and motivate people to ask themselves and their candidates are you really addressing What Matters in 2020?

“What Matters in 2020?”   While rightly focussing on the police killings and the criminalization of justice, What Black Lives Matter fails to address is that African-Americans are the victims of the COVID-19 pandemic fear campaign, which in practice is contributing to social divisions, racism and the development beyond bounds of a police state apparatus.

It’s a scam: Confinement creates unemployment, affecting African-American communities across the United States. It is an instrument of “economic injustice”. It’s neoliberalism.

The economic and social “collateral damage” of COVID-19 is mass unemployment, poverty, death and despair. It emanates from the financial establishment.

Supporting the lockdown which creates poverty and disrupts economic activity Worldwide has de facto racist overtones. Why? Because it destroys peoples lives.

The damage incurred by a “global economic lockdown” far exceeds the health impacts of the corona virus.

The objective of the financial elites, the billionaire foundations and philanthropists is the concentration of wealth, bankruptcy of the real economy, mass unemployment, social inequality and racism.

If you are against racism, an end to confinement, the reopening of the national economy and the restoration of employment should be a number one priority.

To put it bluntly: There is no mass protest movement against the COVID-19 lockdown. The lies are accepted at face value.

The WHO is funded by the Gates Foundation and Big Pharma, politicians around the World are co-opted and bribed. But at the same time, the billionaire charities and foundations (including Soros, Ford Foundation, Rockefeller et al) are financing the “progressive” anti-racist NGOs, which are acting as a “controlled opposition”.

Manufactured dissent and the funding of dissent is also a multibillion dollar undertaking. “The mechanisms of “manufacturing dissent” require a manipulative environment, a process of arm-twisting and subtle cooptation of individuals within progressive organizations”.

And these NGOs have decided to overlook the fact that African-Americans are the victims of neoliberalism and the lockdown of the US economy.

And the lockdown is an integral part of the 2020 election platform of the Democratic Party, which is a neoliberal pro-war racist agenda imposed by Wall Street, Big Pharma, the Military Industrial Complex, et al.

You cannot wage a battle against the Empire and then ask the Empire to finance your protest movements.

“Everything the [Ford] Foundation did could be regarded as “making the World safe for capitalism”, reducing social tensions by helping to comfort the afflicted, provide safety valves for the angry, and improve the functioning of government (McGeorge Bundy, former National Security Advisor and president of the Ford Foundation, (1966-1979)

BLM does not in any way “endanger” global capitalism:

“… Black Lives Matter is increasingly awash in cash, raking in pledges of more than $100 million from liberal foundations [2016]… [including] The Ford Foundation and Borealis Philanthropy … That funding comes in addition to more than $33 million from top Democratic Party donor  George Soros …, as well as grant-making from the Center for American Progress.” [headed by John Podesta Jr., Obama’s White House chief of staff]

This is not an issue of “choice” between Republicans and Democrats both of which are racist and corrupt. It is an issue of confronting the “Big Money” architects of this diabolical project to destabilize the economy, social relations and institutions of the entire planet. The police state and racism is an integral part of that “destabilization agenda”.

A Real Grassroots Movement

What we need is a real grassroots movement, across the land, nationally and internationally, independent of corporate funding. The Coronavirus crisis is an act of war against humanity. We must reach out to all those who are victims of the corona crisis. The legitimacy of the COVID-19 pandemic depends on fear,  disinformation and submission to higher authority.

Breaking the lie means breaking a criminal project of global destruction, in which the quest for profit is the overriding force.

What is required is the development of a broad based independent grassroots network at all levels of society, urban areas, towns and villages, work places, parishes. Workers and  farmers organizations, professional associations, business associations, schools, student unions, veterans associations, artists, musicians, church groups would be called upon to integrate this movement. The COVID-19 pandemic is based on a Lie. The consensus has to be broken.

In Gary Pomerantz’s recent book on Bob Cousy, “The Last Pass”, he relates a story about the Boston Celtics All Star as to race relations. This was from 1950, when most of our nation was even more segregated than we (still) are now.

Cousy was a rookie that year and roomed with the team’s only black player, Chuck Cooper. They became close friends, going to jazz clubs together and socializing with their wives on a regular basis. They had to go travel to play in areas of the country that had ‘Jim Crow’ laws to force segregation: ‘White Only’ and ‘Colored Only’ restaurant eating sections, bathrooms, water fountains and hotels. Cooper, a proud man, really got ‘taken back’ by such horrific and draconian laws. On one trip he just felt violated by such attacks on his manhood. Cousy, very troubled for his friend, told him that Germany, up until the war’s end, had treated the Jews just as horrifically. Matter of fact, he said, being a Catholic he was angered by how some Southern right wing nuts trashed Catholic churches due to their hatred of what they referred to as ‘Papists’. Cooper answered him that “When they look at those folks they cannot see if they are Jewish or Catholic or whatever. All they have to do is look at me and know!”

As a baby boomer this writer can assure you that I have always lived in a segregated, white supremacist society. It could be North, South, East or West, it is usually always the same thing: If one is of a darker complexion, then they are simply a referred to as the N Word Period! All the crap about civil rights may be OK for some government jobs, but for the majority of Amerika, N.s will always be second class citizens. Whether it be for private sector employment, housing or getting into better schools, to name just a few examples, the N.  gets the short end of the stick. One example resonates well with me. It was 1985 and I was employed at a local real estate office. The owner, a tall Irishman, once got arrested for running guns in Texas for shipment to the IRA in Belfast.

He Knew, from his experience with the British in Northern Ireland, that he himself was thought of as an N. One day he approached me to handle the rental of a home he owned in the area near the office. I answered the first call I got, from a doctor who had just been hired by the local hospital. When I showed the house to he and his wife, I noticed that he was originally from India. He and his wife loved the house and didn’t even try to negotiate the rental charge. They wrote me a check for the deposit, and I told them to meet me tomorrow morning at 10 at the office to sign the contract etc. I was really happy the next morning when I arrived at the office. This was going to be a nice, hefty commission for me, the rental of a house. My boss saw me and called me over to him, right in front of the other sales people. “Phil, give the man back his check when he comes in. Tell him you are sorry but I already rented the house.” I was shocked! Why, I asked? He rolled up his sleeve and said, as he slapped his hand across his wrist “Do you see the color of my wrist? Anything darker than that, you don’t rent. I don’t care myself, Phil, about things of that nature. It is just that I have to be careful as to not insult my neighbors by renting to someone colored.” I was aghast. But the guy is a doctor, I jibed back. I don’t get it! My boss got adamant and insisted I do what he asked. I exclaimed He’s a **** doctor! Do it yourself! I quit!!

Prejudice has always been a ‘Learned response’. Just look at a bunch of three year olds playing together. They care not for what background each of them come from. Not at all. I recall growing up in a 98% white neighborhood in Brooklyn. As with most of the neighborhoods in perhaps the whole country, this is how it was… and to some extent still is. The only black people I would see  (though they were referred to in those days as ‘Colored’ or ‘Negro’) were either the cleaning ladies who a few of my neighbors hired, an apartment building janitor, or a delivery truck helper. As I have related in a previous column, my earliest experience of racial fear was when my mother took me with her around the corner to the grocery store. I must have been five years old, and she held my hand as we crossed the avenue. Coming in our direction was this black man, dressed in a suit. As we approached him I could feel her hand tightening on mine. After he passed by her hand loosened up.

In 1988 I was working as a marketing director for a Brooklyn based manufacturer. One evening I was on a flight to Phoenix, on this huge wide body plane. Many of us were able to stand around in a lounge area. I made conversation with this 40 something fellow from Israel. He was an engineer on his way to a conference. I asked him about his feelings on the Israeli- Palestinian conflict. His answer still reverberates in my memory bank as if it was yesterday. “Well”, he said, “Here is the way it is for many Israelis. The Palestinians are to us like your southern blacks are to you here. We see them breeding like rabbits, knee deep in poverty. If we do not do something about this problem, they will one day out populate us. As sorry I am to say this, but you asked for my truthful answer, is if we don’t push them into the sea, our culture will be doomed…. period!”

History has this terrible habit of always repeating itself… IF we never learn.

*

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

Philip A Farruggio is a contributing editor for The Greanville Post. He is also frequently posted on Global Research, Nation of Change, Countercurrents.org, and Off Guardian sites. He is the son and grandson of Brooklyn NYC longshoremen and a graduate of Brooklyn College, class of 1974. Since the 2000 election debacle Philip has written over 400 columns on the Military Industrial Empire and other facets of life in an upside down America. He is also host of the ‘It’s the Empire… Stupid’ radio show, co produced by Chuck Gregory. Philip can be reached at [email protected].

Featured image is from NEO

In the face of protests composed largely of young people, the presence of America’s military on the streets of major cities has been a controversial development. But this isn’t the first time that Generation Z — those born after 1996 — has popped up on the Pentagon’s radar.

Documents obtained by The Intercept via the Freedom of Information Act reveal that a Pentagon war game, called the 2018 Joint Land, Air and Sea Strategic Special Program, or JLASS, offered a scenario in which members of Generation Z, driven by malaise and discontent, launch a “Zbellion” in America in the mid-2020s.

The Zbellion plot was a small part of JLASS 2018, which also featured scenarios involving Islamist militants in Africa, anti-capitalist extremists, and ISIS successors. The war game was conducted by students and faculty from the U.S. military’s war colleges, the training grounds for prospective generals and admirals. While it is explicitly not a national intelligence estimate, the war game, which covers the future through early 2028, is “intended to reflect a plausible depiction of major trends and influences in the world regions,” according to the more than 200 pages of documents.

According to the scenario, many members of Gen Z — psychologically scarred in their youth by 9/11 and the Great Recession, crushed by college debt, and disenchanted with their employment options — have given up on their hopes for a good life and believe the system is rigged against them. Here’s how the origins of the uprising are described:

Both the September 11 terrorist attacks and the Great Recession greatly influenced the attitudes of this generation in the United states, and resulted in a feeling of unsettlement and insecurity among Gen Z. Although Millennials experienced these events during their coming of age, Gen Z lived through them as part of their childhood, affecting their realism and world view … many found themselves stuck with excessive college debt when they discovered employment options did not meet their expectations. Gen Z are often described as seeking independence and opportunity but are also among the least likely to believe there is such a thing as the “American Dream,” and that the “system is rigged” against them. Frequently seeing themselves as agents for social change, they crave fulfillment and excitement in their job to help “move the world forward.” Despite the technological proficiency they possess, Gen Z actually prefer person-to-person contact as opposed to online interaction. They describe themselves as being involved in their virtual and physical communities, and as having rejected excessive consumerism.

In early 2025, a cadre of these disaffected Zoomers launch a protest movement. Beginning in “parks, rallies, protests, and coffee shops” — first in Seattle; then New York City; Washington, D.C.; Los Angeles; Las Vegas; and Austin — a group known as Zbellion begins a “global cyber campaign to expose injustice and corruption and to support causes it deem[s] beneficial.”

During face-to-face recruitment, would-be members of Zbellion are given instructions for going to sites on the dark web that allow them to access sophisticated malware to siphon funds from corporations, financial institutions, and nonprofits that support “the establishment.” The gains are then converted to Bitcoin and distributed to “worthy recipients” including fellow Zbellion members who claim financial need. Zbellion leadership, says the scenario, assures its members that their Robin Hood-esque wealth redistribution is not only untraceable by law enforcement but “ultimately justifiable,” as targets are selected based on “secure polling” of “network delegates.” Although its origins are American, by the latter 2020s, Zbellion activities are also occurring across Europe and cities throughout Africa, Asia, and the Middle East, including Nairobi, Kenya; Hanoi, Vietnam; and Amman, Jordan.

In the world of JLASS 2018, Gen Z’s most militant members have essentially taken to privately taxing large corporations and other institutions to combat income inequality or, as the war gamers put it, using the “cyber world to spread a call for anarchy.”

The JLASS war game emerges in the context of the Pentagon playing a controversial and visible role in the unfolding domestic protests against racism and police brutality in the U.S. National Guard units have been deployed in various locations already, and some active-duty military forces were sent by the Trump administration to the Washington D.C. area.

“I think the sooner that you mass and dominate the battlespace, the quicker this dissipates and we can get back to the right normal,” said Secretary of Defense Mark Esper earlier this week during a teleconference call that also saw President Donald Trump deride U.S. governors for their “weak” response to protests over the killing of George Floyd. Trump even declared that he had put Gen. Mark Milley, the chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, “in charge.” Later that day, after security forces drove protesters and clergy from Washington, D.C.’s Lafayette Square with tear gas, Milley, dressed in combat fatigues, followed Trump, Attorney General William Barr, Esper, and others to a roundly condemned photo op in front of St. John’s Episcopal Church.

This came amid the backdrop of threats being issued to employ active-duty military to forcefully suppress protests, and the deployment of rapid-reaction units from the 82^nd Airborne Division to bases just outside Washington, D.C. With retired admirals and generals, among others, excoriating Trump — and to a lesser extent Esper and Milley — for breeches of long-standing norms in civilian-military relations, it’s worth considering how the Pentagon’s war gamers chose to focus the military’s attention on a generation now demonstrating peacefully in America’s streets.

*

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

Featured image is by Becker1999 from Grove City, OH / Wikimedia Commons

The Turkish involvement in the Libyan conflict allowed the Government of National Accord (GNA) to turn the tide of the battle of Tripoli and even develop further success by expanding control over a notable chunk of northern Libya.

After capturing Tripoli International Airport last week, GNA forces and Syrian militant groups with a direct support from the Turkish Armed Forces forced the Libyan National Army (LNA) led by Khalifa Haftar to retreat from a number of villages and towns including Tarhuna and Dawun.

Retreating LNA fighters left behind dozens of weapons and pieces of military equipment, including T-55 and T-62 battle tanks and howitzers. Pro-GNA sources also showcased a destroyed Pantsir-S system, which the LNA had received from the UAE. The town of Tarhuna was looted and a large number of buildings there were destroyed by Turkish-backed forces. The residents of this town are known for their support to the LNA. A large number of civilians fled the town with the retreating LNA units.

On June 6, Egypt’s President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi announced a new diplomatic initiative for Libya proposing a ceasefire from June 6 and the resumption of the political process. Egypt alongside with the UAE are key backers of the LNA.

Apparently, Ankara and the GNA saw this move as a sign of the weakness. The GNA even announced an advance on the port city of Sirte controlled by the LNA. However, Turkish-led forces failed to reach the city on June 6 and June 7 suffering casualties. According to local sources, over 30 Turkish proxies were killed. A Turkish Bayraktar TB2 combat UAV was also shot down. In response, Turkey shot down a Wing Loong II combat UAV operated by the LNA and conducted a series of airstrikes on LNA positions near Sirte. On June 8, the GNA and its allies conducted another attempt to advance on Sirte. Clashes are ongoing.

Egypt reacted to these developments by sending reinforcements to the border with Libya. At least 2 large columns with Egyptian battle tanks were filmed moving towards the border. The geographic location of Egypt allows its leadership, if there is a political will and a strong decision, to freely employ its ground and air forces to support the LNA in the conflict against Turkish proxies. Cairo could opt to choose the strategy of direct actions if Turkish-led forces capture Sirte threatening the LNA heartland in northeastern Libya.

The modern military political leadership of Turkey, in particular President Recep Tayyip Erdogan and his inner circle, has views on the needed structure of the Islamic world, which are to a great extent similar to those of the Muslim Brotherhood. For example, the Muslim Brotherhood thinks that the leading Islamic states should be headed by leaders with a rather strong religious agenda.

Egypt traditionally has a complex and balanced cooperation of the religious and secular parts of their society. In the view of the Muslim Brotherhood, the religious factor should be developed further, even at the cost of the interests of the secular part of the society. This goes contrary to the current reality in Egypt, which is ruled by relatively secular leaders. Furthermore, the Muslim Brotherhood and armed groups affiliated with it are considered terrorist organizations in Egypt. Therefore, Cairo sees the expansion of forces ideologically close to the organization as a direct threat to its national security.

*

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 South Front in its endeavors. If you’re able, and if you like our content and approach, please support the project. Our work wouldn’t be possible without your help: PayPal: [email protected] or via: http://southfront.org/donate/ or via: https://www.patreon.com/southfront

“I’ve been saying for the last several years … American policing is at a crossroads.” – Mike Cutone, former Massachusetts officer, June 5, 2020

If you can envisage the commencement of a police force as a band of auxiliaries to keep slaves in check, capture escapees and sow much terror, it becomes that much clearer.  Such men were not stewards to keep the people safe; they were there to protect a propertied status quo at the end of the whip and baton.  In the southern US states, the modern police organisation that found form was the “Slave Patrol”, vested with powers to hunt down, apprehend and return runaway slaves to their owners while maintaining a deterrent of terror and discipline. In the aftermath of the Civil War, Southern police departments continued to exert a degree of control over freed slaves within the context of Jim Crow segregation.  Appearances were kept up.

The rage following the death of George Floyd on May 25 has sent a shiver of reform down the spine of the Minneapolis establishment. In Minneapolis, nine members of the city council spoke of their intention to disband the city’s police force.  Council President Lisa Bender told CNN about a pledge “to dismantling policing as we know it in the city of Minneapolis and to rebuild with our community a new model of public safety that actually keeps our community safe.” 

One method of change making its way in public policy land is a traditional one: redirecting the public purse.  Take the funding away from the agency with a monopoly on the use of force within the state or city – in this case, the police – and invest it in the marginalised communities where policing would otherwise be required. On Sunday, New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio announced a measure along such lines, cutting the budget of the NYPD and relocating resources to youth and social services.  “Our young people need to be reached, not policed.”  

Advocates are not entirely clear, however, whether to go the whole hog on this and abolish departments altogether, or retain some skeleton force.  In the case of Minneapolis, a cut of $200 million is being proposed to its $1.3 billion annual budget.  The police budget in 2020 was $189 million, which will supposedly be directed towards “community-based strategies”, a term that could encompass anything.  Bender, at least, has an inkling of the problem, given that most 911 calls tend to focus on matters touching on mental health services, general health issues and fire services.

Community organisations with a pro-defunding platform for police are not calling for an immediate cessation of cash.  As MPD150, a group based in Minneapolis, argues, “we’re talking about a gradual process of strategically reallocating resources, funding, and responsibility away from the police and toward community-based models of safety, support and prevention.”

MPD150 suggests drawing out other participants better equipped to deal with social crisis.  Drop the idea of deploying “strangers armed with guns, who very likely do not live in the neighbourhoods they’re patrolling”.  Shift the emphasis, rather, to “mental health providers, social workers, victim/survivor advocates, religious leaders, neighbours and friends – all of the people who really make up the fabric of a community – to look out for one another.”

As with any abolitionist community, the views are scrappy and fractious.  Do you embrace gradualism?  Or do you go for the proverbial policy jugular?  Campaign Zero’s 8cantwait campaign has been attacked by another group, 8toAbolition, which has mauled it for its “claims, assumptions and faulty science.”  Scratch the surface of radicalism, and the accused collaborator will be found.  The central problem with Campaign Zero’s main claim – that adopting its policies of restraint would “reduce” police killings by 72% – has been seen to preserve a tinkered system rather than tearing it apart.  8cantwait advocated “a pacification method”, rather than a solution.

For its part, 8toAbolition’s to-do list includes defunding police, demilitarising communities, removing police from schools, freeing people from the prison system, repeal laws criminalising “survival”, investing in community self-governance, providing safe housing for all and investment “in care, not cops.”  The organisation envisages “a society without police or prisons, where communities are equipped to provide for their safety and wellbeing.”

This may sound a touch treacly, but social experiments of this kind have been tested on US soil.  The entire Camden police force was disbanded in New Jersey which was succeeded by a larger, county force with a focus on “community service”. The 2013 decision seemed counter-intuitive: Camden boasted the dubious honour of having one of the highest crime rates in the country.  All the accompaniments were there: dilapidated and distressed neighbourhoods, abandoned store fronts and homes; ruined playgrounds. 

In place of the former 141-year old police force was a new outfit.  Police officers were re-hired, along with fresh blood, at lower salaries.  They were encouraged to mingle with residents and build a rapport with the community.  Arrests and the issuing of tickets would be frowned upon.  In 2014, Camden County Freeholder Director Louis Cappelli, Jr. was confident that the shift had worked.  “We’ve started taking back sectors of the city on behalf of residents.”  Parks had been reclaimed for children; the bloated murder rate began to fall.

Anoka County Sheriff James Stuart is far from impressed with such suggestions, as is Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey, who has publicly opposed the abolition route.  Abolitions, defunding and reduction in police personnel could never take place in a vacuum.  His agency had “no appetite” in working in a city with an abolished police department.  “The members of the Minneapolis City Council should be mindful that numerous other law enforcement agencies have responded to them, to restore order, to protect their citizens, and to return peace to their city during recent tragic days.”  Should they “choose to eliminate their police department through defunding operations without a realistic plan, they must also choose to live with the consequences of their decisions.” 

The question of logistics is one thing, but whether the councillors of Minneapolis will have the iron cast stomach to pursue the promised change is the question that will remain begging till actual steps are taken. “We don’t have all the answers for what the future looks like,” Ward 5 councillor Jeremiah Ellison airily declared, “but the community does.”  Till then, much of this will seem like moral posturing, the performance of a role that will simply pass.

*

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

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

Featured image is from Wikimedia Commons

Indeed police killings, brutality, and its other unacceptable practices against America’s most disadvantaged are a major societal problem needing correction.

Cutting its funding or even replacing it with an alternate societal control system won’t fix things.

The problem isn’t cops. It’s power elites controlling them.

It’s state-sponsored inequity and injustice, privileged interests served exclusively at the expense of exploiting most others domestically and abroad.

US instruments of control go way beyond state and local police.

The Wall Street owned and controlled Fed has supreme power over all others by controlling the nation’s money, credit, debt, and ability to manipulate markets for private enrichment.

In his book titled “Tragedy and Hope,” historian Carroll Quigley explained the following:

“(T)he powers of financial capitalism (can) create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole,” adding:

“This system (is) controlled…by the central banks of the world, acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent private meetings and conferences.”

Former Bank of England director Josiah Stamp said “(b)anking was conceived in iniquity and was born in sin,” adding:

“The bankers own the earth. Take it away from them, but leave them the power to create money, and with the flick of the pen they will create enough deposits to buy it back again.”

The Fed is a privately owned banking cartel by its major banks, able to create limitless amounts of money digitally.

The 16th Amendment let Congress levy an income tax so bankers given control of the nation’s money by the 1913 Federal Reserve Act could be paid interest on the federal debt.

If money power was returned to public hands where it belongs, and swords were beaten into plowshares, creating a new era of peace, the federal income tax could be eliminated for most Americans, greatly reduced for others.

Government debt would be interest free or eliminated altogether.

Publicly controlled money used for economic growth could produce sustained inflation-free prosperity, what colonial America accomplished. So did Lincoln.

Why not now? Because powerful bankers would lose what they value most.

The power to create money lets them rule the world unchallenged. If returned to public hands, they’d be powerless.

Politicians serve their interests. US money-controlled elections maintain dirty business as usual, the unacceptable status quo.

Funded by countless trillions of dollars poured down a black hole of unaccountable waste, fraud, and abuse, the Pentagon’s global empire of bases involved in waging endless war on humanity is a far greater problem than police wrongdoing.

So is the CIA-led US intelligence community, a force for pure evil, not good.

It’s hired guns killed JFK, RFK and MLK for opposing US militarism, warmaking, and related state-sponsored wrongdoing.

JFK notably ordered all US military forces out of Vietnam by end of 1963, eliminated for wanting peace over aggression against a nation threatening no one.

He despised the CIA, wanting it “splinter(red) into a thousand pieces and scatter(ed) into the wind.”

His transformation from warrior to peacemaker cost him his life. It cost the lives of millions of Southeast Asians and thousands of Americans from a decade of US aggression — ongoing endlessly today in multiple theaters.

Ironically, ground-breaking for Pentagon construction began on another 9/11 in 1944 — what became headquarters for orchestrating endless wars on humanity worldwide, resulting in tens of millions of lost lives.

Cops in the US terrorize society’s most disadvantaged of all races.

The US gulag prison system, the world’s largest by far, symbolizes systemic injustice.

Most inmates are poor Blacks and Latinos, mostly for nonviolent crimes, illicit drug possession the most common one.

Countless numbers behind bars are for what amounts to misdemeanor offenses, many wrongfully blamed for things they had nothing to do with, including on death row.

America’s obsession to incarcerate targets society’s most vulnerable and others for supporting ethnic justice, racial emancipation, and political, economic and social equality across gender and color lines — political prisoners languishing behind bars.

Immigrants from the “wrong countries” of the wrong faith are hunted down, rounded up, denied bail, dehumanized, and unjustly punished with no right of appeal.

What should be a national scandal and denounced gets scant public attention.

The same goes for US torture prisons, operating globally, at home and abroad — filled with political prisoners of the wrong faith, color and nationality, unjustly considered terrorists.

What’s gone on for time immemorial, torture became official US policy under Bush/Cheney, continued under the radar to this day with no end of it in prospect, a high crime against humanity getting no public attention.

Calling Trump “the fire devil, German publication Der Spiegel missed the point.

Like most of his predecessors, notably the Clintons, Bush/Cheney and Obama, he fronts for systemic dirty business as usual at home and abroad — the same to be true for whoever succeeds him in 2021 or 2025.

One-party rule with two anti-peace, equity, and justice right wings assures it — mirror images of each other on issues mattering most, serving privileged interests exclusively.

It’s been the American way from inception with brief moments of positive change along the way — notably by New Deal, Fair Deal, and Great Society programs.

They greatly eroded since the neoliberal 90s, heading for elimination altogether to free up maximum funds for war on humanity at home and abroad, along with handouts to corporate America.

All of the above issues and related ones made the US a pariah state, a fantasy democracy, a notion it tolerates nowhere, especially not domestically.

Cops in America serve and protect powerful interests at the expense of vitally needed beneficial social change.

They’re symbolic of societal injustice, not the root cause.

Defunding or disbanding police in one, a few, or larger numbers of US cities won’t stop state-sponsored war on humanity, inequity, injustice, or institutionalized racism.

Only revolutionary change can transform a deeply corrupted system too debauched to fix any other way.

Positive change never comes top down, never by elections assuring continuity, only bottom up.

There’s no other way, never been one before or looking ahead.

A Final Comment

I’ve stressed many times that no nation historically caused more harm to more people over a longer duration than the US.

Throughout its history from inception, governance of, by, and for the privileged few has been and continues to be core US policy.

That’s what the American way is all about — democracy for the privileged few by exploiting most others and plundering planet earth for maximum profit-making, the human toll ignored.

Humanity is held hostage to what Orwell called “a boot stamping on a human face — for ever!”

*

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 US Dollar index is not a true measure of value of the US dollar. It just tracks an “exchange rate” between the US dollar and a basket of significant fiat currencies.

For a true measure of value of the US dollar it is better to look to Gold and Silver. However, there is a relationship between significant Gold rallies and the US Dollar index.

Gold has a tendency to rally at a certain time in a US Dollar index long-term cycle. Previously, I have looked at significant Silver rallies, relative to the US Dollar long-term cycle. Here, I would like to look at Gold.

Here is a long-term chart of the US Dollar index:

On the chart, I have marked two fractals (1 to 5). Both fractals exist in similar conditions – relative to the relevant Dow/Gold ratio peaks (1966 and 1999). During the period from Points 1 to 3 on both charts, the first phase of the Gold bull market occurred (70s Gold bull market 1971 to 1980 and current Gold bull market 1999 to 2011).

During the period from points 3 to 4, Gold started a significant correction (1974 and 2011), and bottomed years later (1976 and 2015). At point 4, the Dow peaked (1976 and 2020 – true if Feb 2020 is Dow top).

Another important thing that happened during both these periods, was Gold being much stronger than Silver. This was especially more pronounced during the current pattern period, since the Dollar was much stronger during the current Gold and Silver correction (from 2011) than during the one from the mid 70s.

Below, is the same chart, with the Gold chart included for reference purposes:

Notice that the 1980 and 2011 Gold tops came close to the end of a downtrend of the US Dollar index. Also, it came just after the US Dollar index made new all-time lows in 1978 and 2008.

This is what I would be looking for at before the next Gold peak. If not a new all-time low for the US Dollar index, then at least a decent downtrend before calling a potential Gold peak.

If the current pattern continues to follow the 70s pattern, then the US Dollar index is likely to decline significantly over the coming months and years, while Gold makes new all-time highs.

During the period from point 4 to 5 (in the 70s pattern), Gold went from about $100 to $850. How high can Gold go this time?

*

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

This article was originally published on the author’s blog site, Hubert Moolman on Silver and Gold.

Si discute attualmente su quanti e quali finanziamenti l’Italia riceverà dall’Unione europea e a quali condizioni. Da Bruxelles arrivano messaggi tranquillizzanti. Ma poiché tali finanziamenti saranno forniti per la maggior parte sotto forma di prestiti, diversi economisti avvertono che c’è il pericolo di un forte indebitamento e di una ulteriore perdita di sovranità economica.

L’attenzione politico-mediatica si concentra quindi sui rapporti tra Italia e Unione europea. Tema importante, che non può però essere separato da quello dei rapporti tra Italia e Stati uniti, di cui in  parlamento e sui grandi media nessuno discute.

Si continuano così a ignorare le implicazioni del piano di «assistenza» all’Italia varato il 10 aprile dal presidente Trump (il manifesto, 14 aprile 2020). Eppure l’ambasciatore Usa in Italia, Lewis Eisenberg, lo definisce «il più grande aiuto finanziario che gli Stati Uniti abbiano mai dato a un paese dell’Europa occidentale dal 1948, dai tempi del Piano Marshall».

A supporto delle attività sanitarie anti-Covid già «decine di milioni di dollari sono andati e andranno alla Croce rossa e ad alcune organizzazioni non governative» (non meglio identificate). Oltre a questo il piano prevede una serie di interventi per «sostenere la ripresa dell’economia italiana».

A tal fine il presidente Trump ha ordinato ai segretari del Tesoro e del Commercio, al presidente della Banca di Export-Import, all’amministratore dell’Agenzia Usa per lo sviluppo internazionale, al direttore della United States International Development Finance Corporation (agenzia governativa che finanzia progetti di sviluppo privati) di usare i loro strumenti per «sostenere le imprese italiane». Non viene detto quali imprese sono e saranno finanziate nel quadro di tale piano, né a quali condizioni sono vincolati tali finanziamenti.

L’ambasciatore Eisenberg parla in generale degli ottimi rapporti tra Stati uniti e Italia, dimostrati da «importanti indicatori di tipo economico e strategico», tra cui  «uno dei più grandi accordi militari con Fincantieri», che lo scorso maggio si è aggiudicata un contratto da circa 6 miliardi di dollari per la costruzione di dieci fregate multiruolo della US Navy. Il gruppo italiano, controllato per il 70% dal Ministero dell’economia e delle finanze, ha negli Usa tre cantieri, in cui sono in costruzione anche quattro analoghe navi da guerra per l’Arabia Saudita.

Altro importante indicatore di tipo economico e strategico è la crescente integrazione della Leonardo, la maggiore industria militare italiana, nel complesso militare-industriale Usa soprattutto attraverso la Lockheed Martin, la maggiore industria militare statunitense. La Leonardo, di cui il Ministero dell’economia e delle finanze è il principale azionista, fornisce negli Usa prodotti e servizi alle forze armate e alle agenzie d’intelligence, e in Italia  gestisce l’impianto di Cameri dei caccia F-35 della Lockheed Martin.

Sono questi e altri potenti interessi – in particolare quelli dei grandi gruppi finanziari – che legano l’Italia agli Stati uniti. Non solo la politica estera e militare, ma anche quella economica dell’Italia viene così subordinata alla strategia degli Stati uniti, improntata a un sempre più acuto confronto politico, economico e militare con la Russia e la Cina. È chiaro il piano di Washington: sfruttare la crisi e le fratture nella Ue per rafforzare l’influenza Usa in Italia.

Le conseguenze sono evidenti. Mentre ad esempio sarebbe nostro interesse nazionale togliere le sanzioni a Mosca, così da rilanciare l’export italiano in Russia per ridare ossigeno soprattutto alle piccole e medie imprese, tale scelta è resa impossibile dalla nostra dipendenza dalle scelte di Washington e di Bruxelles. Sono allo stesso tempo in pericolo gli accordi dell’Italia con la Cina nel quadro della Nuova Via della Seta, non graditi a Washington.

La mancanza di reale sovranità politica impedisce queste e altre scelte economiche di vitale importanza per uscire dalla crisi. Ma di tutto questo, nel talk show della politica, non si parla.

Inroduction

This short critical review explores the findings of extant research on the health risks posed by 5G technologies that emit radiofrequency radiation (RFR)1. It also provides evidence that the processes by which policy decisions have been made concerning the protection of public health may be significantly flawed, as the overwhelming body of scientific evidence appears to have been ignored by relevant government departments and agencies in arriving at decisions about the introduction of 5G. This lacuna comes about due to the over-reliance on expert opinion from the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP), an NGO whose members have traditionally had close ties to industry. It is significant that the UK government and its agencies neither sought nor obtained independent scientific advice on a matter of importance to public health. Consequently, it failed in its duty to identify, assess,and mitigate the risks posed by RFR-based technologies before their introduction, specifically 5G networking and related technologies, thereby protecting public health.

The COVID-19 War in Japan: Is National Face-Saving More Important than the People’s Lives?

By Prof. Joseph H. Chung, June 09, 2020

The bad choice of policy priority was shown with the arrival of the cruiser Diamond Princess on February 3 in Yokohama Bay. This seems to have disturbed much Abe’s government.

There were already unknown infections cumulated up in January and, now, there were 3,711 individuals on the cruiser without knowing how many were infected among the passengers and the crew.

SouthFront Is Censored Under Cover of Pandemic

By Rick Sterling, June 09, 2020

The censorship has been accompanied by a parallel disinformation campaign promoted by corporate, governmental and establishment “think tank” organizations.  This is in the context where the US State Department’s  Global Engagement Center (GEC) has a direct liaison with Silicon Valley companies and teams focused on “countering the propaganda” from Russia, China and Iran with a current budget of $60 million per year.

A Pipelineistan Fable for Our Times

By Pepe Escobar, June 09, 2020

Once upon a time in Pipelineistan, tales of woe were the norm. Shattered dreams littered the chessboard – from IPI vs. TAPI in the AfPak realm to the neck-twisting Nabucco opera in Europe.

In sharp contrast, whenever China entered the picture, successful completion prevailed. Beijing financed a gas pipeline from Turkmenistan to Xinjiang, finished in 2009, and will profit from two spectacular Power of Siberia deals with Russia.

The Six-Day War: The Myth of an Israeli David Versus an Arab Goliath

By Miko Peled, June 09, 2020

June 2, 1967, was a tense day at the Israeli army headquarters in Tel Aviv. For weeks, IDF generals had been pushing the government to initiate a war and the atmosphere was tense. Israel’s Prime Minister Levi Eshkol, who also acted as minister of defense, came to see the generals at the IDF command center. All the generals who made up the IDF high command were present. This meeting became known as the showdown. Years later, some would even accuse the army of an attempted coup d’etat.

Palestinian Lives Matter: Huge Jewish-Arab Rally in Tel Aviv Decries Netanyahu’s Plan to Annex 1/3 of West Bank

By Prof. Juan Cole, June 09, 2020

The crowds shouted slogans against the annexation plan, against the continuing Occupation and depriving Palestinians of basic rights, and against last week’s killing of an autistic Palestinian man by Israeli border guards in East Jerusalem. Many in the crowd also accused Netanyahu of destroying Israeli democracy.

Camouflage: How the Israeli Left Continues to Hoodwink Us with Corrupted Slogans

By Rima Najjar, June 08, 2020

When White supremacists in the U.S. adopted the “All Lives Matter” slogan, everyone quickly understood that the use of it was intended to denigrate the “Black Lives Matter” slogan. The Zionist embrace of “Palestinian Lives Matter” is also a denigration. Palestinian lives suddenly matter to them now only out of fear that Israel’s impending annexation of parts of the West Bank means the end of Zionism and will allow the world to understand the true supremacist nature of the state, which at heart is: “only Jewish lives matter”.

The Gaza Strip Under Israeli Military Siege

By Dr. Zuhair Sabbagh, June 08, 2020

In accordance with International Law, both the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, i.e. the Palestinian Territories, are considered occupied territories. It has been agreed upon by the international community, including its astounding legal experts, that the proper legal tools that are applicable in cases of belligerent occupation, are the 1907 Hague Regulations, the 1949 Four Geneva Conventions, Additional Protocol I, and customary international humanitarian law.

---

Can you help us keep up the work we do? Namely, bring you the important news overlooked or censored by the mainstream media and fight the corporate and government propaganda, the purpose of which is, more than ever, to “fabricate consent” and advocate war for profit.

We thank all the readers who have contributed to our work by making donations or becoming members.

If you have the means to make a small or substantial donation to contribute to our fight for truth, peace and justice around the world, your gesture would be much appreciated.

The performance of Shinzo Abe in the war against the corona virus has been less than poor.  

Abe is blamed for having put the policy priority to the Olympics and Abenomics over human life.

The Japanese people have the legendary docility and they seldom protest government policies.

But, this time, the life of each Japanese person is threatened. Would they continue their docility and silence?

In this paper I will do the following.

First, I will discuss the problems of Abe’s handling of the COVID-19. I argue that Abe made two errors, namely the missing of the golden time and mismanagement of the whole process of fighting the virus.

Second, I will see the nature and the depth of the ordinary Japanese people’s dissatisfaction with Abe’s government’s handling of the corona-virus crisis.

Third, I am asking myself how much longer the ordinary Japanese people will tolerate the corruption of the right-wing establishment, risk the restoration of the pre-1945 military imperial Japan and the ruin of the national economy which Abenomics could not prevent.

The COVID-19 Crisis and Abe’s Policy Failure

From the mid January 2020, the cases of the infected were observed in several prefectures. The government was aware of this trend and began to prepare anti-virus measures.

On January 30, the government established the Novel Corona Virus Response Headquarters under the Task Force headed by the Deputy Chief Secretary of the Cabinet, Okita Yoshiki with high ranking government officials who were far from being experts in the field of infectious diseases.

On February 6, the medical tests and consulting system was established. On February 16, Abe held the first meeting with the experts.

And, the criteria of testing were the fever of 37.5 C for four days and pronounced fatigue. This criterion was largely criticized as being too restrictive to find out the extents of infections.

In fact, a good part of infected is not symptomatic, that is, there are no visible signs of infections. In some studies, the asymptotic cases represent as much as 80% of the infections.

On February 25, Abe announced concrete anti-virus measures consisting of home quarantine and social distancing. These measures required that those who were of high risk should not go the hospital for treatment and they should get the prescription through phones.

Thus, Abe’s government was well aware of the crisis by creating needed institutions, but the trouble was that these institutions could not do their expected functions.

The basic problem of Abe’s anti-virus measures may be characterized in terms of the choice of wrong policy priority, bad planning and poor coordination.

The bad choice of policy priority was shown with the arrival of the cruiser Diamond Princess on February 3 in Yokohama Bay. This seems to have disturbed much Abe’s government.

There were already unknown infections cumulated up in January and, now, there were 3,711 individuals on the cruiser without knowing how many were infected among the passengers and the crew.

But, 13 individuals infected were allowed to leave the ship without tests; they were allowed to use public transportation facilities. If these 13 individuals were infected in addition to unknown infected persons on the land who had not been quarantined, they could have transmitted the virus to a huge number of individuals.

Suppose that there are 100 persons infected and that the multiplier of virus propagation, Ro is 2 and that the transmission period is three days. It means that the number of infected doubles every three days.

On Day 1, we have 100 infected; on Day 3, we have 200 infected; on Day 6, we have 400 infected; on Day 9, we have 800 infected; on Day 12, we have 1,600 infected. Nobody knows how many persons were infected in Japan by February 3, the day of the cruiser’s arrival in Yokohama Bay.

But, one thing sure was that the government should have better managed the situation on the board of the cruiser and made suitable planning of the anti-virus war.

Speaking about the government’s handling of the Diamond Princess cruiser, Iwata Kentaro of Kobe University a specialist on infectious diseases was known to have evaluated the cruiser handling as “the violation of all elementary principles of dealing with infectious diseases”.

The fundamental question is about Abe’s perception of the corona virus crisis. Professor Iwata Kentaro was quoted to have said that “the leaders’ sense of entitlement was breeding indifference to the crisis and incompetence in dealing with the crisis” (1)

Koichi Nakano of Sophia University was quoted to have said:

“The Abe government has approached this crisis first as and foremost economic crisis and government public relation crisis rather than an epidemiological crisis.” (2)

This was clearly shown by the nomination of Yasutoshi Nishimura, minister of economic rehabilitation, as minister of corona virus counter measures. Abe was concerned with the salvaging what was left of his Abenomics.

The most important issue for Abe was the opening of the July Olympics, which was threatened by the corona virus crisis.

For Abe, the Olympics Game was a sort of saviour for him and for his government. It could be redemption for the failure of Abenomics; Abe was hoping to have tens of billions of billion dollars of income through Olympics related tourism; there was huge expected income from the rights of TV diffusions. The huge multiplier effects of employment and income deriving from the construction of facilities would have been considerable

For Abe, the Olympics Game was something perhaps more important than the economic and financial bonanza; it was also the question of “saving face of Japan.”

Japan was losing face because of the three-decade economic deflation, the mishandling of the 2011 triple disasters of earthquake, tsunami and the nuclear melt-down in addition to disappointing treatment received from Trump and the “Japan-passing” in the North-Korean peace dialogue.

So, it was more difficult for Abe to give up the Olympics, In fact, he waited until March 24th, before he postponed it for July 2021.

In the meantime, for more than three months from January to mid March had passed and the number of infected could have increased beyond our imagination; nobody knows how many, but it could be several tens of thousands, may be, more than hundred thousand, given the total population of 127 million inhabitants.

In fact, there are some experts who think that the total number of the infected could be 8 times of the reported cases of infections, if the testing campaign were more aggressive.

Nevertheless, Abe waited until April 7 before he declared the state of emergency for Tokyo and six surrounding prefectures. The world could not understand Abe’s way of handling the crisis.

Professor Koichi Nakano of Sophia University said this.

“Abe seemed generally reluctant to call the state of emergency, so may be out of fear of further damaging the economy, he dragged his feet too long, but he had no choice but to accept the outbreak which is now out of control.” (3)

Thus, Abe missed the golden opportunity to save Japanese lives most likely because of his concern about his Abenomics and the interests of his corporate friends.

Abe has been criticized for the wrong timing of the closing of schools in February without proper planning and coordinating.

Abe was widely criticized for the terribly sub-standard face masks which were suspected to have been produced by incompetent company close to the establishment.

But, Abe’s failure the most criticized was the poor testing. As of May 3, the number of tests in Japan was 1.3 per 1,000 people as against 12.0 for South Korea and 18.0 for the United States.

And the number of cases of infections, as of May 3, was 15,789 to increase to 16,779 as of June 3. The number of death rose from 549 to 900 in the same period.

It is the generalized view that the number of cases and deaths are low, simply because the number of tests is low. Abe tries to justify the low level of tests by evoking the poor reliability of the test kits, the lack of hospital facilities to deal with a large number of cases.

Such arguments are not very convincing, because Japan has been boasting about the high quality of the public health system.

The Voice of the Ordinary Japanese

One of the sad aspects of the corona virus crisis is the Japanese people’s impression that Abe attaches greater importance to money and the glory of his “New Japan” than to human life.

The ordinary Japanese have been enduring the decades-long economic deflation, shrinking value of income, decreasing real jobs, the wide spread corruption of the establishment of the Japanese society and suffering of the elderly from hunger and social alienation.

But, now, they might have had enough; the life of each Japanese man, women and child is threatened. This is a new experience; they are frightened. They might have decided not to accept the loss of human life for Abenomics and Japan’s Face-Saving.

In fact, they seem to have given up their legendary docility and have decided to open up their mind; they seem to liberate themselves from the pejorative image of “docile sheep”.

The following is the results of the poll conducted by Mainichi Shimbum in collaboration of a research partner on May 8, 2020.

Evaluation of the government and political parties

Do you support the current administration in Japan led by Abe?

• No (45%);
• Yes (40%)

Which political party do you support?

• LDP (30%),
• the Constitutional Democratic Party of Japan (CDPJ) (9%),
• Nippon Innovation Party (11%),
• four other minor political parties (below 5 %)

It is interesting to notice that while 40% of the poll respondents support the government, only 30% support the Liberal Demographic Party (LDP) led by Abe. This seems to show that Abe is losing people’s support. In the past, LDP used to have 70% popular support.

Evaluation of the COVID-19 policies 

Do you think that the declaration of state of emergency in the area you live can be lifted by the end of May?

• No (46%),
• Yes (36%)

Do you feel uneasy about Japan’s medical and testing system in relation to novel corona-virus?

• Yes (68%);
• Not uneasy (14%)

How do you evaluate the administration’s response to novel corona virus?

• Negatively (48%);
• Positively (22%)

As many as 46% of the respondents believe that the state of emergency will not be lifted, while it has been lifted.

This means that Abe has ignored the people’s fear. Such fear seems to come from their mistrust in the medical and the testing system. As a matter of fact, 68% do not feel easy with the system. All in all, 48% of the respondents evaluate negatively the government response to corona virus.

Japanese people’s docility 

Since the declaration of the state of emergency did you go out of home?

• Not at all (15%);
• went out for essential needs such as works and shopping (82%)

How much have your own direct contacts with other people declined since the declaration of the state of emergency?

• Declined by 80% (56%);
• by at least 20% (26%)

The respondents’ responses to these questions seem to reflect that the Japanese people respect the government instruction of self quarantine and social distancing.

Since the declaration of the state of emergency 15% did not go out all, while 82% went out for essential missions.

On the other hand, as many as 80% of the respondents say that, since the declaration of the state of emergency, the contact with other people declined by 56%.

These poll results seem to lead to two conclusions. First, the Japanese people are not happy with the way the government has been handling the corona-virus crisis.

Second, even if they are not satisfied with the whole system of public health and government reactive policies, the Japanese people could have saved many lives by virtue of self quarantines, social distancing, saluting by bowing instead of shaking hands, frequent hand washing and the culture of wearing face masks.

However, nobody knows how many lives have been saved by the Japanese docility and popular culture. It is more than certain that the real number of the infected and the corona-virus related death could be much higher than the reported figures.

There is a theory saying that the government does not report the true figures of infections and deaths, even if it has the true data, in order not to make the people feel insecure.

But, this theory does not seem defendable, because each individual having the risk of being infected should be eager to know the truth. Anyway, by the end of June, the true picture might emerge. 

What will happen to the Japanese Culture of Docility and Harmony?

A part of my education took place in Korea under the Japanese rule. I used to admire the docility, the obedience to authorities, strict disciplines and the quest for harmony of the Japanese people.

On the other hand, I was sad to see that the great majority of the Japanese people had to suffer from decades-long war without much complaining; it was difficult for me to see the Japanese families sending their fathers, sons, brothers to Kamikaze fighter planes.

I was wondering for whom the war was? I was wondering who was benefitting from the war?

Was it for the people or for the glory of a few ambitious political and military leaders who had the illusion of conducting the “holy war of liberating Asia from the White”?

Even now, I see, in front of my eyes, the poor Japanese children and the elders starving to death on the street of Tokyo and other Japanese cities in 1944 and 1945.

The Japanese people thought, since the Hiroshima and the Nagasaki, that they would enjoy peace, prosperity, the end of Kempeitai (cruel military police) and ordinary people-friendly government.

In short, they were hoping a decent and human society in which even the ordinary people can enjoy. But the ordinary Japanese people have been denied of such world.

History tells us that, if a single political force rules the country for very long period, the probability of corruption of the political establishment, the abuse of power and the alienation of the week increases. This has happened in Japan.

One of the amazing political scenes in Japan is the one in which one political party, the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) ruled, since 1957, 57 years out of 63 years, or 91% of the period.

During this period, Japan had 21 prime ministers. The longevity of Japanese prime ministers has been as follows:  1-year PMs: 4;  2-year PMs: 11;  3-year PMs: 2;  5-year PMs: 2;  8-year PM:1; 10-year PM:1

Shinzo Abe has been prime minister for 10 years (2006-2007 and 2012-2020).

Yasuhiro Nakasone (1982-1987) and Junichiro Koizumi (2001-2006) were two 5-year prime ministers.

Abe’s maternal grandfather, Nobuske Kishi (1957-60) and Hayato Ikeda (1961-64) were two 3-year prime ministers.

The instability of the Japanese government is well reflected by the fact that 71.4 % of prime ministers since 1957 were 1-year or 2-year prime ministers.

The excessive instability of the Japanese government was attributable partly to the different term for the party presidency (3 years for LDP) and the term of prime minister (4 years). The prime minister is the president of the party in power; this can create confusion.

However, the more important reason for the instability could be the never ending corruption of the political leaders. In fact, many of them killed themselves or lost the position of prime minister because of corruption.

One of the notorious scandals was the Recruit Scandal in which 70 lawmakers bought, in 1988, the stock of a company before its listing and made fortune. There were savage sex offenses at night clubs by lawmakers of the LDP. The bribery scandals of construction industry has been a part of the corruption culture of the establishment.

The land dealing scandal in which the first lady was involved was related to the acquisition of public land for a small portion of the land’s market price; the land was for the establishment of a Meiji-era inspired ultra-right primary school, Moritomo Gakuen.

The scandal which made the Japanese the very angry was the scandal of prolonging the tenure of the Tokyo chief prosecutor, Hiromu Kurokawa, from 63 years to 65 years.

The chief prosecutor is a strong supporter of Abe, who needed the prosecutor in order to use the Bureau of Prosecutor for Abe’s political purpose including the silencing of the voice of objections to his ambitions.

For the first time, 4 million twitters of the ordinary Japanese people emerged to protest Abe’s hidden intention. It happened that Kurokawa played, for money, the illegal “mahjong” game and he resigned.

There is a close correlation between the length of power and the extent of the corruption culture. As we saw, out of 63 years since 1957, the year of the creation of LDP by Abe’s grandfather, it ruled Japan for 57 years, that is, 91% of the period.

Such long period of power leads necessarily to the creation of the corruption culture dominated by big business, bureaucrats and politicians. This group begins with money-power collusion, then the creation of the oligarchy and eventually the creation of corruption culture.

Once you come to the era of the corruption culture, it is very difficult to get rid of it. We have seen it in South Korea under the 58-year rule by the conservative governments since 1948, that is, 81% of the period, 1948-2020.

The most disastrous effect of the corruption culture is this. The core of the culture is the monetary-political establishment whose interest is the maximization of the interests of the establishment at the expense of those of the ordinary people.

The nomination and the expulsion of prime ministers are most likely determined by the establishment. Many of the short-term prime ministers are those who might have done something which he establishment did not like.

Under this situation, the economic prosperity has not been very beneficial to the ordinary Japanese. One of the popular descriptions of Japan since the 1980s was “the country is rich but, the ordinary people are poor.”

There is another political phenomenon which makes the Japanese people worried and insecure; it is the Abe group’s dream of restoring the pre-1945 military imperial empire of Japan.

Abe’s decades-long ambition has been the amendment of the Peace Constitution, in particular, Article 9, which prevents Japan from making offensive wars. His group proposes even the way Hitler changed the Weimer Constitution by force.

The statement of the deputy prime minister who was also foreign minister, Taro Aso, showed how much the Abe team admired the Nazi constitution.

“German’s Weimer constitution was changed into Nazi constitution before anyone knew. It was changed before anyone else notices. Why don’t we learn from that method?” (4)

There was also the State Secret Act adopted in 2013 designed to silence the voices of objection. This Act has the following characteristics.

• Civil servant who leaks state secrets can be imprisoned up to 10 years.
• Civilians and journalists who reveal state secrets may be imprisoned up to 5 years.
• It is the government which defines what should be state secrets

To restore the old Japanese empire, Abe has to silence the voice of objection. Abe has made the NHK (Japan’s national TV) into “Ave TV.”

The Japanese people have endured all these realities; they have suffered from 3-decade long economic deflation; they have had to watch helplessly how Abenomics could not find the solution.

As a matter of fact, Abenomcs has failed. The fiscal arrow and the monetary arrow have hit the wrong targets. The fiscal arrow has increased the national debt to 253% of GDP. The monetary arrow had inundated cash, in the name of QE (quantity easing), in the financial institutions without really connecting the money to the real economy, the good-producing economy.

The real arrow was the third arrow of structural adjustment. This policy means the strengthening of the industries by not bailing out the hopeless big companies. Most of the monetary and fiscal resources have been used for the bailout of businesses close to LDP.

The Japanese people have endured all these hardship caused by wrong policies. Yet, they have not gone down to the streets to protest.

They did once for the antiwar movement in 1969. In 2011, more than 300 civic organizations made street demonstration against the government mishandling of the triple disasters of earthquake, tsunami and nuclear meld-down.

But, they could not continue, because of the lack of sustained backing of political forces.

However, Abe’s choice of the glory of New Japan (neo-military and imperial Japan) at the expense of simple happiness of simple people might lead to the open protests against Abe’s political forces.

The simple happiness of simple Japanese is peace, more equal distribution of the fruits of economic development and a little better social status recognized and respected by the elite group.

To do this, they need strong opposition parties. But, there are too many small political parties and the Abe’s LDP is too strong and still popular.

However, if united, the ordinary Japanese people can change things.

*

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

Professor Joseph H. Chung is professor of Economics and co-director of the Observatoire de l’Asie de l’Est (OAE) of the Centre d’Études sur l’Intégration et la Mondialisation (CEIM), Université du Québec à Montréal (UQAM). He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG).

Notes

(1) thedailybeast.com/japans-covid-19-state-of-emergency-locks-down-criticism

(2) Ibid

(3) theguardian.cm/world/2920/apeil/09/dash-loom-in-japan-as-tokyo-governor-says-abe-covid-mesures-not-enough)

(4) thedeadlybeast.com/japan-shinzo-abe-government-has-a-thing-about-hitler-it likes-him

Introducing SouthFront

Where do you find daily news, videos, analysis and maps about the conflict in Syria?  Detailed reports about the conflicts in Libya, Yemen and Venezuela?  News about the rise of ISIS in Mozambique?  Original analysis of events in the US and Russia?  SouthFront is the place.

SouthFront is unique and influential, reaching a global audience of hundreds of thousands. They have  opinion articles but their reports and videos are informational and factual. Their website says,

“SouthFront focuses on issues of international relations, armed conflicts and crises…. We try to dig out the truth on issues which are barely covered by the states concerned and the mainstream media.”

Censorship by Facebook and YouTube

A major disinformation and censorship drive against SouthFront was recently launched.  On April 30 the SouthFront Facebook account with about 100,000 subscribers was deleted without warning or notice.

On May 1,  SouthFront’s main YouTube account with over 150 thousand subscribers was terminated. The English language channel had 1,900 uploaded videos with 60 million views over the past 5 years.

While the SouthFront website continues as before, the above actions remove important distribution channels which SouthFront has painstakingly built up.

The censorship has been accompanied by a parallel disinformation campaign promoted by corporate, governmental and establishment “think tank” organizations.  This is in the context where the US State Department’s  Global Engagement Center (GEC) has a direct liaison with Silicon Valley companies and teams focused on “countering the propaganda” from Russia, China and Iran with a current budget of $60 million per year.

In a March 2020 hearing, Senator Chris Murphy (D – Conn) lobbied for increased funding and more censorship. He said, “It’s hard to chase one lie after another. You have to actually go after the source and expose the source as illegitimate or untrustworthy, is that right?” Lea Gabrielle, head of GEC, responded “That’s correct.”

When the Senator says “it’s hard to chase one lie after another“, he is acknowledging that it’s often hard to show that it’s a lie. Even more so when it is not a lie. It is much easier for the authorities to simply say the source is untrustworthy- or better yet to eliminate them – as they have tried to do with SouthFront.

False Accusations by Facebook

The elimination of SouthFront’s Facebook account was based on a Facebook sponsored investigation titled “April 2020 Coordinated Inauthentic Behavior Report”.  The 28 page report says,

“We’re constantly working to find and stop coordinated campaigns that seek to manipulate public debate across our platforms….We view influence operations as coordinated efforts to manipulate public debate for a strategic goal where fake accounts are central to the operation…. This month we removed eight networks of accounts, Pages and Groups….. Our investigation linked this activity to … two media organizations in Crimea – News Front and SouthFront. We found this network as part of our internal investigation into suspected coordinated inauthentic behavior.”

First, SouthFront is not trying to “manipulate public debate”; they are providing news and information which is difficult if not impossible to find elsewhere.  It seems to be the censors who are trying to manipulate debate by shutting out some voices.

Second, SouthFront does not have “fake accounts”; they have a public website plus standard social media outlets like Facebook and YouTube (until cancelled). Third, SouthFront has no connection to NewsFront nor operations in Crimea.

NewsFront and SouthFront are completely different organizations. They share the name “Front” but that is irrelevant. Does Facebook confuse the New York Times with Moscow Times?  After all, they both have “Times” in their title.

Facebook has shut down SouthFront on the basis of misinformation and smears.

False Accusations by DFRLab

The  Digital Forensic Research Lab (DFRLab) was created by the Atlantic Council, a “non partisan organization that galvanizes US global leadership”. It is another organization which is quick to label alternative foreign policy voices as “Russian propaganda”. DFRLab claims to have “operationalized the study of disinformation by exposing falsehoods and fake news”. They reported the censorship of SouthFront with a report titled “Facebook removes Russian propaganda outlet in Ukraine” with subtitle “The social network took down assets connected to News Front and SouthFront, propaganda websites supportive of Russian security services”.  They reported that the two “demonstrated a close relationship by liking each other’s pages.” As anyone who uses Facebook is aware, it is common to “like” a wide variety of articles and publications. The suggestion that “liking” an article proves a close relationship is silly.

The DFRLab  report says News Front and SouthFront “disseminated pro-Kremlin propaganda in an array of languages, indicating they were attempting to reach a diverse, international audience beyond Russia.”

First, NewsFront and SouthFront are completely distinct and separate organizations.  Second, is there anything unusual about a website trying to expand and reach different audiences? Don’t all publications or outlets do that?  This is a tactic of the new censors: to portray normal behavior as sinister.

Another censorship tactic is to assert that it is impermissible to question the veracity of certain findings.  Thus DFRLab report says NewsFront posted “outright disinformation” when it published a story that “denied the culpability of Russian-backed separatists’ involvement in the shoot-down of Malaysia Airlines MH-17”.  They suggest this proves it is Russian propaganda and false. However, the facts about the downing of MH-17 are widely disputed. For example. one of the foremost American investigative journalists, the late Robert Parry, came to the same conclusion that the MH-17 investigation was manipulated and the shoot-down was probably NOT as portrayed. Parry did many articles on this important event, confirming that it is not “Russian propaganda”.

The Atlantic Council is one of the most influential US “think tanks”. It appears they have created the DFRLab as a propaganda tool to disparage and silence the sources of alternative information and analysis.

Disinformation by European Council “Task Force”   

The goals and priorities of the European Union are set by the European Council.  They are also increasingly active in suppressing alternative information and viewpoints.

In 2015 the European Council created a East StratCom Task Force to “address Russia’s ongoing disinformation campaigns”. Their major project is called EUvsDISINFO. They say,

“Using data analysis and media monitoring services in 15 languages, EUvsDISINFO identifies, compiles, and exposes disinformation cases originating in pro-Kremlin media.”

This organization is part of the disinformation campaign against SouthFront. In April 2019 they published an analysis “SouthFront – Russia Hiding Being Russian“. The story falsely claims that SouthFront “attempts to hide the fact it is registered and managed in Russia.”  The SouthFront team is international and includes Russians along with numerous other nationalities. Key spokespersons  are a Bulgarian, Viktor Stoilov, and an American, Brian Kalman. They do not hide the fact that the website is registered in Russia or that PayPal donations go to an account in Russia. The website is hosted by a service in Holland. It is genuinely international.

EUvsDISINFO demonstrates disinformation tactic of falsely claiming to have “exposed” something that is “hidden” when it is public information. There is nothing sinister about collaboration between different nationalities including Russia. EUvsDISINFO suggests there are sinister “pro-Kremlin networks”.  In reality, SouthFront is a website run by a dedicated and underpaid staff and lots of volunteers.  While the European Council gives millions of dollars to EUvsDISINFO, SouthFront operates on a tiny budget without government support from Russia or anywhere else.

False accusations by US Department of Defense

On April 9,  the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense, Laura Cooper, spoke at a press briefing.  She identifies SouthFront by name and accuses them of “reporting that there actually was no pandemic and that some deaths in Italy might in fact have been from the common flu”.

The first accusation is because of the SouthFront article “Pandemic of Fear”. In contrast with the accusation, the article says, “The COVID-19 outbreak is an apparent threat which cannot be ignored.”  The article also discusses the much less reported but widespread pandemic of fear.

The second false accusation is regarding the high death toll in Italy. SouthFront reported the findings of a report from the Italian Ministry of Health which suggested the previous mild winter and flu season had “led to an increase in the pool of those most vulnerable (the elderly and those with chronic illnesses) that can increase the impact of the epidemic COVID-19 on mortality and explain, at least in part, the increased lethality observed in our country.” This is very different than saying the deaths were caused by the common flu. In any case, the findings came directly from Italian health authorities not SouthFront.

In the same press conference, the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense says she wishes to “reign in malign actors that are spreading misleading disruptive information”.   The censors claim the higher ground but engage in misinformation and falsehoods as they seek to silence discussion and debate.

Conclusion

There is a coordinated effort to manipulate and restrict what the public sees and hears in both North America and Europe.  Under the guise of “fact checking” and stopping “Russian propaganda”, the establishment has created private and government sponsored  censors to distort and diminish  questioning media.  They label alternative media “Russian” or “pro Kremlin” even though many of the researchers and writers are from the West and have no connection or dependency on the Russian government.

SouthFront is an example of a media site doing important and original reporting and analysis.  It is truly international with offices in several countries. The staff and volunteers include people from four continents. The censorship and vilification they are facing seems to be because they are providing information and analysis which contradicts the western mainstream narrative.

In recent developments, SouthFront is posting videos to a secondary YouTube channel called SouthFront TV. When that was also taken down on May 16, they challenged the ruling and won. The channel was restored with the acknowledgment “We have confirmed that your YouTube account is not in violation of our Terms of Service.”

SouthFront is still trying to have their main channel with 152K subscribers restored. Their Facebook account is still shut down and attempts to disparage their journalism continues. The censorship has escalated during the Covid19 crisis.

 

*

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.

Rick Sterling is an investigative journalist based in the San Francisco Bay Area. He can be reached at [email protected].

From their front porches, regular citizens watched a cordon of cops sweep down their peaceful street in Minneapolis, Minnesota. Rankled at being filmed, the cops exceeded their authority and demanded that people go inside their houses. When some of them didn’t obey quickly enough, the order — one heard so many times in the streets of Iraqi cities and in the villages of Afghanistan — was issued: “Light ’em up.” And so “disobedient” Americans found themselves on the receiving end of non-lethal rounds for the “crime” of watching the police from those porches.

It’s taken years from Ferguson to this moment, but America’s cops have now officially joined the military as “professional” warriors. In the wake of George Floyd’s murder on May 25th, those warrior-cops have taken to the streets across the country wearing combat gear and with attitudes to match. They see protesters, as well as the reporters covering them, as the enemy and themselves as the “thin blue line” of law and order.

The police take to bashing heads and thrashing bodies, using weaponry so generously funded by the American taxpayer: rubber bullets, pepper spray (as Congresswoman Joyce Beatty of Ohio experienced at a protest), tear gas (as Episcopal clergy experienced at a demonstration in Washington, D.C.), paint canisters, and similar “non-lethal” munitions, together with flash-bang grenades, standard-issue batons, and Tasers, even as they drive military-surplus equipment like Humvees and MRAPs. (Note that such munitions blinded an eye of one photo-journalist.) A Predator drone even hovered over at least one protest.

Who needs a military parade, President Trump? Americans are witnessing militarized “parades” across the U.S.A. Their theme: violent force. The result: plenty of wounded and otherwise damaged Americans left in their wake. The detritus of America’s foreign wars has finally well and truly found its place on Main Street, U.S.A.

Cops are to blame for much of this mayhem. Video clips show them wildly out of control, inciting violence and inflicting it, instead of defusing and preventing it. Far too often, “to serve and protect” has become “to shoot and smack down.” It suggests the character of Eric Cartman from the cartoon South Park, a boy inflamed by a badge and a chance to inflict physical violence without accountability. “Respect my authoritah!” cries Cartman as he beats an innocent man for no reason.

So, let’s point cameras — and fingers — at these bully-boy cops, let’s document their crimes, but let’s also state a fact with courage: it’s not just their fault.

Who else is to blame? Well, so many of us. How stupid have we been to celebrate cops as heroes, just as we’ve been foolishly doing for so long with the U.S. military? Few people are heroes and fewer still deserve “hero” status while wearing uniforms and shooting bullets, rubber or otherwise, at citizens.

Answer me this: Who granted cops a specially-modified U.S. flag to celebrate “blue lives matter,” and when exactly did that happen, and why the hell do so many people fly these as substitute U.S. flags? Has everyone forgotten American history and the use of police (as well as National Guard units) to suppress organized labor, keep blacks and other minorities in their place, intimidate ordinary citizens protesting for a cleaner environment, or whack hippies and anti-war liberals during the Vietnam War protests?

Or think of what’s happening this way: America’s violent overseas wars, thriving for almost two decades despite their emptiness, their lack of meaning, have finally and truly come home. An impoverished empire, in which violence and disease are endemic, is collapsing before our eyes. “When the looting starts, the shooting starts,” America’s self-styled wartime president promised, channeling a racist Miami police chief from 1967. It was a declaration meant to turn any American who happened to be near a protest into a potential victim.

As such demonstrations proliferate, Americans now face a grim prospect: the chance to be wounded or killed, then dismissed as “collateral damage.” In these years, that tried-and-false military euphemism has been applied so thoughtlessly to innumerable innocents who have suffered grievously from our unending foreign wars and now it’s coming home.

How does it feel, America?

The End of Citizen-Soldiers, the End of Citizen-Cops

I joined the military in 1981, signing up in college for the Reserve Officer Training Corps, or ROTC. I went on active duty in 1985 and served for 20 years, retiring as a lieutenant colonel. I come from a family of firefighters and cops. My dad and older brother were firefighters, together with my brother-in-law and nephew. My niece and her husband are cops and my sister worked for her local police department for years. My oldest friend, a great guy I’ve known for half a century, recently retired as a deputy sheriff. I know these people because they’re my people.

Many cops — I’d say most — are decent people. But dress almost any cop in combat gear, cover him or her in armor like a stormtrooper out of Star Wars, then set all of them loose on the streets with a mandate to restore “LAW & ORDER,” as our president tweeted, and you’re going to get stormtrooper-like behavior.

Sure, I’d wager that more than a few cops enjoy it, or at least it seems that way in the videos captured by so many. But let’s remind ourselves that the cops, like the rest of America’s systems of authority, are a product of a sociopolitical structure that’s inherently violent, openly racist, deeply flawed, and thoroughly corrupted by money, power, greed, and privilege. In such a system, why should we expect them to be paragons of virtue and restraint? We don’t recruit them that way. We don’t train them that way. Indeed, we salute them as “warriors” when they respond to risky situations in aggressive ways.

Here’s my point: When I put on a military uniform in 1985, I underwent a subtle but meaningful change from a citizen to a citizen-airman. (Note how “citizen” still came first then.) Soon after, however, the U.S. military began telling me I was something more than that: I was a warrior. And that was a distinct and new identity for me, evidently a tougher, more worthy one than simply being a citizen-airman. That new “warrior” image and the mystique that grew up around it was integral to, and illustrative of, the beginning of a wider militarization of American culture and society, which exploded after the 9/11 attacks amid the “big-boy pants” braggadocio of the administration of President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney as they set out to remake the world as an American possession.

Why all the “warrior” BS? Why “Generation Kill” (one of those memorable phrases of the post-9/11 era)? Was it to give us a bit more spine or something to rally around after the calamity of those attacks on iconic American targets, or perhaps something to take pride in after so many disastrous wars over the last 75 years? It took me a while to answer such questions. Indeed, it took me a while to grasp that such questions were almost beside the point. Because all this warrior talk, whether applied to the military or the cops, is truly meant to separate us from the American people, to link us instead to wider systems of impersonal authority, such as the military-industrial-congressional complex.

By “elevating” us as warriors, the elites conspired to reduce us as citizens, detaching us from a citizen’s code of civics and moral behavior. By accepting the conceit of such an identity, we warriors and former warriors became, in a sense, foreign to democracy and ever more divorced from the citizenry. We came to form foreign legions, readily exploitable in America’s endless imperial-corporate wars, whether overseas or now here.

(Notice, by the way, how, in the preceding paragraphs, I use “we” and “us,” continuing to identify with the military, though I’ve been retired for 15 years. On rereading it, I thought about revising that passage, until I realized that was precisely the point: a career military officer is, in some way, always in the military. The ethos is that strong. The same is true of cops.)

In 2009, I first asked if the U.S. military had become an imperial police force. In 2020, we need to ask if our police are now just another branch of that military, with our “homeland” serving as the empire to be conquered and exploited. That said, let’s turn to America’s cops. They’re now likely to identify as warriors, too, and indeed many of them have served in America’s violent and endless wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, and elsewhere. These days, they’re ever more likely to identify as well with authority, as defined and exercised by the elites for whom they serve as hired guns.

In the aftermath of George Floyd’s murder, the warrior-mercenary mindset of the police has been fully exposed. For what was Floyd’s great “crime”? At worst, if true, an attempt at petty theft through forgery. He’d lost his job due to the Covid-19 crisis and, like most of us, was lucky if he saw a one-time check for $1,200, even as the rich and powerful enjoyed trillions of dollars in relief.

Rarely are the police sent to prosecute scofflaws in high places. I haven’t seen any bankers being choked to death on the street under an officer’s knee.  Nor have I seen any corporate “citizens” being choked to death by cops. It’s so much easier to hassle and arrest the little people for whom, if they’re black or otherwise vulnerable, arrest may even end in death.

By standing apart from us, militarized, a thin blue line, the police no longer stand with us.

A friend of mine, an Air Force retired colonel, nailed it in a recent email to me: “I used to — maybe not enjoy but — not mind talking to the police. It was the whole ‘community partners’ thing. Growing up and through college, you just waved at cops on patrol (they’d wave back!). Over the last five years, all I get is cops staring back in what I imagine they think is an intimidating grimace. They say nothing when you say hello. They are all in full ‘battle rattle’ even when directing traffic.”

When military “battle rattle” becomes the standard gear for street cops, should we be that surprised to hear the death rattle of black men like George Floyd?

Speaking Truth to Power Isn’t Nearly Enough

Perhaps you’ve heard the saying “speaking truth to power.” It’s meant as a form of praise. But a rejoinder I once read captures its inherent limitations: power already knows the truth — and I’d add that the powerful are all too happy with their monopoly on their version of the truth, thank you very much.

It’s not enough to say that the police are too violent, or racist, or detached from society. Powerful people already know this perfectly well. Indeed, they’re counting on it. They’re counting on cops being violent to protect elite interests; nor is racism the worst thing in the world, they believe, as long as it’s not hurting their financial bottom lines. If it divides people, making them all the more exploitable, so much the better. And who cares if cops are detached from the interests of the working and lower middle classes from which they’ve come? Again, all the better, since that means they can be sicked on protesters and, if things get out of hand, those very protesters can then be blamed. If push comes to shove, a few cops might have to be fired, or prosecuted, or otherwise sacrificed, but that hardly matters as long as the powerful get off scot-free.

President Trump knows this. He talks about “dominating” the protesters. He insists that they must be arrested and jailed for long periods of time. After all, they are the “other,” the enemy. He’s willing to have them tear gassed and shot with rubber bullets just so he can pose in front of a church holding a Bible. Amazingly, the one amendment he mentioned defending in his “law and order” speech just before he walked to that church was the Second Amendment.

And this highlights Trump’s skill as a wall-builder. No, I don’t mean that “big, fat, beautiful wall” along the U.S. border with Mexico. He’s proven himself a master at building walls to divide people within America — to separate Republicans from Democrats, blacks and other peoples of color from whites, Christians from non-Christians, fervid gun owners from gun-control advocates, and cops from the little people. Divide and conquer, the oldest trick in the authoritarian handbook, and Donald Trump is good at it.

But he’s also a dangerous fool in a moment when we need bridges, not walls to unite these divided states of ours. And that starts with the cops. We need to change the way many of them think. No more “thin blue line” BS. No more cops as warriors. No more special flags for how much their lives matter. We need but a single flag for how much all our lives matter, black or white, rich or poor, the powerless as well as the powerful.

How about that old-fashioned American flag I served under as a military officer for 20 years? How about the stars and stripes that draped my father’s casket after his more than 30 years of fighting fires, whether in the forests of Oregon or the urban tenements of Massachusetts? It was good enough for him and me (and untold millions of others). It should still be good enough for everyone.

But let me be clear: my dad knew how to put out fires, but once a house was “fully involved,” he used to tell me, there’s little you can do but stand back and watch it burn while keeping the fire from spreading.

America’s forever wars in distant lands have now come home big time. Our house is lit up and on fire. Alarms are being sounded over and over again. If we fail to come together to fight the fire until our house is fully involved, we will find ourselves — and what’s left of our democracy — burning 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.

A retired lieutenant colonel (USAF) and history professor, William Astore is a TomDispatch regular. He is proud to count many “first responders” in his immediate family. His personal blog is Bracing Views.

Featured image is from The Crux

Ajamu Baraka, National Coordinator for Black Alliance for Peace joins Camila on From the South to discuss the rebellion which has come in response to the killing of George Floyd by Minneapolis police.

Black Alliance for Peace has called on the UN to address the U.S. human rights crisis. Ajamu says that the capitalist class is doing the real looting, like in the case of the billions in bailouts all while the U.S. engages in militarism and warmongering globally.

BAP opposes US/NATO expansion in Africa and Latin America, as the U.S. army deploys in Colombia this week as part of its aggression against Venezuela.

*

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: George Floyd Mattered graffiti along 38th St in Minneapolis on Wednesday, after the death of George Floyd on Monday night in Minneapolis, Minnesota (Source: Flickr)

On June 3 the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled that the new over-the-top use registrations of dicamba formulations XtendiMax, FeXapan, and Engenia are null and void, effective immediately. The ruling was crystal clear: These pesticides can no longer be legally sold or sprayed on dicamba-resistant soybeans or cotton.

State officials have called on EPA for clarification of the Court’s ruling, some maintaining their states will allow continued use of dicamba unless or until directed otherwise. But the EPA has ignored their calls, just as it ignored the growers harmed by dicamba.

Instead of helping farmers understand and implement the Court’s order to immediately stop the use of dicamba, on Friday EPA administrator Andrew Wheeler released a statement alleging the decision was a “threat to America’s food supply,” an assertion totally unsupported by any facts. Then, citing the potential economic harm to farmers using dicamba—but not mentioning the overwhelming and well-documented harm to farmers damaged by its use—Wheeler said EPA “is assessing all avenues to mitigate the impact” of the Court’s decision.

EPA should immediately confirm to the states that these uses are illegal. EPA’s failure to do so to this point is a dereliction of the agency’s duty to farmers and the public. We represent farmers, including many who have suffered years of drift damage from these harmful dicamba products. They must not be subjected to a fourth year of rampant injury to their crops from dicamba drift.

As the Court held, EPA both grossly understated the damage and ignored that it is virtually impossible for dicamba-users to follow—in real world conditions—the EPA’s use instructions. And the damages are more than economic: Allowing these uses is tearing the social fabric of farming communities as well as having anti-competitive, monopolistic effects.

The pesticide companies have already deceived farmers twice. They pressured EPA for approval and then sold their dicamba products for four years in the face of substantial evidence that they would cause disastrous offsite drift damage. Worse, when unprecedented and disastrous drift injury did occur, these companies blamed their farmer customers rather than their harmful products. If Bayer/Monsanto, Corteva, and BASF want to help their customers, they should reimburse them for their unusable dicamba products, facilitate safe disposal, and make their farmer-customers whole, rather than leave them in the lurch, yet again.

*

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

It’s a political lifetime from now to November 3 presidential, congressional, and local elections.

Things can swing back and forth numerous times between now and then.

Most often, Americans vote with their pocketbook. 

If unprecedented main street Depression and unemployment continue into November, chances are great that Trump will be a one-term president, along with Dems able to keep House control and perhaps gain it from Republicans in the Senate.

According to an average of early June polls, Trump’s disapproval is 54.4% v. 41.2% approving of his job performance.

A new Morning Consult poll shows a negative 59 – 36% divergence against him.

A CNN/SSRS polls 38% approval v. 57% disapproving.

An Ipsos poll shows a negative 39 – 56% divergence against him.

An Optimus poll showed the largest negative divergence of 37 – 63%.

It gets worse. An ABC/Ipsos poll shows only 32% of respondents approving of how he’s handled days of nationwide protests following the killing of African American George Floyd by 4 Minneapolis cops.

Nearly three-fourths of respondents agree that his death is a “sign of broader problems in the treatment of African Americans by police.”

A new CBS poll found that 57% of respondents say police are more likely to use force against Black Americans than others.

Numerous polls conducted in recent days found that most Americans believe that ongoing nationwide protests are based on legitimate grievances.

Trump’s call for “toughness” and threat to deploy combat troops to US streets was a strategic error, what most Americans oppose.

So do many governors, mayors, and other local officials.

Polls published in the last five days show Biden defeating Trump in November by a margin of from 7 to 14 points.

On June 8, FiveThirtyEight.com published results of two polls showing Biden a heavy favorite to defeat Trump in November by margins of 10 – 14 points.

According to Real Clear Politics, Biden is favored over Trump in key battleground state Florida by an average of 3.4 points, in Ohio by one point, in Pennsylvania by 3.3 points, in Michigan by 7.3 points, in Wisconsin by 3.3 points, in New York by 24 points, and in California by 27 points.

Translating sentiment into turnout is key. Candidates work hard to energize their base to vote on election day.

Based on current polls, Biden has a significant edge over Trump.

If the economy stays weak into the fall, the human misery level in the country staying high, a new White House incumbent in January is likely.

Does it matter in the greater scheme of things?

Presidents and congressional leaders front for wealth and power interests at the expense of public health and welfare they’re indifferent toward.

They’re also liars. Nothing they say can be believed. Trump’s inaugural sounded like a political sermon on the mount.

He followed through by escalating inherited wars by hot and other means.

His regime indicted Julian Assange for the “crime” of truth-telling journalism.

He considers vital information for everyone to know a threat to national security.

He’s at war with immigrants of the wrong color, faith, and countries.

He’s no friend of the earth. His ecocide agenda supports corporate polluters over ecosanity, public health and the general welfare.

Throughout his tenure, he oversaw the greatest ever wealth transfer heist from ordinary Americans to privileged ones and corporate America.

He wants healthcare, a fundamental human right, based on the ability to pay.

He supports mass-vaxxing everyone with hazard to human health/rushed developed and tested COVID-19 vaccines by yearend or early 2021.

His inaugural address promise about “transferring power from Washington, DC and giving it back to you, the American people” was and remains a bald-faced Big Lie.

So was saying policies favoring privileged interests over the public wealth “changes starting right here and right now.”

The vast majority of ordinary Americans are still waiting for fulfillment of his pledge not forthcoming so far nor is it likely ahead.

He proved time and again by his pro-war, pro-corporate welfare, anti-populist agenda.

Is change for the better likely under Biden if elected president in November?

His near-half century record as US senator and vice president shows one-sided support for the nation’s privileged class.

He’s a Trump clone with a style and party label difference, a neoliberal/war on humanity Obama clone with a racial difference, a Hillary clone with a gender difference.

Republicans and Dems are two sides of the same coin, not a dime’s worth of difference between them on issues mattering most.

Whenever US elections are held, names and faces alone change. Dirty business as usual remains the same.

Unless or until independent challengers to unacceptable continuity compete for president, congressional positions, along with key state and local ones, democracy in America will remain pure illusion like it’s always been from inception.

America the beautiful will be no more than unfulfilled 19th lyrics by Katherine Lee Bates and music by Samuel Ward.

*

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

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

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

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

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.

Featured image is from Syria News

Once upon a time in Pipelineistan, tales of woe were the norm. Shattered dreams littered the chessboard – from IPI vs. TAPI in the AfPak realm to the neck-twisting Nabucco opera in Europe. 

In sharp contrast, whenever China entered the picture, successful completion prevailed. Beijing financed a gas pipeline from Turkmenistan to Xinjiang, finished in 2009, and will profit from two spectacular Power of Siberia deals with Russia.

And then there’s Ukraine. Maidan was a project of the Barack Obama administration, featuring a sterling cast led by POTUS, Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, John McCain and last but not least, prime Kiev cookie distributor Victoria “F**k the EU” Nuland.

Ukraine was also supposed to prevent Russia from deepening energy ties with Germany, as well as other European destinations.

Well, it did not exactly play like that. Nord Stream was already operational. South Stream was Gazprom’s project to southeast Europe. Relentless pressure by the Obama administration derailed it. Yet that only worked to enable a resurrection: the already completed TurkStream, with gas starting to flow in January 2020.

The battlefield then changed to Nord Stream 2. This time relentless Donald Trump administration pressure did not derail it. On the contrary: it will be completed by the end of 2020.

Richard Grennel, the US ambassador to Germany, branded a “superstar” by President Trump, was furious. True to script, he threatened Nordstream 2 partners – ENGIE, OMV, Royal Dutch Shell, Uniper, and Wintershall – with “new sanctions.”

Worse: he stressed that Germany “must stop feeding the beast at a time when it does not pay enough to NATO.”

“Feeding the beast” is not exactly subtle code for energy trade with Russia.

Peter Altmaier, German minister of economic affairs and energy, was not impressed. Berlin does not recognize any legality in extra-territorial sanctions.

Grennel, on top of it, is not exactly popular in Berlin. Diplomats popped the champagne when they knew he was going back home to become the head of US national intelligence.

Trump administration sanctions delayed Nordstream 2 for around one year, at best. What really matters is that in this interval Kiev had to sign a gas transit deal with Gazprom. What no one is talking about is that by 2025 no Russian gas will be transiting across Ukraine towards Europe.

So the whole Maidan project was in fact useless.

It’s a running joke in Brussels that the EU never had and will never have a unified energy policy towards Russia. The EU came up with a gas directive to force the ownership of Nord Stream 2 to be separated from the gas flowing through the pipeline. German courts applied their own “nein.”

Nord Stream 2 is a serious matter of national energy security for Germany. And that is enough to trump whatever Brussels may concoct.

And don’t forget Siberia 

The moral of this fable is that now two key Pipelineistan nodes – Turk Stream and Nord Stream 2 – are established as umbilical steel cords linking Russia with two NATO allies.

And true to proverbial win-win scripts, now it’s also time for China to look into solidifying its European relations.

Last week, German chancellor Angela Merkel and Chinese premier Li Keqiang had a video conference to discuss Covid-19 and China-EU economic policy.

This summit should be the climax of the German presidency of the EU, which starts on July 1. That’s when Germany would be able to present a unified policy towards China, uniting in theory the 27 EU members and not only the 17+1 from Central Europe and the Balkans – including 11 EU members – that already have a privileged relationship with Beijing and are on board for the Belt and Road Initiative.

In contrast with the Trump administration, Merkel does privilege a clear, comprehensive trade partnership with China – way beyond a mere photo op summit. Berlin is way more geoeconomically sophisticated than the vague “engagement and exigence” Paris  approach.

Merkel as well as Xi are fully aware of the imminent fragmentation of the world economy post-Lockdown. Yet as much as Beijing is ready to abandon the global circulation strategy from which it has handsomely profited for the past two decades, the emphasis is also on refining very close trade relations with Europe.

Ray McGovern has concisely detailed the current state of US-Russia relations. The heart of the whole matter, from Moscow’s point of view, was summarized by Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov, an extremely able diplomat:

“We don’t believe the US in its current shape is a counterpart that is reliable, so we have no confidence, no trust whatsoever. So our own calculations and conclusions are less related to what America is doing …. We cherish our close and friendly relations with China. We do regard this as a comprehensive strategic partnership in different areas, and we intend to develop it further.”

It’s all here. Russia-China “comprehensive strategic partnership” steadily advancing. Including “Power of Siberia” Pipelineistan. Plus Pipelineistan linking two key NATO allies. Sanctions? What sanctions?

*

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 Asia Times.

Pepe Escobar is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

It seems that collapse of the institution would destroy global financial system.

Deutsche Bank, one of Europe’s largest banks, recently asked hundreds of its managers to voluntarily renounce receiving their monthly salaries, complying with the bank’s program to try to reduce losses. Formally, senior managers voluntarily renounced their respective salaries, giving up their personal earnings to try to save their own jobs. As explained by the bank’s executive director, Christian Zeving, “this decision is part of the cost reduction program”.

Deutsche Bank is in the midst of a difficult austerity program to try to balance accounting after several years of losses. By the end of 2022, the bank plans to reduce the number of full-time jobs by around 18,000 employees, to 74,000 worldwide. Since the 2008 crisis, which shook the foundations of financial system, Deutsche Bank has been going through a constant crisis, having to deal with the great challenge of balancing its finances to survive. However, the situation has started to worsen considerably since 2016, when it added a net loss of almost 7 billion euros (about 7,800 million dollars). In 2018, the International Monetary Fund recognized DB as “the greatest source of risk among systemically important banks in the world”.

In 2019, Deutsche Bank announced a merger with Commerzbank to try to resolve its financial crisis. However, German regulators vetoed the deal, fearing that, instead of saving DB, the merger could destroy Commerzbank, which is the country’s second largest bank. In July of the same year, Christian Zeving announced the restructuring of the financial giant, which is part of the dismissal of thousands of employees worldwide: “I am sorry that, for the restoration of our bank, we have to apply massive reductions,” said the executive director at the time, explaining that “it will serve the bank’s long-term interests” and therefore decisive action is needed. Now, likewise, the Bank harms its employees by trying to “reduce expenses” by failing to pay them instead of firing them.

In early 2020, the bank drew up a plan to cut its expenses by around 2 billion euros to 19.5 billion euros. However, the global pandemic of the new coronavirus has already drastically changed these plans and in the first quarter of the year alone it brought losses of more than 5,600 million euros, which already represents an excessive expenditure of 15% quarterly.

The scenario, however, seems to get worse, with no good news for DB. American officials believe Deutsche Bank was allegedly involved in the financial fraud of Jeffrey Epstein, who was arrested on sex trafficking charges and, according to authorities, committed suicide in federal prison. The bank not only provided him with large loans, but also opened many bank accounts for him under fictitious names. According to The New York Times, the New York financial services department will announce serious sanctions against the German bank before the end of July, which is sure to further damage the bank’s financial condition and contribute to its possible bankruptcy.

Currently, the DB is the main maintainer of European economies, despite its fragility and financial difficulties. DB has many bonuses from Italy, Spain, Portugal and other European countries. The biggest fear of these countries is a situation of economic worsening or bankruptcy, in which the bank will be forced to sell these values at low prices, in order to pay off its debts, which could really break several European economies.

Last year, the Financial Stability Board launched a report with the list of the so-called “too big to fail”, which consists of financial institutions whose size and power are so big that their bankruptcy could represent a systematic global crisis, in domino effect, whose consequences would be unprecedented and would threaten the very survival of the financial system.

The list serves, above all, as a warning to the governments of the countries of such institutions: if the banks are to fail, the State must inject public money to save them and thus avoid a world crisis. However, this list came about in a global pre-pandemic context, which makes this possibility more difficult now.

What will European governments do with their financial institutions amid the social, economic and political chaos generated by the new coronavirus? Will the German government invest public money in Deutsche Bank to save it? Is it still in the interest of European governments to save financial capitalism?

Many questions remain unanswered. In fact, it is almost undeniable that the fate of Deutsche Bank, without strong state aid, will be the fall and the absolute bankruptcy, which will bring about a compulsory change in the world system, perhaps definitively burying the present “financial age”.

*

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

June 2, 1967, was a tense day at the Israeli army headquarters in Tel Aviv. For weeks, IDF generals had been pushing the government to initiate a war and the atmosphere was tense. Israel’s Prime Minister Levi Eshkol, who also acted as minister of defense, came to see the generals at the IDF command center. All the generals who made up the IDF high command were present. This meeting became known as the showdown. Years later, some would even accuse the army of an attempted coup d’etat.

A fraud

One of the biggest frauds perpetrated by the Israeli military is the claim that the Six-Day War was initiated by Israel due to an existential threat. The reality though is that in 1967, the Israeli army faced an elected civilian government that was less excited about the prospects of war than the generals were. So, as is clearly seen in the minutes of meetings between IDF generals from those days, minutes that are available in the IDF archives, seeing that the government was hesitant, the military decided to sow fear, and they did it very effectively, claiming that the Jewish state faced an existential threat and that the army must act decisively.

The deception worked and over the following three days, Eshkol was forced to yield. He resigned his post as minister of defense and gave it to retired army Chief of Staff, General Moshe Dayan. The IDF generals got the war they so badly wanted. They initiated a massive assault against Egypt, reducing the Egyptian military to ashes and taking over the entire Sinai Peninsula. As a result, the IDF was able to capture the largest stockpile of Russian made military hardware outside of the Soviet Union.

Israeli Prime Minister Levi Eshkol, center, is pictured with General Peled, right, circa 1967. Photo | Courtesy | Miko Peled

Israel would make good use of the knowledge that came with this loot.

It also captured thousands of Egyptian soldiers who were stationed in the Sinai Desert and caught unprepared. According to the testimonies of Israeli officers, at least two thousand Egyptian prisoners of war were executed right there and buried in the dunes.

But the generals were not satisfied. They seized the opportunity that they were given and decided to make the most of it. Without any discussion, much less approval from the elected civilian government, the army proceeded to take the Gaza Strip, the West Bank and something the generals had been chomping at the bit to take for many years, the fertile water-rich Syrian Golan Heights, tripling the size of the state of Israel. They had finally completed the conquest of Palestine and pushed the eastern border of Israel all the way to the Jordan River.

The military moved like a bulldozer, destroying cities and towns both in the Golan Heights and in the West Bank. As a result, countless Syrians who lived in the Golan Heights, and hundreds of thousands of Palestinian residents of the West Bank and East Jerusalem became refugees.

The myth of the threat

As the generals themselves stated during their meetings prior to the war, the entire affair was about seizing an opportunity to start a war they knew they would win, and not about averting some existential threat. In fact, the word “opportunity” is mentioned several times in their discussions and the word “threat” is not mentioned at all.

One general who was present in the June 2 meeting was my father, General Matti Peled. According to accounts by some of his comrades who were there, accounts that I later verified by reading the minutes of the meetings, he stood up and told Prime Minister Eshkol that the Egyptian army was an ill-prepared army and therefore Israel must seize the opportunity to destroy it. He stated that the Egyptian army, which at the time was recovering from a war in Yemen, would need at least a year and a half to two years before it was prepared for war. The other generals concurred. My father then went further and said that the IDF command “demands to know why this army that has never lost a battle” is being held back. He didn’t say one word about a threat.

General Matti Peled in the field, June, 1967. Photo | Courtesy | Miko Peled

More of the minutes of the general’s meeting are included in my book, “The General’s Son,” but it is clear that Israel initiated the war, not out of concern for the safety of Israel, but out of a desire to demonstrate its power and use it to achieve territorial gains. For anyone paying attention the result of the war proved that there could not possibly have been a military threat to Israel. However, people were so moved by the story of little David defending himself from the onslaught of the evil Goliath that they let themselves be taken by the fraud.

Divine intervention

There is a story that I heard from Rabbi Moishe Beck, a revered Ultra-Orthodox Rabbi who used to live in Jerusalem and moved to New York. I asked him why he decided to leave after the Six-Day War. He told me that he was sitting in a bomb shelter in Jerusalem’s Me’a Sha’arim neighborhood and there was the sound of shelling not far from there. At one point, people could hear Israeli Air Force planes flying overhead and began referring to the IDF successes as a sign of divine intervention. He found it abhorrent that people would see the Zionist state military force, which he viewed as criminal, as divine intervention. As soon as he was able, he took his family and with very little means, left Jerusalem. He did not want his children to grow up in an atmosphere that idolized the Israeli military, or any military for that matter.

Many years later, while sitting with Ultra-Orthodox friends in New York, I was asked if it was true that the 1967 victory was so unpredictable that even people who were secular saw it as divine intervention. There was nothing divine about the Israeli assault and the theft of Arab lands. Not in 1967 and not at any other time. The Israeli army was well prepared, well-armed, and well trained and the generals knew victory was inevitable.

Gough Whitlam speaks on the Parliament House steps in Canberra after his dismissal on November 11, 1975. Photo | Australian Information Service | National Library Of Australia

The writing on the wall

Israel had, in fact, intended to occupy the West Bank and the Golan Heights many years prior to 1967 and the war presented the perfect opportunity. In the memoirs of Israel’s second Prime Minister, Moshe Sharet, he describes a meeting that took place in Jerusalem in 1953 where dignitaries from around the world were present. Israel’s first prime minister, David Ben-Gurion, was also present.

One of the presentations given to this gathering was by my father, then a young and promising IDF officer. He gave the talk in English which he spoke well, and among other things, he stated in no uncertain terms that the IDF was prepared for the moment that the order would be given to “push Israel’s eastern border to its natural place, the Jordan River.” In other words, take the West Bank and complete the conquest of historic Palestine.

IDF Generals in the field circa 1967. Rabin, left, Bar-Lev, center, Peled, right. Photo | Courtesy | Miko Peled

Today we know that Israel had plans in place to occupy and impose its own military rule in the West Bank as early 1964. It is also well known that Israel initiated skirmishes with the Syrian army throughout the early 1960s in the hopes that Syria would initiate a war.

The USS Liberty

On the morning of June 8, 1967, in the midst of the war, the USS Liberty was about 17 miles off the Gaza coast, in international waters. Being an intelligence-gathering ship, it had no battle capabilities and was armed only with four fifty caliber machine guns to ward off unwanted boarders. For several hours throughout that day, Israeli Air Force reconnaissance planes had been flying over the Liberty in what seemed like attempts to identify it. The crew felt no threat – quite the opposite, Israel was a U.S. ally.

Then, at 14:00 hours, (2:00 PM local time) and without any warning, Israeli fighter jets launched an attack on USS Liberty. The attack included rockets, cannon fire, and even napalm, a toxic, flammable combination of gel and petroleum that sticks to the skin and causes severe burns.

The attack ended with 34 U.S. sailors dead and 174 injured, many seriously. As the wounded were being evacuated, an officer with the Office of Naval Intelligence instructed the men not to talk to the press about their ordeal.

Within three weeks of the attack, the Navy put out a 700-page report exonerating the Israelis, claiming the attack had been accidental and that the Israelis had pulled back as soon as they realized their mistake. Defense Secretary Robert McNamara suggested the whole affair should be forgotten. “These errors do occur,” McNamara concluded. The U.S. desire to see the Soviet arms that Israel had in its possession had something to do with the ease with which the Pentagon swept this affair under the rug.

In 2003, almost forty years after the fact, the “Moorer Commission,” an independent commission chaired by retired Admiral Thomas H. Moorer, United States Navy, was established in order to investigate the attack. The commission included a former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, a former Assistant Commandant of the Marine Corps, retired admirals, and a former ambassador. Among its findings are the following:

That Israeli torpedo boats machine-gunned the Liberty’s firefighters, stretcher-bearers and the life rafts that had been lowered into the water to rescue the most seriously wounded.”

That fearing conflict with Israel, the White House deliberately prevented the U.S. Navy from coming to the defense of USS Liberty by recalling Sixth Fleet military rescue support while the ship was under attack […] never before in American naval history has a rescue mission been cancelled when an American ship was under attack.”

That surviving crew members were threatened with “court-martial, imprisonment or worse” if they exposed the truth.”

That due to continuing pressure by the pro-Israel lobby in the United States, this attack remains the only serious naval incident that has never been thoroughly investigated by Congress.”

In five days it was over. The war ended as expected, with a massive Israeli victory. The IDF destroyed the armies of the Arab countries around it. The death toll was 18,000 Arab soldiers and 700 Israeli soldiers.

In retrospect, one would do well to stop calling what took place in June of 1967 a war, but rather an Israeli assault on its neighboring countries. The name Six-Day War was no coincidence. Israel took the name from the Jewish scriptures, more specifically from the prayer book, where one sees reference after reference to the divine creation or The Six Days of creation.

*

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.

Miko Peled is an author and human rights activist born in Jerusalem. He is the author of “The General’s Son. Journey of an Israeli in Palestine,” and “Injustice, the Story of the Holy Land Foundation Five.”

The ABCs Insider program broadcast each Sunday morning is one of the ABCs most watched and most important programs. The three guests are drawn from the country’s mainstream media outlets. This is perhaps itself a limitation considering the broad range and frequently high standards of much political analysis in the country are non-mainstream outlets. The invited person subjected to questioning by the show’s host is almost invariably a politician drawn from either the Liberal or Labor parties.

One would be unwise to expect much more than a partisan view from the weekly political guest. It is, however, not unreasonable to think that the members of the panel might be expected to offer a factual analysis, albeit tempered by the political stance of their employee newspapers.

On the program broadcast on 7 June 2020 both the political guest, Labor deputy leader Richard Miles, and one of the panelists, the Sydney Morning Herald’s David Crowe offered an opinion that was stunning in its disregard for the body of information that is now available on the topic of the comment.

That topic was the shooting down of Malaysian airlines MH 17 in July 2015 with the loss of life of 298 passengers and crew. The Dutch lost the largest proportion of the passengers, followed by Australia with 38 citizens and residents, then Malaysia and a smattering of citizens from a number of other countries.

An inquiry team was immediately established led by the Dutch, with other representatives coming from Australia, Belgium and Ukraine. There were three surprises in this contingent. The Dutch and Australians were not unexpected as having lost a significant number of their citizens. The inclusion of Belgium was puzzling and perhaps, in the light of subsequent events, only explicable in their role as the host of the NATO military alliance.

The second surprise was the inclusion of Ukraine. Although the tragedy occurred over Ukrainian territory it was clearly not an accident but the result of unfriendly criminal activity by a party or parties then unknown. Ukraine was at the very least a possible culprit.

The third surprise was the exclusion of Malaysia which as the owner and operator of the flight would normally be an automatic inclusion in any inquiry. Their exclusion was unexplained at the time. It was only later that it emerged that the four investigating countries had reached an agreement between themselves, the details of which have never been fully disclosed.

What is known however, is that part of the agreement provided that no statement on the investigation would be released without the unanimous agreement of all four members. To describe this as astonishing would be an understatement. It was one of the early clues that the investigation would not be an impartial investigation, but would in effect follow a political agenda. This has indeed proven to be the case.

What was also unknown at the time, but revealed relatively recently by the Malaysians, was that they had sent a team to the Ukraine immediately. Thanks to the assistance of Ukrainian rebels then (and now) engaged in a bitter war with the Kiev government, the plane’s black boxes had been retrieved. The rebels handed those over to the Malaysians who returned to Malaysia where they were examined before being in turn given to the British for further analysis.

It was with this information that the Malaysians then negotiated their entry into the inquiry team in late 2015. It was one of the features of this case that the Malaysian viewpoint has been almost entirely absent from the Dutch and Australian reporting of the case.

It did not take long for the Dutch, Australians and Ukrainians to blame Russia for the tragedy despite the fact, then and now, of anyone being able to offer even a remotely plausible reason for Russia to have shot down the civilian airliner of a friendly country. The improbability was compounded by the fact that the tragedy occurred over Ukrainian territory.

The implausibility of this version of events was enhanced when a British organisation known as Bellingcat published what they claimed to be pictures of a Russian missile firing weapon system returning to Russia from the area where the alleged missile had been fired from.

It is one of the telling features of this case that later evidence was disclosed, but not reported in the Australian media, that there were no Russian weapons capable of firing a BUK missile (the alleged weapon used) in the vicinity of the area it would have to be in to have fired the allegedly fatal missile. Neither for that matter was there any Ukrainian BUK missile facility within range, although the Ukrainians certainly possessed such missiles, a left over from the days when it was a part of the old Soviet Union and used Russian supplied weapons.

The other relevant point about the shoot down was the claim by then United States secretary of state John Kerry that United States satellites overhead at the time (observing what was a war zone) had seen exactly what had happened. There is no reason to doubt Mr Kerry’s claim. It is also likely that the Russians had overhead satellites, for exactly the same reason.

The important point, however, is that the United States has never produced that evidence to the Dutch led inquiry or anybody else. Given that such photos would in all probability be conclusive of the argument, their nonproduction leads to an irresistible inference. They do not support the Dutch-Ukrainian version. It is a safe assumption that if they did, we would have been inundated with those pictures, ad nauseam, ever since.

What the Russians and the Ukrainian rebels have said all along was that the plane was brought down by the actions of two Ukrainian jet fighters observed by independent eye witnesses at the time. The presence of multiple bullet holes in the plane’s recovered fuselage further confirms this interpretation of how MH 17 came to its tragic end.

There is no obvious reason as to why the Ukrainians would shoot down a civilian airliner. The first of the three most likely possibilities are that it was a genuine accident, but if that was the case why not admit it, plead accident and pay appropriate compensation.

The second possibility is that it was a case of mistaken identity. It is known that a plane carrying Russia’s President Putin was in the general vicinity at that time, returning from an official trip to South America. Putin’s official plane carries very similar markings to Malaysian airlines.

The third possibility, which frankly is rather horrible to contemplate, is that it was a deliberate attempt to frame Russia, the major supporter of the Ukrainian rebel groups (overwhelmingly Russian speaking). It should not be forgotten also that the former Russian territory of Crimea (gifted to Ukraine by Khrushchev in Soviet days) had voted overwhelmingly to return to Russia.  This had outraged the Ukrainian government who had vowed to retake Crimea by force. The United States also had plans to take over the Russian naval base on Crimea, thereby depriving Russia of a vital warm water port.

All of these facts make the rather ludicrous threat by then Australian prime minister Abbott of military action in support of Ukraine’s attempt to force Crimea back within its fold all the more ridiculous. More importantly, it makes the allegations of Messrs Marles and Crowe completely unsupportable. Australian government policy towards Ukraine, then as now, completely ignores the fact that it is a neo-fascist regime that came to power by violently overthrowing the legitimate Ukrainian government.

Both men ought to have known better. Indeed, it is probable both do know better but because Australia is a loyal supporter of the West’s official anti-Russian line, have gone along with helping perpetrate a manifest fiction, unsupported by the five years of evidence that have been accumulated in the interim. The Moscow based Australian journalist Jphn Helmer is one of the very few to have consistently followed this Dutch led travesty and disclosed the evidence as it has emerged.

That the Australian mainstream media have chosen to ignore that evidence, to actively conceal the investigative role played by Australian forces in the early stages, and to perpetuate a gross falsehood does neither Mr Marles nor Mr Crowe or any organisation they represent any credit at all.

The families of the victims of this tragedy do not need the perpetuation of shoddy lies for geopolitical purposes. Messrs Marles and Crowe do neither themselves, their country, nor the organisations they represent any credit by helping to perpetuate a shameful lie.

*

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.

James O’Neill is a Barrister at Law and geopolitical analyst. He can be contacted at [email protected].

Featured image is from Oriental Review

Arab48 reports that some 6,000 Israelis gathered in Rabin Square in Tel Aviv on Saturday to protest the Netanyahu government’s plan to annex one third of the Palestinian West Bank.

The gathering was addressed via video by US Senator Bernie Sanders, who said,

“It has never been more important to stand up for justice and to fight for the future we all deserve. I am extremely heartened to see that so many of you, Arabs and Jews alike, are standing together tonight for peace, justice and democracy.” “It is up to all of us to stand up to authoritarian leaders and work together to build a peaceful future for every Palestinian and every Israeli. Like you, I believe that the futures of the Israeli and Palestinian people are entwined and that all of your children deserve to live in safety, freedom and equality. For that to be possible, the plan to illegally annex any part of the West Bank must be stopped; the Occupation must be ended, and we must work together toward a future or equality and dignity for all people in Israel and Palestine. I know that on the day when we finally celebrate the establishment of an independent Palestinian state alongside Israel it will be because people like you stood up for justice, stood up for democracy, and stood up for human rights. In the words of my friend Ayman Odeh, “The only future is a shared future. We will build it together.”

Odeh himself, the leader of the largely Palestinian-Israeli Joint List Coalition, also spoke on video because he is self-quarantining because of the novel coronavirus.

He said,

“We are at a crossroads. One of the roads leads to a joint society with true democracy and civil and national equality for Arab citizens. The second road will lead us to hatred and violence and annexation and racist segregation. We can stop annexation, but it requires that we all fight it together. There will never be social justice if we do not end the Occupation, for democracy is not solely for Jews.”

What I call Palestinian-Israelis constitute over 20 percent of the Israeli population, but are second-class citizens. The Joint List won 15 seats in the 120-member parliament or Knesset in the recent elections, but has been excluded entirely from any say in national politics.

The head of the center-left Meretz Party, Nitzan Horowitz, addressed the huge rally, saying,

“Annexation is a war crime, a crime against humanity and against peace, a crime against democracy, a crime that will cost us blood.” He added, “The persons who would have been expected to constitute an alternative–the persons who won our votes– gave up and joined the other side.”

He was ripping Benny Gantz and the Blue and White Coalition, as well as the Labor Party, which gained cabinet seats by joining with Likud’s Binyamin Netanyahu in a national unity government.

The crowds shouted slogans against the annexation plan, against the continuing Occupation and depriving Palestinians of basic rights, and against last week’s killing of an autistic Palestinian man by Israeli border guards in East Jerusalem. Many in the crowd also accused Netanyahu of destroying Israeli democracy.

The police killing in the US of George Floyd was also denounced at the rally.

It was the biggest demonstration by the Israeli left wing in many years, and was remarkable for its mixed character, with both Jewish and Palestinian Israelis coming out.

If the goal of the event was to forestall annexation, however, it is doomed to fail, since Netanyahu has the votes in parliament to go forward, and the Trump administration is a cheer leading section for the far right wing Likud-led government. The annexation will completely end any prospect of anything resembling an actual Palestinian state and will formalize for decades to come Israeli Apartheid on the Palestinian West Bank, which is under Israeli military occupation.

Under the terms of the Kushner Plan, Netanyahu appears willing to declare some sort of feeble Palestinian administrative authority, which lacks any of the prerogatives of a real state, a “Palestinian state,” which has angered the many Israelis to his Right.

Palestinians are actually stateless and lack control over their air, water and territory, and lack basic human rights.

Some forms of Apartheid lasted in South Africa from 1910 until 1991, and from the vantage point of 2020, it seems likely that Israeli Apartheid will beat that record, lasting substantially more than 80 years.

*

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

Featured image is by Ruptly via Informed Comment

It seems like only yesterday. Americans were denied the right to go to their churches. They were denied the right to visit their loved ones in the hospital. They were denied the right to open their businesses and go to work to provide for themselves and their families. They were denied the right to go to restaurants, to bars, to hair salons.

No laws were passed denying these rights. Even that would be illegal and immoral. But what happened was worse. They were denied these basic rights by governors, county judges, and even local mayors who used the coronavirus outbreak as an excuse to rule by decree. They stole power that was not theirs to take and wielded it at all levels to force America into three months of house arrest.

Then, in the midst of stay-at-home orders across the country, the same governors and local officials who locked Americans in their homes suddenly came around with their keys and threw open the doors. Suddenly not only was it OK to go out into the street, it was required to go out into the street!

What happened? A cure? A miraculous vaccine? No. The officials who locked Americans up found a cause they felt required Americans in the streets to protest. Police had killed a black man, George Floyd, in their custody in Minneapolis and suddenly the need to protest trumped the need to “stay home, save lives.”

Suddenly the same health “experts” who told us we must not gather in crowds or there will be death in the millions from coronavirus issued statements supporting gathering in crowds. An open letter on the George Floyd protests signed by more than 1,200 doctors and other health professionals clarified that they “do not condemn these gatherings as risky for Covid-19 transmission.” However, they wrote, “this should not be confused with a permissive stance on all gatherings, particularly protests against stay-at-home orders.”

Did the coronavirus develop some kind of superior intelligence enabling it to distinguish between those who were congregating for a “good cause” and those who were congregating for a “bad cause”? Of course not. What has happened from the beginning of this shameful coronavirus episode is the politicization of public health at the hands of authoritarians.

Two prestigious medical journals, The Lancet and the New England Journal of Medicine, were forced to retract studies they had published concluding that Hydroxychloroquine was harmful to Covid patients. The rush to print the studies looks very much like a political move rather than one based on scientific principles. Once President Trump revealed that he was taking hydroxychloroquine the mainstream media and even “expert” journals began attacking the drug.

This is what happens when medicine merges with the state. We get the worst of both. We get career bureaucrat Dr. Fauci telling us we can never shake hands again and that we must stay home until a vaccine is found. Meanwhile, doctors across the globe are reporting that this variation of the coronavirus is disappearing on its own.

We have a tradition of separation of church and state in the United States for good reason. The merger of state and church invites oppression and corruption. We need to adopt this same approach to medicine and the state. We now see how this merger has produced the same kind of widespread tyranny and corruption.

*

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 Natural News

Leaving aside personal political allegiances for one moment, it should not be forgotten that without doubt, the cabinet run by Boris Johnson is the least experienced to lead the country, probably since the first Labour party win in 1924. It doesn’t help that Boris Johnson himself has no reputation for diplomacy, hard work, attention to detail or as we have recently witnessed – leadership.

Despite the Conservative Party being in power for 10 years now, it is often overlooked that the average member of the ministerial team leading the UK through its worst public health, economic and diplomatic crisis in nearly a century has just 19 months of Cabinet-level experience. Worse, fourteen out of the 22 have been in Cabinet for less than a year. Like him or not, the influential Whitehall fixer Michael Gove is a veteran of David Cameron’s first Cabinet a decade ago – the only one to have survived and the only one with proper ministerial experience.

The main reason for this lack of experience is Brexit and the huge swing away from moderate Conservative values to the political hard right. The Tory Party’s civil war over EU membership and the Brexit deal ended or derailed the political careers of a string of senior well-seasoned politicians who could have added so much value in times of crisis.

After the events of the last three months, it is easy to forget that Britain was suffering a housing crisis, rising homelessness and inequality, a health crisis and a fall in overall lifespan driven by austerity. Add to that the economic damage that Brexit was forecast to bring, estimated to bring another recession to match the last one. Now add a pandemic, the decoupling of globalisation, America’s rapid fall as the world’s referee and the vacuum that will create. Then add fuel to the fire with scenes of protestors and police forces attempting to keep the peace, looting and violence. And as the smoke clears, metaphorically speaking, in just eight weeks time, the economic damage caused by the lockdown is likely to see a quarter of carefully nurtured small and medium-sized businesses (by far the biggest employers in Britain) collapse over the following eight weeks. The likelihood is that a couple of million normally hard-working people will be added to the queues of the unemployed outside jobcentres by Christmas.

Could it get any worse?

Actually, yes. It turns out that Brexit will do substantially more harm to ‘global Britain’ than first anticipated – and No, this is not a Brexit bashing article per se, but it does highlight other worries hardly anyone is talking about.

Brexit is an ideology. It never was an economic policy written down on paper, debated over by experts and then with political will, moved into the public sphere for further debate and decision. This is why it will have taken nearly four years to achieve nothing more than a hard-Brexit at the cost of two Prime Ministers, the Conservative party itself, endemic social division and the anti-democratic crushing of institutions to keep it alive.

If anything Brexit is a pivot away from the moderate political centre-ground that provides the regulatory constraints to corporatism to one that is deregulated and firmly right-wing. This means taking one choice of two super-powers, towards the EU or towards America.

But now, with shifting geopolitical sands, Britain finds itself in a no-win situation. The UK’s special relationship with the US may end if Donald Trump wins a second term, some of the UK’s most senior retired diplomats and Conservative foreign policy specialists have said. They also say that if the Democrat Joe Biden wins, Washington may view the EU rather than the UK as its primary partner in the region. In other words – if ever there was a ‘special-relationship,’ it’s now over.

Donald Trump is now so politically toxic, that the EU and especially Germany have come to the conclusion that the USA is no longer an economic partner or a democratic ally.

Sir John Sawers, the former head of M16 and a former UK ambassador to the UN, also said Trump’s re-election would be problematic. He said:

“There is no doubt President Trump is the most difficult president for us to deal with.  He does not really feel that sense of being part of that transatlantic community, he does not really believe in alliances. He does not really believe in American leadership in the world. We are seeing in this pandemic for the first time what a crisis is like without American leadership. It is the first time in our lifetime we have experienced that.

“If he gets elected for a second time some of the changes we have seen in the past few years will become embedded and entrenched and then, absolutely Britain will not be so much a bridge between the US and Europe. We will need to be bounding closely together with our European partners.” 

The consequence of pandering to the slogans and messages of Brexit is that it has ripped apart Britain’s good diplomatic relations with its neighbours and is threatening to damage its economy by pulling away in a very detrimental way that may cause long-lasting scars. It also sees Donald Trump putting America’s considerable political weight on British negotiators demanding a deal that will be extremely uncomfortable for the general public to accept. Negotiating a trade deal with the USA having ditched the EU is an absolute minefield.

The Guardian reports that – in a sign of British diplomats’ despair with Trump, Sir Peter Westmacott, a former ambassador to Washington, said:

“I would love to say, as we look to the future, would it not be nice to see political leadership also addressing old-fashioned principles such as accountability, respect for the rule of law, independent judiciary, telling the truth, institutional independence and indeed the importance of a free press? That may not be what public opinion is crying out for, but they are not very far removed from the principles that Biden believes in. Otherwise, the chances of the western world retaining any sort of moral leadership and giving itself the right to call out other people when they behave badly will be gone forever.”

What Westcott says is true but it reflects badly on a British government run by novices and dependent on people like Dominic Cummings who have hugely over-estimated their abilities. The Covid crisis confirms that much. Boris Johnson’s government have relied heavily on a lack of ‘accountability, respect for the rule of law, an independent judiciary, telling the truth, institutional independence and indeed the importance of a free press. Indeed, that is THE very hallmark of Johnson’s government. So far, the only effective and visible skillsets demonstrated have been the weaponising of misinformation, disrespecting hundreds of years of political protocol, law-breaking and attempting to silence, coerce or co-opt the media.

The fact is – as America withdraws from its global primacy, from its version of dictating the world order, democratic nations need to get together and reset the rules – or someone else will. That someone is already on the podium in the guise of Xi Jinping – a man with huge experience on the world stage.

Right on cue – Joe Biden’s chief foreign policy adviser, Antony Blinken recently said – “If we are not (setting the global order), then one of two things happen. Either someone else is, and probably not in a way that advances our interest and values, or no one is, and that can be even worse. Then you have a vacuum which tends to be filled by malevolent things before good things. So the US has a responsibility and self-interest in leading with humility.”

As it turns out – UK diplomats are not just seeing this threat they are actively moving towards looking to form a broader alternative alliance of democracies that dilutes dependence on the US. And as one diplomat says –

“If we get another four years of (Trump’s) leadership, then some of the bonds and some of the cement that holds the west together, and holds Europe and America together will be broken forever.”

However, if Biden is elected US president in November, America will focus on the European Union as its partner, leaving a small island off Europe’s coast to fend for itself. This is what British diplomats now fear – a no-win geopolitical situation that further isolates Britain from the global stage. Any notion that Brexit, no-deal with the EU and a pivot towards Trump’s America, will deliver sunny uplands and a renewed global confidence are now nothing more than the thoughts of fantasists and novices currently sat in No10 Downing Street.

As of May 28th, 45 per cent of the British public think it was wrong to leave the EU against 42 per cent who think it right. At the very least, 56 per cent now support a Brexit extension due to the damage the pandemic has caused against 27 per cent who think Brexit should happen as legislated for.

Public opinion has moved – and it is in favour of staying within the influence of the EU. In a few months time, you will see that sentiment swing further towards the EU as Trump’s America continues to embarrass the democratic West, especially if he is elected again and more so as a US/UK trade deal exposes the reality of an ideology designed to exploit people and resources, not reward or repair.

*

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 TP

The “Defender Europe 2020” was to be the most ambitious and largest military exercise by the U.S. and NATO since the Cold War. The U.S.-led multinational exercises are undoubtedly hostile actions against Russia. It is through these military exercises that Poland wants to demonstrate and become the main stronghold of the U.S. military in Eastern Europe. NATO, regardless of the coronavirus pandemic, wanted to significantly increase the number of military exercises which have a clear anti-Russian orientation, but ultimately had to scale it down.

The Russian Ministry of Defense addressed NATO and the U.S. with a proposal to postpone military exercises entirely for the duration of the pandemic. In addition, Russia suggested that no exercises be conducted on common borders. On June 1, the Chief of the Main Operational Directorate of the Russian General Staff, Colonel General Sergei Rudskoy, said that the “Caucasus 2020” exercises of the Russian army would be postponed. The Americans did not follow that path and are still active in and around Russia’s borders. Moreover, these are not the only manoeuvres that are taking place. On June 1, the Poles started the “Anaconda 2020” exercises, in which 5,000 soldiers are participating. On June 7, the “Baltops 2020” exercises began on the Baltic Sea, where there are 3,000 soldiers, 29 warships, as well as planes and helicopters.

The Pentagon originally planned for the Defender Europe 2020 military exercises to be the largest in the post-Cold War period with the participation of about 20,000 American soldiers and another 17,000 soldiers from 17 Allied countries. The task of NATO countries in these manoeuvres was to repel a nuclear attack and an invasion from the East from an unspecified enemy. But it is not hard to see that this unspecified enemy is Russia. However, the pandemic disrupted plans and forced the leaders of the Pentagon to reshape their tactics by reducing the scope of the exercises.

Polish and American troops are participating in manoeuvres in northwest Poland that will last until June 19. It will involve 6,000 soldiers, of which 4,000 arrived from the U.S. The exercises also involve 100 tanks, 230 combat vehicles, artillery, missile systems and aviation, a total of about 2,000 units of military equipment. The goal of the exercises is to check the readiness of American and Polish soldiers for joint actions. The exercises are being held at the military training ground in Drawsko Pomorskie, and the Polish Minister of Defense, Mariusz Błaszczak, said that these exercises are proof of the close cooperation between the Polish and American armies.

It is clear that Poland obviously wants to become the main stronghold of the American military presence in Eastern Europe, which is confirmed by the Polish leaderships long-term consistent policy of wanting American support for their own so-called defense concerns. The Poles wanted to be and have probably already become the main ally of the U.S. in Eastern Europe, as well as in the EU. It was Poland that initiated the suggestion to create the “Fort Trump” base. The Poles were even ready to invest $2 billion towards the American base. Poland’s previous defense minister said they needed at least two U.S. divisions in their country to meet their so-called security demands, but the Americans did not want that and increased their forces in Poland only modestly.

Continuing a policy of de-escalating the hostile situation in Eastern Europe, Russia cancelled all its major exercises near the borders of NATO countries planned for this year. However, the Russian Ministry of Defense notes a high level of military activity by the U.S. and its NATO allies around Russia’s borders.

There is little doubt that such manoeuvres are aimed at restraining and exerting strong pressure against Russia, particularly against the Kaliningrad region that is wedged between Poland and Lithuania, and is detached from Russia proper. These U.S.-led exercises demonstrate that Russia must strengthen the defense capability of not only the Kaliningrad region, but also the Western Military District in general.

Although Moscow is attempting to de-escalate under the guise of the coronavirus pandemic, Polish newspapers are still speculating that Russia will allegedly attack and invade Poland via Belarus. This however is just unfounded rhetoric used to justify why Poland wants to become Eastern Europe’s bulwark against Russia in its own aggressive manoeuvres. It is likely that Washington encourages its European allies to engage more in the military sphere in order to pursue a policy of opposition to Russia, although Moscow has repeatedly said that it has no intention of attacking anyone. While many European countries, like France, wants a de-escalation with Russia, Poland is more then happy to carry out Washington’s demands.

*

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

This article was originally published on InfoBrics.

Paul Antonopoulos is an independent geopolitical analyst.

Featured image is from InfoBrics

Actualmente, discute-se quanto e que financiamento a Itália receberá da União Europeia e sob que condições. Chegam mensagens tranquilizadoras de Bruxelas. Mas como tais financiamentos serão concedidos em grande parte, sob a forma de empréstimos, vários economistas alertam que existe o perigo de forte endividamento e de uma perda posterior de soberania económica. Assim sendo, a atenção política-mediática concentra-se nas relações entre a Itália e a União Europeia.

Tema importante, que não pode ser separado das relações entre a Itália e os Estados Unidos, que ninguém discute no Parlamento e nos meios de comunicação mediática. Assim, continuam a ignorar-se as implicações do plano de “assistência” à Itália, lançado pelo Presidente Trump em 10 de Abril (il manifesto, 14 de abril de 2020).

No entanto, o Embaixador dos EUA em Itália, Lewis Eisenberg, define-o como “a maior ajuda financeira que os Estados Unidos já deram a um país da Europa Ocidental desde 1948, desde a época do Plano Marshall”. Em apoio às actividades de saúde anti-Covid, “dezenas de milhões de dólares já foram e irão para a Cruz Vermelha e algumas organizações não-governamentais” (não perfeitamente identificadas). Além disso, o plano prevê uma série de intervenções para “apoiar a recuperação da economia italiana”.

Para este fim, o Presidente Trump ordenou aos Secretários do Tesouro e do Comércio, ao Presidente do Banco de Exportação e Importação, ao Administrador da Agência dos EUA para o Desenvolvimento Internacional, ao Director da Corporação Internacional de Financiamento ao Desenvolvimento dos Estados Unidos (agência governamental que financia projectos de desenvolvimento privado) para usarem os seus instrumentos para  “as empresas italianas”. Não está dito que empresas são e quais serão financiadas por este plano, nem a que condições estão vinculados estes empréstimos.

O Embaixador Eisenberg fala, em geral, das óptimas relações entre os Estados Unidos e Itália, demonstradas por “importantes indicadores económicos e estratégicos”, incluindo “um dos maiores acordos militares com a empresa Fincantieri”, que ganhou um contrato em Maio passado de cerca de 6 biliões de dólares para a construção de dez fragatas multifuncionais da Marinha dos EUA. O grupo italiano,  70% controlado pelo Ministério da Economia e Finanças, possui três estaleiros nos EUA, onde também estão em construção quatro navios de guerra semelhantes para a Arábia Saudita.

Outro indicador económico e estratégico importante é a integração crescente da Leonardo, a maior indústria militar italiana, no complexo industrial militar dos EUA, sobretudo através da Lockheed Martin, a maior indústria militar dos EUA. A Leonardo, da qual o Ministério da Economia e Finanças é o principal accionista, fornece aos EUA produtos e serviços para as forças armadas e para as agências de serviços secretos e administra em Itália, as instalações fabris de Cameri, dos caças F-35 da Lockheed Martin.

São estes e outros interesses poderosos – especialmente os dos grandes grupos financeiros – que ligam a Itália aos Estados Unidos. Não só a política externa e militar da Itália, mas também a política económica, subordinada à estratégia dos Estados Unidos, baseada num confronto político, económico e militar cada vez mais agudo com a Rússia e com a China. O plano de Washington é claro: explorar a crise e as fracturas na União Europeia para fortalecer a influência dos EUA em Itália.

As consequências são evidentes. Embora, por exemplo, seja do nosso interesse nacional suspender as sanções a Moscovo, a fim de relançar as exportações italianas para a Rússia para restaurar o oxigénio, especialmente às pequenas e médias empresas, tal alternativa foi impossibilitada pela dependência das escolhas de Washington e de Bruxelas.

Ao mesmo tempo, estão em perigo os acordos da Itália com a China no âmbito da Nova Rota da Seda, que não são bem aceites por Washington. A falta de soberania política real impede estas e outras escolhas económicas de importância vital para sair da crise. Mas, no ‘talk show’ político, não se fala de toda esta conjuntura.

Manlio Dinucci

 

Foto : Conte e Profumo con il nuovo Falco Xplorer, il drone più grande mai realizzato da Leonardo

Artigo original em italiano :

Niente sovranità economica senza quella politica

Tradutora: Maria Luísa de Vasconcellos

Si discute attualmente su quanti e quali finanziamenti l’Italia riceverà dall’Unione europea e a quali condizioni. Da Bruxelles arrivano messaggi tranquillizzanti. Ma poiché tali finanziamenti saranno forniti per la maggior parte sotto forma di prestiti, diversi economisti avvertono che c’è il pericolo di un forte indebitamento e di una ulteriore perdita di sovranità economica.

L’attenzione politico-mediatica si concentra quindi sui rapporti tra Italia e Unione europea. Tema importante, che non può però essere separato da quello dei rapporti tra Italia e Stati uniti, di cui in  parlamento e sui grandi media nessuno discute. Si continuano così a ignorare le implicazioni del piano di «assistenza» all’Italia varato il 10 aprile dal presidente Trump (il manifesto, 14 aprile 2020).

Eppure l’ambasciatore Usa in Italia, Lewis Eisenberg, lo definisce «il più grande aiuto finanziario che gli Stati Uniti abbiano mai dato a un paese dell’Europa occidentale dal 1948, dai tempi del Piano Marshall». A supporto delle attività sanitarie anti-Covid già «decine di milioni di dollari sono andati e andranno alla Croce rossa e ad alcune organizzazioni non governative» (non meglio identificate). Oltre a questo il piano prevede una serie di interventi per «sostenere la ripresa dell’economia italiana».

A tal fine il presidente Trump ha ordinato ai segretari del Tesoro e del Commercio, al presidente della Banca di Export-Import, all’amministratore dell’Agenzia Usa per lo sviluppo internazionale, al direttore della United States International Development Finance Corporation (agenzia governativa che finanzia progetti di sviluppo privati) di usare i loro strumenti per «sostenere le imprese italiane». Non viene detto quali imprese sono e saranno finanziate nel quadro di tale piano, né a quali condizioni sono vincolati tali finanziamenti.

L’ambasciatore Eisenberg parla in generale degli ottimi rapporti tra Stati uniti e Italia, dimostrati da «importanti indicatori di tipo economico e strategico», tra cui  «uno dei più grandi accordi militari con Fincantieri», che lo scorso maggio si è aggiudicata un contratto da circa 6 miliardi di dollari per la costruzione di dieci fregate multiruolo della US Navy. Il gruppo italiano, controllato per il 70% dal Ministero dell’economia e delle finanze, ha negli Usa tre cantieri, in cui sono in costruzione anche quattro analoghe navi da guerra per l’Arabia Saudita.

Altro importante indicatore di tipo economico e strategico è la crescente integrazione della Leonardo, la maggiore industria militare italiana, nel complesso militare-industriale Usa soprattutto attraverso la Lockheed Martin, la maggiore industria militare statunitense. La Leonardo, di cui il Ministero dell’economia e delle finanze è il principale azionista, fornisce negli Usa prodotti e servizi alle forze armate e alle agenzie d’intelligence, e in Italia  gestisce l’impianto di Cameri dei caccia F-35 della Lockheed Martin.

Sono questi e altri potenti interessi – in particolare quelli dei grandi gruppi finanziari – che legano l’Italia agli Stati uniti. Non solo la politica estera e militare, ma anche quella economica dell’Italia viene così subordinata alla strategia degli Stati uniti, improntata a un sempre più acuto confronto politico, economico e militare con la Russia e la Cina. È chiaro il piano di Washington: sfruttare la crisi e le fratture nella Ue per rafforzare l’influenza Usa in Italia.

Le conseguenze sono evidenti. Mentre ad esempio sarebbe nostro interesse nazionale togliere le sanzioni a Mosca, così da rilanciare l’export italiano in Russia per ridare ossigeno soprattuttto alle piccole e medie imprese, tale scelta è resa impossibile dalla nostra dipendenza dalle scelte di Washington e di Bruxelles.

Sono allo stesso tempo in pericolo gli accordi dell’Italia con la Cina nel quadro della Nuova Via della Seta, non graditi a Washington. La mancanza di reale sovranità politica impedisce queste e altre scelte economiche di vitale importanza per uscire dalla crisi. Ma di tutto questo, nel talk show della politica, non si parla.

Manlio Dinucci

The “lost child” endures as motif and theme, the stalking shadow of much literature, the background to a society’s anxiety.  The child, often deemed innocent, becomes the ink blot of loss in such disappearance.  In Australia, it was captured by Peter Pierce’s The Country of Lost Children: An Australian Anxiety (1999).  In wide spaces, innocence has much room to go wrong in, to vanish and encourage judgment. 

Madeleine McCann was never merely a lost child who disappeared in the Algarve from her family’s holiday apartment on May 3, 2007.  She remains a fixation of the British media stable, and, it should be said, to an unhealthy degree.  Her disappearance was a fire that burned with little Englander, flag-waving rage, often directed against the Portuguese and judgmental about any efforts in investigation.  The McCann story was, in Giles Tremlett’s words, “a snapshot of Britain and its poisonous media culture”, but also those indifferent Britons who were happy to enjoy the sun of the Iberian Peninsula without much care for their host countries.  Such tourists, and residents, could often be beastly, preoccupying local police and emergency units with their overdoses, intoxicated late night swims, night club fighting and the occasional drowned toddler in a villa swimming pool.

The McCann furnace tended to burn most of its participants, including the grieving parents, who were a daily feature of news bulletins till saturation, stepping out of their Praia da Luz apartment and photographed with paparazzi enthusiasm.  For a brief spell, police interest shifted to them, more out of formality than anything else.  An interest was registered in their parenting skills and their lifestyle.  Should they have left their three-year old daughter unattended in an easily accessible flat as they feasted on tapas with friends who did the same?  Did they sedate their child?  It would explain why there were no screams, no howls of despair, as a stranger carted the child away. 

As novelist Anne Enright weighed in, “If someone else is found to have taken Madeleine McCann – as may well be the case – it will show that the ordinary life of an ordinary family cannot survive the suspicious scrutiny of millions.”  (Worth noting here is the savage attack on Enright for her generally balanced reflection.  Janet Street-Porter, editor-at-large at The Independent raged, calling her “charmless”, a hater of Kate McCann “who is guilty of no crime, except being fit and attractive”.)

In covering the disappearance, and the vain investigation to recover her or find a culprit, views and commentaries flourished with speculative detail, malicious mauling, and mawkish reverence.  The reputation of Kate and Gerry McCann served to shift in the sands of public consciousness, a projection of class and status.  Initially, as was to be found in the Daily Mail, they were the perfect, unsullied parents, both of medical background, their daughter being blond and insufferably cute.  Brimming of the middle class ethic, they were to be seen and judged through such eyes, with their daughter fulfilling a role akin to caricature about what innocence would look like.  “This kind of thing doesn’t usually happen to people like us,” bleated Allison Pearson of the Daily Mail. 

But things did turn on them, with a sort of reverse snobbery.  The Daily Express was particularly keen on that front, with their reporters encouraged to target the McCanns for unsubstantiated responsibility for their daughter’s demise.  The same attention had not been paid to, for instance, the vanishing of British toddler Ben Needham in Kos in 1991.  As Owen Jones noted in sharp fashion in Chavs (2012), “Kidnappings, stabbings, murders; those are things you almost expect to happen to people living in Peckham or Glasgow.  This sort of tragedy was not supposed to happen to folks you might bump into doing the weekly shop at Waitrose.”

The McCanns could always count on their defenders.  Des Spence found himself performing that role in the British Medical Journal, finding it impossible to presume that the parents were culpable in any way.  (Sod the police; we know better.)  “The McCanns merely did as countless thousands of other parents have done.  Any blame of guilt is grossly misplaced and unkind, for they are victims of an act of utter malevolence. No one has the right to question the McCanns’ parental commitment.”

The case had been on a slow burn, embers visible to those caring to watch.  In addition to personal efforts on the part of the McCanns to hire personal investigators, Scotland Yard also committed its own resources in Operation Grange.  Several police forces have been preoccupied with the investigation.

Now, a blast of air has been given to the matter, with the grim announcement by the Braunschweig Public Prosecutor’s Office about the latest developments.  “We are assuming,” stated a solemn Hans Christian Wolters, “that the girl is dead.  With the suspect, we are talking about a sexual predator who has already been convicted of crimes against little girls and he’s already serving a long sentence.”  The suspect in question, one Christian D., had been a regular resident of the Algarve between 1995 and 2007, working in the catering industry and doing his bit of drug dealing and burgling of holiday flats.  To date, the prosecutor general’s office in Portugal have yet to find a record of any crimes committed by the suspect, though they are re-opening their investigation on that front.

Despite the news, family spokesman Clarence Mitchell revealed that he could not “recall an instance when the police had been so specific about an individual.  Of all the thousands of leads and potential suspects that have been mentioned in the past, there has never been something as clear cut as that from not just one, but three police forces.”   

While the German stance on this has settled upon the view that Madeleine is no longer alive, the Met Police in Britain hold to the view that this remains a “missing persons” investigation.  In doing so, another offering to perpetuate the McCann mystery has been made, one that has become self-propagating, ceaseless and remorselessly vulgar.

*

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

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

Featured image is from Wikimedia Commons

If there were a Russian version of the website PropOrNot, Academician Arbatov could find himself listed there as “American agent/dupe.”

Arbatov directs the International Security Center of the Institute of World Economy and International Relations of the Russian Academy of Sciences.  He demonstrates his Washington leanings by his recommendation that Russia avoid a strategic alliance with China.  This, of course, is a Washington position.  It seems curious coming from a Russian security expert at a time when US foreign policy is dominated by neoconservatives who are hostile to both Russia and China because the two countries are obstacles to American hegemony.  

Washington demonizes both Russia and China, imposes sanctions and threats, conducts aggressive military maneuvers in the spheres of influence of both countries, dismisses the Russian president as “the new Hitler,” threatens China with a trade war, and blames China for the coronavirus and threatens to make China pay for it.

Confronted by such a hostile and unreasonable power as the US presents itself to be, a strategic alliance between Russia and China seems to be precisely what is required in order to deter Washington from its hostile intentions.  With the American organized and financed Hong Kong riots and efforts to destabilize a Chinese province and with the neoconservatives’ intention of overthrowing the Iranian government and sending jihadists into the Russian Federation, Washington has demonstrated its intention to destabilize first one country and then the other.  A common front evidenced by a strategic alliance would represent power greater than Washington and prevent Washington miscalculations that could lead to the outbreak of war.

Why is Arbatov opposed to such a desireable result? Why does he want Russia “to keep its distance” from China?  Does he trust Washington more than China?  

He gives this answer:  A half century ago the Soviet Union

“officially proclaimed in its program that China was the greatest threat to the world.  We cannot go back and forth between extremes, from China being the world’s greatest threat to it being our strategic ally or partner. One cannot play with such concepts. A strategic ally is when you are ready to send your soldiers to fight for the interests of your ally, and vice versa. I am confident that we don’t have and will not have such a situation with China.”

What strategic sense does it make for Arbatov to use a minor conflict of a half century ago between China and a government and country that no longer exist to discourage a strategic alliance that would prevent a much more serious conflict today?  One possible answer is that some Russians, despite Washington’s demonstrated aggressive intentions toward Russia, are more enamored of America than they are of China.  The romanticism of the Atlanticist Integrationists remains Russia’s greatest threat. 

Arbatov is not alone in his view. A number of Russian experts believe that Russia should not get too close to China whose economic position they believe is stronger than Russia’s.  They fear that a close relationship would result in Russia becoming a servant of China’s, with the Russian economy being limited to being a source of natural resources.

Russia’s experts should remember that it is Washington’s plan to limit the Russian economy to the export of raw materials except for energy to Europe.  Do the experts who are discouraging alliance with China prefer for Russia to be Washington’s servant?  The prevention of a strategic alliance between Russia and China is essential to US hegemony. Russians should avoid being manipulated into a fear of China that exposes them to the danger of being Washington’s servant. A strategic alliance is the best way for Russia and China to protect themselves from Washington’s machinations. 

It makes sense for Russia, threatened as it is by Washington, to make friends and build bridges to other countries.

Russia’s concession to Norway in the Barents Sea, to China over an island in the Amur River, and consideration of Japan’s request for the return of the Kuril Islands are marks of thoughtful diplomacy.  Whatever the basis for Russian distrust of China, it makes less sense for Russia to trust Washington, which continues to prepare the path for war by dismantling the last remaining agreements put in place to ensure peace.  Nothing is more important to Russia and China, and to world peace, than a solid alliance between Russia and China.  This is the best way for the two countries to protect their sovereignty and perhaps the only way of preventing the drive for American hegemony from resulting in nuclear war.  If Russians cannot understand this, they are doomed along with the rest of us.

*

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

Dr. 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.

Mass protests in the US and elsewhere over racist killings of Black men like George Floyd aren’t good enough.

They divert attention from an array of core issues ignored by officialdom and establishment media.

Justice won’t be served unless they’re all addressed and corrected, systemic change that requires longterm struggle.

Days, weeks, even a few months of street protests alone will fail like always before, especially if pacified by cosmetic changes alone.

Tinkering around the edges alone assures status quo forever wars, inequity and injustice for ordinary people while privileged ones enjoy gravy train benefits.

That’s the American way that’s replicated throughout the West and elsewhere worldwide — governance of, by, and for special interests at the expense of the exploited vast majority.

All lives matter, those most disadvantaged harmed most by institutionalized fantasy democracy, racism, inequity and injustice in the US and worldwide.

Systemic change that’s needed demands going for the following — without compromise:

Money power put back in public hands where it belongs, in the US by abolishing the Wall Street owned Fed and giving back to Congress what’s constitutionally mandated.

Break up and prohibit too-big-to-fail banks, including an end to allowing commercial and investment banking combinations, along with letting them own insurance companies.

End countless billions of dollars of corporate handouts and bailouts.

Rescind the Commodity Futures Modernization Act that greatly contributed to speculative excess, including no regulatory oversight of derivatives and leveraging that turned Wall Street more than ever into a casino

Enact progressive policies, eliminating neoliberal ones, including force-fed austerity on ordinary people, the nation’s wealth used for everyone, not just the privileged few.

Mandate social justice in the US by constitutional amendment, including universal healthcare, public education to the highest levels, along with human, civil and organized labor rights, what was omitted in the US founding document.

Breaking up and banning corporate monopolies and oligopolies.

Getting money entirely out of politics.

Changing rigged elections to free, fair and open ones.

In the US, ending one-party rule with two right wings, fostering a climate that encourages parties independent from the current system.

Mandate ecosanity over raping and plundering the earth for maximum profits.

Reestablish and strengthen the vanishing middle class.

Reinstate progressive taxes, requiring the wealthy and business to pay their fair share.

Slash military spending, declaring a new era or peace and stability by beating swords into plowshares, using the revenue for rebuilding US infrastructure and enhancing social programs.

End corporate personhood, the US gulag prison system, capital punishment, and unrestrained predatory capitalist practices.

The difference between the latter and my decades of experience in small family business is worlds apart — public service v. big business rapaciousness for maximum profits in cahoots with big government, an unholy alliance against peace, equity and justice.

Todays America is the product of its founders — a men-only Wall Street crowd equivalent, given their economic status and prominence.

Designers of the nation’s founding document were bankers, merchants, lawyers, politicians, judges, and other wheeler-dealers.

The Constitution and Bill of Rights five years later served their interests, not the general welfare — notably not African Americans considered property, not people.

Not women at the time, considered child-rearers and homemakers alone, not decision-makers, not independent from their husbands.

The general welfare was off the table, special interests alone served, not ordinary America — fantasy democracy institutionalized from inception.

In his last State of the Union address on January 11, 1944, Franklin Roosevelt proposed a second bill of rights, economic ones, because original ones in the Constitution’s first 10 amendments “proved inadequate to assure us equality…”

FDR didn’t live long enough to push for what he proposed to become the law of the land post-WW II.

Economic rights he proposed are more greatly needed now, what should be core demands of protesters on US streets. They included the following:

• Full employment with a guaranteed living wage adjusted to the real cost of living the way it was calculated pre-1990.
• Freedom from unfair competition and monopolies.
• Ending homelessness by assuring housing for all.
• Universal healthcare and public education to the highest levels.
• Enhanced social security beyond what New Deal legislation provided — that’s greatly eroded today.

All of the above and more are needed for egalitarian rule over governance serving privileged interests alone like now.

Roosevelt died on April 12, 1945, his economic bill of rights along with him.

The vast majority of protesters on US streets know nothing about it, along with little about the nation’s dark history from before its inception to the present day.

Ending institutionalized racism and police brutality are vital objectives.

It’s not enough. Key is ending all forms of inequity and injustice along with forever wars on humanity at home and abroad.

These are goals to pursue by committed longterm struggle.

Achieving them won’t come any other way.

Iconoclast muckraking journalist IF Stone once explained the following:

“The only kinds of fights worth fighting are those you are going to lose, because somebody has to fight them and lose and lose and lose until someday, somebody who believes as you do wins…”

That’s what longterm struggle is all about — fighting the good fight for peace, equity and justice so one day what’s now unattainable is possible.

If that’s not worth fighting for, what is?

*

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

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

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

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

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.

Featured image is from Rise Up Times

The secret services of Czechia had first informed its government in April that it had damning evidence against two Russian diplomats in the country that would warrant their expulsion. It was alleged, without any evidence given publicly, that Russian diplomats smuggled ricin poison to Czechia. According to the Czech Security Information Service, they ‘discovered’ that there was a planned attack against three Czech politicians, including Prague’s mayor, Zdeněk Hřib, who went under police protection in April.

However, on Friday, Czech Prime Minister Andrej Babiš, said in a statement that the whole Russian plot had been fake and rather the information emerged because of an internal struggle between Russian diplomats.

“The entire case came to being as a result of internal feuding among workers at the [Russian] embassy,” he said. “One of them sent false information about a planned attack against Czech politicians to our counter-intelligence service.”

The Russian embassy in Czechia called the whole case a contrived provocation and pointed out that the decision to expel diplomats means less room for constructive dialogue. The Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs also responded to the incident, saying in a statement that Moscow will make an appropriate retaliation and that the Czech side would have to take responsibility for its actions. According to the ministry, Prague acted dishonestly and without any reasons caused serious damage to Russian-Czech relations.

Czech journalist who first broke the story about the alleged plot, Ondřej Kundra of the Czech weekly Respekt, highlighted that there are inconsistencies in Babiš’ story.

“The government has offered an explanation, but we still don’t see the full picture. It’s hard to imagine the government would expel two Russian diplomats just because they said nasty things about each other,” he said.

Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokesperson, Maria Zakharova, said that relations between Moscow and Prague are being “deliberately worsened by a certain part of the Czech elite,” and there is little doubt that this is occurring, especially with Czech provocations against Russia increasing.

In April, Prague councillors voted to rename the “Under the Chestnuts” square to “Boris Nemtsov Square” to commemorate the murdered Russian political opposition. The West blames Russian President Vladimir Putin for Nemtsov’s death, without evidence of course. Hřib spearheaded the renaming of the square and said it was a part of the “Czech human rights tradition.” Unsurprisingly the renamed square is at the Russian Embassy, forcing the Embassy to change its official address from the square name to 36 Korunovacni Street.

Also in April, Prague District 6 mayor Ondřej Kolář used the coronavirus state of emergency to remove a statue of Marshal Ivan Konev, the famous Soviet general who was responsible for liberating most of Eastern Europe from Nazi Germany, to avoid protests from “strange people from both the right and left scum.” This was his description of the people who opposed the statues removal. Czech President Miloš Zeman shared outrage over the removed statue as “an abuse of the state of emergency.”

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said that nobody presented evidence that Moscow was trying to poison anyone. Zeman also doubted the authenticity of the poisoning, while the First Deputy Prime Minister and Interior Minister Jan Gamachek admitted that police and special services did not see any available evidence.

It certainly appears that there is a large split in the Czech establishment between two factions: those hostile to Russia and those who want friendly relations with Russia. There is little doubt that Zeman takes a Russia-friendly position, but that puts him at odds with the Prime Minister, the Prague Mayor, and many others in position of power. So  Zeman is in the minority as the anti-Russia faction appears to be gaining stronger influence and power, especially in the aftermath of the square name change, the removal of a Soviet statue and the expulsion of the Russian diplomats.

Babiš said the expulsions were “appropriate and adequate,” despite conceding that the allegations that Russia was planning to use ricin to assassinate three Czech politicians was not true. It is likely that no Russian diplomats in the Prague Embassy sent notes to the Czech intelligence services about the impending assassinations and the Czech government were caught out making fake news. To cover the embarrassment, they could have concocted a story that they received false leads from Russian diplomats about the alleged assassination planning, and to legitimize the story are now expelling the Russian diplomats. Just as Kundra said, the changing story by Babiš is not adding up.

*

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

This article was originally published on InfoBrics.

Paul Antonopoulos is an independent geopolitical analyst.

Featured image is from InfoBrics

Sparked by the police murder of George Floyd and fueled by Minneapolis authorities’ reluctance to arrest and charge the murderer’s three police accomplices, mass protests have been sweeping across the US with an intensity not seen since the 1960s. In over 150 cities, African Americans and their allies have flooded the streets, braving the COVID-19 pandemic, braving police violence, challenging centuries of racial and class inequalities, demanding liberty and justice for all, day after day defying a corrupt, racist power structure based on violent repression.

1. Breaches in the System’s Defenses

Today, after ten consecutive days in the streets, this outpouring of popular indignation against systematic, historic injustice has opened a number of breaches in the defensive wall of the system. The legal authorities in the state of Minnesota, where George Floyd was murdered, have been forced to arrest and indict as accomplices the three other policemen who aided and abetted the killer, against whom the charges were raised from third to second degree murder. A split has opened at the summit of power, where the Secretary of Defense and numerous Pentagon officials have broken with their Commander in Chief, Donald Trump, who has attempted to mobilize the US Army against the protestors.

This historic uprising is an outpouring of accumulated black anger over decades of unpunished police murders of unarmed African-Americans. It articulates the accumulated grief of families and communities, the sheer outrage over impunity for killer cops in both the North and the South. It reflects anger at capitalist America’s betrayal of Martin Luther King’s “dream” of non-violent revolution and horror at the return to the era of public lynchings cheered on by the President of the United States. It impatiently demands that America at long last live up to its proclaimed democratic ideals, here and now. In the words of one African-American protester, William Achukwu, 28, of San Francisco: “Our Declaration of Independence says life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. We are only dealing with the life part here. This is a first step. But liberty is what a lot of people are marching for.”

2. Violence and Non-Violence

It came as no surprise that local and state officials across the US reacted to largely peaceful, spontaneous mass protests against police brutality and racism by unleashing a maelstrom of militarized police violence.[1] For a generation, the Federal government has been quietly gifting huge stocks of surplus military equipment, including tanks, to local police forces and sheriff’s offices eager to play with lethal new toys designed for counter-insurgency in places like Afghanistan. Under both Democrats (Clinton, Obama) and Republicans (Bush, Trump) the federal state has been arming law enforcement in preparation for a preventive counter-revolution. This is precisely what President Trump is calling for today: “full dominance” by means of military crackdowns, mass arrests, and long prison sentences in the name of “law and order.” Thanks to the determination of these masses of militant but largely non-violent protestors, the military is divided, and Trump will not have his way.

Source: The Bullet

Apropos of violence, it was feared at first that the numerous incidences of setting fires, smashing shop fronts, and looting, especially after dark when the large, orderly crowds of mixed demonstrators had gone home, would in some way “spoil” the uprising and provide a pretext for the violent, military suppression of the whole movement, as called for by Trump, who blamed it all on an imaginary terrorist group called “ANTIFA” (short for “anti-fascism,” in fact, a loose network). At the same time, reports of gangs of young white racists wearing MAGA (“Make America Great Again”) hats committing vandalism, of “accelerationists” systematically setting fires in black neighborhoods to “provoke revolution,” and of violent police provocateurs are not entirely to be discounted.

Such actions play into Trump’s hands. On the other hand, the more reasonable voices of the hundreds of thousands of angry but nonviolent protestors might not have been listened to by the authorities if it had not been for the threat of violence from the fringes if their voices were ignored. Instead of burning their own neighborhoods as has happened in past riots, today’s militants are strategically hitting symbols of state repression and capitalism – lighting up and destroying police property, trashing the stores of million-dollar corporations, and even pushing against the gates of the White House. In any case, as far as “looting” is concerned, as the spokeswomen of BLM argued at George Floyd’s memorial, white people have been looting Africa and African-Americans for centuries. Pay-back is long over-due.

3. Black and White Anti-Racist Convergence

What is especially remarkable and heartening to see as we view the impassioned faces of the demonstrators through images on videos, newspaper photos, and TV reports is the realization that at least half the demonstrators in the crowds proclaiming “Black Lives Matter” are white people! Here again, a serious breach has been opened in the wall of systemic, institutionalized racism that has for centuries enabled the US ruling class to divide and conquer the working masses, pitting slave labourers and their discriminated descendants against relatively “privileged” white wage slaves in a competitive race to the bottom. Today, they are uniting in the fight for justice and equality. Equally remarkable is the continuing. leadership role of women, especially African American women in the founding of both the #BlackLivesMatter movement and the Women’s March against Trump’s Inauguration. The participation of young and old, LGBT and physically challenged folks is also to be remarked.

This convergence of these freedom struggles across deeply-rooted racial divides promises to open new paths as US social movements emerge from the Covid confinement. Even more remarkable, albeit limited, are incidents, also recorded on citizen video, of individual cops apologizing for police violence, hugging victims, and taking the knee with demonstrators. Public officials, like the Mayor of Los Angeles, have also been obliged to meet with the protestors and to apologize for the previous racist remarks. Moreover, as we shall see below, serious cracks have emerged in the unity of the US military, both among the ranks, which are 40 per cent African American, and also among top officers. Such is the power of this massive, self-organized, inter-racial movement demanding “freedom and justice for all” (as stated in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Republic).

4. Cracks Within the Regime

Today, after ten days, during which the protests have continued to increase numerically and to deepen in radical content, cracks have opened in the defenses of the ruling corporate billionaire class and have reached the White House, where Donald J. Trump, the self-deluded, ignorant bully and pathological liar supposedly in charge, has finally been challenged by his own appointed security officials.

It must be said that today’s billionaire ruling class has the representative it deserves in Trump, and the Donald’s ineptitude, visible to all, is symbolic of its historic incapacity to retain the right to rule. Trump’s flawed, self-centered personality incarnates the narrow class interests of the 0.01% who own more than half the wealth of the nation. His obvious selfishness exemplifies that of the billionaires he represents (and pretends to be one of). Out of his willful ignorance, Trump speaks for a corporate capitalist class indifferent to the global ecological and social consequences of its ruthless drive to accumulate, indifferent to truth and justice, indifferent indeed to human life itself.

Trump’s clownish mis-rule has embarrassed the state itself. First came the childish spectacle of the most powerful man in the world hunkering down in his basement bunker and ordering the White House lights turned off (so the demonstrators outside couldn’t see in?). Then came the order to assault peaceful protestors with chemical weapons so as to clear the way for President Trump to walk to the nearby “Presidents’ Church” (which he never attends and whose pastor he didn’t bother to consult) in order to have himself photographed brandishing a huge white Bible (which he has most likely never read) like a club.

Trump, whose only earned success in life was his long-running reality-TV show “The Apprentice,” apparently devised this bizarre publicity stunt to rally his political base of right-wing Christians and show how “religious” he is. But it backfired when the Bishop of Washington pointed out that Jesus preached love and peace, not war and vengeance. The next day, even demagogues like Pat Robinson of the far-right wing Christian Coalition spoke out against him, while the anti-Trump New York Times triumphantly headlined: “Trump’s Approval Slips Where He Can’t Afford to Lose It: Among Evangelicals.”

Let us pause to note that American Christianity, like every other aspect of American civilization, is a knot of contradictions all rooted in the fundamental problem of “the color line.” Although the racist, conservative, pro-Israel, Christian right has been the core of Trump’s support, liberation theology and the black church have long been the base of the Civil Rights movement for equality. Indeed, George Floyd the murdered African-American (known as “Big Floyd” and “the Gentle Giant”) was himself a religiously motivated community peacemaker. So are many of the demonstrators, white and black, chanting “No Justice, No Peace.”

Trump’s phony populist act may have helped catapult him into office in 2016 (thanks to Republican-rigged electoral system and despite losing the popular vote by three million votes), but as Abraham Lincoln once remarked of the American public, “You can fool some of the people all of the time and all of the people some of the time, but you can’t fool all of the people all of the time.” Today, Trump’s time is up.

5. Police: The Vicious Dogs of the Bourgeoisie

To me, the most emblematic image of the moment is that of a self-deluded Donald Trump, huddled (like Hitler) in his underground bunker with the White House lights turned off, shivering with fear and rage at the demonstrators outside, and threatening to sick (purely imaginary) “vicious dogs” on them. Trump has the Doberman mentality of the junk-yard owner from Queens he incarnates; he is the spiritual descendant of the slave-catcher Simon Legree chasing the escaped slave Eliza with his dogs (see Uncle Tom’s Cabin).

Vicious dogs of the bourgeoisie: that’s what the police are paid to be (even if a few of them may turn out to be basically friendly German Shepherds underneath, like those who took the knee with the protestors). Their canines are the sharp teeth of the American state. Along with the Army, cops are the essence of the actual deep state which Marx defined as “special bodies of armed men, courts, prisons, etc.” (as opposed to “the people armed” in democratically-run popular militias).

Although subservient to the bourgeois state, this police apparatus, like the Mafia with which it is sometimes entwined, has a corporate identity of its own based on omertà or strict group loyalty. This unwritten rule is the notorious “Blue Wall of Silence” which prevents cops who see their “brothers” committing graft and violent abuses from speaking out or testifying against them. The blue wall assures police impunity and is organized through police “unions” which, although affiliated with the AFL-CIO, are violently reactionary, anti-labour, and pro-Trump. The President of the International Police Union has been filmed wearing a red “Make America Great Again” hat and shaking hands with Trump at a political rally, while protesters in Minneapolis have been calling for the ousting of Bob Kroll, the local police union president who has been widely criticized for his unwavering support of officers accused of wrongdoing.

The Blue Wall of silence extends up the repressive food chain to prosecutors, District Attorneys, and even progressive mayors, like New York’s Bill Di Blazio, who defended New York police driving their SUVs straight into a crowd of demonstrators, although his own mixed-race daughter was arrested as a Black Lives Matter demonstrator! Di Blazio, like his reactionary predecessor, Rudy Giuliani, former “law and order” District Attorney and current Trump advisor, knows that his political future is dependent on the good will of the Police Union (like junk-yard owners who are afraid of their own vicious dogs).

This customary coddling of the police even extended to the New York Times initial coverage of violent police attacks on members of the press in Minneapolis and elsewhere. In its report, The Timeshid behind a twisted notion of “objectivity” (blame both sides) to avoid pointing fingers at cops, thus observing the “blue wall of silence” even when reporters are victims. (At this writing, over a thousand such attacks have been recorded.) Using passive voice rather than naming the actual assailants (brutal racist cops), the New York Times report conflated a single isolated incident where a crowd attacked news people from Trump’s FOX network, with systematic, nationwide police attacks on members of the media.[2]

A week later, that sacrosanct Blue Wall is beginning to crumble. Not only have the D.A. and Governor of Minnesota been forced to escalate the charges against Derek Chauvin, George Floyd’s killer, to second degree murder (why not first?) and arrest his three police accomplices, the latter have begun to rat each other out. Facing 40 years in prison and a bail of at least $750,000, Thomas Lane and J. Alexander Kueng, both rookies, are blaming Chauvin, the senior officer at the scene and a training officer, while Tou Thao, the other former officer charged in the case, had reportedly cooperated with investigators before they arrested Chauvin.

6. Cracks in the Military Wall

Such is the power of today’s mass Black Lives Matter uprising, that it has opened a breach in US capitalism’s most important defense wall: the military. For if the police are American capitalism’s junk yard Dobermans, the Armed Forces are basis of its domination over the world. And if the cry for equal justice has opened a tiny crack in the Blue Wall of Silence, the breach in the ranks of the US military, which is 40% colored and recruited from the poorest classes of American society, is more like a gulf.

The rank and file in today’s US Army, Navy and Air Forces are a reflection of American society, of a population of mainly poor and minority people for whom the military provides one possible solution to unemployment and discrimination. The mood of the troops reflects that of the communities they are recruited from, and their officers, who are responsible for their morale, discipline, and loyalty, must be sensitive to their feelings. This situation is epitomized by the following quotations from the New York Times:

“Chief Master Sgt. Kaleth O. Wright of the Air Force, who is black, wrote an extraordinary Twitter thread declaring, ‘I am George Floyd’.

“The Navy’s top officer, Adm. Michael M. Gilday, said in a message on Wednesday to all sailors: ‘I think we need to listen. We have black Americans in our Navy and in our communities that are in deep pain right now. They are hurting’.”

Although Gen. Mark A. Milley, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, released a message to top military commanders on Wednesday affirming that every member of the armed forces swears an oath to defend the Constitution, which he said “gives Americans the right to freedom of speech,” The Generals and Admirals, retired and active, who have been speaking out for racial justice and the rights of demonstrating citizens this week are not all sudden converts to the cause of peace and justice. Rather, the America officer class is sharply focused on its global mission, which is to protect American domination around the world by leading these troops to kill and be killed in bloody civil war situations in mainly non-white countries.

“‘We are at the most dangerous time for civil-military relations I’ve seen in my lifetime’, Adm. Sandy Winnefeld, a retired vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said in an email. ‘It is especially important to reserve the use of federal forces for only the most dire circumstances that actually threaten the survival of the nation. Our senior-most military leaders need to ensure their political chain of command understands these things’.”

For the troops, policing the world for capitalism is an endless, incompressible and demoralizing mission of violent counter-insurrection from which they return physically and psychologically damaged, often haunted by guilt, only to face unemployment and lack of support from the public and the underfunded Veterans’ Authority. As for the officers, it is a question of maintaining discipline and morale. The top brass know that deploying troops trained in counter-insurrection to control civil disturbances on US soil would inevitably have one of two negative results (if not both): 1. Un-acceptable violence against civilians and/or 2. fraternization with the protestors, mutiny, and disobedience among the ranks. Hence the Pentagon’s open break with their “law and order” Commander in Chief. The danger of fraternization is especially real in National Guard regiments, whose troops are drawn from the populations of the states their families live in.

“Senior Pentagon leaders worry that a militarized and heavy-handed response to the protests, Mr. Trump’s stated wish, will turn the American public against the troops, like what happened in the waning years of the Vietnam War, when National Guard troops in combat fatigues battled antiwar protesters at Kent State. Adm. Mike Mullen, a former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, denounced the use of the military to support the political acts of a president who had “laid bare his disdain for the rights of peaceful protest in this country.”

Although the eternal showman Trump apparently appointed Mark Milley chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff on the basis of the General’s physical resemblance to John Wayne, Milley happens to be a serious military historian. So is Secretary of Defense Esper. Both are aware that revolutions can only happen when there is a split in the ranks of the soldiers. In their West Point courses on counter-insurgency, they have certain read of the classic example of Russia in 1917 when the Cossacks were sent to block the demonstrators in St. Petersburg. These fierce cavalry men sat passively still on their horses as the strikers dove between their legs, leading Trotsky to famously remark that “the revolution passes underneath the belly of a Cossack’s horse.” And indeed, not long after this incident the Russian soldiers formed ‘Soviets’ (councils) and joined the workers’ and peasants in overthrowing the Czar.

Of course Russia in 1917 was in the middle of a social crisis, led by an inept, self-deluded Autocrat, bleeding lives and treasure into an endless, pointless foreign war. Nothing even vaguely similar could ever happen in optimistic, triumphant, happy, America under the firm leadership and uniting presence of our loveable President, Donald J. Trump.

7. Race and Class in US History

American society has been riddled with contradictions since its beginnings, and these contradictions, rooted in race and class, are still being played today out in the streets of over 150 US cities. Today’s uprisings, interracial from the beginning, express popular frustration that after centuries of struggle against slavery, after a bloody fratricidal Civil War in the 1860s and after the “second American revolution” of Reconstruction, after the Civil Rights movement and the urban riots of the 1960s, the lives of the descendants of black slaves are still not safe in the land that first proclaimed the human right to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”

The American Revolution of the 18th century professed the universal principle, as expressed in the 1776 Declaration of Independence that “All men are created equal and endowed with certain inalienable rights.” Yet, despite the participation of free blacks in the Revolution (Crispus Attucks), that promised equality was quickly contradicted by the inclusion in the US Constitution of notorious clauses which not only institutionalized black slavery in the American Republic, but also assured the permanent predominance in the federal government for the slaveholding Southern states.

The electoral system created by that slave-owners Constitution was based on the relative male populations of the several states, however allowed the Southerners to include their slaves as “three fifths of a man” (!) in the census. Thus the minority of white Southerners could always outvote the more populous North and dominate the Union. This hypocritical “compromise” was the price of national unity in a nation “half-free and half-slave.” Accordingly, ten of the first twelve American Presidents were slave-owners, and more and more such “compromises” favoring the slave-owner interests were introduced as new states were added to the Union, spreading the Southern slave empire further and further west. This rickety, lopsided Federal Union based on Southern domination held until 1860.

However, when Northern moderate Abraham Lincoln took office as President in 1861, most of the slave-owning states seceded from the Union, formed a rebellious Confederacy, launched a war on the United States, and sought recognition from Great Britain – the Confederacy’s main customer for slave-grown cotton. It is often been argued that the bitterly fought US Civil War, which lasted four years and registered higher casualty rates than even WWI, was not really “about slavery.” But it was. To hide this ugly truth, the white Southerners still call it “the War Between the States.” Yet the war was precipitated by white Abolitionists like John Brown, who aided and provoked slave rebellions. Moreover, the huge numbers of young farmers and mechanics who volunteered and even re-enlisted to fight for the North knew they were fighting for human freedom, as their correspondence with their families and hometown newspapers indicated.

Finally, the Civil War, long a bloody stalemate, was won by the Union North only after Lincoln unleashed the fighting power of the Negro slaves in the South by reluctantly issuing the Emancipation Proclamation, as Karl Marx, writing on behalf of anti-slavery British textile workers, had urged American President in a famous letter. Soon, slaves began escaping from their plantations and flocking to the Union Armies, depriving the white South of much of its black labour force. The Union Army fed them, immediately put them to work, and later enrolled them in Negro regiments who fought bravely and effectively to defeat the slaveocracy. Not “about slavery?”

Marx, speaking for the boycotting white English textile workers, had explained their unity with the slaves: “Labour in the white skin can never be free as long as labour in the black skin is branded.” A century and a half later, African-American workers in the US are no longer “branded” like their enslaved ancestors, but even today the color of their skin brands them and makes them prey to oppressors, like bosses, landlords, discriminatory banks, and the violent racist police who, up to now, have correctly assumed they can mistreat and even murder them with impunity.

The tragedy of the Civil War, which as we have seen was fought over slavery, is that although the North won the War, the South won the peace. Lincoln was shot in 1865, and his Vice-President, a border state Republican name Johnson, had strong pro-slavery Southern sympathies, and he used his power to sabotage the efforts to reconstruct the slave South on a new basis of freedom and equality. Although the Union passed three Reconstruction Amendments to the US Constitution, granting the former slaves and their descendants citizenship and full civil rights including the ballots. Reconstruction of the South was a “Second American Revolution,” making real and legal the freedom and equality promised by the Revolution of 1776.

Tragically, under President Johnson the former Confederate leaders, instead of being tried for treason, were pardoned and allowed to take high office. Supported by armed mobs of whites, they proceeded to discourage the newly-freed slaves from voting and owning property through Ku Klux Klan racist terror, even though the South was still occupied by victorious Union troops. President Johnson was impeached (but not convicted) by Congress, and by the time President Grant took office and attempted to use the Federal Troops occupying the South to protect the nascent democracy of elected Negroes, it was too late. Thousands of Northern whites went South to help newly freed blacks through literacy and political education, at the risk of being lynched by local racists. Great progress was made and America’s first free public school system established (only to be later forcibly segregated and privatized by racists).

Through armed white violence, slavery had been “replaced” by segregation, inequality and a racist economic system of “boss over black.” In 1876, twenty years after the Civil War, the ruling classes of the industrial North and formerly rebellious cotton-producing South united politically. They celebrated this ruling class unity by withdrawing the Federal occupation from the south, leaving the Negroes helpless before the armed KKK and racist local authorities. Why? The troops were needed in the North to crush the violent strikes of the industrial workers, who were organizing unions (but largely on a “whites only” basis). Later, unwitting blacks were brought North by train to be used as strikebreakers – another ploy in the capitalists’ racist “divide and rule.”

By 1900, W.E.B. Dubois, the black Marxist sociologist, historian of Reconstruction, and founder of the NAACP, was describing the US as a country with “two working classes,” one black one white. African American troops fought bravely (in segregated units) for the United States in the First World War in the hope of having their manhood recognized, but they returned to face increased racist repression. President Wilson pronounced Griffith’s racist pro-KKK film “Birth of a Nation” a masterpiece, and 1919 was a record year for lynchings, especially of ‘uppity’ black soldiers who returned in uniform.

The struggle to make the Second American Revolution established by the post- Civil War Reconstruction Amendments a reality was resumed after the Second World War and gave birth to the Civil Rights Movement and the Civil Rights laws of the 1960s in the hope of completing America’s promise, the “dream” of Martin Luther King. Federal troops were once more mobilized to prevent white racist mobs from attacking African Americans to exercise their legal right vote and attend the same schools as whites: by Eisenhower in 1956 at Little Rock and by JFK in Mississippi in 1962. Yet once again, despite legal victories and more blacks in visible the media and government, nothing fundamental changed on the ground. Sixty years later, African Americans are just a poor, just as segregated, just as excluded from first-class health, education and housing services, and just as subject to racist police violence as were their grand parents.

The murder of George Floyd is said to be the “straw that broke the camel’s back.” It was the straw that set fire to the haystack of anger and frustration that was smoldering for generations. Will this blaze be yet another fire of straw, fated to die out? I think not. The context has changed. US society, like the whole capitalist world, is in crisis. The economy, with productivity declining, with inequality and unemployment increasing, with debt and speculation ballooning was already in crisis. The pandemic pushed it over the top, and the resulting recession has only just begun. Thirty years after the post Cold War “new world order” of democracy, peace and un-ending growth was proclaimed, few Americans believe that their lives and those of their children likely to improve, what with social and ecological doom impending. The system has little to promise them and its leaders little to inspire confidence in them. In other words, they are no longer politically and socially ‘hegemonic’ and must depend on coercion to hold power. Today, the credibility and legitimacy of that coercive power, the cops and army, is being called into question by the masses, white and colored, demanding justice and equality.

The police may well continue to attack the demonstrators and while Trump and his followers call for militarization of the country in the name of protecting property, law, and order, it is clear that a breach has been opened in the Blue Wall of Silence protecting the privileges of the billionaire class against the power of the working masses who today face not only a political crisis but also the crisis of an ongoing pandemic, the crisis of poverty and mass unemployment, and the impending climate crisis of which Covid is a symptomatic forerunner.

Throughout US history, from the white Abolitionists, to the Yankee Civil War volunteers, to the Northern “carpetbaggers” who worked for Reconstruction, to the white Civil Rights marchers of the 1960s to the millions of whites in the streets proclaiming Black Lives Matter today, the unity in struggle of America’s racialized peoples has brought about whatever progress in freedom and democracy this race-benighted Republic has ever known.

Like the British workers in Marx’s day, today’s “privileged” white demonstrators, themselves victims, to a lesser degree, of American capitalism, know in their hearts that they can “never be free” and never be safe from state violence until Black Lives really do matter and black skins are no longer “branded.” They know that “Black and White Unite and Fight” is the only possible way to block authoritarian government, prevent fascism, establish democracy, institute class equality and face the future with a modicum of hope.

*

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.

Richard Greeman has been active since 1957 in civil rights, anti-war, anti-nuke, environmental and labour struggles in the U.S., Latin America, France (where he has been a longtime resident) and Russia (where he helped found the Praxis Research and Education Center in 1997). He maintains a blog at richardgreeman.org.

Notes

1. “Facing Protests Over Use of Force, Police Respond With More Force.” Videos showed officers using batons, tear gas, pepper spray, and rubber bullets on protesters and bystanders.
2. A Reporter’s Cry on Live TV: “I’m Getting Shot! I’m Getting Shot” (see phrases in italics): “From a television crew assaulted by protesters to a photographer struck in the eye, journalists have found themselves targeted on the streets of America. Linda Tirado, a freelance photographer, activist and author, was shot in the left eye Friday while covering the street protests in Minneapolis. Ms. Tirado is one of a number of journalists around the country who were attacked, arrested or otherwise harassed – sometimes by police and sometimes by protesters – during their coverage of the uprisings that have erupted nationwide after the death of George Floyd in Minneapolis… With trust in the news media lagging, journalists have found themselves targeted.”

Russia is one step closer to achieving year-round navigation in the Arctic. An ice-capable tanker made the earliest delivery of LNG to China via the Northern Sea Route.

***

For the past several years a fleet of fifteen specialized Arc7 icebreaking liquefied natural gas (LNG) carriers have transported natural gas from a large LNG plant on Russia’s Yamal peninsula to countries in Asia via the Arctic. Even with the rapid melt of Arctic sea ice, these voyages have typically only been possible between July and November.

Now, Russia’s largest private natural gas company Novatek, which operates the Yamal LNG facility, conducted a voyage using its flagship and the world’s first icebreaking LNG carrier, the Christoph de Margerie, to examine how feasible an eastward voyage on the Northern Sea Route (NSR) would be during the month of May, almost two months earlier than previous such voyages. The ship, escorted by a nuclear icebreaker, completed the ice-covered part of the trip, around 2,500 nautical miles, in just twelve days and is expected in China by the middle of next week.

The voyage represented a test-case for early-season navigation on the route and may help to expedite the future growth of cargo traffic on the route, confirms Novatek.

The Christoph de Margerie departed from the port of Sabetta on May 18 and met up with the nuclear icebreaker Yamal in the Kara Sea. The LNG carrier passed through the Bering Strait and entered the Pacific Ocean on May 31 and the ship is expected in the port of Tangshan in northern China on June 11 after a 25 day voyage, compared to 36 days through the Suez Canal. During summer time the voyage from Sabetta to China can be completed in under 20 days.

“We are actively working to expand the eastbound navigation season for the NSR and looking forward to further development of state support for this trade route by increasing icebreaking capabilities,” explained Novatek’s CEO and Chairman of the Board Leonid Mikhelson.

A similar sentiment was echoed by Igor Tonkovidov, President and CEO of Sovcomflot, operator of the Christoph de Margerie.

“This successful voyage across the NSR, in May, allows us to move one step closer to realising the full transit potential of the Northern Sea Route, marking an important expansion in the shipping opportunities available to Arctic industrial projects in particular.”

Fast trip despite challenging ice conditions 

While the Arc7 LNG carriers are capable of breaking through 2.1 meters of ice, this early in the melt season an icebreaker escort was needed for part of the voyage, especially the East Siberian Sea where the convoy faced a fast-ice field in the Vilkitsky Strait and hummocked ice floes in the Chukchi Sea. The convoy encountered ice up to 1.3 meters thick.

However, despite challenging ice conditions and the resulting slower sailing speed the NSR represented a shortcut between Northern Russia and China compared to the traditional route officials explained.

“Even in the challenging ice conditions encountered during this time of the year, choosing the NSR allows for a significant reduction in the length of a voyage delivering LNG to Asia Pacific ports compared with using the Suez Canal,” confirmed Tonkovidov.

Going east earlier and earlier

The transit represents the earliest eastbound voyage by an LNG carrier. In previous years deliveries of LNG from Yamal to Asia did not occur until July, 6-8 weeks later than this most recent voyage. The Eastern reaches of the NSR are usually only navigable between July and December. Long term Novatek expects to export the majority of LNG to Asia, especially China. Last year it sent only 6.5 percent of production, or 1.2 million tons in an eastward direction.

During the remainder of the year the company ships its cargo in the westerly direction to Europe. For this purpose Novatek has for the last two years past cooperated with Norwegian company Tschudi during a ship-to-ship transfer operation off the coast of Honningsvåg. This allows Novatek to optimize the use of its speciality Arc7 LNG carriers and only use them for the icy stretches of the voyage.

View from nuclear icebreaker 50 years of Victory. (Source: Courtesy of Rosatomflot)

New icebreakers for year-round navigation

Russia is currently engaged in upgrading and expanding its fleet of nuclear icebreakers with four new vessels under construction or commissioned and a further vessel to be laid down next year. With the help of these new and more capable icebreakers the company hopes to expand the navigation season from May to January. At that point eastbound traffic would be feasible except for in the heart of winter in February, March and April.

“[State icebreaker] support allows us to significantly contribute to the annual cargo turnover along the Northern Sea Route by implementing our large-scale LNG projects to produce up to 70m tonnes by 2030,” explained Mikhelson.

While voyages along the NSR remain novel territory, vessels and crews are quickly gaining levels of experience. This was Christophe de Margerie’s 45th trip along the NSR.

The ultimate goal is to achieve year-round navigation capabilities for the purpose of which Russia is constructing a new super icebreaker capable of escorting the Arc7 LNG carriers even during the depths of winter.

Contracts for the construction of the Leader-class icebreaker were signed between Rosatomflot and the Zvezda shipyard earlier this year. The first vessel of the type is expected to be commissioned in 2027.

Next ship already en route

In fact, less than a week after Christophe de Margerie another Arc7 carrier departed from Sabetta on its way to China. The Vladimir Voronin initially followed a more coastal route escorted by the nuclear icebreaker 50 years of Victory during the first part of the voyage before being handed off to Yamal further east. The vessel is on track to transit the NSR even faster in less than 10 days. The convoy found an “ice-free highway” along the Siberian coastline allowing it to make fast progress.

Path of the Christophe de Margerie (yellow) and Vladimir Voronin (pink) through the Kara and Laptev Sea. (Source: IHS Markit Maritime & Trade via Twitter)

Donald Trump has no solution to the crisis in the domestic hydraulic fracturing industry that won’t have dire consequences for the economy.  The survival of the industry lies in Saudi Arabia.

It was not until 2013 that the real potential of hydraulic fracturing came into play.  Here was the possibility for the United States to achieve energy independence. By 2015, President Barak Obama had removed the restrictions on the export of crude oil and made the U.S. a world petroleum player.

Two years later at the Unleashing of the American Energy conference on June 29, 2017, President Donald J. Trump declared to the representatives of the energy industry,

“With these incredible resources, my administration will seek not only American energy independence that we’ve been looking for so long, but American energy dominance.”

American growing oil production enabled him to impose sanctions upon Iran and Venezuela without disrupting the market.  He went further and imposed Sanctions in December 2019 on the two Swiss pipeline construction companies pipelay and Allseas to blocked completion of the Russian Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline.  Backed up with a supply of natural gas from the fracking, the act was a clear sign that Washington was prepared to use any measure to replace Russian gas in Europe with American LNG.  Donald Trump got his energy war, but he is waging it with an empty arsenal.  The fracking industry has been built literally and figuratively on a foundation of sand.  Only Exxon Mobil Corp., Occidental Petroleum Corp. Chevron Corp. and Crownquest Operating LLC with wells in the Permian Basin are able to turn a profit with an oil price as low as thirty-one dollars per barrel.  Between 2014 and the present, two hundred and fifteen companies involved in high cost hydraulic fracturing have gone bankrupt.

The law firm of Haynes & Boone in Houston Texas anticipates that another sixty are likely to follow.  With that prospect looming, JPMorgan Chase & Co, Wells Fargo & Co, Bank of America Corp and Citigroup Inc are establishing companies to hold the depreciating resource assets of failing fracking and related companies that owe an estimated two hundred billion dollars.  Even before the conflict between Russia and Saudi Arabia, smaller banks in Louisiana, Texas and Oklahoma were facing credit issues with defaulting borrowers. Goldman Sachs places the over leveraged bonds of the firms in the fracking sector at higher risk  compared to the more financially important areas of the economy.

Donald Trump seems to have been unaware of the financial stresses within the oil industry.  When oil prices crashed on March 9, he celebrated that the American consumer would be getting bargain energy when what he was really seeing was the destruction of his dream of global energy domination. By April 2, the reality of the collapsing industry prompted him to telephone President Vladimir Putin and Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Salman to have them reduce the supply of oil.  Reuters reports that Donald Trump threatened the Saudi prince to withdraw U.S. military support if he did not reduce oil production; and it was not the first time that the president threatened the prince.  In July of 2018, he pressured the Saudi to lower prices or lose military protection for the Kingdom.  Despite the threats, what Donald Trump learned was that control of energy was in the hands of the Saudi prince.

Ten days after the telephone calls, OPEC + Agreed upon a ten-million-barrel reduction with another possible ten million, while Donald Trump offered the decline in production due to price erosion to serve as his contribution.  His acknowledgement of the drop was his recognition that the dream of world energy domination had been abandoned for the time.  What was really needed to save the industry was a thirty-million-barrel reduction in supply.

The Texas Railroad Commission that regulates oil and gas production in the state that contributes forty-one percent of oil and twenty-five percent of gas to the national pool is forecasting a contraction of three to four million barrels per day that would make the United States a net oil importer again.  In Spite of appeals from Pioneer Natural Resources and Parsley Energy executives For the Commission to impose quotas upon the industry, it has opted to stand aside.  Since the OPEC agreement, a loss of twenty million barrels per day of production by other producers is reflecting their high cost production.  Although prices are recovering to forty dollars per barrel, it will not help much of the domestic industry that requires levels closer to fifty or sixty dollars. That is leaving Donald Trump with several hard choices. In order to save the inefficient industry, Donald Trump will have to impose stiff tariffs or quotas to push prices back into the fifty-dollar range that will enable more firms to be profitable with the overall economy bearing the costs.  The other choices are to reduce royalty charges that is being done already and finance the temporary shut down of troubled producers until oil prices stabilize at a higher level at which point the problem of too much supply will repeat.  The fracking industry with its ability to stop and start production quickly and to raise funds is the core of the problem.

According to a report from the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis, the oil industry ranks last in the S&P 500 index. Despite its minor economic importance, it commands so much interest because it has been politicized by being declared vital to the national security and used for international leverage. When placed in a historical context, the industry is going simply through a normal upsurge in growth followed by a purging of many insolvent firms with a few larger companies assuming domination.  It happened to the automobile, the railway, the computer industries and others.

Time is not on President Donald J. Trump’s side.  He will have to make decisions soon, very soon.  Fifty million barrels of Saudi oil is heading for the Gulf and Pacific coasts. The Saudi prince will not allow the hydraulic fracturing industry in the United States to challenge Saudi world energy domination.

*

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

The world is in turmoil. 2020 has already brought major multiple crises, with the Iranian-American clash in Iraq which followed the US assassination of Major General Qassem Soleimani, and the COVID-19 health pandemic and economic disaster that struck all continents and stole the lives of over 400 thousand people around the world, costing tens of millions of jobs. None of this, however, prevented America from imposing even more sanctions on Iran, Syria and Venezuela. Iran – already under maximum sanctions since 1979 – sent five tankers to Venezuela to break the embargo on components and spare parts much needed to process the low octane Venezuelan oil. In parallel with America’s implosion due to domestic protests caused by deep-rooted racism and injustice, in the Middle East other fronts are taking shape in the shadows, to prevent war or to trigger a wider military confrontation. 

A likely front is the Levant, where preparations are being made to confront Israel and end its continued violations of Syria’s sovereignty and bombardment of hundreds of targets in Syria throughout the years of the war. This particular issue may bring the Middle East into an all-out war; one mistake could turn fatal and drag the region into an all-out clash in which Syria will not be alone.

It is well known that Israel possesses enormous firepower and strong armed forces for land, sea, and air combat, and is better equipped than any other army in the Middle East. It is also known that Israel’s main enemy and nightmare, the Lebanese Hezbollah, possesses sophisticated weapons, armed drones, and land attack long-range all-weather subsonic cruise missiles. Hezbollah also has long-range strategic anti-ship missiles, anti-tank laser-guided missiles, anti-air low and medium altitude missiles, and precision missiles. These are pointed at precise targets over all the Palestinian geography controlled by Israel, including ports, airports, military barracks, infrastructure, ships, oil-rigs and flying helicopters or jets at medium altitude. Thousands of Hezbollah’s Special Operation Forces, al-Ridwan, never lost a battle since their first engagement in Syria.

Israel has never ceased acquiring the most modern military hardware but it has failed to develop its fighting spirit. It has no newly acquired military experience on the battlefield, because the last battle it fought dates back to 2006, which was considered the second war on Lebanon (after the first invasion of 1982) which resulted in failure on many levels. Meanwhile Israel’s enemy, Hezbollah, developed and strengthened its fighting spirit following its participation for many continuous years in a very wide geographical military theatre estimated to be almost 12 times bigger than Lebanon and 60 times wider than the area of combat in which it confronted Israel in the south of Lebanon and the Bekaa Valley.

Hezbollah fought alongside classic (Syrian, Russian, and Iraqi) armies, gaining battlefield experience against armed groups trained and armed by the CIA and other jihadists affiliated with Al Qaeda and ISIS and possessing highly developed combat skills (combined with classical and guerrilla skills) and high spiritual motivation, far more motivated than the Israeli soldiers. These jihadists fought against the American army throughout its occupation of Iraq and Syria and completed their journey fighting against the Iraqi and Syrian armies and against various organisations, which gave them significant combat experience, an aspiration for martyrdom and advanced guerrilla fighting tactics.

However, their defeat by Syria and its Russian and Iranian allies dashed Israel’s hopes, as expressed by defence minister, Moshe Ya’alon, who said that he preferred “the presence of ISIS on Israel’s borders, not Iran and its allies.” Israel attacked Syrian planes, artillery and intelligence capabilities in support of the jihadists, especially in the Quneitra areas where the Khaled bin Walid army that pledged allegiance to ISIS was deployed, and in areas favourable to al-Nusra – al-Qaeda in Daraa and other southern regions.

However, Israel was not satisfied with these attacks. Israeli jets went on to strike Syria in depth in Damascus, Homs, Hama, Al-Qaim, the desert of the Badia, and any area where there are military warehouses and missiles that Iran supplied to Syria in order to support the Syrian army and rearm it with precision missiles.

Israel was able to hit and destroy a large number of these stores. This prompted Iran to change its armament storage policy for the Syrian army. Syria has built strategic warehouses in the mountains and underground in silos, waiting for the appropriate moment to impose a balance of deterrence – in response to hundreds of Israeli raids – a moment that has not yet come. The Syrian priority is still liberation of its still occupied territories, mainly in Afrin, Idlib and surroundings, without excluding the US-occupied oil and gas fields in the north-east of Syria.

In Idlib and its countryside, the Turkish army has established large military bases. Groups of the Hayat Tahrir Sham (formerly al-Nusra) and Ansar al-Din (al-Qaeda and the remains of ISIS) still exist in and around the established Turkish military bases (i.e. Idlib and its countryside).

However, Iran no longer wants to accept Israeli strikes on its warehouses without any response. Iranian advisers (a few hundred) are not free to respond to these attacks because the decision is in the hands of the Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. Assad and his allies are aware that any Iranian response from Syria would most likely drag the US into the battle to support its ally Israel and have an impact in the forthcoming US elections in favour of President Trump. Trump, who suffers from countless problems in managing his foreign and domestic affairs, is far from assured of regaining his seat in the White House for another four-year term.

Hence, Iran has decided – according to private sources – to evacuate the sites of the gatherings of its advisers, not for withdrawal or for redeployment but to find bases within the Syrian Army barracks. Hezbollah has taken over the vacated Iranian buildings. Russia has been informed of the change so that the information would reach Israel, which is coordinating with Moscow and its base in Syria (Hmeimim military airport base, north-western Syria) every time Tel Aviv sends its planes to Syria to hit certain targets. It was agreed between Israel and Russia that Moscow and Hmeimim would be informed of the details of any strike hours before it occurred to avoid accidents, especially after Russia accused Israel of deliberately taking cover behind its planes to mislead the Syrian air defences, downing the Ilyushin-20 and killing 15 Russian officers in September 2018. Russia, in turn, informs the Syrian army and its allies of coming Israeli strikes. Moscow refuses to be involved in the Iran-Syria-Israel conflict. Russia has strategic interests with all belligerents and is not a party to the “axis of resistance”.

Russia has informed Israeli leaders of this move by Iranian advisers and their presence among the Syrian army units. Russia warned Israel not to strike the Syrian army under any circumstance and informed them that the Iranian bases have been handed over to Hezbollah.

It seems obvious that Hezbollah wants to relieve Syria and Iran from the responsibility for a response. Israel is aware that any attack against Hezbollah’s men in Lebanon or Syria would lead to a direct response along the Lebanese borders and inside Palestine. This means that Israel must think carefully before bombing any Hezbollah objective because retaliation will certainly follow, preventing a US-Israeli response against Syria. Hezbollah is offering a new “Rule of Engagement” in Syria which cripples or limit Israel’s freedom to violate Syria’s sovereignty.

Before any airstrike aimed at specific targets in Syria, Israel’s drones make sure these locations are free of Iranian advisers and that the Russian warning reaches those concerned to evacuate human personnel and reduce casualties. Israel follows the same practice when it attacks Hezbollah cars or trucks, warning drivers and passengers in advance. Israel fires a missile, and on the last occasion two missiles, in front of the car or truck so passengers understand to leave it and take a distance to allow Israel a safe-bombing. In this case, Hezbollah’s deterrent response may or may not be required or painful because only material losses are involved.

Israeli minister Naftali Bennett has stated that “Israel would hit one truck and let five other trucks pass”. Israel is looking to avoid further embarrassment from Hezbollah deterrence as happened when Israel tried to send suicide drones into the suburbs of Beirut last year. Hence, it is likely that Israeli strikes on Syria will decrease in number, or Israel will rely on its intelligence information before hitting any Hezbollah target to make sure it is free of any human presence to avoid losses and consequent further humiliation like that imposed on the Israeli army in the past months on the Lebanese-Palestinian border.

Israel is walking through a strategic minefield. The danger for Israel lies in any potential error that might kill Hezbollah members in Syria. Such an outcome would lead to an escalation that may take the Middle Eastern region into a larger and more comprehensive war. The timing will not be to the advantage of Israel and its ally Donald Trump. His presidency is already mired in foreign crises with Russia, China, Iran, Venezuela, and also domestically due to Corona pandemic mismanagement plus the consequences of recent riots and racial unrest after the killing of a black American by the police- and in addition the losses of American jobs in numbers exceeding fifty million.

Hezbollah’s new rules of engagement, its advanced armaments and outstanding military experience amount to a significant deterrent. Nevertheless, wars can start by mistake. Will Israel make such a fatal mistake?

*

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

All images in this article are from the author

State-sponsored class warfare rages. Ongoing for decades, it’s all about governance of, by, and for the privileged few at the expense of most others.

What’s untenable persists with no end of it in prospect, no plan for improving the lives and welfare of ordinary Americans by its ruling authorities, notably ones most disadvantaged.

The divide between super-rich and growing poverty and subsistence-level income in the US is greatest since the late 19th/early 20th century robber baron age.

Because of bipartisan complicity against social justice, inequality and injustice are deepening, not improving — notably at a time of protracted main street Depression conditions since 2008 that’s greatly worsened by the current economic collapse.

Real unemployment is about 40% of working-age Americans, reality concealed by phony Labor Department numbers and failure by establishment media to set the record straight.

Before the current economic collapse, over 20% of Americans were unemployed, based on how data were calculated pre-1990.

Today the figure is around double that level, likely to worsen before improving.

Most US workers with jobs earn poverty-level wages with few or no benefits, why households need two or more to survive.

The self-styled “land of the free and home of the brave” from “sea to shining sea” is indifferent toward the rights and welfare of its ordinary people — exploiting, not serving them so the nation’s privileged class can benefit.

It’s why protests in large and smaller US cities nationwide continue in their second week, triggered by the death of a single Black man at the hands of 4 Minneapolis cops.

What touch a raw nerve at the right time could have been something else.

Mass outrage against systemic inequality and injustice has been simmering longterm.

It was just a matter of time before exploding into rage in the streets for positive change.

Most individuals involved are peaceful, expressing their constitutionally affirmed First Amendment rights.

Violence and vandalism appear orchestrated by rogue elements. Piles of bricks, rocks, and other projectiles discovered in cities before lawless actions began raised obvious red flags.

Instead of White House leadership when most needed,

Trump threw more fuel on a raging inferno.

Notably it was by threatening to use combat troops to restore order and supporting unacceptable remarks that referred to protesters as “terrorists.”

Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law president Kristen Clarke called characterizing “peacefully assembled demonstrators (as terrorists) abhorrent,” adding:

“It is remarkable that…Trump objects so vehemently to those speaking out against racial and police violence while embracing gun-toting activists who take siege of government buildings and violent white supremacists who marched in Charlottesville” — in August 2017.

Since largely peaceful protests began in response to George Floyd’s May 25 death at the hands of Minneapolis cops, over 10,000 arrests were made — mainly for peaceful civil disobedience.

Resisting tyranny is a universal right, an obligation to challenge what’s unacceptable — clearly the state of America that’s beautiful for the privileged few alone at the expense of most others.

Jefferson called “resistance to tyranny…obedience to God.”

Philosopher John Locke said when government fails the people, its “trust must necessarily be forfeited, and the power devolve into the hands of those that gave it, who may place it anew where they shall think best for their safety and security.”

In his landmark essay on civil disobedience, Henry David Thoreau said “(m)ust the citizen ever for a moment…resign his conscience to the legislator,” adding:

“The only obligation which I have a right to assume is to do at any time what I think right.”

“All men recognize the right of revolution; that is, the right to refuse allegiance to, and to resist, the government, when its tyranny or its inefficiency are great and unendurable.”

“Unjust laws exist; shall we be content to obey them, or shall we endeavor to amend them, and obey them until we have succeeded, or shall we transgress them at once?”

The state “is not armed with superior wit or honesty, but with superior physical strength.”

“I was not born to be forced. I will breathe after my own fashion…They can only force me who obey a higher law than I.”

Martin Luther King stressed that “noncooperation with evil is as much a moral obligation as is cooperation with good.”

He championed “creative protest,” adding: Passivity is no option in the face of injustice.”

At a time of institutionalized racism, inequality and injustice in the US, sustained resistance in the streets against what’s intolerable is the only viable option.

Nothing else can work. Nothing ever has. Nothing ever will. The only language the US ruling class understands is toughness.

People power alone can change things, More than an option, it’s a moral obligation.

The late human rights champion/defense attorney Lynne Stewart urged Americans to “Organize, Organize, Organize.”

“The only thing we have is each other,” she stressed.

Resisting tyranny and courage for justice defined her activism.

People have power when they use it. At a time of eroded constitutional protections,  repressed dissent, government as the handmaiden of monied interests, and raging war on humanity at home and abroad, it’s vital for ordinary people to resist.

Ballot box activism is futile, taking to the streets nonviolently essential.

Sustained collective defiance against the unacceptable system is the only chance for constructive change.

It took a decade of anti-war activism in the 60s and 70s to end US aggression in Southeast Asia — a pyrrhic victory as things turned out because activism for peace, equity and justice waned.

Struggles for justice are long-term, compromises unacceptable.

So is letting energy for change wane, what time and again defeats social movements.

The hugely corrupted US system is too debauched to fix.

They only option is replacing it with governance serving everyone equitably, not just the privileged few, the unacceptable way things are now.

Formidable tasks take time, the impossible a little longer.

People power makes positive change possible.

Now is the time to go for it without quitting until peace and social justice goals are achieved.

It won’t happen any other way.

*

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

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

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

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

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.

Featured image is from OneWorld

Under FBI orders, Facebook and Google removed American Herald Tribune, an alternative site that publishes US and European writers critical of US foreign policy. The bureau’s justification for the removal was dubious, and it sets a troubling precedent for other critical outlets.

***

The FBI has publicly justified its suppression of dissenting online views about US foreign policy if a media outlet can be somehow linked to one of its adversaries. The Bureau’s justification followed a series of instances in which Silicon Valley social media platforms banned accounts following consultations with the FBI.

In a particularly notable case in 2018, the FBI encouraged Facebook, Instagram and Google to remove or restrict ads on the American Herald Tribune (AHT), an online journal that published critical opinion articles on US policy toward Iran and the Middle East. The bureau has never offered a clear rationale, however, despite its private discussions with Facebook on the ban.

The FBI’s first step toward intervening against dissenting views on social media took place in October 2017 with the creation of a Foreign Influence Task Force (FTIF) in the bureau’s Counterintelligence Division. Next, the FBI defined any effort by states designated by the Department of Defense as major adversaries (Russia, China, Iran and North Korea) to influence American public opinion as a threat to US national security.

In February 2020, the FBI defined that threat in much more specific terms and implied that it would act against any online media outlet that was found to fall within its ambit. At a conference on election security on February 24, David K. Porter, who identified himself as Assistant Section Chief of the Foreign Influence Task Force, defined what the FBI described as “malign foreign influence activity” as “actions by a foreign power to influence U.S. policy, distort political sentiment and public discourse.” 

Porter described “information confrontation” as a force “designed to undermine public confidence in the credibility of free and independent news media.” Those who practice this dark craft, he said, seek to “push consumers to alternative news sources,” where “it’s much easier to introduce false narratives” and thus “sow doubt and confusion about the true narratives by exploiting the media landscape to introduce conflicting story lines.”

“Information confrontation”, however, is simply the literal Russian translation of the term “information warfare.” Its use by the FTIF appears to be aimed merely at justifying an FBI role in seeking to suppress what it calls “alternative news sources” under any set of circumstances it can justify.

While expressing his intention to target alternative media, Porter simultaneously denied that the FBI was concerned about censoring media. The FITF, he said “doesn’t go around chasing content. We don’t focus on what the actors say.” Instead, he insisted that “attribution is key,” suggesting that the FTIF was only interested in finding hidden foreign government actors at work.

Thus the question of “attribution” has become the FBI’s key lever for censoring alternative media that publishes critical content on U.S. foreign policy, or which attacks mainstream and corporate media narratives. If an outlet can be somehow linked to a foreign adversary, removing it from online platforms is fair game for the feds. 

The strange disappearance of American Herald Tribune

In 2018, Facebook deleted the Facebook page of the American Herald Tribune (AHT), a website that publishes commentary from an array of notable authors who are harshly critical of U.S. foreign policy. Gmail, which is run by Google, quickly followed suit by removing ads linked to the outlet, while the Facebook-owned Instagram scrubbed AHT’s account altogether.

Tribune editor Anthony Hall reported at the time that the removals occurred at the end of August 2018, but there was no announcement of the move by Facebook. Nor was it reported by the corporate news media until January 2020, when CNN elicited a confirmation from a Facebook spokesman that it had indeed done so in 2018.  Furthermore, the FBI was advising Facebook on both Iranian and Russian sites that were banned during that same period of a few days.  As Facebook’s chief security officer Alex Stamos noted on July 21, 2018,

“We have proactively reported our technical findings to US law enforcement, because they have much more information than we do, and may in time be in a position to provide public attribution.”

On August 2, a few days following the removal of AHT and two weeks after hundreds of Russian and Iranian Pages had been removed by Facebook, FBI Director Christopher Wray told reporters at a White House briefing that FBI officials had “met with top social media and technology companies several times” during the year, “providing actionable intelligence to better enable them to address abuse of their platforms by foreign actors.”  He remarked that FBI officials had “shared specific threat indicators and account information so they can better monitor their own platforms.”

Cybersecurity firm FireEye, which boasts that it has contracts to support “nearly every department in the United States government,” and which has been used by Department of Homeland Security as a primary source of “threat intelligence,” also influenced Facebook’s crackdown on the Tribune. CNN cited an unnamed official of FireEye stating that the company had “assessed” with “moderate confidence” that the AHT’s website was founded in Iran and was “part of a larger influence operation.”

The CNN author was evidently unaware that in U.S. intelligence parlance “moderate confidence” suggests a near-total absence of genuine conviction. As the 2011 official “consumer’s guide” to US intelligence explained, the term “moderate confidence” generally indicates that either there are still differences of view in the intelligence community on the issue or that the judgment ”is credible and plausible but not sufficiently corroborated to warrant higher level of confidence.” 

CNN also quoted FireEye official Lee Foster’s claim that “indicators, both technical and behavioral” showed that American Herald Tribune was part of the larger influence operation. The CNN story linked to a study published by FireEye featuring a “map” showing how Iranian-related media were allegedly linked to one another, primarily by similarities in content.  But CNN apparently hadn’t bothered to read the study, which did not once mention the American Herald Tribune.

Finally, the CNN piece cited a 2018 tweet by Daily Beast contributor Josh Russell which it said provided “further evidence supporting American Herald Tribune’s alleged links to Iran.” In fact, his tweet merely documented the AHT’s sharing of an internet hosting service with another pro-Iran site “at some point in time.”  Investigators familiar with the problem know that two websites using the same hosting service, especially over a period of years, is not a reliable indicator of a coherent organizational connection.

CNN did find evidence of deception over the registration of the AHT. The outlet’s editor, Anthony Hall, continues to give the false impression that a large number of journalists and others (including this writer), are contributors, despite the fact that their articles have been republished from other sources without permission.

However, AHT has one characteristic that differentiates it from the others that have been kicked off Facebook: The American and European authors who have appeared in its pages are all real and are advancing their own authentic views. Some are sympathetic to the Islamic Republic, but others are simply angry about U.S. policies: Some are Libertarian anti-interventionists; others are supporters of the 9/11 Truth movement or other conspiracy theories.

One notable independent contributor to AHT is Philip Giraldi, an 18-year veteran of the CIA’s Clandestine Service and and an articulate critic of US wars in the Middle East and of Israeli influence on American policy and politics. From its inception in 2015, the AHT has been edited by Anthony Hall, Professor Emeritus at University of Lethbridge in Alberta, Canada.

In announcing yet another takedown of Iranian Pages in October 2018, Facebook’s Gleicher declared that “coordinated inauthentic behavior” occurs when “people or organizations create networks of accounts to mislead others about who they are what they’re doing.” That certainly doesn’t apply to those who provided the content for the American Herald Tribune.

Thus the takedown of the publication by Facebook, with FBI and FireEye encouragement represents a disturbing precedent for future actions against individuals who criticize US foreign policy and outlets that attack corporate media narratives.

Shelby Pierson, the CIA official appointed by then director of national intelligence in July 2019 to chair the inter-agency “Election Executive and Leadership Board,” appeared to hint at differences in the criteria employed by his agency and the FBI on foreign and alternative media.

In an interview with former acting CIA Director Michael Morrell in February, Pierson said,

“[P]articularly on the [foreign] influence side of the house, when you’re talking about blended content with First Amendment-protected speech…against the backdrop of a political paradigm and you’re involving yourself in those activities, I think that makes it more complicated” (emphasis added).

Further emphasizing the uncertainty surrounding the FBI’s methods of online media suppression, she added that the position in question “doesn’t have the same unanimity that we have in the counterterrorism context.”

*

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

Gareth Porter is an independent investigative journalist who has covered national security policy since 2005 and was the recipient of Gellhorn Prize for Journalism in 2012.  His most recent book is The CIA Insider’s Guide to the Iran Crisis co-authored with John Kiriakou, just published in February.

Featured image is from The Grayzone

There is no doubt that colonialism and racism sit at the root of America’s domestic problems. The push to dominate others abroad is directly linked to the belief that those who are different at home should also be dominated.

There are still Americans alive today that remember segregation laws that denied black Americans their basic rights and dignity. Before that, there was outright slavery.

Even today, racism is still institutionalized. It also permeates American culture, laying just beneath a superficial layer of tolerance and equality.

This is not just about white people who remain racist against blacks and other minorities – a product of America’s terminally ill culture – it is also about fundamental racism that still very much sits at the heart of American foreign and domestic policy – against not only blacks, but virtually every race on the planet from Africans to Asians to even Slavs.

The US is a nation that encourages its people to hate entire groups of people abroad to help justify otherwise unjust wars. Arabs, Chinese people, Russians – are all vilified with bigotry and hatred sanctioned by mainstream American culture. It isn’t hard to see why in a nation like this, hatred for other groups is easily justified in the minds of racists and the unjust.

Not Just Police in America – Racism is a Key Feature of US Foreign Policy 

It was under US President Barack Obama that the US decimated the North African nation of Libya, deposing Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi – a champion of African dignity and progress and the champion of tens of thousands of blacks from all over Africa who travelled to Libya to find work and a better life – work and a better life Gaddafi provided them until he was brutally murdered and his government replaced by heavily armed, racist terrorists backed by the US and its European allies.

US-backed militants in Libya would hunt down Libya’s black population, killing them, torturing them, and even enslaving them in open air slave markets – a spectacle one might have believed was unthinkable in the 21st century – but something made possible by America, its foreign policy, and its deeply rooted racism and sense of supremacy – despite having a “black” president at the time.

President Obama is hardly the only one to blame – he simply picked up where others left off – and his successor, US President Donald Trump is simply next in line to carry forward systemic US injustice worldwide. The fact that President Obama was black made no difference and simply helps illustrate how while superficial milestones are waved in America’s face – the fundamental rot of injustice, racism, and supremacist thinking persists.

When a nation is able to justify denying one group of people their dignity, worth, and rights as human beings it is a slippery slope that easily leads to other groups likewise being stripped of their humanity and abused.

If Black Lives Matter – They Must Always Matter, Everywhere, All the Time 

Any case of police brutality is tragic and needs to be addressed -a problem in its own right. If officers killed George Floyd because he was black, it represents an additional problem that must also be addressed.

If Americans genuinely believe black lives matter – then they need to commit to fighting injustice against them, and all other victims of American racism and supremacy. If they speak up only when it is popular and “trending” it’s as good as not speaking up at all.

If they are silent when America is mass murdering blacks overseas, killing brown people across the planet, or attempting to normalize racism against Asians – Chinese people in particular – they are complicit in the very sort of deeply rooted, institutionalized racism that underpins US foreign policy and the globe-spanning industrialized injustice it represents – and the very sort of racism that manifests itself as injustice against blacks at home.

America needs genuine opposition to racism. Not opportunistic posturing.

US politicians like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez pose as dedicated to racial equality and fighting racism – yet she regularly finds herself in support of US military aggression abroad which exclusively targets nations populated by black, brown, and Asian people.

Her most recent display of supreme hypocrisy was her support of US meddling in Hong Kong – an extension of the British Empire’s seizure from and subjugation of this Chinese territory.

The British Empire – of course – also pursued its foreign policy based entirely on the belief that white Westerners were superior to all others and that it was their right – even duty – to impose British “civilization” upon “heathen” races – China was no exception to this belief.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez may or may not appreciate that her support for US meddling in Hong Kong helps continue this disgraceful tradition and agenda – believing instead that supporting “democracy” in Hong Kong is not simply the same brand of Anglo-American racism merely repackaged for more sensitive global audiences. But she is supporting racism, supremacy, and hegemony all the same.

Black lives will never matter as long as “Black Lives Matter” remains a hollow political slogan shouted by interests easily able to ignore or even support injustice purveyed by the US against others abroad – including blacks.

Deeply rooted racism in the US is just one of many symptoms of an overall desire for hegemony and the notions of racial, political, and cultural supremacy that underpin it. Until this is addressed, racism will continue, with only the most superficial and unsustainable efforts made to stop it.

As long as America believes it is better than all others abroad – able to justify exploitation, coercion, and even military aggression to assert itself and pursue its “interests” – racism and injustice will persist at home. The same corporate-financier interests driving US injustice abroad see the US population – white and black – as merely another market segment to use and abuse – to divide and conquer – to put under itself for its own benefit.

Black lives matter, whether they are being strangled by a racist white cop in America or being bombed by US warplanes in Libya. Once Americans can unite in both understanding and opposing this across-the-board racism and injustice, something might actually be done about it besides kicking the can down the road for a few more months until the next video of police abuse emerges online.

America will not heal its domestic hatred and divisions if it remains built entirely on projecting and profiting from hatred and division abroad. It was no coincidence that legendary champions for equality like Martin Luther King Jr. were both opposed to racism and injustice at home and ceaselessly opposed  to American aggression and hegemony abroad. The two are linked by the common thread of fundamental injustice. Until they are both exposed and smashed completely, they will both continue.

*

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 US-China relationship continues to sour under the impact of Covid-19, with the Trump administration threatening to cut all ties with China in a move that would divide the world into two competing trade entities.¹ It’s been a bad year for China, with accusations over the origins of the pandemic coming on top of China’s difficulties in managing the pro-democracy protests in Hong Kong.² Under these circumstances, the energy perspective provides a fascinating set of insights into the evolving US-China relationship.

The economic havoc unleashed by the Covid-19 pandemic has been bad enough, with reports of looming industry collapse by the International Energy Agency and others.³ But its economic impact has been exacerbated by an ugly price war in the oil industry, seeing prices tumble alongside a collapse in demand. At one point in April, the oil price reached a widely publicised negative level – an unprecedented phenomenon. Now the price is low but at present relatively stable, following a tripartite agreement between the world’s three largest oil suppliers – the US, Saudi Arabia and Russia. In the last few days, the oil price has recovered to nearly $30 per barrel, providing some modest relief.⁴ But the impact on the US has been severe, with the high-cost and highly debt-leveraged shale oil industry, which propelled the US to become the world’s largest oil producer, facing near collapse. It has long been the goal of both the Saudi and Russian oil industries to damage the upstart US shale industry, which was protected by relatively high oil prices. Now with this protection withdrawn, combined with collapsing demand, the US industry faces severe problems.

Meanwhile the clean energy transition continues apace, and looks like being strengthened in Asia by the chaos unleashed by the Covid-19 pandemic. In China in particular, but also in Japan and Korea, clean energy promises a lower cost energy alternative to the fossil fuels – coal, oil, gas – that powered Asia’s industrialization. The effect of the plunging oil price on everyone is decidedly mixed. The effect on China, the world’s largest oil importer, is entirely benign. China’s state-owned oil enterprises are benefiting from the low oil price by replenishing the national oil reserves. Meanwhile the US reliance on fossil fuels, notably shale oil where big players like Exxon-Mobil have been investing heavily, with full political support from President Trump, is about to take a severe beating. Had the US been diversifying its energy base and building a strong renewables sector, it would have taken advantage of this crisis (self-inflicted by major producers Russia and Saudi Arabia), to enhance its technological leadership. In the US power sector, solar and wind continue to grow only modestly (as shown in Fig. 4 below) while fossil fuel suppliers are now in deep trouble. Obvious opportunities are ignored — even pandemic-related loans for renewables to revive the economy remain untapped. Meanwhile China continues to ramp up its green economy sectors at a speed that could take it to a leadership on energy matters in the 21^st century – from green electric power generation (solar and wind) and the manufactured devices involved, to green transport (electric vehicles EVs and fuel cell vehicles FCVs), energy storage, and the beginnings of a comprehensive hydrogen economy that could eventually phase out the fossil fuel economy.⁵

It takes a crisis to reveal the relative strengths of competing global giants. It is the oil price crisis and its impact on US shale oil production that is revealing just where China and the US stand with their very different energy strategies.

How oil market shares have evolved

The US ceased to be a dominant exporter of conventional oil in the 1970s – from which time US foreign policy was shaped by managing the flow of oil from Middle East suppliers such as Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, Iraq and Iran. But the technological innovation of hydraulic fracture (fracking), along with deep sea oil drilling and tar sands recovery, changed all that in the early 21^st century. Horizontal drilling and other innovations helped create a new US oil industry based on huge reserves such as the Permian and the Bakken in Texas and Eagle Ford in Montana and North Dakota and into Canada. Fears of oil supplies peaking abated. The next decade of the early 2000s saw US oil fortunes transformed on the basis of unconventional oil – and focusing US energy interests once again on oil and fossil fuels and neglecting alternatives such as renewables.

Source

US oil production (with unconventional shale oil from hydraulic fracturing playing a major role) overtook Russian production in Feb 2018 and then Saudi production in July 2018, rising to account for 15% of global oil production by the end of 2019. This is costly production, due to the complex production methods and the high levels of debt leverage that enabled shale oil producers to break into the oil industry dominated by giant incumbents. This was a classic instance of Schumpeter’s argument that the dynamism of capitalism is unleashed by the capacity of innovators to break into an established industrial sector on the strength of debt finance. But in the case of shale oil, US producers need a break-even price of oil more than $45 per barrel in order to be profitable – a level that is much higher than costs of production of conventional oil producers.⁶ Over the past decade this break-even condition was satisfied, more or less (with the exception of an earlier price war in 2015 launched by Saudi Arabia to try to knock the US shale oil producers out of contention). But the combination of collapse in demand in March 2020 due to the pandemic, and the oil price war between Russia and Saudi Arabia, destroyed these favorable circumstances. The US shale oil industry has been in free fall ever since. According to an influential op-ed in the NY Times, “Energy independence was a fever dream, fed by cheap debt and frothy capital markets.”⁷The Financial Times is adopting a similarly pessimistic tone in stating that at current levels (around $20 a barrel) the US shale oil industry cannot cover its costs, and bankruptcies are inevitable.⁸

How the oil price war unfolded

Oil prices have been maintained in recent years by agreements to curtail production by OPEC members (led by Saudi Arabia) and extended beyond OPEC to include Russia (OPEC +). In early March, OPEC and Russia agreed to extend production curtailment designed to bring supply into closer alignment with falling demand, under the impact of Covid-19. This agreement, the latest in an arrangement involving the OPEC+ countries, did not last. By March 13, it was clear that Russia would not go along with further cuts (which its strategists saw as unduly benefiting the US shale oil industry). So Saudi Arabia, under its mercurial crown prince, MBS, responded by launching a major price war, with its lead oil supplier Saudi Aramco offering steep discounts to leading customers, particularly in the EU, and at the same time drastically expanding the level of supplies. This price war was fuelled by long-standing rivalry between these two major oil producers, as well as their joint hostility to the US shale oil industry.

What followed was global chaos in the oil market – what the FT called “8 days that shook the oil industry – and the world”.⁹ Over the course of March and April, oil prices fell dramatically, actually reaching negative territory on April 20 – due to oil storage options dwindling and futures traders scrambling to find places to store unwanted deliveries. Saudi Aramco announced yet steeper discounts for its customers in April, leading to lower prices on the commodity exchanges.¹⁰ The dramatically lower oil prices in turn led to stock market mayhem.

The collapse in oil prices has been a dramatic illustration of the consequences of an otherwise strong cartel (in this case OPEC + Russia) falling apart, and the protagonists having the market muscle to engage in a “nuclear level” price war. It is the timing of this price war combined with the collapse in demand due to the pandemic that has unleashed the chaos that could prove ruinous to the US shale oil industry with profound impact on the US economy.¹¹

Source

A price war generally lasts as long as the protagonists can withstand the damage they create. In this case the damage was enormous – described in the industry as a “nuclear version” of a price war. Saudi Arabia could withstand prolonged price cutting because of its low costs – reported to be as low as $4 per barrel.¹²Russia likewise was prepared for a long price reduction, particularly because its supply lines – in the form of pipelines – are superior to those of its OPEC rivals. But it was the impact on the US shale oil industry that was most savage.

US shale oil production had been riding high after a decade of substantial investment, powered by debt leveraging. US oil production overtook that of Saudi Arabia and Russia as the shale revolution prospered. But this industry was uniquely vulnerable to a downturn because of its high costs.

The predictions from oil industry observers are dire. The Norwegian oil consultancy Rystad predicted on April 22 that the US shale oil industry was set for its biggest monthly decline in history amidst the “double whammy” of the oil price collapse and demand destruction due to Covid-19. The number of new- start fracking operations (lifeblood of the industry) in April fell by 60% (to below 300 wells – 200 in the Permian and 50 wells each in the Bakken and Eagle Ford). Rystad is predicting numerous bankruptcies in the US shale oil industry in 2020.¹³ The US business magazine Forbes describes the situation as “fracking’s new world order” where only the strongest US companies will be able to survive.¹⁴

What about the effects on China? China is the world’s largest oil importer (after the EU), and consumer (after the US), importing more than 70% of its crude oil requirements in 2019 – equivalent to 10.1 million barrels per day. With its largest oil supplier, Saudi Arabia, locked in a price war with Russia, its second largest supplier, China is able to take tactical advantage of the lower prices to expand its strategic oil reserves.¹⁵ But there is not the slightest hint that this welcome reduction in prices will shift China’s energy strategy, which favors a green shift linked to manufacturing and urbanization. As argued earlier, this shift has everything to do with maintaining energy security and relieving air pollution from burning of fossil fuels.¹⁶ It does not appear to be side-tracked by the economic slowdown sparked by the Covid-19 pandemic. The story is a complicated one, because China’s scale of industrialization is so large, and its early dependence on fossil fuels (coal, oil, gas) was so complete. So it is worth examining China’s quite different energy strategy, and the extent to which it is maintained even at a time of US-China hostility. While it remains a major user of coal, and still has the world’s largest carbon emissions, what is less widely known is that China is a world leader in the shift to renewables. It is a fortunate side effect of this consistent strategy that it is also a low-carbon strategy that can mitigate climate change.

The alternatives to oil – “manufactured energy” based on renewables

In the international political economy of the oil industry, Russia and Saudi Arabia have long been leaders because of the fortuity of large domestic oil reserves combined with national strategic choices made to build their economies around these accidents of geography. But China and the US are different. They need broad energy supplies – and their national great power strategies turn largely upon what their energy choices imply for securing those supplies. The US rose to great power status in the 20^th century on the back of its oil industry, and it has been an oil power for the past century and more – reviving its industry dominance in the past decade by the turn towards alternatives like shale oil. China on the other hand has never been an oil power but has grown to become a major oil consumer and importer, with its troika of state-owned oil firms PetroChina, Sinopec and CNOOC. China has looked for stability in oil supplies even as it accesses supplies from late arrivals such as Iran (which became a major oil producer in the 1970s and is now a major supplier to China), Namibia and South Sudan – with all the geopolitical complications associated with these powers. For example, when China became an early customer of oil imported from South Sudan, the country was plunged into a civil war that curtailed these supplies. (As early as 2011, the year of South Sudan’s independence, China National Petroleum Corporation (CNPC) established an office in the country – but it had to withdraw when the civil war intensified.¹⁷) Such are the geopolitical constraints that have shaped China’s energy strategies towards favoring manufactured green choices and away from fossil fuel dependence.

Little wonder then that China has maintained an open-ended energy strategy, avoiding dependence on any single source (such as imported oil or coal) and maximizing its reliance on its strength in domestic manufacturing. As the rising 21^st century great power, China first industrialized on the foundations of fossil fuels – coal, oil and natural gas. But the geopolitical constraints associated with this strategy (at the scale being pursued by China) proved to be severe, and have driven China to switch to a strategy where investments in clean energy outrank fossil fuel investments, and so the country’s energy system as a whole edges towards being more green than black (even if there are occasional instances of backsliding). When I last looked at these issues in detail, covering the years to 2017, the trend towards the greening of China’s electric power system was clear.¹⁸ But the system as a whole continued to be more black than green; electric power generated in 2017 was sourced overall from thermal sources to the extent of 71% with 25% from WWS sources.¹⁹ This shows that the transition at such a large scale is complex, and huge industries like coal mining and transport and coal burning cannot be phased out overnight if jobs and livelihoods are not to be savaged.

Neverthelss China’s overall energy strategy, based as it is on utilizing a foundation of urbanization, electrification and reliance on domestic sources of manufactured energy, has continued to place emphasis on renewable sources that provide a measure of domestic energy security. Wind power based on manufactured wind turbines; solar PV power based on manufactured solar cells; hydroelectric power based on dams and water turbines – these are the foundations of an energy strategy based on manufacturing rather than on drilling and digging for supplies beset by geopolitical uncertainties.

China’s investments in its domestic electric power system have been favoring renewable green (water, wind, sun: WWS) sources over black, fossil fuel sources, for the past several years. The impact is visible clearly in the rising trend towards WWS electric power, shown in Figure 3.

Fig. 3. China electric power generation, 1990 – 2019. Source: Author (with thanks to Ms Carol X. Huang)

The chart shows that in the past decade, China’s electric power capacity sourced from green renewable sources (WWS) has increased from 24% to 38% — or a 14% green shift in a decade. This is a huge shift for such a large system. At this rate, China’s electric power capacity would exceed 50% WWS within the next decade – by 2030 or possibly earlier. This would be a tipping point of enormous significance – meaning that China’s electric power system (the biggest in the world) would be more green than black by this date. The chart reveals that China’s actual generation of green electricity (from WWS sources) has risen over the same decade from 18% to 27% of total electric generation – or a 9% green shift in a decade.²⁰ Green power would then feed into other sectors including transport (EVs and FCVs as well as electric trucks, buses and fuel cell powered ships), construction and wider industry such as steel and cement. Because a green electric power system is based on manufacturing, and its costs are declining as per the manufacturing learning curve, so the greening trend can be expected to accelerate.

Meanwhile the US with its Trump-sanctioned bets being placed on the instabilities and high costs of shale oil, as opposed to the diminishing costs and energy security of manufactured energy associated with the green shift, is headed into an energy danger zone. US electric power capacity is still dominated by fossil fuels (LNG 43% and coal 21%, plus oil 3% — totalling 67%) with WWS sources accounting for just on 24% in 2019.²¹ The nuclear share remains at 9%, stable over many years, while wind and solar are rising slowly. The US counterpart to China’s green shift in electric power is shown in Chart 4, from the year 2005 when the US entered shale oil production. While there is a slow increase in renewables (mostly wind and solar with hydro barely changing) it is not on anything like the scale seen in China.²² Of course these are trends that could well be buffeted by continuing trade hostility between the US and China – but there is a momentum behind China’s strategic direction, given the continuing likely fall in costs of generating power from WWS sources, associated with the learning curve.

Fig. 4 US vs China: WWS sources of electric power (capacity and generation), 2005-2019. Source: Author, based on data from the BP Statistical Review and (for 2019) the Energy Information Administration (EIA). Thanks to Ms Carol X. Huang for the chart.

The continuing trade war between the US and China largely bypasses these central energy issues, because the US and China are pursuing such different strategies. China is clearly not attempting to oust the US as an oil producer, while the US, since 2005 and particularly under Trump, is clearly not attempting to oust Chinese global ambitions in renewables and green energy. The result is a stand-off so far where Trump’s anti-China rhetoric has yet to claim any major casualties – but the election year 2020 could hold further surprises.²³

These differences in trends in electric power capacity between China and the US are emblematic of starkly contrasting energy strategies. And it looks in early May as if a strategy based on continued reliance on extracting liquid fossil fuels from the ground, utilizing high-cost technological innovation in the form of hydraulic fracture, deep sea drilling and tar sands recovery is not such a good bet as contrasted with rising electrification, rising reliance on renewables (WWS) and the building of vast domestic manufacturing industries to supply the devices needed. China has discovered a formula for driving its industrial development with an energy strategy, building the industries of the future (renewable power, electric transport, regenerative farming) and allowing them to progressively take over the fossil fuelled incumbents. China has discovered that the costs of the clean energy transition are no more than would be required to maintain the fossil fuel status quo – and build new export-oriented industries at the same time, while reducing its dependence on foreign energy imports. It has taken an oil price crisis and a pandemic to reveal the clear differences between these competing national strategies and their contrasting implications.

Acknowledgments: My thanks to Dr Michael Peck and Prof Linda Weiss for their comments on an earlier draft, and to Ms Carol X. Huang for her assistance in drawing the charts.

*

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

John A. Mathews is Professor Emeritus in the Macquarie Business School, Macquarie University, Sydney. He was Professor of Strategy for many years at Macquarie Graduate School of Management, Sydney, and concurrently the Eni Chair of Competitive Dynamics and Global Strategy at LUISS Guido Carli University in Rome.

Notes

¹ ‘Trump threatens to cut off relations with China’, Financial Times, 14 May 2020.

² ‘Hong Kong in 2020: Pandemic, protest, and great power rivalry’, Mark W. Frazier, Asia Pacific Journal: Japan Focus, May 15 2020.

³ ‘Renewable power surges as pandemic scrambles global energy outlook’, report finds, Science Mag, April 30 2020.

⁴ ‘Oil prices stage a modest recovery as demand rises and supply drops’, New York Times, May 17 2020.

⁵ ‘Covid-19 will not slow Southeast Asia’s shift from coal to renewables’, Sara Jane Ahmed, Nikkei Asian Review, May 11 2020.

⁶ ‘Falling prices are hitting US shale oil producers’, Stockhead, Feb 9 2020.

⁷ ‘Coronavirus may kill our fracking fever dream’, Bethany McLean, New York Times, Apr 10 2020. Bethany McLean is the author of Saudi America: The Truth About Fracking and How It’s Changing the World (Columbia Global Reports, 2018).

⁸ ‘Will American shale oil rise again?’, Derek Brower and David Sheppard, Financial Times, April 25 2020.

⁹ ‘Eight days that shook the oil market – and the world’, Financial Times, Mar 13 2020.

¹⁰ ‘Saudi Arabia shows Asia focus with renewed oil price discounts’, Financial Times, May 8 2020.

¹¹ ‘Will American shale oil rise again?’, Derek Brower and David Sheppard, Financial Times, April 25 2020.

¹² ‘By pumping at will, Saudi Arabia hurts oil investment’, Washington Post, March 16 2020.

¹³ ‘Few US shale firms can withstand prolonged price war’, Reuters, March 16 2020.

¹⁴ See Forbes May 7 2020.

¹⁵ South China Morning Post, Mar 10 2020.

¹⁶ See my 2017 book, John A. Mathews, Global Green Shift, London, Anthem Press – and accompanying webpage.

¹⁷ ‘How China came to dominate South Sudan’s oil’, The Diplomat, February 11 2019.

¹⁸ New capacity added in 2017 amounted to 132 GW, of which 52 GW was thermal capacity (mainly coal) and 77 GW was sourced from WWS; likewise in terms of investment, fresh investment in 2017 on power generation was RMB 270 billion, of which RMB 74 billion went to thermal sources and 156.5 billion went to clean WWS sources. Both these results indicated that the system was greening more than blackening at the margin. See ‘The greening of China’s energy system outpaces its further blackening: A 2017 update’, John A. Mathews and Carol X. Huang, with comments from Thomas Rawski and Mark Selden, Asia Pacific Journal: Japan Focus, May 1 2018.

¹⁹ In 2019 generation from thermal sources dropped to 69%, while generation from WWS rose to 26.4%.

²⁰ The shift in green power for electricity generation includes generation from hydro power, wind power and solar power, with their different capacity utilization rates. Hence the extent of the green shift for electric generation is lower than for capacity.

²¹ See data from US Energy Information Administration (EIA).

²² As shown in Fig. 4, by 2019 the US had built electric capacity from WWS sources amounting to just over 25%, compared with China’s level of 38.4%; and in terms of actual electricity generated, the US generated 18.7% from WWS sources, compared with China’s level of 26.4%. China has clearly advanced a lot closer to installing a clean energy economy in recent years.

²³ See Mel Gurtov and Mark Selden, The dangerous new US consensus on China and the future of US-China relations, Asia-Pacific Journal: Japan Focus, Aug 1 2019, 17 (15/5).

Featured image is from InfoBrics

There is no question that the number of police killings of civilians in the U.S. – who are disproportionately Black and other people of color – are the result of policies and practices that enable and even encourage police violence. Compared to police in other wealthy democracies, American police kill civilians at incredibly high rates:

.

The chart above compares the annual rates of police killings in each country, accounting for differences in population size. This is the most apples-to-apples comparison we can make. But the total number of deaths at the hands of police is also worth seeing in comparison with other countries:

The sources for these charts are listed in the table below:

*

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.

To reach the hearts and minds of Americans, the Zionist Israeli Left is manipulating the Black Lives Matter movement. The slogans and images of protestors coming out of Tel Aviv continue to hoodwink the world with a sudden and self-serving concern for Palestinian lives.

Two slogans are circulating among the Zionist Israeli Left: ‘Jewish and democratic’ and ‘Palestine Lives Matter’. These are, simply put, a contradiction in terms designed to whitewash the racist nature of Zionism.

When White supremacists in the U.S. adopted the “All Lives Matter” slogan, everyone quickly understood that the use of it was intended to denigrate the “Black Lives Matter” slogan. The Zionist embrace of “Palestinian Lives Matter” is also a denigration. Palestinian lives suddenly matter to them now only out of fear that Israel’s impending annexation of parts of the West Bank means the end of Zionism and will allow the world to understand the true supremacist nature of the state, which at heart is: “only Jewish lives matter”.

To be truly pro-Palestinian one must be anti-Israel, anti-Zionist. These protestors cling, cynically or out of some delusion, to the notion that to be “Jewish and democratic” is possible, that denying Palestinians equality and return to their stolen homeland is a matter of Jewish national “survival”.

It’s the same lying story or so-called “narrative” that Zionists have long succeeded in imposing on the world by camouflaging Zionism’s racist Jewish supremacist nature and denying the devastation the founding of this Jewish state on Palestinian soil has wreaked on Palestinians. Now that their leaders are up-front with their racist plans and supremacist ideology, they no longer deny, and are even apologetic, but they continue to lie.

Commenting on Facebook, Ronnie Barkan says about the protestors:

They haven’t demonstrated against Zionism — most of them are fascist and Zionist! they simply don’t like the “demographic threat” in losing their cherished ethnic-majority in their cherished race-state via possible annexation. the leftists, ie anti-Zionist and humanist, in that demo are minimal to insignificant in numbers. The overwhelming majority were the “liberal Zionists” mentioned above who dread the notion of equal rights among the ~20 million sons and daughters of this land.

In defense of some of the euphoria of the moment, Christopher Ben Kushka comments:

Jonathan Ofir has pointed out in great detail why larger parts of that demonstration were problematic (to put it mildly). “We can´t breathe since 1948” (on your own wall) plus “Nakba since 1948 — Abolish Zionism” plus “Israel is no democracy but Apartheid (state)” are among the strongest statements I have seen at an Israeli demonstration. And acknowledging that doesn´t turn me … into cheer leaders for the liberal-zionist discourse for whom the 67 occupation is a nuisance to get rid of so they can live their hedonist life style.

Nur Masalha explains:

I think there were a minority of anti-Zionist Israelis and Palestinians in that recent “anti-annexation” demo in Tel Aviv — but there is also a lot of truth in what Rima Najjar says, especially the fact that “Zionism” and “democracy” are a contradiction in terms; that liberal Zionists see the annexation of the West Bank as an existential threat to the “demography” to the self-defined “Jewish state of Israel” — a form of demographic racism; and that liberal Zionists see the “Jewish and democratic” state of Israel as “democratic for Jews” and “Jewish to Palestinians”. Some of the tangible evidence for the presence of anti-Zionist Israelis and Palestinians at the anti-annexation demo in Tel Aviv was the banners: “Nakba since 1948: Abolish Zionism”.

Back in 1964, in an essay titled ‘Zionist logic’, Malcolm X offered Americans a hard-hitting attack on Zionism and explained how it is tinged with messianic religiosity and how it was basically a new form of colonialism in disguise that threatened, not only Palestinians, but also the newly independent African countries that accepted Israeli aid. He wrote:

The Israeli Zionists are convinced they have successfully camouflaged their new kind of colonialism. Their colonialism appears to be more “benevolent,” more “philanthropic,” a system with which they rule simply by getting their potential victims to accept their friendly offers of economic “aid,” and other tempting gifts, that they dangle in front of the newly-independent African nations, whose economies are experiencing great difficulties. During the 19th century, when the masses here in Africa were largely illiterate it was easy for European imperialists to rule them with “force and fear,” but in this present era of enlightenment the African masses are awakening, and it is impossible to hold them in check now with the antiquated methods of the 19th century.

In 1970, The Committee for Black Americans for Truth about the Middle East published ‘An Appeal by Black Americans Against United States Support for the Zionist Government of Israel’ in The New York Times. In it, they affirmed: “We stand with the Palestinian people in their efforts to preserve their revolution, and oppose its attempted destruction by American Imperialism aided by Zionists and Arab reactionaries.”

Adding: “Zionism is a reactionary racist ideology that justifies the expulsion of the Palestinian people from their homes and lands, and attempts to enlist the Jewish masses of Israel and elsewhere in the service of imperialism to hold back the Middle East revolution.”

In the euphoria of the Black Lives Matter moment and all the slogans it has inspired, let’s not forget that Zionism is Jewish supremacy.

*

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.

Rima Najjar is a Palestinian whose father’s side of the family comes from the forcibly depopulated village of Lifta on the western outskirts of Jerusalem and whose mother’s side of the family is from Ijzim, south of Haifa. She is an activist, researcher and retired professor of English literature, Al-Quds University, occupied West Bank. She is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from Palestine Solidarity Campaign

The following article aims at providing a critical analysis of the Israeli policies towards the colonized Gaza Strip and its Palestinian people. Consequently, it will concentrate on the Military Siege imposed on the Gaza Strip, and on the deliberate Israelipolicy of undernourishment of  Gazans. It will be concluded with an analysis of the impact of this policy on the Gazans and the relationship of this policy and Israel’s national security.

Before we deal with these issues, it is necessary to analyze the legal status of the Palestinian territories because its status is interpreted differently by a section of Israeli legal experts and by the International Law, international treaties and international legal experts.

Sovereignty and Belligerent Occupation

In accordance with International Law, both the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, i.e. the Palestinian Territories, are considered occupied territories. It has been agreed upon by the international community, including its astounding legal experts, that the proper legal tools that are applicable in cases of belligerent occupation, are the 1907 Hague Regulations, the 1949 Four Geneva Conventions, Additional Protocol I, and customary international humanitarian law.[1]

According to Article 42 of the 1907 Hague Regulations, a “territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army. The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised.”[2]

Moreover, according to Article 2, the Four Geneva Conventions of 1949 “…apply to any territory occupied during international hostilities. They also apply in situations where the occupation of state territory meets with no armed resistance.”[3]

In addition to these international treaties, the UN Charter defines and regulates the legality of any particular occupation. It uses a law known as jus ad bellum that clearly states that“Once a situation exists which factually amounts to an occupation the law of occupation applies – whether or not the occupation is considered lawful.”[4]

The applicability of the law of occupation is not dependent on “…whether an occupation has received Security Council approval, what its aim is, or indeed whether it is called an “invasion”, “liberation”, “administration” or “occupation”.[5]

Since the very beginning of Israeli occupation of the Palestinian Territories in 1967, the Israeli authorities have avoided using the term occupation and replaced it with the terms, “administration”, “liberation”, and “disputed territories”. In recent years, they succumbed to the term “territories” as if the Occupied Palestinian Territories (OPT) were territories located on Mars waiting to be defined by Israeli legal innovative experts.

Negation of Occupation by the Levy Report

In an attempt to legitimize the illegal Israeli colonial settlements inside the West Bank, Prime Minister Benjamin Netenyahu set up, in January 2012, a committee of three legal experts that became known later as the Levy Committee. The Committee was chaired by right-wing former Supreme Court justice Edmond Levy (image on the right; source is Wikimedia Commons) and it included also two former right-wing justices, Alan Baker, a settler and Techia Shapira, former deputy president of the Tel Aviv District Court.[6]

The Levy Committee was delegated with the task of investigating the legal status of unauthorized West Bank Jewish settlements. In addition, the Levy Committee also examined whether the Israeli “presence” in the West Bank is to be considered an occupation or not.[7] On 9 July 2012 the Levy Committee issued its report which became known as the Levy Report. Its most important conclusion was

…that the classical laws of belligerent occupation “as set out in the relevant international conventions cannot be considered applicable to the unique and sui generis historic and legal circumstances of Israel’s presence in Judea and Samaria spanning over decades”, and that the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention against the transfer of populations is not applicable to the Israeli settlement activity in the West Bank. The Report concluded that “Israelis have the legal right to settle in Judea and Samaria and the establishment of settlements cannot, in and of itself, be considered illegal”.[8]

In other words, the Levy Committee arbitrarily decided that both the 1907 Hague Convention and the Four Geneva Conventions of 1949 are not applicable to the West Bank under Israeli rule. According to the bizarre logic of the three bogus legal experts there is no Israeli military occupation in the West Bank. Instead, there is what they called an “Israeli presence” in the West Bank including Israeli settlements, which were considered by the rightist legal experts as perfectly legal. They based this dubious “legality” on fictitious and bizarre international law.

Nevertheless, the Levy Report was praised by settler circles and a collection of Zionist right wing writers and politicians. However, a group of Israeli authentic legal experts voiced their criticism of the Levy Report.

In their response to the Levy Report, both human rights legal activists Anu Deuel Lusky of Yesh Din and Keren Michaeli of the Emile Zola Chair for Human Rights, wrote a critical reading and legal analysis of the Levy Committee’s conclusions. Both legal experts remarked that:

A review of the report shows that it chose to ignore hundreds of Supreme Court rulings, dozens of decisions by United Nations bodies and international tribunals, and thousands of articles by international legal experts. All these sources show a rare consensus in the legal community regarding the status of the West Bank as occupied territory. The Levy report does not engage with accepted legal principles and its conclusions lack any legal foundation.[9]

Despite its legal fragility, the Levy Report was taken with utmost respect by the Israeli colonial right. It was later adopted by the Netanyahu rightwing government which stopped using the term occupied West Bank and began to call it “the disputed territories”. Later on, they began to call the West Bank and the Gaza Strip “the territories”. In other words, “Israel asserts that these territories are not currently claimed by any other state, and that Israel has the right to control them.”

In contradiction to this false and weak legal argument, legal experts at the Institute for Middle East Understandingpointed out that the term:

“Occupation” is a legal status in international law, not just a description of the forceful means by which Israel has controlled the territories it seized in 1967. Although Israeli diplomats contest the designation of the territories as “occupied,” and describe them as merely “administered” by Israel, there is no such status in international law.[10]

By rejecting the applicability of the internationally accepted international law to their military occupation, the Israeli colonial right used what could be called “legal acrobatics” to redefine the legal status of the West Bank.

A graffiti of Naji al-Ali’s Handala on the West Bank separation wall

Consequently, the actual daily activities of the Israeli army inside the West Bank and the active support of colonial settler vigilantes, who daily shoot, burn, and cut Palestinian olive trees, were both regarded by those bogus legal experts of Levy and company, as being an innocent “presence” of Israelis but not as components of a vicious military occupation. Apparently, it was the fault of the Palestinians who committed a grand mistake by regarding them as vicious military army and vigilantes. Palestinians sick imagination has made up this image with a hidden intention to tarnish the civilized image of these innocent Israelis who happen to be visiting their ancestral country.

Finally, one should conclude this legal argument by asserting that despite the efforts extended by the Israeli dubious legal experts, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip are occupied territories. Therefore, “… Israel has never had any legal rights of sovereignty over any of the lands it took in 1967, and never had any right to settle its own citizens there.”[11]

Despite the preposterous argument put forward by Israeli and Zionist propagandists that after the withdrawal of Israeli settlers from the Gaza Strip in 2005, the Gaza Strip is no longer occupied by Israel. This feeble fairy tale does not seriously take into regard that “…Even after its 2005 redeployment, Israel did not release its hold on Gaza; it continues to control all access to the territory, as well as its airspace, territorial waters and even its population registry…”[12]

Gaza Siege and the Diet of the Colonized

The Israeli colonial authorities have frequently used the pretext of security as a justification for its settler colonialist policies pursued, for 53 years, over the Palestinian civilians. The grossly inhuman nature of these policies needed some sort of legitimacy, even fictitious legitimacy. So, the brutal siege of the Gaza Strip and the consequent restrictions imposed on the Palestinian colonized residents, were in dire need for “legitimacy”. Consequently, the mantle of “national security” was thrown on the siege of the Gaza Strip, which is in fact the most brutal colonial siege in the annals of human history.

In a method that is devoid of the slightest segment of empathy and human feelings, Israeli colonial fascistic experts devised a program of starvation for two million Palestinian civilians living inside the Gaza Strip, which is literally a huge open-air prison camp. Starvation was meant to be a punitive policy towards the Palestinian civilians who chose a Hamas government in an internationally monitored parliamentary elections in 2006. The result of the elections was not acceptable by the two Western democracies, Zionist colonialist Israel and imperialist USA. Therefore, they complicity collaborated to get rid of Hamas through a starvation program that chillingly calculated the minimum number of calories that are necessary to prevent the genocide of two million human beings.According to Gisha, an Israeli human rights organization“… Israeli authorities had calculated the number of calories consumed by Gaza residents and used it to establish a “humanitarian minimum”, a minimum of food supply necessary for not causing hunger or malnutrition in the area…”[13]

In order to cover up this fascist inhuman program, the Israeli army generals Beni Gantz and Gabi Ashkenazi hid the starvation program under the claim of a fictitious security mantle. “…claiming that disclosure would put national security at risk and damage Israel’s foreign policy…”[14] They were forced to disclose their horrible starvation program by “Gisha”, which managed to force the IDF, in the court of law, to disclose it. In court, the Israeli ministry of defense

“… agreed to disclose some of the documents stating that their disclosure no longer threatened national security or foreign affairs. However, it refused to make public the “red line document” which supposedly contained calculations of the most minimal consumption of food in Gaza that the closure policy would not cross…”[15]

This brutal colonial policy towards the Gaza Strip was elaborated by the Israeli colonialist army in cooperation with the Israeli Ministry of Health. Already on 1 January 2008, a document was produced. It bore the innocent title of “Food Consumption in the Gaza Strip – Red Lines.”[16] According to Major Guy Inbar, the Israeli military spokesman,“… the calculation, based on a person’s average requirement of 2,300 calories a day, was meant to identify warning signs to help avoid a humanitarian crisis, and that it was never used to restrict the flow of food.”[17]

Based on this document, the Israeli colonialist army regulated the exact number of trucks that were allowed to enter the Gaza Strip, bringing in food and medicine. Furthermore, based on this document, the Israeli colonial authorities decided how many Gazans can exit the Gaza Strip for the purpose of receiving medical treatment.

This criminal Israeli policy of denying medical permits and restricting import of medicine to Gaza residents was continued in 2019. In its report “Israel and Occupied Palestinian Territories 2019”, Amnesty International reported the following:

“In June, 2019 the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights reported an acute medicine shortage for patients with cancer and chronic diseases in Gaza. Israel continued to arbitrarily deny medical permits to Gaza residents to allow them to enter Israel or the West Bank for treatment…”[18]

Saree Makdisi, an author of Palestinian and Lebanese descent, has reported that:

Patients are dying unnecessarily: cancer patients cut off from chemotherapy regimens, kidney patients cut off from dialysis treatments, premature babies cut off from blood-clotting medications. In the past few weeks, many more Palestinian parents have watched the lives of their sick children ebb slowly, quietly and (as far as the global media are concerned) invisibly away in Gaza’s besieged hospitals.[19]

In reality, the Israeli colonial masters have replaced God Almighty in actually deciding who among Gazan cancer patients, kidney patients, premature babies, should live and get the life-saving medical treatment and who should die.

Deliberate Undernourishment for Security Reasons

To begin with, Israeli military siege of the Gaza Strip went through stages of severity. Actually, the siege did not start in 2006. Preliminary steps of rough and inhuman treatment of Gazans were already taken in 1991 during the PLO-Israeli secret negotiations that preceded the Oslo Accords. Later on, more severe stages that coincided with political developments, took place. According to the analysis of Saree Makdisi, these stages could be pointed out as follows:

The current squeeze on Gaza began in 1991. It was tightened with the institutionalization of the Israeli occupation enabled by the Oslo Accords of 1993. It was tightened further with the intensification of the occupation in response to the second intifada in 2000. It was tightened further still when Israel redeployed its settlers and troops from inside Gaza in 2005 and transformed the territory into … a prison… It was tightened to the point of strangulation following the Hamas electoral victory in 2006, when Israel began restricting supplies of food and other resources into Gaza. It was tightened beyond the point of strangulation following the deposition of the Fateh-led government in June 2007.[20]

The following is a partial list of 54 items, prohibited to import into the Gaza Strip, by the Israeli colonial authorities. It was revealed by the Israeli ministry of defense after it was taken to the court of law by Gisha – The Israeli Human Rights Organization:

sage, cardamom, cumin, coriander, ginger, jam, halva, vinegar, nutmeg, chocolate, fruit preserves, seeds and nuts, biscuit and sweets, potato chips, gas for soft drink, dried fruit, fresh meat, plaster, tar, wood for construction, cement, iron, glucose, industrial salt, plastic/glass/metal containers, industrial margarine, tarpaulin sheets for huts, fabric (for clothing), flavor and smell enhancers, fishing rods, various fishing nets, buoys, ropes for fishing, nylon nets for green houses, hatcheries and spare parts for hatcheries, spare parts for tractors, dairies for cowsheds, irrigation pipe systems, ropes to tie green houses, planters for saplings, heaters for chicken farms, musical instruments, size A4 paper, writing implements, notebooks, newspapers, toys, razors, sewing machines and spare parts, heaters, horses, donkeys, goats, cattle, chicks.[21]

One wanders about the rationale behind the prohibition of allowing the import of these items into the besieged Gaza Strip. Could it be Israeli “national security”? The prohibition against the import of these items show a discreet number of colonial rationales behind it and a number of colonial aims.

To begin with, there is a calculated attempt to obstruct a number of economic aspects of life of the civilian population of the Gaza Strip. For example there appears an attempt to hinder and obstruct the already weak Gazan industrial base by two methods: (1) prohibiting the import of industrial related items, raw materials and spare parts; (2) the closure of “…5,000 factories in Gaza which were closed down due to the 14-year-long Israeli siege.”[22] This obstruction caused to the industrial base by the Israeli siege of Gaza has forced “…thousands of workers, engineers, accountants and technicians to lose their jobs”[23]. According to member of parliament and head of the Popular Committee Against the Siege on Gaza, Jamal Al-Khodari, “… the Israeli occupation is still imposing a ban on exports and imports and putting many restrictions on the entry of raw materials…”[24]

Another attempt clearly appears to be the calculated policy to obstruct and restrict the development of the agricultural sector.  The Israeli siege prohibits the import into the Gaza Strip of agricultural equipment necessary for irrigation, hatcheries, green houses, and fishing. It furthermore, prohibits the import of spare parts for hatcheries and tractors. In addition, the Israeli colonial authorities banned the import of horses, donkeys, goats, cattle and chicks.

The attempt to obstruct both the Gazan industrial base and the agricultural sector, aim at destroying the productive branches of Gazan economy, thus increasing Palestinian economic dependency on the Israeli economy. It further leads to severe levels of unemployment and poverty among the Gazan workers.

Consequently, the prohibition of the import of musical instruments, size A4 paper, writing implements, notebooks, and newspapers, aims at harming the intellectual development of the Gazans. It further creates problems to the activities of the non-government organizations, government ministries, institutions, political parties, universities and schools.

Finally, the prohibition of importing a number of essential spices aims at obstructing the tastes and cooking culture of the Gazan society, which uses lots of spices in their cooking meals. The targeting of these spices for prohibition reveals the existence of an extreme and dark racist frame of mind by the Israeli colonial army and the Israeli colonial ministry of health. Both of these colonialists calculated and conspired to make Gazans suffer more by eating tasteless food that lack essential spices. These barbaric colonialists insisted on devising advanced inhuman levels in their policy of collective punishment of Gazan stomachs and senses of smelling and tasting. 

When taking the entire list of prohibitions into consideration, the tight siege of the Gaza Strip would appear devoid of the slightest relation to so-called Israeli national security. When the security element is completely discounted, the siege of the Gaza Strip appears to be nothing but an expression of a brutal, colonial, inhuman, barbaric and racist practice which has been callously and chillingly calculated by inhuman and alienated generals and functionaries of the Israeli ministry of health. This policy drives at creating deliberate undernourishment andhorrible starvation for two million Palestinians. Therefore, it is a policy of collective punishment which flagrantly contravenes international law.

As a direct result of this brutal starvation program, the health of the people of the Gaza Strip deteriorated to dangerous scales. “…Anemia rates rocketed to almost 80 percent. UNRWA noted at about the same time that “we are seeing evidence of the stunting of children, their growth is slowing, because our ration is only 61 percent of what people should have and that has to be supplemented.”[25]

Moreover, Israeli colonial policy towards the Gaza Strip has severely harmed the general health situation of the people of the Gaza Strip. In addition to undernourishment, Israeli colonial policy has led to the following hazardous developments. The people of the Gaza Strip

… are now essentially out of food; the water system is faltering (almost half the population now lacks access to safe water supplies); the sewage system has broken down and is discharging raw waste into streets and the sea; the power supply is intermittent at best; hospitals lack heat and spare parts for diagnostic machines, ventilators, incubators; dozens of lifesaving medicines are no longer available. Slowly but surely, Gaza is dying.[26]

This state of affairs in the Gaza Strip, has been already confirmed by commissioner general of UNRWA who warned that: “Gaza is on the threshold of becoming the first territory to be intentionally reduced to a state of abject destitution, with the knowledge, acquiescence and — some would say — encouragement of the international community…”[27]

When put under the scrutiny of international law and relevant international treaties, many of the Israeli policies and practices towards the Gaza Strip could be easily regarded as different types of war crimes. The following is an appraisal of some of the war crimes that were committed by the Israeli colonial authorities who were supported and sanctioned by the Israeli government and the various Israeli politicians.

Israeli War Crimes in the Gaza Strip

In accordance with the International Committee of the Red Cross, war crimes could be defined as: “… any serious violation of international humanitarian law constitutes a war crime. This is clear from extensive and consistent case-law from the First World War until the present day.[28]

Moreover, there are two distinguished types of war crimes, those violations “…that are committed willfully, i.e., either intentionally (doles directus) or recklessly (dolus eventualis)…”[29]

Furthermore, the ICRC has carried out “A deductive analysis of the actual list of war crimes found in various treaties and other international instruments, as well as in national legislation and case-law…”[30] This deductive analysis clearly “… shows that violations are in practice treated as serious, and therefore as war crimes, if they endanger protected persons or objects or if they breach important values.”[31]

When it comes specifically to situations of war crimes committed, under belligerent military occupation, against persons or property, the most appropriate instrument to use is the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949. According to provisions of this Convention, war crimes are any of the following acts[32]:

• willful killing;
• torture or inhuman treatment, including biological experiments;
• willfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health;
• extensive destruction or appropriation of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly;
• compelling a prisoner of war or other protected person to serve in the forces of a hostile Power;
• willfully depriving a prisoner of war or other protected person of the rights of a fair and regular trial;
• unlawful deportation or transfer;
• unlawful confinement;
• taking of hostages.

Acts or omissions. War crimes can consist of acts or omissions. Examples of the latter include failure to provide a fair trial and failure to provide food or necessary medical care to persons in the power of the adversary.

On 24 June 2015, the United Nations Human Rights Council, issued a report entitled “Human rights situation in Palestine and other occupied Arab territories”, in which it revealed the relevant statistics on the death toll of the Palestinian civilians who were killed by the Israeli army during the aggressive attacks on the Gaza Strip that were conducted in 2014. The Report mentioned that

“…The death toll alone speaks volumes: 2,251 Palestinians were killed, including 1,462 Palestinian civilians, of whom 299 women and 551 children;[33] and 11,231 Palestinians, including 3,540 women and 3,436 children, were injured (A/HRC/28/80/Add.1, para. 24),of whom 10 per cent suffered permanent disability as a result…”[34]

In addition to that, the Report mentioned that

“…Alongside the toll on civilian lives, there was enormous destruction of civilian infrastructure in Gaza: 18,000 housing units were destroyed in whole or in part;[35] much of the electricity network and of the water and sanitation infrastructure were incapacitated; and 73 medical facilities and many ambulances were damaged…”[36]

The Human Rights Council concluded by accusing Israel of committing “…violations of international humanitarian law … which may amount to war crimes…”[37] It will take lot of efforts until the International Court of Justice will investigate Israeli war crimes. This step depends on the UN Security Council which is legally responsible to take a decision on this issue. As long as the US dominates the Security Council, Israel will have protection and thus can escape impunity.

“…despite considerable information regarding the massive degree of death and destruction in Gaza, the Human Rights Council raises questions about potential violations of international humanitarian law by these officials, which may amount to war crimes. Current accountability mechanisms may not be adequate to address this issue…”[38]

The above mentioned war crimes have been repeatedly committed by the Israeli army, security institutions and settler vigilantes. The killings of Palestinians, by these Israeli authorities, is a daily practice. No serious official investigations are conducted when the victim is a Palestinian Arab. This state of affairs encourages more Israeli perpetrators to shoot and kill Palestinians, not only inside the colonized Palestinian territories but also inside the Israeli settler colonialist state.

So far, no Israeli war criminal has been brought to the International Court of Justice, and the Israeli state has managed to escape impunity, due to the direct support and protection that have been provided to Israel by the imperialist leaders in the West, especially the United States. However, there is no limitation of time on war crimes and Israel might one day pay for the war crimes, the massacres, the daily killings, the destruction of villages and cities, the ethnic cleansing, and the many more war crimes that Israel perpetrated not only in Palestine but also in Syria, Lebanon, Egypt, Iraq and Jordan.

*

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. Zuhair Sabbagh teaches sociology at Birzeit University in the colonized West Bank. He is a resident of Nazareth, Israel. He holds a Ph.D. in Sociology from the University of Manchester and is author of a number of books and research articles.

Notes

[1] International Committee of the Red Cross, “Occupation and international humanitarian law: questions and answers”, https://www.icrc.org, 4-8-2004.

[2] The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica, “Laws and Customs of War on Land (HAGUE, IV) of 1907”, https://www.britannica.com .Relieved on: 1-6-2020.

[3] International Committee of the Red Cross, op. cit.

[4] Ibid.

[5] Ibid.

[6] Wikipedia, “Levy Report”, http://en.wikipedia.org. Retrieved on:  8-5-2020.

[7] Ibid.

[8] Lazaroff, Tovah (9 July 2012). “Legal report on outposts recommends authorization”. The Jerusalem Post.,http://web.archive.org, as quoted by Wikipedia, “Levy Report”, http://en.wikipedia.org. Retrieved on: 8-5-2020.

[9] Lusky, Anu Deuel and Michaeli, KerenYesh Din, “Unprecedented: A legal analysis of the report of the Committee to Examine the Status of Building in Judea and Samaria (The Levy Committee)”, https://www.yesh-din.org, 19.5.2014

[10] Institute for Middle East Understanding, “What are the Occupied Territories?”, https://imeu.org, 21-12-2005

[11] Ibid.

[12] Makdisi, Saree “Starving Gaza”,  The Nation, https://electronicintifada.net,  2-2-2008

[13] Gisha, “Ministry of  Defence V. Gisha Legal Center for Freedom of Movement”, https://www.right2info.org, 19-12-2011

[14] Ibid.

[15] Ibid.

[16] AAA 3300/11 Ministry of Defense v. Gisha “Food Consumption in the Gaza Strip – Red Lines” Presentation,  www.gisha.org, 5-9-2012

[17] Associated Press, “Israel used ‘calorie count’ to limit Gaza food during blockade, critics claim”, https://www.theguardian.com, 17-10-2012

[18] Amnesty International, “Israel and Occupied Palestinian Territories 2019”, https://www.amnesty.org.Retrieved on: 6-5-2020

[19] Makdisi, Saree, “Starving Gaza”, The Nation, https://electronicintifada.net,  2-2-2008.

[20] Ibid.

[21] Gisha, “Partial List of Items Prohibited/Permitted into the Gaza Strip – May 2010”, www.gisha.org.Retrieved on: 1-6-2020.

[22] The Palestine Chronicle, “5,000 factories Closed in Gaza Due to Israeli Sieg”, https://www.palestinechronicle.com, February 22, 2020

[23] Ibid.

[24] Ibid.

[25] Makdisi, Saree , op. cit.

[26] Ibid.

[27] Ibid.

[28] ICRC, “Definition of War Crimes”, https://ihl-databases.icrc.org, Retrieved on: 10-5-2020

[29] Ibid.

[30] Ibid.

[31] Ibid.

[32] Ibid.

[33] Data compiled by the OCHA Protection Cluster, 31 May 2015. For its methodology, see A/HRC/28/80/Add.1, para. 24, footnote 43.

[34] Human Rights Council, “Human rights situation in Palestine and other occupied Arab territories”, https://www2.ohchr.org,24 June 2015

[35] OCHA, Gaza Initial Rapid Assessment, 27 August 2014, p. 4.

[36] Ibid.

[37] Ibid.

[38] Ibid.

Featured image is from TruePublica

Venezuelan authorities appeared in court in London last Thursday May 28 to demand that the Bank of England comply with instructions to sell part of the 31 tons of gold it holds on behalf of Venezuela.

Venezuelan Central Bank President Calixto Ortega reported on Wednesday that an agreement had been made with the United Nations Development Programme that it would receive the proceeds of the sale, and these would be used to buy food, medicine and health imports to tackle the Covid 19 pandemic and save many lives.

The Bank of England, which is ostensibly independent of the UK government, is arguably in breach of its contract with the Central Bank of Venezuela by refusing to comply with requests for repatriation of the gold on the pretext that the legitimacy of the Venezuelan government has been questioned. Such justification is demonstrably false, since the government of President Nicolas Maduro is recognised by the United Nations.

Delcy Rodriguez, Venezuelan Vice-President, stated that behind the Bank of England’s decision to freeze the Venezuelan gold lies a UK government manoeuvre to strip her country of its assets as part of an attempt at ‘regime change’.

Venezuela Solidarity Campaign fully supports Venezuela’s plan, negotiated with the UNDP, to use its own gold reserves to fund vital supplies of food, medicine and other medical supplies.

*

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 VSC

The justice for George Floyd mobilizations today reflected the state’s worst nightmare – a multi-national and multi-racial action initiated by Black people with Black leadership.

So, we say: Justice for George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, Ahmaud Arbery, Tamir Rice, Sandra Bland; for our political prisoners; for the super-exploited Black and Brown working class; for oppressed Indigenous nations; and for the millions subjected to U.S. warmongering, sanctions and criminality. We say this to shift the focus from the individualization of this week’s rebellion back to the objective structures of white supremacist, global colonial/capitalist domination. (BAP Newsletter )

The ruling class is befuddled and confused about how to respond to the ongoing street demonstrations sparked by the murder of George Floyd. The mobilizations clearly disrupted their plans for “normalcy” with the forced opening of the economy. The ferocity of the demonstrations that had not been seen since the brief uprising in 92 in response to the Rodney King verdict seems to have caught the authorities completely by surprise.

In the 1992 street actions in Los Angeles the nation and the world saw the first multi-racial, multi-national street action that was very different from the Black rebellions that rocked the U.S. in the 1960s. The racial configuration of the participants captured the range of non-European national minority communities and migrant peoples from across the Americas’ region.

But even in a departure from what occurred in 92, the justice for George Floyd mobilizations today reflected the state’s worst nightmare – a multi-national and multi-racial action of whites, Latinx, LGBTQ, immigrant and migrant workers and Black youth, initiated by Black people with Black leadership. The response from the rulers was predictable but unsurprising in its ideological and strategic coherence to break that emerging coalition of social forces.

I posted a comment on Facebook in response to what I saw as the counter-moves being made by the state. I was asked by several people to elaborate on those points, which I offer here.

In my original Facebook post I said:

“The enemy knows how to quickly adapt in the ideological struggle: 1) undermine the emerging unity with white agitator propaganda, 2) follow up with declaration against something called Antifa as a terrorist group, 3) instruct the police to join demos and express solidarity, 4) release statements from police chiefs and others pushing the bad apples theme, and most important, 5) keep the focus on the individual and call for “justice” for that individual to avoid attention on the systemic and enduring elements of Black and Brown colonized oppression.”

The white outside agitator trope. If it wasn’t frightening enough to see images of young white kids marching shoulder to shoulder with African and other colonized peoples, seeing white kids actually engaged in militant engagement with police authorities, which went beyond the approved forms of resistance, triggered a cognitive dilemma almost as serious as when they tried to comprehend and explain how China could escape the COVID-19 with five thousand deaths while the virus was killing tens of thousands in the U.S.

That cognitive dissonance could only be achieved by resurrecting the outside agitator notion that emerged in the 30s and was directed at organizers from the Communist Party and militant union organizers who were working in the U.S. South. But that trope was given its fullest form in the Civil rights struggles in the 50s and 60s.

It’s redeployment today is geared to 1) delegitimizing Black agency by implying that resistance of this sort had to be directed by white folks, and, 2) generating suspicion and even hostility toward white participants. Granted, issues of counter-productive tactics and police infiltration are real issues. But the state saw a vulnerability in evoking the white agitator trope that the black petit-bourgeois administrators in various cities enthusiastically embraced.

Antifa as a terrorist group: With the ideological foundation of the white outside agitator, the next step was creating a more understandable target by inventing an organizational form in order to give the threat a more serious and ominous character. The problem should have been, though, that Antifa is not really an organization but an idea with a loose network of some organizations and mostly individuals, many of whom are anarchists with many other political orientations, who believe that the U.S. is facing a neofascist threat that should not be ignored.

But the fact that Antifa is a mirage is secondary when the objective is to drive an ideological agenda. The success of this, however, is yet to be determined.

Instruct/encourage police to engage in public relations shunts like taking a knee or even walking with the demonstrators in some locations. Shrinking the distance between the police and the demonstrators is easy when the issue is being framed as “justice” for George Floyd, and by implication the idea that his killers were “bad apples.”

Those kinds of political stunts are not even inconsistent with a simultaneous display of military prowess and heavy-handed treatment of demonstrators, especially if the idea is taking hold that it is the “bad apples” among the demonstrators that are deserving of policing.

The bad apple trope plays right into the monumental political error being made by resisters by keeping focus on George Floyd as an individual, even if by extension the critique extends to the police and policing as a whole. The bad apple notion exempts a condemnation of the institution as a whole and diverts attention away from a deeper understanding of the role of the police as the leading edge of the repressive apparatus of the capitalist state.

Hundreds of Black and Latinix people are dying every day from what the Black is Back Coalition  calls the colonial virus known as COVID-19. Yet because we are not watching grandma take her last breath on the ventilator after having been laying around the hospital for days, her unnecessary death and the literal deaths of thousands of our people did not bring the people out of their houses during lockdown and into the streets.

Those deaths will continue long after the other cops are charged, and the military secures the cities and people go home, because those deaths are generated by the contradictions of capitalism. They are produced by the structural violence that is inherent in a system that devalues all life but especially the life of non-European workers and the poor.

So, the state has responded. The challenge for us is how do we counter the state’s attempt to pre-empt the development of a new movement.

The definition of the “people” is an historic one that emerges out of concrete struggle with specific historical conditions. The deep structural crisis of the system of national and global capital are creating the conditions for neofascism as a capitalist reform strategy. Therefore, we must not allow the state to undermine the basis for building new forms of solidarity among people who are finding their voice.

“The bad apple notion exempts a condemnation of the institution as a whole and diverts attention away from a deeper understanding of the role of the police.”

And while Trump may be the face of this movement and the public attention fixed on his most bombastic statements and the spectacle of armed citizen groups showing up at various state capitals, he does not have complete power over the real rulers of capital. Trump barely controls the Executive branch and has had his program of radical nationalist economic reform, including gutting Obamacare, curtailed. Instead, he has become an administrator of the neoliberal agenda like the last five presidents before him.

It is those ruling class forces who fear the masses and will give Trump or even Biden, if he is elected, free reign to continue to jettison the last vestiges of liberal democracy in order to maintain the rule of capital. When it was clear to the Obama Administration that he was not going to be able to co-opt the occupy movement, he moved with decisive action to shut it down across the country.

Trump will move just as decisively and with same level of ruling class support to shut down the protests when he sees it politically advantageous to do so.

Two things must happen fairly quickly. On the ideological level, a shift must occur away from the focus on individual justice for Floyd back to a critique and opposition to the ongoing structural violence of the system. It is clear that the state is unwilling and unable to protect the fundamental human rights of the people. The demand for People(s)-centered human rights provides a broad, radical framework for advancing concrete demands that can unite broad sectors of the population.

And secondly, and most importantly, the theme and message around the importance of organization must be aggressively advanced. Mass mobilizations have a place but developing the organizational forms that will build and sustain the power necessary to bring about radical fundamental change is the primary challenge and historic task.

*

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 Black Agenda Report.

Ajamu Baraka is the national organizer of the Black Alliance for Peace and was the 2016 candidate for vice president on the Green Party ticket. Baraka serves on the Executive Committee of the U.S. Peace Council and leadership body of the United National Anti-War Coalition (UNAC). He is an editor and contributing columnist for the Black Agenda Report and contributing columnist for Counterpunch. He was recently awarded the US Peace Memorial 2019 Peace Prize and the Serena Shirm award for uncompromised integrity in journalism.  

Featured image is from BAR