Public rage in dozens of US cities goes way beyond the killing of African American George Floyd by Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin.

Like countless others in the US, Floyd was a victim of institutionalized racism, inequality and injustice.

Notably three other Minneapolis cops complicit with Floyd’s killing remain free uncharged.

Chauvin alone was arrested, belatedly because of days of public rage.

Charging him with 3rd degree murder and 2nd degree manslaughter by no means assures that justice will be served.

Rarely ever are cops convicted by the US judicial process, especially not for killing Black Americans.

Days of protests reflect generations of pent up rage over state-sponsored inequality and injustice against America’s most vulnerable, notably its Black population.

Time and again, Trump’s shoot-from-the-hip remarks lack supportive evidence.

Claiming “violence and vandalism (in US cities) is being led by…radical left (elements) who are terrorizing” others ignores pent up rage over generations of institutionalized racism, inequality and injustice in the self-styled “land of the free and home of the brave.”

According to USA Today, most arrested individuals nationwide are locals, not out-of-town white supremacists or other radicals.

There’s no ambiguity about America’s racist roots.

From colonial America to today, Blacks have gone from chattel to wage slavery, Jim Crow to its modern-day version, and mid-19th century emancipation to mass incarceration in the world’s largest gulag prison system — operating globally.

Law Professor Michelle Alexander earlier explained that “(m)ore black men are in prison or jail, on probation or parole than were enslaved in 1850 before the Civil War began.”

Racist drug laws largely affect “poor communities of color.”

In America’s inner-cities, most Black youths can expect criminal injustice prosecutions one or more times during their lives — because of the color or their skin and opportunities denied them by institutionalized racism.

Over 60% of Black men born in 1965 or later without high school degrees (following passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act banning discrimination) have prison records.

Former Minnesota Gov. Jesse Ventura explained what a highly educated Black American told him.

Before setting off in his car, he places his driver’s license and vehicle registration on the passenger side seat beside him.

It’s so if stopped by a cop for driving while Black, he doesn’t have to reach for it in the glove compartment and risk being shot — police pretending he may be reaching for a weapon.

It’s inconceivable that a white American would take similar precautions for his or her safety — what their African-American counterparts endure daily, one of countless examples of a nation off he rails.

Fantasy democracy from inception, America transformed itself into a police state — based on Big Lies.

Inner-city streets are battlegrounds — Blacks, other people of color, and immigrants from the wrong countries terrorized by racial hatred and discrimination.

Since Floyd’s May 25 brutal murder, protests raged in Minneapolis and numerous other US cities nationwide — including in St. Paul, NY, LA, Detroit, Phoenix, Atlanta, Dallas, Houston, Denver, Boston, Philadelphia, Louisville, Memphis, Miami, Milwaukee, Oakland, San Francisco, San Diego, San Jose, Washington DC, and elsewhere.

In Chicago, protestors gathered near Millennium Park, a few miles south of where I live.

Signs read “Justice 4 George” and “Black Lives Matter.”

Crowds shouted: “Say his name! George Floyd,” also chanting: “I can’t breathe.”

As of 10PM Friday, police reported no arrests.

In response to Trump’s racist tweet about when “the looting starts, the shooting starts”, Mayor Lori Lightfoot accused him of “foment(ing) violence,” adding:

“I will code what I really want to say to Donald Trump. It’s two words: It begins with F and ends with YOU.”

“I will not remain silent while this man cynically tries to turn this incredibly painful moment into one for his own political gain.”

Thinned-skin Trump notoriously tolerates no criticism. Will he retaliate against Lightfoot by denying Chicago badly needed federal aid?

Nothing is too low for him to stoop, notably how his war on humanity operates at home and abroad.

Chicago protesters marched down Michigan Ave. on the city’s south side, near the Loop business district.

“No justice, no peace. Prosecute the police,” they shouted in Minneapolis, ignoring a curfew imposed by Governor Tim Walz.

Trump’s racist tweet and other unacceptable remarks further enflamed things, instead of calming tensions and urging accountability for culpable cops whenever incidents like Floyd’s killing happens anywhere in the US.

Sending combat troops to Minneapolis and/or other US cities will make a bad situation worse if he takes this step.

Hundreds of National Guard forces were sent by Minnesota Gov. Walz to protect infrastructure near where protests are ongoing.

Rage against the system on city streets reflects separate and unequal America, the growing disparity between privilege and exploited masses to serve the nation’s wealth and power interests.

The United States of inequality and injustice reflects the deplorable state of the nation.

Both right wings of the one-party state share guilt. When predatory capitalism prospers at the expense of ordinary people, economies are hollowed out.

Neofeudalism follows. The US and other Western nations are headed toward becoming ruler-serf societies, enforced by police state harshness.

Their power elites never had things better, at the expense of ordinary people, exploited to serve them.

In the US, Blacks, Latinos, and immigrants from the wrong countries suffer most.

Hardwired inequality and injustice, along with war on humanity, define today’s America.

Poverty and debt are its leading growth industries. In the last 30 years, the national debt increased from $3 trillion to nearly $26 trillion.

When Alan Greenspan became Fed chairman in 1987, its balance sheet was around $250 billion.

Today it exceeds $7 trillion because of money printing madness, handing near-unlimited amounts to Wall Street banks and other corporate favorites by buying financial assets and other actions.

Long before today’s public health and economic collapse crisis, David Stockman summed up the neoliberal 90s through well past the 2008-09 financial crisis, saying:

“What has been growing is the wealth of the rich, the remit of the state, the girth of Wall Street, the debt burden of the people, the prosperity of the beltway, and the sway of the three great branches of government which are domiciled there – that is, the warfare state, the (corporate) welfare state and the central bank.”

“What is failing, by contrast, is the vast expanse of the Main Street economy where the great majority has experienced stagnant living standards, rising job insecurity, failure to accumulate any material savings, rapidly approaching old age and the certainty of a Hobbesian future where, inexorably, taxes will rise and social benefits will be cut.”

“And what is positively falling is the lower ranks of society whose prospects for jobs, income and a decent living standard have been steadily darkening.”

Dystopia is the new normal for most Americans today, notably for its least advantaged — especially for people of color with African Americans topping the pecking order for exploitation, incarceration, and impoverishment.

That’s what public rage in the streets is all about, things worsening, not improving.

As long as what’s unacceptable continues, perhaps things will boil over from sea to shinning sea as the only hope for changing the dirty system.

It may be the only way, a popular revolution for change because everything else tried failed.

*

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.

In 1966 Crispian St. Peters wrote and sang the hit song ‘The Pied Piper’. It resonates well in 2020 with this current Snake Oil Salesman:

The Pied Piper

Crispian St. Peters

You
With your masquerading, and you
Always contemplating what to do
In case heaven has found you
Can’t you see
That it’s all around you
So follow me

Hey, com on babe
Follow me, I’m the Pied Piper
Follow me, I’m the Pied Piper
And I’ll show you where it’s at
Come on, babe
Can’t you see
I’m the Pied Piper
Trust in me
I’m the Pied Piper
And I’ll show you where it’s at

We are living in an era where being unsophisticated is the rule, not the exception.

Sadly, the dumbing down of our nation’s populace has been successfully operating for at least 40 years… maybe longer. What is termed as ‘Fake News’ is really just, in many instances, different slants on news by this embedded empire’s media. Of course, our current ‘Pied Piper’ does actually shovel out lots of misinformation and disinformation and, well, LIES to those who will listen to his rhetoric. Imagine how many of his supporters still believe that this pandemic is a hoax, blown out of proportion by what he incorrectly labels as the ‘Deep State’. As people die and die and die, the Pied Piper smirks as he pretends to be presidential while asking us to all be careful… so long as the economy is opened up. Perhaps if in the France of Louis XIV, and a similar pandemic attacked them, Marie Antoinette would change her famous retort to ‘Let them just die!’

How long will the Pied Pipers supporters, the ones who do NOT have great wealth, stay on board his runaway administration’s train?

They bought into his lies about ‘Rapists and drug dealers coming over the border to get their wives and daughters impregnated’.

That ‘Wall’ he sang them about was not from Pink Floyd. Rather, it was to stop the chambermaids, dishwashers, roofing and landscaping cheap laborers and other assorted low wage workers from getting employed here…. all DEAD END jobs for bum paychecks.

How many of those people were or are employed by the Pied Piper’s properties? Interesting. As one drives around in towns like this writer’s, we can see and feel the misplaced anger of all of us. Yet, those who still support this Pied Piper have had that rage come front and center as soon as he ran for president. Once in office, many of these folks just felt that his lies and disinformation became theirs! Psychiatrists have a term for this, not vital to this discussion, because the connection is frightening. As Richard Nixon famously stated during the Watergate era: “If the president does it, it CANNOT BE ILLEGAL!”

What must be stressed now is this fact: NO one man (or woman) can influence the masses on his or her own. No!

The Pied Piper must have backing, and not just by the lemmings who follow him over the ‘cliffs of reason’. He needs, and has received, the total backing of those in the Deep State who use him to get what they want. All he has to do is ‘sign off’ on the small fortune that this Two Party/One Party Congress allocates to the Super Rich who comprise this Deep State. Look how it did not matter whether it was a Bush Jr. or Obama in office… or now a Trump.

The Military Industrial Empire gets their meat in way of obscene and excessive military spending. All the lapdog Republicans and Democrats always play that sick joker card and sign away our national treasure to the ‘Gods of War’. Ditto for this most recent giveaway to the banking, Wall Street and large corporate interests to ‘Save our Economy’. Meanwhile, over 300 million of us are going to fight amongst ourselves for crumbs from the table of empire. When the day comes when the ‘Trump Thumpers’ begin to realize that they are in the same sinking boat with we who disdain the Pied Piper and his administration, maybe we can have useful dialogue and see what really matters to us all.

*

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

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 by Windover Way Photography

Mobs are unruly, headless things.  The message is the action.  The platform is often violence.  But what is happening across the United States cannot simply be labelled as a looting-leads-to-shooting episode.  It ranks as another chapter of enraged despair.  

It all began with a savage act in South Minneapolis, a killing grotesque for its indifference.  The hunter in this gruesome Monday spectacle of cruelty proved to be a policeman from the 3^rd Police Precinct, Derek Chauvin; the quarry, a black man by the name of George Floyd.  As Floyd was held down by the knee for almost nine minutes, suffocating to death as he pleaded for his life, the Chauvin impassively went about his deadly task.  The pulse ceased.

A country began to spasm, though it first began with a peaceful march of sorrow at the corner store next to the site of Floyd’s arrest. 

With the United States topping the global chart in coronavirus deaths, with numerous parts of the country easing lockdown restrictions as unemployment has surged, the release over the week became atavistic, vengeful.  Mixed in were also protests of desperate sadness and anger, with sentiment very much against violence as a weapon of choice.  Police were attacked but in other cases, notably that of Genesee County Sheriff Chris Swanson in Flint, Michigan, they joined protests and expressed a wounded solidarity. 

Buildings were left burning; stores destroyed and looted. Curfews were imposed.  The National Guard was called out – in Minneapolis, for the first time since the Second World War.  Tear gas and rubber bullets have been used liberally.  Vehicles have been driven into protesters in Minneapolis and New York City. In the chaos, even a crew from CNN was arrested.  A fog of militarisation has descended heavily.

The panoramic violence provided sustenance for every interpretation on cause and inspiration. There was the civic-society hating hooligan said to be in the ascendancy; the daring, incendiary white supremacist having a go; the antagonised Black American furious and redressing grievances; the foreign agitator keen to exploit divisions.

Minnesota Governor Tim Walz’s own assessment put the blame on agitators from out of state who cared not one jot for the demise of Floyd.  Justice for him, and any endeavours to achieve it for the slain resident, did not “matter to any of these people who are here firing upon the National Guard, burning” businesses and “disrupting civil life”.  In agreement, Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey dismissed any idea that this was a local poison, making its way through the body of the city. 

“The people that are doing this are not Minneapolis residents.  They are coming in largely from outside of the city, from outside of the region to prey on everything that we have built over the last several decades”.   

Such diagnoses ignore the scarring caused by killings inflicted since 2016.  Floyd’s death was the fifth caused by police forces since 2018. 

The norm, generally speaking, has seen those involved spared charges.  As Hugh Eakin observes on such prevalent impunity, “Behind such a dismal record of failed accountability, there is now a widespread sense that structural racism in the city’s administration and law enforcement runs deep.” Charges of third-degree murder and second-degree manslaughter have been filed, but will they stick?  Hennepin County Prosecutor Mike Freeman was pleased to note that this was “by far the fastest that we’ve ever charged a police officer.”

Then there was the Trump administration’s own stretched interpretation, presenting it with a chance to settle a long standing score. 

In a divided country, you take to barricades rather than remove them.

 “The United States of America will be designating ANTIFA as a Terrorist Organization,” came the aggressive tweet from President Donald Trump.  A flavour of what is to come was also given by Trump’s ever loyal US Attorney General William Barr on Sunday. 

“The violence instigated and carried out by Antifa and other similar groups in connection with the rioting is domestic terrorism and will be treated accordingly.” 

Such measures are likely to fall foul of the Constitution, but that is a procedural irrelevance in the game of electioneering rhetoric.  Trump’s point is to show that the US is broken, and that he is the best manager of a ruined MAGA Republic.

The brutality and poignancy of this Minnesota decline into pyromanic purgatory and tear-stained sorrow was captured by the words of rapper Killer Mike, a man who professes to having “a lot of love and respect for police officers”, being the son of one.  “I watched a white police officer assassinate a black man.  And I know it tore your heart out.”

At a press conference with Atlanta Mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms, he felt “duty-bound to be here to simply say that it is your duty not to burn down your house for anger with an enemy.”  Fortify it, he suggested with biblical intonation, “so that your way be a house of refuge in times of organization.” 

But it was the words that followed that bring the matter into crystalline focus. Unalloyed anger; a desire to build from the ashes, was vital.  To have purpose and worth, you needed to burn the whole thing down.  Killer Mike’s suggestion, as you preserve your own home, is to take the matches to the system itself, one “that sets up for systemic racism”.  Prosecute the offenders; get convictions.  Unfortunately for him, that distinction may prove too fine in the groans and recoil that follows.  Justice for Floyd, even before it starts in earnest, has already been eclipsed. 

*

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]

Nationwide Uprisings Against Failed States Triggered by Police Killings

By Kevin Zeese and Margaret Flowers, June 01, 2020

The nationwide uprising sparked by the murder of George Floyd and other recent racially-motivated events is a response to the bi-partisan failed state in which we live. It comes in the midst of the COVID19 pandemic and the largest economic collapse in the US in more than a century. These three crises have disproportionately impacted people of color and added to longterm racial inequality and injustice.

From Soft to Hard Fascism: “Get in Your House Right Now!”

By Kurt Nimmo, June 01, 2020

There can no longer be any doubt—America is now a full-blown fascist state. In the past, authoritarian fascism was kept reserved in the shadows, largely out of the public eye, but in a remarkably short period of time it has emerged from the darkness to show its fangs and snarl menacingly at the people, many of them cowed and dutifully following irrational orders from on high. 

Racist Killing and Impunity

By Craig Murray, June 01, 2020

A court will judge whether there was intent to kill George Floyd; what is absolutely apparent is there was certainly no intent by the police to preserve his life or health. It is also plain that the force used was wildly disproportionate for the alleged offence. It is further undeniable that police violence in the USA impacts particularly on black people, and that in dealing with black people the police act with an arrogance founded on anticipated impunity. The societal change whereby the majority of adults have camera phones at the ready has given a new power of resistance to the public in this regard. That must be reinforced by exemplary sentencing.

Lenses on Riots, Murder, and Racism in the US and Hong Kong

By Kim Petersen, June 01, 2020

The despicable police murder of a person, another Black person, who allegedly used a counterfeit $20 bill has caused widespread revulsion among Americans. This time, however, authorities acted relatively quickly calling in the FBI and firing all four police officers at the scene — Derek Chauvin, Thomas Lane, Tou Thao, and J Alexander Kueng.

“Social Identity” Is Not “The Answer”

By Robert Abele, June 01, 2020

The point here is that unless identity groups include a similar objective universal concept of “humanity” in their platforms that call me into unity with them, by virtue of a moral claim made on me, then they remain just small groups clamoring for a self-interested piece of the socio-economic pie that they feel has been denied to them and that they desire.

Systematic Racist Violence in America: Minnesota National Guard and State Police Deployed in Twin Cities Rebellion

By Abayomi Azikiwe, May 31, 2020

A cell phone videotaped deadly encounter between African American George Floyd and several Minneapolis law-enforcement officers resulting in a brutal strangulation has proven to be a turning point in the long saga of systematic racist violence in the United States.

The Human Heart and the Unspeakable Death of George Floyd

By Elizabeth Woodworth, May 31, 2020

We cannot unsee what we witnessed in the Floyd video.  This unspeakable murder is the only story that has broken through the Covid-19 headlines – showing that justice is as important as life itself.

Officials need to understand that the protests across America represent a core value of humanity:  The need for justice that is embedded in the human heart.

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 ranks of Republican consultants are filled by hoaxsters, swindlers and crooks.  In the era of Trump, this phenomenon has become even more pronounced.  One of them is Walid Phares, a former ideological commissar for the Lebanese Phalangist militia which warred against the Muslim forces during the Civil War.  Phares was the burning spear of the Maronite Christians in its fight to the death with their Muslim enemies.  He allied himself with the most savage and brutal of the Christian milita leaders.

At the time, he advocated a separate Christian state for Lebanon’s Christians.  He even specified that it should be located in southern Lebanon, which would of course mean the expulsion of the Muslim population that occupied these lands. Phares also lobbied Israel intensively to prolong its support of the South Lebanon Army, which acted for years as Israel’s proxy in the south.  He failed in these efforts and, using the contacts he had developed among conservative Christians and Republicans lobbying for the Phalange, he moved to the U.S. in the early 1990s. Here he again allied himself with some of the vilest Islamophobes in the country including Pamela Geller, Frank Gaffney, and Briget Gabriel.

But unlike them, he cultivated powerful contacts in the GOP and the evangelical Christian community, which led to increasing influence in national politics.  In 2012, Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney named him to his foreign policy team.  Later, he told people that Romney had promised him a senior foreign policy position should he win the presidency. Fortunately, that didn’t happen.

When Donald Trump announced his candidacy, Phares again activated his contacts and insinuated himself into the Trump entourage.  But unlike the earlier campaign, Phares was stymied in his attempts at influence.  There were intelligence reports claiming that Phares was tainted in some way.  Jared Kushner, who played a crucial role in Trump’s foreign policy apparatus, was said to detest him for unspecified reasons.  Which is quite something for someone as tainted himself, as Kushner is.

Now we’ve learned what blocked Phares’ ascendancy in the Trump camp.  Robert Mueller primarily investigated Russian meddling in the 2016 campaign.  Almost all of the targets he investigated (Manafort, Page, Papadopoulos, Stone) were involved as intermediaries for the Russians.  But the transcripts of Mueller’s report omitted the name of the fifth individual who was targeted by his team: Walid Phares.

He, like a number of other middlemen (Elliot Broidy, Erik Prince, Joel Zamel) in the Trump orbit, was plying his trade on behalf of a foreign government: Egypt.  The NY Times report says:

Mr. Phares had high-level contacts in the Egyptian government and connections to a deputy minister for education, another Trump campaign official, Sam Clovis, told Mr. Mueller’s investigators. Mr. Phares told Mr. Clovis that he had friends who could broker meetings between the campaign and the Egyptian government, but Mr. Clovis rejected that idea, he said.

Mr. Clovis and Mr. Phares had met with an Egyptian official at a hotel in Georgetown, according to Mr. Clovis, who could not recall the man’s name for investigators. Mr. Phares tried to set up another meeting with the official, but Mr. Clovis demurred.

…Then the Republican nominee for president, Mr. Trump met in September 2016 with Mr. el-Sisi. Mr. Phares took credit for that meeting, telling Mr. Trump’s daughter Ivanka in an email shortly beforehand that he had traveled to “Egypt last week, worked with them on the meeting between President Sisi and your father.”

“Great that the meeting will take place tomorrow,” Mr. Phares added in the email, according to congressional investigators. “This is a major victory in foreign policy. It will generate more votes.”

Mr. el-Sisi visited the White House a few months after Mr. Trump was elected, the first visit by an Egyptian president to Washington since 2009. The president has embraced Mr. el-Sisi, bestowing validation on a strongman who took power in a military coup and has cracked down on dissent as he consolidates power.

Al-Sisi murdered thousands of innocent, unarmed protesters in his rise to power after overthrowing the democratically elected President, Mohammed Morsi.  Morsi represented the Muslim Brotherhood and became the country’s leader after it threw out the previous dictator, Hosni Mubarak.  Al-Sisi’s violent overthrow of Morsi, leading to the imprisonment and death of the former president, made him persona non grata for the previous U.S. administration.  He was damaged goods as far as most democratic countries were concerned.  That’s why the junta leader needed assistance in turning things around and burnishing his reputation.  A meeting with the president would work wonders on that score.  And Phares delivered.

If you read his Twitter feed you will find the same anti-Muslim Brotherhood propaganda pumped out by Al-Sisi and his kleptocratic patrons in Saudi Arabia.  Vague conspiracies that the Brotherhood is infiltrating the U.S. government with plans for an Islamist takeover.  These dictators need a bogeyman to maintain their hold on their citizens.  Without an enemy, they are afraid the people will stop cowering and begin questioning who drove their economy into a ditch; and who is siphoning off billions for their own benefit.

Phares is a canker sore in GOP politics.  The thought that he could have in the past, or might still in the future, rise to a position of consequence in the U.S. foreign policy apparatus is frightening beyond belief.

But he’s certainly not the only one.  Earlier the NY Times reported that Elliot Broidy performed the same role on behalf of the UAE, for whom he served as both a weapons dealer and political rainmaker.  He also arranged for a meeting between the country’s leader, Crown Prince Mohammed bin Zayed, and Trump.  He also lobbied intensively for Trump to fire Secretary of State Tillerson for his opposition to close ties with the Gulf states and his purported sympathy for Qatar.  Broidy, like Phares, was reported to be under federal investigation by the U.S. Attorney in Brooklyn, for some of these matters.

*

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 Tikun Olam

In recent weeks, soldiers have repeatedly shot holes in water tanks on the roofs of homes in Kafr Qadum. The shooting takes place during the weekly protests against the closure of the eastern exit from the village, which connects the village to the city of Nablus and passes through the expansion of the settlement of Kedumim. The residents have been holding the weekly protests since 2011.

As a result of Israel’s policy, Palestinians in the West Bank suffer severe water shortages and an irregular supply. To alleviate the hardship, residents place water tanks with volumes of 500 or 1,000 liters on their roofs to stock water during supply hours, for use during the many hours when there is no running water.

B’Tselem’s investigation indicates that the shooting is deliberate and has resulted in residents losing hundreds of liters of water. They will now have to purchase expensive new tanks at about 500 NIS (~125 USD) per unit. Since the beginning of April, soldiers have damaged 24 water tanks on rooftops of homes in the village, some more than once. In some homes, water tanks were damaged three or four times over a month and a half.

The damage to the water tanks is sheer abuse and constitutes an illegal act of collective punishment. As residents now have to follow strict hygienic measures, including frequent handwashing, due to the outbreak of the coronavirus, this conduct is even graver. Nevertheless, the shootings have continued unabated for several weeks. This indicates that rather than the random initiative of a particular soldier, this conduct that is at least condoned by the commanders on the ground, in blatant disregard for residents’ lives and property.

The testimonies were given to B’Tselem field researcher Abdulkarim Sadi.

Home of ‘Assem and Nuha ‘Aqel

On Saturday, 25 April 2020, around 1:30 P.M., about an hour after the weekly demonstration began, soldiers opened fire at the water tanks on the roof of ‘Assem (42) and Nuha (43) ‘Aqel’s home, where the couple live with their five children and his brothers’ family. When the demonstration was over, ‘Assem went up to the roof and temporarily fixed a bullet hole in a water tank.

In a testimony he gave the next day, he recounted:

During the protest and the clashes with the soldiers, who were waiting for the protestors, I was at home with my wife and sons. Every now and then we heard live fire and the sound of “rubber” bullets and tear-gas canisters being shot. Meanwhile, I also heard shooting coming from the hill behind our house, about 200 meters away. After a few moments, I heard water flowing from the roof into the courtyard through the drainpipes. Since the soldiers were still up on the hill, I was scared to go up to the roof. I only closed the main water faucet, so the tanks wouldn’t fill up.

I waited for about an hour until the demonstration was over. When I was sure the soldiers were gone, I went up to the roof. I saw a hole in the plastic tank and temporarily fixed it by putting in a screw and adding adhesive material around it to seal the hole, but it’s still leaking. We lost about 450 liters of water. Last year, the Israeli military also shot at our water tank and we were forced to replace it.

Now, because of the coronavirus, we have to be especially careful about cleanliness. We have to shower, wash our clothes and wash our hands more often. It’s also the water we use for cooking and drinking. I don’t understand how the soldiers can be so heartless and damage water tanks like that. Water is the main source of life for every human being.

Because of the coronavirus, it’s now harder to travel between the villages. In any case, the stores selling plastic tanks in the neighboring villages are closed. The repair I made is only temporary. I’ll have to buy a new water tank and the cost of buying and assembling it is 500 shekels.

Home of the extended Shteiwi family

Since the beginning of April, soldiers have fired at water tanks of the extended Shteiwi family three times. The tanks are used by three apartments in a three-story building – the apartments of ‘Awni Shteiwi (38), his wife Ruwaa (31) and their four children; the apartment of his brother Mu’in (45), his wife Nahil (36) and their two children; and the apartment of ‘Awni’s mother Nazikah (67) and aunt ‘Ablah (65).

In a testimony ‘Awni Shteiwi gave on 3 May 2020, he recounted:

The first time the soldiers fired at our water tanks was Friday, 10 April 2020, at around 2:00 P.M. My mother’s water tank and ours were hit by two bullets each, and my brother Mu’ins’ water tank was hit by one bullet. The water leaked from the three tanks, through the drainpipes into the courtyard and then to the road by the house. I went out and closed the tanks’ faucets so the water would stop running. I waited until the protest was over and only then went up to the roof. I think the shooting came from the top of the hill called Jabal al-Aqra’ , which lies about 100 meters from our house. Usually, during the protests, about 10 or 15 soldiers stand there. I consulted my brother and we decided not to buy new water tanks but to fix the ones we have temporarily with screws and adhesive material. Three new water tanks would cost us 1,500 shekels (~ 430 USD).

Two weeks later, on Friday, 24 April 2020, soldiers fired at the water tanks again. The water flowed through the drainpipes into the courtyard. My sons went out and closed the main faucet. This time, my brother and I decided to make a temporary fix to keep the water from leaking. A week later, on Saturday, 2 May 2020, it happened again. This time, I closed the faucets before the demonstration began, to avoid losing any more water. Again, we sealed the holes with screws and adhesives.

The repairs we made are only temporary and won’t last long. These water tanks were hit three times. Some of them have five or six bullet holes. We’ll have to replace them, but there’s no point in doing it now. We’ll wait for the soldiers to stop shooting at them. In the houses next to us, many of the tanks were also hit by bullets fired by soldiers from the hill.

We use the water in the tanks on a daily basis – for drinking, cooking, laundry, bathing, and cleaning in general. Shooting at them is immoral and inhuman. Maybe the soldiers think it will make the weekly protests stop, but if that’s the case, they’re mistaken and delusional. Even if they keep this up, we’ll just fix what they damaged. We will never give up or surrender.

Home of Ashraf and Athnaa Shteiwi

The water tank on the rooftop of Ashraf Shteiwi, a 44-year-old police officer, his wife Athnaa and their children, has been punctured three times since the beginning of April.

In a testimony he gave on 26 April 2020, Shteiwi recounted:

On Friday, 24 April 2020, the first day of Ramadan, I finished praying at the mosque and return home. Shortly after the demonstration began, clashes developed between the protestors and the soldiers, and we heard the noise of stun grenades and the shooting of live fire and “rubber” bullets.

About an hour later, we heard water flowing through the drainpipes. The courtyard filled with water. Then a bullet shattered the kitchen window. There’s a hill right in front of the window where soldiers stand , so I was sure they’d fired at the house from there.

Image on the right: The smashed window in the Shteiwi family home. Photo courtesy of the family

My wife and little kids got scared. I put them in the living room to keep them out of the range of fire. I went outside and closed the main faucet, so we wouldn’t lose a lot of water. Since our house is right in front of the hill, I waited until the clashes were over. Only then, I went up to the roof to check the damage to the tank and tried to fix it with screws.

It was the third time this month that soldiers fired at our water tanks. Every time, we lost a lot of water and I put screws in the bullet holes. The next day, it happened for the fourth time. It was late afternoon. The soldiers on top of the hill fired two bullets at the water tank and it drained out completely.

Firing at the water tanks is collective punishment and destruction of our property by the Israeli soldiers because of the weekly demonstrations. I cannot pay 500 shekels every time they shoot at a water tank. So, every time they start shooting, I close the main faucet and temporarily fix the tank with screws and glue.

*

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 B’Tselem

You can be forgiven for never hearing about The Franck Report that was issued on 11th June 1945, it was kept highly secret at the time and is one of those many WWII documents whose un-censored versions have only become public several decades later.  The Franck Report was a document signed by several prominent nuclear physicists who had been working on the development of an atomic bomb recommending that the United States not use the atomic bomb as a weapon to prompt the surrender of Japan in World War II.

This entry in our 1945 timeline provides the reader with an easy explanation of the nuclear fission process that underlies the so-called “atom” bomb and a short summary of the history of the secret Manhattan Project which produced the two bombs that were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August 1945 (which events will be described on those dates in this timeline).​

It was German physicists who first discovered, in December 1938, that one could force a uranium atom to split into two much smaller atoms by bombarding it with a moving neutron. The smaller atoms have kinetic energy and the other products of this fission process are 2 or 3 free neutrons and a lot of energetic photons, these fragments heat up the bulk material. If there are more uranium atoms close by the free neutrons will cause them to split if they hit them, and if enough uranium is assembled in one place, or if the escaping neutrons are sufficiently contained, then these freshly emitted neutrons outnumber the neutrons that escape from the assembly, and a sustained nuclear chain reaction will take place. A critical mass is the smallest amount of fissile material needed for a sustained nuclear chain reaction. This chain reaction of so-called fissile material produces lots of energy and it became obvious to the European physics community, both those physicists who stayed in Germany, and those European physicists who fled to the USA and the UK to avoid being persecuted or killed by the Nazis, that it would be relatively straight forward to make an “atomic”  bomb based on the fission of uranium.

An atomic bomb design was relatively simple. When you bring together a sufficient amount of fissile material, it forms a critical mass, and if you continue to bring that material together as a critical mass, it will then begin the nuclear chain reaction. That chain reaction will occur very, very rapidly. Once the reaction starts you have a competing race. What’s happening is, you’ve slammed the two pieces of nuclear material together so they have a certain inertial momentum that is holding the assembly together. And at the same time, the nuclear reaction begins and that starts to generate energy. And what happens when you heat something up? It expands. And it starts to disassemble and blow itself apart. So a nuclear weapon is a race between the energy of holding it together and the energy generating in the system blowing it apart. And the faster you can make the energy during the actual implosion or chain reaction process, the more powerful the output of the bomb. Taking the fact that these fission reactions occur so rapidly–it turns out you can just slam together two pieces of uranium using a gun or a gun barrel and get a pretty decent explosive yield.​

This photograph is one of the most famous photographs made by Ed Westcott and is the Calutron Control Room in Beta 2 (Building 9204-2) at Oak Ridge Manhattan Facility, Tennessee in 1944. Photo credit:  National Museum of Nuclear Science & History

In April 1939 the military applications of nuclear fission were recognized by the Ministry of War in Germany, and it started a high-priority program to develop them. The Nobel-prize winning German physicist, Werner Heisenberg, was amongst the leaders of the German physics community who were investigating the whole process needed to produce enough uranium of the correct type to create a critical mass and engineer the device where it would become an explosive bomb. For reasons that no-one is completely sure of, in the autumn of 1941 , he wrote a report for the German government in which he said that an atomic bomb could not be ready before 1945, and that it would require immense applications  of German manpower and German money. And within weeks after that late 1941 report was received by the War Ministry, they reduced the priority on the atomic bomb program (which was not a very large program at the time) and shifted resources to programs related to the immediate war effort.

But this 1942 reduction in the level of German work on developing an atomic bomb was not known about in the USA where research into nuclear fission had begun in the summer of 1939 and was making good progress towards producing a controlled nuclear chain reaction by late 1942. Why had physicists in the USA received money from the US Government to work on understanding the nuclear fission process and its possible uses since late 1939? Mostly because the very famous physicist, Albert Einstein, had written a letter to President Roosevelt on 2nd August 1939 (but not delivered until 11th October 1939,  by which time Britain had declared war against Germany) and the  letter warned that Germany might develop atomic bombs and suggested that the United States should start its own nuclear program.

At the time of this Einstein letter, the estimated material necessary for a fission chain reaction was everal tons. Seven months later a theoretical calculation breakthrough in Britain, who had their own nuclear research program, would estimate the necessary critical mass to be less than 10 kilograms, making delivery of an atomic bomb by air a possibility. This critical mass discovery by German refugee physicists working in Britain was shared in August 1941 with the physicists working in the USA, many of whom were also European refugees who had seen the need to escape from Nazi Germany. Prompted by Einstein’s letter, Roosevelt had authorized, in late October 1939, a small amount of funding for research into understanding nuclear fission and its possible use to produce electrical power, which was being carried out mostly in universities.

One outcome of this research was the understanding that the element uranium comes in 14 different types, called isotopes, which differ in how many neutrons their nuclei have, the most prevalent isotopes have 235 or 238 neutrons. Uranium which is mined from the earth is composed of 99.3% of U238 and 12 other minor isotopes and 0.7% of U235, and it was only the U235 that could make a nuclear chain reaction.

Various government committees had been in charge of disbursing funds for this research through late 1941, and on October 9th 1941 Roosevelt was told about  the new estimate of the quite small critical mass needed to make an atomic bomb- from mostly U235. More money was swiftly assigned to confirming the British calculations; the engineer and inventor Vannevar Bush, who had been in charge of disbursing the above-mentioned funds was told, on December 6th 1941, to start an accelerated project for discovering how to extract U235 from mined uranium.

The Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor in Hawaii on December 7th 1941 and by December 11th the USA had declared war on Germany, Italy and Japan. On December 18th a new US governmental agency dedicated to developing nuclear weapons had its first meeting. On 19th January 1942 Roosevelt formally authorized an atomic bomb project that later became known as the highly secret Manhattan Project.

By  mid 1943 three different brand new and top-secret facilities had been built/were being built in Hanford, Washington State, Oak Ridge, Tennessee and Los Alamos, New Mexico. By the end of 1944 over 100,000 people were working in the Manhattan Project at these 3 army-run, military sites.

 The vast amounts of money spent on the Manhattan Project were not spent on designing the atomic bomb, that was relatively straight forward as described above, the money and huge personnel effort were spent on extracting or enriching U235 from the raw uranium, mined from the earth in the Belgian Congo  and Canada, or on creating plutonium which was to be used in the bomb dropped on Nagasaki. For an ideal atomic bomb, you want to enrich the raw uranium to at least 80% to 90% of the U235. But because it’s an isotope, you can’t use chemical means to separate it, so it takes other long and arduous processes, the two main methods developed and used were gas centrifuges, and magnetic separators called Calutrons.

Which brings us to the photo at the top of this section. There were 1152 Calutrons built and operated, 24/7 as we would say now, at the Oak Ridge facility, called Y-12, in 9 large buildings. Young women were hired to keep the electric current running through the electromagnets at just the right value, they sat at control panels such as the ones in the above photo and remained constantly focused on the meter reading and the necessary adjustments they made to keep the beam current maximized in the Calutrons. They had no idea that was what they were doing, during their training they were told “We can train you how to do what is needed, but cannot tell you what you are doing.  I can only tell you that if our enemies beat us to it, God have mercy on us!” Such repetitive tasks done without any understanding of why were common in the Manhattan Project, which considering its ~100,000 workers, was kept remarkably secret throughout the war.

So uranium separation plants were built in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, and they used the electric power from the Tennessee Valley Authority.  It has been rumored that, during the Manhattan Project, as much as 5% of the electrical output of the United States was used to power the uranium enrichment processes that were occurring at Oak Ridge, Tennessee. The outcome was that enough U235 was enriched from raw uranium to make the bomb that was dropped on Hiroshima and there were just a few more bombs that had been made and could have been used on other Japanese cities.

Ironically, the development of the American bomb was motivated by the fear that the Germans would get one first, but in fact, the Germans did not seriously pursue their program because Hitler was so sure they would win the war before the bomb was ready, and by the time it was ready in the United States, Germany had already surrendered.

*

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 ongoing pandemic makes us obsessively aware of the precariousness of life, and if from the U.S., the mendacious incompetence of our political leadership. Yet, it also makes most of us as obsessively complacent when the threats seem remote and abstract. This complacency with respect to contagious disease greatly worsened the level of fatalities, as well as the profound social and economic dislocations associated with the still unfolding COVID-19 experience. Such a pandemic was unimaginable until it became too real and omnipresent to be imagined, but only experienced at various degrees of separation. Being obsessed, fearful, and resentful is not the same as being imagined.

The linkage between contagious disease and climate change is too evident to ignore altogether: The falling price of oil, the declining carbon emissions, the global imperative of cooperation, uneven vulnerabilities, and the relevance of justice and empathy.

With respect to nuclear hazards, especially from the weaponry and their possible use, there is a growing disconnect between risk and behavior, a combination of nuclearism prevailing among the political elites of the nuclear weapons states and public disregard. There is a greater appreciation of the dangers associated with nuclear energy. The disaster at Fukushima, and longer ago at Chernobyl, are grim reminders of risks and potential catastrophe.

Yet surrounding nuclear weaponry there is an aura of complacency reinforced by a false sense of self-interest. The complacency arises from the startling fact that no nuclear weapon has been exploded during a combat situation in the 75 years since the horrifying attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Complacency also feeds off the suppressed realization that governments base their ultimate security on threats to annihilate tens of millions of innocent persons and subject our natural habitats to extreme disaster. With regard to nuclear dangers assuming the dreaded will never happen could turn out to be the greatest bio-ethical folly in the entire history of the human species. We forget folk wisdom at our peril: ‘an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.’ Governments need to invest their energies and resources in anticipatory approaches to impending disasters and not entrust the collective fate of humanity to reactive responses when various dark unimaginables happen as they certainly will.

In this spirit, I argue for a better understanding the distinction between arms control and disarmament approaches to nuclearism, which helps explain why choosing the disarmament path is vital for the human future. Despite this contention, nuclear disarmament is currently so low on the policy agenda of the nuclear weapons states as to be dismissed as either superfluous or utopian.

The Distinction

It is often argued that arms control is a realistic approach to national security in the nuclear age that can be thought of as satisfying preconditions for negotiating a verified nuclear disarmament agreement when international conditions are right. Arms control measures have the added benefit of reducing risks of an accidental or mistaken use of nuclear weapons and of avoiding wasteful costs associated with arms competition designed to maintain security in relation to adversaries. There are good faith beliefs present in this support for arms control, but this advocacy hides, often unconsciously, an important quite different more complex and confusing parts of a broader story. In addition to reducing risks and miscalculations of intended nuclear war or expensive and dangerous extensions of competition in nuclear armaments, arms control seems to have as its primary goal bringing as much stability as possible to a structure of world order that is presumed to be nuclear armed. It also has a secondary seldom avowed goal of providing an instrument useful in the conduct of foreign policy. It allows some nuclear weapons states to take tactical advantage of their posture of nuclear superiority when confronting one another or of positing nuclear threats, especially against non-nuclear hostile countries in confrontational situations.

In contrast, the advocacy of nuclear disarmament believes unconditionally that the only safe and decent course of action is to do everything possible to get safely rid of nuclear weaponry as soon as possible. Nuclear weapons pose threats to human wellbeing and ecological stability in the form of catastrophe and even extinction. Disarmament goals are as a practical matter at odds with the arms control approach for at least three major reasons. First of all, a disarmament process threatens widely accepted ideas about nuclear stability. Instead, it generates uncertainty, especially if not coupled in its latter stages with a global demilitarization. process. The arms control view is that the more stable the overall political environment with respect to the weaponry the safer and more secure the world. The attainment of such stability carries with it a lessened incentive for political leaders to embark upon a denuclearizing disarmament alternative. This reluctance is not primarily, as often alleged, because of destabilizing risks of cheating and fears that any renewal of nuclear arms competition would be more dangerous than is a world order in which the nuclear weapons states exercise prudence and prevent further proliferation of the weaponry, but reflects militarist habits and geopolitical calculations.

Secondly, there exists a powerful nuclear establishment joining parts of the governmental bureaucracy with weapons labs and war industry private sector interests. Thirdly, and least acknowledged, is the degree to which foreign policy planners in several nuclear weapons states find and propose roles for these weapons to deter provocations, to solidify alliances, exert geopolitical and tactical leverage, and provide a hedge against future uncertainties.

Although such considerations are not unfamiliar in the strategic literature, the link to arms control rarely is explicitly made, or if made, is done so in a rather misleading and superficial manner that presupposes its compatibility with disarmament advocacy. Sometimes, the argument is made that arms control is a confidence-building step toward disarmament or that nuclear disarmament, although not presently attainable, remains the ultimate goal, but the time must be right. The lesson drawn is that in the meantime given existing world conditions, arms control is the most and best that can be hoped for, while nuclear disarmament remains the shared hope of humanity if conditions ever become suitable to move seriously toward the elimination of the weaponry.  Underlying these justifications for relegating the prospects of getting rid of nuclear weaponry to forever horizons—by proclaiming disarmament as the ‘ultimate’ goal—is to signal that it is not really a goal at all except as a way of keeping genuine disarmament advocates appeased and confused.

The true story is that the national security establishment, at least in the U.S., and undoubtedly elsewhere, is opposed to nuclear disarmament as a policy option, for two interrelated reasons. First, possession of nuclear weapons gives states international prestige and leverage even if never actively relied upon. Secondly, avoiding disarmament keeps in being a regime of ‘nuclear apartheid’ enabling nuclear weapons states to pose unspeakable threats in crisis situations that are likely quite effective, given the extreme vulnerability of non-nuclear states. Merely having a nuclear weapons arsenal sends an intimidating message to potential adversaries, especially if nuclear weapons are being designed and developed with future combat missions in mind.

The ambiguities of arms control are most vividly exposed with respect to the establishment and maintenance of the anti-proliferation regime. The United States claims that it is carrying out a positive world order role by taking responsibility for ‘enforcing’ the Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT). This form of geopolitical enforcement, that is, without UN authorization or legal prerogative, is directed against certain outlier countries (e.g. Iran, North Korea) that are accused of seeking such weaponry. It is questionable whether such behavior should be treated as arms control. It seems more appropriately viewed as an integral nuclear component of global hegemony.

The Anti-Proliferation Regime

There are other features of the anti-Proliferation regime that occasion suspicion.

Double standards pervade the implementation of the NPT. The standards of nonproliferation found in this widely ratified treaty are not applied consistently. If the government evading proliferation controls is a strategic ally (Israel) or if the country crossing the nuclear threshold is too large to challenge (India, Pakistan), the enlargement of the nuclear club will be tolerated, or even encouraged. Yet if a hostile country seeks the weapons for credible deterrence reasons, then it will experience various forms of pressure, and even become subject to sanctions and threats of attack.

Nuclear deployments and threats to use nuclear weapons confer geopolitical advantages and options on the nuclear weapons states, besides giving some security about the threats of being attacked. Qaddafi was undoubtedly correct when he said that Libya would not have been attacked in 2011`had it possessed nuclear weapons, and Iraq in 2003 was likely attacked because it didn’t have a nuclear deterrent. It is instructive that North Korea was not attacked once it crossed the nuclear threshold even in a small, largely symbolic, manner.

This rationale for retaining nuclearism was starkly confirmed by the formal statement issued by the U.S., France, and the UK on July 13, 2017 as to why they totally rejected any connection with the 2017 UN Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, emphasizing the positive role of nuclear weaponry in keeping the peace. In view of these considerations, why do NGOs in civil society continue to act as if they are working for nuclear disarmament when they do not reject  the essential elements of an arms control approach?

Above all, despite experience and evidence, ‘the arms control first’ community believes that reducing the size of the arsenal and agreeing not to develop some weapons systems are helpful measures on their own as well lending themselves to being promoted as stepping stones to disarmament negotiations. Additionally, there is the belief that the retention of nuclear weapons is so entrenched that only arms control agreements are feasible, and disarmament a diversionary pipe dream. From this perspective, arms control arrangements are better than nothing even if completely unrelated to achieving nuclear disarmament. Finally, as arms control activism is concentrated in Washington, the only way for political moderates in civil society to get a seat at the table set by government is to shed the utopian image of disarmament advocacy and settle for what is feasible although it means dancing with the devil.

We can ask, then, where does this leave those dedicated to peace, and especially to avoiding any threat or use of a nuclear weapon in the course of a war?  In my view, it is not appropriate to adopt an either/or position of saying no disarmament because unattainable or never arms control because it legitimates nuclear apartheid, and closes its eyes to geopolitical reliance on the leverage gained by wielding the weaponry. It is currently important to challenge public complacency about nuclear weaponry because these weapons have not been used since 1945, and to become attentive to the warnings of impending danger signaled by moving the highly credible, risk-assessing Doomsday Clock of The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists to within 100 seconds to midnight, or closer to doomsday than it has ever been since established in 1947. In effect, it is delusional to suppose that we can indefinitely co-exist with this infernal weaponry, especially given the lethal blend of demagogues and nationalist passions that dominate the governance structures of the world.

It would also be helpful to call attention to the fact that the NPT in Article VI imposes an unconditional obligation of nuclear weapons states to engage in good faith nuclear disarmament negotiations as part of the agreement reached with other states to forego the nuclear weapons option. The obligatory character of this legal commitment was unanimously affirmed by the International Court of Justice in its Advisory Opinion delivered in 1996, and yet by continuing to invest heavily in the continuous modernization of the nuclear weapons arsenal, including the development of new nuclear weapons designed for possible combat use means that this central legal obligation of the NPT regime is being defiantly ignored. There is no disposition on the part of any state to call for the geopolitical enforcement of Article VI, and until this happens the treaty is mainly functions as a disguise for nuclearism and nuclear apartheid.

Even if this Article VI legal commitment did not exist, the idea of resting security on discretionary threats to retaliate by destroying tens of millions of innocent civilians and contaminating the atmosphere of the entire planet quite possibly causing what experts call ‘a nuclear famine’ and widespread disease. Such omnicidal courses of action underline the immorality of resting security on such massive indiscriminate nuclear strikes that would fill the air with contaminating radioactivity. The UN ICAN Treaty, now formally ratified by 37 of the 50 States needed to bring the agreement into force is an important move in the right direction, and far more a helpful signpost than is an uncritical endorsement of this or that arms control proposal. Yet unless the ICAN Treaty is extended in its coverage to the nuclear weapons states it remains in the realm of rhetorical moralism lacking behavioral consequences.

There are arms control measures that can be supported in good conscience, including No First Use Declarations removing ambiguity from threats to use the weapons, and de-alerting measures that gives leaders more time to avoid accidental or unintended uses. Such measures rarely motivate champions of arms control because their advocacy hampers cooperation with geopolitical pragmatists who are running the world. The refusal to embrace No First Use thinking in doctrine and practice is revealing: it suggests that the real interface of compatibility is between arms control and geopolitics rather than as proclaimed, as between arms control and disarmament.

In the end, anyone genuinely devoted to world peace needs to recognize the urgency of taking an unconditional stand against retaining nuclear weapons as an indispensable step toward achieving peace for all peoples on earth and part of the challenge of being ecologically responsible guardians of planetary viability.

*

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 Falk is a member of the TRANSCEND Network, an international relations scholar, professor emeritus of international law at Princeton University, Distinguished Research Fellow, Orfalea Center of Global Studies, UCSB, author, co-author or editor of 60 books, and a speaker and activist on world affairs. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

In the period leading up to the US invasion of Iraq in 2003, the Bush administration and its media accomplices waged a relentless propaganda campaign to win political support for what turned out to be one of the most disastrous foreign policy mistakes in American history.

Nearly two decades later, with perhaps a million dead Iraqis and thousands of dead American soldiers, we are still paying for that mistake.

Vice President Dick Cheney, Attorney General John Ashcroft, Assistant Attorney General John Yoo, and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, were key players behind the propaganda—which we can define as purposeful use of information and misinformation to manipulate public opinion in favor of state action. Iraq and its president Saddam Hussein were the ostensible focus, but their greater goal was to make the case for a broader and open-ended “War on Terror.”  ​

So they created a narrative using a mélange of half-truths, faintly plausible fabrications, and outright lies:

• Iraq and the nefarious Saddam Hussein were “behind,” i.e., backing, the Saudi terrorists responsible for 9-11 attacks on the US;
• Hussein and his government were stockpiling yellowcake uranium in an effort to develop nuclear capability;
• Hussein was connected with al-Qaeda
• Iran was lurking in the background as a state sponsor of terrorism, coordinating and facilitating attacks against the US in coordination with Hamas;
• Hezbollah, al-Qaeda, and other terror groups were working against the US across the Middle East in some kind of murky but coordinated effort;
• We have to “fight them over there so we don’t have to fight them over here”;
• The Iraqis would welcome our troops as liberators.

And so forth.

But the propaganda “worked” in the most meaningful sense: Congress voted nearly 3–1 in favor of military action against Iraq, and Gallup showed 72 percent of Americans supporting the invasion as it commenced in 2003. Media outlets across the spectrum such as the Washington Post cheered the war. National Review dutifully did its part, labeling Pat Buchanan, Ron Paul, Justin Raimondo, Lew Rockwell, and other outspoken opponents of the invasion as “unpatriotic conservatives.”

Tragically, the American people never placed the burden of proof squarely with the war cheerleaders to justify their absolutely crazed effort to remake the Middle East. In hindsight, this is obvious, but at the time propaganda did its job. Disinformation is part and parcel of the fog of war.

What will hindsight make clear about our reaction to COVID-19 propaganda? Will we regret shutting down the economy as much as we ought to regret invading Iraq?

The cast of characters is different, of course: Trump, desperately seeking “wartime president” status; Dr. Anthony Fauci; epidemiologist Neil Ferguson; state governors such as Cuomo, Whitmer, and Newsom; and a host of media acolytes just itching to force a new normal down our throats. Like the Iraq War architects, they use COVID-19 as justification to advance a preexisting agenda, namely, greater state control over our lives and our economy. Yet because too many Americans remain stubbornly attached to the old normal, a propaganda campaign is required.

So we are faced with a blizzard of new “facts” almost every day, most of which turn out to be only mildly true, extremely dubious, or plainly false:

• The virus aerosolizes and floats around, so we all need to be six feet apart (But why not twenty feet? Why not one mile?);
• The virus lives on surfaces everywhere, for days;
• Asymptomatic people can spread it unknowingly;
• Antibodies may or may not develop naturally;
• People may become infected more than once;
• Young healthy people are at great risk not only themselves, but also pose a risk to their elderly family members;
• Thin, permeable paper masks somehow prevent microscopic viral spores from being inhaled or exhaled toward others;
• People are safer inside;
• The rate of new infected “cases” in the first few weeks of the virus reaching America would continue or even grow exponentially;
• Social distancing and quarantines do indeed “save” lives;
• Testing is key (But what if an individual visits a crowded grocery an hour after testing negative?);
• A second wave of infections is nigh; and
• Our personal and work lives cannot continue without a vaccine, which, by the way, may be two years away.

Again, much of this is not true and not even intended to be true—but rather to influence public behavior and opinions. And again, the overwhelming burden of proof should lie squarely with those advocating a lockdown of society, who would risk a modern Great Depression in response to a simple virus.

How much damage will the lockdown cause? Economics aside, the sheer toll of this self-inflicted wound will be a matter for historians to document. That toll includes all the things Americans would have done without the shutdown in their personal and professional lives, representing a diminution of life itself. Can that be measured, or distilled into numerical terms? Probably not, but this group of researchers and academics argues that we have already suffered more than one million “lost years of life” due to the ravages of unemployment, missed healthcare, and general malaise.

By the same token, how do we measure the blood and treasure lost in Iraq? How much PTSD will soldiers suffer? How many billions of dollars in future VA medical care will be required? How many children will grow up without fathers? And how many millions of lives are forever shattered in that cobbled-together political artifice in the Middle East?

Propaganda kills, but it also works. Politicians of all stripes will benefit from the coronavirus; the American people will suffer. Perversely, one of the worst COVID propagandists—the aforementioned  Governor Andrew Cuomo of New York—yesterday rang the bell as the New York Stock Exchange reopened to floor trading. He now admits that the models were wrong and that his lockdown did nothing to prevent the Empire State from suffering the highest per capita deaths from COVID. Like the architects of the Iraq War, he belongs on a criminal docket. But thanks to propaganda, he is hailed as presidential.

*

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.

Jeff Deist is president of the Mises Institute. He previously worked as chief of staff to Congressman Ron Paul, and as an attorney for private equity clients. Contact: email; twitter.

Featured image is from Mises Wire

Alarms are sounding in Europe as Turkey, Russia and Arab states could potentially agree on shared influence in Libya, and therefore the entirety of the eastern Mediterranean, according to some experts. This comes as European states have no influence over the war in Libya despite it occurring on its southern doorstep and Turkey, Russia and Arab states continue to gain influence.

The direct intervention of Turkey in Libya, which has sent its own intelligence officers, military advisers and thousands of Syrian jihadists to support the Muslim Brotherhood Government of National Accords (GNA), based in Tripoli and led by the ethnic Turk Fayez al-Sarraj, has limited further gains by the Libyan National Army (LNA).

The mobilization of thousands of Turkish and Syrian jihadists and the massive shipment of weapons to Tripoli has slowed down the offensive of the LNA, led by Field Marshal Khalifa Belqasim Haftar. Haftar was proclaimed on April 27 as the only leader of the country, in which most of the international community found to be a provocative move as they believe it limited the likelihood of a political settlement to the conflict.

Confident of his past military superiority and assured in the determination that the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia and Egypt have to counter Turkey’s efforts to create hegemony in the Eastern Mediterranean, Haftar continues to ignore calls for a political solution to the war. Sarraj also ignores such calls confident in the backing he has from Turkey.

Russia also condemned Haftar’s offensive and called for negotiations on peace. However, the U.S. claims that Russian fighter jets arrived in Libya to protect the withdrawal of volunteers from the Russian Wagner group in a decision agreed upon with Ankara, something that Moscow denies. Both Europe and the U.S. fear that Russia may obtain the use of a naval base in eastern Libya, that the LNA securely controls, in the future.

Despite these potentialities, it is unlikely the war between GNA-backed jihadists and the LNA will come to a conclusion anytime soon, unless there is a drastic change caused by external forces. Turkey in the midst of an economic crisis is unwilling to use the full force of its military in Libya and is rather acting as a conduit between the GNA and Qatari-funded but Turkish-trained Syrian jihadists. Egypt is contemplating using its military in Libya to “fight against Libyan extremists and terrorists supported by Turkey.” This too could be a game changer since Egypt has the means, logistics and capabilities to successfully intervene in Libya in favour of the LNA.

France has also not hidden away with its support for Haftar, finding him to be a leader that would advance French interests in the Mediterranean that is in direct conflict with Turkey. The GNA has also signed a memorandum with the Muslim Brotherhood government to cut through Greece’s maritime space for the exploitation of gas in that area of ​​the Mediterranean, forcing Greece to get embroiled in the Libyan mess. Meanwhile, Italy has backed the GNA while Germany is trying to act as referee, showing once again there is no common European position.

The European ‘Irini’ (meaning peace in Greek) operation is committed to prevent maritime-bound arms delivery to Libya, i.e. Turkish arms to Libya. This is a maritime surveillance operation to enforce the United Nations-imposed arms embargo on Libya, but in reality, it has not prevented Turkey’s deliveries to the GNA while Egypt continues to supply the LNA over the land border.

The situation shows that the European Union is unable to establish itself as a main actor in a conflict that brings together strategic political and economic interests a few nautical miles from its southern coast. With the U.S. realistically absent, Turkey backing the GNA and Russia and the Arab + Greece alliance backing the LNA, these are the main protagonists.

In Paris, and seeing the failure of his diplomacy parallel to the EU, the Foreign Minister, Jean-Yves Le Drian, warns about the “Syrianization of Libya,” while spokesman of Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’s gloats: “France and other European countries supporting Haftar are on the wrong side of history.” Seen in this light, the balancing role Russia can play in Libya to contain Ankara could even be positive for Europeans.

However, the main reason that shared influence will not be agreed upon is because the GNA-Turkish deal to steal Greece’s maritime space relies on a supposed share maritime space between Libya and Turkey. And therein lays the problem – it is the LNA, who has rejected the memorandum, that controls the eastern Libyan coast that supposedly shares a maritime border with Turkey. So long as the LNA controls eastern Libya, Turkey will always strive for a GNA victory to legitimize the memorandum. Once again, the European Union remains divided on Libya, despite the Muslim Brotherhood government aiming to carve out the maritime space of a member state.

*

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

The nationwide uprising sparked by the murder of George Floyd and other recent racially-motivated events is a response to the bi-partisan failed state in which we live. It comes in the midst of the COVID19 pandemic and the largest economic collapse in the US in more than a century. These three crises have disproportionately impacted people of color and added to longterm racial inequality and injustice.

Black Lives Matter erupted six years ago when a police officer shot and killed Mike Brown in Ferguson, MO. Since that time, police have murdered approximately 1,100 people every year. The response of the government at all levels to the crisis of police killings has been virtually nonexistent. While people seek to avenge the death of George Floyd, the problems are much deeper and the changes needed are much broader.

The Root Of The Problem Is A Failed State

During the COVID19 pandemic, millionaires and billionaires have been bailed out by the government with trillions of dollars while working people were given a pittance of $1,200 per person and a short term increase in unemployment benefits for the more than 40 million people who have lost their jobs. Many workers who provide essential services have had to continue to work putting themselves and their communities at risk.

Urgently needed healthcare is out of reach for millions with no or skimpy health insurance resulting in people dying at home or not going to the hospital until their illness became serious. For this and other reasons, COVID19 is disproportionately impacting communities of color.

Glen Ford of Black Agenda Report puts the mass revolt in the context of the long history of white supremacy that has existed since Africans were brought to the United States. Chattel slavery was enforced by the earliest form of policing,with the first formal slave patrol created in the Carolina colonies in 1704. After the Civil War and a brief period of Reconstruction where African people could participate in civic life, Jim Crow followed with white racists, often allied with Southern police, inflicting terrorism against the Black population through lynchings and other means. Black people were arrested for laws like vagrancy and then punished by being forced to work picking cotton or other jobs. This new form of slavery continues as inmates are forced to work for virtually no pay in prisons, are leased out to dangerous jobs like meat processing, or are used as scabs.

George Floyd’s murder enraged people who have seen too many deaths as a result of police violence. The murder in broad daylight with cameras filming and scores of witnesses showed the impunity of police who are used to not being held accountable for their violence. During the uprising, police have used extreme violence and targeted people with cameras and the media even saying they were the problem.

The root of the problem is a failed state that does not represent the people and has a deep history of racism and inequality that are being magnified by the current crises. The failure to respond to these crises is resulting in an ungovernable country as the social contract has been broken.

Lawlessness among the wealth class, corruption of politicians by campaigns financed by the wealthiest with payoffs to their children and relatives has set the stage for no respect for the law. As one protester exclaimed, “Don’t talk to us about looting, you are the looters. You have been looting from black people. You looted from the Native Americans. Don’t talk to us about violence, you taught us violence.”

Last Words of people killed by police from Twitter, Washington, DC May 30, 2020

The Failed State Cannot Reform Itself

George Floyd’s final words, “I can’t breathe,” echoed the same words of Eric Garner, who was killed six years ago by a New York police officer. Although there were protests then, not much has changed. The system failed to respond.

Failure starts at the top. There have been years of inaction at all levels of government. The New York Times reports “The administration has largely dismantled police oversight efforts, curbing the use of federal consent decrees to overhaul local police departments. Mr. Barr has said that communities that criticize law enforcement may not deserve police protection, and Mr. Trump has encouraged officers not to be ‘too nice’ in handling suspects.”

Trump poured gasoline on the current fire with incendiary rhetoric promising ‘looting leads to shooting’ echoing racists of the past and promising to send in the US military if Democrats can’t stop the uprising. Trump has put the military on alert to deploy to civilian protests. He maintains power by dividing people praising armed protesters who demanded reopening the economy despite the pandemic and calling unarmed protesters against police violence “thugs”.

On Friday, the White House locked down on security alert because of protests. Trump responded by calling for MAGA protesters to come to the White House. They did not come but protests at the White House have continued to increase.

Both Republicans and Democrats are responsible for the current rebellion. Joe Biden has described himself as a ‘law and order’ Democrat from the beginning of his career. He was the primary architect of the federal mass incarceration of Black people and helped add hundreds of thousands of police with militarized equipment to urban communities. He courts police unions that defend killer cops. And Biden opposed the integration of schools.

The failure of leadership continues at the state and local levels with politicians closely tied to the Fraternal Order of Police, which aggressively defends police who kill civilians. Every city can point to a series of police killings with no prosecutions or acquittals and few convictions. Minneapolis is a city with a long history of race-based police violence. Indeed, violence against Indigenous peoples led to the formation of the American Indian Movement.  Tne Intercept summarizes some of the cases:

• In 2015, the police killed Jamar Clark a  24-year-old black man. Protests lasted two weeks but led to no prosecution.
• In 2016, Philando Castile, a 32-year-old black motorist, was killed in a Minneapolis suburb. More than two weeks of protest followed and two years later the officer was acquitted.
• In 2017, Justine Ruszczyk, a 40-year-old white woman, approached a Minneapolis police car to report a sexual assault. The police officer, Mohamed Noor, who shot and killed her was sentenced to 12 years in prison, and her family was awarded a record $20 million settlement.
• In 2018, body camera footage showed Minneapolis police chasing Thurman Blevins, a 31-year-old black man, and shooting him to death. Prosecutors refused to file charges against the officers who killed Blevins.

Protests have led to some changes but they haven’t solved the problem. Money has been spent on body cameras, which have rarely had any impact. Similarly, training on de-escalation and racial sensitivity has made little difference.

Over the last six years, cities have increased funding for police departments at the expense of health, education, and other underfunded urban programs. Rather than providing people with necessities, the government has relied on controlling neglected communities with an occupying police force. Some of the police are even trained by the Israeli occupiers.

Even in the midst of a pandemic and economic collapse, the government cannot give people access to healthcare, protect their jobs, suspend their rents or control food prices. As Rosa Miriam Elizalde writes in her comparison of the United States to Cuba, the difference is a matter of values. The United States government spends more than 60 percent of the discretionary budget on weapons and war. It should be no surprise that the government acted more quickly to suppress people with militarized police, thousands of National Guard troops, and curfews than it did to protect their lives when the pandemic and recession started.

Reform Is Not Enough: Defund The Police, Give Communities Control, Build Alternatives To Police

The country must look more deeply at policing. Retired police major, Neill Franklin, the executive director of the Law Enforcement Action Partnership told the Intercept, “We need a new paradigm of policing in the United States. It needs to be completely dismantled and reconstructed, not changing a policy here or there.”

The Minneapolis group, Reclaim the Block, wrote a statement calling on the city council to defund the police department. Last week, they made four demands of their city council:

1. Never again vote to increase police funding.
2. Propose and vote for a $45 million cut from MPD’s budget as the city responds to projected COVID19 shortfalls.
3. Protect and expand current investment in community-led health and safety strategies.
4. Do everything in their power to compel MPD and all law enforcement agencies to immediately cease enacting violence on community members.

This is an agenda that makes sense for cities across the country. A growing movement demands the defunding of police departments. It is evident that the way to reduce police violence is to fund alternative non-law enforcement approaches to conflict resolution, safety strategies, and mental health as well as investing in neglected communities.

Another growing movement calls for democratic community control of the police where communities elect a Civilian Police Accountability Council (CPAC). The critical difference between this and Civilian Police Boards is that the Accountability Council is democratically elected not appointed by the police chief or politicians who are allied with the police. Neill Franklin urges a national database of officers terminated for misconduct so they will not be hired by other police departments.

The New York Times reports that “in 2012, the civilian board in Minneapolis was replaced by an agency called the Office of Police Conduct Review. Since then, more than 2,600 misconduct complaints have been filed by members of the public, but only 12 have resulted in an officer being disciplined.”  The most severe censure was only a 40-hour suspension. Derek Chauvin, who killed George Floyd, has at least 17 misconduct complaints, none of which derailed his career, in nearly two decades with the Minneapolis Police Department.

Chauvin was involved in the fatal shooting in October 2006 when Senator Klobuchar was Minneapolis’ district attorney. Rather than prosecuting Chauvin, she sent the case to a grand jury that declined to indict Chauvin. In 2011, Chauvin was involved in a high-profile shooting of a Native American. He was placed on administrative leave but was reinstated to the force when no charges were brought. If democratic community control of the police were in place, it is highly likely Chauvin would have been removed as a police officer and George Floyd would still be alive.

Support for change is growing. Bus drivers refused to transport arrested protesters for the police in Minneapolis and New York. Payday Report wrote transit union leaders nationwide are instructing members not to cooperate with police in arresting protesters. And Universities are dropping their contracts with the Minneapolis Police Department.

Protests continue nationwide. Thus far escalating police violence and the use of the National Guard has failed to stop them. The government may use the military, although by law there are restrictions on that. There will be efforts to pacify the protests by political leaders and non-profits who will try to take over the leadership. These must be rejected.

To achieve the changes we need, people must stay in the streets and connect the problems we face to the demand for systemic changes. We will need to support each other as many are doing by distributing food and providing medical care, jail support and legal representation. We urge people to meet in assemblies to discuss what their goals are, their vision of how communities could be organized differently and what actions they can take.  We need to build confidence in each other that we can work together for the future we want. That is how we will get 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.

Kevin Zeese and Margaret Flowers co-direct Popular Resistance where this article was originally published.

All images in this article are from Popular Resistance unless otherwise stated

There can no longer be any doubt—America is now a full-blown fascist state. In the past, authoritarian fascism was kept reserved in the shadows, largely out of the public eye, but in a remarkably short period of time it has emerged from the darkness to show its fangs and snarl menacingly at the people, many of them cowed and dutifully following irrational orders from on high. 

As the following video demonstrates, state violence is not directed exclusively at rioters and Antifa goons pretending to be anarchists (most would be unable to define the term) as they loot, burn, and attack the media and innocent bystanders. Violence is used to frighten and intimidate the real enemies of the state—the American people, or those who casually and defy the COVID lockdown and others peacefully protesting murder at the hand of a psychopathic cop.

Minneapolis under curfew pic.twitter.com/rYQYug6M5f

— Jack Posobiec (@JackPosobiec) May 31, 2020

Fortunately, the woman in the video was not seriously injured. She wasn’t looting Target or burning down Walmart. The woman made the mistake of venturing out on the porch of her home, her private property, and for this crime, she was shot with a paintball by a member of a “state militia” (now federalized). 

The social fabric is coming apart at the seams. First mandatory lockdowns, state-imposed impoverishment, followed by an unfolding Greatest Depression as a result of a shutdown economy, and now social unrest, violence, theft, and arson in two dozen large cities across the country. 

If this degree of violence and destruction is possible centered around the death of a single man, imagine what will happen when millions of people are in desperate straits, unemployed, many evicted, and homeless. It will not be simply police stations that go up in flames. It will be statehouses.   

However, the American people have demonstrated repeatedly they are gullible and easily steered into dead-end diversions pumped up and hyped 24/7 by a corporate propaganda media. The Trump hatefest and political polarization—worse than any in recent memory—will no doubt go by the wayside as millions of Americans face the “new normal” envisioned by their masters—a standard of living in rapid freefall, soon to crash on the rocks. None of this is happenstance or coincidental. 

Most Americans may not have protested the endless wars and criminal economic scams of the ruling elite (mostly due to decades of incessant propaganda), but they will raise their voices and fists when they are unemployed for months on end, evicted from homes and apartments, have their cars repossessed, and are confronted with hunger, want, and homelessness.

In order to enforce the latest manifestation of psychopathic neoliberalism and predatory crony capitalism, the state will depend on steroid-headed soldiers and cops to frighten and intimidate the people. 

It may be paintballs today, but tomorrow it might be live ammo. 

*

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, Another Day in the Empire, where this article was originally published. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from Abayomi Azikiwe

Rep. Bobby Rush of Illinois is proposing the Orwellian (and improperly capitalized) COVID-19 Testing, Reaching, And Contacting Everyone (TRACE) Act, offering states and locales $100 billion with which to become total police states.

The bill would provide funds for localities to contact trace, test, and quarantine infected individuals, and while its sponsor claims testing and quarantining would be on a “voluntary” basis, given how states and localities are already accessing and using technology in the name of the CoronaCrisis, more funding would provide them even more tools that would make Big Brother green with envy:

“Armies” of Contract Tracers

States across the country are building “armies” (their term) of contract tracers: Gov. Newsom says California will “start” with 20,000 and may build to 100,000; Washington, West Virginia, Iowa, North Dakota and Rhode Island are using the National Guard for their contract tracing “armies;” while former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg committed $10.5 million to create an “army” of Tracers for New York, in coordination with New Jersey and Connecticut.

And just what will all these soldiers do when they’ve traced the infection to your door? Assess the suitability of your home as a quarantine location, and if they deem it not suitable, you may well find yourself escorted to an “isolation center,” which in New Jersey could include a “field hospital,” or in New York, Mayor de Blasio suggests following the Chinese model of using sports facilities such as the Billie Jean King National Tennis Center in Queens.

Drones

Police agencies are already using drones to enforce stay at home orders and social distancing, as well as detect fevers—which they do very inaccurately. Even without Rep. Rush’s additional funding, 43 law enforcement agencies in 22 states have already purchased drone technology from just one Chinese company. Who knows how many others there may be?

Cameras

Face recognition cameras are being hawked to governments to track people violating mandatory quarantine orders. American technology apparently falls behind in this area: an ACLU study of Amazon’s “Rekognition” software showed it misidentifying 28 members of Congress against a mug shot database. Once again, China offers a better way for Big Government, including technology that provides recognition of even people wearing masks (think: Hong Kong protestors).

Technology company Clearview AI is in talks with the government to create a system that would use face recognition in public places ostensibly to identify unknown people who may have been infected by a known carrier. The proposal, however, would in reality result in a massive surveillance infrastructure, linked to billions of social media images, that could allow the government to readily identify all people in public spaces for any reason.

License-plate reading cameras are another handy way for Big Brother to keep tabs on where you are. In Kentucky, church attendees were so surveilled, then issued orders to self-quarantine for 2 weeks.

Phone Tech

China, again, seems to lead the way in quarantine tech a/k/a keeping you where the government wants you. There, residents are assigned color-coded QR codes on their phones—yours must be green to leave home. But American companies such as Apple and Google are eagerly stepping forward to offer home-grown tech: proximity tracking Apps and location data for enforcing social distancing and contract tracing; and all manner of House Arrest Tech, from GPS-enabled ankle bracelets to smartphone tracking apps, are being retooled and/or developed for quarantine enforcement. The maker of the detainee-tracking smartphone app E-Cell was asked by a state agency to swap out the word “client,” the company’s term for arrestees, to “patient.”

Apple and Google promise that their technology will protect individual privacy by “anonymizing” the location data, but our cell phones are already tracking and providing our locations to tech companies and the government all the time—which data is stored to allow for virtually anyone’s location to be pin-pointed, any time.

Most alarmingly, under the guise of a coronavirus pandemic, local law enforcement, bureaucrats, and lowest-rung clerks are gaining access to massive surveillance capabilities and police powers, with no provision for privacy protection or redress against their misuse.

We’ve already learned—in full, gory detail from NSA whistleblowers and others—the massive number of people who have access to and can misuse our personal data collected by the federal government. Now just imagine all your personal data in the hands of your local beat cop, public health employee, or city hall clerk, now endowed with the power to use it as they see fit.

Because remember, this is a “Crisis:” the ordinary Rule of Law and rights don’t apply. As Louisville’s chief of public services, in imposing GPS-enforced stay-at-home orders, put it, “We don’t want to take away people’s freedoms but at the same time we have a pandemic.”

But just try to get your freedoms back once the “pandemic” has passed. As Crisis and Leviathan and recent history has shown, once they have a power, they keep it. The only way to keep your rights is to keep them all the time. Just say “No” to TRACE and every other “emergency” decree.

*

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.

Mary L. G. Theroux is Senior Vice President of the Independent Institute.

Featured image is from the II

The science of the coronavirus is not disputed. It is well documented and openly admitted:

• Most people won’t get the virus.
• Most of the people who get it won’t display symptoms.
• Most of the people who display symptoms will only be mildly sick.
• Most of the people with severe symptoms will never be critically ill.
• And most of the people who get critically ill will survive.

This is borne out by the numerous serological studies which show, again and again, that the infection fatality ratio is on par with flu.

There is no science – and increasingly little rational discussion – to justify the lockdown measures and overall sense of global panic.

Nevertheless, it’s always good to get official acknowledgement of the truth, even if it has to be leaked.

Here are three leaks showing that those in power know that the coronavirus poses no threat, and in no way justifies the lockdown that is going to destroy the livelihoods of so many.

1. “IT’S ALL BULLSH*T!”

On May 26th Dr Alexander Myasnikov, Russia’s head of coronavirus information, gave an interview to former-Presidential candidate Ksenia Sobchak in which he apparently let slip his true feelings.

Believing the interview over, and the camera turned off, Myasnikov said:

It’s all bullshit […] It’s all exaggerated. It’s an acute respiratory disease with minimal mortality […] Why has the whole world been destroyed? That I don’t know,”

2. “COVID-19 CANNOT BE DESCRIBED AS A GENERALLY DANGEROUS DISEASE”

According to an e-mail leaked to Danish newspaper Politiken, the Danish Health Authority disagree with their government’s approach to the coronavirus. They cover it in two articles here and here (For those who don’t speak Danish, thelocal.dk have covered the story too).

There’s a lot of interesting information there, not least of which is the clear implication that politicians appear to be pressing the scientific advisors to overstate the danger (they did the same thing in the UK), along with the decision of some civil servants to withhold data from the public until after the lockdown had been extended.

But by far the most important quote is from a March 15th e-mail [our emphasis]:

The Danish Health Authority continues to consider that covid-19 cannot be described as a generally dangerous disease, as it does not have either a usually serious course or a high mortality rate,”

On March 12th the Danish parliament passed an emergency law which – among many other things – decreased the power of the Danish Health Authority, demoting it from a “regulatory authority” to just an “advisory” one.

3. “A GLOBAL FALSE ALARM”

Earlier this month, on May 9th, a report was leaked to the German alternate media magazine Tichys Einblick titled “Analysis of the Crisis Management”.

The report was commissioned by the German department of the interior, but then its findings were ignored, prompting one of the authors to release it through non-official channels.

The fall out of that, including attacks on the authors and minimising of the report’s findings, is all very fascinating and we highly recommend this detailed report on Strategic Culture (or read the full report herein German).

We’re going to focus on just the reports conclusions, including [our emphasis]:

• The dangerousness of Covid-19 was overestimated: probably at no point did the danger posed by the new virus go beyond the normal level.
• The danger is obviously no greater than that of many other viruses. There is no evidence that this was more than a false alarm.
• During the Corona crisis the State has proved itself as one of the biggest producers of Fake News.

After being attacked in the press, and suspended from his job, the leaker and other authors of the report released a joint statement, calling on the government to respond to their findings.

*

If the current crisis was being approached rationally by all parties, these leaks would seal the debate.

Evidence is piling up that the people in charge knew, from the very beginning, that the virus was not dangerous.

The question remaining is: Why are these leaks happening now?

*

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

Parts 1 and 2: introductory, diagnosis
Part 3: the fraudulent threat analysis that fuels militarism
Part 4: some theories and concepts about human security and how those concepts differ fundamentally from state-anchored dominant military policies

A Canadian political analyst said the US is well aware that its oil tankers that are freely moving in the Persian Gulf would be exposed to retaliation if it attempts to seize Iranian oil shipments carrying fuel to Venezuela.

***

“The fact that Iran militarily responded to the Trump administration’s murder of Iranian General Qassem Soleimani and the murder of Iraqi officials showed that Iran would protect its rights if the American’s seized the oil shipments. The United States has many oil tankers that transit the Persian Gulf and they would be exposed to retaliation. The Americans also realize that their military bases in the Middle East are exposed and not welcome by many host countries in the Middle East. They are vulnerable,” Edward Corrigan from Ontario told Tasnim.

Edward C. Corrigan is certified as a specialist by the Law Society of Ontario, Canada in Citizenship, Immigration and Immigration and Refugee Law. He is also an analyst and commentator for a number of media outlets around the world.

Following is the full text of the interview:

Tasnim: Iran is providing Venezuela with 1.53 million barrels of gasoline and refining components defying US sanctions against both nations. The 4th cargo of an Iranian tanker flotilla carrying fuel for Venezuela reached the South American nation’s exclusive economic zone on Wednesday Refinitiv Eikon data showed. What are your thoughts on this?

Corrigan: These sanctions are unilaterally imposed by the Trump Administration. They are not imposed by the United Nations Security Council. Accordingly, they are not legally binding on Iran or Venezuela. The United States cannot unilaterally impose its sanctions on other countries to stop legal trade between Iran and Venezuela or any other country. The American unilateral sanctions are illegal under International law and Maritime law. To impose unilateral sanctions on another country and to enforce them by military means is seen as an act of war.

Tasnim: The United States has criticized the shipment, as both OPEC nations are under unilateral US sanctions. A Washington official said earlier this month that President Donald Trump’s administration was considering responses to the shipment, prompting the Iranian government to warn Washington against military action. Why do you think the vessels did not appear to encounter interference?

Corrigan: Apparently saner and cooler heads prevailed. The United States would look like a bully and also foolish in the eyes of World opinion. Venezuela and or Iran could go to the International High Court of Justice for a ruling. The United States would lose. Iran and Venezuela could also go to the UN General Assembly for a symbolic vote and again the United States would lose. In my opinion, the Europeans would not support unilateral sanctions by one country that would jeopardize free trade and break International law and accepted principles of Maritime law.

The fact that Iran militarily responded to the Trump administration’s murder of Iranian General Qassem Soleimani and the murder of Iraqi officials showed that Iran would protect its rights if the American’s seized the oil shipments. The United States has many oil tankers that transit the Persian Gulf and they would be exposed to retaliation. The Americans also realize that their military bases in the Middle East are exposed and not welcome by many host countries in the Middle East. They are vulnerable. The fact that Venezuela sent ships and fighter aircraft to escort and protect the Iranian oil tankers also showed Venezuela’s resolve to not be intimidated by American sanctions. The fact that there are Russian troops in Venezuela also would give a strong reason for the Americans to not to come into direct conflict with the Russian military.

Tasnim: President Nicolas Maduro has expressed gratitude to the Iranian leadership, government, and nation from “the bottom of my heart.” He said Iran and Venezuela had a right just like any other nation in the world to engage in trade. We are “two revolutionary nations that will never kneel down before US imperialism. Venezuela has friends in this world, and brave friends at that”, he said. What is your take on this?

Corrigan: I agree with President Maduro. Under International law and Maritime law, free trade and free transit are protected. The United States cannot use the argument for free navigation in the South China Sea against China and then turn around and not allow free trade in the Atlantic Ocean and in the Caribbean Sea. It would show that the American administration was being hypocritical and would look foolish. This episode is a clear victory for Iran and Venezuela. It is also a victory for the principle of free trade, Maritime Law, and International law and supports the view that no country can unilaterally impose its law on a third country and impose sanctions on other countries.

*

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 TNA

A social culture where perception of others is not conditioned by skin tone is obtainable. In the process of getting there, a system of law with no impunity for racism and with exemplary punishment for agents of the state in contravention is essential.

A court will judge whether there was intent to kill George Floyd; what is absolutely apparent is there was certainly no intent by the police to preserve his life or health. It is also plain that the force used was wildly disproportionate for the alleged offence. It is further undeniable that police violence in the USA impacts particularly on black people, and that in dealing with black people the police act with an arrogance founded on anticipated impunity. The societal change whereby the majority of adults have camera phones at the ready has given a new power of resistance to the public in this regard. That must be reinforced by exemplary sentencing.

The law currently takes the opposite approach:

If a police officer unlawfully harms a citizen, the officer is subject to assault or homicide charges—no different than if the officer committed these crimes off duty. [2] However, if a citizen unlawfully harms a police officer, the citizen is automatically subject to aggravated assault or aggravated homicide charges, which carry more severe punishment. [3] In fact, some states make the intentional killing of an on-duty officer a capital offense. [4] Enhanced charges in police encounters are thus asymmetrical. They only apply if a citizen harms an officer but not if an officer harms a citizen.

Police who kill in the course of their duties are given every latitude by the courts and far lower sentences than others who kill. That attitude needs to reverse. Police need to understand that their duty to protect and deal fairly embraces both the alleged victim and the alleged criminal. Breach of this public duty to protect should be an aggravating factor when the police kill, and sentences should be stiffer than for the general public. There are moments in public discourse where you need to come down off the fence and decide which side you are on; I am on the side of Black Lives Matter.

Here are two murdered men who have even less chance of receiving justice than George Floyd.

There is a stark contrast between the justified international outrage at Floyd’s death, and the unremarked killing of just a couple more Palestinians. I recommend this twitter thread by the ever excellent Ben White, and the links it gives. Ben does not mention that Iyad, on the left, was on his way to classes for those with special needs when he was chased and gunned down by Israeli soldiers.

This may surprise you. The police in the USA have less impunity for killings than the police in the UK.

Even as straightforward a case as the murder of Jean Charles De Menezes, who did nothing wrong whatsoever, brought no action against the police in the UK. The killing of Sheku Bayoh in Fife had obvious parallels with that of George Floyd, yet nobody was charged. 457 people have died in police custody since 1998, from all causes. From 2005-2015 10% of 294 deaths were “restraint related”. That is 30 people in the UK in ten years who have died at the hands of police in much the same way George Floyd died. That figure excludes those shot by the police.

Not one British policeman has been convicted of an unlawful killing in all these deaths. – not one. The last British policeman convicted was in 1969. That is what I call real impunity.

Source

And that is without examining the similar impunity enjoyed even by private contractors in the UK responsible for the many deaths in the prison system and in immigration detention.

Impunity is a major problem all round the world, and everywhere it enables disproportionate use of state violence against minorities. But it is most sinister in a state like the United Kingdom, where the support of the prosecutorial and judicial institutions of the state for those who enforce the state’s monopoly of violence is absolute, and where the public are so conditioned to the power of the state they do not even notice the impunity.

The United Kingdom is full of people, right now, looking at the images of unrest from the USA and telling each other that the way the police kill black people in the USA is terrible. We do not process that in the UK law enforcement officers enjoy still greater impunity than in the USA.

*

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

The American liberal tradition has become increasingly superfluous with the triumphal ascendancy of a corrosive and reactionary conservative political ideology that was consecrated during the ‘Reagan Revolution’ of the 1980s and steadily gained influence in every succeeding presidential administration that came to power in the United States. The Reagan revolution, or more precisely, counter-revolution, comprised a concerted effort to roll-back the gains of labor, socialist and progressive struggles around the world on behalf of corporate capital.  The offensive is being intensified by the hideous Trump regime.

Domestically, Reagan’s premeditated assault on ‘big government’ involved a deliberate attack on social welfare programs that had been constructed over five decades prior to his elevation to the presidency, primarily as a response to the Great Depression of the 1930s, the urban rebellions of the 1960s and the ravages of an unregulated capitalistic system.  His expressed intention was to dismantle social welfare programs that were created by FDR’s ‘New Deal’ and LBJ’s ‘Great Society’.

Reagan also waged unrestrained class warfare by signing into law the largest tax cuts for the rich in U.S. history and brutally attacking organized labor by firing the striking Air Traffic Controllers in 1981.  The firing began a decades-long campaign of union busting that reduced the level of union membership from a high of 33% of the American working class in 1955 to approximately 10.5% in 2020.

In foreign policy, Reagan launched a frontal attack on the ‘Evil Empire’ of the Soviet Union by instigating the first phase of the ‘War on Terror’.  The center of world terrorism for Reaganites was the ‘Red Menace’ that ruled the Kremlin.  Soviet extension of military and material aid to third world countries was classified as sponsorship of international terrorism by Reagan’s imperious Secretary of State, George Shultz.

The breathtaking hypocrisy of the Reagan regime was revealed by its support for murderous proxy forces such as the Islamic Mujahideen in Afghanistan and the Contras in Nicaragua.  Reagan and CIA Director William Casey also deployed death squads in Honduras, El Salvador and Guatemala in their desire to deny communism a ‘beach head’ in Central America.

In Europe, Reagan and Casey conspired closely with the Vatican to install a Polish Pope while working hand in hand with the deeply reactionary labor movement ‘Solidarity’, led by the erstwhile electrician, Lech Walesa to destabilize the Communist government of Poland.

Reagan also conducted an unprecedented nuclear arms buildup that deployed the MX missile, with its multiple warheads, in U.S. silos and placed intermediate range Pershing and Cruise missiles in Western Europe, triggering a dangerous military escalation with the Soviet Union. The offensive missile buildup was simultaneously undertaken with research and development of a ‘Star Wars’ missile defense shield that violated the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty of 1972 and militarized space.

The ‘L’ word was further stigmatized by George Herbert Walker Bush during his 1988 presidential campaign against Michael Dukakis whom Bush race-bated with the infamous Willie Horton television advertisement that claimed Horton, a black convict, raped a white woman and murdered her partner after being furloughed from prison by the Massachusetts governor.

It was no coincidence that during the 1992 presidential campaign, Governor William Jefferson Clinton returned home to the State of Arkansas to oversee the execution of a mentally ill, black inmate, Ricky Ray Rector.  The lesson of the Willie Horton ad campaign was well learned by the crafty Clinton who defeated Bush Senior in the general election by appearing ‘tough on crime’.

Clinton’s subsequent ‘Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994’ enhanced his reputation and led straight away to mass incarceration of the black underclass.  The law was partially written by Senator Joseph Biden, who chaired the Senate’s Judiciary Committee.  Supporting her husband’s ‘law and order’ posture was First Lady and former Goldwater Girl, Hillary Clinton, who referred to young black males as “Super predators.”  The ‘War on Poverty’ had been officially replaced by the ‘War on Crime’ under the Clinton syndicate.

The electoral success of the Reagan/Bush years pushed the Democratic Party to the right.  Leading the way were the ‘New Democrats’ whose centrist politics would eventually devolve into a tawdry conservatism that justified the continued evisceration of the social safety net.  The remorseless task was undertaken by the Clintonites with the sickening persistence of gnawing mice.  Clinton’s ‘Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act of 1996’, ended federal government control of welfare and provided the poor with an opportunity to work in an economy that offshored and outsourced millions of jobs to Mexico thanks to Clinton’s ‘North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) now renegotiated as the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) by Trump.

The Clinton regime, led by his grotesque Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, Secretary of Defense William S. Cohen and National Security Advisor, Sandy Berger, maintained a lethal and unscrupulous imperialistic foreign policy indistinguishable from its Republican predecessors, as exemplified by the continuation of a starvation blockade in Iraq that killed 500,000 children, dismemberment of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia prior to the bombing of Serbia in 1999, forced repatriation of Haitian refugees fleeing political persecution from a military dictatorship installed by the United States during a coup d’état in 1991, launching of cruise missile strikes against Afghanistan and Sudan in 1998 and subjugation of Yasser Arafat and the Palestine Liberation Organization through implementation of theOslo and Camp David Peace Accords of 1993 and 2000, respectively.

The election of Barack Obama as America’s second black president, Bill Clinton having been anointed its first by the African-American novelist Toni Morrison, saw the former Columbia Law professor conciliate a rabid Republican congressional opposition with economic, human rights, military and national security policies that could only be described as resolutely conservative.  Obama continued Bush’s bailout of Wall Street at the expense of Main Street during the sub-prime financial crisis and extended Bush’s tax cuts for the rich during his first two years in office.  Obama was the first president to cut Social Security benefits by freezing cost-of-living increases for retirees. Obama’s ‘Affordable Health Care Act’ pushed aside demands for a single payer program of nationalized health care in favor of the for-profit private insurance system that ravages Americans today.

Obama also presided over the NSA’s prism program of mass surveillance, institutionalization of preventive detention,persecution of journalists and whistleblowers, a system of drone warfare, expansion of Bush’s wars in Afghanistan and Iraq into five additional Muslim counties, coup d’états in Ukraine and Honduras and a ‘New Cold War’ with Russia.

Both Clinton and Obama claimed the mantle of centrism, a weak-kneed political philosophy that adopted moderately conservative policy positions while appearing somewhat liberal when contrasted to Reaganite ultra-conservative politics of the Republicans.  In effect, the entire U.S. political spectrum has shifted to the right in the post-Reagan era.

The economic principles of John Maynard Keynes that were adopted by FDR in the face of the ‘Great Depression’ of the 1930s and advocated by the Brookings Institute for the Kennedy and Johnson administrations during the 1960s, have been replaced with the neoliberal policies of Friedrich Hayek and Milton Friedman that were endorsed by the Heritage Foundation, the American Enterprise Institute and the Cato Institute during the 1970s to deregulate and privatize the U.S. and global economy on behalf of the American plutocracy.  The first neoliberal experiment took place in Pinochet’s Chile after the CIA overthrow of Salvador Allende in 1973.

Gone is the domestic politics of reform and melioration that characterized the administrations of Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Lyndon Johnson.  The progressive social welfare programs of the ‘New Deal’ and the ‘Great Society’ are under continuous attack to eliminate the last pillars of the American social safety net, including Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.

What remains is a legacy of political repression.  It should be noted that Roosevelt interned the Japanese while ordering the FBI to surveil isolationist critics of World War II.  The Truman administration forged the National Security State and inaugurated the second red scare while prosecuting the Korean War.  And the Kennedy and Johnson regimes conducted the Vietnam War while extending the FBI’s Cointelpro program, thus illustrating the efficacy of ‘Cold War’ liberalism that combined social reform with domestic repression to stabilize the bastion of imperialism.

Economic policies that favor the rich have always been advanced by the Republicans and their corporate conservative coalition.  Not so for the Democrats who formed a liberal labor coalition for the greater part of the 20^thcentury.  The ‘New Democrats’ have repudiated the coalition and its’ social base of organized labor.  The ‘New Democrats’ have betrayed the labor movement during the era of globalization and NAFTA.  The ‘New Democrats’ have turned their backs on the poor and racial minorities with their emphasis on ‘law and order’, ‘welfare reform’ and ‘mandatory drug sentencing’.  The ‘New Democrats’ have also betrayed civil libertarians with their support for the Patriot Act, the NDAA of 2012 and NSA warrantless surveillance.

The venality of centrist politics perfectly illustrates the repudiation of an American liberal tradition that once provided a genuine safety net for the poor, the elderly and the downtrodden.  The social dimensions of that tradition advocated some modicum of justice for those who suffered from race and sex oppression.  With the rise of mass incarceration and the militarized police state, the victories won before the liberal Warren Court by Brown, Miranda, Gideon, Yates and Katz, have disappeared beneath a wave police murders, tortured confessions and warrantless surveillance, behind which lies the threat of indefinite detention.

Perhaps the most articulate intellectual advocate of liberal reform in the United States during the early part of the 20^thcentury was the American philosopher John Dewey.  Dewey’s instrumentalist philosophy is a pristine expression of middle-class liberalism as it emphasized the possibilities of progressive change and liberal democratic governance. Dewey’s thought represented an extension of the progressive era that arose in the late 1890s to combat the monopolization of commerce and industry by avaricious bankers and industrialists.  Even Franklin D. Roosevelt was moved to use the term “economic royalists” to decry what his cousin Teddy Roosevelt once called the “malefactors of great wealth.” By doing so, they reflected populist opposition to industrialists, financiers and Wall Street speculators who were hated by the common people.  The foremost demands of progressives such as free public education from elementary school through the university level, building public parks, libraries and settlement houses, extending the franchise for women, abolishing child labor and passing public health and anti-trust legislation were all championed by Dewey who saw the need to extend these reforms.

Today, the Democrats espouse a politics of social identity blind to its own contradictions.  They have completely abandoned class politics for identity politics.  Keynesian economic reform has given way to the neoliberal agenda of privatization, deregulation and rule of the market. The progressive features of liberal reform have been jettisoned for the rapacious economics of wealth concentration and social repression.

Underlying the political and ideological metamorphosis is a shift in class relations with the onset of globalization, a process that generated capital flight, deindustrialization and the decimation of organized labor.  The American working class is fragmented in a financialized economy that is structured to produce economic contingency and debt for wage and salaried workers alongside the exponential growth of wealth for predatory financiers.  With the cutting of social benefits along with wages, the ranks of the poor have swelled dramatically.  The middle class is cast adrift, its social stability under constant threat.

The triumph of the corporate rich and their Washington Neoliberal Consensus has marginalized a majority of the American population, the most oppressed sectors of which can only respond by adopting a revolutionary politics to face their condition as the doctrine of liberal reform, itself the product of class struggles of a bygone era, has become a rotting corpse without significant influence within the corridors of power.  The repulsive capitulation of Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren to the corrupt Joseph Biden and the Democratic Party tragically illustrates the irrelevance of an increasingly dissolute liberal ideology whose adherents actively collaborate with American imperialism.

*

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.

Donald Monaco is a political analyst who lives in Brooklyn, New York.  He received his Master’s Degree in Education from the State University of New York at Buffalo in 1979 and was radicalized by the Vietnam War.  He writes from an anti-imperialist, anti-capitalist perspective.  His recent book is titled, The Politics of Terrorism, and is available at amazon.com

The despicable police murder of a person, another Black person, who allegedly used a counterfeit $20 bill has caused widespread revulsion among Americans. This time, however, authorities acted relatively quickly calling in the FBI and firing all four police officers at the scene — Derek Chauvin, Thomas Lane, Tou Thao, and J Alexander Kueng.

George Floyd, who did not resist, was forcibly extricated from his vehicle by police, handcuffed, whereupon officer Derek Chauvin knelt for 8 minutes on Floyd’s neck while he pleaded that he was unable to breathe. Floyd’s death was the result.

Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey has called for the arrest of Chauvin, although not by the officer’s name. Said Frey,

“If you had done it or I had done it we would be behind bars right now and I cannot come up with an answer to that question.”

In contradistinction protestors have been hastily arrested while protesting Floyd’s murder.

Even the media were not safe from being arrested for covering the story of another police murder of a Black man. The Save Journalism Project responded in a press release:

The arrest of CNN reporter Omar Jimenez and his crew on live television this morning simply for reporting on the protests of police violence in Minneapolis violates the most basic tenet of press freedom: the necessity of reporting what are at times uncomfortable truths for government authorities. The government possesses enormous coercive power, that as this episode clearly shows, can be all too easily applied to limit or prevent the press from reporting on their actions. The First Amendment exists precisely for this reason.

The arrest of Jimenez even underscores the reasons for the protests he was covering. No one has been arrested in the killing of George Floyd by a Minneapolis police officer. But Jimenez, who like Floyd is black, has been arrested. There was even another CNN crew near Jimenez at the time of his arrest, but Josh Campbell and his producers were, according to Campbell, “treated much differently,” and were obviously not arrested.

In the US, American journalists, especially if Black, can be arrested … for what? Reporting a live story? To curtail racism and prejudice from wider exposure? To protect the crimes of the US gendarmerie from becoming public knowledge?

Prejudice in US and China

Why did the police murder another black citizen. NBA star Lebron James had no doubt.

Despite rampant racism and racism-inspired violence in the US, the US continues to inveigh against the alleged Chinese maltreatment of Uyghurs in Xinjiang and Tibetans in Tibet. It has been refuted by others, such as journalist Caleb Maupin, as propaganda that seeks to demonize the Chinese government.

Arresting versus expelling journalists

In mid-March, the Chinese government announced the expulsion of journalists from the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, and the Washington Post.

The US mass media struck back: “[N]ewsroom leaders criticized China’s move, which comes in the midst of a global public health crisis over COVID-19, the disease caused by coronavirus.”

Trump said, “I’m not happy to see it. I have my own disputes with all three of those media groups — I think you know that very well — but I don’t like seeing that at all.”

The Chinese action comes after Washington imposed limitations on staff at Chinese state media outlets in the US.

Foreign ministry spokesman Geng Shuang said,

The United States cannot proceed from ideological prejudice, use its own standards and likes and dislikes to judge the media of other countries, let alone suppress the Chinese media unreasonably…. We urge the US to take off its ideological prejudice, abandon cold war mentality…. China is not one to start trouble, but it will not blink if trouble comes. We urge the US side to immediately stop suppressing Chinese media, otherwise the US side will lose even more.

Notably, Americans have also been prohibited from working as journalists in Macau or Hong Kong.

A Comparison to China’s Response to the Riots in Hong Kong

What about the protests/riots that have resumed in Hong Kong? What triggered those protests? Some citizens were opposed to extradition of alleged criminals? How has China responded to rioting, sabotage, terrorism, separatism, and even murders by the so-called protestors? Hong Kong is a territory having been a under British colonial administration from 1841 to 1997 when it reverted to mainland China as a special autonomous region; it must be noted that once the original demands for rescinding the extradition bill were met, the goal posts of the NED-supported protestors transformed into a purported democracy movement.

Has China responded with military force? No. With arrests of law-abiding journalists? No. With police brutality? Most observers will acknowledge that police have been incredibly restrained, some would say too restrained in the face of protestor violence.

The protestors, largely disaffected youth, as is apparent in all or most video footage, by and large employ random violence as a tactic, which they do not condemn. This was made clear by Hong Kong protest leader Joey Siu, during an interview with Deutsche Welle, who said she “will not do any kind of public condemnation” for the use of unjustified violence by protesters against residents who do not share their political views.

How has Beijing responded? Legislatively, by seeking to uphold the Basic Law, whose Article 23 mandated Hong Kong to enact laws on its own to prohibit any act of treason, secession, sedition, subversion against the Central People’s Government. It is the normal case that nations everywhere protect their national security. Hong Kong’s South China Morning Post ran an opinion piece titled “If Hong Kong had enacted national security laws on its own, Beijing wouldn’t be stepping in” which pointed out:

Beijing trusted Hong Kong to implement Article 23, but its trust was misplaced. The Basic Law is a two-way street – it isn’t fair to accuse the central government of failing to comply with the mini-constitution when Hong Kong itself has not fulfilled its obligations.

Extradition for crimes committed versus extradition for exposing war crimes

The Hong Kong imbroglio stems from the attempt to enact a bill to permit extradition between Hong Kong, China, and Taiwan. This was given impetus when Hong Kong resident Chan Tong-kai, 20, murdered his girlfriend, Poon Hiu-wing, 20, while they were on vacation in Taiwan. To be convicted of murder, he’d have to return to the jurisdiction in which it occurred for trial. But there is no extradition treaty between Hong Kong and Taiwan. Chan did agree to return to Taiwan to face the charges, but Taiwan blocked his entry.

The absurdity of this extradition conundrum is laid bare by the fact that Hong Kong has an extradition treaty with Britain and the US and not with its motherland, China. Thus, the lack of an extradition arrangement prevents justice for criminal acts such as murder among certain regions of China.

Meanwhile another bombastic evidence of western infidelity to justice is the extradition that is sought for a man whose “crime” was to reveal to the world the war crimes of the US war machine. For this Julian Assange, a man who should be protected by all humanity, has seen his human rights obliterated and any shred of western adherence to the concept of justice obliterated.

Update: In the course of writing this article, Derek Chauvin was taken into custody. The other three officers who were aware of officer Chauvin’s brutal and lethal act are in essence accomplices and ought to be held culpable under the law for their roles.

*

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.

Kim Petersen is a former co-editor of the Dissident Voice newsletter. He can be reached at: [email protected]. Twitter: @kimpetersen.

The collapse of the culture of Enlightenment rationality has been filled from within and without by rationality’s enemies: irrationality; uncontrolled desire and emotion; and the deliberate destruction of the academic rational-theoretical disciplines, all replaced by aspects of human activity which can be translated into marketplace productivity—i.e. can produce money for someone.

Of all the possible replacements for the rejection of reason as a common cultural practice, the weakest and most tenuous in attempting to hold a culture together is a desire-based egoism and the individualism of free and self-interested economic (personal) gain—i.e. the fundamental assumption of neoliberalism. Even a superficial examination can see that the consequences of such a paradigm when given primacy in a culture would cause far greater pain and further collapse of the culture than the paradigm they replaced. Granted that the primacy of reason was largely rejected by Western culture as a result of the series of brutal and inhuman wars fought under its banner in the early 20^th century, the consumption model that took its place only led to more and more inhumane wars, and has pit one person against another, and economic elites against the rest of the people, in particular the economic underprivileged.

Many people saw the shortsightedness of this philosophy, turned away from its values, and adopted instead the relativism of the primacy of “the social” and of language itself as a way of viewing human interchange. They see societal bonds established by language and the growth of cultural practices and ideas to be primary in human nature and the unifying of social groups of identity. However, we are now seeing that such relativistic social values have an even shorter shelf life than an overvalued reason, because if values are simply socially-originated or maintained, they are insusceptible to normative analysis (e.g. why is oppression bad?) and insufficient as normative guides. Instead, socially based norms are limited to the group which identifies with them and agrees to them and only for as long as they agree to them. Distinctively reasonable and normative guides for formulating beliefs, for acting, and for analyzing group values require a primacy of thinking objectively over small-group intersubjective agreement. This is because both reason and norms have an objective dimension to them and are interrelated in just that way (e.g. being nonfactual). So  no norms, no future should be the motto of those who see the end coming to our current cultural fascinations with self, money, desire-fulfillment, and a relativism of beliefs and values that comes with postmodernism and identity politics, and who seek an alternative to this collapsing worldview. Norms, as “ought” statements, cannot and should not ever have been rejected or reduced to the empirical, the linguistic, or simple social agreement. “Ought” has its own domain, in both logic and ethics, and both are quite necessary and applicable in and to social life. Cultural norms will simply not fill the “ought” gap left from the rejection of reason, because such cultural interpretations are too ephemeral and fleeting due to their focus only on what is, rather than on what should be. That such social or linguistic givens per se can’t and won’t hold a culture together should be evident by now.

But with what will we replace them? Generation Z seems to be searching for a normative guide that has not yet been found. If the unifying paradigm to come does not involve reason and its objective normative concerns at some primary level, then that paradigm too, whatever it is, will fall, just as the “social is primary” philosophy is failing us right now. We should face the plain fact that human history shows that cultures need primary normative and appealed to (not just “agreed to”) objective guides in order to unify, survive, and thrive, and these guides must not only have primacy in the culture, but they must be taken as holding for all involved. If not, then, for example, rule of law becomes a matter of opting in or opting out, a behavior we regularly see with the U.S. attitude toward international law and its very own treaties. If rationality is not involved in this objectivity (indeed, rationality is the very condition of understanding and acknowledging such objectivity), then it cannot be properly normative. As a consequence, it has no claim on me and I have been given no reason to respond to it. Such is our collapsing culture today.

The same problems with the “primacy of the social” are seen in the postmodern fascination with identity groups. If objective norms are rejected, the best alternatives are said to be groups with which individual egos self-identify, or with whom they are comfortable identifying. This is more of the desire/ego-based alternative to a collapsing cultural unity that cannot last. Why should anyone outside of a given “identity group” care about what that group says about their self-interest simply because they are members of a group whose interests have not been taken into account in social-political policies? Unless that group has an objective argument or principle as a primary part of their public agenda, such as that their humanness has been abused or ignored by social and/or political institutions, and unless they are willing to unite together with every other group to make changes that an objective view of justice requires—i.e. that will benefit all (and not just their own group interest) under a principle that calls upon society to respect their human dignity—then the simple fact that they might “self-identify” in one way and that they “feel oppressed” qua group by a ruling class, in itself makes no claim on anyone else in society. But the moment they appeal to such a principle as “human dignity” or “equality,” they cease to function as an identity group, per se. Hence one of the internal contradictions of identity politics comes to light.

As a counter example to the normal identity group, look at how the “Black Lives Matter” frequently (but not always) operates. What one normally hears from that movement is not the message that says “we identify as Black, so respect us,” but rather that black lives are human lives and have a human dignity. While sometimes the spokespeople stray into the former message of self-identity (and thus lose their moral claim on others to that degree), the notion of “humanity” and “respect” involved in the latter set of claims is a set of objective concepts, and betokens a degree of rationality in order to maintain what “Black Lives Matter” represents. I hear those claims, and as human being (not just as a white male who identifies as such, listening to a black person who identifies themselves as such), I must (i.e. am called to) condemn their oppressors and abusers, and I must work against those who perpetrate actions that harm them. The horror and outrage that we experience in watching the cold-blooded murder of George Floyd does not come primarily from a “Black man” being murdered, but from a human being being murdered, made all the worse in its offense by it being a Black man being murdered, and worst of all, being murdered by a cop. The moral abhorrence is just that: a gross violation of a moral principle that all people should not be subject to cold-blooded murder. This principle of the inherent dignity of humans is further evidenced by the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960’s, in the “I am a man” refrain.

The point here is that unless identity groups include a similar objective universal concept of “humanity” in their platforms that call me into unity with them, by virtue of a moral claim made on me, then they remain just small groups clamoring for a self-interested piece of the socio-economic pie that they feel has been denied to them and that they desire. More specifically, the only equality identity groups per se can call out is “our equality.” But that is not a principle; it is a desire. Hence the left’s current socio-political malaise. Ethical obligation on otherwise diverse individuals with equally diverse interests comes only in the assertion of objective ethical principles that bind everyone. But that is something identity groups generally fail to do. Thus, their argument is not a very compelling one, because it only claims that dominant groups have a responsibility to appease them simply because their group desiressomething. [The pragmatic argument “If the cops abuse black people, they’ll abuse white people in time,” is not an ethical argument nor a social-ethical argument against police brutality, because its premise is completely self-interested.]

This focus on “differences” between groups of people rather than their common humanity that is one of the pillars of postmodern ideas is quickly illustrated in the writings of the postmodernist feminist author Iris Marion Young. Her denial of such objective concepts as “human nature” is stated forthrightly in her book Justice and the Politics of Difference, where the emphasis is on our differences, not the unity of our common humanity. The logic of identity such as “humanity” that applies to all, for her, represses difference. In opposition to Young, I would argue that unless identity groups that form on the basis of this “difference” are willing to embrace the idea that their identity, their self-understanding, is one of being part of “humanity”—and that means belonging in solidarity to other humans who do not share their group’s specific, contingent, ever-changing cultural identification—then they have nothing to say to anyone else except a call to fulfill their (self-interested) desires and/or press others to share in power, for no other reason than that they as a group want it. In short, identity groups per se simply continue to splinter a culture already economically and racially splintered, and just celebrates that splintering. If that continues, the postmodernist, neoliberal, baby-boomer belief would be right: no culture-wide unity is possible, and thus there is no solution to the ills for which they seek redress is ultimately within their grasp.

To the degree that reason in the past was seen as primary in the sense that it existed as complete in itself, as apart from and in complete isolation from the senses, body, world, language, etc., that is a god of reason that rightfully died and was buried. But that its progeny—a view of rationality that, although anchored in the world is able to partially transcend it by conceptual expressions of that world in the form of beliefs and values—is a view of reason that, if dead, means the death of humanity. This seems to have escaped the notice of the most radical identity politics and “resist” supporters of postmodern views. Irrational creatures of the human kind that reject the view that humans are in fact creatures with reason reject their own humanity and end up celebrating their narcissism and perhaps animal passion instead, as we have seen in the current neoliberal consumption culture. They end up committing species suicide, as we are seeing ourselves do right now in our allowing our leaders to continue to deny the reality of and delay action on the world’s climate crisis, and to stockpile their so-called “tactical” (i.e. “usable”) nuclear weapons.

If we don’t look back and grab onto what is left of the primacy of reason, as Western culture now collapses and disperses, there is no reason to be optimistic for a future for humanity. Nowhere do we see that failure to regrasp the primacy of the objectivity of reason more clearly than in the denials of climate change, denials of science, in the racism of immigrant bans, indefinite jailing of immigrants without due process (the latter another objective value!), and proposed wall-building, and on the reliance on military force to impose the will of those in power. The immigrant issue in particular represents the denial of the rational understanding of an objective concept of human equality and human dignity.

In the face of the urgencies that confront us, the debate should not be centered around the issue that siloed groups of identity desire to be recognized, but rather what norms can express a unified humanity that is being abused by its own institutions . The concept of humanity (a objective concept) by definition cannot be limited to the self-interest of identity groups. If one is focused on “difference,” as many postmodernists such as Young are, then one must deny “humanity” in any significant sense. That is part of the current standoff today within liberal and progressive thought: it is frozen in its ability to act, because it is not unified around central themes that unite all groups. The solution to this problem would be to transcend identity into humanity. Our climate crisis calls us to do this, because it is our  “humanity” that faces its extinction, not our “identity groups,” and such cases may force us to come out of our self-woven group cocoons and to understand our commonality. You don’t see identity groups protesting that climate change is affecting them, qua identity! Rather, without an objective concept of humanity to unify us, our parochial, desire-based interests will inevitably lead to our own demise.

*

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. Robert P. Abele holds a Ph.D. in Philosophy from Marquette University He is the author of three books: A User’s Guide to the USA PATRIOT Act (2005); The Anatomy of a Deception: A Logical and Ethical Analysis of the Decision to Invade Iraq (2009); Democracy Gone: A Chronicle of the Last Chapters of the Great American Democratic Experiment (2009). He contributed eleven chapters to the Encyclopedia of Global Justice, from The Hague: Springer Press (October, 2011). Dr. Abele is a professor of philosophy at Diablo Valley College, located in Pleasant Hill, California in the San Francisco Bay area. His web site is www.spotlightonfreedom.com

Featured image is by Fibonacci Blue | Public Domain

Photographs surreptitiously taken inside a British courtroom and provided to The Grayzone show a visibly disoriented Julian Assange confined to a glass cage and unable to communicate with his lawyers.

***

Photographs taken inside London’s Woolwich Crown Court and provided exclusively to The Grayzone highlight the un-democratic measures the British security state has imposed on jailed Wikileaks publisher Julian Assange.

Captured during Assange’s extradition hearing, which took place between February 24 and 28, the images highlight the confinement Assange has been subjected to, as well as the physical deterioration he has experienced since he was arrested in April 2019 and jailed in a maximum security prison.

On February 26, Judge Vanessa Baraitser vowed to hold anyone in contempt of court for taking photographs. However, an observer had taken several photos a day before the judge’s warning.

Anonymous Scandinavia, a Sweden-based group of Wikileaks supporters, provided the photos to The Grayzone in order to expose what they considered to be the state repression of an investigative journalist.

The images show Assange confined to a glass cage, physically sequestered from his legal team, and unable to follow his own trial.

Throughout the hearing, Assange protested his isolation, complaining to Judge Baraitser,

“I am as much a participant in these proceedings as I am at Wimbledon. I cannot communicate with my lawyers or ask them for clarifications.”

He told members of his legal team he was unable to hear from inside the glass cage.

Below, a seemingly dejected Assange can be seen gazing through the bulletproof glass panes at two of his lawyers, Stella Morris and Baltazar Garzon.

In a heartfelt video testimonial released this April, Morris disclosed that she was the mother of two infant sons with Assange.

Throughout 2017, Morris was spied on by a Spanish security firm apparently hired by the CIA through Republican mega-donor Sheldon Adelson’s Las Vegas Sands. At one point, the director of the firm ordered an employee to steal a diaper from one of Morris’s sons in an attempt to match his DNA to that of Assange.

“I understood that the powers that were against Julian were ruthless and there were no bounds to it,” Morris commented after learning of the surveillance campaign. “And that’s why I feel that I have to [reveal myself as the mother of Assange’s children]. Because I’ve taken so many steps for so many years and I feel that Julian’s life might be coming to an end.”

“Prolonged exposure to psychological torture” continues in court

Since its foundation in 2010, Wikileaks has published troves of documents exposing American war crimes, meddling, and corruption around the globe. Following the release of thousands of classified State Department cables provided by military whistleblower Chelsea Manning, Vice President Joseph Biden denounced Assange as a “high-tech terrorist.”

As VP, @JoeBiden called Julian Assange a "high-tech terrorist," helping set the stage for the US-UK prosecution of the publisher and the most pernicious assault on a free press in recent years. pic.twitter.com/w7izfxVTSR

— Max Blumenthal (@MaxBlumenthal) March 3, 2020

In April 2017, then-CIA director Mike Pompeo labeled Wikileaks a “hostile foreign intelligence agency,” denigrating Assange as a “fraud” in a speech telegraphing Washington’s malicious campaign against the publisher.

That December, US federal prosecutors filed a secret indictment charging Assange with 17 counts of violating the Espionage Act. He now faces 175 years in a US prison.

Nils Melzer, the United Nations special rapporteur on torture, warned that, if extradited,

“Assange would be exposed to a real risk of serious violations of his human rights, including his freedom of expression, his right to a fair trial and the prohibition of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”

Melzer was disturbed by the traits he observed after meeting Assange in May 2019. In a report published by the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, the expert noted,

“in addition to physical ailments, Mr. Assange showed all symptoms typical for prolonged exposure to psychological torture, including extreme stress, chronic anxiety and intense psychological trauma.”

The photo below reveals a visibly disoriented Assange with a grim pallor and expressionless gaze.

Courtroom cages through history

Though Assange has never been convicted of a crime and has no record of violent behavior, his cage was more restrictive than the enclosure reserved for Adolph Eichmann when the top-level Nazi bureaucrat was placed on trial in Jerusalem in 1961. Unlike Assange, Eichmann was able to communicate freely with his lawyer and listen to a live translation of his trial.

During his corruption trial in Moscow in 2005, the Russian oligarch Mikhail Khodorkovsky was similarly held in a cage. Following a formal protest of the confinement by his business partner and co-defendant, Platon Lebedev, who claimed that the cage represented a breach of the right to a presumption of innocence, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that the two were subjected to “inhuman and degrading conditions in the courtroom.”

When Egypt’s first democratically elected leader, Mohamed Morsi, collapsed and died in a soundproof cage in a courtroom, six years after he was deposed in a 2013 military coup, Western media and human rights organizations including Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International erupted in a chorus of condemnation.

These same rights groups have said little about the draconian restrictions imposed by the British security state on Assange throughout his extradition hearing. But their reticence might be excused on the grounds that clear images of his unwarranted courtroom isolation were not publicly available until now.

Assange’s hearing postponed, his isolation extended

The Belmarsh supermax prison where Assange has been held is regarded as the UK’s version of the US facility at Guantanamo. Aside from Assange, the jail is home to mafia henchmen, al-Qaeda members, and neo-fascist enforcers like Tommy Robinson. Around 20 percent of prisoners in Belmarsh are murderers, and two-thirds have committed a violent crime.

117 licensed medical professionals from around the world have written to the British and Australian governments to condemn “the torture of Assange,” “the denial of his fundamental right to appropriate health care, “the climate of fear surrounding the provision of health care to him” and “the violations of his right to doctor–patient confidentiality.”

Since the doctors’ open letter, Belmarsh has become a site of Covid-19 infection. As journalist Matt Kennard reported, a 2007 report by the UK’s Chief Inspector of Prisons found that “infection control was inadequate” in the detention facility.

Rather than allow a temporary medical furlough for Assange, however, Judge Baraitser has postponed  his extradition trial for four months, disappearing him again from public view.

“In 20 years of work with victims of war, violence and political persecution,” the UN’s Melzer said of the Wikileaks founder’s treatment, “I have never seen a group of democratic states ganging up to deliberately isolate, demonize and abuse a single individual for such a long time and with so little regard for human dignity and the rule of law.”

When Assange returns to court this September, the glass cage awaits.

*

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.

Max Blumenthal is an award-winning journalist and the author of several books, including best-selling Republican Gomorrah, Goliath, The Fifty One Day War, and The Management of Savagery. He has produced print articles for an array of publications, many video reports, and several documentaries, including Killing Gaza. Blumenthal founded The Grayzone in 2015 to shine a journalistic light on America’s state of perpetual war and its dangerous domestic repercussions.

Imagine living through 1945. As World War II ended 75 years ago, the UN was born and two nuclear bombs were dropped on Japan. To commemorate and reflect on these pivotal events, the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom (WILPF) has created a timeline. Ever since 1945 people, their governments and civilization itself have been faced with a momentous dilemma: how to choose law and cooperation over power and domination. Check out the WILPF timeline,  follow the history of that momentous year, and start local discussions of the events that changed our world. For example, release of The Franck Report on June 11, 1945…

You might not recognize the name, since the report was kept secret at the time, one of many WWII documents whose un-censored versions only became public decades later.  Signed by several prominent nuclear physicists who worked on development of an atomic bomb, the Franck Report recommended that the US not use the atomic bomb as a weapon to prompt the surrender of Japan. 

Here are some thoughts on a related topic: Can the UN be reformed? World Order and Cultivating Community

The liberal international order is currently being challenged by populism in nations that built and long supported it. It is also being tested by rising powers, particularly China, and other states that hope to restore their prominence. Some go so far as to say the old order is fractured at the core, which makes a major conflict more likely. At the same time, the world faces a growing number of global challenges that cannot be managed effectively by national governments alone. 

The United Nations is still considered by many people as the key feature of this fragile World Order, and is certainly treated as one of its major institutions. When nations don’t abide by its resolutions, they are often accused of violating international norms or even law. In short, the UN is assumed to be a global democratic government. But this is at best aspirational, and, in some serious respects, misleading. 

The UN Security Council certainly isn’t democratic or liberal. Veto power is held by the winners of World War II; large parts of the world have no say. A handful of nations can impose sanctions, with immunity from counterclaims. And even if all other nations acted together, they could not impose sanctions on the Big Five.

So isn’t calling the UN General Assembly “the most democratic and representative body” a bit misleading? Beyond the power imbalance already described, India (1.3 billion people) and Luxembourg (613,000) each have one vote! And although the General Assembly passes all manner of resolutions, its members know there is no credible way to enforce them. Is it democratic when most of the votes are cast by representatives of authoritarian regimes, with leaders who couldn’t care less what their people feel? Is it accurate to call the UN liberal when representatives of brazen human rights violators have for years led its human rights bodies?

Given all of this, do nationalists have a valid point when they charge that the UN violates national sovereignty? Shouldn’t it at least be more representative? And how about all the international governance carried out by other international organizations, and through informal bodies like the G7, G8, and G20? Their decisions aren’t binding on those who dissent, but at least they try to operate by consensus, Is this a more viable way to go?

The world obviously needs stronger, more effective forms of global governance. But it doesn’t look ready at the moment to be governed like a liberal democracy. Instead, premature attempts to overcome nationalism have fed populism.

One of the problems may be insufficient community building. People have a basic need for recognition and respect, and these are linked to a sense of identity and community. Since the 1980s the US has tilted too far toward individualism and lost a sense of communal values. If that is part of the problem, does it also point toward a solution?

At the same time we have lost a sense of shared values we have experienced rising alienation, resurgent populism, institutional breakdown, and Donald Trump. It is not a coincidence. But perhaps we can cultivate a greater shared sense of community, even in supranational forums, and eventually extend it to their governing bodies. The trick is how to do it without creating more alienation and pushback.

*

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, Greg Guma / For Preservation & Change.

It is imperative to realize that what is happening in Minneapolis and other cities throughout the U.S. is not only a revolt against the police brutality but also an indication of the potential uprising against an unbearable political and economical situation that the working people in the U.S. have been enduring for decades which has been intensified by the coronavirus crisis. 

The fascistic minded President Trump (who has been inciting violence against his opponent throughout his presidency) did not waste time directing the “Officers of Law” with a simple tweet that

“These THUGS are dishonoring the memory of George Floyd … when the looting starts, the shooting starts. Thank you!”

So Mr. Trump is “thanking” law enforcement shooters in advance. He also threatens the protestors outside of the White House “with the most vicious dogs, and most ominous weapons”. This ferocious perspective is the source of VIOLENCE in the U.S. today; which is proudly echoed by a fascistic minded President from the White House. Unleashing the “vicious dogs” against protestors; kneeling on the neck of already handcuffed people (the favorite practice of the Israeli police and military) is nothing new in the U.S.  However, it is the first time in the history of this country that this type of savagery is encouraged outright by an American President.

Those so-called “Black leaders and preachers” who suggest that it is time to “come together in peace” and start a “dialogue” are nothing but opportunists who have lost their magic wands. The pitiful politicians like St. Paul Mayor Melvin Carter and Atlanta Mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms are hiding behind the “teachings” of Jesus or Dr. King to only serve and protect the interest of the wealthy elite in their cities against the poor working people. They have become the new favorite Democrat stooges among many other Black Trump lovers at Fox News!

Photo by the author

The spontaneous demonstrations have shown that the Democratic Party has no control over these protests. The sad and boring message by Vice-President Biden in regard to the killing of George Floyd was another pathetic and failed attempt to win the Black community’s trust and vote for the coming Presidential Election. People still remember that Eric Garner was choked to death in 2004 by police when Mr. Biden was the Vice President of the first and only Black President in the White House. So in regard to the killing of George Floyd; Mr. Obama’s “we can and must be better” statement on May 29, 2020 at best is hypocritical.

Now that people in huge numbers are demonstrating their outrage in many forms and in many words, the clueless pundits (mostly in the comfort of their homes) have become the preachers for peace!

The corporate media suddenly forgot their constant gleeful reports from Hong Kong which showed the young demonstrators who threw bricks and petrol bombs at the police. They justified those actions in support of the pro-democracy movement against China! Now, that the same scenario is happening on streets of America, the Democratic Party politicians along with Trump’s loyal servants no longer think that the Hong Kong model is appropriate for showing outrage!

In any case, more than anything else, the corporate media is reflecting the fear of the American ruling elite of the genuine outrage of the poor working people in the U.S. which is growing like a wildfire.

The true peace and justice activists, the revolutionary socialists don’t see themselves as sideline critics but conscious participants. They suggest and advocate objective historical working people solutions and not the subjective “good versus evil” divine verses. They understand the main source of violence is the wealthy ruling class who has burned entire cities and people in Japan and Iraq. The true activists have no illusion that any revolt will sooner or later come to its conclusion. Therefore, the true activists advocate for the unity of the community organizations to rally around specific demands. Those diverse and vital demands must come from the heart of the community and independent of the influence of billionaires’ founded organizations and the Democratic Party.

The 1% is organized and equipped with the most brutal and destructive forces. They easily can sacrifice many of their servants like the killer Officer Derek Chauvin if they feel it would pacify the demonstrators. The true activists know that police brutality will not end with sentencing one or two killer police. More importantly, all true activists know wholeheartedly that a Death Penalty option which has been suggested by some will legitimize the death penalty against poor innocent victims of all races. The outstanding work of the great people of the Innocent Project shows that the victims of the U.S. unjust system who have been exonerated are the poor minorities.

Social science like any other field of science is the progress of a proven phenomenon in deed. Therefore, in different societies, the wealthy elite in power will try their own way to deal with their internal and “foreign” challenges. In the U.S., the “most powerful man in the world” actually is a simple bankrupt fascist armed with the most destructive arsenal in the world. So for a weak and frustrated leader like President Trump who is facing intense internal and international challenges, the best way out of this critical political and economical situation is igniting a war. Historically, WAR has been the best solution for the powerful but frustrated ruling classes. That is why President Trump and Mr. Pompeo continuously are propagating anti-China bizarre statements as the main enemy of the American people to prepare public opinion for outright war against that country.

Today (May 31st) is the 6th day that the American people have shown their outrage in different ways since Memorial Day when an innocent George Floyd was murdered in public by a coldblooded murder cop.  The fact is that the Trump administration and Congress do not like to see the multiracial demonstrators protest peacefully or not. The 1% is in agreement to crush these demonstrations as soon as possible by any means necessary. Killing, injuring and arresting protestors or reporters are on their agenda. Police and politicians see the “looting” and “burning” as blessings. In most cases, they send their own provocative agents (as they have done this before through COINTELPRO Project by FBI since 1956) to excite protestors and create chaos.

True activists seek for POLITICAL solutions independent of the Democratic and Republican Parties and reject their agents among their ranks. What is needed is a list of demands which must come out of discussions among the activists and concerned working people of the different communities.

*

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.

In an interview with corrupt casino mogul Sheldon Adelson’s free newspaper, Israel ha-Yom, Israeli prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu said the quiet parts out loud.

Although he did not use the word, he described an Apartheid regime in the Israeli-controlled Palestinian West Bank.

He openly referred to the stateless Palestinians as “subjects.”

Netanyahu will annex the Jordan Valley formally to Israel, where 60,000 Palestinians live and which is one of the areas Israel had pledged to relinquish to the Palestine Authority in the 1993 Oslo Accords. He will also annex the land on which Israeli squatters established settlements in Palestinian territory.

Israel ha-Yom asked, “Q: Nevertheless, several thousand Palestinians live in the Jordan Valley. Does that mean they will receive Israeli citizenship?”

Netanyahu replied:

“No. They will remain a Palestinian enclave. You’re not annexing Jericho. There’s a cluster or two. You don’t need to apply sovereignty over them, they will remain Palestinian subjects if you will. But security control also applies to these places.”

How about if we won’t?

I have long argued that the crux of the Israeli conflict with the Palestinians is the denial to Palestinians of citizenship in a state. In calling the Palestinians “subjects,” Netanyahu is acknowledging that they are not citizens. In Hannah Arendt’s phrase, citizenship is the right to have rights. Palestinians have no citizenship in a state. They do not have a right to have rights.

They are subjects, they way medieval people living under an absolute monarchy were subjects. Only democratic states really have citizens.

The Israeli right wing is afraid that Netanyahu, in leaving un-annexed the rest of the Palestinian West Bank, is acceding to the demand for a Palestinian state. These fears are exacerbated by Netanyahu’s championing of the Kushner plan for the Mideast, which does contain language about a Palestinian state, although as described it isn’t actually a state.

It is what was called in Apartheid South Africa a Bantustan.

Netanyahu admitted as much, saying of the Palestinian leadership:

“They need to acknowledge that we control security in all areas. If they consent to all this, then they will have an entity of their own that President Trump defines as a state. There are those who claim and – an American statesman told me: ‘But Bibi, it won’t be a state.’ I told him, call it what you want.”

I said at my Hisham B. Sharabi Memorial Lecture:

“Statelessness means the complete lack of citizenship in a recognized state. It means you don’t have a passport; you have a laissez-passé. That means a lot of countries won’t accept the laissez-passé. It means you can’t travel freely, you don’t have constitutional protections, you often can’t get a work permit, your property is not secure because people can take it away from you and you don’t have access to national courts that could adjudicate those disputes . . . what does a state do? It controls land, water, air. If a North Korean MiG flew over San Diego, all hell would break loose . . . If an Israeli plane flies over the West Bank, eh? Not a state. If substantial water resources, a river or something, were expropriated by Canada, there would be trouble because that’s America’s water, it’s owned by the federal government. But if 85 percent of the water on the West Bank is diverted to Israeli settlers, that’s all right because there is no Palestinian state. The water doesn’t belong to anybody. It’s a no-man’s land. States control immigration. But the Palestinians would deport somebody, how? There are lots of [Israeli] undocumented people on the West Bank, but their state is behind them.”

As for the notion of a “Bantustan,” here is what the Wikipedia article says:

“Under the Bantu Homelands Citizenship Act of 1970, the Government stripped black South Africans of their citizenship, which deprived them of their few remaining political and civil rights in South Africa, and declared them to be citizens of these homelands . . . he process of creating the legal framework for this plan was completed by the Black Homelands Citizenship Act of 1970, which formally designated all black South Africans as citizens of the homelands, even if they lived in “white South Africa”, and cancelled their South African citizenship… Bantustans within the borders of South Africa were classified as “self-governing” or “independent”. In theory, self-governing Bantustans had control over many aspects of their internal functioning but were not yet sovereign nations. Independent Bantustans (Transkei, Bophuthatswana, Venda and Ciskei; also known as the TBVC states) were intended to be fully sovereign. In reality, they had little economic infrastructure worth mentioning and, with few exceptions, encompassed swaths of disconnected territory. This meant that the Bantustans were little more than puppet states controlled by South Africa. Throughout the existence of the “independent” Bantustans, South Africa remained the only country to recognise their independence.”

Palestinians in the Jordan Valley are about to be made like the Black South Africans who lived in South Africa but were declared aliens in their own country and assigned to a toothless, puppet-like “Bantustan” for their citizenship. That is what Netanyahu means when he calls them “Palestinian subjects.” Bantustan subjects.

In those areas that the Israelis are not (so far) annexing, Palestinians are still under the security control of the Occupying Israeli military. But, again, they have no citizenship in a state. Israel makes policies for them, but they cannot vote on those policies. They are stateless. As for the Palestine “Authority,” “call it what you will.” It is not a state. It will not be allowed to undertake the functions of a state.

I said in 2013 that you can’t keep 5 million people stateless forever, that this is monstrous. but apparently you can do so for many decades, maybe a century or more.

Shame.

*

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 Informed Comment

First published in April 2015. The H1N1 vaccine fiasco ordered by the (corrupt) WHO Director General is of relevance to the current debate on a COVID-19 vaccine.

****

The 2009 swine flu vaccine caused severe brain damage in over 800 children across Europe, and the UK government has now agreed to pay $90 million in compensation to those victims as part of a vaccine injury settlement.

This is the same swine flu vaccine that the entire mainstream media ridiculously insists never causes any harm whatsoever. From the quack science section of the Washington Post to the big pharma sellout pages of the New York Times, every U.S. mainstream media outlet exists in a state of total vaccine injury denialism, pushing toxic vaccines that provably harm children.

“Across Europe, more than 800 children are so far known to have been made ill by the vaccine,” reports the International Business Times.

The vaccine caused narcolepsy and cataplexy in hundreds of children. Both are signs of neurological damage caused by vaccine additives which include mercury, aluminum, MSG, antibiotics and even formaldehyde.

As the IBTimes reports:

Narcolepsy affects a person’s sleeping cycle, leaving them unable to sleep for more than 90 minutes at a time, and causing them to fall unconscious during the day. The condition damages mental function and memory, and can lead to hallucinations and mental illness.

Cataplexy causes a person to lose consciousness when they are experiencing heightened emotion, including when they are laughing.

See the animated educational video here: If car companies operated like vaccine companies.

Children brain damaged in Norway, too

“Norway has seen more than 170 reported cases of children developing narcolepsy after receiving the Pandemrix vaccine,” reports the Global Post. “The government has so far paid $13 million to 86 victims, including 60 children…”

Just as in the USA and everywhere else, a contrived swine flu panic campaign was launched by the WHO and the CDC, creating widespread fear that would sell more vaccines. (Disneyland measles operation, anyone?)

As the Global Post write:

Back in 2009, the Norwegian health authorities urged everyone, not just at-risk groups, to receive vaccinations after the World Health Organization designated swine flu a pandemic.

More than 2 million Norwegians, or 45 percent of the country’s population, were given Pandemrix in an unprecedented drive. The vaccine is produced by GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) and was used to inoculate up to 30 million people in 47 other European countries.

Vaccine damage is Big Pharma’s route to selling more medications

Incredibly, even those children who are damaged by vaccines end up being big profit centers for the same pharmaceutical companies that damaged them in the first place.

In case after case being reported in the media, children who are damaged by defective vaccines are reported to be on multiple medications. For example, as the Global Post reports:

Tove Jensen, whose son developed severe narcolepsy after receiving the vaccine, also wants compensation from GSK.

“The situation is terrible,” she says. “He’s 100 percent disabled. We don’t know if it’s going to get better, he’s on so much medication. But we hope something will happen, that he will get his life back.”

Similarly, as the IB Times reports:

Peter Todd, a lawyer who represented many of the claimants, told the Sunday Times: “…The victims of this vaccine have an incurable and lifelong condition and will require extensive medication.”

In other words, children who are damaged by vaccines generate even more profits for Big Pharma by being damaged! It’s the perfect sinister revenue model for an industry run like a criminal mafia.

GlaxoSmithKline swine flu vaccine brain damaged medical staffers, too

“Among those affected are NHS medical staff, many of whom are now unable to do their jobs because of the symptoms brought on by the vaccine,” reports the IBTimes. “They will be suing the government for millions in lost earnings.”

The paper goes on to report:

Among [those damaged] is Josh Hadfield, 8, from Somerset, who is on anti-narcolepsy drugs costing [$20,000] a year to help him stay awake during the school day.

“If you make him laugh, he collapses. His memory is shot. There is no cure. He says he wishes he hadn’t been born. I feel incredibly guilty about letting him have the vaccine,” said his mother Caroline Hadfield, 43.

Despite a 2011 warning from the European Medicines Agency against using the vaccine on those under 20 and a study indicating a 13-fold heightened risk of narcolepsy in vaccinated children, GSK has refused to acknowledge a link.

Pharma-controlled U.S. media claims ZERO children were harmed in America

If 800 children were brain damaged by the swine flu vaccine in the UK and across Europe, how many children were damaged by the same vaccine — or other vaccines — in America?

According to the pharma-controlled lamestream media, that number is ZERO.

Vaccine Injury Denialism — a particularly dangerous form of delusional junk science — is the present-day mantra of the pharma-controlled press, which includes all the usual suspects such as the Washington Post, New York Times, CNN and so on. They simply pretend no children are ever harmed by vaccines… and they hope the U.S. public is stupid enough to believe the lie that “all vaccines are safe.”

Right now, there are 800 children in the UK whose lives have been destroyed by the swine flu vaccine and who will never lead a normal life again. Every year, tens of thousands more children are diagnosed with autism. The vaccine industry is destroying a generation of children — committing what Robert Kennedy Jr. correctly compared to a “holocaust” — while the sellout media covers it up.

How is this not a crime against children?

Shame on all of those sellout editors and professional liars in the mainstream media who cover up the truth about an industry that’s maiming and killing our children by the thousands. Do you have no sense of humanity?

US Army Gen. Stephen Townsend, commander, US Africa Command, released a statement on May 26 accusing Russia of sending Russian military aircraft to Libya to support the Libyan National Army (LNA).  The accusations are detailed and include photos and images, which are supposed to convince the reader that Russia sent planes to Syria, where they were repainted to disguise their source, and then flown on to Libya. However, the photos don’t provide evidence of the accusations. The US statement uses the word “assesses” five times, and also uses the phrase “are likely to”.  Those are statements of opinion, and not based on facts or evidence, which could have been presented, had they existed.

Viktor Nikolaevich Bondarev is a Colonel General and former Commander of the Russian Aerospace Forces, and the former Commander-in-Chief of the Air Force branch of the Aerospace Forces, who now heads the defense committee in the upper house of the Russian parliament.  Bondarev stated on May 27, “If the warplanes are in Libya, they are Soviet, not Russian,” and further characterized the US accusations as “stupidity.”

Repainting planes to disguise their source is antiquated, given the modern technology of advanced electronics and friend-foe detection (IFF), which can be used to easily identify any military object.

While the US accuses Russia of interfering in Libya, the US is interfering in many countries around the world, such as Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, Cuba, Venezuela, Hong Kong, and Libya. Russia, by contrast, is legally in Syria at the request of the Syrian government.

Not only Russia could have supplied these planes to Libya. MiG-29s of various modifications are in service with Azerbaijan, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Mongolia, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Ukraine, North Korea, Syria, Yemen, Iran, Cuba, Peru, Algeria, Sudan, Egypt, the Republic of Chad, Eritrea, Bangladesh, Malaysia, Sri Lanka, Myanmar, Bulgaria, Poland, and several other countries.

LNA spokesman Ahmed Mismari denied the US accusations. He referred to “media rumors and lies” that the US has spread, and explained that last week the LNA repaired four old Libyan jets for use and announced the start of a new series of airstrikes against the Muslim Brotherhood Government of National Accord (GNA) which was founded in 2015 under an UN-led political deal, and had a two-year mandate which expired in 2017.

Stefan Keuter, German politician for the Alternative for Germany (AfD) and a member of the Bundestag since 2017, urged caution when he told the media, “When it comes to violations of the international treaties and the arms embargo in Libya, the accusations of the United States African Command (AFRICOM) is not enough.”

Before the US-NATO attack to destroy Libya in 2011, the country was the most prosperous in all of Africa, and its leader Qaddafi was planning projects to allow Libya to be free of western domination and neo-colonialism.

Turkey has sent thousands of Syrian terrorists, including ex-ISIS fighters, to Libya to defend the Muslim Brotherhood government of Sarraj.  Lindsey Snell, an American journalist, has created a video in which features Syrian terrorists that are fighting in Libya for the Sarraj militia, on the promise of being paid $2,000 to $2,500 per month by Turkey.  In the video, one of the terrorists declares, “We have Turkey, Qatar, and the US with us. We are NATO, so every country is with us.”  Snell had been kidnapped by Jibhat al Nusra, the Al Qaeda affiliate in Syria supported by Turkey. She managed to escape to Turkey only to be arrested by the Turkish military on the accusation of being a CIA operative.

Libyan National Army (LNA) has been led by Field Marshal Khalifa Haftar since April 2019 and is appointed by the Libyan parliament, which is the only legitimate body in Libya today.

Libya’s Government of National Accord (GNA) leader Fayez al-Sarraj appears to have his hands tied by the Muslim Brotherhood, who have dominated Libya’s Presidential Council.  Sarraj has the direct backing of Turkey and support from many jihadist organizations in Libya. His private militia RAAD has kidnapped and held a Russian sociologist and his translator since May 2019 in a private prison near Tripoli airport.

Libyan National Army spokesman Ahmed al-Mismari had said in March, the Muslim Brotherhood had appointed members to high positions in the Tripoli-based Central Bank to “finance its groups and militias”.

*

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

This article was originally published on Mideast Discourse.

Steven Sahiounie is an award-winning journalist. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from Mideast Discourse

Of all the theaters of militarized international rivalry in the early 21^st century, the Arctic promises to be the most complex and unpredictable. In terms of domain, military operations there would be conducted on land, in the air, on the sea surface, but also in the depths of the Arctic Ocean under ice cover. The geographic remoteness and climactic harshness of the climate and terrain mean any conflict there would be fought the gaze of international media or citizen reporters. Next to the Antarctic, the Arctic is one of the few areas of the global commons that has not yet been apportioned among the major and minor powers. And the stakes for all the players are quite high.

Military presence in the Arctic and extension of one’s national sovereignty over it promises to yield the interested states and alliances with several sets of benefits. The first and most obvious is the access to copious natural resources, starting with hydrocarbons, lurking under the still relatively unexplored continental shelf there. The second one is the surveillance and/or control over maritime shipping routes whose importance will only increase as polar ice cover retreats. Thirdly, the Arctic does include some militarily very valuable real estate, in the form of great many islands and archipelagoes that may be used for advanced military outposts and bases.

In all three cases, the United States is acting as the spoiler, unhappy with the current state of affairs. It aims to extend its control over natural resources in the region, establish permanent presence in other countries’ exclusive economic zones (EEZ) through the use of the so-called “freedom of navigation operations” (FONOPs), and continue to encircle Russia with ballistic missile defense (BMD) sites and platforms.

In view of the urgent and evident US preparations to be able to fight and prevail in a war against a nuclear adversary, by defeating the adversary’s nuclear arsenal through the combination of precision non-nuclear strikes (including by the broad range of hypersonic missiles currently under development) and BMD systems, it would appear that third benefit is of the greatest importance to the United States, though certainly not the only one. The recent sortie by a force of US Navy BMD-capable AEGIS destroyers into the Barents Sea, the first such mission since the end of the Cold War over two decades ago, shows the interest United States has in projecting BMD capabilities into regions north of Russia’s coastline, where they might be able to effect boost-phase interceptions of Russian ballistic missiles that would be launched in retaliatory strikes against the United States.

US operational planning for the Arctic in all likelihood resembles that for the South China Sea, with only a few corrections for climate. The key similarity of both potential theaters of war is that the decisive fighting would be in the air or at or under the sea, culminating in comparatively small amphibious operations and battles for relatively small and/or isolated islands. Once one side prevails in the air and at sea, the outcome of these land battles would be all but foreordained. As the experience of World War 2 “island-hopping” campaigns in the Pacific shows, no isolated island fortress can survive for very long once it is isolated from own air and naval support. Every Japanese outpost targeted by the US eventually fell, and did not require masses of troops to overcome their resistance thanks to overwhelming naval and aerial firepower US forces brought to bear. Campaigns in the Arctic would follow a similar course, with US naval task forces pushing into the teeth of Russia’s submarines, land-based missile batteries, and land-based fighter and bomber squadrons. The recently announced plans to revamp the US Marine Corps that include doing away with its tank battalions and much of field artillery, while adding land-based anti-ship missile capabilities for the first time ever, suggest USMC is being tailored for such small-scale island-hopping operations in the Arctic, South China Sea, and other such theaters of war, to the detriment of its ability to conduct counter-insurgency or large-scale high-intensity combat operations.

The small size of forces used by both sides also means a premium will be placed on the element of surprise, since a small garrison on a remote Arctic island garrison could be overcome relatively quickly, in the manner similar to which the original Argentinian invasion of the Falklands succeeded in routing the Royal Marine garrison so quickly that no real fighting took place.

The remoteness of these islands, the small size of the military forces, and the practically non-existent potential for collateral damage due to absence of large civilian populations also mean that the use of low-yield nuclear weapons, against both land facilities and naval forces at sea, is far easier to contemplate than in any conflict in Europe or Asia. The remoteness of this theater of operations also means nuclear strikes would have a lower risk of strategic escalation, as long as all the nuclear adversaries refrained from targeting enemy mainland.

At the outset, however, the dominant weapon systems would be intermediate-range ballistic and cruise missiles, launched from land-based launchers as well as aerial and naval platforms. The US withdrawal from the Intermediate Nuclear Forces Treaty means the US Army will have a large number of ground-launched missiles with ranges exceeding 500km in service, such as the Precision Strike Missile. The US Marine Corps is planning to organize Littoral Regiments whose armament will include Naval Strike Missiles on unmanned truck-based launchers, and which are intended for such island campaigns in the South China Sea but also elsewhere. Moreover, US Navy and US Air Force plan to introduce hypersonic missiles into their arsenals by the end of the decade as well. The current US procurement plans mean that by 2030 the United States could expect to concentrate overwhelming intermediate-range missile firepower in any given single theater of operations, be it the Persian Gulf, the Pacific Rim, or the Arctic.

At the same time the United States will have to solve the problem of disunity within its own camp. United States covetous eye has been cast not only on those areas of the Arctic within Russia’s continental shelf, but also Canada’s Northwest Passage and even Denmark’s Greenland.

The US intent to procure a small fleet of icebreakers is intended to enable “Freedom of Navigation Operations” in what Canada views its territorial waters, and Donald Trump actually may have revealed a state secret when he spoke of the United States buying Greenland from Denmark and setting up a Trump Tower there. With the COVID-19 revealing America’s weakness for all the world to sea and the Europeans discovering an urgent need for unity and cooperation, United States might yet discover a unified European Union to be a formidable opponent when it comes to protecting its own interests.

The United States is slowly but steadily losing the geo-economic race in the Arctic with Russia and China.

In the situation when there is no chance to push forward own successful projects, Washington has opted the strategy of undermining efforts of other states. The fast development of Russia’s Northern Sea Route is the source of the especial concern of the US strategists. Therefore, the US diplomatic activity and the so-called “freedom of navigation operations” are now mostly focused on undermining and limiting the freedom of navigation in the way that would allow to contain the Chinese-Russian cooperation in the region. If Washington cannot catch-up Moscow and Beijing in the field, it will do all what it can to at least slow down the progress of their joint projects.

*

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

From a recent report by the Insider publication: “George Floyd and Officer Derek Chauvin actually worked for the same Minneapolis night club- Chauvin as a security guard for many years, and Floyd as a bouncer during 2019.” It begs the question of just how well these two may have known each other, or worse, if Chauvin had some sort of ‘racially prejudiced’ ulterior motive for doing this heinous deed. The report also states:

‘This was not the first time Chauvin had been involved in a violent incident during his 19 years in the Minneapolis Police Department. He was involved in violent incidents before, including three police shootings. And he has been the subject of 10 complaints filed to the city’s Civilian Review Authority and the Office of Police Conduct….

Two years later, just after 2 o’clock one morning in 2008, Chauvin responded to a 911 domestic-assault call in the Phillips neighborhood of Minneapolis, the Pioneer Press reported.

Chauvin and his partner entered the home, confronting Ira Latrell Toles, whose partner had made the 911 call. Toles ran from the pair, but ‘they caught and tried to subdue him,’ a police statement said. The statement said Toles ‘grabbed at one of the officer’s guns, and Chauvin shot him in the torso.’ ” 

Is this not shades of the George Zimmerman case regarding his murder of Trayvon Martin?

More from the Insider piece:

“In 2011, Chauvin was involved in a third police shooting. He was among five officers to respond to reports of a shooting. Leroy Martinez, a 23-year-old Alaska Native, was spotted running from the scene, and the officers gave chase, local news reported. The police said Martinez brandished a pistol as he fled. Terry Nutter, one of the responding officers, shot Martinez. An eyewitness account, reported by the Star Tribune, challenged the police’s claim that Martinez was holding a pistol when he was shot.”

“‘He had no reason to shoot that little boy,’ Delora Iceman told the Star Tribune. She said Martinez had dropped the weapon and held his arms in the air before the police shot him.

During his nearly two decades with the Minneapolis Police Department, Chauvin has been the subject of several internal complaints… three separate reviews from the Civilian Review Authority found  Chauvin to have used ‘demeaning tone, and’ ‘derogatory language.’ No other details were available. He has also been the subject of seven reviews by the local Office of Police Conduct. Each review concludes: ‘Closed – No discipline.’ No other details were available.”

Derek Chauvin should never have been in the Minneapolis Police Department for as long as 19 years. When one reviews the above news piece, isn’t it pretty plain that this dude should never have been in any position of control over anyone! He, and his fellow thugs are right out of the Pinkerton or Baldwin Felts school of law enforcement. Go and get the 1987 film classic Matawan, written and directed by John Sayles, based on the 1920 Matawan, West Virginia coal miners’ strike. See how those who ‘Own the Manor’ use their paid ‘Thugs with badges’ to keep the rabble in line. Similar to how Officer Chauvin and Co. protected the pure white world outside of the inner city from men like George Floyd. Imagine those neighbors of Floyd who had to stand behind the Blue Wall of Chauvin’s three partners (in crime?) and listen to a dying man gasp for help. Amazing what power those four had over the community because ‘They are the Law!!’

One thinks that maybe our local police should realize that the overwhelming majority of us are all Working Stiffs the same as them. The color of the person shouldn’t mean squat! We all need to go and punch out the hours for our survival the same as those four cops. I remember how my friend’s older sister (foolish white woman) pontificated at a  Christmas party about the poor: “Let’s face it, most of them are either drug addicts or alcoholics”.

She failed to understand that, in most poor neighborhoods, the overwhelming majority of the residents have to get up early (sometimes earlier than folks from better neighborhoods) for shitty paying jobs, shit conditions with few or NO benefits. Yet, they do it. Yes, the study of Socialism teaches this writer that Capitalism as it exists today in Amerika has set up the deck their way. In poorer areas the liquor stores abound, along with Payday loans, food stores that overcharge and of course… the flow of illicit drugs goes unabated. The scene from Godfather 1 when the heads of five Mob families discuss the drug trade, one of the mobsters says “In my city we would keep the traffic in the dark areas for the colored people. They’re animals anyway so let them lose their souls.”

I have been on the soapbox for over 30 years saying that only four year college graduates with majors in either sociology or criminal justice should qualify to be police officers… period! Perhaps if we lived in a more equitable economic system, whereupon ALL who work for the owners get a bigger piece of the pie, the pay would be enough to attract new, more educated police officers. The higher one goes up on the ladder of intellect, I believe rational behavior can follow. The motto ‘Protect and Serve’ should resonate more than it does now. Too many who stand behind the Blue Wall keep the rest of us away from Truth. I remember speaking to my lawyer’s Criminal Defense partner. He had been an Assistant DA for years before jumping ship. “Here’s my experience”, he said,

“If they want to get someone real bad, they will plant a gun or plant drugs when they arrest. They also will, in more cases than not, LIE on the stand to help a fellow officer. I have seen it too many times.”

Who suffers from this ‘Perjury Mill’? Well, all those good officers who go by the book and treat everyone the same, regardless of color, creed, religion or sexual orientation. They need to speak up… loudly!

Perhaps it is time for all our governments, local, county, state or federal, to insist on a much higher standard for policing. Chauvin wouldn’t have his jackboot on Floyd’s vulnerable neck if he wasn’t a cop in the first place!

*

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. 

Judging by US foreign policy – China is a massive global threat – and by some accounts – the “top” threat. But a threat to what?

AFP would report in its article, “Trump nominee to lead intel community sees China as top threat,” that:

President Donald Trump’s pick to lead the US intelligence community said Tuesday that he would focus on China as the country’s greatest threat, saying Beijing was determined to supplant the United States’ superpower position.

Were China doing this by using news agencies like AFP to lie to the public to justify invading Middle Eastern nations, killing tens of thousands of innocent people, installing client regimes worldwide, and using its growing power to coerce and control nations economically and politically when not outright militarily – US President Donald Trump’s “pick” – John Ratcliffe – might be justified in focusing on China and its “determination” to “supplant the United States’ superpower position.”

However, this is not what China is doing.

China Building Rather than Bombing 

China is – instead – using economic progress to rise upon the global stage. It makes things. It builds things. It creates infrastructure to bring these things to others around the globe who need or want them, and enables other nations to make, build, and send things to China.

One example is China’s One Belt, One Road initiative (OBOR) also referred to as the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). This includes a series of railways, highways, ports, and other infrastructure projects to help improve the logistical connections between nations, accelerating economic development.

Only in the US could the notion of building railways connecting people within and between nations seem like a dangerous idea.

By building such networks, people are better empowered to trade what they are making and what they seek to buy and sell. China, which possesses the largest high-speed railway network on Earth carrying 2 billion passengers a year, is extending this network beyond its borders – deep into Southeast Asia and even across Eurasia via Russia and beyond. Alongside it are a raft of other projects ranging from ports to power plants, and more.

The political and economic power China is gaining by expanding real economic activity both within its borders and beyond them, and both for China itself as well as for its trading partners – represents a global pivot away from America’s century-long unipolar global order and closer toward a now emerging multipolar world order.

The US with a population of over 300 million and some of the best industrial potential in the world could easily pivot with this sea change – but entrenched special interests refuse to do so. Paying into a genuinely pragmatic method of generating wealth and stability exposes Washington and Wall Street’s various rackets, making them no longer tenable. So instead, US special interests are labeling China’s One Belt, One Road initiative a global threat and China itself as one of America’s chief adversaries.

Fighting Fire with Fire or Pushing Rope Uphill? 

To combat this adversary – the US is not building bigger and better global networks to facilitate economic progress – but is instead marshalling the summation of its “soft power” to hinder and sabotage it. It has ringed China with a series of sociopolitical conflicts, cultivating opposition groups in various nations aimed at destabilizing them and spoiling them as constructive economic and infrastructure partners for Beijing.

The US is leveraging its still massive media monopolies to portray these political conflicts as otherwise inexplicable opposition to closer ties with China and against infrastructure projects jointly developed with China.

In some nations  – like Cambodia – this has all but failed with swift and definitive action taken by the Cambodian government against US proxies to clear them from Cambodia’s media, political, and public space. In nations like Thailand, the opposition has been left to linger – neutralized at the moment but ever threatening to overturn sociopolitical stability if given the opportunity.

Nations like Japan, South Korea, and even Australia – who are generally perceived as being staunch US allies – have even begun slowly but surely shifting their foreign policy to benefit from the economic rise of China.

Australia – for example – has even been recently threatened by the US after the state of Victoria signed a trade deal with China.

An ABC article titled, “US threatens Australia’s intelligence ties over Victoria’s ‘Belt and Road’ pact with China,” would report:

The US Secretary of State has said his nation could “simply disconnect” from Australia if Victoria’s trade deal with Beijing affects US telecommunications.

Mike Pompeo said while he was unaware of the detail of Victoria’s agreement, he warned it could impact the Five Eyes intelligence-sharing partnership with Australia.

Of course, the “Five Eyes” intelligence-sharing partnership is an abusive combine of invasive surveillance used to enhance the power and profits of the special interests that created it – not to actually protect the people living in any of the “Five Eyes” partner nations.

While US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo hints at possible security risks associated with doing business with China and its telecom giant Huawei – “Five Eyes” governments have regularly been exposed and confirmed to be partnering with Western tech giants to violate privacy and spy on innocent people.

It is just one example of how the US seeks to shape the world and bend nations into joining or doubling down on its abusive axis and steering them away from constructive partnerships.

Australia’s economic trade is mainly done within Asia – not with the West. As China continues to rise, common sense will compel Australia to continue building better and more constructive ties with Beijing and divesting from otherwise costly and unconstructive alliances with nations like the US built on military intervention, spying, and political subversion.

The US finds itself pushing the geopolitical rope of hegemony up hill – offering up unconvincing criticisms of China and its foreign policy while offering no viable alternative.

Delusion is the Worst Defense 

Op-eds like Foreign Policy’s “One Belt, One Road, One Big Mistake,” help illustrate the West’s thinking regarding China’s rise and its OBOR project.

The article claims:

This might not matter if BRI projects were driving favorable political outcomes. They aren’t. Prolonged exposure to the BRI process has driven opposition to Chinese investment and geopolitical influence across the region.

FP can make this claim because it entirely omits any mention of the vast sums of money and effort the US has spent to create this opposition. The example FP uses is the Maldives – never mentioning that the pro-Beijing government there was overturned by a convicted criminal literally hiding in Western Europe and fully supported by the US State Department in his bid to return to power.
Thus – this isn’t an example of OBOR failing to create a favorable political outcome for Beijing – it is an example of US soft power overturning these favorable political outcomes nonexistent American alternatives to OBOR are incapable of doing. How durable these US successes are is a matter of debate.

The article also claims:

Far from being a strategic masterstroke, the BRI is a sign of strategic dysfunction. There is no evidence that it has reshaped Asia’s geopolitical realities. The countries that have benefited most from it are those that already had strong geopolitical reasons for aligning themselves with Chinese power, such as Cambodia and Pakistan.

Here again – FP depends on omitting facts including the fact that many nations previously bent to US foreign policy are exiting out from under it via China’s One Belt, One Road.

Of course it is not. In an international order where might makes right, the US finds itself with diminishing might and a growing inability to convince the world it is “right.” Luckily for the US and much of Western Europe strong-armed into following Washington’s cues, the rest of the world still seeks to constructively work with the West and inevitably will do so.

It will just be a matter of weathering the damage being done by the current circle of special interests still dominating Western foreign policy, waiting for them to wane and disappear from positions of power and authority and be replaced by leadership willing and able to move the West into a constructive role amid a multipolar world.

Either way, OBOR will connect the rest of the world together leaving the West just beyond its terminus. It will be up to Western leaders – particularly in Washington – whether or not they choose to benefit from the wealth left just beyond their doorstep or not.

*

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

Sawing off the branch you sit on can hardly be the best of policies.  But that all depends on the nature of the branch.  US President Donald Trump has huffed himself into another small historical moment, going on the offensive against social media companies using the very language his faux progressive opponents use against them.  All seem to be in agreement on one point: the Silicon Valley giants have become too powerful, runaway monsters in the stakes of high influence.  But sharp divergences and attitudes exist on how such companies are to be controlled, let alone disciplined.

The view on how best to chastise such companies come from opposite ends of the information spectrum. For the enraged and the offended, these internet giants should be punished for distributing content created by users who might, for instance, be seen to be glorifying violence or giving truck to the unsavoury.  Their view seems to be that humanity cannot be trusted with viewing matter that might, on the off chance, prove dangerously galvanic. 

This is the view taken, for instance, by comedian Sacha Baron Cohen. 

“One thing is pretty clear to me,” he scoldingly told his audience at last year’s Never Is Now Summit hosted by the Anti-Defamation League.  “All this hate and violence [in the world] is being facilitated by a handful of internet companies that amount to the greatest propaganda machine in history.”   

For Baron Cohen and travellers of like mind, the problem in all of this is the protection provided by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.  The provision confers immunity on internet companies for the use-generated content they host.

For Trump, such companies should be punished for misusing their immunity from prosecution for actually banning or flagging undesirable content or opinions.  In short, there should be no limits on the quality or nature of user-content used or posted.  For the first Twitter President in history, it was all too bruising to be “flagged” for content posted on Twitter taking issue with the response to Monday’s lethal arrest of George Floyd in Minneapolis.  On Friday, Trump tweeted the line, “When the looting starts, the shooting starts”. It was a phrase Miami’s police chief Walter Headley used in 1967 in response to, as reported at the time, a “crackdown on … slum hoodlums”.  He spoke with reassurance for the head-kicking enthusiasts.  “We don’t mind being accused of police brutality.” 

Trump spruced up that version – slightly.  “Looting leads to shooting, and that’s why a man was shot and killed in Minneapolis on Wednesday night – or look at what just happened in Louisville with 7 people shot.  I don’t want this to happen, and that’s what the expression put out last night means.”

Looting leads to shooting, and that’s why a man was shot and killed in Minneapolis on Wednesday night – or look at what just happened in Louisville with 7 people shot. I don’t want this to happen, and that’s what the expression put out last night means….

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 29, 2020

Twitter has shown interest in the US president of late. Flagging and hiding Tweets, it also added a fact-check link to one of Trump’s messages.  All this was simply too much, a lingering, cyber stain.  The Executive Order that followed was cranky and a bit confused, taking issue with the wielding of power by internet companies “over a vital means of communication to engage in deceptive or pretextual actions stifling free and open debate by censoring certain viewpoints.”  Accordingly, “Section 230 was not intended to allow a handful of companies to grow into titans controlling vital avenues for our national discourse under the guise of promoting open forums for debate, and then to provide those behemoths blanket immunity when they use their power to censor content and silence viewpoints that they dislike.”  In removing or restricting access to content, such companies were “engaged in editorial conduct” and would, for that reason, have she shield of immunity removed.

Twitter is doing nothing about all of the lies & propaganda being put out by China or the Radical Left Democrat Party. They have targeted Republicans, Conservatives & the President of the United States. Section 230 should be revoked by Congress. Until then, it will be regulated!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 29, 2020

The order is not likely to have much effect. The legal cognoscenti see it has having little bearing, a wasteful act of sinister flatulence.  Former Justice Department inspector general Michael Bromwich considered it “a hoot.  Unlawful and unenforceable.”  According to Joshua Geltzer, executive director of the Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection, it would be hard to make a case that Twitter’s labels on Trump’s tweets fell outside the immunity of section 230.  Nor could Trump sue for defamation, given that Trump, not Twitter, added the element of falsity to the affair.   

Jameel Jaffer, director of the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University sees the birth of the order as “unconstitutional because it was issued in retaliation for Twitter’s fact-checking of President Trump’s tweets.”  The concern for Jaffer is that the order entails the possibility of intimidation and investigation of internet companies. “There may well be regulation, and legislation worth considering in this sphere, but whatever else this order may be, it is not a good faith effort to protect speech online.”

What the latest moves have done is precipitate something of a conflict within the usually amoral social media sphere.  The titans seem to be in disagreement on how to approach the demagogue in the White House.  Do we let him bark and bellow without inhibition, or should some health warning label be attached? Mark Zuckerberg makes Facebook’s position disingenuously clear: such companies should not be arbiters of truth.  (Unfortunately for the CEO, he expressed that view on a news outlet that often prefers the fictional narrative to the sturdy truthfulness.)  “Private companies probably shouldn’t be, especially these platform companies, shouldn’t be in the position of doing that.” 

Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey sees it differently. 

“Our intention is to connect the dots of conflicting statements and show the information in dispute so people can judge for themselves. More transparency from us is critical so folks can clearly see the why behind our actions.” 

 Neither CEO should be taken too seriously. Twitter will make its policies as it sees fit (consider, for instance, its righteous civic integrity policy); ditto Facebook.  Neither – and here Zuckerberg is right – should be arbiters, but they are.  They have shaped, directed, cajoled, mocked and massaged the gullible, the idiotic and the deluded.  And for all the fuss being caused by this Order, Facebook it is not considered a serious target.  As Ian Bogost and Alex Madrigal insist, the Trump campaign effectively ceded“control to Facebook’ ad-buying machinery” in 2016, as it is doing now.  Internet boffin Zeynep Tufekci can only agree: the relationship between the president and the Facebook CEO “is so smooth that Trump said Zuckerberg congratulated the president for being ‘No.1 on Facebook’ at a private dinner with him.” Time to break bread 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.

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]

The extrajudicial murders of African/Black people, such as Breonna Taylor, Ahmaud Arbery and George Floyd, by agents of the U.S. government and armed civilians have sparked urban rebellions in cities across the United States. Such murderous acts cannot be understood outside of the context of the U.S. state’s ongoing assault on the human rights of African/Black people.

U.S. President Donald Trump’s tweet—“…when the looting starts, the shooting starts…”—demanding lethal violence requires the United Nations to intervene.

Trump’s threat comes as the U.S. state has tragically failed during the COVID-19 pandemic to recognize and protect the human right to health of poor and working-class people, including Africans and undocumented migrants.

African/Black people comprise 13 percent of the U.S. population, yet represent one-third of COVID-19 related deaths. In some areas, the death rate has been as high as 70 percent.

Yet, the Trump administration, the U.S. Congress and state governments have responded by driving African/Black workers—who occupy the lowest rungs of the U.S. labor force—back to work with little or no protection. An inadequate for-profit healthcare system that discriminates against the poor ensures disproportionate death rates for African/Black people will continue.

Police authorities have been documented for abusing their power while enforcing COVID-19 mitigation efforts such as social distancing, which has been impossible for overcrowded African/Black communities and households to maintain.

Despite various United Nations bodies—such as the Committee on Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD), the Human Rights Committee (HRC), the Universal Periodic Review Process (UPR), and various special human-rights rapporteurs and special representatives—calling several times on the Clinton, Bush, Obama and Trump administrations to protect the human rights of African/Black people, what remains is a precarious situation that borders on genocide.

*

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 National Review

On May 28, an intense fighting erupted between Turkish-backed militant groups in the Turkish-occupied city of Afrin. The clashes started after Hamza Division militants shot and killed a child and an owner of a shop that had refused to loan goods to them. The killed persons appeared to be affiliated with Jaish al-Islam. In response, fighters of the group attacked Hamza Division positions in the city center forcing them to flee Afrin. 3 Hamza Division members, a Jaish al-Islam member and 3 civilians were killed in the clashes. At least 6 civilians were also injured.

The situation de-escalated by the end of the day after the Hamza Division released a statement promising to launch investigating into the incident and hold the fighters involved in the attack on the shop accountable. Early on May 29, Hamza Division fighters reportedly started returning to the Afrin city center.

Looting, street firefights and extortion racket are an ordinary part of the daily life in the Turkish-controlled part of northern Syria. On May 25, two units of the Murad Division clashed with each other in al-Bab and south of the town, near the Abu Zindin crossing with the government-held area. At least one militant and several civilians were injured in the incident that was caused by the struggle for the smuggling route among local commanders.

Turkish-backed militant groups do not care about possible civilian casualties as a result of their criminal activity. The only difference of the Afrin case is that the civilian killed by the Hamza Division appeared to be affiliated with a rival militant group.

A one more security problem for Turkish-led forces is regular attacks by Kurdish rebels. At least nine militants were killed and two others were injured in IED explosions, sniper attacks and ambushed carried out by the Kurdish-led Afrin Liberation Forces in the Afrin region on May 17, May 18, May 19, May 23 and May 25.

On May 28, the Turkish Army and the Russian Military Police held a 13^th joint patrol along the M4 highway in southern Idlib. This time the patrol reached the eastern entrance of Kafr Shalaya, which is located a half way from the government-controlled town of Saraqib and the city of Jisr al-Shughur, which is in the hands of al-Qaeda-linked militants.

The expanded length of the joint patrols is a positive signal showing some progress in the Russian-Turkish cooperation to create a security zone along the M4 highway. However, the presence of radicals near Jisr al-Shughur and the recent attack on a Turkish military patrol there demonstrate that the full implementation of the de-escalation deal is still far away.

The Syrian Army and pro-government locals blocked a US military convoy near the town of Tell Tamr and forced it to retreat back to the al-Hasakah countryside on May 27. Over the past months, US forces have been fully squeezed from the territory west of Tell Tamr and now government forces are working to limit their movement even further. In response, the US-led coalition is trying to implement a similar approach towards the Russian Military Police near al-Hasakah.

*

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

The totalitarian drift suffered by the United States during the mandate of George W. Bush caused that in the name of the holy-holy security of the State, in practice, the principle of inviolability (habeas corpus) of people was annulled, de facto establishing the principle of “presumption of guilt” instead of the original “presumption of innocence”, which would have remained an indelible stigma in the US security forces.

This would be reflected in the arrogance, brutality and racial contempt that police interventions exude in the great cities of the United States, constituent elements of the so-called “negative perfection”, a term used by the novelist Martín Amis to designate “the obscene justification of use of extreme, massive and premeditated cruelty by a supposed ideal state ”.

However, the rise of the “Black Lives Matter” movement and the explosion of urban violence in the city of Minneapolis after the brutal death by asphyxiation of a defenseless George Floyd in a new out-of-control performance with clear racist overtones. law enforcement, could cause metropolitan areas with high rates of African-American populations (New York, New Orleans, Washington, St-Louis, Los Angeles, Atlanta, Cleveland, and Chicago) to erupt into violent street riots where they intermingle social demands with those of racial segregation, forgetting the teachings of Martin Luther King: “Violence creates more social problems than it solves.”

Donald Trump, the supremacists and the return of the “White Power”

According to an NBC poll, 54% of the white population would be “angry with the system”, which would have led white voters to support politically incorrect positions and refractory to the dictates of Donald Trump’s traditional republican establishment, symbolized in support of outraged whites over 45 to Trump and of neo-Nazi and white supremacist parties that continue to control the “deep America” spheres of power. The firm support for Trump’s candidacy by David Duke, ex-KKK leader and the subsequent appointments of Sebastian Gorka, (a member of the Hungarian far-right organization Vitézi Rand) as a counterterrorism adviser and Stephen Bannon, of populist ideology and far-right as Head of Strategy symbolized the arrival of white supremacists to the White House with the unequivocal objective of establishing “White Power” in a society in which demographic evolution will cause the white population to be a minority in the 2,043 scenario. Thus, according to the US Census Bureau, by 2043 whites will cease to be the majority of the American population and will be displaced by the sum of the Hispanic population that would increase from 53.3 million today to 128.8 million in 2060 and African-American, which would go from the current 41.2 million to the 61.8 million forecast by the projections.

African American dystopia

A dystopia would be “a negative utopia where reality takes place in terms antagonistic to those of an ideal society” and are located in closed or claustrophobic environments whose paradigm would be the city of Detroit, a dystopian scenario of real (non-fictional) nature and the paradigm of greatest mass exodus of population suffered by a modern city in the last 70 years. This exodus was motivated by the conjunction of economic reasons (the widespread corruption of the municipal authorities and the fact that the high taxes for living within the metropolitan area were drastically reduced in the suburbs) and racial ones. Thus, Detroit would have gone from having in the metropolitan area 1.8 million inhabitants in 1960 (90% white) to 700,000 in 2012 (84% African-American), a centrifugal migratory movement known colloquially as “white fligt” ( white flight) since the majority of the population that emigrated to the suburbs was white and middle and upper class, leaving the population of color confined to the east of the city in an area ironically called “Paradise Valley”. .

The X-ray of the pre-VID African-American population would outline a dystopian scenario, where 40% of the African-American population would live below the poverty line, with stratospheric unemployment rates above 17%, a figure that would triple as regards the population. young black woman (51%), with the consequent side effects of marginality, shadow economy and increased crime rates, favored by the lacerating lack of investment in public services and the existence of thousands of vacant lots and abandoned homes that should be destroyed by the City Council. In addition, the drastic collection of taxes forces to further cut social assistance programs, raise taxes and privatize most public services due to the accumulated deficit and the level of the bonds issued since they cannot print money to finance their deficits such as The nation does it, a situation that can be extrapolated to many other African-American cities.

The validity of Rev. Wright’s ideas

Reverend Wright in a 2001 sermon at the United Church of Christ parish in Chicago expressed the need for a collective metanoia of American society “that transforms imperial military wars into internal political wars against racism and the injustices of class ”, for which he proposed a fundamental redistribution of wealth through the reallocation of the public budget. Citing the “gift from the George W. Bush Administration of $ 1.3 trillion in tax exemptions for the wealthy,” he retorted with a proposal for public funding of universal health care and rebuilding the education system to put it at the service of the poor. .

Likewise, in a conference delivered at Howard University (Washington) in 2006, he stated: “This country was founded and is run according to a racist principle (…) We believe in white superiority and black inferiority (…) more than in God himself, “according to an excerpt published by The Wall Street Journal. Likewise, ex-President Obama, spiritual son of Reverend Wright and debtor to the title of his book “The Audacity of Hope,” in his book “My Father’s Dreams” talks about the vital attitude of the African American population, marked by the generational stigma of “a racial segregation that has characterized the American future” according to his words, an unhealed wound that will inevitably flare up again during the 2020 Presidential campaign.

Reissue of the March on Washington?

The persistence of police violence against the African American population and the practical impunity of the police, combined with the media visibility of the white supremacists who would count on “the fraternal understanding” of Donald Trump, could swing the once monolithic attitude of the Black fraternities to stay out of violent protests by confirming the certainty of the words of the visionary Martin Luther King, Nobel Peace Prize Laureate: “We have learned to fly like birds, to swim like fish, but we have not learned the simple the art of living as brothers ”) Thus, we could attend the media gathering of another black pacifist leader and a new great peaceful march on Washington (Martin Luther King, 1963), a subsequent reissue of the violent racial riots of the summer of 1963 not being ruled out. , leaving in passing the phrase of Luther King “I have a dream” (I have a dream), as an unreachable utopia.

*

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.

What happens when the Covid-19 state of emergency ends for the time being? Well, the likelihood of a world war seems more absolute by the day.  

The US and its allies including Israel have been increasing tensions in the Middle East while the Covid-19 hysteria has taken over the headlines across the mainstream media in the West and around the world. Washington has increased its hostility against numerous countries under the Trump regime as they have imposed severe economic sanctions, regime change operations and assassinations against China, Russia, Iran, Lebanon (Hezbollah), Syria, the Palestinians, Nicaragua, Cuba and Venezuela.  All of these countries are allies with each other one way or another, and they all have one thing in common, they are on Washington’s hit list for not following the dictates of the empire.  Although the focus is on China at the moment, Iran is still the major target of Washington and Tel Aviv.  Iran has increased its military capabilities by receiving 110 new combat vessels according to a Saudi based news website Arabnews.com,

‘Iran Guards Threaten US Over Gulf Presence After Receiving New Combat Vessels’ said that “Iran’s Revolutionary Guards on Thursday warned the United States against its naval presence in the Gulf as they received 110 new combat vessels.”

The new assets “included Ashura-class speedboats, Zolfagher coastal patrol boats and Taregh submarines.”  Iran and its allies all agree on one goal, and that is to remove U.S. military presence out of the Middle East permanently.  In a ceremony in southern Iran, Iranian Guard Naval Chief Rear Admiral Alireza Tangsiri said that “We announce today that wherever the Americans are, we are right next to them, and they will feel our presence even more in the near future” meaning more tensions will increase between the U.S. and Iran.  Washington has been extremely aggressive towards Iran since Trump was elected to office.  It began on May 8th, 2018 when the Trump regime decided to pull out of the Iran Nuclear Deal further escalating tensions.  Then last January, the U.S. conducted an airstrike that killed one of Iran’s top military generals, Commander Major General Qasem Soleimani of the Quds force with an airstrike outside of Bagdad International Airport.  Iran does not trust nor want any U.S. military presence close to its territory or anywhere in the Middle East.

Meanwhile, Israel is set to annex the West Bank setting off another Israel-Palestinian conflict while Hezbollah is gearing up for another repeat of the 2006 Lebanon War or the Israel–Hezbollah War, but this time will be far worse because of what’s at stake in terms of the global economy.  As we know, the U.S. economy is in shambles, in fact its collapsing as the US dollar is losing its dominant role as the world’s reserve currency and Israel knows this.  They want a war between the US and Iran now more than ever before while the US dollar still has some value.  When the US dollar collapses, so does Israel’s economy and without a strong economy, Israel won’t be able to sustain a multi-front war with its Arab neighbors.  Business Insider published an article in 2011 titled ‘Here Are The 5 Worst Places to be When the Dollar Collapses’ and Israel was ranked first on the list:

This Anglo-American beach head into the Middle East was first conceived by the most powerful family in the world, the Rothschilds, in 1917. The Balfour Declaration said that there will be a Zionist Israel years before World War two and the eventual establishment of Israel. Israel has not been a good neighbor to its Muslim nations and has always had the two biggest bullies on the block at its back. When the dollar collapses, the United States will have too much on its plate both domestically and internationally to worry about such a non-strategic piece of land. This will leave Israel very weak at a time when tensions will be high. This very thin strip of desert land will not be able to with stand the economic reality of importing its food and fuel or the political reality of being surrounded by Muslims

China is not Washington’s priority at the moment because China does not have oil.  It’s mostly in the Middle East and in Venezuela.  Oil is the deciding factor because it is crucial for the U.S. military that uses an enormous amount of oil for its armored tanks, naval ships, hummers and combat aircraft.  The ‘Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Sustainment’s’ home page explains how many barrels of oil does it take to sustain its military power around the world:

Energy is an essential enabler of military capability, and the Department depends on energy-resilient forces and facilities to achieve its mission. In FY 2018, the Department consumed over 85 million barrels of fuel to power ships, aircraft, combat vehicles, and contingency bases at a cost of nearly $9.2 billion. At over 500 worldwide military installations, the Department spent $3.4 billion in FY 2018 on energy to power over 585,000 facilities and 160,000 non-tactical vehicles

Oil is of strategic importance for U.S. forces in order to sustain its extended wars that will eventually reach other nations who have oil including Venezuela, if of course they get desperate enough for more oil from the South American nation to maintain its war machine.  Oil is still the game, it’s always about the natural resources and it’s in the Middle East, not in China.  A war with China will be in the long-term, for now the U.S. will try to destabilize China by supporting protesters in Hong Kong, Taiwan and elsewhere while continuing its trade war policies.  To launch a war against China will require an abundant amount of oil.  An example of how much oil is needed in any type of global conflict for the US was detailed in a report by the Rand Corporation in 1994 following the illegal invasion of Iraq in the early 90′s published by James P. Stucker, John F. Schank and Bonnie. Dombey-Moore titled ‘Assessment of DoD Fuel Standardisation Policies‘ stated that “1.88 billion gallons of fuel were consumed within the U.S. Central Command’s area of responsibility during Operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm (ODS/S), between August 10, 1990 and May 31, 1991,” which is estimated to be around 44.8 million barrels, or about 150,000 barrels a day.  Both Operation Desert Shield and Desert Storm lasted about 295 days.

It will take twice of the amount of oil if the US is foolish enough to launch airstrikes and missiles into mainland China from its surrounding military bases and naval ships who are all in close proximity.  For that to happen, they need to defeat Iran, Syria and Hezbollah and take control of the Middle East oil reserves and start their war in the far east.  The U.S. Military-Industrial Complex needs the oil before they declare war on China and other countries around the world who don’t obey Washington.  Natural resources is the key to maintain the US war machine, so the next hot war will not take place in the Far East, at least for now, it will be in the Middle East.

*

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

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

Featured image is from SCN

A cell phone videotaped deadly encounter between African American George Floyd and several Minneapolis law-enforcement officers resulting in a brutal strangulation has proven to be a turning point in the long saga of systematic racist violence in the United States.

For four straight days and nights, militant demonstrations have occurred in the Minneapolis-St. Paul area and a growing number of municipalities around the country.

Reaching an intense level on the evening of May 28, demonstrators surrounded the Third Precinct police station pelting the structure with missiles. Later the building was evacuated by the city administration while soon afterwards people entered the station and set multiple fires.

Mayor Jacob Frey took full responsibility for the retreat from the Third Precinct noting that the situation was too dangerous for personnel inside and outside the building. Television coverage of the arson attacks on the police station was broadcast live throughout the world.

Minneapolis Third Precinct attacked by demonstrators protesting the police killing of George Floyd

Frey defended the lack of arrests for property damage and arson over the course of May 27 and 28 saying that his aim was to not further inflame the situation. With deployment of the Minnesota National Guard and State Troopers it appears as if they have taken charge of law-enforcement responsibility in Minneapolis and St. Paul.

By midday on May 29, there was an announcement that Derek Chauvin, the former Minneapolis officer shown in the video with his knee on the neck of George Floyd resulting in his death, had been taken into custody. The Hennepin County District Attorney Michael Freeman later announced that Chauvin was being charged with third degree murder and involuntary manslaughter.

Immediately, local and national activists said that the arrest of one officer was not enough to satisfy their demands for justice. The African American communities in the Minneapolis and St. Paul area are constantly reminding the public of the decades-long history of police brutality.

Within the charging document there is much to be concerned about as it relates to the potential case being brought to court against former police officer Chauvin by the prosecutors. The indictment alleges that Floyd did not die from suffocation. It claims that the victim had other health problems while having being intoxicated. These assertions are problematic because similar efforts are often carried out in other police killings in order to provide a legal angle for acquittal. (See this)

Many former and current law-enforcement officials in numerous interviews over various television networks have condemned the use of such a method of restraint seen in the video which immediately went viral. Nonetheless, there are thousands of African Americans and others who are victimized by police violence every year. In most situations, the police are not held accountable and remain employed in the public service.

Meanwhile property destruction and arson attacks spread to neighboring St. Paul on May 28 where at least 200 businesses were impacted. Some of the same chain stores attacked in Minneapolis suffered an identical fate in the other twin city.

A report on the situation published by CBS Minnesota said of events that:

“St. Paul was spared from the chaos Wednesday night (May 27), but that all changed Thursday. The St. Paul Police Department said more than 170 businesses were looted or damaged Thursday, and dozens of fires were set. But there were no serious injuries reported in the city. Fires continued to burn in the city early Friday morning, with the largest one at Big Top Liquor near Snelling and University avenues, nearby Allianz Field.”

Demonstrations Spread Across the U.S.

Protests soon erupted in many other cities where thousands have taken to the streets demanding an end to police violence against African Americans. In Louisville, Kentucky, 7 people were shot during the evening on May 28.

Minneapolis Rebellion after George Floyd police killing

The following night there were additional demonstrations taking place in the city. People are angered by the failure of the authorities in Louisville to file charges against the police officers that killed emergency medical technician Breonna Taylor, a 26-year-old African American woman, sleeping in her bed during a purportedly mistaken location raid in search of illegal drugs. There were no drugs in the apartment yet Taylor is dead at the hands of police.

According to a news report on events in Louisville there are:

“Groups of protesters demanding justice for Breonna Taylor, who was an African American woman killed in her apartment by police officers on March 13, are gathered on Jefferson and Sixth Street.  Around 9 p.m., protesters pulled down the American and Kentucky flags in front of the Hall of Justice and set them ablaze. Moments later, some protesters threw objects at the building’s glass doors, more items were lit on fire and there were three loud bangs which went off.  A group of more than 1,000 people were estimated to be gathering around the Hall of Justice where everything seems to be focused.”

Louisville demonstration demanding justice for Breonna Taylor

Demonstrations occurred in dozens of municipalities including Phoenix, New York City, Denver, Chicago, Memphis, Washington, D.C., Dallas and Detroit. In the city of Detroit thousands gathered at public safety headquarters downtown on the afternoon of Friday May 29. After listening to several speakers including City Council President Pro term Mary Sheffield, Charter Revision Commission member Joanna Underwood, Board of Police Commissioners Member Willie Burton, among others, the crowd began to march through downtown into the Midtown and Woodbridge District, chanting anti-racist and anti-police brutality slogans.

In Atlanta fires were set during demonstrations in the downtown area where police presence was extremely heavy. Later a small group gathered at the CNN Center where several people threw missiles and incendiary devices which broke windows. The police in riot gear launched teargas in an attempt to disperse the crowd.

The White House has largely been circumspect in regard to the nationwide unrest which has grown exponentially since May 26. President Donald Trump sent out a tweeted message during the early morning hours of May 29 suggesting that “looters” should be shot on sight. He later attempted to clean up the statement. However, the damage had already been done politically.

Trump is quite concerned with the deteriorating economic and social situation in the U.S. where 41 million people have applied for unemployment benefits since mid-March directly stemming from the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. With the explosion in anti-racist protests where some are becoming more violent, the administration can only stoke fear and bigotry in an effort to build upon its existing base within the capitalist ruling class as well as significant sections of the white population which mistakenly view the nationally oppressed, immigrants and those harboring opinions differing from the president as their central enemies and adversaries.

Possible Outcome in the Present Conjuncture

The unrest in the U.S. has drawn the attention of the international community. Michelle Bachelet, the former president of Chile and the current chair of the United Nations Human Commission for Human Rights (UNCHR) made a statement on May 28 criticizing the police killing of George Floyd and other African Americans.

Bachelet said in a statement issued from the UNCHR offices that:

“This is the latest in a long line of killings of unarmed African Americans by U.S. police officers and members of the public. I am dismayed to have to add George Floyd’s name to that of Breonna Taylor, Eric Garner, Michael Brown and many other unarmed African Americans who have died over the years at the hands of the police — as well as people such as Ahmaud Arbery and Trayvon Martin who were killed by armed members of the public. The US authorities must take serious action to stop such killings, and to ensure justice is done when they do occur. Procedures must change, prevention systems must be put in place, and above all police officers who resort to excessive use of force should be charged and convicted for the crimes committed.”

In addition to the UNCHR, the African Union (AU), representing 55 member-states on the continent and its 1.2 billion people, weighed in as well with a statement which read:

“The Chairperson of the African Union Commission Moussa Faki Mahamat strongly condemns the murder of George Floyd that occurred in the United States of America at the hands of law enforcement officers, and wishes to extend his deepest condolences to his family and loved ones. Recalling the historic Organization of Africa Unity (OAU) Resolution on Racial Discrimination in the United States of America made by African Heads of State and Government, at the OAU’s First Assembly Meeting held in Cairo, Egypt from 17 to 24 July 1964, the Chairperson of the African Union Commission firmly reaffirms and reiterates the African Union’s rejection of the continuing discriminatory practices against Black citizens of the United States of America. He further urges the authorities in the United States of America to intensify their efforts to ensure the total elimination of all forms of discrimination based on race or ethnic origin.”

These statements from both the UN and the AU reaffirm the legitimacy of the African American struggle for self-determination and full equality. Malcolm X (El Hajj Malik Shabazz) was present at the 1964 OAU Summit in July 1964 to lobby on behalf of the people of African descent in the U.S. His work in winning this resolution 56 years ago is a clear indication of the correctness of his position during the period.

National and international coordination of political forces is required in order to elevate the African American liberation movement in its efforts to secure the right to security and development unhindered by a racist system which is in rapid decline. As the economic crisis in the U.S. worsens the level of conflict and disorder will intensify requiring broader unity and solidarity aimed at ending national oppression and economic exploitation.

*

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

Abayomi Azikiwe is the editor of Pan-African News Wire. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

All images in this article are from the author unless otherwise stated

I am not American.  Nor am I black, nor male.

But my heart broke in a new way while watching the slow, agonized death of George Floyd, as for nine minutes a police officer kneeled on his neck, crushing his face into the pavement.  (1)

I did not sleep that night.  And as with so many others, it’s still there when I awake each morning.

Men being led to execution often call out for their mothers. Millions watching this video heard Floyd’s desperate cries for his mother.

The human heart has no defence against such cold-blooded injustice.  Hearts around the planet are breaking for George Floyd.

Justice is a core value in the fabric of life:  Even domestic animals treated unjustly will look at us in bewilderment.

Trappist monk Thomas Merton coined the phrase, “the unspeakable”.  It is a void in the human heart.  Empty of compassion, the vacuum fills with violence.  It is what we saw in the officers who killed Floyd. (2)

It is also what we saw in the murder of JFK, orchestrated by the CIA. (3)

We cannot unsee what we witnessed in the Floyd video.  This unspeakable murder is the only story that has broken through the Covid-19 headlines – showing that justice is as important as life itself.

Officials need to understand that the protests across America represent a core value of humanity:  The need for justice that is embedded in the human heart.

The riots will continue until this understanding of our humanity is declared – and acted upon in an unprecedented and powerfully open way.

*

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

Notes

1. “George Floyd Murdered in Daylight,” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DhY1cocW0-c
2. Ross Labrie, “Thomas Merton on the Unspeakable,” http://merton.org/ITMS/Seasonal/36/36-4Labrie.pdf
3. James W. Douglass, “JFK and the Unspeakable:Why He Died and Why it Matters,” Touchstone, 2010.

Since the outbreak of COVID 19 criticism of China, by both Western political elites in the U.S. and U.K., has seen an upsurge. This intensification of rhetoric is reflected in the simplistic cold war hyperbole spun in the right-wing Western media. Here a simple dualistic script is presented where the forces of good do battle against evil.

This penmanship fails to comprehend that China has its own interests and fears. In a West where bashing China accumulates political virtue points, voices who do not follow this line are castigated as either nefarious or indoctrinated. In contrast, the Western audience is portrayed as an enlightened individual whose perspective on the world is untainted by mediated interests. As such, what is good for Western elites becomes transposed as a moral good for the rest of the world too.

The denial that China has a legitimate voice, with its own sense of justice vis-à-vis the Western ‘enlightened-mind’ lays the foundation for a rise in tensions and righteous indignation. As the moral basis is set hostility can be justified and supported by Western audiences. This Western civilization ‘jihad’ is nothing new. The ‘white man’s burden’ and the spreading of Christianity justified the horrors of colonialism while the doctrine of liberal human rights was used as a cloak for the looting of Iraq.

In the context of the current wave of anti-Chinese sentiment foreign contributors to CGTN (China Global Television Network) have, come under attack. I was recently mentioned in an article in the Daily Express that was following up on allegations by the British communications regulator Ofcom and questions raised by British MPs that CGTN was using ‘fake experts’ and propagandists to attack critics of the Chinese government.

Having first gone to China in 2004 I quickly became aware of a disconnect between China as it is versus its Western portrayal. For example, in the summer of 2007 before the Olympic games, I wondered a hutong in the center of Beijing. I saw with my own eyes’ squalid ramshackle huts and barefoot muddy faced children bereft of clean clothes. These areas were regenerated and this poverty has vanished from Chinese cities. Nevertheless, the response from the Western press was one of blanket condemnation that emphasized cultural destruction.

Likewise, the unprecedented speed and efficiency of the lockdown achieved in China was also gnarled into a tale of repression and incompetence. Yet, my participation of lockdown, in China, was one characterized by unity, compassion, and, as demonstrated by the waves of COVID 19 memes, humor in the face of adversity. Of course, these characteristics are also present in the West now. However, the difference is that the united front and banter of Westerners is not being branded as a consequence of propaganda as it was in China.

China is evidently not a paradise it has much to improve on. However, there is no lack of reporting on China’s negative side in the ‘Anglosphere’ press. What is missing is China’s point of view and how it justifies its actions from its own historical and civilizational vista. Addressing, these issues require brave introspection into our own civilizational contradictions which opens up painful cognitive dissonance on our part.

From the Chinese perspective the cry for human rights and democracy are disingenuous. They see a manifold of discrepancies where democracy works at the expense of national interests and where the levers of power are all too easily captured by U.S. and transnational capital. Dov Levin Assistant Professor of International Relations at the Department of Politics and Public Administration at the University of Hong Kong has identified 62 American interventions in foreign elections between 1946 and 1989. Overall America’s favored candidates were simply those friendlier to U.S. interests. Bill Clinton’s funneling of money in support of Yeltsin and the chaos that saw living standards and life expectancy plummet is a poignant lesson to Chinese citizens.

When socialist governments have been elected CIA coups such as those which brought Chile’s Pinochet to power in 1973 have been employed. Worse is the use of war justified through spreading democracy and human rights. The contradiction of the Western ‘force of the willing’ illegally invading Iraq from autocratic Saudi Arabia is obvious. As conspicuous as it was our electorates proved impotent in preventing one of the worst human rights disasters of this century. These historical geopolitical facts are also glaringly unmistakable to Chinese citizens who in light of this reality combined with the tremendous progress made in development, largely accept their political-economic system.

One could argue that the closed nature of the Chinese media precludes Chinese citizens from understanding the full picture. However, to assume that the West knows more about China than the Chinese people themselves is not only belittling, it’s factually wrong too. Strikingly, the Chinese understand vastly more about the occident than the Westerner knows about the orient. In China, lessons in English and Western culture are compulsory even at universities; Western media is avidly consumed and international Chinese tourists are now ubiquitous.

We in the West must be humble enough to question the limits of our world-view that is mediated largely through a mass media predominantly in the hands of a small business oligarchy.

I have had articles published by both the Western and Chinese media but only contributions to Chinese media have ever produced claims of ‘fake expert’ and ‘propagandist’. While I’m a keen Sinologist the vastness of the subject leads me to reject the label expert. Nevertheless, I humbly offer my writing with sincerity from a position forged from direct experience combined with academic study. Therefore, I oppose the crude propagandist label which conjures up outdated images of McCarthyism.

*

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

Trump’s anti-Beijing reelection strategy turned most Americans into China haters by the power of propaganda, along with greatly damaging the bilateral relationship.

His unacceptable China bashing risks rupturing relations if his regime continues its present path — policies hostile to world peace, stability, and cooperative relations with other countries, greatly influenced by hardliners surrounding him.

Worst still, his anti-China agenda risks direct confrontation by accident or design, a clash between two nuclear powers if he pushes things too far.

His latest blow to bilateral relations came Friday afternoon, saying:

“I am directing my (regime) begin the process of eliminating policy exemptions that give Hong Kong different and special treatment,” adding:

“My announcement today will affect the full range of agreements that we have with Hong Kong, from our extradition treaty, to our export controls and technologies.”

“We will take action to revoke Hong Kong’s preferential treatment as a separate customs and travel territory from the rest of China.”

He intends to unilaterally impose illegal sanctions on Chinese and Hong Kong officials “directly or indirectly involved in eroding Hong Kong’s autonom (sic)” — ignoring that the city is sovereign Chinese, not US, territory.

He stopped short of explaining specific steps to be taken. When asked, a White House spokesperson declined to provide information on what may be planned.

Trump did say that he’d instruct his “presidential working group on financial markets to study the different practices of Chinese companies listed on the US financial markets” — on the phony pretext of protecting American investors.

He also barred Chinese scientists and researchers allegedly connected to what he called Beijing’s “military-civil fusion strategy” from entering the US.

Henceforth, his regime’s hostile policies toward China will apply to Hong Kong — details to follow at a later time.

His Friday remarks included nothing about the Sino/US trade deal, weakened by his regime’s war by other means on China.

Notably in recent weeks, Beijing has been buying Brazilian soybeans, lower amounts from the US.

Its authorities have lots of ways to retaliate against unacceptable US actions.

In the last 48 hours, Trump’s tweet-storm included nothing about US/China relations.

Responding to his remarks, China’s Global Times said the following:

His “press conference was full of lies. (He) arbitrarily fabricated the imaginary changes that the national security legislation for Hong Kong might bring about to the city,” adding:

“He peddled nonsense, saying that China will only have ‘one country, one system,’ while ignoring the huge differences in political systems, governance models, and social customs between the Chinese mainland and Hong Kong.”

In terminating his regime’s relationship with the WHO, he falsely claimed it’s because “China has total control,” a baseless accusation.

There’s plenty about the organization to criticize, ignored in his remarks.

According to the US Chamber of Commerce, over 1,200 US companies, including major Wall Street banks, operate in Hong Kong or do business with the city.

“(O)ver 800 (have) either regional offices or headquarters” there.

They contribute tens of billions of dollars to the US economy annually.

The Trump regime is unlikely to institute policies that negatively affect their interests — other than designated high-tech firms, part of its policy to try undermining Beijing’s technological development.

China is the leading US export market, other than Canada and Mexico combined under the USMCA (new NAFTA) trade deal.

US exports to China support around 1.1 million American jobs, according to the US-China Business Council (USCBC).

Bilateral trade is key for both countries. Disrupting it would worsen current economic collapse conditions.

According to USCBC, US exports to China increased by 73% in the last decade — compared to a 57% increase with the rest of the world community.

Growing bilateral friction will disrupt bilateral trade if things are pushed too far.

China’s Foreign Ministry spokesman Zhou Lijian said Beijing will “take all necessary measures to hit back if US insists on harming (its) interests, adding:

“The US trade surplus with Hong Kong has accumulated to 297 billion US dollars in the past decade.”

“A safe, stable and prosperous Hong Kong is in the interests of the United States.”

Separately, Zhao slammed the Trump regime’s” demand for a Security Council video conference on China’s new national security law, saying:

“This is utter nonsense and making trouble out of nothing,” adding:

The Trump regime must “immediately stop (its) meaningless political maneuvers” going nowhere.

“The US side blatantly interfered in China’s internal affairs and wantonly undermined the basic norms of international relations by requesting a meeting on a Hong Kong-related issue at the UN Security Council.”

“China has all the reasons to firmly oppose it and their attempts are doomed to fail.”

The US is an unparalleled global menace, an aggressor state, a rogue state, a fantasy democracy state, a human and civil rights abusing state.

America is its own worst enemy, a nation in decline because of its war on humanity at home and abroad and unwillingness to change.

*

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.

Listening to Mr. Wang was therefore a refreshing reminder that everything really isn’t as bad as Trump says that it is.

On May 6th, President Trump vetoed a war powers bill specifying that he must ask Congress for authorization to use military force against Iran. Trump’s “maximum pressure” campaign of deadly sanctions and threats of war against Iran has seen no let-up, even as the U.S., Iran and the whole world desperately need to set aside our conflicts to face down the common danger of the Covid-19 pandemic. 

So what is it about Iran that makes it such a target of hostility for Trump and the neocons? There are many repressive regimes in the world, and many of them are close U.S. allies, so this policy is clearly not based on an objective assessment that Iran is more repressive than Egypt, Saudi Arabia or other monarchies in the Persian Gulf.

The Trump administration claims that its “maximum pressure” sanctions and threats of war against Iran are based on the danger that Iran will develop nuclear weapons. But after decades of inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and despite the U.S.’s politicization of the IAEA, the Agency has repeatedly confirmed that Iran does not have a nuclear weapons program. 

If Iran ever did any preliminary research on nuclear weapons, it was probably during the Iran-Iraq War in the 1980s, when the U.S. and its allies helped Iraq to make and use chemical weapons that killed up to 100,000 Iranians. A 2007 U.S. National Intelligence Estimate, the IAEA’s 2015 “Final Assessment on Past and Present Outstanding Issues” and decades of IAEA inspections have examined and resolved every scrap of false evidence of a nuclear weapons program presented or fabricated by the CIA and its allies.

If, despite all the evidence, U.S. policymakers still fear that Iran could develop nuclear weapons, then adhering to the Iran Nuclear Deal (JCPOA), keeping Iran inside the Non-Proliferation Treaty, and ensuring ongoing access by IAEA inspectors would provide greater security than abandoning the deal. 

As with Bush’s false WMD claims about Iraq in 2003, Trump’s real goal is not nuclear non-proliferation but regime change. After 40 years of failed sanctions and hostility, Trump and a cabal of U.S. warhawks still cling to the vain hope that a tanking economy and widespread suffering in Iran will lead to a popular uprising or make it vulnerable to another U.S.-backed coup or invasion.

United Against a Nuclear Iran and the Counter Extremism Project

One of the key organizations promoting and pushing hostility towards Iran is a shadowy group called United Against a Nuclear Iran (UANI). Founded in 2008, it was expanded and reorganized in 2014 under the umbrella of the Counter Extremism Project United (CEPU) to broaden its attacks on Iran and divert U.S. policymakers’ attention away from the role of Israel, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and other U.S. allies in spreading violence, extremism and chaos in the greater Middle East. 

UANI acts as a private enforcer of U.S. sanctions by keeping a “business registry” of hundreds of companies all over the world—from Adidas to Zurich Financial Services—that trade with or are considering trading with Iran. UANI hounds these companies by naming and shaming them, issuing reports for the media, and urging the Office of Foreign Assets Control to impose fines and sanctions. It also keeps a checklist of companies that have signed a declaration certifying they do not conduct business in or with Iran.

Proving how little they care about the Iranian people, UANI even targets pharmaceutical, biotechnology, and medical-device corporations—including Bayer, Merck, Pfizer, Eli Lilly, and Abbott Laboratories—that have been granted special U.S. humanitarian aid licenses.

Where does UANI get its funds? 

UANI was founded by three former U.S. officials, Dennis Ross, Richard Holbrooke and Mark Wallace. In 2013, it still had a modest budget of $1.7 million, nearly 80% coming from two American billionaires with strong ties to Israel and the Republican Party: $843,000 from precious metals investor Thomas Kaplan and $500,000 from casino owner Sheldon Adelson. Wallace and other UANI staff have also worked for Kaplan’s investment firms, and he remains a key funder and advocate for UANI and its affiliated groups.

In 2014, UANI split into two entities: the original UANI and the Green Light Project, which does business as the Counter Extremism Project. Both entities are under the umbrella of and funded by a third, Counter Extremism Project United (CEPU). This permits the organization to brand its fundraising as being for the Counter Extremism Project, even though it still regrants a third of its funds to UANI. 

CEO Mark Wallace, Executive Director David Ibsen and other staff work for all three groups in their shared offices in Grand Central Tower in New York. In 2018, Wallace drew a combined salary of $750,000 from all three entities, while Ibsen’s combined salary was $512,126. 

In recent years, the revenues for the umbrella group, CEPU, have mushroomed, reaching $22 million in 2017. CEPU is secretive about the sources of this money. But investigative journalist Eli Clifton, who starting looking into UANI in 2014 when it was sued for defamation by a Greek ship owner it accused of violating sanctions on Iran, has found evidence suggesting financial ties with Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates.

That is certainly what hacked emails between CEPU staff, an Emirati official and a Saudi lobbyist imply. In September 2014, CEPU’s president Frances Townsend emailed the UAE Ambassador to the U.S. to solicit the UAE’s support and propose that it host and fund a CEPU forum in Abu Dhabi. 

Four months later, Townsend emailed again to thank him, writing, “And many thanks for your and Richard Mintz’ (UAE lobbyist) ongoing support of the CEP effort!” UANI fundraiser Thomas Kaplan has formed a close relationship with Emirati ruler Bin Zayed, and visited the UAE at least 24 times. In 2019, he gushed to an interviewer that the UAE and its despotic rulers “are my closest partners in more parts of my life than anyone else other than my wife.”

Another email from Saudi lobbyist and former Senator Norm Coleman to the Emirati Ambassador about CEPU’s tax status implied that the Saudis and Emiratis were both involved in its funding, which would mean that CEPU may be violating the Foreign Agents Registration Act by failing to register as a Saudi or Emirati agent in the U.S.

Ben Freeman of the Center for International Policy has documented the dangerously unaccountable and covert expansion of the influence of foreign governments and military-industrial interests over U.S. foreign policy in recent years, in which registered lobbyists are only the “tip of the iceberg” when it comes to foreign influence. Eli Clifton calls UANI, “a fantastic case study and maybe a microcosm of the ways in which American foreign policy is actually influenced and implemented.” 

CEPU and UANI’s staff and advisory boards are stocked with Republicans, neoconservatives and warhawks, many of whom earn lavish salaries and consulting fees. In the two years before President Trump appointed John Bolton as his National Security Advisor, CEPU paid Bolton $240,000 in consulting fees. Bolton, who openly advocates war with Iran, was instrumental in getting the Trump administration to withdraw from the nuclear deal.

UANI also enlists Democrats to try to give the group broader, bipartisan credibility. The chair of UANI’s board is former Democratic Senator Joe Lieberman, who was known as the most pro-Zionist member of the Senate. A more moderate Democrat on UANI’s board is former New Mexico governor and UN ambassador Bill Richardson. 

Norman Roule, a CIA veteran who was the National Intelligence Manager for Iran throughout the Obama administration was paid $366,000 in consulting fees by CEPU in 2018. Soon after the brutal Saudi assassination of journalist Jamal Khassoghi, Roule and UANI fundraiser Thomas Kaplan met with Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Salman in Saudi Arabia, and Roule then played a leading role in articles and on the talk-show circuit whitewashing Bin Salman’s repression and talking up his superficial “reforms” of Saudi society. 

More recently, amid a growing outcry from Congress, the UN and the European Union to ease U.S. sanctions on Iran during the pandemic, UANI chairman Joe Lieberman, CEPU president Frances Townsend and CEO Mark Wallace signed a letter to Trump that falsely claimed, “U.S. sanctions neither prevent nor target the supply of food, medicine or medical devices to Iran,” and begged him not to relax his murderous sanctions because of COVID-19. This was too much for Norman Roule, who tossed out his UANI script and told the Nation, “the international community should do everything it can to enable the Iranian people to obtain access to medical supplies and equipment.”

Two Israeli shell companies to whom CEPU and UANI have paid millions of dollars in “consulting fees” raise even more troubling questions. CEPU has paid over $500,000 to Darlink, located near Tel Aviv, while UANI paid at least $1.5 million to Grove Business Consulting in Hod Hasharon, about 10% of its revenues from 2016 to 2018. Neither firm seems to really exist, but Grove’s address on UANI’s IRS filings appears in the Panama Papers as that of Dr. Gideon Ginossar, an officer of an offshore company registered in the British Virgin Islands that defaulted on its creditors in 2010. 

Selling a Corrupted Picture to U.S. Policymakers 

UANI’s parent group, Counter Extremism Project United, presents itself as dedicated to countering all forms of extremism. But in practice, it is predictably selective in its targets, demonizing Iran and its allies while turning a blind eye to other countries with more credible links to extremism and terrorism.  

UANI supports accusations by Trump and U.S. warhawks that Iran is “the world’s worst state sponsor of terrorism,” based mainly on its support for the Lebanese Shiite political party Hezbollah, whose militia defends southern Lebanon against Israel and fights in Syria as an ally of the government. 

But Iran placed UANI on its own list of terrorist groups in 2019 after Mark Wallace and UANI hosted a meeting at the Roosevelt Hotel in New York that was mainly attended by supporters of the Mujahedin-e-Kalqh (MEK). The MEK is a group that the U.S. government itself listed as a terrorist organization until 2012 and which is still committed to the violent overthrow of the government in Iran – preferably by persuading the U.S. and its allies to do it for them. UANI tried to distance itself from the meeting after the fact, but the published program listed UANI as the event organizer.            

On the other hand, there are two countries where CEPU and UANI seem strangely unable to find any links to extremism or terrorism at all, and they are the very countries that appear to be funding their operations, lavish salaries and shadowy “consulting fees”: Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. 

Many Americans are still demanding a public investigation into Saudi Arabia’s role in the crimes of September 11th. In a court case against Saudi Arabia brought by 9/11 victims’ families, the FBI recently revealed that a Saudi Embassy official, Mussaed Ahmed al-Jarrah, provided crucial support to two of the hijackers. Brett Eagleson, a spokesman for the families whose father was killed on September 11th, told Yahoo News, “(This) demonstrates there was a hierarchy of command that’s coming from the Saudi Embassy to the Ministry of Islamic Affairs [in Los Angeles] to the hijackers.”

The global spread of the Wahhabi version of Islam that unleashed and fueled Al Qaeda, ISIS and other violent Muslim extremist groups has been driven primarily by Saudi Arabia, which has built and funded Wahhabi schools and mosques all over the world. That includes the King Fahd Mosque in Los Angeles that the two 9/11 hijackers attended.

It is also well documented that Saudi Arabia has been the largest funder and arms supplier for the Al Qaeda-led forces that have destroyed Syria since 2011, including CIA-brokered shipments of thousands of tons of weapons from Benghazi in Libya and at least eight countries in Eastern Europe. The UAE also supplied arms funding to Al Qaeda-allied rebels in Syria between 2012 and 2016, and the Saudi and UAE roles have now been reversed in Libya, where the UAE is the main supplier of thousands of tons of weapons to General Haftar’s rebel forces. In Yemen, both the Saudis and Emiratis have committed war crimes. The Saudi and Emirati air forces have bombed schools, clinics, weddings and school buses, while the Emiratis tortured detainees in 18 secret prisons in Yemen.

But United Against a Nuclear Iran and Counter Extremism Project have redacted all of this from the one-sided worldview they offer to U.S. policymakers and the American corporate media. While they demonize Iran, Qatar, Hezbollah and the Muslim Brotherhood as extremists and terrorists, they depict Saudi Arabia and the UAE exclusively as victims of terrorism and allies in U.S.-led “counterterrorism” campaigns, never as sponsors of extremism and terrorism or perpetrators of war crimes. 

The message of these groups dedicated to “countering extremism” is clear and none too subtle: Saudi Arabia and the UAE are always U.S. allies and victims of extremism, never a problem or a source of danger, violence or chaos. The country we should all be worrying about is – you guessed it – Iran. You couldn’t pay for propaganda like this! But on the other hand, if you’re Saudi Arabia or the United Arab Emirates and you have greedy, corrupt Americans knocking on your door eager to sell their loyalty, maybe you can. 

*

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.

Medea Benjamin is cofounder of CODEPINK for Peace, and author of several books, including Inside Iran: The Real History and Politics of the Islamic Republic of Iran. 

Nicolas J. S. Davies is an independent journalist, a researcher with CODEPINK and the author of Blood On Our Hands: the American Invasion and Destruction of Iraq.

Featured image is from OneWorld

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

Michel Chossudovsky

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

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

Year: 2015

Pages: 240 Pages

List Price: $22.95

Special Price: $15.00

Click here to order.

“This was the first man to break a window at autozone.

A move that started the string of looting and damage to businesses. He is seen wearing all black and carrying an umbrella to conceal the hammer he is holding in the same hand.

No one knew this man, he didn’t protest, when confronted he ran the other way.

And by the looks of it- his boots- are military grade. Meaning this man is either in some form or militia or he is WITH THE POLICE.”

The issue of Police Provocateurs is currently in the news following the police murder in Minneapolis of George Floyd.

This video was first produced in 2007

Today are thoughts are with the family and friends of George Floyd. 

Michel Chossudovsky. May 28, 2020

***

Peaceful protesters stop police provocateurs from starting a riot at the Stop the SPP protests in Montebello Quebec in 2007. 

“About 1,200 protesters were in the small resort town near Ottawa as Prime Minister Stephen Harper met with U.S. President George W. Bush and Mexican President Felipe Calderon at a two-day summit to discuss issues under the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America pact  (SPP).

The police admitted they were their officers.”

CEP President Dave Coles confronts men with rocks and sticks.

In the footage, three burly men with bandanas and other covers over their faces push through protesters toward a line of riot police.

One of the men has a rock in his hand.

As they move forward, Coles and other union leaders dressed in suits order the men to put the rock down and leave, accuse them of being police agents provocateurs, and try unsuccessfully to unmask them.

Video

CBC Report 

U.S. President Donald Trump is losing interest in the trade deal he made with China, according to his economic adviser, and the reason could be that as we progress further into the election season, fixing relations with China is less important than distracting the population from his failure to handle and contain the coronavirus pandemic. The trade deal between the U.S. and China is not that important anymore for Trump, according to Larry Kudlow, director of the U.S. National Economic Council and assistant to the president for economic affairs, who also said the trade agreement reached in January remains unchanged for the time being, but Trump would observe the degree of compliance by Beijing with its obligations.

Previously, the Trump administration did not hide that the trade agreement with China plays a crucial political role for Trump’s re-election. Efforts made by the U.S. President in 2019 to get the best deal for the U.S. led to the signing of “Phase 1” of the agreement in January, in which China pledged to increase U.S. goods imports by $200 billion in two years, compared to the 2017 level, and the U.S., in turn, abolished a series of tariff duties.

Under the terms of the agreement, negotiations on Phase 2 should proceed depending on how Phase 1 of the agreement is implemented. Many U.S. experts feared that due to the coronavirus pandemic, China would not be able to fulfill its obligations to purchase American products. The U.S. Department of Agriculture released data that revealed the sales of corn and pork to China increased eight times compared to the 2017 level, cotton increased three times over the same year, and the supply of soy to China increased by a third.

Data from S&P Global Market Intelligence indicated that U.S. exports to China were $21.2 billion lower in the first quarter than previously planned, with the statistics being mainly hampered by sources of energy, especially liquefied natural gas. In order to strictly fulfil all conditions in terms of price volume, and taking into account the fall in oil prices, China would have to buy around three million barrels of oil per day from the U.S., which would be equal to the entire volume of daily U.S. oil exports, a task that seems impossible even under normal conditions, let alone during a sharp drop in economic activity.

Despite the continuing deterioration in relations between the two countries, China still emphasizes its commitment in fulfilling its obligations. Even in Li Keqiang’s annual report, number two in the country’s Communist Party Politburo, it states that China will do its best to consistently implement Phase 1 of the agreement. The Chinese official’s report calls for private business structures to also be guided by his indications. Keeping in mind that this year some of the most important targets, including GDP growth, were not mentioned in the report, it did however detail that the trade agreement between China and the U.S. can send a clear signal about the great importance that the Chinese authorities attach to the fulfilment of their obligations.

Still, Trump’s economic adviser said the deal is no longer of great importance to the U.S. president as he is reportedly very angry with China over the coronavirus pandemic and other problems. Everyone remembers the importance of the trade agreement for Trump and some American experts have even feared that the president would make a deal that would be unfavorable to the U.S. just for the sake of formally signing an agreement with China.

However, it is likely that Trump’s inconsistent attitude is only during this re-election cycle and that relations could be more normalized if Trump is re-elected. This does not discount though that this makes Trump very volatile and unpredictable. Trump’s shift in position is now linked to domestic economic and health problems. At the same time, the trade war with China has failed to achieve Trump’s goals to return production and industry to the U.S. and reduce trade imbalances.

The coronavirus pandemic also further exacerbated existing problems and, as a result, the U.S. economy is in recession. China remains committed to strict implementation of the First Phase of the agreement and is ready to take practical steps to increase the acquisition of relevant assets in the U.S., even with the difficult epidemiological situation. The trade deficit with China continues to widen and Trump’s popularity is beginning to fall, even if only slightly, which makes the U.S. president want to shift the blame to others to save his popularity and create new topics of discussion away from his own failure of containing the pandemic.

The economic situation in the U.S. and the significant changes in the world have made Washington very nervous, especially as the U.S. is the most affected country by the coronavirus with more than 1.7 million infected and 100,000 dead, according to Johns Hopkins University. This is also devastating as unemployment in the U.S. this year can reach a peak of 25%, according to the head of the Federal Reserve, Jerome Powell. For this reason, Trump must focus attention towards China’s alleged responsibility for the pandemic instead of amending trade relations.

*

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 FinanceTwitter

The coup d’état carried out in Bolivia was the starting point for a major wave of social, political and economic setbacks in the country. Bolivia is the poorest country in South America, with very high poverty rates, however, during the years of Evo Morales, the country’s growth was enormous, reaching the point of being the South American country with the greatest economic growth. The seizure of power by the coup d’état represented the return of the worst growth rates, in addition to a huge escalation of violence against indigenous populations – extremely respected previously by Evo Morales – and gigantic corruption scandals.

Bolivia’s interim president, Jeanine Añez, recently proved the nature behind the new government by being indicted in a lawsuit. Añez and the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Karen Longaric, were the first people summoned to provide information for a current investigation. The charge against both is of involvement in corruption networks during the purchase of ventilators and other medical supplies to – supposedly – fight the pandemic.

The corruption scandal in Bolivia started a few weeks ago, when health professionals reported that the Spanish ventilators acquired by the Bolivian State were of low quality and unfit for hospital use with the purpose of facing a pandemic. According to official sources, the Bolivian government has spent more than $ 27,000 on each device (about 170 devices), while domestic producers (Bolivians) charge about $ 1,000.

“This investigation will summon Jeanine Áñez, Longaric and other officials involved in this purchase that has become theft of the pockets of the entire Bolivian people,” lawmaker Édgar Montaño told reporters.

According to the parliamentarian, Áñez must acknowledge that she knew all the details of the agreement, which she herself had ordered, while Longaric must explain why no action was taken after the Bolivian consul in Barcelona sent a report with the details of the contract. It is also worth remembering that, on Wednesday (May 20), Bolivia’s Minister of Health, Marcelo Navajas, was arrested and dismissed from office on suspicion of involvement in the corruption scandal.

As investigations progress, the situation becomes increasingly serious for Bolivian domestic politics, as major corruption schemes and illicit deals are discovered, revealed, and meticulously used as political weapons in party disputes within the country. Some people and groups that support the legitimate Bolivian president, Evo Morales, are innocently celebrating the performance of the Bolivian Parliament “against the coup”, but, in fact, there is no reason to celebrate so far.

If, on the one hand, there is something positive in the fact that the illicit activities of the coup government are being exposed, on the other, the central objective of the coup is being accomplished: the intention of the groups that financed and supported the overthrow of Morales was never to put Jeanine Añez (or any other politician) in power, but to completely destabilize the Bolivian State, creating a scenario of absolute political chaos, with total institutional bankruptcy, thus facilitating the transformation of Bolivia into a land of foreign interference.

In fact, we can predict that from now on it is likely that the next presidents of Bolivia, be they left or right (terms absolutely outdated and geopolitically irrelevant), will fall in succession, without completing their mandates and the country’s command will remain, thus, vulnerable and without a central guardian of law and order. Within the chaotic scenario, the irregular action of external agents and foreign meddling in Bolivia will be simpler and, in addition to structural problems such as poverty and hunger, Bolivians would have to deal with a situation of total subordination to foreign powers – which it did not exist in the time of Morales, when the country tried to chart a sovereign and independent way, besides achieving diverse progress in many social indices.

What now happens in Bolivia can also be seen when we analyze several previous experiences. Countries victimized by the so-called “colorful revolutions” – hybrid wars disguised under the mask of democratic revolutions – tend to be characterized after the outcome of such “revolutions” by the establishment of true “zombie states”, which consist of nothing more than innocuous institutions and without any strength to deal with the real problems of their countries.

With the presidential election situation still uncertain in the midst of the pandemic – the Executive Branch and the Judiciary made different decisions and, amid institutional chaos, nothing is yet fully defined – the future of the Bolivian government is really unknown, but the scenario is very pessimistic, with few expectations of overcoming the crisis. The tendency is for Jeanine to fall and, after her, the next president will also not fulfill his mandate completely. In contemporary hybrid warfare, attacks are continuous and “colorful revolutions” tend to be permanent.

*

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 EFE

On May 28th 2018, the organizers of that year’s violent failed coup attempt executed a carefully planned, well coordinated attack to destroy the pro-government Sandinista radio station Nueva Radio Ya. During the attack, opposition gunmen fired on firefighters and police officers trying to reach the scene of the fire, wounding five police officers and killing police officer Douglas José Mendiolas Viales.

The attack involved inflammatory false reports broadcast by the opposition propaganda outlet 100% Noticias, under that television channel’s director Miguel Mora. It also involved coordinated roadblocks aimed both at preventing the Nueva Radio Ya personnel from escaping and at preventing help from the authorities reaching the radio.

The testimonies of the Nueva Radio Ya journalists who survived the attack categorically expose the falsity and cynicism of Western media coverage of the events during the violent opposition attempt to overthrow Nicaragua’s sandinista government in 2018.

In particular, their testimony:

• exposes the lie that the opposition protests during the crisis in 2018 were peaceful, when the evidence is incontestable that groups of protesters consistently inflicted deliberate lethal violence from the outset;
• categorically confirms that the protests were not spontaneous but in fact part of a carefully planned and well financed strategy of violent disruption and attrition to forces the government of President Ortega to resign;
• constitutes yet another case confirming that all the international human rights organizations, including the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, the Inter American Human Rights Commission and Amnesty International, among others,  negligently failed to interview victims of opposition violence, but still falsely and cynically reported that the opposition organized protests in 2018 were peaceful;
• demonstrates the hypocrisy of Western organizations advocating freedom of speech who either failed to condemn the attack intended to destroy a popular radio station or else, defended opposition media that helped provoke and the violence as well as seeking mendaciously to attribute it all to the police and sandinista supporters, some,  like the US Committee for the Protection of Journalists, cynically awarding a prize to the opposition coup supporters who incited the attack on Nueva Radio Ya.

The interviews with journalists of Nueva Radio Ya who experienced the attack on May 28th 2018 are available here:

Interview with Dennis Schwarz, Director of Nueva Radio Ya

“Why did they burn us down? Because we are a radio with Sandinista principles and a vocation to serve the people. We address everyone’s priorities and needs.

“…it took eight months for them to create the conditions they needed to burn down the radio, by repeatedly saying we were the official voice of the Sandinista Front, that we made fun of ordinary people, that we attacked sexual diversity a lot, which is not true at all.

And they created this huge snowball of fake opinion to justify what they had planned in advance on May 28, 2018, to burn us down. They created so much “fake news”, so many lies around our operation and all they wanted was to justify the burning of the radio…

“We are going through a difficult situation right now again with another economic blockade because now the Nicaraguan Organization of Advertising Agencies, ONAP, has directly told its advertising agencies not to advertise on our radio because they say we are a government radio station, so many lies like that are told about us and this has affected us…”

Interview with Bismarck Garcia Zapata journalist and coordinator of correspondents for Nueva Radio Ya

“They attacked us five times. The cruelest attacks were on April 20th, May 28th and May 30th…

“About twenty-one of us were there on the morning of May 28, 2018. The smoke was advancing inside. It was becoming very difficult to breathe in the whole reception area and along the corridor and the broadcasting area, our cabin, our controller was using a wet T-shirt to be able to breathe because the smoke was so harmful.

“In any case, here, we continue to work with our sights set on the future and also to support the Christian Socialist and Solidarity model developed by the Government of Reconciliation and National Unity presided over by Comandante Daniel Ortega and Compañera Rosario Murillo…

“All those hospitals that were burned down and set on fire and looted, all the Casas Maternas that were damaged and stripped of everything, all that has already been rebuilt because it is easy to destroy, but only people with consciousness of love and service to others can rebuild as the Sandinista government has done after the failed coup attempt in Nicaragua.”

Interview with Arlen Hernandez, journalist with Tu Nueva Radio Ya

“Tu Nueva Radio Ya, since its inception, has always represented the interests of our people. It has always been on the side of our people in difficult moments and also in happy moments. But even more so when a response is required. That’s why Tu Nueva Radio Ya, since its creation in 1990, has always held the first place in audience approval and that’s why big business has blocked us financially because even though their advertising may be successful on Tu Nueva Radio Ya, they simply don’t give it to us because we represent the Nicaraguan people and because we are Sandinista…

“…they set out to burn all of us to death, more than twenty-two workers who were there, unarmed, and we were going to burn to death. That was the intention. And beyond that, also to silence the voice of the people. Because Tu Nueva Radio Ya always had its microphones open to everyone in difficult political, economic, and social situations of all kinds, Tu Nueva Radio Ya has always been present, including all through 1990 to 2006t, when the People’s conquests were reversed and the neoliberal model came with its fiercest claws, privatizing education and health.

“…they were trying to kill off the collective of Tu Nueva Radio Ya, to destroy both the people who were inside the radio and the infrastructure with the intention of silencing the truth because that is how it is. The truth is on our side and we are not going to stop telling it.”

Interview with Carlos Alfaro, sports journalist with Tu Nueva Radio Ya

“The first attack against the radio happened on April 21st. From that first attack until May 28th, the situation was very difficult for us. There was quite a lot of pressure. Day by day there was a worry about what would happen to us inside the radio and if there was a positive experience in the midst of the negative ones, it was that after April 21st when we were first attacked, all the radio personnel came together more, became more united. We saw the radio as a family so that all of us should feel more together.

On May 28th in the morning as always we were under siege. There was the usual tension, mortar bombs, Molotov cocktails, but it was around the morning that the strong attack on Tu Nueva Radio Ya really began. We agreed to lock up, the lights were put out in the radio lobby, all the lights were out. Only the cabin lights were on so we could do our job and broadcast what was happening.

They came at us throwing the Molotov cocktails, firing a lot of mortar rounds. They attacked us from the front and from the east side of the radio, and it was an incredible shock. Among the radio workers quite a few women workers were crying, and I remember that during the time of the attack it was difficult to move or even to be able to breathe because there was a  fire inside the radio offices.”

*

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

This article was originally published in Spanish on Tortilla con Sal.

All images in this article are from TCS unless otherwise stated

In less than three-and-a-half years in office, Trump oversaw the Great GOP 2017 tax cut heist.

It handed corporate America and high-net-worth individuals a multi-billion dollar bonanza of enhanced wealth — followed this year by what I call 9/11 2.0, economic collapse triggered by COVID-19 lockdowns.

Along with letting dominant US corporate giants consolidate to greater size and market power, it includes an escalated great wealth transfer from ordinary Americans to privileged ones.

The scheme has been ongoing in the US (and West) for decades, notably since the neoliberal 90s — war on social justice, a plot to eliminate it altogether over time.

It aims to free up US wealth for escalated militarism, endless wars, corporate handouts, and greater enrichment of America’s super-rich.

The grand scheme is transforming the US (and other Western states) into ruler-serf societies — thirdworldized and controlled by police state power, unsafe and unfit to live in, privileged interests served exclusively at the expense of ordinary people.

Since US economic collapse began in February, millions of Americans applied for unemployment benefits — ongoing for 12 consecutive weeks in unprecedented numbers, greater than during the Great Depression, US unemployment today much higher than then.

Overall conditions today for ordinary Americans are far worse than in the 1930s.

Following Franklin Roosevelt’s 1932 election, New Deal programs put millions of people back to work.

Virtually nothing is being done to create jobs today, Dems as culpable as Republicans.

Both right wings of the one-party state are indifferent toward public health and welfare, and it shows by their policies.

Official unemployment numbers way understate reality, the true number around 40% of working-age Americans.

Most US workers with jobs have part-time or temp employment for poverty-level wages with few or no benefits.

Countless numbers of US workers had their hours and pay cut. Growing millions have no health insurance.

Americans can have anything they want — depending on their ability to pay.

They’re increasingly on their own otherwise, notably at a time of unprecedented economic collapse that’s far more serious than COVID-19 outbreaks.

They’ll pass in time, even if increase substantially in the months ahead.

The wreckage from economic collapse will be long-lasting, millions of jobs permanently lost, the lives and welfare of countless numbers of Americans devastated — way too little help from Washington forthcoming.

A new Institute for Policy Studies (IPS) report discussed a bonanza for US billionaires at a time of unprecedented job losses — “pandemic profiteers” benefitting from human misery.

Super-wealth of America’s billionaire class increased by around “half a trillion” dollars this year, according to IPS, an unprecedented heist over a short period of time.

According to Forbes magazine, the US has 614 billionaires, along with nine others, foreign nationals living in America.

IPS reported that the super-wealth of America’s billionaire class increased by 16.5% from March 18 to May 28 — while countless millions in the country “face suffering, hardship and loss of life.”

The US billionaire class added 14 more to its total in the last 10 weeks, 628 up from 614, IPS explained.

Two super-billionaires — Amazon’s Jeff Bezos and Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg — increased their wealth by “over $63 billion since March 18.”

IPS called today’s state of America “a grotesque indicator of the deep inequalities in US society.”

Before economic collapse began in February, over 20% of working-age Americans were unemployed, based on the pre-1990 calculation model.

They’re omitted from official Labor Department numbers, nonpersons according to Republicans and Dems.

In the past three months, around 41 million more Americans sought unemployment benefits.

Millions more haven’t had their applications processed, along with millions of out-of-work self-employed Americans — many, maybe most, not getting unemployment benefits.

Because health insurance is linked to employment, tens of millions of Americans lost coverage.

IPS: “While millions risk their lives and livelihoods as first responders and front line workers, these billionaires benefit from an economy and tax system that is wired to funnel wealth to the top.”

“Low-wage workers, people of color, and women have suffered disproportionately in the combined medical and economic crises.”

“Billionaires are overwhelmingly white men.”

As of mid-May, the combined super-wealth of the US billionaire class exceeded $3.3 trillion.

Two Americas exist — one for the vast majority of its people, ordinary ones struggling to get by, including unprecedented numbers out-of-work.

The other is for the nation’s super-rich and privileged class overall. Its members never had things better — their gain at the expense of most others.

Looking ahead, things most likely will worsen for ordinary Americans, the trend for decades.

They’re exploited by the nation’s privileged class in cahoots with Republicans, Dems, and the Wall Street owned Fed.

Together they comprise a conspiracy against peace, equity, justice, the rule of law, and government serving all its people.

The American way is polar opposite, the privileged few benefitting hugely at the expense of most others in a nation where democracy is pure fantasy, not real.

*

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.

This article is of relevance to the ongoing debate on vaccines.

It was first published in February 2015

According to LifeSiteNews, a Catholic publication, the Kenya Catholic Doctors Association is charging UNICEF and WHO with sterilizing millions of girls and women under cover of an anti-tetanus vaccination program sponsored by the Kenyan government.

The Kenyan government denies there is anything wrong with the vaccine, and says it is perfectly safe.

The Kenya Catholic Doctors Association, however, saw evidence to the contrary, and had six different samples of the tetanus vaccine from various locations around Kenya sent to an independent laboratory in South Africa for testing.

The results confirmed their worst fears: all six samples tested positive for the HCG antigen. The HCG antigen is used in anti-fertility vaccines, but was found present in tetanus vaccines targeted to young girls and women of childbearing age. Dr. Ngare, spokesman for the Kenya Catholic Doctors Association, stated in a bulletin released November 4:

“This proved right our worst fears; that this WHO campaign is not about eradicating neonatal tetanus but a well-coordinated forceful population control mass sterilization exercise using a proven fertility regulating vaccine. This evidence was presented to the Ministry of Health before the third round of immunization but was ignored.” (Source.)

Dr. Ngare brought up several points about the mass tetanus vaccination program in Kenya that caused the Catholic doctors to become suspicious:

Dr. Ngare told LifeSiteNews that several things alerted doctors in the Church’s far-flung medical system of 54 hospitals, 83 health centres, and 17 medical and nursing schools to the possibility the anti-tetanus campaign was secretly an anti-fertility campaign.

Why, they ask does it involve an unprecedented five shots (or “jabs” as they are known, in Kenya) over more than two years and why is it applied only to women of childbearing years, and why is it being conducted without the usual fanfare of government publicity?

“Usually we give a series three shots over two to three years, we give it anyone who comes into the clinic with an open wound, men, women or children.” said Dr. Ngare.

But it is the five vaccination regime that is most alarming. “The only time tetanus vaccine has been given in five doses is when it is used as a carrier in fertility regulating vaccines laced with the pregnancy hormone, Human Chorionic Gonadotropin (HCG) developed by WHO in 1992.” (Source.)

UNICEF: A History of Taking Advantage of Disasters to Mass Vaccinate

It should be noted that UNICEF and WHO distribute these vaccines for free, and that there are financial incentives for the Kenyan government to participate in these programs. When funds from the UN are not enough to purchase yearly allotments of vaccines, an organization started and funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, GAVI, provides extra funding for many of these vaccination programs in poor countries. (See: Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation Vaccine Empire on Trial in India.)

Also, there was no outbreak of tetanus in Kenya, only the perceived “threat” of tetanus due to local flood conditions.

These local disasters are a common reason UNICEF goes into poorer countries with free vaccines to begin mass vaccination programs.

Health Impact News reported last year that UNICEF began a similar mass vaccination program with 500,000 doses of live oral polio vaccine in the Philippines after a Super Typhoon devastated Tacolban and surrounding areas. This was in spite of the fact there were no reported cases of polio in the Philippines since 1993, and people who have had the live polio vaccine can “shed” the virus into sewage systems, thereby causing the actual disease it is supposed to be preventing. (See: No Polio in the Philippines Since 1993, But Mass Polio Vaccination Program Targeted for 500,000 Typhoon Victims Under Age 5.)

A very similar mass vaccination with the live oral polio vaccine occurred among Syrian refugees in 2013, when 1.7 million doses of polio vaccine were purchased by UNICEF, in spite of the fact that no cases of polio had been seen since 1999. After the mass vaccination program started, cases of polio began to reappear in Syria. (See: Are UNICEF Live Polio Vaccines Causing Polio Among Syrians? 1.7 Billion Polio Vaccines Purchased by UNICEF.)

It seems quite apparent that UNICEF and WHO use these local disasters to mass vaccinate people, mainly children and young women. Massive education and propaganda efforts are also necessary to convince the local populations that they need these vaccines.

Here is a video UNICEF produced for the tetanus vaccine in Kenya.

Notice how they use school teachers and local doctors to do the educating, even though the vaccines are produced by western countries.

At least in Kenya, Catholic doctors are acting and taking a stand against what they see as an involuntary mass sterilization campaign designed to control the population of Africans.

The US is waging undeclared war on China by other means. 

Trump and congressional hardliners escalated things beyond where their predecessors went.

What’s going on is all about aiming to undermine China’s growing political, economic, financial, industrial, technological, and military development and prominence on the world stage.

It has nothing to do with a PRC military or other security threat. China is at peace with its neighbors and other nations.

On Thursday, Pompeo continued his war of words on China.

Falsely accusing Beijing of eroding Hong Kong’s liberties — a US specialty at home and abroad — he urged “decertification” of the city, saying:

“I can no longer certify that Hong Kong continues to warrant…deferential treatment under US law.”

He falsely claimed that China’s new national security law “contradicts the spirit (of) the one country, two systems framework.”

He ignored months of made-in-the-USA Hong Kong protests for months last year, featuring violence and vandalism.

Orchestrated by US dark forces, they began again, interfering in China’s internal affairs, a major breach of the UN Charter and other international law — how the US operates globally, by its own imperial rules.

Hours before a Friday news conference by Trump on China, it’s unclear if he’ll announce decertification.

Days earlier, he promised a strong response to China’s national security law, saying only that he’d talk “about it over the next couple of days.”

Separately, White House spokeswoman Kayleigh McEnany said Trump finds it “hard to see how Hong Kong can remain a financial hub if China takes over.”

She ignored the fact that the city is to China, its sovereign territory, what New York, New Haven, New Orleans, Newark, Newport, Newton, and other US cities are to America.

Trump’s national security advisor Robert O’Brien suggested new US sanctions on China may be imposed — a UN Charter breach when unilaterally by one nation on others, he failed to explain.

On Friday, the South China Morning Post (SCMP) quoted retired PLA military strategist/General Qiao Liang’s geopolitical advice.

Focus on Beijing’s main adversary (USA), he urged. All else externally is minor by comparison.

“When you are facing off a gang in a fight, you must first bring down the biggest guy and other opponents will be intimidated,” he stressed,” adding:

“We need to prioritize in the face of this formidable opponent. We should not distract ourselves by tackling weaker opponents for self-consolation.”

“Arm-wrestling with the US is the least wanted but most urgent business we have to do now.”

Both hawkish wings of its war party go all-out to control other countries by whatever it takes to achieve their objectives.

Qiao believes the US is heading for direct confrontation with China.

Actions already taken include trade and tariffs war, shutting tech giant Huawei out of the US market, banning tech sales to the company, wanting its CFO prosecuted in the US for doing her job, pushing to decouple both economies, falsely blaming China for COVID-19 outbreaks, demanding compensation, orchestrating Hong Kong violence, supporting separatists in Taiwan, Xinjiang, Tibet, and Hong Kong — along with wanting China’s development undermined.

Qiao urged Beijing to neutralize the US by becoming more self-reliant through further development of its domestic market, and reducing its reliance on raw material imports, especially from the US and West.

He called China’s national security law “inevitable and necessary.”

“It’s not just a local issue of Hong Kong but is also tied to the contest between China and the US.”

“Hong Kong is now the frontier of the contest…and a key battlefield for China to fend off US suppression,” he explained.

Separately, China’s Defense Minister Wei Fenghe stressed that “the Sino-US strategic confrontation has entered a period of high risk.”

According to US media reports, the Trump regime intends to expel up to 5,000 Chinese graduate students and researchers from the US.

Proposed congressional legislation calls for prohibiting issuance of visas to Chinese nationals wanting to study science and math in the US.

Cold War between both countries is escalating. If Trump, the GOP, and Dems push things too far, it could boil over into something hot.

What’s going on is one of many reasons why today is the most perilous time in US history.

Instead of stepping back from the brink, imperial policies of dominant hardliners in Washington risk global war by accident or design.

*

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.

Do you value the reporting and in-depth analysis provided by Global Research on a daily basis?

Click to donate or click here to become a member of Global Research.

*     *     *

The Horrific Minneapolis Police Killing of George Floyd

By Kassandra Frederique, May 29, 2020

The drug war did not create institutional racism or disregard for Black life in the US. However, it feeds and bolsters the racist structures that snuff out Black life daily. This tragic case is no different. Officer Thao invoking drug use as a warning to bystanders and later as pretext for Mr. Floyd’s death is unconscionable, but the real cause of his death was his brutal mistreatment at the hands of police who repeatedly ignored not only his desperate pleas for mercy but also those of bystanders. The real danger we should be drawing awareness to is not drugs, but the ways in which the color of one’s skin, one’s perceived gender—as our trans siblings know all too well—or one’s socio-economic status make them a target for harassment and, far too often, death.

Minneapolis Police Murder Handcuffed Man with Neck-Kneel

By Niko Georgiades, May 29, 2020

During the encounter that was filmed by community member Darnella Frazier, Chauvin is seen pushing his knee into the handcuffed man’s neck as he was on the pavement of Chicago Avenue near 38th Street in front of Cup Foods. On the video, bystanders can be heard questioning why Chauvin continued to dig his knee in the man’s neck for so long.

Outrage Mounts Over Racist Police and Vigilante Killings against African Americans

By Abayomi Azikiwe, May 28, 2020

Four Minneapolis police officers have been terminated from their jobs in the aftermath of the videotaped exposure of the blatant killing of George Floyd. This act of police violence which has no justification is by no means an isolated incident.

The Toronto G20 Riot Fraud: Undercover Police engaged in Purposeful Provocation

By Terry Burrows, May 29, 2020

Minneapolis May 2020. Toronto June 2010. This article was published ten years ago. Toronto is right now in the midst of a massive government / media propaganda fraud. As events unfold, it is becoming increasingly clear that the ‘Black Bloc’ are undercover police operatives engaged in purposeful provocations to eclipse and invalidate legitimate G20 citizen protest by starting a riot. Government agents have been caught doing this before in Canada.

Video: Dr. John Lott: More Money to Hospitals for COVID-19 Deaths

By Dr. John Lott and John Hines, May 29, 2020

There is a dramatic over-count.  The CDC is double counting. The numbers are more than twice what they should be.

There has also been an inflation of coronavirus deaths.

Additional funds are allocated to hospitals for COVID-19 patients.

There are pressures on hospitals to categorize deaths as coronavirus.  There is a substantial amount of money for the hospitals.

Trump the “Peace Candidate”: Contemplating War During Pandemic against Two Global Competitors. Nuclear Weapons “Tests” against China and Russia

By Philip Giraldi, May 29, 2020

Let us consider why the Donald Trump White House is currently considering detonating a nuclear weapon. It would be the first “test” of a nuke since 1992 and is clearly intended to send a message that those weapons sitting around in storage will be available for use. The testing is in response to alleged development of low-yield tactical nuclear devices by Beijing and Moscow, a claim that is unsupported by any evidence and which is likely a contrivance designed to suggest that there is strong leadership coming out of Washington at a time when the Administration has been faulted for its multiple failures in combatting the coronavirus.

The Volleys of an Information War Against China

By Leonid Savin, May 29, 2020

A strategic information campaign against a particular state usually involves a number of elements and layers. While officials and diplomats gradually increase the aggressiveness of their rhetoric, “independent” media outlets publish a range of articles from life stories to special investigations. They may differ in tone and subject matter, but they all have the same goal. Campaigns like these are of particular importance to the US, where there is a tradition of enlisting the support of public opinion. Therefore, to ensure the success of foreign policy actions, the public must be prepared.

The world’s largest airline trade group has called for immunity passports, thermal screening, masks, and physical distancing to be a part of the industry’s strategy for returning to “normal” operations.

The International Air Transport Association (IATA), which represents 299 airlines, recently issued their publication, Biosecurity for Air Transport A Roadmap for Restarting Aviation, which outlines their strategy to open up air travel as governments begin to lift travel restrictions.

Under a section titled, “The passenger experience” and “Temporary biosecurity measures,” the IATA describes their vision of post-COVID-19 flights. The organization calls for contact tracing, a controversial method of tracking the civilian population to track the spread of COVID-19.

“We foresee the need to collect more detailed passenger contact information which can be used for tracing purposes,” the report states. “Where possible, the data should be collected in electronic form, and in advance of the passenger arriving at the airport including through eVisa and electronic travel authorization platforms.”

Interestingly, this call for pre-boarding check-in using “electronic travel authorization platforms” coincides with the recent announcement of the Covi-Pass and the Health Pass from Clear, both of which call for a digital ID system using biometrics and storing travel, health, and identification data.

Alexandre de Juniac, IATA’s CEO, told Arabian Industry that “a layered approach” combining multiple measures which are “globally implemented and mutually recognized by governments” are “the way forward for biosecurity.”

The IATA also calls for temperature screening at entry points to airport terminals. They envision the airline experience involving physical distancing of 3-6 feet throughout the airport. The group believes changes to the airport buildings to allow for physical distancing may be necessary. The IATA also recommended “face coverings” for passengers and protective equipment for airline and airport staff.

Although the organization acknowledged that there is not currently a fast reliable test for COVID-19, they believe that once an effective test is developed it could be applied on entry to the terminal. They call for this measure to be “incorporated into the passenger process as soon as an effective test, validated by the medical community, has been developed.”

On the topic of immunity passports — an idea discussed by Anthony Fauci, the World Health Organization, and Bill Gates — the IATA states that “immunity passports could play an important role in further facilitating the restart of air travel.” The organization believes that if a person is shown to have recovered from COVID-19 and developed immunity they will not need protective measures. Once medical evidence supports the possibility of immunity to COVID-19, IATA believes “it is essential that a recognized global standard be introduced, and that corresponding documents be made available electronically.”

Finally, the IATA believes a “general move towards greater use of touchless technology and biometrics should also be pursued.” Biometrics would include facial recognition, retina scanning, and/or thumbprints.

This vision painted by the IATA is one where those who choose to fly are faced with invasive security measures, surveillance, biometric tracking, immunity passports, temperature screenings, and generally, less human contact due to physical distancing and less communication with actual people. Of course, this push towards a digital ID which contains an individual’s personal identifying information, health records, and other personal data is part of an agenda which predates COVID-19. The “powers that wish they were” are taking every opportunity to expand their technocratic control grid and the panic caused by COVID-19 allows them to accelerate their plans at a rate not seen since the days after the attacks of September 11, 2001.

The only thing stopping the roll out of this Technocratic State is the people of the world coming together, informing those who are in the dark, and unplugging from this control grid.

Question Everything, Come To Your Own Conclusions.

*

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 Activist Post

As an NHS doctor, I’ve seen people die and be listed as a victim of coronavirus without ever being tested for it. But unless we have accurate data, we won’t know which has killed more: the disease or the lockdown?

A strategic information campaign against a particular state usually involves a number of elements and layers. While officials and diplomats gradually increase the aggressiveness of their rhetoric, “independent” media outlets publish a range of articles from life stories to special investigations. They may differ in tone and subject matter, but they all have the same goal. Campaigns like these are of particular importance to the US, where there is a tradition of enlisting the support of public opinion. Therefore, to ensure the success of foreign policy actions, the public must be prepared.

Stories about bad guys tend to be the most effective. In general, the idea of the villain is used in the methodology of the political frame – the technique is always used in US elections, but it is also widely used in foreign policy. A test tube filled with washing powder can be waved around and Saddam Hussein can be accused of having chemical weapons. That was a story that did its job perfectly. Accusing Iran of preparing to develop nuclear weapons proved to be more complicated. Now, the volleys of an information war against China can be heard. While America’s top officials and bureaucrats do their thing, the country’s corporate media outlets are developing other avenues.

At the end of April, the Los Angeles Times published an article on the impact of the coronavirus on money laundering, especially in California, which is a hub of international drug trafficking. Quoting a special agent in charge of the Drug Enforcement Administration’s Los Angeles field division, the newspaper talks about a new sophisticated scheme involving Chinese citizens. Apparently, due to the restrictions on the amount of money that Chinese citizens can move overseas, drug traffickers and money brokers have set up the following system: a Chinese citizen wishing to convert yuan to dollars and stash it in the United States makes contact with a broker. The broker will tell this person to pay a factory that produces chemicals used in the manufacture of methamphetamine or fentanyl.

The factory then sends the precursors to Mexico, where they are converted into drugs, smuggled into the United States and sold for dollars. The broker tells the group in charge of the drug trafficking to deliver cash to a relative or an associate of the Chinese citizen whose money triggered the whole process. The money thus ends up in the United States in dollars, but it hasn’t entered the global financial system. “The more money that wants to leave China, the more chemicals go to Mexico and the more synthetic drugs end up in L.A.,” said the special agent. It is a bit like the hawala system that the US cracked down on in the early 2000s in connection with the possible financing of terrorism. The new scheme is more complicated, however, because the elements of the crime are much broader.

As the Los Angeles Times writes, most of the precursors for drugs are produced in the Chinese city of Wuhan, the same city where the global coronavirus pandemic began. Since some of these factories are not operating at present, this has had a knock-on effect on the illegal flow of money within the US.

US law enforcement officers are attributing this to the fact that “[w]hen chemicals aren’t flowing from China, there’s no churn in the money laundering system”. The article does not mention any specific methods for controlling illicit flows.

Another indirect factor is the soaring price of methamphetamine in Los Angeles. At the end of last year, the price was around $900 a pound, but it is now more than double that.

Weapons, ammunition, alongside bags of crystal methamphetamine and meth-laced yaba pills seized by Myanmar police and military are seen in this undated photo near Loikan village in Shan State, between February and April 2020 in what the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime described as Asia’s biggest-ever drug bust.

The next article was published by the Reuters news agency on 18 May. It describes a successful operation by the Myanmar police to seize 3,700 litres of liquid fentanyl in Shan State on the Chinese border. After a lot of big talk about what the UN is doing to combat drug trafficking and the high numbers of overdose deaths in the US and Canada, the agency provides some rather sensitive details. One of the meth producers in the region is the Sam Gor syndicate. The head of law enforcement for Myanmar’s counter-narcotics agency, Colonel Zaw Lin, said that the methylfentanyl had come from a neighbouring country, but he does not specify which one. Myanmar police documents seen by Reuters say that the majority of the seized drugs, precursors and equipment had come from China. The article then goes on to talk about Mexico and China’s role in supplying drugs to the US.

As a junior partner of the US propaganda machine, British newspaper The Telegraph highlighted the Asian roots of America’s narcotics problem by providing a detailed description of the police operation in Myanmar, adding that it was the first time such a large consignment had been seized. The article also stressed that the drugs were destined for North America rather than Asia or Europe.

Precursor chemicals used to make illicit drugs were seized by Myanmar police

The newspaper had already paid attention to the problem in a previous article, although, geographically, the only country mentioned is Mexico, from where synthetic opioids began entering the US in 2013.

It should be added that the subject of synthetic opioids is also being covered by the RAND corporation, whose employees are preparing similar reports. In one of these, published towards the end of 2019, China features as a manufacturer of drug precursors and a primary source of the drugs circulating in Europe and the US.

This story does not end with the accusation that Chinese citizens are involved in the manufacture of narcotics and their distribution in the US and Canada, however.

The fact is that the border between Shan State and China is controlled by rebel groups – the Myanmar National Democratic Alliance Army (MNDAA), which includes ethnic Chinese fighters, and the 20,000-strong United Wa State Army (UWSA). There is also the opinion that the UWSA receives direct support from the People’s Republic of China. In turn, the UWSA provides arms, ammunition and fighters to another rebel group – the ethnic Palaung Ta’ang National Liberation Army, which controls the area west of the main Mandalay–Lashio highway extending north towards the border with China.

This pattern of information allows a narrative to be created that China not only manufactures narcotics, but essentially created a combat-ready international criminal gang able to compete with the Mexican and Colombian drug cartels. And that is a matter of international security. Although the US has no evidence of China’s involvement in the process besides references in the media, RAND reports and their own intelligence agencies, an information campaign is a clear indication that the corresponding fabrication of facts has begun.

*

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.

Leonid Savin is a Geopolitical analyst, Chief editor of Geopolitica.ru, founder and chief editor of Journal of Eurasian Affairs; head of the administration of International Eurasian Movement.

All images in this article are from Oriental Review; featured image: The Drug Enforcement Administration is seizing bulk cash amid the coronavirus pandemic, which has hobbled money laundering schemes and created a backlog of drug proceeds in Los Angeles.

While celebrating the Africa Day, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs reaffirmed Russia’s commitment to offer support and participate in the sustainable development processes in Africa. In a videoconference held May 28 with local and foreign media, Russian Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova, highlighted the history leading to the establishment of the Africa Day, which is observed as an annual holiday symbolizing the desire of the peoples of the African continent to peace, independence and unity.

According to her,

“the close nature of friendly ties with African countries, the significant experience of mutually beneficial cooperation dates back to the early 1960s, when the Soviet Union unconditionally supported the desire of Africans to free themselves from colonial oppression. It provided them with substantial practical assistance in shaping the foundations of statehood, establishing national economies, and preparing civilian and military personnel.”

In recent years, however, African countries have been actively gaining weight and influence in international affairs, are increasingly participating in solving pressing issues of modern world politics and economics, she said.

The creation of the Russia-Africa Partnership Forum was one of the appreciable results of the first Russia-Africa Summit held last year, Zakharova noted, and expressed hope that “the mechanism of partnership between Russia and the African continent created during the summit will allow to establish and broaden cooperation.”

Looking Back

Under the current circumstances, African leaders and business elites try, most importantly, to reflect on how far Africa has gone in building a unified identity and strides made in socio-economic development. These socio-economic developments in some individual countries were achieved by harnessing internal resources and through bilateral and multilateral relations with external countries and cooperation with development partners.

For example, Soviet Union and Africa had very close and, in many respects, allied relations with most of the African countries during the decolonization of Africa. For obvious reasons, the Soviet Union ceased to exist in 1991.

As a result, Russia has to struggle through many internal and external difficulties. The past few years, it is still struggling to survive both the United States and European sanctions. Moscow still has a long way to catch-up with many other foreign players there.

Currently, Russia seems to have attained relative political and economic stability.

“As we regained our statehood and control over the country, and the economy and the social sphere began to develop, Russian businesses began to look at promising projects abroad, and we began to return to Africa,” noted Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov early September during his interaction with students and staff of Moscow State Institute for International Relations.

Emphasizing that the process of returning to Africa has been ongoing for the past 15 years, he further explained:

“the return is now taking the form of resuming a very close political dialogue, which has always been at a strategic and friendly level, and now moving to a vigorous economic cooperation. But economic cooperation is not as far advanced as our political ties.”

Dmitry Medvedev, while addressing the Russia-Africa Economic forum in July, also added his voice about strengthening cooperation in all fronts.

“We must take advantage of all things without fail. It is also important that we implement as many projects as possible, that encompass new venues and, of course, new countries,” he said.

In addition, Medvedev stressed:

“It is important to have a sincere desire. Russia and African countries now have this sincere desire. We simply need to know each other better and be more open to one another. I am sure all of us will succeed if we work this way. Even if some things seem impossible, this situation persists only until it is accomplished. It was Nelson Mandela who made this absolutely true statement.”

Acknowledging undoubtedly that Africa has become a new world center for global development, Russian legislators at the State Duma (the lower chamber) have advocated for supporting business and economic cooperation with Africa.

State Duma has established relations with African parliaments. During an instant meeting held with the Ambassadors of African countries in the Russian Federation, Viacheslav Volodin, the Chairman of the State Duma, remarked:

“We propose to move from intentions to concrete steps. Our people will better understand each other through parliamentary relations.”

The full transcript is available at the official website.

Moving Forward

On April 29, Russian International Affairs Council (RIAC), a powerful Russian NGO that focuses on foreign policy, held an online conference with participation of experts on Africa.  Chairing the online discussion, Igor Ivanov, former Foreign Affairs Minister and now RIAC President, made an opening speech. He pointed out that Russia’s task in Africa is to present a strategy and define priorities with the countries of the continent, build on the decisions of the first Russia-Africa Summit.

On the development of cooperation between Russia and African countries, Igor Ivanov pointed out a few steps here:

“Russia’s task is to prevent a rollback in relations with African countries. It is necessary to use the momentum set by the first Russia-Africa Summit. First of all, it is necessary for Russia to define explicitly its priorities: why are we returning to Africa? Just to make money, strengthen our international presence, help African countries or to participate in the formation of the new world order together with the African countries? Some general statements of a fundamental nature were made at the first Summit, now it is necessary to move from general statements to specificity.”

Sergey Lavrov, long ago, asked for more substantive dialogue on Russia-Africa issues, charting ways for effective cooperation. In an interview with the Hommes d’Afrique, he stressed “time is needed to solve all those issues, but it could start with experts’ meetings, say, within the framework of the St Petersburg Economic Forum or the Valdai forum, and other events where business leaders of both countries participate.”

Experts from the think-tank Valdai Discussion Club, academic researchers from the Institute for African Studies and independent policy observers have noted Russia’s policy, its current achievements and emerging economic opportunities and possibilities for partnerships in Africa. Quite interestingly, majority of them acknowledged the need for Russia to be more prominent as it should be and work more consistently to achieve its strategic goals, – comparing and citing largely unfulfilled pledges over the years.

Established in 2004, it’s (the club) primary goal is to promote dialogue between Russian and the rest of the world. It hosted an expert discussion titled “Russia’s Return to Africa: Interests, Challenges, Prospects” with participation of experts on Africa. Officials from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Africa Department were present.

“I would like to begin my speech with the words of Foreign Minister (Sergey Lavrov), who said, referring to the current situation: ‘No more fairy tales,’” joked Oleg Ozerov from the Africa Department at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation. “For us, Africa is not a terra incognita: the USSR actively worked there, having diplomatic relations with 35 countries. In general, there are no turns, reversals or zigzags in our policy. There is consistent development of relations with Africa. ”

Over the past few years, contacts between Russia and Africa have expanded, and at the same time, this was also due to the African countries’ interest in Russia, he added. Nevertheless, Oleg Ozerov is now Ambassador-at-Large with the key responsibility for expediting the Russia-Africa Partnership Forum created at the initiative of African participants during Sochi summit.

As Head of the Secretariat, the Russia-Africa Partnership Forum, his task is to prepare for the second Russia-Africa summit in 2022 in pursuance of the agreements, achieved during the first Russia-Africa summit held on October 23-24 in Sochi. The Secretariat of the Forum will also organize annual political consultations of the Ministers of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation and the troika of the African Union.

In 2010-2017, Ozerov served as Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the Russian Federation to Saudi Arabia, concurrently from 2011-2017, Permanent Representative of the Russian Federation to the Organization of Islamic Cooperation.

The symbolic Russia-Africa Summit was the result of President Vladimir Putin and the Kremlin authorities’ progressive steps taken to move toward a new phase in consolidating political and economic ties broadly at the state levels with Africa. The final declaration, joint declaration, seeks to consolidate the results of the summit. It has undoubtedly reaffirmed the goals of Agenda 2063 and the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.

*

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

Kester Kenn Klomegah writes frequently about Russia, Africa and the BRICS.

Boris has a new slogan, “Move on”, which he deployed repeatedly today in his appearance before the House of Commons Liaison Committee. Remembering short slogans is fairly well the extent of his political skills, and he contrived to look pleased with hmself for remembering this one. The public, he solemnly informed those watching, now wanted the narrative to “Move on” from the Dominic Cummings debacle.

The problem with this slogan is it does not have a good history. The aged among us will remember that after the disaster of the Iraq war, it was constantly repeated by Tony Blair. OK, millions of people were dead. But it was time to “move on” from that. Only he could not. The dead of Iraq have haunted him ever since, they enabled Brown to depose him and Blair has the look of a man who believes the dead will be waiting to speak against him in the next life. No matter how much the Guardian still tries constantly to rehabilitate him, he will always have to be protected from the British public, a stinking rich, morally bankrupt pariah.

One of the first articles published in this blog spoke of Blair and his “Move on” mantra. On 21 April 2005 I published from the Blackburn parliamentary election:

Two months ago I arrived here alone, standing forlornly with my rucksack on Blackburn railway station, in the midnight snow. I wanted to make a stand on principle against illegal war, and against Jack Straw’s decision that we should use intelligence obtained under torture. I wanted to get some national publicity for these issues during the campaign, to counter Tony Blair’s mantra: “Let’s move on” from the war.

(Am I the only one to find this mantra insulting? I think I’ll rob a bank to get some campaign funds. When the police come to take me away, I’ll say, “Hey, let’s move on. OK, so I robbed a bank. Whatever the rights and wrongs, that phase is over. What is important is that we all come together now and get behind the really great things I’m going to do with the money.”)

When a politician is desperate enough to use the “move on” slogan, you know they have done something very wrong indeed and are in big trouble.

“And now we must move on from Watergate to the business of the people”

said President Richard Nixon on August 25 1973.

Like Johnson, Nixon made the claim it was “the people” who want to move on. This is the standard mantra for politicians who have done something very illegal: the public do not care, are not interested in justice being visited on politicians. It is always the public who are urging the guilty politicians to “move on” and ignore the trivial detail of their own guilt.

“No decision I have ever made in politics has been as divisive as the decision to go to war to in Iraq. It remains deeply divisive today. I know a large part of the public want to move on.”

Tony Blair on 4 March 2004.

“Our country has been distracted by this matter for too long and I take my responsibility for my part in all of this,” he said. “That is all I can do. Now is the time — in fact, it is past time — to move on. . . . And so tonight I ask you to turn away from the spectacle of the past seven months, to repair the fabric of our national discourse, and to return our attention to all the challenges and all the promise of the next American century.”

Bill Clinton on the Monica Lewinsky affair, August 17th 1998.

We now know it would have been a good deal better if America had not “moved on” but had taken a much deeper interest in Clinton’s appalling history of predatory sexual behaviour.

I presume you see the pattern here. If a politician tells you to “move on” from a subject, it is a gigantic red flag that you should do precisely the opposite. I tried to discover some examples of politicians telling us to “move on” from an issue, where hindsight does not show the politician to have been a massive crook. No examples were readily apparent.

Ladies and gentlemen, I add to this list of shame:

“It is now time to move on… the country wants to move on.”

Boris Johnson 27 May 2020 on the Cummings Scandal.

*

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 politics.co.uk

The Spanish State establishment would be made up of the financial-business, political, military, Catholic hierarchy, university and mass media sub-elites of the Spanish State, natural heirs to the legacy of General Franco who would have engulfed all decision-making spheres (according to the reading the book “Financial oligarchy and political power in Spain” written by ex-banker Manuel Puerto Ducet). However, these sub-elites would only be satellites orbiting in the gravity sphere of Opus Dei, the Alpha elite that would have engulfed all the establishment’s sub-elites and also initiated a strategy of harassment and demolition of the Sánchez government.

The first phase of this operation would include a media offensive to make the central government the only culprit for “the lousy management in the face of the health crisis.” The second phase would consist of the refusal of the PP and Vox to implement new extensions of the State of Alarm for being “a constitutional dictatorship that restricts individual liberties”, an attempt that failed due to the change in attitude of Citizens by supporting the Sánchez Government in the two latest extensions. The third phase of the operation “Harassment and Demolition” will try to take advantage of the discomfort of broad sectors of the citizenry for the duration of the confinement as well as the ruin of the self-employed and small businessmen to start “a Patriotic or Rojigualda Revolution” that through “casseroles and escraches ”Will challenge the Government by failing to comply with the restrictions included in the current State of Alarm.

Currently, we are witnessing the start of the fourth phase consisting of the “judicialization of politics or lawfare”. With this term we refer to the “abuse of legal and international procedures to provoke a popular repudiation against an opponent while maintaining an appearance of legality” that would have their expression in the trial opened by the new media star of the judicial firmament, Judge Carmen Rodríquez- Medel against the Government delegate in Madrid, José Manuel Franco, a legal offensive that would continue with the filing of a criminal complaint for reckless manslaughter against the director of the Center for Coordination of Health Alerts and Emergencies, Fernando Simón, but who will have little experience.

In case the previous phases fail, the establishment would keep in its chamber the fifth phase known as “Ave Fénix” that will try to reissue the Tejerazo of 1981, in which the political leaders confined in Congress were “invited” to accept a tacit agreement by that the dominant status quo (establishment) associated with the monarchical system (Felipismo), the bipartisan political system, Eurocentrism and the defense of the “indissoluble unity of the Spanish nation” were declared untouchable. Thus, after the “soft coup” and the dissolution of the Sánchez Government, we will attend the call for new elections from which a Salvation Government will emerge that will proceed to adopt austericidal measures following the dictates of the European Troika. These measures will translate into a dramatic reduction in social benefits that will affect the duration and amount of unemployment benefits, retirement pensions and widowhood, as well as a severe reduction in the salaries of civil servants, which will de facto mean a return to economic scenarios. post-war.

*

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

In response to the unconscionable killing of George Floyd by Minneapolis Police, where a police officer joked about not doing drugs as Floyd desperately pleaded to breathe, Kassandra Frederique, Managing Director of Policy, Advocacy and Campaigns for the Drug Policy Alliance (DPA), issued the following statement:

“George Floyd should be alive today. Instead, he drew his last breath after one police officer knelt on his neck for nine minutes and another taunted ‘don’t do drugs, kids’ to the gathered crowd. With George Floyd most recently, Breonna Taylor earlier this month, and countless others before them, perceived drug possession and drug use served as a justification by law enforcement to dehumanize, strip dignity from, and ultimately kill people of color.

Image: Massoud

The drug war did not create institutional racism or disregard for Black life in the US. However, it feeds and bolsters the racist structures that snuff out Black life daily. This tragic case is no different. Officer Thao invoking drug use as a warning to bystanders and later as pretext for Mr. Floyd’s death is unconscionable, but the real cause of his death was his brutal mistreatment at the hands of police who repeatedly ignored not only his desperate pleas for mercy but also those of bystanders. The real danger we should be drawing awareness to is not drugs, but the ways in which the color of one’s skin, one’s perceived gender—as our trans siblings know all too well—or one’s socio-economic status make them a target for harassment and, far too often, death.

Drug involvement–whether perceived or real–has provided a convenient excuse for these violent and too often fatal law enforcement interactions. DPA will continue fighting to remove drug involvement as a cover for disregarding the dignity and sanctity of human life. And we will challenge and hold these institutions accountable.  We refuse to stand by while another person cries out, as Eric Garner and George Floyd did, “I can’t breathe,” as law enforcement ends their life.

Ending the failed war on drugs will not legalize Black people, but it will disrupt a system that chips away daily at the very core of our humanity. We don’t need symbolic gestures, we need to strategize, organize, and build campaigns to ensure this doesn’t happen again. We stand ready to work with our allies to do our part.”

*

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

Featured image is from Wikimedia Commons

President Donald Trump‘s National Park Service plans to finalize rules this week that will allow hunters in Alaska to kill bear cubs and wolf pups while they are in their dens, reversing Obama-era regulations meant to prevent destabilization of the state’s biodiversity.

The National Parks Conservation Association (NPCA) accused the administration of taking advantage of the coronavirus pandemic to push through a rule change against the advice of dozens of natural resource experts and lawmakers.

“Amid the global pandemic, the Trump administration is declaring open season on bears and wolves through its sport hunting rule on national parklands in Alaska,” said NPCA President Theresa Pierno.

Under the new rules, hunters in Alaska will be permitted to:

• use bait including donuts and grease-soaked bread to draw in and kill brown bears;
• use artificial lights to enter dens and kill black bears, including females and their cubs;
• shoot caribou while they are swimming; and
• trap and kill wolves and their pups during denning season.

Alaska Sen. Dan Sullivan, a Republican, claimed Thursday that the new rules are a matter of “principle” and protecting states’ rights. Conservation groups expressed outrage.

“Killing has no place in our National Wildlife Refuges,” tweeted the Wolf Conservation Center.

BREAKING
The Feds approved a rule that allows these atrocities in federal preserves in Alaska:

▪️ trapping/killing wolves, pups
▪️ entering dens to kill bears, cubs
▪️ baiting, snaring, aerial gunning

Killing has no place in our Nat'l Wildlife Refuges.https://t.co/DBqs1olrkm

— Wolf Conservation Center (@nywolforg) May 21, 2020

Former Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke drafted the rule before resigning in 2018 in the face of 17 federal ethics investigations, and the proposal promptly drew condemnation.

Reps. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) led more than 70 of her colleagues in demanding the rule be withdrawn.

“The proposed rule would roll back critical protections for America’s beloved, rare and iconic native carnivores, including brown bears, black bears and wolves on the approximately 20 million acres of national preserves in Alaska—land that belongs to all Americans,” wrote the lawmakers. “The rule would effectively endorse the state of Alaska’s efforts to use extreme practices to reduce bear and wolf populations in order to artificially inflate populations of prey species for sport hunting.”

More than 100 scientists, former National Park Service employees, and academics also denounced the rule, saying “extremely limited scientific evidence” was being used to justify making it easier for hunters to kill bear cubs and wolf pups.

“Interior Secretary David Bernhardt had the opportunity to halt this rule that includes baiting park bears but chose instead to ignore commonsense and opposition by members of Congress, scientists, and tens of thousands of Americans,” said Pierno. “Shooting hibernating mama and baby bears is not the conservation legacy that our national parks are meant to preserve and no way to treat or manage park wildlife.”

From Common Dreams: Our work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. Feel free to republish and share widely.

*

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

Featured image: A bear and her cubs in Grand Teton National Park in Wyoming. (Photo: Rich Miller/Flickr/cc)

Fabricated shocks open the window to Emergency laws and emergency guidelines that would otherwise require more transparency.

The shock surrounding Covid-19 — a virus with Low Infection Fatality rates — precipitated changes to procedures and guidelines concerning the diagnosis of patients and the documentation of deaths. The changes were in large part a result of World Health Organization diktats.

Definitions were broadened. They became less “specific”. Rosemary Frei reports, for example, that,

“there are enormous implications to having overly broad definitions of symptoms and outbreaks, particularly in combination with other rules put in place at the beginning of the epidemic.” (1)

Normally, diagnoses would be more specific, and considerations given to underlying issues, but as per WHO diktats, probable Covid-19, or presumed Covid-19, or WITH Covid-19 are now recorded as (death) BY Covid-19. Furthermore, deaths are deemed “natural”, as per new rules issued by Ontario’s Chief Coroner, and so they are exempt from further investigations and post-mortems.

Additionally, Frei reports that until April 9, 2020, Death Certificates were filled out by physicians or nurse practitioners who cared for patients before they died. After April 9, that duty was delegated to the Chief Coroner.

“Covid-19” deaths in New York State are treated in much the same way — as per WHO and CDC guidelines — but apparently such deaths are not deemed “natural” because New York State performed autopsies on all “Covid-19” deaths.

Not surprisingly, as reported by Dr. John Lott, one third of those deaths classified as “Corona deaths” tested negative for Coronavirus. This, in addition to the fact that the CDC double-counted many cases, and the fact that there are financial incentives on (U.S) hospitals to inflate numbers, suggests, according to Dr. Lott, that the death toll might well be half what is recorded. (2)

If the Covid-19 epidemic had been treated appropriately, by, for example, quarantining vulnerable people and not entire populations, and by evidence-based rules and guidelines as opposed to “Emergency”-based diktats, then much harm would have been prevented.

*

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

Mark Taliano is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG) and the author of Voices from Syria, Global Research Publishers, 2017. Visit the author’s website at https://www.marktaliano.net where this article was originally published.

Notes

(1) Rosemary Frei, “Were Conditions for High Death Rates at Care Homes Created on Purpose?” Global Research, May 28, 2020, OffGuardian 26 May 2020.
(https://www.globalresearch.ca/were-conditions-high-death-rates-care-homes-created-purpose/5714251 ) Accessed 28 May, 2020.

(2) One America News, “Dr. John Lott: COVID-19 Death toll May Be Half What’s On Record.”
(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYIVspoodUM&feature=share&fbclid=IwAR3dIe6vl-UNA7gUm96KnURhA2Awz0Xt0JSHRSeEphEFTombAU8uV1FziI4) Accessed 28 May, 2020.

Order Mark Taliano’s Book “Voices from Syria” directly from Global Research.

Mark Taliano combines years of research with on-the-ground observations to present an informed and well-documented analysis that refutes  the mainstream media narratives on Syria. 

Voices from Syria 

ISBN: 978-0-9879389-1-6

Author: Mark Taliano

Year: 2017

Pages: 128 (Expanded edition: 1 new chapter)

List Price: $17.95

Special Price: $9.95 

Click to order

“I can’t breathe” were some of the last words of the latest victim to police terror.

Memorial Day in Minneapolis saw the echoing of the same words as Eric Garner before he was killed by police six years earlier.

For over eight minutes Minneapolis Police Officer Derek Chauvin kneeled on the neck of an unarmed and handcuffed man on Monday night, killing him.

This is at least the second person Chauvin has killed behind the badge. The incident was recorded by a bystander and posted to Facebook.

Minneapolis Responds To Police Murder of George Floyd

Unicorn Riot has been covering the street protest that rallied the afternoon of May 26. Tune in:

The FBI has been called in to assist the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension (MN-BCA) in the investigation of the incident.

Neither the victim, who’s said to be in his 40s, nor the multiple police responsible have been officially identified. However, after reviewing the video, seeing the officer’s name tag and cross-checking it with what a bystander said was the officer’s badge number, 1087, the officer is found to be Derek Chauvin. The victim is said to be George Floyd, from Houston, TX.

Officer Derek Chauvin, who’s been on the force for nearly two decades, has at least 10 complaints that have been filed against him. He has shot and killed at least one person and shot and wounded at least one other, in that person’s own bathroom.

During the encounter that was filmed by community member Darnella Frazier, Chauvin is seen pushing his knee into the handcuffed man’s neck as he was on the pavement of Chicago Avenue near 38th Street in front of Cup Foods. On the video, bystanders can be heard questioning why Chauvin continued to dig his knee in the man’s neck for so long.

At one point Chauvin reached for his mace to threaten the bystanders while continuing to kneel on the man. Chauvin’s partner, Tou Thao, can be heard repeatedly telling people “don’t do drugs” in response to concerns Chauvin was physically injuring the man.

The police said the man was a suspect in an alleged forgery attempt and that he resisted arrest.

In a midnight presser in front of Minneapolis Police Headquarters, Public Information Officer Jon Elder said that officers at the scene called in an ambulance when they “realized that the suspect was suffering a medical distress.” PIO Elder seems to have disregarded the video showing the man being kneeled on by his distresser.

An update from the department’s PIO: pic.twitter.com/DZDLHp99Wd

— Libor Jany (@StribJany) May 26, 2020

Elder also stated the officers had body cameras on and activated, but the bystander video clearly shows Chauvin without a body camera.

Officer Chauvin shown not wearing a body camera (screenshot from bystander video)

The President of Communities United Against Police Brutality (CUAPB), Michelle Gross, said this video makes it “clear this was an outright murder“.

“The MPD has an appalling record of killing people of color and covering it up.  This time, though, witnesses and video will make it a lot harder.

It’s clear this was an outright murder.

We demand an independent investigation—not the usual BCA cover up—and we demand these cops be prosecuted for murder.” — Michelle Gross, CUAPB

“He should not have died“, said an emotional Jacob Frey, the Mayor of Minneapolis, during a morning press conference with Minneapolis Police Chief Arradondo. Frey said “he was a human being and his life mattered.” Frey condemned Chauvin’s actions, saying he was “wrong at every level” and that Chauvin “failed in the most human sense.”

“Being Black in America should not be a death sentence” — Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey

Mayor Frey and Chief Arradondo said the racial aspect of the incident is why the FBI was called in, to investigate civil rights violations.

A protest is planned for 5 p.m. tonight at 38th St. and Chicago Ave. in South Minneapolis. Follow Unicorn Riot for more updates.

UPDATE: Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey announced Tuesday afternoon that four officers involved in this incident had their employment terminated.

*

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 screenshot from bystander video

Dr. John Lott of the Crime Prevention Research Center has said the recorded coronavirus death toll may be a dramatically overstated.

One America’s John Hines sat down with him to learn more.

You have looked at the Numbers.

There is a dramatic over-count.  The CDC is double counting. The numbers are more than twice what they should be.

There has also been an inflation of coronavirus deaths.

Additional funds are allocated to hospitals for COVID-19 patients.

There are pressures on hospitals to categorize deaths as coronavirus.  There is a substantial amount of money for the hospitals.

*

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.